Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 24 June 2008, Corrected Copy)

The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 1.00 p.m.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

Question—That private members' statements be noted—proposed.

Mr ALLAN SHEARAN (Londonderry) [1.10 p.m.]: I inform the House of my absolute delight to be part of the official opening of the new Hobartville Public School hall last Thursday week. Although the Minister for Education and Training was unable to attend, I had the pleasure of representing him, along with Senator Steve Hutchins, who represented the Federal Minister for Education. Upon my arrival at the school, captains Megan Ellis and Shaun McLeod greeted me and then with great confidence led me to the school's administration block where Mr Gordon Lee, the school principal, and other special guests were waiting. Those guests included Mr Lindsay Wasson, Regional Education Director, Western Sydney; Mrs Jan Marshall, Relieving School Education Director, Hawkesbury; and Mrs Karen Giles, President, Hobartville Public School Parents and Citizens Association.

Shortly thereafter, formal proceedings commenced in the new hall with both Megan Ellis and Shaun McLeod very capably emceeing the formalities. After the Welcome to Country the school choir sang a wonderful rendition of Thank You for the Music and later we were entertained with stage two students presenting a vigorous skipping demonstration. In between both Senator Hutchins and I gave a small speech acknowledging the contribution of both the Federal and State governments in this joint State-Commonwealth $1.95 million project, and later we formally opened the hall.

Each member of this House can relate special moments when they actually see the fruits of their endeavours and the opening of this project was one of those special moments. Not long after I first became member for Londonderry I was invited to the school by Mrs Lila Vellio, then vice-president of the parents and citizens association, who introduced me to the then relatively new principal, Mr Gordon Lee, along with a number of other concerned school supporters, who all put a case for the need for a school hall. But they were not alone; councillor Christine Paine was also amongst those first passionate supporters who pursued me.

Now, after many years, and with great appreciation to the Commonwealth for coming to the party with funding of $956,000 and to the New South Wales Government for providing slightly more with $994,000, we finally have that hall. The hall comprises main hall space, general assistant's rooms, a bulk store, a cleaner store, a garden store, a physical education store, a performance store, a seminar-community room, a chair store, boys and girls toilets, access toilet and awning. The school, which has slightly more than 500 students and over 30 staff, now has a fully functional, well-equipped hall for speech days, arts events, indoor games and official openings.

However, the hall is much more than just four walls and a roof; it is a part of the school community. Typically in this instance the new hall will have a community focus, enabling local families to hold church, theatrical and musical performances, as well as providing a venue for voting at elections for all levels of government. It must be very pleasing for all the parents and members of the local community who provide so much support for the school. Parents always put the needs of the students first and those parents and carers play a big part in school decision making. They help out also in classrooms with literacy and numeracy, and of course they run the healthy canteen.

Hobartville Public School has a strong, enthusiastic and active parents and citizens association. It helps to fund the leadership camp, Ambulance Service membership, reading resource kits, library, computer laboratory and the new community hall. The school is fortunate to have such a strong and supportive local community, as well as experienced staff committed to providing a stimulating environment for all students. Given all that, it is not surprising that the school has an outstanding reputation within the local and broader community for student achievement. It has a strong inclusive program for students with special needs—something that is dear to the Premier's heart.

The school has good Basic Skills Test results in both literacy and numeracy, with strong growth over time. It takes part in the Tournament of the Minds, debating, public speaking, chess and the Premier's Reading Challenge. It has a strong sports program, and I am told it is involved in cultural programs such as art, choir and dance. Recently the school had artwork exhibited at the local Hawkesbury Show, and students performed at the Hawkesbury Music Festival and in local shopping centres. These are great achievements that set a fine tradition and are reflective of the school motto "Success with Honour—to strive for excellence in a caring environment".

It is incredulous that in 1971 the Government of the day constructed the school without a school hall. When I heard that approval had been given for its construction, I was so excited that I hopped in the car and rushed straight to the school to let everyone know of the decision. I actually felt like a kid at Christmas who was to receive a long-awaited present, and now the school has the hall. I am confident in saying that all the distinguished guests, teachers and support staff, students, parents, families and friends would agree that this nearly $2 million joint State-Commonwealth project is money well spent. I record my congratulations to all those involved in achieving this great project.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.15 p.m.]: The member for Londonderry is correct when he said that one of the most pleasing aspects of being a local member is delivering something for the community. The delivery of a long-awaited school hall is something that will be very welcome in that school community. I congratulate the member on his representations on behalf of his school community and on achieving such a terrific result. It is a tribute to his commitment and dedication as a local member and to the commitment of school community members who lobbied so hard.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [1.16 p.m.]: Today I advise the House of the activities of one of my smallest but most vibrant communities, North Arm Cove. North Arm Cove is situated on a peninsula on the north shore of Port Stephens in the Great Lakes Council local government area. It was proposed as the site of Australia's capital but that honour fell to Canberra. However, the original street layout exists on paper. Many members would be aware of the large number of undeveloped lots without services, roads or building entitlements, which are periodically advertised by marketers whose rhetoric and claims should be examined closely.

This relatively isolated village lies between Karuah and Tea Gardens and has a voting population of 349 who punch well above their weight when it comes to community involvement. This community fought hard in its attempt to protect Fame Cove and is grateful that Minister Sartor stepped in to take over the determination of development applications that will destroy the pristine character of Fame Cove, after years of State Government neglect. The community would now like to see the Minister for the Environment ensure the future protection of Fame Cove.

I had the honour of being invited to the opening of the new arts and cultural annexe of the North Arm Cove Community Centre on Saturday. In the early 1990s local residents banded together to build a community centre. They realised that this centre was not just going to appear. Funding was tight and grants were scarce, so they fundraised and built the North Arm Cove Community Centre themselves. That was in 1996. Since then they have extended the original hall and added a kitchen. Their third extension, the Weatherley Room, was opened by the Great Lakes Mayor, Councillor John Chadban, on Saturday.

Twelve months ago the arts and cultural annexe was just a dream but with the support of Great Lakes Council, a Department of Community Services area assistance grant of $36,100, vigorous fundraising by the committee and generous community support, committee member Derek Weatherley and his team of skilled and enthusiastic volunteers went to work. The 54-square metre extension houses a small library and will exhibit arts and crafts created by local residents. I am sure this House will join me in congratulating Chairman Ray Smith, committee members Moira Hooper, Merilyn Hughes, Maureen Kelly, Geoff Lowe, Trish Peters, Ray Scott, and community library coordinator Elizabeth Deane.

In my 21 years in local government, I cannot remember a better community volunteer effort. I would be remiss if I did not congratulate John Blackbourn, Bruce Brown, Peter Chappelow, Neal Cook, Bob Griffin, Kerrian Griffin, Tony Hann, Rick Hughes, Norbert Lethaus, Mike McDonald, Bob McCulloch, Michael Nolan, Simon O'Bryan, Rob Page, David Read, Roger Richards, Dietmar Schirk, Ray Scott, Ray Smith, Joel Tentori, Josh Tentori, Alan Walker, Jan Walker and Keith Weatherley. I know members of this House will join me in offering heartfelt congratulations. I advise the Minister for Community Services that the next project is a pergola and barbeque area, and another small grant would be of great assistance.

It is interesting to note that the Great Lakes Council has the care and management of 28 public halls, which is a very large ratepayer-funded annual commitment. I encourage all members to drop by North Arm Cove to inspect the community centre, talk to local residents and take their ideas and enthusiasm back to their electorates. As members may be aware, the Standing Committee on Public Works proposes to conduct an inquiry into cultural sustainability in New South Wales. As a Parliament we must support our cultural icons. We must never lose track of the important members of our cultural community who happen not to reside in the city of Sydney.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.20 p.m.]: I shall address two issues in my private member's statement today. The first is a particularly tragic matter that was raised with me during my otherwise pleasurable visit to Bombala last Friday. It involves the case of six-week-old baby Tahlia Jane Mudge, who died on Thursday 19 June of suspected sudden infant death syndrome. That is a tragedy for any family, and it was obviously a blow for Tahlia's parents, Andrea and Daniel, who will be devastated for many years. This tragedy was made worse by the fact that Daniel was working in the mines in Western Australia and was not present when his baby died. He boarded an early flight in an attempt to get home to see his daughter before her body was removed for the coronial inquiry. Daniel arrived in Canberra at approximately 8.45 p.m. on Thursday 19 June. Statewide coronial transport officers arrived at Bombala Hospital at approximately 9.30 p.m. and, despite the urgings of nurses and doctors, refused to wait until the father had arrived to see his baby. This has obviously caused a great deal of grief in the community. It has made the upset for those involved much worse, and it has concerned the local parish priest, Father MacAndrew, who wrote to let me know what had happened.

I have raised the case with the Attorney General, who is responsible for the New South Wales Coroner, and I am pleased that his office is going to look into the matter. I do not know whether coronial transport officers were acting on strict instructions and could not wait. I do not know who made the ultimate decision or whether coronial transport has a flexible timetable that allows it to take account of people's genuine emotional needs in a case such as this. But it seems to me that it was a very heartless decision. I hope that the Attorney General considers this case and the Coroner's office revises its practices to ensure that a similar situation does not arise again and that in future a father is able to say goodbye to his baby or other loved one.

I had a more positive reason for visiting Bombala on Friday. I joined the Minister for Health for the opening of the new ambulance station. The facility replaces the old station that was built in 1946, which was certainly showing its age, and is part of the $11 million redevelopment of Bombala Hospital undertaken by the State Government. I opened the ambulance station because, unfortunately, the Minister's plane could not land because of low cloud. I met her later in Cooma. I pay tribute to all those who have been involved in the Bombala Hospital project over a number of years. The community and the hospital committee pushed to get the project up and running. It has been a model of community consensus throughout, which is great to see. Local service groups have raised funds to build a helipad at the hospital. That is most important as the Snowy Hydro SouthCare rescue helicopter is based in our area and is responsible for many regional emergency transfers.

There is a doctor's surgery on the hospital site into which the local general practitioner, Dr Pate, will be able to move when some equipment issues are resolved. Importantly, this brand-new facility will bring staff to an area that is otherwise not so attractive to professionals. It is a terrific project, and I congratulate the Minister for Health and her predecessors on their commitment to it. I reinforce to the House the fact that there are five hospitals in the Monaro electorate. One hospital has just been rebuilt by the Government and rebuilding work on another is almost completed. A further hospital was built by the Labor Government and Cooma Hospital was built by the Wran Government. Four of the five hospitals constructed in my electorate in the past 30 years have been either built or rebuilt by Labor governments. That demonstrates Labor's commitment to health in our region. Bega Hospital will also be rebuilt by the Labor Government. That is positive news for health in our region. These important facilities will benefit my constituents for many years, and we look forward to their producing even better regional health outcomes.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [1.25 p.m.]: The New South Wales Government recently advised that there is to be a 17 per cent increase in Sydney's water charges, which will add another $126 to current water costs and charges for the State's residents. Over the next four years this amount will increase to $245, on top of every resident's current water charges across metropolitan Sydney. Some $92 of this additional charge will be directed to meeting the costs associated with the desalination plant at Kurnell. The State Government stated originally that the desalination plant would provide water to just over 5 per cent of Sydney's population. We were then advised that the plant would provide water to 10 per cent of metropolitan Sydney, and subsequently that percentage has been conveniently increased to 15 per cent of water users. It would be nice to get an accurate figure. Before the last State election we were advised that the Government would not build a desalination plant unless dam capacity dropped below 30 per cent. It started to rain following the election and water capacity in our dams increased to more than 40 per cent. All of a sudden we were told that the desalination plant would be foisted upon us, at a cost of more than $2 billion to New South Wales taxpayers. The desalination plant will be imposed on every resident across metropolitan Sydney through increased water charges, but the good people of north-western Sydney will be hit by a double dip. On 16 April 2007 Sarah Clarke said on ABC radio:

… if governments rolled tanks out to 5 per cent of households in Sydney, big water projects like dams—

and desalination plants—

could be delayed for up to a decade. The independent report commissioned by three environment groups found tanks are more cost effective and energy efficient than a desalination plant or a dam.

I have lived on tank water all my life, and I can verify its importance. In areas such as Rouse Hill, Kellyville, Beaumont Hills, Glenwood, Stanhope Gardens and Kellyville Ridge residents have paid dearly for reticulated water to be supplied to their homes by the recycled water plant at Rouse Hill. The Rouse Hill treatment plant recycles sewage effluent or wastewater and sends it back to the homes from which it came. It is a great use of wastewater, and the reticulated supply is well used by residents of my electorate of Hawkesbury and the surrounding suburbs in Sydney's north-west. This innovative recycling scheme was initiated by the private sector—known as the Rouse Hill consortium—and handed over to Sydney Water to control. Unfortunately, Sydney Water has continued to increase service costs without notifying residents.

When residents were first connected to the recycled water scheme in 1998 they were subjected to an initial up-front compulsory connection fee of approximately $1,000. The cost of recycled water at that time was 24¢ per kilolitre and ordinary potable water cost 80¢ per kilolitre. These costs have increased substantially over the past decade—always, as I said, without notification from Sydney Water. In February 2007 residents were charged 30¢ per kilolitre for recycled water. In July 2007—remarkably after the State election—there was a more than 200 per cent increase in the reticulated water charge to 71¢ per kilolitre. This increase came on top of the $1.33 per kilolitre that is currently paid for potable water, which has also increased substantially. These residents will now be subjected to another 17 per cent increase in their water charges, which equates to $192 for each household. Nearly half of that sum will be used to pay for the desalination plant that residents of the north-west do not need and will never benefit from.

While some could assume that any increase in Sydney's water supply will benefit everyone, it can equally be argued that residents of the north-west, who are paying for reticulated water, are already saving millions of litres of potable water. By using recycled water, they are benefiting all water users. Residents in other areas of the Hawkesbury, such as Glossodia, Freemans Reach, Wilberforce, Windsor and Richmond, take their water directly from the Hawkesbury River; they do not use the same water source as residents across the Sydney metropolitan area. Those residents have already begun to ring my office, berating the State Government for increasing their water charges when they do not use water from Warragamba Dam. Once again, the State Government is double dipping and overcharging the residents of the north-west.

The Government is imposing excessive costs on the good people of Hawkesbury who are already doing their bit to save water by either using water from the Hawkesbury River or reticulated water from the Rouse Hill Recycled Water Scheme. The residents in north-western Sydney have the poorest public transport opportunities across the entire Sydney metropolitan area and are already paying excessive road tolls, with no cashback like the south-west and areas of Sydney, increased electricity costs, massive increases in petrol costs, higher interest rates for their home loans, and now increases in water charges when they are already paying dearly for other forms of water. All these costs have increased dramatically at a time when we have Labor governments wall to wall across the country. All these increased costs are having an extremely detrimental effect on the residents of north-western Sydney, particularly the residents of my electorate of Hawkesbury.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [1.30 p.m.]: The member for Hawkesbury has given us yet another one-sided rendition of his interpretation of the political context of what happens in this State. He neglected most of the truth about what happens in the north-western area of Sydney. In particular, as a belated member for Hawkesbury, he ignored precisely what has been happening in north-western Sydney over a long period. For example, in what he told us today in relation to water charges he neglected to say that the charges have been brought down by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.

The member for Hawkesbury also ignored the fact that the people of north-western Sydney and the suburbs he has referred to—most of which, I might add, are in my electorate and not his—have for years had the benefit of receiving recycled water, at a much cheaper rate than the water provided by Sydney Water. The member also failed to mention that during this time, when the rest of Sydney has been subjected to water restrictions, the residents of north-western Sydney have had no water restrictions and have been able to benefit substantially from the Government's forward thinking and infrastructure planning in providing recycled water. Indeed, the Rouse Hill plant, being the largest water recycling plant in the whole of Australia, has provided benefits to the local community for many years.

The member for Hawkesbury went on at length about the desalination plant, ignoring the fact that the plant will be of benefit to the whole of Sydney, not just to various parts of it. I am sure that the member for Hawkesbury would acknowledge his responsibility to the Hawkesbury River and that, given that the river has now been suffering from the effects of drought for a long period, the provision of adequate water supplies for Sydney would no doubt be of immense benefit to the Hawkesbury River. It would enable us to release water into the Hawkesbury River and to avoid the sort of environmental damage that the river has suffered as a result of the prolonged drought. In advocating for his electorate the member for Hawkesbury needs to ensure that he provides a balanced point of view, and not just the one-sided, blinkered political view he so often presents in this Chamber.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [1.32 p.m.]: On 14 June I had the privilege of attending a fundraising dinner for Kaise Stephan, who will attempt to swim the English Channel on 10 July this year to raise funds for Westmead Children's Hospital. After learning his young cousin Mark was diagnosed with leukaemia, Kaise was inspired to raise funds for the Oncology Unit at Westmead Children's Hospital. Mark's courageous fight is an inspiration to the many other sick children being treated in hospitals around Australia. I am sure he will look back at this chapter of his life and move onward and upwards. Kaise has come to appreciate the hard work that is done by the oncology unit and is aware of the huge impact that research has had on recovery rates for childhood cancer.

Thirty years ago, one child in four survived after being diagnosed with cancer; the survival rate now, as a direct result of the research, is three children out of four. This is a huge improvement, but Kaise would like to be able to improve these results even further. Kaise has already raised over $90,000 and is hoping to reach his target of $250,000 to contribute to ongoing research and help in purchasing much-needed equipment for the hospital. I acknowledge Kaise's extraordinary effort in his quest to raise funds and awareness for Westmead Children's Hospital; the campaign he has started has touched many people. As a resident of Abbotsbury in my electorate of Smithfield, Kaise has received much support from the whole community. The community is very proud indeed of his effort and commitment to raise funds and help sick children.

Kaise's determination to achieve his set goals is inspiring. His mental outlook and approach prior to embarking on a swim of this magnitude is outstanding. He manages eight to 10 training sessions a week— morning, lunch and afternoon—and during what he dismisses as a "rest week" he fits in six training sessions. Kaise also works full time as an insurance actuary in Sydney. In the coming weeks he will do cold-water training so that he will be used to swimming in waters similar to the English Channel's. He will fly to England on 28 June and will have 10 days to acclimatise himself to the English Channel's conditions.

Over the last two years Kaise has trained to swim the English Channel, a 35-kilometre swim in water temperatures of between 15 and 18 degrees. He recently stated that he works and trains as hard as athletes training for the Olympics. In early May he completed a 35-kilometre swim from Bundeena to Bondi that took him 12 hours. The realisation of this pledge has involved a wide network of support from family and friends, swim coach Daniel Esposito, and fundraising committees consisting of family and friends. He has committed time away from family and friends to train, and maintain physical fitness and mental determination. His parents have provided a great support to him—his father, Dr Sayeed, his mother, Armen, his wife, Svetlana, and their newborn son, his brother Hanna, and of course his inspiration, his cousin Mark. From the beginning they have all rallied around to help him reach the physical and mental heights needed.

Kaise's support team are eager with anticipation and are counting down the days. His support swimmer, Ryan Ainley, will assist Kaise by swimming part of the English Channel with him. I am advised that Ryan will swim with Kaise for the first two hours and then one hour every two hours. Kaise's efforts are widely applauded, and come 10 July the community will be watching with a sense of anticipation and excitement as the long and difficult training journey he has undertaken over the months culminates with the swim in England. Leukaemia has cost the lives of too many children. Anything that can be done to help raise awareness and funds deserves recognition and support from as many people, groups and communities as possible. The funds raised will assist in the purchase of new equipment, update old equipment, assist families in caring for their sick children, and help with research conducted at the hospital. The Children's Hospital at Westmead is at the leading edge of medicinal research and treatment. The hospital relies heavily on State Government funding; however, due to the large number of children suffering a number of illnesses, additional support is always appreciated. As Professor Kim Oates, the Chief Executive Officer of Westmead Children's Hospital, said:

We continually strive for treatment for our young patients that will mean shorter hospital stays, and for cures for life threatening diseases where, as yet, none have been found.

Kaise is giving these kids an enormous gift: his time, to help raise funds. His efforts will have made an important contribution to these children, their parents, and the medical staff at the hospital. I take this opportunity to congratulate Kaise, his family and all involved on their efforts over the last two years. I wish Kaise every success in the future and the very best come 10 July. I have spent a fair bit of time with Kaise. He is a wonderful young man; he has a big heart. I hope that when the House next sits I can stand before members and say that I know someone who swam the English Channel.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [1.37 p.m.]: I wish to give an overview of Dhiiyaan Indigenous Centre, which is located in my home town of Moree. "Dhiiyaan" means "family" in the Gamilaraay language. In 1995 Dhiiyaan Indigenous Centre, formerly known as the Indigenous Unit, became established as the first family history and photograph unit of its kind, for it encouraged Aboriginal participation within a library service. This was no easy task, for barriers had to be broken because of the colour bar in the past that banned Aboriginal people from municipal buildings. Moree was the only town in Australia that had a municipal Act banning people of Aboriginal appearance from all municipal buildings, including the library and spa baths. Hence, the 1965 "Freedom Ride".

However, over the years, with Aboriginal community support, Dhiiyaan began delivering appropriate services to the Aboriginal people, and in return the genealogy and photograph collections have grown significantly. Dhiiyaan has now set a precedent. It has built up the reputation of being the one and only centre of its kind outside the metropolitan area, holding the largest collection of local Aboriginal family history, resources and more than 10,000 photographs. Its unique services have been highly recognised and embraced by other professional organisations, including the State Library, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies [AIATSIS], State Records, Queensland Community Histories, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Link-Up, the Council for Reconciliation, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Library Resource Network [ATSILRN], the Office of Native Title, and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is now a part of the inclusion for organisations set up throughout Australia to liaise and access information for the stolen generation and any other inquiries pertaining to indigenous history.

Dhiiyaan has since emerged into a "keeping place". It has traditional Kamilaroi artefacts on display, and aims to increase the understanding and celebrate the diversity of Aboriginal history, culture and knowledge among the wider community through a range of public programs and activities, including cultural awareness, family history sessions, Gamilaraay language programs and literacy programs. Aboriginal people in Australia face one of the largest family history jigsaw puzzles in locating deceased and living kin because of the subsequent moves from one reserve to another, and the taking of the people from their tribal areas. Dhiiyaan assists those Aboriginal people complete the puzzle. It aims to research, document, preserve and protect Aboriginal information and objects of significant importance to Aboriginal people for the benefit of our people of today and for future generations.

As we move into an online environment, Dhiiyaan also looks forward to being involved in further information technology developments to create databases and indexes to increase knowledge of, and access to, the history of Kamilaroi people and, most importantly, family history. In 2007 Dhiiyaan contributed significantly to Moree Plains Shire Council winning a cultural award. Dhiiyaan now needs to establish a partnership with the Minister for the Arts and State Library to create a strong and vibrant cultural and educational sector which values excellence, creativity and innovation by engaging with local communities. It wants to provide a statewide template that can be overlaid in Aboriginal communities by establishing a cultural identity, reconciliation and knowledge centre of excellence, and restoration.

Dhiiyaan already extends its service beyond books to other towns and States of Australia, by providing services and activities which research, document and preserve information significant to Aboriginal communities throughout Kamilaroi country, particularly family history; improve awareness of Aboriginal family history resources to document Aboriginal family history; encourage cultural awareness and reconciliation; encourage Aboriginal participation within a library service to encourage lifelong learning; improve literacy, expand vocabulary and encourage cultural expression; digitise the Aboriginal collection, genealogies, photographs and family history resources; meet the informational, recreational and cultural needs of the Aboriginal and wider community; identify and reproduce significant photographs of Kamilaroi families to "connect of kin"; record stories from the elders for our future generations to pass on cultural knowledge; promote services and activities; record, document and preserve the Gamilaraay language; revitalise the use of Gamilaraay language; and further skill the professional development of staff.

An opportunity to integrate those existing services and facilities into other Aboriginal communities arises soon with the relocation of the Moree branch community library. This building, which is currently shared, is centrally located within the central business district. When the library has relocated, Dhiiyaan wants to seize the opportunity to continue its services through this existing building as a cultural identity, reconciliation and knowledge centre of excellence to deliver educational and interpretive services through new cultural displays, audiovisual presentations, gallery and performance space centre—a centre which other Aboriginal communities will embrace to research, document and preserve Aboriginal history and family history. You cannot move forward until you understand the past. I wish Noelene Briggs-Smith and Donna Briggs all the best on their project.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [1.42 p.m.]: I am delighted to advise the House that the Iemma Government will spend $25 million to replace the Windsor bridge across the Hawkesbury River. In the relatively short time I have been the member representing this area I have wasted no time in carrying forward the representations of my constituents to ensure that this long overdue infrastructure is provided. I compliment my neighbour, the member for Londonderry, and the former member for Londonderry, the member for Blacktown, who worked long and hard for this infrastructure. The Iemma Government is getting on with the job of delivering road infrastructure in Sydney's west. While the existing bridge is still considered safe, it is now 132 years old and is reaching the end of its economic life.

The Windsor bridge has served the community well, but maintaining the bridge is no longer economically viable. While the bridge is still considered safe to carry legal loads in its present condition, it would require extensive and costly upgrading in the near future. Over the past 132 years the structure has undergone many changes and upgrades to maintain the present condition of the bridge. I am advised that the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] has looked at a number of options for the Windsor bridge and found that it is not cost effective to continue to upgrade the structure due to its age and condition. The new Windsor bridge will provide a safer crossing and will improve traffic flow along this route. I understand the RTA started work on the design process for a new bridge earlier this year and is looking at a number of options and issues including environment and heritage.

The Minister for Roads has advised me that once the design concepts have been finalised, the community will have an opportunity to have its say on the project. Public feedback is a vital component in all final decisions about major infrastructure projects. That is appropriate because for a long time residents of the Hawkesbury area have been vocal about the need for this bridge. Until very recently the area was represented by members of the Liberal Party, including a former Speaker and member for Hawkesbury, for a long time. The Hawkesbury is being drawn very much into the greater part of the Sydney metropolitan area with its large volume of traffic and its increasing population growth. Therefore, it is important to improve its infrastructure. I refer to this Government's construction of the much-needed Windsor Road and the flood evacuation route at a cost of $170 million. In this budget an additional $6.5 million has been allocated to provide further work on flood mitigation in that area.

In relation to the Windsor bridge, I am advised that the RTA will consider every submission carefully before finalising the design for the new bridge. This project is another example of the Iemma Government delivering new, better and safer roads for the hardworking families of New South Wales. The current Windsor bridge was built in 1875 and connects Windsor with Wilberforce. The bridge consists of a concrete deck and cast iron piers. The bridge is 143 metres long, 6.1 metres wide and carries an average of 18,000 vehicles per day. The new bridge will be built downstream and alongside the current Windsor bridge. People wonder what will happen when the bridge is being built. I advise that the Minister has indicated that traffic will continue to use the old bridge while the construction of the new bridge is being carried out, which will minimise any disruption to traffic. That will be a relief for the thousands of people who use that bridge every day.

A call for tenders is expected during the first half of 2009, with construction getting underway before the end of that year. The RTA will work closely with a team of designers and heritage experts to devise a design that suits the environmental aspects of the Windsor area and the Hawkesbury River. The new Windsor bridge is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2011. This is a major win for the local community, motorists and truck drivers who travel along this route every day. As members expect, I will regularly keep the House informed of this important project for Western Sydney.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [1.47 p.m.]: Once again, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed. I take this opportunity to speak about the professionalism of the staff at the Tweed Heads District Hospital. I often speak in this House to alert members of the problems that face staff and patients of the Tweed hospital, but I rarely get the opportunity to express my appreciation for the dedication and hard work of the staff, which ensures that the best quality care is administered to public patients in the Tweed. The recognition of the commitment of the Tweed hospital staff stems from the many times I have come into contact with them and seen work firsthand or heard their grievances about the miserable funding they receive from the Iemma Government. It never ceases to amaze me how staff members keep their heads up and perform their duties in such a cheerful manner when they are faced with adversity in the form of understaffing, insufficient resources and funding from NSW Health and rapidly growing patient numbers.

Since I was elected in 2007, on many occasions I have seen firsthand the professionalism in the way those wonderful people carry out their work, including during tours of the Tweed hospital facilities and a recent l4-hour shift with an ambulance crew stationed at the hospital, which was a real eye opener. However, on this occasion I will recount a personal experience at the Tweed hospital on the weekend. My youngest son, Jack, is an avid surfer and more often than not can be found out in water. On Saturday afternoon he rang and told me that he had been involved in an accident at the beach and he needed to be taken to a hospital for treatment. At the beach Jack informed me that he had been finned by another surfer—for members who are unfamiliar with surfing terminology, that means that he was run over by another surfer's board. The result of this accident was Jack sporting a nasty gash on the top of his head that was bleeding heavily.

I took Jack to Tweed hospital for treatment, where he received first-class care. On arrival the triage nurse immediately assessed Jack. It was a fairly busy afternoon at the hospital, with a number of more serious patients ahead of Jack, but soon after admission to triage Jack returned with six stitches to his head. That is certainly not what he had in mind when he hit the surf earlier that day. One of the things that young Jack wanted was for me to take pictures of his injury for him to place on his YouTube site—the youth of today is certainly a little bit different! The attention that Jack and other patients in the Tweed hospital emergency department received was first class. At all times the nurses were helpful and made sure that Jack was as good as new. The nurses perform their very difficult jobs with a great sense of humour and complete dedication to their patients.

Without doubt the staff at Tweed hospital are a very special breed of people. They work long and difficult shifts, and operate with a "make do with what we have got" mentality due to the neglect that has been shown by this Labor Government to funding services and infrastructure at Tweed hospital. Too often we hear about the bad things affecting Tweed hospital but never the good things, such as the positive attitudes of the staff. I am also guilty of this a lot of the time, but only because I want to convince the Iemma Government that the Tweed hospital is in desperate need of more funding, more resources and more staff to help meet the growing demand for public health services in the Tweed.

I would like to offer my deepest thanks to the staff of the Tweed hospital, not only for the care given to my son Jack, but for the role they perform each and every day ensuring that the highest level of care is given to the patients of the Tweed. As I said, it was a very busy Saturday afternoon and young Jack was shown care and dedication by the staff. I take my hat off to the dedicated staff of Tweed hospital. The electorate of Tweed ranks number one in the State with more people over the age of 65 years than any of the other 93 electorates—27 per cent of the people in the electorate are over the age of 65 years. That creates a great deal of demand on the medical profession and I give the medical profession 100 per cent support. I speak on behalf of the Tweed in saying that we truly appreciate the dedication of the medical staff and the professional manner in which they work. Medicine and health is a number one issue in my electorate. I am 100 per cent for the Tweed.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [1.52 p.m.]: There is a serious skills shortage in the Australian workforce. Yesterday I visited Sir Joseph Banks High School at Revesby to witness the first day of the two-day Try a Trade exhibition in the school hall. The Central West Group of Apprentices Ltd—a group training company—Try a Trade truck visits schools and other institutions to inform students of the opportunities and advantages of learning a trade in the twenty-first century. I thank Andrew Burke for the involvement of the Central West Group of Apprentices Ltd in the exhibition. There are great career opportunities to be found in traditional and new trade skill areas. As we know, a university education in itself is no guarantee to a well-paid career.

One of the sponsors of the two-day event was the Sydney Mechanics' School of Arts, and I thank Stephen Couling and his staff for their involvement in the exhibition. The Transport and Logistics Centre was also a sponsor of the event, and I thank its coordinator, Ian Webb, for his involvement in demonstrating a range of trades for students to consider past school, as well as Sydney Training and Employment from Burwood. Whilst at the exhibition I witnessed students from Sir Joseph Banks High School and Condell Park High School try a hands-on approach to various trades. Students made pot plants, hanging hooks, tea light holders and tiled coasters. Padstow TAFE organised a floristry display, and students made corsages and other floral displays. Airport Retail Enterprise was present, demonstrating various aspects of the catering business. The students made pancakes. I thank the coordinator of that part of the program, Mr Benjamin Plummer.

Mr Steve Whan: How many did you have?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I had a few. Toni & Guy Hairdressing from Paddington was there to demonstrate to interested students how to cut, layer and do all types of hairdressing.

Mr Paul Gibson: Did you have a haircut?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: No, but I wish I had learnt how to grow more hair! If students attended each display stall, and applied themselves to each task, they could mend a leaking tap, lay and grout tiles, change the wheels of a car, set the timing of car engines, weld metal, join electrical wires, drill and sand wood, paint, plaster, do carpentry and panel beat cars. They could also make floral displays, and prepare and cook food. I thank Chess Engineering, a long-standing engineering firm in my electorate. Also involved was Matthew Lyons and the Regional Industry Careers Advisory Service, and I thank them for their support. I also thank Sydney Training & Employment Ltd [NSW] at Burwood. I would also thank the school's principal, Mr Brad Mitchell, for his enthusiasm in showing his students the trade options available, and the teachers who assisted on the day, including Mr Charlie Vellar, Mr Frank Vellozzi, Mr Peter Oakman and Linda Downey, the careers adviser at Sir Joseph Banks High School.

I encourage the Department of Education and Training to promote the Try a Trade scheme wherever it can throughout both the public and private school systems. I recently spoke to a friend whose son is earning almost $5,000 a week as a tiler and roofer in Western Australia. While this may be an exaggerated case of the skills shortage in the mining boom State of Western Australia, there is no doubt that many of us in this Parliament have university degrees. That was the way to go years ago.

Mr Brad Hazzard: We are all going to leave and become tilers.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: As the member for Wakehurst says, we are all going to learn to be roof tilers. We need to refocus our attention on some of these traditional trades to further grow the nation's private and public infrastructure. On a personal level, my wife is a careers adviser and she has been arguing with me for years that there is too much focus on the idea that people should go to university.

Mr Brad Hazzard: What has she advised you to do with your career?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: Get out of politics.

Mr Brad Hazzard: We agree with her.

Mr ALAN ASHTON: Brad, this will all go into Hansard and ruin my speech! We have had an overemphasis on university entrance and the university admission index. While people are then highly skilled, they still have to perform their jobs on site. We need to retool the Australian economy with skills that were once critical to this country's growth and formation and that have now disappeared. There is a need for plumbers, bricklayers, concreters, carpenters, electricians, draughtsmen, automotive engineers, chefs, caterers and people in the entertainment trade. People should be encouraged to go to TAFE and other colleges to learn those skills. Great careers can still be fashioned and money can be made. It is not just a matter of having a university degree with a string of letters after one's name. I commend the Try a Trade scheme. I congratulate Sir Joseph Banks High School. I wish everyone involved continued success.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [1.57 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the incredible life and contribution of Allan Viney, more formally known as Arthur Edward Allanby Viney, OAM, a former member for Wakehurst. On 13 June 2008 Allan Viney died at Mona Vale Hospital. Last Friday, 20 June 2008, Allan was laid to rest and a public memorial service took place at the War Veterans Village Chapel at Collaroy Plateau. I acknowledge the contribution to his farewell made by the Returned and Services League.

Allan was a member of the New South Wales Parliament from 13 February 1971 to 12 September 1978. He was elected three times as the member for Wakehurst, in 1971, 1973 and 1976. Allan joined the Liberal Party in his 30s. He had a life beyond politics, both before and after politics. It was those experiences, including his war service in the Middle East and New Guinea, which doubtless contributed to the insights Allan brought to public life. From 1938 to 1940 he served with the 36th Battalion Australian military forces. In 1940 and 1941 he served with the Australian Imperial Force in the 2/17 Infantry Battalion. In 1941-43 he served in the 2/3 Anti-tank Artillery Regiment.

His experiences of life, of war, of business and his acute awareness of issues honed through his involvement in journalism and the media generally were invaluable in his parliamentary career. But, most of all, it was Allan's passion for putting the spotlight on unfairness and his energy for making right what was wrong that will, apart from his commitment to his family, be remembered most. Allan never took a backward step when it came to making sure that I, as the current member for Wakehurst, understood the issues about which he had a passion. Many issues sparked Allan's passion. I well recollect a discussion we had over his concern about electoral fraud. As a new member of Parliament I had the benefit of Allan giving me his insight into electoral fraud, which he generally attributed to the Labor Party.

He also had an enthusiasm for the recognition of volunteers in the community. Some years ago he suggested we should appoint a Minister for Volunteers to recognise and represent the hundreds of thousands who volunteer their time for our community. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, Labor has now appointed such a Minister before we had a chance to do so. In recent years Allan has talked to me about issues including better support for his much-loved Rural Fire Service, the problem of experienced police retiring too early, undergrounding of electricity, a development of which he did not approve at Oxford Falls, issues related to the Totalisator Agency Board, and even the processing of seaweed. Allan's mind and his enthusiasm for the improvement of the community's circumstances were insatiable and lasted, I am sure, until his last breath.

Only a couple of weeks ago he was on the phone to me talking about events at the War Veterans Village where he had become very involved. It was only weeks after he arrived at the War Veterans Village at Collaroy Plateau that he was telling me I had to fix traffic issues at the intersection of Veterans Parade and Colooli Road, and of course I would not have dared not to do it. Allan was a lifelong champion for those who needed someone to champion their concerns. In addition to serving as parliamentary backbencher he also served as the shadow Minister for Transport from 1976 to 1978 and was the shadow Minister for Corrective Services in 1978. Whether it was advocating on behalf of the local school parents and citizens associations or progress associations or his involvement in the founding of the Warringah Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade or the women's refuge, he clearly saw his role as someone to champion their needs.

In our many conversations Allan would talk often about his family. He clearly loved and valued each one of them. Many times he talked proudly and energetically of his children, Jane James, Barbara Logan and Greg Viney, and particularly his grandchildren, Sally Fielding, Murray James, Stuart James, Ritchie Logan, Andrew James, Stan Viney and Lara Viney, and indeed his great-grandchildren, Charlie and Archie. Life became more difficult for Allan in recent years as he suffered health issues leading to five admissions to hospital since last November. All the time he continued to provide ongoing support to Joan, his life partner for over 60 years. He talked to me with great enthusiasm about the recent celebration of Joan's 90^th birthday and on many occasions when I returned his phone calls he was heading off to help Joan with her meals. Unfortunately, she needed assistance at lunch and dinner times to take her meals.

Whether it was Allan's business life, his family life or his political life, Allan has given us all, particularly his family and friends, much of which we can be proud. He has left his mark and many reasons to celebrate a remarkable life of giving. I was immensely pleased that Allan received an Order of Australia for actively supporting his community and it was an appropriate recognition of his commitment to giving to our community over a lifetime. Winston Churchill once said, "We make a living by what we do, but we make a life of what we give." Allan Viney OAM, former member for Wakehurst, made a life of what he gave.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [2.02 p.m.]: Today I speak briefly about another visit to that wonderful area on the western side of my electorate, Trundle, a small village area that has many issues. Located between Tullamore and Bogan Gate, many wonderful people live in that area at a time of adversity caused by the drought and other problems. It is just up the road from Bogan Gate where the Light Horse Brigade dawn service is held every year. It is a fabulous part of my area. I was invited to attend Trundle War Memorial Hall on 8 June and celebrate 1928 in Trundle. The invitation came from well-known residents Bob and Carol Schneider who run just about everything there is to be run in Trundle and keep social activity going. They are also members of the Sing Australia choir, which recently held a gathering, organised of course by Bob and Carol.

The invitation to the 1928 celebration said, "Come along and honour the stars that first twinkled in 1928." I was invited to a town birthday party for the town's octogenarians and to celebrate the birthday of the War Memorial Hall. There was entertainment, competitions and surprise guests. Being a Sunday, it was also my mother's day. All parliamentarians will know that we do not see our families every day so I took my mother with me on that Sunday and we enjoyed ourselves. The names of the octogenarians are Keith Moody, his sister-in-law Bessie Moody, Joyce Clarke, Fred Taylor, Lex Anderson, Bill Berryman, June Harmer, Ron Ford who unfortunately was not well and was absent on the day, and Janette Williams, who happened to be sailing on the Danube. Much of the village was there on the day and we wished them all happy birthday.

There was a trivia quiz, the answers to which I must remember as the representative of that area. It was headed "Town Gossip – How well do you know Trundle?" Even those who were fifth and sixth generations forgot some of the facts. I will put the following facts on the record in Hansard: The railway line opened to Trundle on 6 August 1907; the first parish priest in Trundle was Father Hennessey; the first Protestant Church to be erected in Trundle was Presbyterian and opened in March 1909; the town's first hospital opened in 1914 and was known as The Cedars; the town's first newspaper, the Trundle Times, was established in 1908 by John Porter and it continues to this day through the efforts of volunteers; the Trundle silo opened on 6 December 1920; and the War Memorial Hall opened on 12 March 1927—we celebrated its eightieth birthday a little late. I congratulate the Parkes shire for giving funds to restore and renovate the hall. I thoroughly recommend to anyone visiting the area to have a look at a wonderful memorial hall in this village area of New South Wales.

To continue with the trivia quiz: The Trundle Branch of the Country Women's Association was formed on 13 May 1923 and 32 ladies attended the first meeting; the foundation stone of St Patrick's Convent School was laid on 4 September 1927 by the Right Reverend Dr Hayden; on 21 April 1917 the Trundle Jockey Club obtained permission from the Chief Secretary of the New South Wales Racing Board to operate a totalisator; the first football team known to have been organised in Trundle played Australian Rules; the new town supply dam was sunk in 1946; Trundle Electric Light Company was established in 1935 and became obsolete in 1951; from 19-23 April 1948 the children, teachers and parents of Trundle Public School combined to celebrate a century of public education in New South Wales; in 1952 Trundle Public School became a central school with four teachers and 114 pupils—quite large classes in those days. Mr Rupert Resch is currently the principal and is very well liked in the community. The hospital ladies auxiliary was formed in July 1959; the new St Michael's Roman Catholic Church opened on 15 July 1962, and Trundle swimming pool opened on 26 February 1966. One of the trivia questions was very interesting. An event occurred in Trundle on 27 December 1973—a tornado. All the old-timers knew that as well.

Those are some of the wonderful facts that I have learnt by going to Trundle the other day. I have to admit I was probably old enough to know some of the songs that were sung, although my mother knew the words better than I did. I am sure if the member for Epping were here right now he would probably break into song, but I will save the House from that embarrassment. Thank you to Trundle for inviting me to the area, and for the hospitality—it is a place I look forward to visiting.

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [2.07 p.m.]: This afternoon I would like to speak about an anomaly in public policy that is affecting many residents not just in the Port Macquarie electorate but throughout New South Wales following a court ruling in a case in Nyngan relating to e-bikes, or motor -assisted pedal cycles. Many residents in the Port Macquarie electorate are now expressing a great deal of concern that their e-bikes can no longer be used on the roads following this court ruling. The Roads and Traffic Authority's exemptions state that motor assisted pedal cycles with electric or petrol engines are exempt from registration provided maximum engine output power does not exceed 200 watts.

Unfortunately, the court ruled that the pedals on many of these bikes, in particular the Eazy Ride bikes, are secondary and that the motor is the primary source of output and principal means of propulsion and therefore registration and licensing are required. This has taken a lot of e-bikes off the road and removed them as an option for people who are trying to get from A to B fairly cheaply and in an environmentally friendly way. One resident wrote to me that he and his stepdaughter were using e-bikes. He says they were bought in good faith six months ago and had a maximum speed of 28 kilometres an hour on the flat. He also says you have to pedal if you are going uphill. The bike has a limited distance of 40 to 60 kilometres and that requires eight hours of charge from a power supply. Of particular note was his stepdaughter's situation. She is trying to get a start at the local racetrack—

Mr Steve Whan: On the bike?

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT: She is trying to get to the racetrack to do her job. The work, by its nature, has early-morning starts—5.00 a.m. trackwork. Public transport is limited in our area, particularly at that time of day. For a young person starting out on her career path an e-bike was a viable option. Unfortunately, following the court ruling, now it is not. Marette Smith purchased her bike in October 2007 for $1,600. It was sold to her as a battery-assisted pedal bike that did not require petrol, licensing or registration. In accordance with buyer-beware policy, Ms Smith checked the website to confirm those claims. Now she feels that she is $1,600 out of pocket. Pensioners Jean and Lawrence Ruffle are now back driving their car. They were trying to do the right thing and cut carbon emissions and reduce fuel consumption. The Government encourages people to do that, but the law in New South Wales discourages them.

Mr and Mrs Ruffle make the point that 1200-watt mobility scooters do not require licensing or registration, but under New South Wales law 200-watt motor-assisted pedal bikes do. Cate Glezos recently bought one of these bikes in good faith. It was sold to her on the basis it did not require licensing or registration. According to the buyer-beware principle, she also checked the accuracy of the claims. Following the court ruling and police warnings and fines of riders of e-bikes on the road, Ms Glezos has inquired about compensation. These people make valid arguments about these anomalies in public policy, which the Parliament should address.

Roads are not just for cars; road users should have options. E-bikes are a sensible alternative and should be encouraged by government in this day and age. I ask the Minister and the Staysafe committee to consider the anomalies and the dilemma faced by e-bike users. E-bikes comply with the Roads and Traffic Authority exemptions and guidelines. Yet in New South Wales a person is allowed to pedal an e-bike on the roads, but when riding the same bike and not pedalling they are breaking the law. Surely the Parliament can do better than that.

Question—That private members' statements be noted—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Private members' statements noted.

[The Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 2.12 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Assent to the following bill reported:

Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.17 p.m.]: People across New South Wales have been shocked and saddened by the death of Jane McGrath. Over the past two days I have been thinking about the reasons why we feel so strongly about this loss. There is the speed of it, with such a sudden downturn after Jane had repeatedly defied the odds. There is the image of Jane's family gathered around her bedside on a sunny weekend when, in a fair world, they should have been picnicking or playing in the park. There is her age, just 42—simply too young to die. There is the sobering thought of her two young children, James and Holly, being robbed of their mum. And, of course, there is the fact that Glenn McGrath has been denied the chance to grow old with his soulmate, and the realisation that it could just as easily have been any one of us. It is an untimely death.

Breast cancer, as women across the nation know, is one of the top three killers of Australian women. Death from breast cancer is in every way an untimely and unjust death. If courage alone determined the chances of survival, Jane McGrath would surely have lived to be 100. But, as many members of this House have learnt, this insidious disease does not discriminate. To be young and beautiful is no shield; to have plans and dreams is no protection; to want to hold your grandchildren is no defence. The sheer fact that young women such as Jane McGrath, Belinda Emmett and Clare Oliver can be cut down at their peak shows that humankind is not yet the master of this disease. We are closer than ever in our history, but we are still not there. Until we are, Jane's death is a warning to work harder so that other children like James and Holly are not left motherless and partners like Glenn McGrath are not forced to see their wedding vows—in sickness and in health—put to the ultimate test.

If there is any message out of Jane's decade-long struggle it is this: We must put cancer out of business because this disease is inflicting loss and grief on families such as the McGrath family every hour of the day. We should not rest until cancer joins the list of other conquered diseases, such as polio, typhoid and TB. But that is for the future. Today all we can do is mourn Jane's passing and celebrate everything she was: beautiful by nature and brave and generous by choice. Jane McGrath's passing has touched the nation because she faced the test that ultimately became her death sentence with dignity and courage. She did not lapse into self-pity or regret. She made every minute count, not just for her own family but for thousands of women she did not even know, who will have longer and better lives because of Jane's double legacy—the McGrath Foundation and the example she leaves with it.

I am proud to say that the McGrath Foundation is donating funding for an additional 10 breast cancer nurses for New South Wales hospitals, a generous donation we welcome and applaud. The Government will continue to support the McGrath Foundation to ensure that women across New South Wales have access to appropriate cancer care because the work that Jane started must live on—and it will live on. Those extra nurses are a sign of just how much better the world is for Jane McGrath having lived among us, and how much smaller and sadder we are at her passing.

Our thoughts are with Glenn, James and Holly, as well as Jane's family in England. It is now time for us to give back what little we can: our support and our prayers; our own sorrow for a woman we came to know and respect through a decade of courage and suffering; and, of course, our generous donations to the McGrath Foundation, because some good must come from this terrible loss. May her brave and beautiful soul rest in peace.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [2.23 p.m.]: On behalf of those on this side of the House I join in paying tribute to the life of Jane McGrath—Jane McGrath, a soul partner of Glenn McGrath; Jane McGrath, the mother of Holly and James; Jane McGrath, a role model for this nation. Role models are those to whom we look to set standards in society—standards that we often fail ourselves, but nevertheless they perform a significant role for the society. Jane McGrath set such a standard. She fought determinedly, as many cancer sufferers do, against this terrible disease, but she did more than that. She and her husband Glenn, through the McGrath Foundation, ensured that there would be a lasting legacy to ensure that funds are raised not just to finance breast cancer care nurses across the country, but also to promote education in breast awareness amongst women. There is much work that needs to be done.

Regrettably, New South Wales has the lowest participation rate of breast screening of any State in the nation. We are at the bottom. We have to improve that situation. No doubt the McGrath Foundation will continue to work in that way. It raises money in a variety of ways. Many of us have young children who play district cricket. We see pink grips, which can be bought online through the McGrath Foundation, on cricket bats being used by boys. The member for Hornsby today is selling M&Ms, in room 1035, for $4 a packet to raise money for the McGrath Foundation. To get back to cricket, I will never forget the magnificent sight of Adam Gilchrist wearing pink gloves when breaking the record for dismissals by an Australian wicketkeeper in the Boxing Day test against the Indian cricketers this year, raising $18,000 for the McGrath Foundation for each of the eight dismissals he was involved in.

It is a magnificent legacy of someone who not just in a very courageous way, along with her family, tackled this insidious disease, but sought to do more. One in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime; 2,700 women will die this year, and 13,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. It is something that the men in this Chamber in particular need to consider. As the Premier said, it is amongst the top killers of our women in this nation. Jane McGrath was a loving, determined and admired woman, and she is someone who, through the McGrath Foundation, will never be forgotten.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House joins with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing our deep sympathies for the sad loss of this great Australian. I ask all members to rise in their places as a mark of respect.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

The SPEAKER: Order! A very important message has come to hand. On the weekend the New South Wales Parliament defeated the Australian Parliament in a soccer match played before the AMP Cup game between Australia and China. The score was two all at full time and the New South Wales Parliament won the penalty shoot-out. I am advised that there were some excellent saves in the second half by Costa the Great, the member for Wollondilly.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Does he believe that John Della Bosca acted honestly and truthfully with both him and the New South Wales public over the Iguana incident and subsequent events?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: From day one Minister Della Bosca maintained that he had done nothing wrong in this matter; that he was defamed by reports of this matter. From day one he has been consistent. He has been consistent from the time that he stood up on that Saturday morning at a press conference and said, "It did not happen the way it has been reported. I am seeking an apology." Opposition members have asked many questions about these matters.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I asked the Premier a very simple question: Does he believe him or does he not—yes or no?

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

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I answered that issue at the press conference on Tuesday when Mr Della Bosca presented me with an account. He has been stood aside and police are investigating these matters. Police officers will carry out their investigation, complete their work and provide a report. As I have made very clear, if Mr Della Bosca is cleared he will resume his duties. As I said at the press conference, he provided me with an account and I accepted that account. He provided me with an apology and I also accepted his apology. That answers the second part of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Let me answer the first part of the question. Mr Della Bosca was asked about these matters at a press conference. He issued a statement on the Saturday and, as he outlined to the Parliament, in every conversation he has had subsequently he has maintained his innocence and said that he had done nothing wrong in this matter.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He outlined his account in a report that he gave to me and I addressed that matter on the Tuesday of the press conference. The answer is yes.

Ms KARYN PALUZZANO: Can the Premier update the House on the Government's latest initiatives to provide improved services to rail commuters?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Today's announcement of a number of initiatives is another significant step along the path towards improving rail services. In addition to the $5.9 billion that is being invested in public transport, $1.6 billion will be invested in new rail projects—$1.6 billion on new trains, new rail lines and new stations. These include the North West Metro, the South West Rail Link, the Epping to Chatswood rail line, and the feasibility study into a Western Metro. In addition to this investment the Government is investing record amounts in rolling stock. That rolling stock investment will enable us to proceed with today's initiative, which will commence in August, and which involves additional capacity on the western line—1,200 extra seats for rail commuters.

This Government is all about providing the western line with additional capacity and more seats for commuters, in particular, those travelling from the Penrith electorate. We have taken delivery of 70 of the outer suburban cars—new rolling stock and cars to service the outer suburban areas—that will enable us to use Tangaras and rolling stock we now have to provide extra services and more capacity. The improvements will include, for example, changes to the timetable. The details are as follows: an additional fast service from the city to Penrith leaving Central at 6.14 p.m.; and building up six-car trains to eight-car trains from Eastwood to Central, Hornsby to Central, Central to Blacktown and Central to Penrith. The ongoing delivery of the new outer suburban carriages will allow for further improvements down the track.

Suburban peak passenger numbers have grown by 6.6 per cent from 2005 to 2007 and we are continuing to add capacity as a result of the growth in public transport and as a result of commuters coming back to public transport. Another initiative involves extending the 14-day ticket. A trial of that initiative has saved commuters significant amounts of money. We are pleased to announce that the trial, which was being carried out at 25 stations, is now being extended to 192 stations. Almost 18,000 tickets have been sold since the trial was launched, which represents around 15 per cent of weekly ticket customers switching to the 14-day ticket. Customer feedback indicates that more passengers are likely to purchase the new 14-day ticket as it continues to be rolled out across the network.

A recent survey of more than 800 rail commuters has shown that nearly 6 in 10 regular train commuters have their salary paid fortnightly, so buying a ticket on payday is a convenient way for commuters to take care of their transport needs for the fortnight. The busiest days for ticket purchases are Mondays and Tuesday, so on any other days queues are shorter, making them ideal for buying the 14-day ticket. The ticket gives 14 consecutive days of travel for the cost of around $8. Customers will spend less time queuing for tickets and save—and this is the important part of this initiative—35 per cent compared with the cost of daily tickets. From this Thursday the 14-day tickets will be available from ticket windows at 192 stations.

I encourage commuters to take advantage of the trial as it rolls out across the network. This plan to extend the 14-day ticket initiative has resulted, first, in cheaper tickets; second, in extra services; and, third, in 1,200 extra seats. The initiative has received resounding endorsement from commuter groups and public transport advocates such as Councillor Tony Hay, President of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. Today he gave this plan for extra capacity, more services, more seats and cheaper tickets the thumbs up. Mr Hay said:

We are fully in support of the increased level of services being provided by the Government with the announcement of these increased services.

An additional 1,200 seats being provided during the PM peak is a wonderful thing for our Western Sydney commuters.

Susan Day, President of South Penrith Commuter Group, had this to say:

This is a fantastic announcement.

This shows that the Government really is listening.

The Government is listening to commuters in Western Sydney. Today's announcement is an important step on the path towards improving rail services for commuters in Western Sydney.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Will he give the same unequivocal response that the Prime Minister gave yesterday concerning the Iguana scandal and confirm that no member of his office "approved, wrote, instructed, participated in or was involved in dissemination of the statutory declarations"?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bathurst will cease interjecting. The House will come to order.

Ms NOREEN HAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. What is the latest information on preparations within our health system to deal with increased winter demand?

Ms REBA MEAGHER: Members would be aware that traditionally winter is the busiest time of year for our hospital system. Demand patterns from recent years tell us that admissions to hospitals typically increase by 6 per cent between July and September and that the average length of stay in hospitals rises by an average of 2 per cent. Referring to raw numbers, last year that translated to an extra 1,000 children visiting New South Wales hospitals each week compared with the summer period, and to an extra 500 adults a week presenting to an emergency department. In the winter period the main drivers of demand come from older patients with a respiratory illness—around 40,000 patients were diagnosed with such a condition last winter—and from patients suffering influenza.

The good news is that our hospitals have an excellent track record of gearing up to deal with this increased winter demand. This was highlighted as recently as a month ago by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in its report entitled "Australian hospital statistics 2006-07". Most significantly, members will be interested to hear that the report stated that emergency department waiting times in New South Wales are the best in the country. The institute found that New South Wales once again achieved four of the five national emergency department triage benchmarks—a feat that no other State in the country came close to achieving. In fact, taking all State and Territory data collated nationally, only one benchmark target was achieved and that was in the lower urgency category of triage 5.

This is a strong, independent evaluation of how well our system performs in the face of strong demand. We can take great pride in the achievement of our medical staff. But, far from resting on our laurels, yesterday the Premier and I visited Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and released a comprehensive winter health strategy aimed at better managing the needs of the extra 20,000 patients expected in our hospitals in coming months. It also encourages and assists people to stay healthier and out of hospital, and it further supports our medical staff at this busy time. One of the key plans is the addition of 124 acute care beds to build capacity in our medical assessment units and to add winter flex capacity. Since February 189 beds in 15 medical assessment units have been progressively opened in our busiest hospitals. A further seven units and more beds will open in the near future: Nepean Hospital will be the next to come on line, in July.

I have visited a number of these units at Royal North Shore, Wollongong, Liverpool, Gosford and Fairfield hospitals, and the enthusiasm and feedback from patients and staff have been more than encouraging. In addition to more beds being available this winter, many more emergency physicians will be in our busy hospitals compared with last year. In December last year the Government committed to recruit an additional 35 emergency physicians and I am pleased to be able to advise the House today that since this recruitment campaign began 27 new emergency specialists have been appointed to the New South Wales health system, and three specialists have been appointed to area-of-need positions. Two have commenced work already and one will start later this year.

The hospitals to benefit from this emergency physician recruitment drive are: Orange, one physician; John Hunter, two physicians; Gosford, two physicians; Liverpool, three physicians; Blacktown-Mount Druitt, three physicians; St George, four physicians; the Children's Hospital at Westmead, three physicians; Concord, two physicians; Nepean, one physician; Royal Prince Alfred, four physicians; Fairfield, two physicians; and Westmead, three physicians. These figures do not include specialists who have moved from one New South Wales emergency department to another to take up appointment; they represent new doctors in the system.

Yesterday the Premier and I spoke to the director of the emergency department at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Dr Tim Green. Dr Green commented on the enormous contribution of the extra physicians. Despite the efforts of those opposite to continually denigrate our health professionals, the figures demonstrate that our doctors and nurses are doing a great job in delivering compassionate, quality care to patients. They are working together to ensure that our hospitals are some of the most efficient in the country.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members, including the member for Mount Druitt and the member for Hawkesbury, will cease interjecting.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: Another feature of our winter strategy is the introduction of a new patient tracking and information system in emergency departments. The FirstNet Emergency Department Program is part of an $80 million four-year strategy to revolutionise clinical information technology in public hospitals. FirstNet replaces the previous emergency department patient-tracking software that has been in place for around 13 years. FirstNet provides clinicians throughout the hospital with easy access to patient information by enabling for the first time activity in the emergency department to be viewed from any location. The program is designed specifically to streamline the work of clinical staff in the emergency department; better track patient data and emergency department activity; minimise error and duplication; increase the amount of time a clinician spends with a patient; reduce handover time to wards and care teams; and ensure accurate and consistent delivery of care. FirstNet has been introduced in 15 hospitals to date and a further 7 hospitals will receive this new technology in the near future.

The Winter Health Strategy extends beyond the walls of our busiest hospitals: the influenza program is running again from May to September this year. It allows New South Wales Health to identify early outbreaks or significant variations in flu presentations and plan additional emergency department activity accordingly. The good news to date is that after a particularly virulent influenza strain last year a return to more moderate levels has been observed so far this year. These are just some of the key elements of the Iemma Government's plans to better support both our patients and health professionals through this traditionally busy time of year. I look forward to providing the House with a report on the success of this strategy in the future.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that in the last week it has been revealed that Iguana staff have stood by their statutory declarations, three sworn statements were withheld, the Iguana apology was written by John Della Bosca, and one staffer now has resigned alleging collusion in preparing her statutory declaration, does the Premier still stand by his support of John Della Bosca?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Inquiries having been initiated. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait for the outcome of those inquiries. All the references to stat decs are the very things the police are investigating. That is a fact. The inquiries having been initiated, the Leader of the Opposition will have to wait. I repeat what I have said many times in relation to the Minister: he has been stood aside. If he is cleared he will go straight back into the Ministry. What the Leader of the Opposition wants is a running commentary on the outcome of police investigations. As I have said, the Minister stands—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: My point of order involves relevance under Standing Order 129. The wording of the question was specifically about the actions of the former Minister and whether the Premier still has confidence in the Minister. The Minister was stood aside because he misled the Premier, not because he was being investigated by police.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier's answer is relevant to the question.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The question refers to the very matters the police are investigating. I refer the member to my previous answer and every other statement and press conference where I have been asked that question about the Minister dozens of times. The same question can be asked in many different ways. The answers are on the record. About 10 minutes ago the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about Mr Della Bosca. I answered it. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to that answer and to all the other statements on the record and all the press conferences and the other questions the Leader of the Opposition asked last week.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. Can the Minister update the House on the latest road safety trial on New South Wales roads?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I thank the member for Camden for his question and, of course, his interest in road safety matters. Road safety is a top priority for the Iemma Government: it is clearly defined in the State Plan. While we can never be complacent, the road toll for 2007 was the lowest since World War II despite there now being 13 times more cars on the road. Last year around 50 families were spared the horror of losing loved ones on our roads: that is 50 families that did not get the horrible knock on the door from police, 50 families saved from a lifetime of grieving and loss. But there is more work to do. That is why this morning I joined the Minister for Roads in launching Australia's largest road safety trial using satellite technology to help motorists stay safe on New South Wales roads. This $1 million intelligent speed adaptation project will involve 100 cars, up to four global positioning satellites and cutting-edge in-card technology similar to that of satellite navigation devices. Speeding is the biggest killer on New South Wales roads and is a factor in around 40 per cent of all fatal crashes.

In New South Wales last year 139 people lost their lives on our roads because of speed. This technology has the potential to assist in cutting the road toll and save lives. The trial is being conducted by the New South Wales Centre for Road Safety, which was formed by the Iemma Government last year to improve road safety. The Iemma Government is committed to improving road safety. That is why a record $141 million is being invested in road safety initiatives next year under the Iemma Government's record $4 billion roads budget.

This new trial will use satellites and in-car technology to help motorists stay within the speed limit. To put it simply, the satellites communicate to the device that is mounted on the dashboard the speed limit at the exact location where the car is. The device warns the driver that they need to slow down. The technology also has the capacity to slow a vehicle's speed by safely decreasing fuel supply to the engine. I am advised that 40 of the trial vehicles will be fitted with this system, but I emphasise that the driver will still be able to override the device in the case of an emergency.

This trial is about using technology in a practical way to improve road safety and help to save lives. The maps being used in the trial have been developed by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and are much more accurate than those currently available in vehicle-based satellite navigation systems. As the Minister for the Illawarra I am pleased to announce that this trial will be conducted exclusively in the Illawarra region: the Wollongong, Shellharbour and Kiama local government areas will be the New South Wales location for the trial. Other States are doing their own trials, but the New South Wales trial is the largest in the country.

One hundred trial vehicles will be drawn from local businesses and service providers, including the award-winning University of Wollongong, local business R. E. McMahon Plumbing, and Centrecare Welfare Services. I thank the chief executive officer of that organisation, Kath McCormack, for the organisation's involvement. There are approximately 2,500 kilometres of roadway in the Illawarra. Roads and Traffic Authority officers have identified 4,000 speed signs and mapped out 950 speed zones in which the devices will be used for the trial.

There are further benefits associated with this technology, aside from reducing the risk of speed-related crashes. I make clear this important message: The best way to avoid a speeding fine is not to speed. This technology encourages motorists to do just that. The trial will begin in July and is expected to run for approximately 18 months. I welcome the trial and look forward to the outcome. I also look forward to the future applications of this emerging technology.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that he has said he will now meet the Liberal-Nationals' community safeguards on electricity, including a rural communities impact statement based on genuine community consultation, why is his Government refusing to give country people the opportunity to voice their concerns as part of the impact statement process?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As I understand it, the impact statement has a list of organisations that were suggested for inclusion by the Leader of The Nationals. As I informed the House last week, the list includes local government authorities and chambers of commerce. I am not aware that any of those organisations or any other individuals wish to have a say. If the Leader of The Nationals has the name of an organisation that is not on the list for consultation, I will be pleased to include it.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Submissions. Individuals. Open it up.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: If the Leader of The Nationals knows an organisation or individuals that he wishes to be consulted, he should provide the details to my office. I undertake to ensure that those who are carrying out the consultation will contact those organisations and individuals.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA: My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health). What action is the Iemma Government taking to implement the findings of the 2007 James report on mental health forensic patients legislation?

Mr PAUL LYNCH: I thank the member for Smithfield for his question and for his longstanding interest in this important topic. I am pleased to advise the member and the House that the Government will implement the recommendations of the James review of New South Wales mental health forensic patients legislation. This represents a significant and substantial change to the way in which we deal with forensic patients. It will mark the final phase of the review process of the Mental Health Act—a process that commenced in 2004. That review already has resulted in a new Mental Health Act, which commenced in November last year.

Reconsideration and reshaping of the law applying to persons with a mental illness who have been subject to criminal proceedings is a pivotal area of reform. In 2007 the Government initiated a special review of those laws, which was chaired by the person who was then, and continues to be, the President of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the Hon. Greg James, QC. The review was conducted over a 12-month period and involved extensive consultation with community and victims groups, health professionals and agencies directly related to or involved in service provision in this area. The final report of the review was released in April this year.

The changes mark a major overhaul of the law in the mental health field. The changes are important because they will make the system for oversight and review of the release of forensic patients more accountable, more transparent and, for the first time in New South Wales, they will provide, in forensics laws, recognition of victims. The changes also are important in that removal of executive discretion will bring New South Wales into line with most other States in Australia and with similar jurisdictions, such as England and Canada, which moved to a judicial-based system some considerable time ago.

The changes will replace the current cumbersome and lengthy processes of controlling patients by executive discretion—a system that originated in eighteenth century laws, although one could suggest they are almost mediaeval in their conception—with a process that is based on objective, judicial determinations through the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Under the changes specialist panels of the Mental Health Review Tribunal will be established to oversee the care, control and release of forensic patients and to make decisions on those issues. For the first time interested parties will have direct access to decision makers.

The specialist forensics panels will be chaired by sitting or former judges. That will ensure a robust and detailed review is undertaken of the issues that are relevant to the release of forensic patients. The panels also will be given clear statutory direction on issues that must be considered when determining the orders that should be made, including release orders. The statutory criteria will include matters such as whether the person is mentally ill, whether care, treatment or control is necessary to protect the person and others from serious harm, the possibility of the person's condition deteriorating at the time and the likely impact should that occur and, most importantly when release is proposed, the panel will also be required to consider independent safety reports from a psychiatrist who is not involved in the care of the person. The panel will be required to carefully consider these matters.

In addition the panel will be able to release a forensic patient only if the tribunal is satisfied that the safety of the patient and any member of the public will not be seriously endangered by that release. Under the new system the Government also will retain a capacity to make its own submissions to the tribunal if there are particular concerns about issues of public safety. The new system will be further strengthened by a comprehensive appeals process whereby both the Minister for Health and the Attorney General will have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

Victims were widely consulted during the James review. The changes will reflect the recommendations made in James's final report in relation to victims issues. One of the critical changes will be to provide, for the first time under mental health legislation in this State, a clear statutory recognition of the role and rights of victims. The changes provide for establishing through regulations a victims register which in turn will provide a basis for victims to be notified of a prospective release. That in turn will further enhance the current processes recently put in place by the Mental Health Review Tribunal that will allow victims to make submissions to the tribunal on release issues. The tribunal will also have the capacity to make non-association orders and place restriction orders, by which a forensic patient can be directed not to associate with victims or their families or can be directed not to visit certain places or locations. Breach of such orders may lead to a person being re-detained.

These non-association orders and place restriction orders may also be imposed on a forensic patient following an application by a victim. The legislation will also provide victims with specific rights to seek a variation of association and non-association orders if they have fears for their safety, as well as the right to be a party to appeals where such orders are challenged. Organisations representing victims have expressed their support for the James recommendations, especially the removal of executive discretion. In particular, Ken Marslew from Enough is Enough and Howard Brown from the Victims of Crime Assistance League have expressed their support. In correspondence to me, Howard Brown said:

I am of the view, as is my associate Mr Marslew AM, that the decision of the Tribunal should be the deciding authority as to the status of a patient … The Tribunal has far greater knowledge of the patient and the needs thereof and the involvement of the executive often merely delays proper and timely treatment, which can have a substantial negative effect on the entire matter.

It is important to emphasise that the Government has given careful consideration to the James review. It should be said, however, that there are some recommendations that the Government will not pursue. In particular, the Government has determined that it will retain the current provisions to ensure that police continue to be notified of the release of forensic patients. Other significant changes that will be adopted by the new legislation include, as foreshadowed by the review report, establishing structures to allow community treatment orders to be adapted and provided in a correctional setting. This will be an important piece of legislation that will make great improvements to the current system of review and release of forensic patients.

It is worth noting that this decision has been made in the context of record expenditure on the mental health budget. Last year was the first year in which we were able to exceed the $1 billion limit in the provision of mental health services in this State. The most recent State budget increased that amount so that once again in excess of $1 billion will be spent on mental health services in New South Wales. This budget marks the third year of the Government's five-year plan to enhance mental health services. The budget delivers an additional $41 million on last year's budget. It includes features such as $6.85 million over two years to expand 24-hour community mental health emergency care through the recruitment of additional mental health professionals at more than 20 locations across the State; $3.1 million to recruit an additional 16 clinicians to expand the Mental Health Community Rehabilitation Program; $2.1 million to enhance specialist mental health services for older people, including the recruitment of additional specialist staff such as old-age psychiatrists, psycho-geriatric nurses and allied health professionals; $9.4 million in additional funding to open new mental health facilities, including the Concord Child and Adolescent Mental Health Unit; and $300,000 for eating disorders to support inpatient treatment in both psychiatric and medical services and expand community-based care, including support for families of people with eating disorders. This builds on the work we are already delivering with specialist eating disorder inpatient beds and intensive day program places.

Mr Brad Hazzard: You're still spending the least amount of any State.

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

Mr PAUL LYNCH: In response to that predictably stupid interjection from the member for Wakehurst, I suggest that if he looks at the figures he will find that the New South Wales Government is well above the national average for the provision of mental health beds. That is a reflection of the record amount of money that we are spending in this area—more than $1 billion. The last time those opposite were in power they spent $350 million on mental health. We have tripled their expenditure. So, in that context, it seems quite preposterous to have that sort of interjection from the member for Wakehurst. The changes in provision for forensic patients have been discussed and argued for many decades. The system that we are changing was implemented in this land in 1788, and we are effectively getting around to changing it some 200 years later. The current system, which is now being changed, is based upon eighteenth century law and seventeenth century concepts.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: While Opposition members appreciate the importance of mental health—

Mr Kerry Hickey: What's your point of order?

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Adrian Piccoli: I refer to Standing Order 129.

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

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Mr Speaker, you have ruled previously about the length of answers. The question was of a general nature and the Minister has been responding to it for at least 10 minutes.

The SPEAKER: I ask the Minister to finalise his answer.

Mr PAUL LYNCH: In conclusion, the current system is based upon eighteenth century law. The changes mean that forensic patients in this State will have decisions affecting their welfare decided by twenty-first century law instead.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: My question is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading. Before the Minister jetted off to the French Riviera—

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease interjecting. The member for Hawkesbury will state his question.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: Before the Minister jetted off to the French Riviera, did she bother to check the credentials of the owner of Beechwood Homes, who, first, had lost $72 million; secondly, had another company in receivership; thirdly, had a business partner who had gone bankrupt; and, fourthly, was the subject of more than 100 complaints, before she renewed his licence?

Ms LINDA BURNEY: Members should check their facts before they open their mouths.

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

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The good news about Beechwood Homes is that the receiver—with whom I met only on Friday—is very confident that it will get a sale away this week.

Mr Ray Williams: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129, relevance. My question asked about the builder's credentials.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The member for Hawkesbury will resume his seat.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The receiver is confident—and we need to be careful when hoping for this outcome—that there will be a sale away on the three Beechwood businesses in the near future. As Minister for Fair Trading, my priority has always been not to create stories and cause fear in the community but to ensure that the rights of the people affected by the collapse of Beechwood—

[Interruption]

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

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The interests of the 390 families who are under contract to Beechwood must be looked after. Those people have either paid a deposit or are halfway through constructing their homes. The member for Parramatta and I visited an elderly couple in her electorate to talk to them, to see how they are travelling and to reassure them that we have their interests at heart and will put them before anything else. A second group of people have been affected by the Beechwood Homes collapse. They are people at the pre-contract stage.

At this point we are talking with the Department of Local Government and the Department of Planning to ensure that those people are not disadvantaged also. The key to looking after families who are in the pre-contract and post-contract stages is ensuring that we are methodical and careful. We must go through every appropriate process to make sure that the victims of Beechwood are looked after. I also share another important fact that seems to have escaped the attention of this gentleman, if I can call him that, the member for Hawkesbury. In relation to Beechwood, other people have been disadvantaged, that is, the tradies, the ones who lost their jobs the day that Beechwood went into receivership. The good news is that if a sale is achieved those tradies who are non-secured creditors will also benefit from the disbursement of the profits. That is this Government's priority and what it cares about.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: It is not about raking up muck and being completely inaccurate—and I will come to the member for Hawkesbury.

Mr Ray Williams: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129. The question directly asks why the Minister for Fair Trading renewed the licence of Beechwood Homes.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister's remarks are in order.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The Government's job is to protect the rights of people who have been affected by the collapse of Beechwood Homes, and that has been my priority and the priority of members on this side of the House from day one. In relation to the ill-informed nonsense of this bloke, the member for Hawkesbury—

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Minister will direct her comments through the Chair.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The accusation is that Mr King's licence was renewed just before the collapse of Beechwood. Ding! Wrong! Do you understand that word "wrong"?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lismore will cease interjecting.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The issue that the member for Hawkesbury raised was a certificate and if this bloke, the Leader of the Opposition, could get his lines right for a change he would have been able to explain it yesterday. It was a certificate that had nothing—does the member understand that word—to do with contract work.

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: The Opposition is suggesting that the Government cancel the licence of the three companies of Beechwood that are in receivership. This is where the Government is looking after consumers. That would have disallowed the receiver from completing work on 10 to 15 homes so that people who have been caught in the collapse could move into the homes that are partially built. When the receiver finishes his work—

[Interruption.]

Every time you say it mate, I'll say it again.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hawkesbury will cease interjecting. I place him on two calls to order.

Ms LINDA BURNEY: When the receiver finishes his work the licence will be cancelled, and that is appropriate because the licence is with the receiver, dope, okay?

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I draw your attention to Standing Order 75. The Minister has flouted that standing order on a number of occasions. I ask you to draw her attention to it.

The SPEAKER: Order! Inappropriate comments and inappropriate interjections have been made. The House will come to order.

Mr GERARD MARTIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Water. What is the latest information on the Iemma Government's effort to provide emergency drought relief to Orange and the Central West?

Mr NATHAN REES: I thank the member for Bathurst for his longstanding interest in water matters, and his tireless advocacy on behalf of the people of Bathurst and the Central West. On the weekend I was in the Central West. I was in Mudgee on Friday night and Saturday morning, with the member for Orange, at the Rural Fire Services Association annual conference. It was terrific to knock around with some of our volunteers, the backbone of our community, in Orange.

[Interruption.]

That does not deserve a response, George! One cannot help but notice, driving around central western New South Wales, the dry nature of the countryside, where some 62 per cent remains in the grip of the worst drought in 100 years. Whilst attention has been focused on the Murray and Lachlan valleys, the Central West, particularly the area around Orange, is under intense pressure. The town water supply of Orange is being directly affected. Orange, with 38,000 people and a $1.8-billion economy, is a large regional centre that requires water supply certainty in order to guarantee its ongoing commerce and economy. In May the dams in Orange were at 30 per cent, and as of last weekend they are down to 28 per cent. Orange city remains on level five water restrictions applied by Orange council. Level five restrictions means one hour of outside watering with a bucket each week—severe straits for the good people of Orange. The stark reality is no hosing of gardens, no topping up of swimming pools, no car washing or no hosing of hard surfaces, walls or windows.

If we see a repeat of recent rainfall and rainfall patterns, the water supply of Orange will fail in as little as 15 to 16 months. Even more frightening, with no rain the Orange water supply will be cut off in as little as 12 months, and the economy of the Central West will be in danger of collapse. Last year the Iemma Government committed that no town in New South Wales will be allowed to run out of water. In keeping with that commitment, it has delivered $47 million for emergency drought works across New South Wales, including $20 million for the Goulburn-Mulwaree pipeline, $2 million for pipeline construction in Cowra, and a number of—

[Interruption.]

The SPEAKER: Order! I place the member for Wakehurst on two calls to order.

Mr NATHAN REES: Not that the member for Wakehurst would know a lot about drought.

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

Mr NATHAN REES: In addition, $1 million for refurbishment of a well in Tamworth, and more than 80 local drought management plans funded across New South Wales. The Government said it will not let Orange run out of water, and it will meet that commitment. The Government has been working closely with Orange City Council since the middle of last year. I am pleased to inform members of the House that the Iemma Government is offering $4.45 million to Orange City Council that will meet 50 per cent of the cost for emergency drought works, including stormwater harvesting at Blackman's Swamp, the re-connection of Lake Canobolas to the town water supply, and the investigation and development of new groundwater sources south of Orange. It is estimated those measures will yield 3,000 megalitres, or the equivalent to fill 3,000 Olympic pools, each year, half of the annual consumption of Orange.

[Interruption.]

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

Mr NATHAN REES: The Leader of The Nationals is welcome to come through my door at any time to talk about that or any other matter. The Orange mayor welcomed today's news saying that the Government's contribution will mean the city-saving project can now go ahead and it will provide much-needed water security for the city. Orange City Council devised the plans and the Government is backing it with the funds. These measures are aimed at shoring up the potable water supplies of Orange in the short term. The Government has much more news to come for the medium and long term.

Question time concluded.

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Health) [3.20 p.m.]: I pay tribute to Sister Mary Bernice Elphick. Honourable members would have been saddened to hear of the recent death of Sister Mary Bernice Elphick. Sister Mary Bernice dedicated her life to the success of the St Vincent's Hospital campus at Darlinghurst. Her quiet determination and love of St Vincent's patients and medical staff endeared her to everyone.

Sister Bernice Elphick became a Sister of Charity in 1946 after completing her nursing training at St Vincent's Hospital in Melbourne. She was appointed Mother Rectress of Sydney's St Vincent's Hospital in 1963, managing the hospital and being the Mother Superior of the Convent. During her time at St Vincent's, Sister Bernice saw the creation of the Garvan Institute in 1963, oversaw the redevelopment of St Vincent's Private Hospital, which opened in 1976, and was instrumental in the establishment of the St Vincent's Clinic in 1991, a clinic modelled on the famous Mayo Clinic in the United States. Sister Bernice was also involved in the establishment of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute in 1994. In April 2004 the Sister Bernice Wing at St Vincent's Private Hospital was officially opened in her honour.

As reported recently in the local press, Sister Bernice could reduce the late Kerry Packer to "a quivering jelly". She was reportedly someone that Mr Packer could never say no to. She also counted the famed heart surgeon the late Victor Chang among her many friends. Sister Bernice was forever mindful of the traditions and standards that had to be upheld by her religious order, the Sisters of Charity. The Sisters of Charity order was founded in Dublin in 1815 by Mother Mary Aikenhead. The apostolate of caring for "the sick poor" central to Mary Aikenhead's vision soon led to her founding St Vincent's Hospital, Dublin.

In 1838 five nuns established a branch of the Sisters of Charity in Sydney. In the same spirit as Mother Mary Aikenhead, her Australian daughters quickly established hospitals in Australia's four eastern States beginning in 1857 with St Vincent's Darlinghurst under Mother Baptist de Lacy. For the greater part of the next 130 years the Sisters of Charity led these centres of excellence in health care. Only last year St Vincent's Hospital Darlinghurst celebrated its 150^th anniversary. St Vincent's Hospital is one of the 16 hospitals run by the charity order. It is Australia's oldest Catholic hospital and very much at the cutting edge of patient care, treatment and research. Sister Bernice's total length of professional service spanned more than six decades and she spent some of her retirement years back at the hospital complex working with doctors and patients as a volunteer.

I ask the House to join me and all those who held Sister Bernice in affection and esteem in honouring her memory and in conveying our sincere and heartfelt condolences to her fellow Sisters of Charity, her family and all the staff, patients and volunteers at the St Vincent's campus.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.22 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of members on this side of the House in paying tribute to the wonderful contribution that Sister Bernice made to health care, and in particular to St Vincent's Hospital. I had the great privilege of meeting Sister Bernice and sharing confidences with her—confidences that I have never broken to this day, and I will not. She was very concerned about public health care in particular and about things that did not go quite right.

Sister Bernice, as the Minister said, gave 60 years of service to the community. She was very involved in St Vincent's Hospital since 1963. She helped establish the Garvan Institute, oversaw the redevelopment of St Vincent's Private Hospital and had a very close involvement with the Victor Chang Institute. She was well recognised by all in the hospital and dearly loved by all the clinicians and of course her fellow nuns. She was known as a frenetic fundraiser—nobody could say no to Sister Bernice. She was a woman with a tremendous awareness of a tradition of outstanding ethics, as one would expect. Her care for the sick was second to none. I join with the Minister and all members of this House in paying tribute to Sister Bernice and passing our condolences to all her knew her.

Mr SPEAKER: Pursuant to Standing Order 117, I table a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 24 June 2008.

Dr Andrew McDonald, as Deputy-Chair, tabled report No. 2/54, entitled "Review of the 2006-07 Annual Report of the Health Care Complaints Commission", together with the transcript of proceedings, written responses to questions and minutes, dated June 2008.

Ordered to be printed on motion by Dr Andrew McDonald.

Mr Allan Shearan, on behalf of the Chair, tabled "Legislation Review Digest No. 9 of 2008", dated 24 June 2008, minutes and extracts regarding Legislation Review Digests Nos 7 and 8 of 2008, and the Legislation Review Committee Annual Review, July 2006-June 2007.

Ordered to be printed on motion by Mr Allan Shearan.

Ms Angela D'Amore, as Chair, tabled the following reports:

Report No. 2/54 entitled "Fourteenth General Meeting with the NSW Ombudsman", dated June 2008, together with questions on notice, transcript of proceedings and minutes;
Report No. 3/54 entitled "Tenth General Meeting with the Police Integrity Commission", dated June 2008, together with questions on notice, transcript of proceedings and minutes; and
Report No. 4/54 entitled "Statutory Review of the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993", dated June 2008, together with transcript of proceedings and minutes.

Ordered to be printed on motion by Ms D'Amore.

Petition requesting improved access to Hawkesbury River railway station, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition requesting a 10-minute bus service between Pyrmont foreshore via Broadway to Town Hall, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting the upgrading of Edgecliff interchange, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting increased funding for public libraries, received from Mr John Turner.

Petition asking that a public haemodialysis centre be established in the Hornsby area, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition asking that the Deniliquin community be provided with a dialysis centre at the Deniliquin Hospital, received from Mr John Williams.

Petition asking that the Wymah Ferry service continue, received from Mr Greg Aplin.

Petitions asking that 40 kilometre per hour speed zones be introduced outside all preschools in New South Wales, received from Mr Thomas George, Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, Mr Kevin Humphries and Mr Adrian Piccoli.

Petition requesting that the jobs of drought relief workers be protected, received from Mr Greg Aplin.

Petition requesting funding for local councils to conduct fruit fly eradication programs in the Albury electorate, received from Mr Greg Aplin.

Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting a total ban on sow stalls, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition objecting to the proposed wind farm development at Glen Innes, received from Mr Richard Torbay.

General Business Notice of Motion (General Notices) Nos 1 to 9 lapsed pursuant to Standing Order 105 (3).

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.26 p.m.]: Opposition members are interjecting and saying "Make it quick", but it is bound to have the opposite effect! This is an important motion and it should be accorded priority, and. I will explain to members why. It is true that several years ago I moved a similar urgency motion in the House about this subject. That motion passed at the time with, I believe, the support of The Nationals. It is important that we look at this issue again today because it relates to assisting farmers to defend their industry, the wool industry, against an ill-informed campaign being run by an international organisation that is designed to damage a very important Australian industry.

I would expect the Opposition to support this motion because I believe there should be bipartisan support for the farmers of New South Wales. It is important to discuss this motion because a very misleading campaign has been run by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA]. Wool is one of the most important products in Australia. We may not still ride on the sheep's back as we were said to do in the 1950s, but it is still a vitally important product for New South Wales. We need to ensure that it continues to be available. It is a natural fibre and one that is far more ecologically sound to produce than are many of the fibres produced by other means. We need to debate this motion to give bipartisan support to this important industry.

If we agree to give this motion priority today will it have any impact on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ? I do not know. It is a group that seems intent on running this campaign no matter what evidence is put before it. If one looks closely at this organisation's material one sees it is all about stopping the use of animals for virtually anything and turning us all into vegetarians. Some people choose to be vegetarians and I do not deny them that right, but organisations that have as their basis ending all farming of animals really are not looking at the interests of people overall, particularly those in the Australian farming industry.

It is important for the Parliament to put this on record today because it gives our farmers support and it gives people who might hear or read what we are saying here more information from another source which backs up the point of view being put forward by the industry in New South Wales. When people hear rubbish from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals they may not realise that if it were not for mulesing about three million sheep would probably die each year in New South Wales because of flystrike..

When the matter was last discussed in this place the former member for Lachlan, the Hon. Ian Armstrong, gave a very vivid description of what happens to a sheep that has flystrike. I will not repeat that description or go into it in depth today, but flystrike is a pretty shocking sight. The former member gave an interesting, if somewhat gory, description of it. I think it is important that we inform people of some facts: for instance, our industry has made a commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010, but unless there are valid and reasonable alternatives sheep will suffer an awful death from flystrike.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Why is it urgent?

Mr STEVE WHAN: If members opposite cared about rural New South Wales they would think this issue was urgent because in this week before the winter parliamentary recess it comes up in the media time and again. This organisation uses amazing tactics of rolling out nude persons to promote its point of view. The Leader of The Nationals has never noticed the advertising campaign—he must not watch the same television channels as I do. It is also on the news quite regularly. It is urgent.

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

Mr STEVE WHAN: My motion should be discussed urgently. Indeed, it should be given priority over that of the Leader of the Opposition, who has admitted that it is the same motion he wanted to debate urgently last week. Time and time again he attempts to waste the time of this Parliament on issues that do not concern rural New South Wales and that are not important to people who live in rural New South Wales, such as the delivery of services. The Leader of the Opposition's motion is simply a political muckraking exercise. [Time expired.]

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [3.33 p.m.]: Members who listened to the member for Monaro would believe that he was a campaigner against mulesing. They will be surprised to learn that he last raised this issue in this place in October 2004. That shows how concerned he is about mulesing, despite the importance of the sheep industry to his electorate. If the member for Monaro wanted bipartisan support on this issue—

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting I am campaigning against mulesing. I suggest he read the motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The member for Monaro will resume his seat. I call the member for Monaro to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: That was a good try by the member for Monaro, but the reality is that he last raised the issue of mulesing in this place in 2005. The last time he sought urgency for a motion relating to mulesing was in 2004. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is also wrong. There is nothing more important in government in New South Wales and nothing more important to people in country areas and in the city than integrity in government. Whether it is mulesing, cancer patients, or any other issue across New South Wales, if we cannot rely on the Minister or the Premier to tell the truth, to raise standards and not to be arrogant, there is no hope of fixing this State's problems.

In question time today the Premier refused to support John Della Bosca when asked questions by the Opposition. When the Premier was asked whether he still believed that John Della Bosca had dealt honestly and truthfully with the public and with him, he squibbed the issue. Asked whether he stood by John Della Bosca despite the progression of revelations, including last night's revelation that a Belinda Neal staffer had resigned, he refused to do so. I have a message for the Premier: Stand by John Della Bosca or sack him! Back him or sack him!

Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: Under Standing Order 109 the member must debate why his motion should be given priority, rather than debate the substance of the motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! As the House will be aware, I allow a certain amount of latitude during priority debates.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I would have thought the member for Macquarie Fields, who just took that point of order, was committed to integrity, standards and a lack of arrogance in government. But he has surprised me. There is a reason the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] should conduct an inquiry. We should end the trial by media and put this inquiry where it should be: before the State's anti-corruption body. Why should we do that? There are a number of issues that a narrow police investigation will not cover, including the apology issued by Iguanas and what inducements were offered, and the involvement of the Premier's office and other offices in the failure to release statutory declarations. They involve some of the issues related last night that go beyond simple "he said" and "she said" statutory declarations. More importantly, as the member for Sydney knows, the powers available to a police investigation are narrow. People asked to make statements can refuse to do so on legal advice. As a result, there is no certainty that we will get to the truth of the matter through a police investigation, no matter how hard working State and Federal police are.

As the member for Sydney knows—indeed, as most members in this House know—no-one can refuse to give evidence at an ICAC inquiry. One has to make statements, even if those statements are self-incriminating. The public deserves to know the truth of this matter. That may not suit the Premier's political interests or the interests of John Della Bosca. The reality is that if this Parliament is not prepared to stand up for truth, honesty, standards and doing what is right, none of us deserve to be here. Yet that is what we are hearing from members opposite. I say again to Government members: To those who seek to suggest that there is some degree of hypocrisy in this House, it all rests on that side!

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bathurst will cease interjecting.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Since 8 June, when the issue first came to public light, the Opposition has been arguing for a judicial inquiry. We now believe that ICAC should be empowered to do the job it was set up to do.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bathurst to order.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The ICAC was set up to investigate corruption in the last Labor Government in this State—a Labor government in which the Minister for Corrective Services was selling early releases. That is why honesty and integrity are important. With the anti-corruption body we have in New South Wales—a standing royal commission—why do we have it if we do not use it in such situations? Members opposite will be condemned by your inaction on this, Mr Speaker. The reality is that John Della Bosca has been party to a cover-up—that is becoming clearer day by day—and only an ICAC inquiry will show how high it goes.

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

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.45 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates the Iemma Government for its continued support of New South Wales farmers in their fight against PETA over the mulesing of sheep; and

(2) applauds the effort of farmers across regional and rural New South Wales to raise awareness of the truth behind this important issue.

It is with a degree of sorrow that I move this motion today. From the commencement of its campaign, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] has been unable to accept clear evidence about the need for mulesing to continue until a viable alternative is available in Australia. Such organisations, which generally are based overseas where conditions are nowhere near the same as conditions in Australia, cannot comprehend the impact of flystrike on sheep. I would have thought that any organisation genuinely interested in the welfare of animals would take that issue into account when waging this sort of campaign.

As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, from the time I first raised this issue in the House, campaigns have been waged and efforts have been made to get international celebrities and international fashion businesses on side. When those international celebrities and fashion houses find out the truth behind this issue they often change their minds and realise that it is more important to support the Australian wool industry. I also feel some sorrow about the fact that Opposition members will not support my motion.

Mr Thomas George: That is not true.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Opposition members cannot deny that they just voted against debating this issue. However, given their earlier comments, I am sure they will support this motion. I was disappointed when the Leader of the Opposition criticised my motion and said that it should not be accorded priority as I had raised this issue several years ago. As I said in my opening remarks, I raised this issue several years ago but it has to be raised again because of the ongoing campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. To my memory, the Leader of the Opposition has never moved a motion in this place to do with regional and rural New South Wales.

A check of the parliamentary records will reveal that in almost every sitting week another member of Country Labor or I have raised issues of importance to rural New South Wales in this place, but Opposition members rarely raise issues of importance to rural New South Wales. The earlier comments of the Leader of the Opposition were nothing more than hypocritical, which is no surprise when we take into account the fact that his website shows that he is more interested in good surfing spots than he is in anything to do with regional and rural New South Wales.

Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. This debate, which relates to mulesing, is not an opportunity for the member for Monaro to rant and rave about the websites of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition or about previous debate relating to which matter should be accorded priority.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I note the concerns of the member for Bega, but the remarks of the member for Monaro are relevant to the motion.

Mr STEVE WHAN: I would be interested to see whether the member for Bega contributes to debate on this issue as he never has anything to say about rural issues. Let us face it: 13,000 sheep producers are under siege as a result of the campaign being waged by the so-called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. As I said earlier, the mulesing that occurs in Australia prevents flystrike. The campaign being waged by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been characterised by misinformation; its intention is to mislead the international community about the Australian wool industry. Campaigns are continually being waged—Opposition members are not aware of them but I certainly am—in which the tactics used are designed to attract the attention of the media. The campaigns feature good-looking people, often without many clothes, who capitalise on this issue and who try to convey false messages about the sheep industry in New South Wales.

The wool industry has attempted to put forward sensible, well-argued positions, which, unfortunately, do not receive the same level of international coverage. The industry has made commitments to end mulesing by 2010 through examining developments such as the use of intradermal injections, or selection of genetic make-up to breed sheep that do not grow wool around the crotch and inner hind leg areas. Recently I received a call from someone who promised to forward more information on bare-breech sheep but, unfortunately, I have not yet received it. The industry is also considering genome mapping of the sheep blowfly, and clips. Members can glean more detailed information from the Australian Wool Innovation [AWI] website. Obviously, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is not interested in those alternative procedures. The Minister for Primary Industries also tried to put forward supportive arguments. The Minister invited representatives of Hugo Boss, a big international fashion house, to visit New South Wales sheep farms in an attempt to prevent that fashion house's planned boycott of Australian wool. The Minister said:

I want Hugo Boss to visit the hard-working farmers of our State and see first-hand that farmers are doing their best to prevent fly strike, which is one of the most serious issues affecting our wool industry.

[Interruption]

If mulesing is not carried out, three million sheep will die annually in Australia. I am constantly amazed by the member for Bega, who shows his lack of concern for the Australian wool industry by continually making silly interjections. The 13,000 sheep producers in New South Wales want government support on this issue. They want the Parliament to state, "We do back the wool industry in New South Wales. We back our Minister in his efforts to educate fashion houses, the international industry and wool buyers about why mulesing is important." We want to continue to support the sheep farmers in their campaign by letting the community know of the efforts to replace mulesing with a viable alternative that will ensure that our sheep do not suffer from flystrike. Without a viable alternative, we will be inhumane by not protecting sheep from flystrike. I would have thought animal welfare lovers would be interested in avoiding that consequence.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [3.52 p.m.]: I noted that the member for Monaro, in giving reasons for his motion to be accorded priority, sought to congratulate this House on its bipartisan support on this issue. Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words "the Iemma Government" with a view to inserting instead, "the Parliament".

The New South Wales Parliament is extremely concerned about the campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] against our woolgrowers. I should like to set out a few facts about the wool industry: 85 million sheep in Australia produce a total of 437 kilotonnes of wool, with a gross value of $2.69 billion Australia-wide. Yet this group of faceless people are trying to convince people that mulesing sheep is inhumane. I challenge those people to look at a sheep suffering flystrike because anyone who has seen it understands the necessity of mulesing, as I did during the period I lived in Moree when it was a big wool-producing area.

The New South Wales Farmers Association and Australian Wool Innovation have moved to ensure that the current mulesing program is phased out by 2010. I doubt that phasing out will come to fruition because currently we know of only one New South Wales sheep grower who has bare-breech sheep. Unfortunately, sheep growers are divided on mulesing because the program espoused by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals intends to destabilise the wool industry. It is disgraceful that only a couple of weeks ago Adidas said that it will no longer use Australian wool. Soon sheep growers will try to outbid their neighbours because they may have been growing bare-breech sheep over the past 4, 5, 6 or 10 years. Sadly, that means that sheep growers using world's best practice by mulesing sheep using pain relief such as Trisolfen will be disadvantaged by other members of the same industry.

The mulesing issue is extremely divisive because People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is not presenting a true argument; it does not show anyone examples of sheep that have died from flystrike. As the member for Monaro said, more than three million sheep can be in danger of dying a painful death from flystrike if mulesing is discontinued overnight. Australian Wool Innovation has proposed a number of strategies, including the National Mulesing and Assurance Program, and pain relief. If the Government is serious about assisting sheep growers it should subsidise farmers for the cost of pain relief treatment—a cost of approximately $2 per sheep—for the interim period up to 2010, when mulesing will have been phased out. Australian Wool Innovation also includes in its strategies clip technology, husbandry options, better wool marketing, having a clear and well-defined breeding objective, reducing breech wrinkle, selection for high-performance and low-wrinkle animals, selection for worm resistance and low dags, bare-breech sires, other sires, and field day visits. Australia Wool Innovation also wants to remain connected with customers.

Rather than debating the good or bad aspects of mulesing, or what is better or worse for sheep, we should be telling those who market or buy our wool that we are moving towards positive solutions. The industry is concerned about mulesing, but we should educate the buyers and not talk to this faceless group known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Let us show the buyers, as the Minister offered to Hugo Boss, what New South Wales sheep growers are doing to ensure, through animal husbandry best practices, that these animals do not suffer flystrike. We must get the message through to buyers and the market that our wool is the finest in the world, but it is grown in areas where flystrike is a massive problem.

New South Wales is suffering the effects of its worst drought, yet these idiots are campaigning for buyers not to buy Australian wool. Those sheep growers lucky enough to have clip technology should be guaranteed premium prices for their wool. Every government, the industry, the New South Wales Farmers Association and the National Farmers Federation should ensure that those who buy the clip will receive premium prices for their wool and that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is ignored. We must ensure that buyers are aware of the good animal husbandry practices used by our farmers. I am disappointed that the member for Monaro spent so much time in this debate attacking The Nationals, who have always supported the farmers in their electorates.

This issue is not about party politics; it is about an industry that brings in almost $2.7 billion annually to Australia through a difficult export market. With the increasing value of the Australian dollar, not many export commodities are thriving, but for many generations Australian wool has had a fine reputation for garments and other uses recognised worldwide. Let us support our sheep growers. I challenge the member for Monaro to support the amendment to the motion because Opposition members have always supported sheep growers. I challenge the member for Monaro also to speak to the Minister for Primary Industries to determine a method to subsidise sheep growers for the pain relief techniques they employ. Sheep growers are doing it tough in these drought conditions. The Opposition supports the motion. We divided on the question that the motion be accorded priority, not on the substance of the motion. The member for Monaro should not play politics on this issue of priority. We support the motion.

Mr PHILLIP COSTA (Wollondilly) [3.59 p.m.]: I thank the member for Coffs Harbour for his comments. As we are all well aware, the mulesing issue is, and will continue to be, extremely important for New South Wales, and particularly the sheep industry. I am pleased that our small property is an alpaca stud and does not have the same issues that confront the wool industry. In New South Wales thousands of hardworking farming families depend upon the wool industry for income, and it is one of our country's major agricultural industries. The Merino sheep industry commenced on the Macarthur property, which is part of my electorate, in the 1800s. Australia is currently the world's largest producer of wool.

As mentioned earlier, in 2005-06 more than 100 million sheep shorn in Australia produced 461 million kilograms of greasy wool. During that period wool exports were valued at approximately $2.64 billion. The figures speak for themselves and show what is at stake if the mulesing debate remains unchecked. Thanks to the recent efforts of the animal welfare movement, particularly People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA], the waters surrounding mulesing and its use have been muddied deliberately. Animal welfare groups have exaggerated the impact of mulesing, coerced ill-informed celebrities to spout messages they do not understand, and affected Australia's wool exports adversely. This has placed the sheep industry under enormous pressure. The likes of musician Pink and Hollywood actor Joaquin Phoenix threw their support behind the "Save the Sheep Campaign" by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Fortunately, Pink later backed down from her stance, after admitting she was misinformed and had failed to do enough research.

The alternative for sheep that have not undergone mulesing is to die a horrible death by flesh-eating maggots. Unfortunately, I have witnessed the distress of sheep that are flyblown—an alternative that is not in the best interests of sheep. That fact is not pretty but it is the truth. Unfortunately, major fashion houses are joining a growing list of major companies that are banning, or are planning to ban, wool sourced from mulesed sheep. On 5 June the Daily Telegraph reported:

Hugo Boss, Timberland, Victoria's Secret, Abercrombie & Fitch, H&M, suit retailer Perry Ellis and more than 10 other retailers have announced they will not use wool from mulesed sheep.

The New South Wales Government is working hard to address the issue using the facts—not just hype and myth. As I mentioned earlier, the fact is that three million sheep will die annually if mulesing is not carried out. Our climatic conditions demand that our farmers employ protective practices to ensure that our flocks are protected from the devastation caused by flyblow. Our wool industry is working towards a clearly defined target of 2010 by which to develop alternatives that provide our sheep with effective protection from flesh-eating maggots.

The Iemma Government and the New South Wales Farmers Association are working closely both with the industry groups that are researching alternatives and with independent bodies, such as the Australian Veterinary Association, to assess the best options. We look forward to discovering a solution to the problem for the long term. The sheep industry and the Government will work together to achieve that outcome.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [4.02 p.m.]: I support the amendment that congratulates the Parliament on its continued support of New South Wales producers on the issue of mulesing. The motion centres on the farmers and woolgrowers of New South Wales, not so much on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA]. My background in the wool industry is both current and past. I acknowledge my wife's family, who have a property at Emu Creek, Walcha, and who have won two Golden Bale awards for export wool. That is a credit to them. The family still breeds fine wool sheep. In 1989 I had the opportunity of visiting a woollen mill in northern Italy through the auspices of Giovanni Schneider, a fine wool buyer based in Australia.

This issue has been discussed in Australia for 20 years; it is not a "today" issue. Recently I had the opportunity of attending the Nyngan Show, where there was an exhibition of all the aspects of mulesing that are currently being discussed. There is no doubt that mulesing is still an accepted and legal practice in this country. The target for phasing out mulesing is 2010, and I assure the House that the industry is well on its way to achieving that target. We should highlight that fact. The Nyngan Show's mulesing exhibition included a demonstration of mulesing by Chick Olsen as well as a segment on the use of anaesthetics in mulesing, an explanation of the intradermal injection system, the patented system alluded to by another speaker during the debate, which is being rolled out as I speak, the application of clips to the wrinkled skin in the breech area, and a very interesting presentation by the McKidd family, who are breeding breech-free sheep in the Marra not far from Nyngan.

A group of wool producers in Australia are breeding breech-free sheep and in years to come mulesing will not be a necessary practice. The important issue is that the wider community, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the buyers on whom our fine wool market depends need to be educated that mulesing is being phased out and will be replaced. The issues are being dealt with. I believe that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been sidelined by our young people who have grown up in country areas, moved to the cities and made a big impression on the sporting, fashion and entertainment world. They have got the message out that the mulesing issue is being addressed. When the issue of mulesing is resolved and the practice is no longer followed by the industry and when the go-ready stamp can be applied to wool produced in this country, Australia's wool exports will increase dramatically. Good on the graziers, who are doing a great job!

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [4.05 p.m.]: There is no doubt that mulesing is a very important issue for an industry from which many farmers make their living. Australia has the best woolgrowers in the world. Millions of people in Europe and other places around the world wear garments made from wool that is produced in New South Wales, and I congratulate the industry on that. The Australian fine wool industry and five Japanese retailers spent $1.4 million on an advertising campaign to promote wool throughout the world, and they also should be congratulated.

Unfortunately, in recent times the wool industry has had to defend itself on the international scene because of the mulesing practice. Although mulesing is legal, problems based on misinformation have affected designers and retailers. Adidas, the producer of sporting goods, has joined 10 other retailers who have boycotted the use of wool from mulesed sheep. Yet designers such as Jason Brunsdon support Australian wool, whether from mulesed or unmulesed sheep. In a recent Daily Telegraph article he said:

I love working with wool. It's reusable, sustainable and biodegradable. You can shave it off the sheep's back and grow it out the next year without killing any animal.

I have no doubt that Mr Brunsdon agrees that mulesing should be phased out, but he has adopted a proper, reasonable and leadership view that it should be retained until a reasonable alternative is found. Australian designer Alex Perry also should be congratulated on his leadership on this issue. The harsh reality is that if mulesing suddenly stopped approximately three million sheep would die from flystrike, and that is an outcome that cannot be entertained for even one minute. I am completely at a loss to understand why People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] does not understand that. The wool industry is working overtime to develop alternatives and has set a target date of 2010. The alternatives have been devised in conjunction with the Australian Veterinary Association

The State Government and the New South Wales Farmers Association have pointed out that retailers should not base commercial decisions on anything other than the facts—and not what they hear from animal rights groups. The latest boycotts are a major threat to hardworking wool producers. It is a concern for the entire industry, especially when millions of dollars have already been invested in developing non-surgical alternatives such as breech clips. Those alternative methods should be closely examined. The debate clearly needs more information, more facts, and less scaremongering. I am pleased that there is wide support for progress on this important issue.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.08 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Coffs Harbour, the member for Wollondilly, the member for Barwon and the member for Maitland for their contributions to the debate. The Government will accept the Opposition's amendment.

Mr Thomas George: Well, this is a first!

Mr Frank Terenzini: We are all team members here.

Mr STEVE WHAN: We are all acting in the interests of the industry. It is appropriate to acknowledge the hard work of the Minister in ensuring that the industry and buyers of wool are better informed on the mulesing issue than has been the case previously. I encourage the dissemination of information, and I hope that members on both sides of the House will give credit where it is due and acknowledge the efforts of the Minister and the Government in this regard. That is most important.

The member for Coffs Harbour spoke about the potential for division in the industry in moving to eliminate mulesing by 2010. It will certainly be a challenge. We hope that we can avoid any division, but organisations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] happily take a divide-and-conquer approach to this issue. The member for Wollondilly and the member for Maitland added much to the debate by detailing some of the fashion houses and buyers who have been influenced by PETA's dishonest campaign against mulesing. We will continue to point out that group's dishonesty. Perhaps people who research the practice of mulesing will find the transcript of this debate on the Internet. I hope that they will digest the facts that members have provided today and realise that mulesing is important for animal welfare reasons.

The member for Coffs Harbour warned against scoring political points but I point out that if The Nationals had succeeded in having their motion accorded priority this afternoon we would not have had the opportunity to debate and pass this motion in support of New South Wales and Australian farmers. This is an important issue. On occasion we would like to see politics and the relentless pursuit of headlines put aside in the interests of debating matters of importance. Country Labor in New South Wales continues to support Australian farmers, as well as the single desk in wheat. I must put that on record.

Mr Andrew Fraser: So do the Nats.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Yes, The Nationals do too.

Mr Andrew Fraser: So you have no Country Labor members federally?

Mr STEVE WHAN: That is totally separate from the debate. This is an important motion, and I welcome members' support of it.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Debate resumed from 18 June 2008.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [4.13 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in the debate on the Police Integrity Commission Amendment (Crime Commission) Bill 2008. The bill amends the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 to enable the Police Integrity Commission, known as the PIC, to investigate and otherwise deal with the misconduct of officers of the New South Wales Crime Commission. It is notable that the bill extends to conduct occurring before the Act commences, including that of former officers. Under changes proposed by the bill, certain public officials, including the Commissioner of the New South Wales Crime Commission and the Commissioner of Police, will have a duty to report any suspected misconduct to the Police Integrity Commission. In addition, the bill provides that the referral of matters by the Police Integrity Commission to the Crime Commission concerning Crime Commission officers will be subject to the same reporting requirements as currently apply to matters that are referred by the Police Integrity Commission to the police.

There will be an extension of existing provisions concerning the functions of the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] and the Police Integrity Commission when other public officials are involved so that the provisions apply in relation to Crime Commission officers in the same way as they currently apply in relation to police officers. The bill provides for the Police Integrity Commission and the ICAC to enter into arrangements for dealing with the misconduct of Crime Commission officers. It is important for the House to note that such arrangements may already be entered into regarding the conduct of members of the New South Wales Police Force. There is a provision in the bill that the crime commissioner is not under a duty to report to the ICAC any matter that concerns the misconduct of a Crime Commission officer unless the commissioner suspects that the matter also concerns the corrupt conduct of another public official. This measure is in addition to limitations on the function of the ICAC in relation to the conduct of Crime Commission officers. These limits operate in the same manner as its functions that are currently limited in relation to police force members.

At present, no oversight body is charged with reviewing the Crime Commission. The only parliamentary committee that has any function in reviewing its operations is General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 during its budget estimates process in the police portfolio. Such a circumstance is clearly unacceptable. On 2 June 2008 the Assistant Director, Investigations at the New South Wales Crime Commission was arrested over his alleged involvement in a conspiracy to import 600 kilograms of chemicals with the potential to make $120 million worth of ice. Following this news the Coalition acted swiftly—unlike this dithering Government—and called for an independent royal commission into the Crime Commission. A royal commission is needed to ensure that the confidentiality of ongoing investigations is maintained while balancing the need to address public concerns regarding accountability through a thorough examination of the culture of secrecy within the organisation.

On 3 June 2008 the Government referred the case to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for consideration. The next day the Daily Telegraph blasted across its front page the news that the officer's current partner was working at the ICAC. On 5 June, following Coalition, media and public pressure relating to the unaccountability of the Crime Commission, the Government finally announced that it would install the Police Integrity Commission as the oversight body of the New South Wales Crime Commission. In reply, the Coalition reiterated its concerns, saying that greater oversight of the Crime Commission must come from an independent body, not the Police Integrity Commission. The numerous joint investigations undertaken by these two bodies are of concern. At the same time I said that a new independent inspector general heading a body with the powers of a royal commission would be the only way to ensure that all the evidence could be heard and investigated properly. I stand by that belief in the House today.

The Wood royal commission was established in May 1994 to invest corruption in the New South Wales Police Service, now the Police Force. As part of its operations the commission employed no current or former New South Wales police officer in order to maintain its independence from the police. As the extent of systemic corruption was uncovered during the investigations a call was made for a permanent independent investigative body to be established. As a result the Police Integrity Commission was established on 1 January 1997. It is of the utmost importance that public confidence in the Crime Commission is maintained to ensure its effectiveness in targeting organised crime into the future.

As has been pointed out by the New South Wales Police Association and the Coalition, there has been a longstanding working relationship between the PIC and the Crime Commission, and indeed the ICAC. The public perception of the independence of the PIC in investigations into the Crime Commission would be undermined by these relationships. For a number of years the Police Association has called on the New South Wales Government to establish a standing oversight body. Unfortunately, as with many calls, they have fallen on deaf ears. In response to the proposal before the House the association has stated:

The Government's announcement that the Police Integrity Commission will assume this (oversight) role needs careful consideration given the history of joint operations between the two bodies. The acceptability of this arrangement will need to be viewed in the light of more detail as to how this would operate in practice.

The Police Association went further, stating:

The Crime Commission have been granted extraordinary powers which are critical to their role in investigating organised crime. These powers go far beyond those entrusted to police and accordingly it is even more critical that the Crime Commission should, as a matter of public policy, be subject to a standing oversight body to ensure those powers are not abused and they too are held accountable for their actions.

They are not my words, nor are they the words of my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, Mike Gallacher; they are the words of the New South Wales Police Association. The Government should heed the message. The Coalition will oppose this bill, which is nothing more than window dressing. In order to restore the public's faith in our police oversight committees it is essential that the Government finally institute a royal commission. The time for dithering is over; it is finally time for the Government to act. The Premier and the Minister for Police need to show some leadership and institute a royal commission into the Crime Commission. The commissioner of the Crime Commission is a friend of mine and I mean no aspersion to him, but it is clear that something rotten has occurred in the Crime Commission for some time.

Whilst guilt or innocence still has to be established, that something rotten may well be the cause of recent investigations as to whether major criminals were released early because of representations made by the charged officer. He occupied a senior position and had access to other major investigations across Australia through national meetings being held from time to time through the Australian Crime Commission. The risks that are faced to law enforcement by a corrupt officer in the Crime Commission, particularly a very senior one, are enormous. The Opposition believes that a royal commission is needed to ascertain the extent of the infiltration of the Crimes Commission. For example, have Victorian police investigations been compromised? Checks were being made. Have criminal investigations in Queensland and South Australia been compromised? The Police Integrity Commission does not have the jurisdiction to investigate matters involving other States, and that is why a royal commission is needed. Indeed, we need a national royal commission such as the Stewart royal commission into drug trafficking. That is the sort of reaction needed for such a crisis; the issue should not be shunted off to another secretive body run by this State.

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.24 p.m.]: I support the Police Integrity Commission (Crimes Commission) Bill, which represents a major reform to the accountability and transparency of our key law enforcement agencies. The Police Integrity Commission [PIC] is like an ongoing royal commission. The PIC has the powers to investigate matters and to call and question witnesses. It has the power to summons to give evidence and compel witnesses to provide documents. It is an offence to not comply, and can lead to arrest. It is an offence to knowingly give false or misleading testimony and not to answer questions at the commission. People can also be held in contempt of the commission as if it were a court. I briefly refer to the proposed amendments.

Schedule 1 sets out the proposed amendments to the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996. They include amending the definitions of the Act to include officers of the New South Wales Crime Commission, and including a definition of "misconduct" of a Crime Commission officer. It should be noted that those definitions capture the activities of former Crime Commission officers. Sections 13B and 13C will be inserted to give the Police Integrity Commission the power to oversee the New South Wales Crime Commission, and the authority to allocate dedicated staff, including an assistant commissioner to work on Crime Commission matters. As I noted earlier, this Government is committed to providing extra resources to the Police Integrity Commission to undertake those additional duties.

Section 19 of the Police Integrity Commission Act is to be amended to allow the PIC to not be required to consult with the New South Wales Crime Commission if it intends to use the provisions of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 in relation to an investigation affecting the Crime Commission. Amendments to section 61 will also be made to ensure that the current secrecy provisions of the New South Wales Crime Commission Act do not impede a PIC investigation into the Crime Commission. A new part, to be called part 4B, will be inserted into the Police Integrity Commission Act providing for complaints to be made against Crime Commission officers. This part will allow the PIC to refer complaints about the Crime Commission back to the commission itself for resolution if the complaints are minor in nature. The part will also allow the Police Integrity Commission to take action and report to the Minister and Parliament if it is dissatisfied with the manner in which the Crime Commission has dealt with a complaint.

Section 99 of the Police Integrity Commission Act is to be amended to ensure that the Police Integrity Commission reports separately on its activities in overseeing the New South Wales Crime Commission. A note will be inserted after section 130 to make it clear that the Police Integrity Commission can investigate the Management Committee of the New South Wales Crime Commission. Other provisions provide for arrangements to be made between the PIC and the Independent Commission Against Corruption about investigations of matters where there may be some overlap in jurisdictions. In particular, transitional provisions are made to ensure that existing matters about the Crime Commission that are being dealt with by the Independent Commission Against Corruption will continue unaffected by this bill. Provision has also been made to ensure that any matter arising out of the existing investigations may be referred in future to the PIC by the Independent Commission Against Corruption if it thinks it is necessary. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [4.28 p.m.]: It was interesting to hear the member for Parramatta talk about accountability and transparency, but we did not hear those words and arguments being put forward when the Opposition and the Police Association called for accountability in relation to the Crimes Commission over the years. The Crimes Commission has been in operation for more than a decade and the calls by the Police Association for an oversight body were firmly rejected by the Government. It has now come about because of the arrest of Mark Standen and the consequences following from that. Even in the Minister's agreement in principle speech to the bill he spoke about the confidence of the public being shaken because of that high-profile arrest. Of course it would be shaken.

The reports in today's Daily Telegraph would further cause public concern and underline the need for the body to have a degree of accountability. This need for accountability did not suddenly arise in the past few weeks. As I said, this body has existed for years. The Government's has resisted the Police Association's legitimate calls for accountability but they are at last being recognised in this legislation, although not in a form that will be effective. I repeat what the member for Epping said: The Crime Commission has been granted extraordinary powers which are critical to their role investigating organised crime. These powers go beyond those entrusted to police and accordingly it is even more critical that the Crime Commission should as a matter of public policy be subject to a standing oversight body to ensure those powers are not abused and they too are held accountable for their actions.

Those words applied when this body was created. There was an application in principle in terms of the words laid down by the Police Association at that time. As I say, there has been resistance on the part of the Government. The shadow Minister has outlined the Opposition's position in regard to this. There is also the critical role of the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission. That is an important component of accountability. The Minister in reply should say whether he believes the Inspector has all the powers he requires to carry out his role effectively.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [4.31 p.m.]: I want to make a brief contribution on this bill. The Independent Commission Against Corruption is the current oversight body of the New South Wales Crime Commission, however its powers are limited to the investigation and prevention of potential corruption only. The Minister for Police announced recently that the Police Integrity Commission [PIC] will take over the oversight role for the New South Wales Crime Commission. Transferring the oversight role to the Police Integrity Commission will increase the scrutiny to which the commission is as the Police Integrity Commission can investigate serious misconduct in addition to corruption.

The Police Integrity Commission has the powers of a standing royal commission and has over a decade of experience in detecting serious misconduct and corruption in a law enforcement environment. The Police Integrity Commission itself is oversighted by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission. Bringing the Crime Commission under the mandate of the Police Integrity Commission will ensure that all major New South Wales law enforcement agencies are oversighted by one body. The bill will amend the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 to give the Police Integrity Commission the power to detect, investigate and prevent serious misconduct and corruption within the New South Wales Crime Commission. In effect, the bill will give the Police Integrity Commission the equivalent level of oversight of the New South Wales Crime Commission that it has over officers of the New South Wales Police Force.

As we all know, the police enjoy unique and special powers in the furtherance of their duties. We must have special organisations set up to combat crime effectively because criminals do not play by the rules. However, the public must have confidence that organisations such as the Crime Commission are carrying out their very important duties lawfully and without corruption. We know that these officers work in a very difficult environment that can often present temptations and that they have to meet very high standards. It is very important that there is an organisation overseeing their doing this important work to make sure that if problems arise they are located and dealt with. This bill, which gives the Police Integrity Commission oversight, will give the public confidence that this organisation has proper accountability.

Despite what the Opposition has said in its ridiculous attacks, the Police Integrity Commission is not a secret police club. The Police Integrity Commission in fact reports directly to the Parliament and does not report to or need to consult the Minister for Police or any other agency. By necessity there are of course occasions when the Police Integrity Commission must conduct operations in secret. That is an important part of their job, but it in no way lessens their accountability. It should be remembered that the Police Integrity Commission is oversighted by a joint parliamentary committee, that it is accountable, and that it also has an independent inspector. I think the changes in this bill will provide the accountability that is needed and will give confidence to the public. It is an important piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Police, and Minister for the Illawarra) [4.35 p.m.], in reply: I thank members who have spoken in this debate, particularly the member for Wyong and my colleague and Parliamentary Secretary for Police the member for Parramatta, who I think made very thoughtful and competent contributions. I will refer to some rather sad comments by the member for Cronulla. He said the Crime Commission had existed for about 10 years. It is actually closer to 25 years. The Crime Commission was established by a former Labor Government and continued to operate with its special, important and quite strong powers under a Coalition Government. It does so under a Labor Government today with the confidence of this Government in its aim and responsibility to track down complex criminal cases and the cartels who are involved in activities such as money laundering, prostitution and drug importation, manufacture and supply. It is important to point out that a Coalition Government in the past has strongly supported and maintained the Crime Commission and its special powers. That was notably missing from the very poor contribution of the member for Cronulla who thought the commission had been around for about 10 years. Maybe he missed a few years on the way through.

In my view the Police Integrity Commission inspector has the power and authority to do the task that will be required when this bill becomes law after it passes both Houses of the Parliament. I noted the member for Epping's contribution in which he restated the Opposition's calls that are now almost a month old—certainly three weeks old—for a royal commission. As we have heard from the members for Parramatta and Wyong, and as I made very clear in my agreement in principle contribution to this debate, the Police Integrity Commission has the powers of a royal commission. It is a message that the Opposition has a great deal of difficulty in understanding, probably because it is such a simple message. The Police Integrity Commission has the powers of a standing royal commission. Even if a royal commission were established by the New South Wales Government to consider this matter, it would not explore the areas where the member for Epping tried to go. A royal commission established in this State would not have authority in other States.

Because of the uniqueness of the New South Wales Crime Commission it does not have joint operations—as I understand it and am advised—with police forces in other States. It does joint operations with the Australian Federal Police, as has been noted and as I have made clear to the Parliament and to the community. The incident that has led to this debate—the arrest and allegations made against Mr Standen—are the result of a joint operation between the Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Crime Commission. The Australian Federal Police have made it very clear that that operation could not have been brought to the point that it has without the cooperation of the New South Wales Crime Commission, something that seems to elude the Opposition absolutely.

What we hear from the Opposition is a proposal for a royal commission, which is something we are pretty used to. In question time every day the Leader of the Opposition says, "We are going to send this to the Independent Commission Against Corruption" and "We're going to send this to the police". They are always calling for an inquiry but their policies do not contain any alternatives. They have not enunciated in this debate an alternate mechanism for improving the oversight of the New South Wales Crime Commission. That is what the Government is doing. The Government is moving to a model where the Police Integrity Commission, a standing royal commission, would have responsibility to consider allegations of corruption and serious misconduct against the New South Wales Crime Commission, which is an important change in the existing arrangement. It is a similar structure that applies to the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police where there is one oversight body, and that is another important point to draw in this debate.

The most significant point to make in reply is that the Opposition whinges, complains, moans and goes on, but it does not have alternative policy positions. The Government has a strong position, which seeks to make more contemporary and current the oversight arrangements of the New South Wales Crime Commission by giving the Police Integrity Commission authority and, by implication and certainly by commission, giving the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission further oversight of the Police Integrity Commission's work in relation to the New South Wales Crime Commission. This is important and appropriate legislation and I urge the New South Wales Opposition to put aside their manic want for inquiries of one form or another and, for once, come up with a policy position. In fact I challenge them to support the policy position that the Government is putting forward with this particular bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this 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.

Debate resumed from 18 June 2008.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [4.50 p.m.]: I state at the outset that the Coalition does not oppose the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. However, it is concerned about some of the provisions in the bill and will seek responses from the Government relating to them. The Coalition fully supports those provisions relating to learner, provisional and novice drivers. Despite all the warnings and despite young drivers being educated in proper road techniques, far to often they are involved in accidents in which they are either killed or injured, or their friends are killed or injured. The Coalition does not necessarily believe that monetary penalties and licence disqualifications are the best way to go. This Government has not done enough in the area of driver education.

Recently I attended a road trauma forum at the Acer Arena that was organised by the NRMA and the Western Sydney Area Health Service. People attending the forum gave a graphic demonstration of what could occur in a road accident and they depicted the ways in which young drivers can be injured or killed. I congratulate the NRMA and the Western Sydney Area Health Service on the professional manner in which they conducted that forum. About 12,000 schoolchildren attended that three-day forum. Three or four people who had suffered brain injuries as a result of car accidents addressed those young people and explained to them what life had been like after their accidents. I know of a number of young people who have lost their lives as a result of car accidents.

A group of actors at the forum played out the parts of victims in road accidents and re-enacted each scene. When a young girl who had been thrown through the windscreen of a car and onto the road was put into a body bag there were audible gasps from the audience, which brought home the message. The State Government should fully support forums such as this and hold them in regional areas. I spoke to representatives of the NRMA and asked them to do something similar in regional areas but I was advised that it would cost about half a million dollars for a three-day forum. That forum achieved phenomenal results and brought home to young people the danger of driving on our roads. I encourage the Government to do more along those lines rather than imposing monetary penalties and disqualifying licences.

This Government is addicted to imposing tolls and charges. This bill will extend from six months to 12 months the period that authorities will be given to establish the driver of a vehicle, as many companies have a number of drivers for each of their vehicles. It is difficult for authorities to process legitimate fines for those who are evading fares and tolls if they cannot locate the driver of a vehicle on a particular day. It is only fair and reasonable for that period to be extended to 12 months to ensure that people who break the law are fined. The Opposition is concerned about proposed amendments to section 154A relating to fatigue management and speeding compliance. I was informed only last Friday that this bill would be introduced this week.

This bill is being rushed through the Parliament without giving members an opportunity to consult properly with industry. After talking to drivers in the heavy vehicle industry I established that they are fearful of this legislation. Prior to the introduction of this legislation I met with the principals of three trucking companies—the companies ranged from large to small companies—and I spoke to them about the regulations that will come into effect in September and October this year. I believe that the Roads and Traffic Authority has spoken to firms and drivers about fatigue management. However, Roads and Traffic Authority representatives have not answered fatigue-related questions that were asked by members of the heavy vehicle industry.

Those regulations are not on the table and questions that are fair and reasonable have not been answered. Let me give members an example. It is difficult for large firms to schedule loads that are transported from Brisbane to Melbourne, as they have to come through New South Wales. When firms do their scheduling they have to include fatigue stops for their drivers. The highway between Brisbane and Sydney has been improved somewhat—the area on the North Coast between Kempsey and Ballina is still fairly deplorable—but firms have to schedule driver stops at Clybucca.

The heavy vehicle industry has to comply with occupational health and safety requirements and keep its staff happy, so it sends drivers from Brisbane with a load and drivers from Sydney with a load, and they can drive safely and within the fatigue requirements to Clybucca. When they arrive at Clybucca drivers from Brisbane swap loads with the drivers from Sydney and return to Brisbane—the drivers from Sydney do the same thing—thus reducing the need for them to spend too many nights away from home. Last December a driver who had his 11-year-old son in the truck with him arrived at Clybucca and pulled into the service station to change loads. However, as all the parking bays were full he made a U-turn onto the highway in order to come back into the parking area and he was hit by another truck. Tragically, he was killed and his son was injured.

Approximately 30,000 heavy vehicles a week travel through Coffs Harbour and about 50,000 heavy vehicles a week travel through Ballina, which makes it difficult for firms to schedule fatigue stops for drivers to change loads, drivers, or whatever needs to be done. Under these new regulations, when drivers arrive at Clybucca they will probably have to swap loads and stay there, have an eight-hour rest, or whatever is required, and then be on their way. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to inform me what would happen if drivers were not able to park in that area.

What happens if these truck rest stops are full, which is often the case? Only 10 days ago a truck stopped at Halfway Creek where, unfortunately, a driver who did not have knowledge of the road—an issue I have raised before in this House—took the truck bay exit rather than continuing along the highway and ran into the back of a B-double parked in the bay and was killed. Truck parking bays are becoming congested by truck drivers taking rests because they cannot continue. The Roads and Traffic Authority representative was asked whether drivers heading south, for example, travelling through to Frederickton, Kempsey or further to a truck stop that was not full, would be breaching the logbook rules even if they travelled only another 20 minutes down the road. I was told that the Roads and Traffic Authority representative became quite agitated and refused to respond to the question.

We have a responsibility not just to truck drivers but to other motorists to ensure that they are safe on our roads. If there is no room at the Clybucca, Coolongolook, Halfway Creek truck stops or any other stop I can name and a driver pulls to the side of the carriageway, which was suggested, is that not creating a danger to other traffic? Many areas around Clybucca and Halfway Creek do not provide safe places for drivers to pull over. Many rest areas between Coffs Harbour and Grafton are maintained by State Forests. Currently, the rest area at Sid Burke Forest Park just south of Coffs Harbour is closed due to road works. Many of them are occupied by grey nomads, tourists who have travelled a fair distance or travellers just looking for a cheap night's accommodation. In those instances truck drivers are unable to utilise the rest stop and are obliged to travel further.

Will the new regulations provide flexibility to allow truck drivers to continue to another town? Will more rest areas be provided? The Australian Trucking Association and others are concerned that most major New South Wales routes do not have enough rest areas due to improvements in some areas or, alternatively, truck parking bays not situated strategically to meet the needs of truck drivers. It is appalling that the amount of money spent on the Pacific Highway by this Government in conjunction with the past and present Federal Governments has not provided for more truck parking areas to enable the proposed fatigue management provisions to be undertaken properly.

The trucking industry advises me that the Roads and Traffic Authority cannot agree on the qualifications for accredited auditors on fatigue management. The new regulation proposes that auditors who qualified in the transitional fatigue management scheme will be grandfathered to the new scheme for a period of 12 to 18 months until a new set of qualifications is put forward under the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme [NHVAS]. The bill does not detail the qualifications required of auditors to fulfil the fatigue-management provisions; nor does it specify exam details for an auditor to become accredited, yet these same auditors will be expected to administer the provisions of the new regulations. Auditors must be qualified appropriately to identify speech impediments or similar symptoms relating to fatigue; otherwise we will have drivers being fined incorrectly or ordered to remain on the side of the road for eight hours or longer. The bill lacks details for persons to be classified as accredited auditors. Only recently Fatty Vautin and other celebrities from The Footy Show on Channel Nine made disparaging remarks about a doorman by wrongly assuming the doorman was drunk when he in fact suffered a medical disability.

The New South Wales Auditor-General's Office has been conducting an audit across the highways and byways of New South Wales into heavy vehicle transport generally, and the safety of the general public and drivers. I am surprised that the Government did not wait until that report was released before introducing new regulations. No release date has been set for the Auditor-General's report, but the dialogue between the industry—lorry owners, drivers and major transport companies—concerning new section 154A, Directions relating to driver fatigue, was not extensive. More consultation needs to be undertaken with industry participants. I intend asking the Staysafe committee to examine this specific issue.

Accidents involving heavy vehicles on the Pacific Highway in the Coffs Harbour region occur monthly or fortnightly, if not weekly. Not long ago a vehicle broke down just north of Coffs Harbour and had pulled to the side of the road. A truck carrying logs approached from behind and ran into the back of the vehicle. After the collision the logs spilled from the truck and across the road. The police could not ascertain whether anyone had died in the accident—the driver had been incinerated—but some time later confirmed that someone had indeed died. The Coroner will eventually deliver his judgement on the cause of the accident. The accident occurred in a 100-kilometre-per-hour area, which I believe should be reduced to 80 kilometres per hour at least around the intersections and the narrow sections of the highway where this particular accident occurred.

Almost weekly we hear of accidents involving a heavy vehicle on the 100-kilometre zone between Sapphire in Queensland and Woolgoolga on the New South Wales North Coast. I do not know whether they are fatigue related. For a long time I have been calling for the speed to be reduced to 80 kilometres an hour, as have many local residents, because of the vast amount of local traffic alone on that section of highway. Each week 30,000 heavy vehicles use the Pacific Highway and this undivided carriageway is a recipe for danger and death. This billion-dollar you-beaut solution has more to do with real estate and poor planning decisions than good management. A Roads and Traffic Authority official at a public meeting in Woolgoolga about four years ago said that when this road was completed consideration would be given to building a far western bypass for Coffs Harbour. The Government should take the advice of the local engineers who pieced together a $200 million upgrade for the Pacific Highway without the great separated interchanges. That is far less than the $1 billion odd the Government is committing to its proposal, which could amply fund a western bypass to remove those 30,000 heavy vehicles from local traffic.

Driver fatigue and other related issues create fear within our community. Last week I mentioned in this House that Dr John Yeats was driving between Coffs Harbour and Grafton when a B-double truck overtook him over double centre lines at an estimated speed of 140 kilometres an hour in wet weather. My community has called for tighter enforcement of speeding infringements for a long time. Today the Minister for Police spoke about the implementation of a program for tracking vehicles by satellite. Most large trucking companies already track their vehicles by satellite. What we need is more policing of our roads.

In the context of fatigue and speed management, I compliment large firms on the global positioning systems they have installed in their trucks. I look forward in the not-too-distant future to inspecting trucks operated by Lindsay Transport Australia—a great company that started business in Coffs Harbour more than 50 years ago under the guidance of brothers, the late Peter Lindsay and Tom Lindsay. Satellite tracking in every vehicle owned by the firm records where the truck is and its average speed, so the chain of responsibility introduced by this legislation has already been recognised by major companies. They are the ones who have been saying to the Coalition that the cowboys should be removed from the industry. Trucking companies have a business reputation to maintain, a workforce to look after and a budget bottom line that they have to respect. Lindsay Transport Australia, Jim Pearson Transport, Mills Transport and dozens of other transport companies manage their fleets and their drivers well. They try to give road safety and driver fatigue management the absolute number one priority, not only for their sake but also for the sake of the general public.

The Opposition will not oppose the legislation, but serves notice on the Government that it will closely examine the regulations. We want to ensure that the Government is listening to the industry. I would have preferred to have much more time to consult with the industry on this legislation, instead of having to make hurried phone calls and write some hurried emails over the weekend. I have conveyed concerns expressed by the New South Wales branch of the Australian Trucking Association and other operators, but over the weekend the inadequacy of truck rest areas throughout New South Wales was drawn to my attention. Some drivers believe that the paucity of rest areas is worse in New South Wales that elsewhere owing to heavier traffic volumes that have been created by larger and more densely populated communities in our State. They are concerned about the closure of rest areas and informal rest areas. A rest area just south of Coffs Harbour is currently closed because of road works. While I appreciate that road works are being undertaken, the reality is that no provision has been made for an alternative rest area while the Syd Bishop Reserve rest area is not available.

The attitude of local government to parking facilities for large trucks is another problem. Prior to being elected to Parliament, I operated a caravan park in the centre of Coffs Harbour. I assure members that many heavy vehicles parked in the streets of Coffs Harbour overnight. A large proportion of my clientele complained of noise from trucks whose refrigeration units ran all night and trucks starting up in the early morning. As someone who was operating a business, I found those aspects of the trucking industry harmful to my business. I used to talk to the truck drivers and I consulted the trucking associations. I pointed out that nobody minds truck drivers stopping overnight, but they should not leave before 6 o'clock in the morning and refrigerated transport units should be kept away from tourism areas because the refrigeration motors run all night. The trucking industry does not have confidence in the Roads and Traffic Authority's commitment to resolve difficulties created by the inadequate number of rest areas. The problem is not difficult to solve.

If Roads and Traffic Authority officers spoke to major companies that schedule deliveries every day of the week they would know where rest areas should be along the Newell Highway, the Great Western Highway and the Pacific Highway. The Government should talk to the industry because the industry knows where rest areas should be located. If the Roads and Traffic Authority adopted a cooperative approach, that would benefit not only the industry but also all road users. There is also a low level of information in relation to rest areas. A couple of weeks ago I raised the issue in the local media that on a long weekend when traffic incidents were occurring all over the place, the one big illuminated Roads and Traffic Authority road sign in Coffs Harbour—I realise there are a lot of them throughout Sydney and between Newcastle and Sydney—sent out a message that had nothing to do with driver safety. The sign told everyone when World Youth Day would be held.

World Youth Day is an important event and I fully support it but, at the end of the day, on a long weekend we should not have a sign in Coffs Harbour, which is 600 kilometres away from where World Youth Day will be held, advertising that event instead of notifying motorists of road safety issues. The sign should have been used to warn people of the dangers of travelling on our roads on a long weekend, considering the increased traffic and many other factors such as accidents causing traffic delays and so on. Other concerns expressed to me are the absence of a manager who is accountable and accessible to the industry and the inconsistency of industry consultation. Although I referred to this matter earlier, I must reiterate that although people in the trucking industry are very interested in road safety they find that they cannot get the answers they need from the Roads and Traffic Authority. I implore the Government to adopt a cooperative approach and ensure that accredited auditors are available to answer inquiries from the trucking industry before the regulations are introduced in September or October. The Government has access to a list of accredited auditors.

I assure the Government that I will be talking to representatives of the trucking industry and I have organised meetings that will take place in July. I will be consulting with them to examine closely the problems and difficulties they face and what they are doing to overcome them. It is incumbent upon the Government that it should consult fully. I also ask the Government to look at the audit report that will be published by the Auditor-General in the not too distant future and ensure that the concerns expressed in that report are dealt with properly. I do not know what the Auditor-General's concerns will be. Some of the concerns I have raised with members of the trucking industry relate to an incident that occurred not far from where a road fatality occurred yesterday on the Pacific Highway. The incident involved a new truck inspection station. Of course, I welcome the addition of that road safety transport measure. However, the northbound egress from the inspection station does not have the advantage of a merging lane. Drivers that come around the corner will see a sign indicating that the speed limit is no longer 100 kilometres an hour but has been reduced to 80 kilometres an hour, and one assumes that the reduced speed relates to the inspection station.

A semitrailer or a B-double loaded with 65 tonnes, even at 80 kilometres an hour in wet and slippery conditions, is a recipe for disaster at that site. The design of truck inspection stations should include improved signposting. I have mentioned previously in Parliament that the inspection station at Halfway Creek is not signposted. Egress from the inspection station between Halfway Creek and Grafton is poor and invites disaster. I have driven from Coffs Harbour to Sydney a few times this year. I noticed skid marks on the road near an inspection station north of Raymond Terrace near Karuah. Over the weekend I discussed this inspection station with trucking operators and lorry owners and I asked them why there are so many skid marks all over the place near that inspection station. They told me that it is purely because the inspection station is not well signposted and drivers are not aware of its location. Drivers arrive at the inspection station and realise that they have to pull up smartly, so they slam on the brakes. A fully loaded truck travelling at 110 kilometres an hour—I acknowledge that some of them travel much faster than that—will create skid marks and a dangerous traffic situation. That is yet another issue created by the transportation of goods on our roads by heavy vehicles, the incidence of which is increasing.

As much as we would like to see more freight being carried by rail, the reality is that even if the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] transported 20 per cent of our freight it is estimated that by the end of 2009 the number of heavy vehicles on the road will have increased by 30 per cent. Based on 30,000 heavy vehicles travelling through Coffs Harbour per week, that will add another 9,000 heavy vehicles in my electorate by the end of next year. There are real fears and dangers associated with the transportation of freight by the heavy vehicle trucking industry. The trucking industry needs support, as do all other motorists in the context of heavy vehicle traffic. The Coalition supports regulation of the trucking industry, but it should be done in a manner that ensures that people involved in the industry understand the purpose of the regulations and their intended effect. I honestly believe that the Roads and Traffic Authority is not making anywhere near enough effort to provide adequate numbers of truck rest areas and truck stops. I implore the Government to closely examine travel times when roads are being designed—something that is not hard to do; an engineer could do it easily—and ensure that truck rest areas are included so that truck-related accidents do not occur.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.18 p.m.]: The Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 to allow New South Wales to implement national model legislation for the management of heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speed compliance. Fatigue and speed compliance legislation have a nationally agreed commencement date of 29 September 2008. Those changes continue the process of national road transport reform that began in the 1990s. They are designed to improve road safety, productivity and regulatory efficiency. In 2000 the Australian Transport Council identified heavy vehicle driver fatigue as the next area of reform.

I am sure all members will agree that every death on our roads is a death too many. Heavy vehicles are disproportionately represented among road fatalities, and fatigue-related heavy vehicle crashes cost the nation's economy more than $300 million every year. This legislation builds on national compliance and enforcement reforms introduced in 2005 that extended accountability to parties in the road transport chain, other than the driver and transport operator, who may bear responsibility for an offence occurring. It extends the chain of responsibility to the management of fatigue and to speeding compliance. The chain of responsibility laws are an important element of these reforms. First, drivers are the weakest link in the logistics chain and too often other parties, such as the consignors, the consignees or the scheduling officers, are culpable when a driver performs dangerous tasks. For example, if a driver complained that he was given an unreasonable roster with tight deadlines that could not be met without speeding or inadequate rest, his boss simply found another driver. Under these laws, the buck cannot be passed so easily.

Second, chain of responsibility laws are already in place for overloading and mass offences, and are shown to be working. Between the 2005 grain harvest—the first with chain of responsibility laws in force—and 2007 the Road and Traffic Authority's identified level of illegal overloading was reduced substantially. The legislation adopts concepts from occupational health and safety legislation, such as general and specific duties, and also requires parties in the transport chain to take reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of an offence. By creating duties for all parties in the logistics chain, we are making our roads safer. However, the legislation also ensures that nothing in road transport law affects the operation of occupational health and safety legislation, which remains an important protection for workers in this State.

The current regulation of driving hours for heavy vehicles is concerned more with setting maximum hours than with managing fatigue. The bill repeals the regulations that created the current driving hours regime. Instead, the focus will be on managing fatigue through an increased understanding of the human body, combined with maximum driving hours where appropriate. Trucking companies will have the option of gaining accreditation to manage fatigue, and in return will be allowed greater flexibility regarding their drivers' working and rest hours. The adoption of this national legislation supports the Government's commitment to road transport reform. It recognises that, as 80 per cent of Australia's long-distance freight travels on New South Wales roads for at least part of its journey, this State cannot act alone in these matters and must support strong national solutions to problems such as heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speeding.

The Staysafe committee heard evidence from drivers, owner-drivers, and members and officials of the Transport Workers Union about just-in-time delivery requirements and the pressures that major monopoly clients, such as Coles and Woolworths, place upon drivers to meet unreasonable deadlines. They reported that recognised time on the road and kilometres travelled by drivers did not include periods spent loading and unloading. For example, drivers could spend up to four hours in Melbourne in a queue waiting to unload and reload, which was deemed to be their time spent off the road. The failure to manage driver fatigue obviously has serious consequences. I am sure all members agree that the most important thing is keeping drivers alive. I believe the changes in the bill will achieve exactly that aim.

As to the issues raised by the member for Coffs Harbour, I am informed that there are more than 1,400 roadside rest areas and truck stopping bays in New South Wales. The Roads and Traffic Authority has administration of approximately 1,100 of these. The standard of rest areas provided in New South Wales varies widely. They range from informal hard stand areas to those that provide a range of high-quality facilities, such as the Yelgun rest area, which was opened in September 2007, the Frank Partridge VC rest area at Menangle and the Tarcutta trailer exchange facility, which cost some $450,000. The Roads and Traffic Authority is currently finalising the statewide rest area maps, which will be available on its website soon. These maps will replace all current rest area information on its website.

The Roads and Traffic Authority is preparing a strategy based on the National Transport Commission's Guidelines for the Provision of Rest Area Facilities to identify the need for enhanced provision of heavy vehicle rest areas. The authority's strategy will focus on the staged enhancement of rest opportunities on key freight routes across New South Wales that will give heavy vehicle drivers improved stopping opportunities. Through the peak trucking industry bodies, the Roads and Traffic Authority is currently surveying heavy vehicle users of the Pacific Highway. The results of this survey will help the authority to gauge the need for government involvement in a number of areas, including the provision of trailer exchange facilities on the Pacific Highway.

Driver fatigue has clearly led to tragedy. Drivers reported to the Staysafe committee, of which I am a member, that the pressure on them—whether real or perceived—to stay on the road and drive for excessive periods led to their either abusing drugs or driving when fatigued. The member for Coffs Harbour referred to trucks travelling at 140 kilometres an hour and overtaking other vehicles. Numerous trucking companies have assured me that regulators in trucks prevent them from reaching that speed and that, if it should happen, an email is sent immediately to the base and the driver is dealt with accordingly.

Stakeholders and other interested parties will obviously provide differing information, but the Government's main objective is to introduce regulations that will keep heavy vehicle drivers and other road users safe. Some years ago many more trucks were involved in serious and fatal accidents on our roads. The Government is aiming to relieve some of the pressure on drivers, and the evidence provided to the Staysafe committee was most beneficial. I was certainly not aware of some of the pressures on drivers. For instance, I had not heard of the just-in-time delivery requirements of some companies. Expanding the chain of responsibility laws is an important element of the reforms. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [5.30 p.m.]: I will make a contribution on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008: the Hume Highway, the Riverina Highway and the Olympic Highway all pass through the electorate of Albury. Albury is a major transport hub and many road transport industries are based in Albury and in Holbrook. Many independent operators operate from places such as Culcairn and Corowa. When I read the agreement in principle speech of the Parliamentary Secretary introducing the bill last week I noted these words:

The main purposes of the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill are to introduce a new penalty regime for novice drivers who commit certain driving offences, to improve the enforcement processes when drivers fail to pay a toll when using a motorway, and to introduce a nationally agreed regime to manage heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speeding compliance.

I want to examine the bill in relation to heavy vehicle driver fatigue. The Parliamentary Secretary noted that the main purpose of the bill is to allow regulations to be made to implement national model legislation in New South Wales extending the chain of responsibility concept to all parties in the heavy vehicle industry in relation to these important matters. The explanatory note on schedule 4 to the bill headed "Amendments relating to fatigue management and speeding compliance" states:

Schedule 4.1 [2] inserts proposed section 11B into the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 … The proposed section enables regulations to be made for or with respect to the management and prevention of driver fatigue in connection with the driving of heavy vehicles and heavy combinations. In addition to (and without limiting) that general power there is also power to make regulations for or with respect to matters including the duties of drivers, employers of drivers, prime contractors, operators, schedulers, consignors, consignees, loading managers, loaders and unloaders, the duties of other persons, the periods drivers spend resting and working, records in respect of heavy vehicles or heavy combinations and other matters.

Missing from that considerable list are consumers, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of the products that are carried on those heavy vehicles. The Parliamentary Secretary also noted:

The bill will apply the chain of responsibility provisions, which form part of compliance and enforcement amendments introduced in 2005, to all parties in the heavy vehicle industry to manage fatigue.

He noted further:

Off-road parties in the transport chain must take reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of an offence.

I will demonstrate that most operators effectively provide that at the moment. They are very conscious of their obligations and they take safety very seriously. Unfortunately, they are not always getting the response from the Government that they should, and in that respect this bill is diluted by its emphasis on penalty not on delivery of what these transport operators are seeking throughout New South Wales. Border Express is one of the largest transport companies in New South Wales, and is based in Albury. I will read a letter written in March 2007 to the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA], Northern Regional Office, with a copy sent to me:

I wish to bring to your attention a situation that [is] in the interest of the road safety of our interstate linehaul drivers, those employed by other freight companies and the public in general [and] needs urgent attention from your office.

Border Express along with most other freight companies have a very large amount of customers that trade between Sydney and Brisbane.

In our endeavours to provide our employees with better working conditions and to promote our industry as an attraction to potential long distance drivers, we have taken the option to run as many of our services in Interstate routes doing scheduled change overs, in other words the drivers travel half way from each end and return to their home each day.

As we have heard from the member for Coffs Harbour, that is a sensible and increasingly frequent means of operating long distance transport, which relies particularly on the efficiency of the operator to consider, first and foremost, the safety of their drivers. The letter continues:

The Pacific Highway between Sydney and Brisbane has a halfway point, Clybucca.

The member for Coffs Harbour has also referred to that changeover point. The letter continues:

Clybucca has very limited facilities.

In other words, he is referring to truck stops suitable for these activities. The linehaul manager who wrote this letter visited Clybucca and noted various issues that may create a hazardous situation when truck drivers are doing their jobs. He visited two areas at Clybucca: first, the BP truck stop and five kilometres north of the pads. In relation to the BP truck stop, and bearing in mind this is a private operation, he said:

[It] was absolutely full of trucks both in the parking area beside and behind the BP fuel stop and café, also there were large amounts of trucks parked both north and southbound on the areas on the Highway shoulders, with many of these vehicles doing change overs there, obviously with the facilities available most operators prefer to use these … amenities [as they are available to the truck drivers].

My first view was why do we not use this facility, however, with the congestion and lack of room it is not a practical option, the congestion causes many near misses with trucks entering or leaving the site and the north and southbound shoulders, the speed limit past the BP is 100 kilometres per hour.

All of these conditions point to a traffic hazard that will create a very serious accident between slow moving and fast moving trucks.

In relation to the pads, he said:

"The Pads" is 5 kms north of the BP facility. [Drivers] prefer to use this site as it is less congested and quieter. I have some very serious concerns regarding [the safety of the] site.

The site is simply a paved area on each side of the main Highway that is approx 2 truck widths (5 metres) wide and 100 metres long, on a 100 kilometre per hour stretch of road that is on the southbound lane just after a bend in the road.

With B Double vehicles performing change overs under these conditions there is going to be a very serious accident involving slow and fast moving trucks.

Apart from these two options, there are no real alternatives to suggest that will enable drivers to legally drive the trip, for our drivers to do their job and be able to return to base (Sydney/Brisbane) on a daily basis—the driving time each way is 6 hours.

Not to mention that the service that we along with our competitors offer our customers is an overnight transit between Sydney and Brisbane and we wish to provide our drivers legal time to perform their tasks

The RTA reply a couple of months later stated:

As you will also know, the cost of providing trailer exchange facilities in the area favoured by your company is substantial—

that has to be questioned against lives, nevertheless that is what the RTA said—

and, in determining the extent of demand for such facilities, the RTA must consider the needs and priorities of all fleet operators.

As that was the point of the original letter, that was not a particularly pertinent note by the RTA. The reply continued:

The RTA is also mindful that the development of Highway Service Centres over the next ten years could, at least to some extent, effectively take on the role of a trailer exchange facility.

That is some planning when we have issues now! Once again I refer to the emphasis by the parliamentary secretary on penalties as opposed to delivery of services. The reply continued:

To facilitate this, the RTA is working with local Councils and the Department of Planning to ensure sufficient space is made available for such facilities.

That is worthwhile and should have been in progress long, long ago. The reply continues:

The RTA does, however, acknowledge that there may also be a need for sufficient trailer exchange facilities at specific locations that would suit many operators, and will review the provision of suitable areas in the context of the overall Rest Area Strategy for the Highway.

In 2006 the Border Express manager drew to the attention of staff a problem relating to what he called a Clayton's changeover at the Aeroplane Hill changeover near Holbrook. He said that they had five B-double changeovers each night between the depots, performed at the perceived halfway point between Melbourne and Sydney, that being Aeroplane Hill changeover. He said that he had concerns regarding the safe practice of doing the changeovers at this site, particularly after a visit on a typical night.

The safety issues noted were: congestion of heavy vehicles on site, lack of drivers facilities, phones—including mobile access—toilets, food et cetera, prime movers crossing a roadway with traffic, heavy and light, each way travelling at or in excess of 100 kilometres per hour, and uneven work surface. No changeover is done without a B-double facing uphill or downhill.

These are important elements. The writer noted that in the past 12 months they had had two recorded incidents when drivers could have been severely injured, if not killed, and equipment extensively damaged. On the first occasion a B-double rolled away and came within inches of running over the driver. On the second occasion the B-double rolled away and ran into another unit, causing $4,000 worth of damage. In both cases the consequences could have been catastrophic. As he said, the task is to find a safer location and to provide a site that is safe and has all the amenities 24 hours a day. In that respect he notified all his staff that they should travel to Holbrook, which is 33 kilometres south of Aeroplane Hill changeover, in the interests of providing a safe workplace.

Unfortunately his prediction came true some nine months later when a truck driver was crushed as his truck rolled on him at Aeroplane Hill changeover. The Border Mail reported in July 2007 that a truck driver died when his own B-double crushed him at a truck stop about 40 kilometres north of Holbrook. The man had stopped his truck at the Aeroplane Hill parking bay after driving north along the Hume Highway. A fellow truck driver said he believed the man might have been swapping the trailer of his truck with another driver. The report states:

"From what I've heard, he unhooked his prime mover and swapped trailers with another driver, which happens a lot with drivers between Melbourne and Sydney," he said.

"He then backed under his new trailer to attach it to his prime mover.

"Because of the slope of the parking bay, the prime mover started to roll away and the man chased after it."

The driver said conditions at the truck parking bay were not ideal for truck drivers:

"The parking bay's on a slope and there's no lighting there at night, which can make it difficult, especially when you're swapping trailers."

Border Express Pty Ltd wrote to me to tell me of that incident and the fact that it had predicted that such an incident could occur:

It is very common practice now within the industry for trucks to do "change-overs", yet the facilities within NSW are a disgrace at best.

Compare the drive between Albury-Melbourne and Albury-Sydney and try stopping in a safe place with toilet facilities. In NSW on the Hume, they are virtually non-existent. There is enormous pressure on our business to provide a safe workplace, yet the government provides no facilities for drivers so they can operate in a safe work [place] when they are not driving. …

How can they have such good facilities in Victoria and such poor facilities in NSW? Unfortunately it takes an incident like this to raise community awareness. Without trying to sound like a complete pessimist, I would suggest that the driver's company will now be subject to a Health and Safety audit and wear a fair portion of the blame for the accident. Unfortunately that's how the system works.

Border Express told me towards the end of 2007 that one of their company drivers was killed at Clybucca while effecting a changeover. The company said:

… we are under enormous pressure to provide a safe work place by state government legislation, which we don't have an issue with. However, it does concern me that the government is neglecting their role in the process.

On 6 September 2007 I wrote to the Minister for Roads stating that I was writing following receipt of information from Border Express regarding the development of more trailer exchange rest stops on the main New South Wales transport routes. I explained the problems at Aeroplane Hill and said that the company had recently lost a driver at Clybucca on the Pacific Highway. I explained that the company was concerned that the transport industry was required to comply with State regulations on resting drivers and changeovers but the areas to facilitate this were limited, overcrowded or dangerous. I wrote:

Although the RTA is mindful of this and is hoping that the development of private highway centres may prevent the need for further development of road side stopping points, the timeframe for this is lengthy—

remember I said it was 10 years—

and will not address the problem in the short term.

I ended my letter to the Minister for Roads by saying:

I would be grateful for a response on the issue of additional or improved changeover and rest points on our major highways.

I am sorry to tell the House that although I wrote the letter on 6 September 2007 I have not yet received a reply. It is no surprise, unfortunately. It takes me back to where I started: The emphasis in this bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary in the Chamber said only last week, is to introduce a new penalty regime. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the delivery of safe changeover facilities for our truck drivers.

Ms DIANE BEAMER (Mulgoa) [5.46 p.m.]: I support the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill. As the previous speakers have said, there are important reasons why in New South Wales and indeed across Australia we have to manage driver fatigue. This bill seeks to amend three Acts of Parliament, two of which relate to penalties and the third relates to driver fatigue and the way in which it is managed. It does not have the component we are talking about in regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) of the objectives of this bill. The reason that driver fatigue and speed are very important not only for truck drivers and their families but for all people on New South Wales roads is that they are represented in an inordinate number of crashes. Heavy vehicles comprise only 2 per cent of the total vehicle fleet on our roads and account for around 6 per cent of vehicle travel, yet they are involved in about 19 per cent of fatal crashes. Being involved in a truck accident is a very serious thing indeed.

Driver fatigue and speeding are clearly safety issues for the transport industry. Compliance with current driving restrictions that are meant to manage fatigue is poor. Twenty-seven per cent of drivers surveyed reported breaking the regulations on every trip and 36 per cent of drivers admitted to infringing driving hours regulations to "do enough trips to earn a living". Crashes in which the driver is fatigued are prevalent and costly. Heavy vehicle fatigue-related crashes are estimated to cost over $300 million a year across Australia. Likewise, speeding by heavy vehicles is a major concern. Research has indicated that if all heavy vehicles complied with speed limits a 29 per cent reduction in heavy vehicle crashes could be expected. These are quite sobering figures. Just reducing the hours and the onus on drivers to get from point A to point B when a company says they must be there would lead to far fewer crashes and far fewer fatal crashes.

At the moment a long-haul study is being done not just of New South Wales drivers, because as members will be aware we are talking about Brisbane to Sydney and Melbourne to Sydney and, quite rightly, about changeover points. We are talking about companies whose headquarters might be in Melbourne or Queensland. This is a national issue and that is why this legislation is important. This is benchmark legislation across Australia.

I congratulate all those who were involved in coming to the table to talk about these issues. Companies would like to work on a level playing field. They say that if the traffic rules mean it takes ten hours to go from point A to point B, they do not want someone undercutting them by saying that they can get the freight there cheaper by pushing their drivers to do it in eight hours. That has happened in the past and that is why chain of command legislation is increasingly important. That is why we have to say that it is not just the truck driver who is trying to earn enough money to make a living who has to be responsible; it is also the people who are managing the business and saying, "You can do it a bit quicker" who have to be responsible. That is why the legislation talks about all the various groups—the contractors, drivers, employers of drivers, prime contractors, operators, schedulers, consignors, consignees, loading managers, and unloaders. The chain of command is important to a safe driving system for truck drivers across New South Wales and indeed across Australia.

We really need to work at the management options. We have to look at standard hours, basic fatigue management and advanced fatigue management so that truck drivers understand that their job is about the safe movement of their consignment from point A to point B while making enough money to earn a living. These are the things that the Transport Workers Union, which has been pushing this legislation, has talked to me about. It is about the way truck drivers are being asked to do unreasonable things on our roads on numerous occasions and being put in a position where they are either sacked or asked to leave the company if they do not comply with requirements that are basically unsafe. That is why these matters are so important.

A standard hours option sets default limits on work and rest. It is aimed at regular scheduled operations with a lower fatigue risk and will suit most businesses. The basic fatigue management option gives operators a greater say in when their drivers can work and rest, provided the risks associated with working long and night hours are managed. Operators will need to be accredited under the national heavy vehicle accreditation scheme and comply with six accreditation standards. The advanced fatigue management option is even more flexible and less prescriptive than either standard hours or basic fatigue management hours. In order to use this option the operator has to put in place a comprehensive control system to manage the greater risk. Work and rest hours are proposed by the operator and limits are approved by the Roads and Traffic Authority on a case-by-case basis.

I turn to the additional powers for police to suspend the licences of provisional and learner drivers who drive at more than 30 kilometres per hour over the relevant speed limit, and learner drivers who drive unaccompanied by a suitably licensed supervising driver. Immediate licence suspension is not without precedent: since the mid-1980s police have been able to immediately suspend the licence of a motorist charged with a serious alcohol offence. The number of learners detected driving unaccompanied has increased sharply in recent years, with 5,178 offences recorded from 2007 to date. This is extremely concerning. A learner driving without a suitably licensed supervising driver commits a serious offence that can be equated to unlicensed driving.

The knowledge that a driver who displays dangerous or irresponsible behaviour can be immediately removed from the road will send a clear and strong message to the community that this type of behaviour by novice drivers is not acceptable. The legislation supports the Government's recent young driver road safety initiatives. Evidence based on 2007 preliminary crash data has shown that the initiatives are already delivering road safety benefits. Fatal crash involvements of P1 drivers in 2007 declined by 35 per cent compared with 2006 figures. The inclusion of learner licence holders in the Government's zero tolerance approach to speeding will send a clear road safety message to novice drivers that speeding at any level will not be tolerated. Drivers whose licences are immediately suspended by the police under the new provisions will have a right of appeal to a local court. However, the suspension is not set aside in the interim unless the court so orders.

The bill also extends to 12 months the period for commencement of a prosecution of a toll offence. This brings the time to commence prosecution of toll offences into line with other camera-detected offences such as speed camera detected offences. Sydney now has motorways with free-flow traffic environments and full electronic toll collection. In such an environment it may be difficult for a toll operator to determine whether a vehicle is driven in contravention of the requirement to pay a toll at the time the vehicle passes the collection point. Anyone who has a toll pass that has failed to work and receives a letter from the toll company asking them to pay knows it is quite easy to explain, but it is very difficult for a toll company to ascertain whether people simply have a defective pass or in fact do not have one.

In practice, it may be possible to determine whether a vehicle has not paid the toll at the time it passes a toll collection point only once registration details of the vehicle have been matched to electronic tag or pass accounts held by the toll operator or an electronic tag issuer. If toll payment is permitted by a toll operator in another manner, as allowed by the regulations, determination of whether a motorist is contravening a requirement to pay a toll may be further delayed. The majority of motorists pay the required toll. Toll operators allow motorists up to 48 hours to notify them if they have failed to pay a toll and they then have an opportunity to pay. A toll notice is sent to a vehicle's registered operator if they have failed to pay after 48 hours, allowing the operator to pay the toll. Sometimes a second opportunity is given if there is no reply to the first notice. A penalty notice may then be issued.

As there is no limit to the number of nominations about who was driving the vehicle that may be made to a single offence, extending the time to prosecute from six to twelve months reduces the possibility of toll evaders avoiding prosecution by delaying the processing of penalty notices so as to render the penalty notice statute barred. People have been using multiple nominations to avoid paying tolls. If only they would use their ingenuity for good. The amendment acts as a deterrent to motorists who do not pay their tolls.

I commend the bill to the House. Road safety is a top priority for the Iemma Government: we will be spending $141 million on road safety initiatives in the 2008-09 financial year. These funds go to a huge range of road safety initiatives, including campaigns on speed limits and the associated dangers of speeding, schools and poor behaviour on roads not being tolerated. We have a strong and clear system. Road safety is a paramount goal for all residents of New South Wales.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [5.57 p.m.]: The Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 will amend various Acts to introduce: licence disqualification penalties for learner drivers who drive unsupervised, suspension of learner or provisional licences if drivers exceed the speed limit by between 30 and 45 kilometres per hour—hear! hear!—improved enforcement processes when drivers fail to pay tolls on motorways; and a scheme to manage heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speeding compliance.

This bill represents significant deviations from current policy as police powers are being extended to control speeding of novice drivers. The heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speeding compliance measures bring New South Wales in line with the recommendations of the National Transport Commission. Police powers will be strengthened to suspend and confiscate learner and provisional driver licences when the drivers exceed the speed limit by in excess of 45 kilometres per hour. I am sure everyone in the House would agree with that provision. Learner drivers will also have their licences automatically suspended for three months if they are caught driving without supervision. Courts may suspend the driver's licence for a maximum of 12 months for such an offence. The offence of driving unsupervised will no longer attract demerit points.

I wish to elaborate on a number of issues relating to this legislation. The bill will amend provisions in the principal Act to cover tolling changes by extending the period in which criminal proceedings for toll offences may be commenced from six months to 12 months, thus reducing the time for toll evaders to avoid prosecution from processing delays. That provision will relate not only to toll evaders; it will relate also to those who receive fines as a result of not having appropriate toll clearances. People in country and regional areas often approach their local members after they have travelled on the M7 and M5, as they did not have appropriate toll clearances. Extending this period from six months to 12 months will save a lot of headaches for the Roads and Traffic Authority, local members and others involved.

The bill will apply chain of responsibility provisions to all parties in the heavy vehicle industry to manage fatigue, but I am not aware which organisations were consulted in relation to that issue. The Roads and Traffic Authority will have a lot to answer for if chain of responsibility provisions apply to all parties in the heavy vehicle industry. I note that the Government did not consult with the Livestock Transporters Association or the Australian Trucking Association. I do not know which organisations were consulted about this legislation, but the organisations to which I referred are glaring examples of what little consultation has taken place. Fairly major organisations should have been consulted if they are to be included in the chain of responsibilities.

Trucks try to use the Mount Lindsay Highway, which runs from Woodenbong to Legume, but they are not able to do so as it is one of the worst highways in New South Wales. The trucking organisations that try to use that road to access other towns in New South Wales have done everything right: their truck drivers have accreditation, they own great rigs, but the road is deplorable. Is that not part of the chain of responsibility? Industry has done everything right but in some cases State and Federal governments have not provided adequate support for Local Government to provide road infrastructure for heavy transport. I continually receive complaints about the state of our roads.

The Roads and Traffic Authority and the Federal Government have documented the deplorable state of the Mount Lindsay Highway between Woodenbong and Legume Road, so where does the chain of responsibility lie? Last Friday I attended a function held by the Brown and Hurley group, one of Australia's biggest Kenworth dealers and a great supporter of the heavy vehicle industry, to open a new branch at Yatala. Five hundred truckers and I had the honour of attending the official opening. When those truckers established that I was a member of Parliament, many of them came to me to register concern about this legislation. Representatives from Mills Transport and Hernes Transport have also approached me.

Most members would be aware that have had a great deal of experience in the livestock industry, so I know that I can speak for the Livestock Transporters Association. Representatives from Wickhams Transport, Frasers Livestock Transport and Flynns Transport have also approached me. All those companies have worked hard, their drivers have been accredited and they have good equipment. However, they are concerned about the lack of strategically placed fatigue stops along the Pacific Highway to enable drivers to rest. Imagine drivers pulling up at a truck stop to rest and being confronted by a truck from Martin's Livestock transport from the Hunter with a load of bullocks, cows or calves that are still well and truly awake. That would not be conducive to people in the industry getting a good night's rest.

What would happen to drivers in the livestock and refrigerated transport industries that pulled up at those truck stops? The Roads and Traffic Authority must be practical in what it is trying to achieve and it must provide necessary and warranted fatigue stops for truck drivers. It is all right for the Roads and Traffic Authority to make the rules but what will happen to truck drivers if they do not have appropriate fatigue stops? Drivers might not be able to stop because there is no room for them to park. They might then be forced to travel for another hour to a truck stop further along the highway, which might put them in a dangerous situation.

Truck drivers cannot just park their trucks on the side of the road. I refer to other people who use these truck stops, that is, the grey nomads or the owners of Winnebagos. I already have grey hair so it might not be long before I have a Winnebago. As the owners of those vehicles have nowhere to pull up they use the fatigue stops provided for truck drivers. New South Wales has three laws about truck driving: the road transport law, the occupational health and safety law, and the industrial relations law. Those laws have different applications, rules and definitions, which makes compliance complex, confusing and dangerous.

New South Wales adjusted the National Transport Commission's model driver health and fatigue management regulations, which will not lead to uniformity, erode safety benefits, increase costs and reduce operational benefits from national laws, thus resulting in higher prices on supermarket shelves and an increased risk of death for people in New South Wales. There have been enough deaths on our roads. Work diaries must be used for all local running and the national package exemptions must be removed, as they will impose huge costs on local delivery operations for little if any benefit. I refer, next, to the "no reasonable steps" defence. Drivers cannot use as a defence for not taking minor rest breaks the excuse that a rest area was full. Basic fatigue management rules must be varied to deny the driver-initiated split rest option.

The split-rest option is important to drivers as it enables them to stop in town for a short period and buy food, et cetera, which is a valid point. A driver might pull up at a rest stop on the road where there are no showers. However, he or she might prefer to drive for another half an hour and to stop in town to have a shower. But that is not part of his stop. If a driver can prove that he has stopped to eat or refresh, he should be credited with that time. Truck drivers should be permitted to take comfort stops and then travel further down the road to sleep in a quiet rest area—provided that Martin's Transport or someone else does not pull up with a load of cows and calves! This option is about healthy living, not scheduling.

Necessary training of drivers is behind schedule because the details of variations are not readily available. Truck drivers have expressed concern that the delay in training will affect necessary accreditation required for long runs such as those from Sydney to Brisbane. Another area about which I am critical is the lack of industry consultation. The Minister has not consulted organisations such as the Australian Trucking Association [ATA] and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association. If he has done so, I have missed it and stand to be corrected. They are big organisations with whom the Minister should consult. A national audit of rest areas by Austroads concluded that industry rest area needs were not met due to excessive spacing between rest areas and unsatisfactory services, that is, no shade, no toilets or other facilities. The audit did not agree with the national guidelines developed by the road agencies. More properly serviced roadside rest areas are required because those already available are always occupied to capacity. Perhaps that can be achieved by providing a caravan park on site!

Mr Geoff Provest: A new toll.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: Another toll. No, do not mention that. One further issue is that refrigerated trucks, which must leave the motor running all night, and livestock transport with pigs, cattle or sheep, make it impossible for other drivers and travellers at existing rest stops to get their necessary sleep.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [6.12 p.m.]: I speak on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and particularly in respect to its impact on the heavy vehicle industry. In 2007 New South Wales voted to support the National Transport Commission fatigue package. I express my disappointment that my office received notice from the office of the Minister for Roads that on 27 May information sessions on the new laws affecting the heavy vehicle industry would be held at the Dubbo RSL on Wednesday 28 May and Parkes Services and Citizens Club Cooperative Ltd on 29 May. Anyone operating within the transport industry understands how difficult it is to attend something that is arranged within 24 hours. I could not attend the information session in Dubbo as I had other appointments, but my media researcher attended as my representative. The meeting was attended by 50 men and 3 women, including Mark Thompson from Thompson Brothers; Chris Fallon, logistics manager from Dawson's Removals; Roger Fletcher, Dubbo's largest employer; and my husband and son. I must declare a conflict of interest as they each have a truck driver's licence, and quite a few other fellows also work for us.

The presentation was delivered by Roads and Traffic Authority spokesman Mr Kinney. He said he was pleased with the attendance at Dubbo as only a dozen or so people had attended at other places. I imagine that happened because not enough time was allowed to advertise the holding of the meeting. My husband and I told as many people as we could about the meeting. The local radio station plugged it following my media releases and John Morris from the Australian Road Train Association also was interviewed on radio. At the meeting we were told about the key elements of the new reforms; the three scheme options of standard hours of 12 working hours per day, basic fatigue management and advanced fatigue management; and that a driver no longer will be able to separate loading or maintenance hours from driving hours.

The meeting was informed also of other reforms. A stepped rate of penalties will apply for every 15 minutes a driver is caught driving over the 12-hour or 14-hour limit with which they are accredited. This restriction will present difficulties for a driver caught in road works, particularly on the Newell Highway. If the Government is focused on implementing new road laws particularly for heavy transport vehicles, new infrastructure needs to be provided. If a driver is delayed by road works or an accident on the Newell Highway for longer than the proposed stepped-rate penalty period, he or she is not assisted by the inadequate number of recognised rest areas to pull over. The Newell Highway, and I imagine also the Pacific Highway, does not have enough rest areas to allow truckies their time out. Of course, those drivers then get pinged if they do not arrive at their destination by the specified time.

The new rule certainly will target all players and stakeholders, whether it is an owner-driver, a small business or a large company. Once again the owner of a company also could be pinged for the idiot factor of one of its employees. Mr Kinney said that all State Ministers agreed on the proposed reforms in 2007. He said that the new work diary will not be substantially different to the current logbook. Members must understand that many truck drivers have a low education level. They are expert drivers and are very good at what they do, but they have not had the same schooling as many of us: they have low literacy levels. They are not unintelligent but they have problems completing forms; however, they can drive a truck and read sufficiently to do their job well. Many truck drivers have not been fined for driving offences. Any new legislation that requires additional bookwork is frustrating for them. The number of truck drivers is diminishing. Rod Pilon Transport in Dubbo, for example, has many drivers from Indonesia. As older drivers retire many young ones are not entering the industry.

In considering how companies can be fined, for companies such as Thompson Brothers or Rod Pilon Transport based in Dubbo their freight scheduler largely will be responsible for overtime breaches or accidents. The new rules will apply to all vehicles greater than 12 tonnes and buses with more than 12 passengers. Questions were asked at the end of the presentation about the reasonable steps defence and how they will affect drivers. The following questions were asked:

Q. Will there be different rules based on a driver's age?
A. Yes, the same rules will apply as those currently in place for aged drivers.

Q. What criteria will be used to determine if a driver is fatigued or not?
A. RTA staff will receive special training similar to the training police officers receive to determine if someone is intoxicated or not.

Q. Will there be an increase in the number of parking bays to accommodate all these drivers that will be forced to take breaks?
A. I don't know …

Mr Kinney did not know the answer to that question. He added:

… there has been some discussion on the introduction of casual or artificial parking bays—

whatever that means—

however that is only in the visionary stages so far.

Roger Fletcher asked:

Is anyone in government or the RTA looking at how these new laws will clash with the animal welfare laws?

For example: The animal welfare laws demand that stock not be kept in trucks for extended periods. But these new fatigue laws could prevent a driver from continuing to their destination within the allowable timeframe to get the stock unloaded and watered and fed.

This creates a Catch 22, where drivers are in breach of one law or another no matter which decision they make. In addition, under the proposed fatigue laws will the farmer and the abattoir owner—

like Mr Fletcher himself—

be liable as well, if the driver fails to get the stock unloaded and re-nourished in time?

Will the new rules take into account wet weather and bad roads? Will everyone in the logistics chain be liable if a driver has to make a diversion due to bad roads, or is held up due to delays in loading difficult stock or some other unforeseen circumstances?

It's alright when you're in the city with nice sealed freeways and you're only moving freight from warehouse to warehouse, but things are seldom that easy in the bush.

Mr Kinney could not say if any concessions would be made for the serious circumstances Mr Fletcher identified. However, he did say that all States had agreed on the legislation. The Government needs to answer that question before this law is passed. Mark Thompson from Thompson Brothers argued that the National Transport Commission and politicians could not work the scheduling they were asking trucking companies to comply with. He said:

You keep placing more restrictions and costs on our businesses when you wouldn't know how to run one yourself.

The majority of drivers and trucking companies are already responsible—we have to be. We've got a lot of money tied up in these assets—

in trucks—

We have to look after our gear otherwise they'd get flogged to bits in no time on these roads.

Instead of placing more restrictions on us you should be building better roads—we pay enough taxes. It's the highway and road system that need reforms not the safety laws.

Two weeks ago on my return from the Parkes picnic races I was pulled over by the police breathalyser unit on the side of the road. I spoke to the highway patrol officer in Peak Hill and we discussed how, in a two-week period, the back trailers of two B-doubles had tipped over on a bend at Hallinans Creek near Peak Hill and Alectown. Thank heavens no-one was injured, but great loss was suffered in terms of the load, by the driver and because of the incident. That accident was not caused by bad driving but, rather, was attributed to the bend in the road. The highway patrol officer told me that when he is driving a police vehicle there, he has to hug the middle line to take the bend safely because of the camber of the road. The outside of the bend has potholes and the grade is sloped the wrong way. I have made representations to the Roads and Traffic Authority about having the bend in the road removed to resolve the problem.

Those two incidents would have been recorded in Roads and Traffic Authority statistics as truck incidents. Neither was the fault of the truck driver. The fault lies in the construction of the road, and the highway patrol officer agrees with me. Another question asked from the floor was, "If all States have agreed on these new laws, why can't they agree on uniform axle weights?" Why stop there? The answer was, "I don't know—that's something you will have to ask the politicians." That response is not what truck drivers want to hear when they attend a forum. Another question was, "What is it going to cost to get accreditation?" The response was, "I don't know. I suspect that is still being determined." Another question was, "Has the latest draft of the 'work diary' been finalised?' The response was:

I don't know. They have a draft, which probably won't get changed much from now, but I don't know what the final product will contain.

In closing the forum, the person answering the questions, whose name I will not divulge, advised that there would be other forums held in July and regular updates would be available on the website. Those responses were not acceptable because of the indifference with which truck drivers had been treated. I acknowledge that there are mavericks in every field, but the people in my electorate who are involved in freight transportation are very responsible. I have made only one representation on behalf of a truck company owner and one of his truck drivers since I was elected to this House in November 2004 so I have to say that people involved in the transportation industry in my electorate are very responsible. But the truckies have had enough.

Members may not realise it, but the national transport industry will be shut down from 28 July. Already people right throughout Australia are becoming organised and coordinated by sending text messages and the like in preparation for the national shutdown. They are taking that action mainly because of a lack of communication, not because they have nothing else to do. Although that will be significantly costly for the industry, employers and drivers, they have to take desperate measures to obtain answers. A meeting will be held at the Dubbo RSL on 29 June from 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. I have been invited to address the meeting. I will be supporting the issues that will be discussed at that meeting. Those in attendance have a list of 17 demands from the Road Transport Forum 2008 and those demands are not negotiable. Issues will be added to the list and the list will be ratified at each meeting.

These men are fighting for what they do. They are working on roads that are in a shocking condition. They have to cope with rising fuel costs and rare rest stops. No consideration is given to their good driving records. Their licence has 12 points, just like mine, and there is a no-points system whereby they can have additional points based on the extra qualifications they have. We really need to have a proper investigation of road transport issues instead of blaming the truckies and accusing them of causing every incident that involves a truck. In my view, half the incidents involving trucks are not caused by the trucks at all but rather caused by bad driving of other people on the road, or the surface of the road. I cannot support the legislation. It shows no consideration whatsoever for people involved in the heavy vehicle industry.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [6.23 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I join in debate on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. Traffic safety is of paramount importance to the people of the Tweed. As I have said on numerous previous occasions in this place, my electorate shares a border with the Gold Coast, which is Australia's sixth largest region. Consequently, as well as the 750,000 Tweed residents who use New South Wales roads, a significant proportion of more than 500,000 Gold Coast residents use New South Wales roads to travel to or from locations in New South Wales. The increase in the number of people using roads in my electorate will not slow down. Indeed, the Tweed population is expected to grow by 60,000 over the next decade, so road safety will become an even bigger issue in the future than it is now because more and more people use New South Wales roads.

For that reason I do not oppose the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 that was introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Maroubra. I will deal in detail with a number of the issues concerning this bill. The legislation will amend some of the Acts that presently govern road transport in New South Wales to provide harsher penalties for learner drivers who drive without supervision. It also provides for suspension of both learner and provisional licence holders if they are caught speeding at more than 30 to 45 kilometres per hour over the limit. The bill will improve enforcement of motorway tolls as a result of failure to pay, and it will introduce a scheme to improve safety and mitigate driver fatigue associated with heavy vehicle traffic.

Driver fatigue is an issue of major interest to the people of the Tweed. My electorate is one hour from Brisbane and is traversed by the Pacific Highway. Many tens of thousands of heavy vehicles use the roads in my electorate. As the Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Maroubra, would acknowledge, the Pacific Highway is also used a great deal by local traffic. It is the local arterial road and the road mixes local traffic with B-doubles. The Tweed is geographical positioned approximately 11 hours away by road from Sydney. We experience northbound B-double trucks driven by people who are fast approaching the end of their shift. At the point at which they reach he Tweed, they are often trying to make up time, meet their schedules or meet Brisbane Markets deadlines, et cetera. I imagine that fatigue is a major factor at that point.

The Tweed electorate has only two designated track rest stop areas, one on the southbound road and another on the northbound road, and they would be capable of taking only half a dozen heavy vehicles. The other truck rest stop area is much further along the highway at Byron Bay in the electorate of my colleague the member for Ballina, Don Page. Road transport safety is a matter that concerns me greatly. One of the first things I did after being elected as the member for Tweed was to heighten Government awareness of the current loophole that exists in the Road Safety Act 2005 concerning the blood alcohol limits of interstate provisional licence holders. That issue was brought to the Government's attention in 2005. Previously interstate provisional licence holders could drive on New South Wales roads under alcohol limits applying in their home States. Now that the legislation has been amended—I am pleased that that was done, but only after the issue was forced by my prior introduction of similar legislation—interstate provisional licence holders must comply with the current zero tolerance blood alcohol levels that apply in New South Wales. That important change will result in many young lives being saved in the future.

However, I am saddened to inform the House that, as the member for Lismore would be aware, in the past week two fatalities occurred on roads in the northern part of the State. One involved a young 21-year-old girl whose vehicle unfortunately ran off the road, and the other involved a motorcyclist who unfortunately lost his life on the Tugun bypass. Road safety is a matter of major concern to the people of my electorate. Currently trucks must traverse the stretch of road over Sexton Hill—a road that has been the subject of major debate in Parliament as well as in the Tweed electorate. Recently the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, opened a new section of the Tugun bypass. I pause to observe that I am the only New South Wales politician who was invited to stand shoulder to shoulder with a Labor Premier, and I reciprocated by giving her a hybrid waratah that has been planted in the gardens of the Queensland Parliament.

The Pacific Highway is a significant roadway where local traffic mixes with B-doubles. Three weeks ago a B-double overturned. I find it quite strange that the Roads and Traffic Authority decided on the Friday preceding the long weekend to resurface the road. That road continually has 57,000 vehicle movements daily. During resurfacing of the road, the B-double overturned on the hill. Another issue concerning Sextons Hill is that, according to reports in today's media, the speed camera at Sextons Hill has been turned off because temporarily the speed limit has been reduced to 60 kilometres an hour in an area with an overall speed of 80 kilometres an hour. No-one, including the Roads and Traffic Authority, can determine the speed at which people should be travelling along that stretch of road.

I do not oppose the amendments concerning learner and provisional drivers as ultimately they will make roads in the Tweed much safer. I support the amendments in schedule 3 [2], new sections (1A) and (1B). The amendments also deal with heavy vehicles. That is an extremely important issue in the Tweed, where heavy vehicles frequently use the roads for haulage and general transport purposes. However, the truck checking station in my electorate is rarely open, which is quite unusual considering the large number of heavy vehicle movements in the area.

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

[The Acting-Speaker (Ms Diane Beamer) left the chair at 6.30 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [7.30 p.m.]: Before I continue my remarks on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 I refer to the contribution of the member for Dubbo in which she said that truck drivers were of lower intelligence. I take offence at that comment. Truck drivers in my electorate are hardworking and intelligent individuals who try to do the right thing both on the roads and in our local community. I do not think people's intelligence can be classified according to their occupation, and I take particular offence at the member's comment.

Returning to the bill, I note that in February 2007 the Australian Transport Council endorsed the adoption by Australian jurisdictions of model speeding compliance provisions. That is fine, and I am the first to support that model. However, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that it has taken the State Government more than 15 months to react and introduce the necessary legislation. The issue is particularly relevant in my electorate of Tweed, which borders on the sixth largest city in Australia and experiences large numbers of interstate transport movements on its roads on a regular basis. As I said before, I recently attended the opening of the Tugan bypass. Four kilometres of that seven-kilometre, $500-million road are in New South Wales. Recently an intelligent road management system was installed on the road—the New South Wales Government did not contribute any funds towards it—that continually monitors the road surface, weather and traffic flows and makes adjustments to the permitted speed limits accordingly. That is a great plus. As this bill is endeavouring to improve road safety, I call on the Government, and particularly the Minister for Roads, to look at installing a similar intelligent road management system on Sextons Hill, which is one of the State's worst black spots.

Schedule 4.1 [5] to the bill inserts proposed section 154A into the principal Act. The proposed section enables authorised officers to direct drivers who have committed fatigue-related offences to take rests and to work for specified periods, and to give other directions. It will be an offence to contravene a direction. I support that measure, but I ask: Who will train officers to identify a "fatigue-related offence"? What standard will be applied in this regard? What form will those offences take? Road surface is an important safety issue, although the bill does not mention it as a factor in road accidents. I draw the attention of the House to the experience of an interstate truck driver from the Tweed electorate. Carmela Falzon, who has an unblemished driving record, unfortunately had an accident on Sextons Hill. She said that she was driving under the speed limit when her car slipped on the road and went into a spin. Only her defensive driving skills gained as an interstate truck driver saved her life and those of her son and his friend. The subsequent issuing of a negligent driving fine was the ultimate insult. Ms Falzon said of the Roads and Traffic Authority, "We could have been killed due to their negligence." Ms Falzon has taken the incident personally and will join other angry road users in launching a class action against the Roads and Traffic Authority, similar to the Princes Highway case that was recently settled out of court.

Schedule 4.1 [6] to the bill amends section 180 of the principal Act so as to enable a Local Court to impose the maximum penalty permitted to be imposed under proposed section 11B, which is 250 penalty units. That is a positive move. Tweed magistrate Jeff Linden is on record on several occasions as criticising the lack of penalties able to be imposed on those who break our road laws. Unfortunately, there have been several fatalities on Sextons Hill and Highway 1, a number of which have involved drivers from interstate. We should strengthen magistrates' powers and increase the number of police officers patrolling our roads. That will certainly be a deterrent to would-be offenders. In 1988 the Tweed Local Area Command, which serves Byron Bay and Tweed Heads, had 13 officers. Last year the command was boosted by the addition of two officers. There are 60,000 vehicle movements daily on Sextons Hill, and a large percentage of them are B-doubles. While some parts of the bill support road safety, I am concerned about other parts of it, such as schedule 4.1 [5] relating to fatigue-related offences.

Magistrate Jeff Linden recently overturned a large number of speeding fines that were issued on the basis of readings from the speed camera on St Helena Hill near Byron Bay in the electorate of the member for Ballina because there was insufficient evidence that the camera was working correctly. That has caused a great deal of angst in the community. As I said earlier, the speed camera on Sextons Hill has been switched off because of differing speed zones. I do not oppose the bill. We should do everything we can to stop the carnage on our roads, particularly accidents involving heavy vehicles. However, certain parts of the bill should be thought through and explained. The bill is a knee-jerk reaction to a major problem on our roads. In the past week there have been two fatalities in our region: a 21-year-old lady and a motorcyclist lost their lives.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [7.38 p.m.]: The Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 makes a number of amendments. The bill amends the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998, the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 and the Roads Act 1993. I will not go into detail as the Parliamentary Secretary and shadow Minister have spelt out the intention of this bill. but I will focus on a small number of issues. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 June referred to three drivers who hit ridiculous speeds on the State's roads, including one who reached up to 217 kilometres an hour, and who have had their licences suspended. Police also caught a learner driver and two P-plate drivers, all under 25 years of age, in separate incidents on the Hume Highway south of Sydney.

The article stated that at about 2.00 p.m. police say they clocked a Holden Commodore at 217 kilometres on the highway at Jugiong—which is in the electorate of the member for Burrinjuck; the highway dissects the electorate of Wagga Wagga—including a spell at 146 kilometres through an 80 kilometre roadwork zone. A 17-year-old male from Tahmoor was charged with speeding and failing to display his P-plates. His licence was suspended, and he will face Gundagai Local Court on 4 August. Just after midday a 24-year-old learner driver was caught doing 146 kilometres on the Hume Highway near Mittagong. Police suspended his licence and he was fined for driving 45 kilometres over the speed limit, and for driving unaccompanied. A short time earlier police stopped a 20-year-old P-plater from Shalvey after she allegedly reached 161 kilometres on the Hume Highway at Mittagong.

I have put that on the record because paragraphs (a) and (b) in the overview of the bill address those issues. I cannot understand the mindsets of individuals who use a motor vehicle as a lethal weapon on a highway and put at risk not only themselves and their passengers but also the travelling public. For the life of me I cannot imagine why someone would act so irresponsibly and commit crimes against humanity. On Monday in the Staysafe committee hearing I said that I was perplexed by their mindset. This legislation will address that matter, although a lot more work needs to be done. As a member of the Staysafe committee, a road user and the father of young adults who use the road, I welcome this legislation, which will also be welcomed by the police and the judiciary. We need to ascertain why these people disregard the road rules and take other people's lives into their hands when they act so irresponsibly.

It is a privilege to be a member of the Staysafe committee—a privilege that not many members get. I note that the member for Wollongong said she is also a member of Staysafe, which I had forgotten, no doubt because she has had other things to contend with. Staysafe is an important committee. As part of its work, under the chairmanship of the member for Blacktown, Staysafe dealt with heavy vehicle driver fatigue management and safe driving plans for the New South Wales road trucking industry. Many members have referred to heavy vehicle driver fatigue. Fatigue is a major factor in crashes involving heavy vehicle drivers. According to the National Transport Commission of 2006, between 20 per cent and 60 per cent of heavy vehicle fatalities involve fatigue. Moreover, approximately 330 people are killed nationally each year in crashes involving a heavy vehicle. Tarcutta has a memorial for the trucking industry, and sadly the number of fatalities grows every year. Initiatives to encourage safe driving need to be addressed and implemented, and that is why this legislation has been introduced in this place. The Australian trucking industry is working with the Council of Australian Governments.

Crashes are estimated to represent $2 billion a year of the $15 billion cost of all road crashes. Additionally, the number of heavy vehicle casualties resulting in hospitalisation is three times the number involving fatalities, according to the Australian Transport Council 2003. The New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Long Distance Truck Driver Fatigue) Regulation 2005, which came into effect on 1 March 2006, for the first time requires employers, head carriers and large consignors and consignees to assess the risk of harm from fatigue. It also mandates that Driver Fatigue Management Plans be in place for drivers, while consignors and consignees with more than 200 employees have the additional responsibility of ensuring that they do not impose unreasonable deadlines for freight deliveries. A briefing paper was prepared by the current secretary of the Staysafe committee, Bjarne Nordin, which I would recommend all members read as a background to this legislation. In relation to the sufficient provision of rest areas for heavy vehicles, the paper states:

Another issue which may impact on the ability of affected parties to fully comply with the provisions of the Award is the insufficient supply of rest areas for heavy vehicles. The lack of rest facilities for truck drivers has been identified by the Road Transport Association, specifically on the Pacific Highway and the Port Botany area. According to the Australian Trucking Association, there are currently 196 rest areas in NSW compared to 420 in Victoria. Based on National Transport Commission guidelines for the provision of rest areas, the Association states that 22,000 rest areas are required nationally.

That demonstrates that the trucking industry faces a number of challenges. The Government needs to invest in rest areas. The challenge is that the trucking industry must abide by the regulations and laws. Those issues should be raised with the Council of Australian Governments but they are not being addressed quickly enough because the trucking industry is being severely impinged upon. For example, the management of weight load varies from State to State with different regulations, which comes at a cost to the industry. The paper continues:

State and Territory Transport Ministers have noted the importance of this issue in their consideration of the Heavy Vehicle Driver Fatigue Package and have made a commitment to the construction of adequate rest areas to national standards. The Council of Australian Governments has required an audit of rest areas by 30 June 2007.

I note that the member for Wollongong mentioned an audit that was supposed to be conducted by the Roads and Traffic Authority. However, it is now 2008. The question has to be asked: What happened to the audit that the Council of Australian Governments required to be completed by 2007? Did the Roads and Traffic Authority do the audit? Was it completed? Was it submitted to the Council of Australian Governments, or is the RTA dragging the chain on this assessment, as was suggested, I believe, by the member for Wollongong when she mentioned that the audit was currently underway?

I refer to the Road Safety 2010 Strategy, which was a report of an inquiry into actions undertaken by the WorkCover Authority to address the road safety situation in New South Wales in 2000-05. It is a very lengthy report and I recommend it to members who want an understanding and a background of the Staysafe committee's work and, importantly, the issues that were raised, whether by the people responsible for WorkCover, the trucking industry or the owner operators that traverse our roads daily and bring goods and services to us throughout the State and indeed the country. We implement legislation in this place and talk about the issues we believe are good for the industry, but the Government has let the industry down by making demands on it.

WorkCover itself made demands—I am not saying that the demands were unreasonable—to ensure that drivers had reasonable timetables and deadlines and that there was time to rest and the trips were planned. A number of requirements were implemented that companies now have to abide by. We need to understand how the logistics of Australian transport work. Many of these requirements are unobtainable or unachievable because, although the Government is big on rhetoric and legislation, it has failed to provide the fundamentals such as investment in appropriate roadside areas that can accommodate truck drivers who need and are required by law to have rest periods, fill out their log books and comply with the onerous legislation that we pass in this place.

I put it to the House that the people who draft this legislation have probably never been behind the wheel of a truck. In fact, they have probably never ridden in the cabin of a truck; nor could they drive one. They could not understand the difficult and onerous conditions that owner operators and the trucking industry have to comply with. Fuel costs are rocketing under Kevin Rudd. I can recall Kevin Rudd saying that he would place downward pressure on diesel costs to help every Australian and he would put downward pressure on food costs and all those things. None of those things has come to fruition. What is happening now is that truck drivers, owner operators and companies are parking their trucks—members on this side will understand—because of the skyrocketing costs being incurred by the industry. When one adds to that the other costs the industry has to meet, such as insurance and registration, one finds that the industry is operating on very slim margins.

Many documents support that contention. I can refer to several, one of which is Working Paper 60, which is an overview of the Australian road transport industry. Again I recommend that document to members who want to get a good background on the costs and challenges facing the industry. The NRMA has produced audits of highways; in its report where it refers to the Sturt Highway, the NRMA again says that rest areas should be increased from the current number of 10—that is on average one every 60 kilometres. It says that the 140 kilometres between the Hume Highway and the Newell Highway have only two rest areas. I rest my case. More needs to be done. If the Government is going to bring legislation before this place it needs to follow it up with appropriate funding to implement it and enable drivers to comply with the rules.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [7.54 p.m.]: The Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 creates a new penalty regime for novice drivers who commit certain driving offences, improves the enforcement processes when drivers fail to pay a toll when using a motorway, and introduces a nationally agreed regime to manage heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speeding compliance. Most speakers in this debate have addressed the issues relating to heavy vehicle drivers reducing fatigue and the provision of appropriate rest breaks and shorter working hours. I think we all endorse those proposals. They are sensible, they are nationally applied and they are likely to reduce some of those terrible accidents that we have all read about or maybe even seen. Certainly it is a sensible provision to reduce the hours that drivers have to drive and to ensure that they get adequate rest and are not hyped up to the eyeballs on speed or amphetamines.

I listened with interest to what the member for Wagga Wagga had to say about that issue. If the Government is not providing an adequate number of truck parking places where drivers can rest in New South Wales, the legislation is doomed to failure. That is an issue I encourage the Government to take on board. The case that the member for Wagga Wagga made out on that issue was very compelling. I want to address another couple of issues in the bill. The first relates to learner or P-plate drivers. The bill will enable police to suspend and confiscate the licences of learner or P-plate drivers who speed at more than 30 kilometres an hour above the limit. The member for Baulkham Hills, who represents an electorate in the same area as I do, will be very cognisant of the fact that there are an enormous number of speeding drivers in our area. They seem to congregate on the back streets of Baulkham Hills shire and Hornsby shire on Friday and Saturday nights.

One reason for this is that we do not have sufficient police to patrol the back streets. They are forced to concentrate on the main roads because of the small number of traffic officers at Castle Hill Police Station. Speeding on the back roads, therefore, has assumed almost epidemic proportions. Only a few weeks ago I was awoken at one o'clock on a Saturday morning by the sound of screeching tyres and a thud. I went to our bathroom window and looked out and saw two cars with P-plates—there was a P plate among the debris left at the accident site—that clearly had been speeding and racing each other down Oratava Avenue. I think the car on the inside had applied its brakes and swerved and both cars had hit the kerb and a couple of trees on the other side of the road, and then miraculously managed to drive away. As if that was not enough, only two weeks later at about the same time, half past one, and in the same place—a different make of car that is all; I know because the debris was from a Ford and the previous accident involved a Holden Commodore—there were screeching tyres and a bang. The driver hit a couple of poles and knocked over a bus stop and a speed sign on the left-hand side of the road this time, and again miraculously managed to drive away.

I think the case for having more traffic officers in The Hills local area is well made. While we are talking about picking up motorists who are driving more than 30 kilometres above the limit, I mentioned in this place a short while ago that I was out mowing my lawn when a car went down Oratava Avenue—I live about 100 metres away in Bellbird Drive—at an estimated 150 kilometres an hour in a 50 kilometres an hour zone. That is 100 kilometres an hour over the speed limit. I know from talking to local residents that there was a group of young drivers in our area who were competing with one another to see who could hit the highest speed down Highs Road. They were reaching speeds of 150 kilometres an hour in a 50 kilometres an hour zone. The only way you are going to stop these young idiots, quite frankly, is to get more police on the road.

The bill also provides for automatic disqualification for three months of learners detected driving unsupervised, and the courts can disqualify the driver for any other period up to 12 months. I was shocked to hear in the agreement in principle speech that the number of learners who have been detected driving unaccompanied has increased sharply in recent years, with 5,178 offences recorded this year. I wonder whether one of the reasons for this is the need for learners to do 120 hours of driving before they get a licence. Only a few weeks ago I heard a father complaining about this fairly onerous responsibility because he is the father of triplets, all of whom had got to the stage of getting their permit. He was supposed to sit with them for 360 hours to make sure that they did the right thing and completed their logbooks.

Mr Thomas George: There should be a special exemption.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I agree. Any sensible government would take into account the special circumstances surrounding a family with triplets. The other matter I want to address is tolling. The bill amends the definition of "approved toll camera" from one designed to take a photograph of a vehicle that is driven in contravention of a requirement to pay a toll to a camera that takes a photograph of a vehicle as it is driven past a toll point. The Parliamentary Secretary in his agreement in principle speech said:

The usual practice of the tollway operator is to send a notice requiring payment for a vehicle that has been detected by a toll camera as having not paid the required toll. Operators may also write a second reminder notice offering time to pay the toll. If there is no response or payment, a penalty notice may be issued.

The bill also extends the period in which criminal proceedings for a toll offence may be commenced from 6 months to 12 months.

Giving motorists the opportunity and time to pay a toll ensures that legitimate errors can be rectified, for example, the motorist's e-tag may not have been working. The toll offence provisions of the Roads (General) Regulation provide that the driver of the vehicle passing the toll collection point is liable for failure to pay a toll. However, unless the actual driver is nominated, the regulation provides that the owner of the vehicle is deemed to be the person responsible. In some cases, for example, commercial passenger and goods vehicles, several nominations may be made because many people regularly drive the vehicle. Each time a different driver is nominated there is a time delay. Extending the time to prosecute from 6 months to 12 months reduces the opportunity for toll evaders to avoid prosecution.

The new provision makes the timeframe consistent with other camera-detected road transport offences. That is a sensible change. Further changes provide for reduced costs and complexity in prosecuting a toll offence. I wonder why the issue of motorcyclists and e-tags has not been considered in this debate. The group of road users most discriminated against would have to be motorcyclists. Some people might disagree; some might say it is cyclists, but they are not subject to the same restrictions relating to the use of e-tags. This discrimination was sheeted home to me rather forcibly at the end of last year when I rode my motorcycle down the M2 to visit my daughter, who had recently moved from West Pennant Hills to a flat in Neutral Bay. I went through the 80 kilometres per hour tollgate on the M2 and did not hear the e-tag beep, but with a full-face helmet on and the amount of noise coming from the motorbike I did not pay that too much attention. A few weeks later I received a notice from the tag operator telling me to pay up or else, and threatening dire reprisals—all of which are outlined in this bill—and wanting to fine me an extra $37, I think the amount was, because I had not paid the toll. I rang the company and explained the situation and the fellow at the other end said he would sort it out. I gave him my e-tag number, as he requested, and he said he would take the money out of my e-tag account.

Only a few weeks ago I received another notice from the e-tag operator, again saying there would be dire reprisals, and I think this time the penalty provision had increased from $37 to over $100. At this stage I was, I think you could understand, getting a bit annoyed about the whole thing. I rang the company and was told that there was another number that I should have been asked for previously. One really should not have to go through this sort of nonsense because one rides a motorbike on a toll road. You might ask why I put the e-tag in the breast pocket of my jacket and not somewhere on the motorbike. The e-tag is designed only to be put on the windscreen of motor vehicles, cars and trucks. There is nowhere that you can safely put an e-tag on a motorcycle. If it gets wet it is useless and you have to buy another e-tag. This is an issue that I know that the Australian Motorcycle Council has been very hot under the collar about for a long time.

Melbourne's EastLink is going to open in a few days time. Tolling for motorcyclists on it is going to be by trip pass or by a casual account number plate recognition method used on CityLink. Melbourne is way ahead of where we are in Sydney. EastLink call it a non-tag account. All you have to do is set up an account with an initial balance of $40 credit. If you have a car and a motorcycle you will be able to have a tag account with one tag for your car and link the number plate details of your motorcycle to the same tag account. Normally there is a video-image processing fee so that if you have a tag and it is linked to another card there will be a 23¢ charge associated with your using that other car and not having the tag in the car. That is usually charged in addition to the toll for each non-tag trip on EastLink. That will be waived in the case of motorcycles.

In New South Wales you can set up a tag account with Roam, but it is applicable on the M7 only. On all other motorways—the bridge, the Lane Cove tunnel, the M2, the M5, the Cross City Tunnel and the Eastern Distributor—there is a vehicle-matching fee of 75¢. This means that if you ride a motorcycle from my electorate into town and back again it will cost $3.75 on top of the already exorbitant tolls of more than $17: there is a surcharge of 22 per cent for the privilege of traversing the tollways on a vehicle weighing a seventh or an eighth of the weight of a standard car. You might ask why this is an issue. Thirty years ago I used to commute by motorbike. The cost of going over the bridge was 5¢ for a motorbike and 20¢ for a car.

The toll for a motorbike was one-quarter the toll for a car. That was entirely sensible. Lest you think that a reduction in the toll is something that has been done away with everywhere, on EastLink in Melbourne motorcycle tolls will be half car tolls. And in Melbourne motorcyclists are complaining because they say those tolls are too high. I would have thought that a government that has been under fire in recent days about traffic congestion and petrol usage would have been very keen to encourage commuting by motorcycle. Motorcyclists can use bus lanes, which are probably underutilised at the moment. There is a real opportunity to do something about traffic congestion and fuel consumption as well, but it is in the too-hard basket for the Government and for motorcyclists.

Today when I was researching this contribution I learned that over the past three years a company called MerCane has developed a waterproof E-tag bag for motorcyclists that attaches to the motorcycle's tank with a magnet or is mounted in a handlebar clamp. I understand that the Roads and Traffic Authority has bought 2,500 of these, while E-Way has requested 5,000. The product is not available at the moment, but it will be available in the middle of next month. I believe that it will be provided free to motorcyclists opening E-Way or Roads and Traffic Authority e-tag accounts. I would appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary could confirm that that is going to take place. After a very long time it looks as though there may be a fair go for motorcyclists in the offing, but it still does not get over the basic issue of toll costs. It is absolutely outrageous that motorcyclists or someone riding a scooter, for example, a student who does not have much money, has to pay $17 to travel from my electorate into town and back again—even more perhaps if they were going to university at Kensington. I would really like the Government to take the issue on board. There is an opportunity for it to do something for a much put upon section of the community, to do something for the environment, and to do something about fuel consumption and traffic congestion.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [8.09 p.m.]: I will make a brief contribution to debate on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. It is hard to argue against the sensible amendments proposed in this legislation, in particular, those relating to the disqualification penalties for learner drivers and the suspension of learner provisional licences for those exceeding a speed limit by between 30 and 45 kilometres. It is difficult to weigh up the concerns that Opposition members have about road transport provisions for heavy vehicles versus these other sensible measures. We are concerned about the lack of consultation with small transport businesses and they are concerned about the regulations.

I have received a lot of feedback from small transport operators in the Bega electorate who are concerned about what those regulations might or might not mean for their businesses. Schedule 4.1 to the bill provides for regulations but it would be nice to know what those regulations are. No doubt the member for Coffs Harbour and shadow spokesperson on road safety will consult more broadly on that issue. How workable will this legislation be in relation to rest breaks and driver fatigue, given the major shortage of suitable facilities for drivers? Livestock carriers experience difficulties when parking their vehicles in truck stops because the noise of the livestock disrupts the rest of other truck drivers.

Kay Rogers, who has been lobbying the Minister for Roads on this issue, brought the matter to my attention. The Minister for Roads is renowned for not responding, or for being slow to respond, to his correspondence, which is unacceptable given the many issues confronting drivers in this State. Kay Rogers wrote to the Deputy Coroner, Carl Milovanovich, about this issue during the Princes Highway coronial inquest. It is important to put her correspondence to the Deputy Coroner on the record. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary responds to these issues. The letter of 12 July 2007 states:

It is my understanding that you are conducting an enquiry next April into RTA roads, Princes Highway in particular and the accidents that occur on these roads. It is often said that some of these accidents are caused by fatigue and in my opinion—it is no wonder.

As my family and I conduct a small Transport business together with a farming business, have been greatly concerned over the years of lack of infrastructure on particularly the Princes Highway of pull offs for rest and safe stopping areas for buying food and toilet requirements. This is continually being brought to my attention by my sons—who drive our trucks.

I have attended many trucking conferences and brought up my concerns, which are wholeheartedly supported by members of the Livestock and Bulk Carriers Association.

Also, I have written to members of Parliament and also the Road Safety Dept of the RTA, Ms Trish McClure.

From Nowra in particular to the Victorian border, there are NO suitable/adequate stopping areas to purchase food and drinks. This is a dangerous situation for all drivers.

As for resting stops—these are totally inadequate and what are available are often taken up by the "grey nomads" who are ever increasing and many of them stop in the truck stops because it is safe. There is also the problem of transporting livestock—other truck drivers DO NOT like these trucks pulling up in the pulloff areas because of the noise factor—when they are trying to sleep. This is totally understandable—but does not help the Livestock drivers problems of where to stop?

I have made an offer to the RTA officer to travel in our truck to understand the problem, first hand. So far I have not had a response. This offer still stands.

I hope that this information will help you to understand that the problem of transporting goods safely on our Highways is something we would like to be solved.

There is no doubt in the world that that is what everybody wants. However, this legislation, coupled with the regulations that we are yet to see, will be unworkable if infrastructure such as truck stops and the like are not in place, as Kay Rogers states in her correspondence to the Deputy Coroner. I hope that the Government performs an audit in some of these areas, in particular, the Princes Highway, where there are inadequate truck stops. I urge the State Government to address these issues because, frankly, the regulations will be unworkable. As I said, this legislation is difficult to oppose but Opposition members are concerned about the impact of the regulations on small operators in particular, who will not be consulted by this Government—typical behaviour by a Government that is out of touch with the needs of small businesses.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [8.15 p.m.]: In speaking on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, I thank both operators of heavy vehicles who work for transport companies and owner-operators. There are many operators in the Burrinjuck electorate—great drivers such as Brett Bush of Yass—and I thank them for the work that they do in transporting goods and food around the nation. In the 1980s truckies used an old slogan, "Truckies carry this country", which is as true today as it was 20 years ago. However, speeding is a significant issue. Accidents resulting from speeding heavy vehicles often have disastrous consequences.

I regularly travel on the Hume Highway. Cowboys in the industry gave the highway the nickname of Sesame Street. Thankfully, the vast majority of truck drivers are responsible and cautious. This morning, as I travelled to Parliament along the Hume Highway, I narrowly avoided another accident with a B-double. There are far too many accidents on this road. While I was travelling in the left lane in an area in which roadwork was being carried out I was wedged between concrete bollards and I had a coal truck behind me. A B-double came flying up and into my lane and almost caused an accident. There are far too many close calls on that highway. Heavy vehicles can be threatening and incidents such as I experienced this morning are scary. Commuters often have such occurrences on the Hume Highway.

Just a few cowboys in the industry cause many of the accidents on our major highways. I recognise and commend Budgie, a truck driver who was killed on the Hume Highway earlier this year. An inquiry into his death will be held later in the year. Cowboys can wreck a company's reputation. A couple of years ago Geoff Robertson of Roadmaster and Harker Transport made a statement relating to an unfortunate incident featured in a 60 Minutes program.

The former chairman of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, Harold Scruby of the Pedestrian Council, and I participated in the panel on that 60 Minutes program, which aired on Sunday 10 April 2005. Back then the panel focused on the chain of responsibility, referred to an incident that occurred, and concentrated on how important safety was and how companies should handle incidents. I refer to what Geoff Robertson from Roadmaster and Harker Transport said:

This incident occurred when one of our drivers ignored company safety procedures and undertook a trip in 24 rather than the allowed 36 hours. Prior to leaving Brisbane, the driver was advised of the trip schedule, including the requirement to take a rest break at Mackay and he "signed off" on this schedule prior to departing Brisbane (as is required of all drivers prior to departing from our depot). Our trip schedule allowed 36 hours for the trip to be completed (legal trip time 32 hours), unfortunately, however the driver completed the trip in 24 hours.

It is important that this side of the story is put on the record because far too often when we hear of what truck drivers do we blame the company for putting pressure on them to perform in a certain way. In the interest of fairness it is important that those facts are in the Hansard. Geoff Robertson from Roadmaster and Harker Transport continued:

The companies do not and will not condone this type of safety breach and acted quickly to seek the driver's explanation and also review of the incident. The driver was flown back to Brisbane on Friday 1^st April 2005 and a Registered Private Investigation firm appointed to conduct an investigation into the incident.

The driver was interviewed as part of the investigation and provided a witnessed statement detailing that he had been provided with a legal transit scheduled to complete the trip. He also stated that he had not in any way been instructed or encouraged by any other person to complete the trip in the manner or timeframe he did.

As a consequence of this investigation and the driver's written statement [the company] terminated his services, effective immediately.

… the companies view extremely seriously any breach of National Driving Laws by its drivers or other employees.

The Chain of Responsibility legislation aims to manage driver fatigue, and ensure that drivers are in fit and healthy state to drive heavy vehicles. Not only does the legislation require that drivers ensure that they do not drive in excess of maximum driving times, it also places strict obligations on others within the transport chain.

We, as employers, must not ask, direct or require, the driver of a heavy vehicle, to drive a heavy vehicle in circumstances where we know, or ought to know, that by driving the vehicle in accordance with our instructions, the driver would, or would be likely to commit:

(a) a core driving hours offence (maximum driving and work times and minimum rest times);
(b) a driving record offence; or
(c) a speeding offence.

Nor can we allow employed drivers to drive a heavy vehicle where we know, or reasonably ought to know, that by driving the vehicle the driver would, or would be likely to, commit a core driving hours offence. That contribution from Roadmaster and Harker Transport contains other paragraphs, but I believe I have made my point. The purpose of this legislation is to amend various Acts to introduce licence disqualification penalties for learner drivers who drive unsupervised, suspend learner provisional licence holders if they exceed the speed limit by between 30 kilometres an hour and 45 kilometres an hour, improve enforcement processes when drivers fail to pay tolls on motorways, and implement a scheme to manage heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speed compliance. The bill represents significant deviations from current policy as police powers are being extended to control speeding by novice drivers. Heavy vehicle driver fatigue legislation and speed compliance will bring New South Wales into line with recommendations of the National Transport Commission. I have outlined some detail of the commission's policy legislation.

Police powers will be strengthened to suspend and confiscate learner and provisional driver licences when the drivers speed in excess of 45 kilometres an hour over the limit. Learner drivers will have their licences automatically suspended for three months if caught driving without supervision—or for a maximum of 12 months if the matter is heard by the courts. The offence of driving unsupervised no longer will attract demerit points. Changes to the Roads Act will extend the period in which criminal proceedings for toll offences may be commenced from 6 months to 12 months, reducing the time for toll evaders to avoid prosecution from processing delays. Fatigue and speed compliance will have chain of responsibility legislation applied to all parties involved where heavy vehicles are concerned. Off-road parties will need to take steps to prevent the occurrence of offences. Shorter working hours and longer, frequent rest breaks will be legislated under this national model. Regulations will be made to ensure that off-road parties, such as employers and schedulers, take responsibility for ensuring that drivers are not encouraged or required to speed.

The problem in providing suitable facilities for drivers to take breaks or perform changeover operations will render the legislation difficult to adhere to. Chain of responsibility changes will not work if the Government will not provide additional rest stops. Those of us who reside in the country deal with country operators who day in and day out support our local Rural Fire Service and State Emergency Services at existing truck stops with programs such as Driver Reviver. We talk to truckies and know the problems they face. The member for Lismore put it succinctly, as did other members on this side of the House: We have problems finding suitable rest places for livestock carriers to stop so they will not disrupt other tired drivers. Livestock noise is not just from one or two sheep; it is from many dozens of animals all making noise. They do not sleep when humans sleep; they keep making noise, particularly when they are in a restricted environment. They can be extremely noisy, as can refrigerated vehicles.

Obviously, refrigerated vehicles cannot be switched off, otherwise the milk that is being carried will turn sour, the goods will go off or the freezers will defrost. Refrigerated trucks are very noisy and the drivers do not want to disrupt the sleep of other drivers, who have as much right to be on the road as they have. This legislation does not address that issue at all. Highway safety is every citizen's responsibility. I understand where the Government is coming from in relation to the road safety provisions referred to in this bill, but those provisions and regulations must be practical and workable on the ground. More thought should be given to providing appropriate and sufficient facilities for these legislative provisions to be enforced; otherwise they will not work.

In my electorate Mundoonen rest area is quite significant, but it is one of only a few. This magnificent rest area with two separate areas is situated between Gunning and Yass, but it is a fair distance to the next rest stop. If the Government is to be sensible about this proposal, more rest areas have to be provided. The member for Lismore referred to the grey nomads in Winnebagos parking in truck stops. Although I am not exactly a grey nomad, I must confess to being a motor home owner. Those drivers also need places to stop and rest after travelling long distances. Precious few opportunities and rest areas are provided for motor home owners.

Last year I chaired a forum of representatives of the transport, cropping and mushroom industries in Cowra for heavy vehicle operators. Many frustrations and challenges were raised. The forum moved for the introduction of a little flexibility for the transportation of heavy loads. I called the forum after receiving many complaints by transporters who said they were being heavily penalised by overzealous Roads and Traffic Authority officers for minor weight or oversize transgressions. These same transporters also need additional rest areas, which this bill fails to address. At that meeting were representatives of GrainCorp, the Grain Growers Association, the Australian Road Train Association, Natroads, Cowra Shire Council, the Australian Mushroom Growers Association, New South Wales Farmers, truck owner-operators, and the Roads and Traffic Authority. [Extension of time agreed to.]

At the outset of the meeting I stated that safety must remain the absolute priority. Industry leaders and transport operators alike expressed concern about the lack of practicality in complying with State legislation. One example given was that transport operators are being found in breach for load violations for carrying standard size, baled straw in a manner shown by Federal road transport studies to be the safest possible and which remains within the allowable overall load envelope. Other operators have received substantial fines because they had to load grain in a wet paddock using portable axle scales and were then found to be marginally overweight at the multimillion-dollar weigh station at Marulan, which is an excellent facility. Perhaps the most ridiculous occurrence was when the driver of a truck loaded with sheep was fined because the fleece on the animals had retained water from a rainstorm through which the truck had driven. Heavy vehicles are driven by thoughtful operators; it is not always cowboys behind the wheels of rigs—just a couple of bad apples spoil the crop. The following motions were passed at the Cowra meeting:

1. That the meeting calls for the introduction of a:
a. Five per cent rolling average over the last ten loads for heavy vehicles; and
b. Ten per cent tolerance for an average of seven and a half per cent increase on the current legal weight, similar to the system enforced in Queensland.

2. That the meeting calls on the NSW Government and RTA to accept that a Bill of Lading for containerised cargoes loaded to Australian standards by overseas companies is an acceptable defence of the containerised load is found to be overweight by RTA inspection.

3. That the meeting supports the Roads and Traffic Authority's policy of heavy penalties for flagrant breaches of loads in return for greater consideration being made for transport operators who have a proven record of compliance with loading regulations.

4. That the meeting calls on the NSW Government to allow a transportation framework that allows commercial outcomes for industry as long as safety standards are maintained.

5. That this meeting calls on the Roads and Traffic Authority and the NSW Government to abandon its drive to retrospectively collect fines for offences that occurred more than 30 days prior.

Honourable members must realise that there are thoughtful operators and that not everyone behind the wheel is a cowboy. Just a fraction of heavy vehicles are being driven by people who should not be on the road—examples of which I see all too often. I live in Yass and travel regularly between Sydney and Yass and regularly past Gundagai and beyond. The Hume Highway is one of the busiest roads in the State. Many heavy vehicles necessarily transport livestock, refrigerated goods, foods, and other products that people use every day. Families use those products and every day anticipate, if not expect, that they will be available on supermarket shelves. If they are not on the supermarket shelves, people kick up a fuss and say, "Why isn't this product here?"

I can tell people who makes sure the product to the supermarket shelf—the truck drivers. They deliver products to country and city supermarkets throughout the State. They should be praised and we should be trumpeting the wonderful job they do from the rooftops. But, as we have also heard during this debate, far too many accidents and fatalities occur, far too many lives are lost, and far too many families have been broken by a few who continue to flout the law and put their crazy ideas of speeding and driving recklessly ahead of consideration for others. They threaten the lives of other people, and they stand condemned. I recognise that the legislation is fundamentally a road safety measure, but until rest stops are organised and created, I fear that this legislation will not work.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [8.31 p.m.]: I join in debate on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and state at the outset that, although the Coalition does not agree with all aspects of the bill, we will not oppose it. Part of the bill amends the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 and the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 to provide for a penalty of driver licence disqualification for the offence of learners driving unaccompanied by a supervising driver, with an automatic disqualification period of 3 months and a court being able to disqualify for any other period up to a maximum of 12 months. The bill also amends the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 to enable the immediate suspension of a driver licence by police for a speeding offence committed by a learner or provisional driver that involves exceeding the speed limit by more than 30 kilometres an hour, which is a reduction from the current 45 kilometres an hour, or for an offence of a learner driving unaccompanied by a supervising driver.

As well, the bill amends the Roads Act 1993 to extend the period in which criminal proceedings may commence from 6 months to 12 months and also to redefine an "approved toll camera" to better align the terms of the definition with the practical demands upon toll operators in a free-flow toll collection environment. That all sounds very nice and most country and city drivers would understand all of it, but I know that members who represent country electorates, particularly the member for Dubbo, receive complaints from older drivers who drive to Sydney on rare occasions for medical appointments and the like, as I do. My older driver constituents become totally confused by the tollways that operate in Sydney. They do not have e-tags because they infrequently travel to Sydney. Recently a constituent of mine visited my electorate office and told me in a determined fashion that he was organised and that he would arrange payment by phoning the telephone number displayed at each toll that applies to people who do not have a tag.

He phoned three times, but apparently he missed one toll because he became confused when he had to go from one toll operator to another. Unbeknown to him, he had breached the regulations, and he received a penalty notice from one of the toll operators which involved a fee plus the toll. That totally confused and demoralised him. He thought he had done the right thing and he had done his very best. His experience serves to illustrate the point that older drivers, especially those who travel to Sydney infrequently, are too busy watching the road to carefully read all the signs. Something must be done. I know that recently the Government took some steps to address this issue, and I will be interested to see whether its action works. The Government has gone part of the way to resolving the problem, but I do not believe the measures have gone as far as recognising the difficulties faced by country drivers who infrequently visit Sydney.

As I stated earlier, the bill amends the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 and the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 to enable regulations to be made with respect to the prevention and management of driver fatigue and speeding compliance in relation to heavy vehicles and heavy vehicle combinations. Quite a few members of the House who participated in this debate, especially members representing country electorates who understand issues associated with heavy vehicles, raised concerns. I believe all governments have a responsibility to build and maintain a network of roads, highways, freeways and tollways to ensure that our road transport system allows transporters to haul freight safely and efficiently while not endangering either the truck driver or other motorists. As the member for Orange, I am fully aware that our whole way of life in regional areas would stop if it were not for our modern freight transportation system that operates right throughout New South Wales.

In Orange we have a number of large operators, such as Smiths Transport, Whites Westran and Ferguson's, and Dubbo has an operator that has a very important role, of which the member for Dubbo would be aware, Rod Pilon Transport and also Thompsons Transport. All of those trucking companies regularly travel through Orange on their way down to what I have often referred to in this House as the goat track—the Great Western Highway—where they meet a very inefficient road system. The Government refuses to recognise that it is impossible for heavy vehicles to travel through speed zones, shopping centres and suburban areas without endangering the life of the truck driver, other motorists and pedestrians, especially children who attend schools along that main road. As I have said, the Great Western Highway is a highway in name only.

The types of vehicles that travel along the Great Western Highway include standard rigid trucks that transport fruit, wool and all sorts of products to Sydney from country areas. Those trucks are usually operated by small business people or one-truck operators. Other types of vehicles include semitrailers and A-doubles, but not B-doubles. Apart from the Great Western Highway, right throughout New South Wales B-doubles are recognised as a modern method of moving freight. In some areas in New South Wales and Victoria people are talking about B-triples, but we cannot have a B-double travelling along the Great Western Highway because the highway is so deficient. Even the truckies acknowledge that there are certain areas, such as Victoria Pass and River Lett Hill, that are too dangerous for B-doubles, especially during winter when patches of black ice form on the road.

I take this opportunity to again call on the Government to recognise the deficiencies of the Great Western Highway and support the Bells Line Expressway Group, local councils and everyone who lives west of the highway, including the member for Dubbo, in their quest for a decent four-lane divided highway over the Blue Mountains. We recognise that Bells Line is the most likely and efficient route for a new highway. I call on the Government to support the Bells Line Expressway Group which wants stage one, commencing at Tunnel Hill and terminating at Bell, to be constructed instead of some $500 million being spent by the Government to bypass Victoria Pass, Hartley Village and River Lett Hill.

That is an alternative route. In the first stage of the Bell's Line expressway the highway could continue from Bell, with an upgrade at Darling Causeway and go on to Mount Victoria. Several members have spoken about the new heavy freight regulations and the number of rest stops. Rest stops are absolutely vital in encouraging truckies and motorists to stop, revive and survive. They are most important for our heavy vehicle drivers. Under the new guidelines, heavy vehicle drivers must spend a certain period on the road and then they must stop. There must be adequate rest stops. If one truck stop is full, drivers must have sufficient time to reach the next one.

Truck drivers are vital to our economy. The vast majority of them—probably 98 per cent—are totally responsible. But they are under enormous pressure from freight rates, their employers and time schedules. I am a strong supporter of the trucking industry. Whenever there is an accident involving a truck and a motor vehicle the general public and media automatically assume that the truckie was at fault. But most of the time the accident is caused by the motorist attempting to overtake the truck and perhaps losing control on a deficient road surface. There are all sorts of reasons why the truck driver is usually not at fault. We must have more highways of a good standard upon which trucks and cars can travel safely.

I believe truckies are overregulated and over-taxed. We are reaching the point in New South Wales where we will not have enough truck operators and drivers who are prepared to wade through myriad regulations, never knowing whether they will be operating illegally. We run the risk of freight services, especially in country areas, grinding to a halt. That would be devastating for those areas that rely totally on road freight. I acknowledge that more and more freight is being moved long distances by rail. There is a place for moving full loads long distances by rail but trucks play an absolutely essential role in moving freight short distances. Other members talked about truckies being responsible for the weight of their load. Truckies who leave farms where there are no weighbridges must guess whether their load is the correct weight, and they are often fined for having overweight vehicles. Truckies are being hounded over the speed at which they travel and the number of hours they can drive. The chain of responsibility requirements involve the truckies, the freight companies and everyone else involved in the process. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The Nationals support the majority of the amendments in the bill but we want the Government to note that we have some serious concerns about the overregulation of our trucking industry. As I said before, truckies must be aware of speed, load weights, driving hours and chain of responsibility requirements. They must contend with deficient roads and increasing fuel costs. Some trucking operators are finding it difficult to pass on the horrendous increase in fuel charges. The trucking industry is vital to New South Wales. We support the bill, but we acknowledge that the amendments will make it even harder for truck operators to make a living.

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [8.45 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, which deals with a number of matters relating to road transport and the driving of vehicles—heavy, light and otherwise—on public roads in New South Wales. In essence, the object of the bill is to amend the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 and the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 1999 to provide for a penalty of driver licence disqualification for the offence of learner driver driving unaccompanied by a supervising driver. The bill also amends the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 to enable the immediate suspension of a driver licence by police for a speeding offence by a learner or provisional driver that involves exceeding a speed limit by more than 30 kilometres an hour but not more than 45 kilometres an hour, or for an offence of learner driver driving unaccompanied by a supervising driver.

The bill also amends the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 and the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 to enable regulations to be made with respect to the prevention and management of driver fatigue and speeding compliance in relation to heavy vehicles and heavy combinations. The bill amends the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 with respect to the relationship between obligations under certain road laws and obligations under occupational health and safety legislation. It amends the Roads Act 1993 to clarify that a camera designed to photograph a vehicle as it is driven past a toll point may be an approved toll camera for the purposes of that Act whether or not it photographs all such vehicles or only those driven in contravention of a requirement to pay a toll, to extend the time within which proceedings may be brought for an alleged toll offence under that Act from six months to 12 months, and to provide for the issue of evidentiary certificates with respect to various matters.

The roads in New South Wales, and indeed throughout the whole of Australia, are used for a multitude of purposes. Some very old cars travel our roads. For example, on Sunday afternoons people drive vintage and veteran cars at speeds that some would regard not to be commensurate with those attained by modern motor vehicles. Nevertheless, as motorists of licensed vehicles they are entitled to do that. There are normal passenger cars, four-wheel drive vehicles, delivery vans and other vans that seem to occupy many of our roads, particularly on working days, trucks both light and heavy—the bill deals specifically with heavy vehicles—buses, camper vans and motor homes. There are young drivers, middle-aged drivers and old drivers. There are truckies who drive very heavy rigs and who must often meet very tight deadlines. All these people drive on different types of roads in variable weather conditions. It is a cocktail of situations and it is difficult to draft legislation that pleases everyone. People have differing needs and different vehicles have different problems. Some vehicles are easy to drive and some are hard. I have never driven a truck but I have driven other vehicles that are difficult to drive. I have nothing but admiration for those who control the heavy trucks engaged in the transport industry.

I often stop at a roadhouse in the central west and see the truck drivers come in to have their dinner at 11 or 12 o'clock at night. It usually consists of half a dozen sausages, three eggs and four slices of bacon. It is hardly a healthy lifestyle: it is what I would call a cholesterol topper upper. From overhearing their conversations I concluded that they are decent, fair dinkum people who are anxious to earn a living in a very competitive and difficult industry. They talked about when they will get home—some in three nights, others the next morning—

Mr Paul Pearce: A bit like us.

Mr WAYNE MERTON: It is a bit like that. I hope the member for Coogee does not have the six sausages, three eggs and four slices of bacon.

Mr Michael Daley: He drives a hard argument.

Mr WAYNE MERTON: Yes, the member for Coogee might drive a hard argument. Drivers say they will only be home for a night and then they have to go to Melbourne, Adelaide or wherever. The life of a heavy motor vehicle and transport driver is a very hard one. The fatigue, pressure and stress under which they work makes it more onerous for them and their responsibility is certainly great. As other members have said, trucking is the backbone of the Australian transport industry because rail does not service as many areas as it used to. People from the suburbs of Sydney generally who have an early café latte or look for groceries on the shelf know that they have been delivered by people who work during the night.

This legislation introduces concepts that I understand have not been used before. The bill talks about a chain of responsibility that affects heavy vehicle drivers but could also be extended to the manager and owner of a business, and to people working in the yard, any one of whom could be held responsible for traffic incidents. This legislation has great ramifications for the industry. As the member for Burrinjuck said, unfortunately a minority of truck drivers are cowboys who do not see fit to comply with the traffic laws and regulations. We have a responsibility to ensure that they understand their responsibilities. I do not know whether the chain of responsibility goes too far. Truck drivers are not the only ones who are said to cause distress on the roads. As the member for Castle Hill said, many young people find it stimulating at 7.00 p.m. on a Friday or Saturday night to surprise residents of the areas in which they live by racing on the roads and often placing many innocent people at great risk of being injured or losing their lives.

This bill is not opposed by the Opposition, but it asks the Government to look at the issue of fatigue fairly. The Government should not only ask people to stop at the side of the road and rest but should also provide adequate rest stops to encourage truck drivers to pull up. A heavy vehicle parked at the side of narrow roads at night is extremely dangerous. Whilst the Government is asking the trucking industry to put its house in order it should clearly look at its responsibility as a provider of roads in New South Wales. It is not unreasonable for the Roads and Traffic Authority to examine that matter. The roads have to be shared by all people who have a responsibility to obey the law, whether they drive an old or new car or whatever. At the end of the day, everyone's life and safety is at risk.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [8.55 p.m.]: I thank the many members who have contributed to debate on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. We all share in this place a desire to see our roads become increasingly a safer place. We share a desire to see that drivers of heavy and small vehicles can use our highways with safety. We all share a desire to see our young people slow down. As many speakers have said, we all share a respect and admiration for our truckies, who day and night move the goods upon which we rely for life. That is why the Government is moving ahead with this legislation in a cooperative and consultative way to make the roads safer for truck drivers. I was somewhat bemused during the debate to hear criticism, principally from the member for Albury, of my agreement in principle speech. He said he quoted my agreement in principle speech, as follows:

The main purpose of the bill is to introduce a new penalty regime in respect of heavy vehicle users.

That is not what I said, and if the member would have read the legislation in greater detail or my agreement in principle speech he would have seen that those introductory remarks in relation to a new penalty regime apply for novice drivers. This Government makes no apology whatsoever for wanting to slow down our young people because they are far too often overrepresented in accidents, particularly fatal accidents. There is no excuse for an L-plate driver who is not sufficiently skilled in the art of driving a motor vehicle to be driving unaccompanied. We make no apology for wanting those people off the road. There is no excuse for an L-plate or P-plate driver, whether or not accompanied, to be exceeding the speed limit by 30 kilometres or more an hour, and we make no apology for wanting those people sidelined. I commend the legislation in that regard.

Concerning criticisms of the legislation relating to consultation with industry, particularly in relation to heavy vehicles, the preparation and consultation that has underpinned this legislation with industry regarding these laws has been extensive. The Roads and Traffic Authority has worked closely with the National Transport Commission during this process. In total, members might be surprised to know that the consultation process has run for seven years, from 2000 to 2007. Clearly, in the life of any Government there comes a time when a decision must be made and we have decided we will now take the requisite decisions that are embodied in this legislation. The quality of these new laws is evidenced by the fact that every transport Minister and every roads Minister in Australia has endorsed the introduction of these laws. I note that one of those Ministers is the former Federal Minister for Transport, the Hon. Mark Vaile.

Some of the other unfounded criticism of the legislation related to the communications strategies that are planned so that the trucking industry is aware of and ready for the legislation. The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] is currently conducting up to 35 information sessions across New South Wales. This is an awareness raising exercise to promote and provide general information about the legislation. The RTA will hold a second round of information sessions later in the year to provide detailed information about the legislation and how to apply for the accreditation schemes. Approximately 50 additional information sessions are planned for New South Wales. The RTA is also developing a communication and marketing campaign to ensure that all parties in the chain of responsibility are provided with all relevant information required to plan for commencement of the new legislation. Information resources such as brochures, newsletters, information bulletins and a DVD will be developed for distribution to operators and drivers prior to the commencement of the new legislation. The RTA website will have information regarding the new legislation. Radio and print advertisements will also be used to promote the legislation.

It may be the case that some parts of the trucking industry will not be ready to implement the legislation. How will the RTA and the Government address this? The answer is that the RTA will apply a grace period during which drivers will be educated regarding the new legislation following its proclamation. As with other major legislative initiatives, the RTA may apply warning periods and cautions and take a careful and considered approach to the legislation.

The member for Coffs Harbour raised the issue of auditors under the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme. His concerns are misplaced. The transfer and appointment of auditors under the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme is being actioned by national bodies. To contribute to the adequacy of the supply of auditors, in the past year the RTA has begun training a select group of its inspectors as nationally recognised auditors. The inspectors will be available to assist industry, as the RTA has said. It should be noted that the role of an auditor under this scheme has nothing to do with on-road enforcement. Rather, an auditor's job is to examine the management of a trucking company to see if the management has implemented, or plans to implement, good systems for managing fatigue using the recognised national standards.

Finally, in relation to the question of e-tags on motorcycles, which is scarcely relevant to the bill but which I will address anyway, the RTA is currently in discussions with a range of companies in relation to procuring products that may safely hold e-tags for motorcyclists. The Minister for Roads will update the Parliament on that in due course. Once again I thank all members for their contributions. I thank the Opposition for its support of this legislation. In summary, the purpose of the Road Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is to amend the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 and the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 to extend the on-the-spot licence suspension regime to include certain driving offences committed by novice drivers, and to introduce a new regime of increased penalties for a learner driver driving while unaccompanied by a supervising driver.

The bill also amends the Roads Act 1993 in a minor way in relation to the definition of an "approved toll camera", to extend the certificate evidence provisions of the Act to provide for certificate evidence of non-controversial matters in prosecutions, and to extend the time to initiate proceedings for a toll offence to 12 months, consistent with the limitation period for other camera-detected road transport offences. Further amendments to the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 and the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 will allow regulations to be made to enable New South Wales to adopt national model legislation for heavy vehicle driver fatigue and speed compliance, and clarify the application of occupational health and safety legislation in relation to road law. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Division called for and Standing Order 181 applied.

Question declared resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill declared passed and returned to the Legislative Council without amendment.

Debate resumed from 18 June 2008.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [9.11 p.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2008, which amends the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 in order to clarify the circumstances in which it is permissible to match DNA profiles. At present there is some ambiguity in the Act and the changes made will help to ensure that the Act is clearly interpreted. The bill will also permit a DNA profile on the suspects index of the DNA database to be matched with another DNA profile on that index, as well as permitting a DNA profile on the unknown deceased persons index of the DNA database to be matched with another DNA profile on that index.

Other changes under the bill will enable the regulations to prescribe a person or body as a responsible authority of a participating jurisdiction for the purposes of part 12, interstate enforcement, of the principal Act, and will also include CrimTrac as a responsible authority in relation to the Commonwealth. Further changes are also made that set out the circumstances in which the Attorney General may enter into arrangements with participating jurisdictions for the transfer of information from the DNA database of this State to those jurisdictions and also the transfer of information to this State from those jurisdictions. These amendments also set out the purposes for which any transferred information may be used.

At present there are seven fairly self-explanatory indices on the DNA database, which include the crime scene index, the suspects index, the volunteers (limited purposes) index, the volunteers (unlimited purposes) index, the offenders index, the missing persons index and the unknown deceased persons index. There are limited methods for matching between these indexes afforded under section 93 in a complex matrix between the indices. At present the terminology that governs the operation of the matrix in subsections (1) and (2) of section 93 is confusing and problematic. The bill will amend this terminology to ensure that the table can be read both vertically and horizontally whilst maintaining its symmetry. Under changes in this bill, certain elements of the matrix will be amended, and I will deal with that in some detail.

Matching between the crime scene index and the volunteers (limited purposes) index will be allowed only if within purpose. Before these amendments such matching was not allowed. Changes will also permit matching within the suspects index. Matching will also be permitted between the suspects index and the missing persons index. Matching between the volunteers (limited purposes) index and the suspects index is now allowed. At present such matching is allowed only if within purpose. The offenders index may be matched with the volunteers (limited purposes) database only if within purpose and can be matched with the volunteers (unlimited purposes) index. Previously no matching was allowed between these indexes. The missing persons index can now be matched to the volunteers (limited purposes) index only if within purpose; previously that was not allowed. Lastly, the unknown deceased persons index now allows for matching within the index and the ability to match with the volunteers (unlimited purposes) index has now been limited to only if within purpose.

The Government claims that these changes are made to improve the integrity of the database, provide clarification to volunteer DNA sample conditions and to assist in matching the DNA of unidentified persons in terrible catastrophes, such as explosions or terrorist attacks. These changes proposed by the Government seem reasonable and the clarification of the operation of section 93 brings more clarity to the legislation. The definition of "responsible authority" in section 95 is also amended to take into account the Commonwealth's CrimTrac, which is defined in the section. Further changes are made to recognise the role of CrimTrac and the New South Wales inter-jurisdictional roles in amendments to sections 97 and 109. These changes provide greater flexibility and improve the ability of the Attorney General to transmit information from the New South Wales database to other jurisdictions in order to be used for defined purposes.

The bill should assist police and law enforcement agencies in the fight against crime and make DNA tools more accessible in identifying criminals. The changes will allow DNA information to be shared between States more easily and will also provide for the use of DNA matching across more strands in the matrix and deliver better information outcomes. We should welcome increased flexibility in access to such precious information, but there is an increased danger that the information could be misused. The Government must ensure that all efforts are made to protect and safeguard the information while the integrity of the database is maintained and privacy is paramount.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.18 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Epping for his contribution to the debate. The Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2008 amends the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 with respect to the matching of DNA profiles and the sharing of DNA information with other jurisdictions. It makes amendments to the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 to, firstly, make clear the circumstances in which DNA profiles on the DNA database can be matched against each other; secondly, allow for suspect profiles to be matched against profiles from other suspects; thirdly, allow for the profiles of unidentified dead persons to be matched against the profiles of other unidentified dead; and, finally, allow the Attorney General the ability to sign more complex agreements concerning DNA matching and sharing with other jurisdictions.

The bill amends the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act in two main ways. Firstly, it makes changes to and clarifies the circumstances in which DNA profiles can be matched against other profiles on our DNA database. This is accomplished through amending the matching table in section 93 of the Act. This change implements an election commitment. As recommended by the Ombudsman, the changes will allow profiles taken from suspects to be matched against others. This will allow New South Wales to better manage its database and, importantly, to provide an additional tool for police and help prevent criminals escaping justice through identity fraud. This change also implements an election commitment. It provides the police with an additional tool to deal with the difficult and terrible situation of matching body parts of unknown dead persons.

Secondly, the bill amends provisions that govern our ability to match DNA profiles with other jurisdictions so as to allow the Attorney General to enter into a broader range of agreements. Developments and ongoing changes in inter-jurisdictional matching have shown that the power to enter agreements should not be limited on highly technical terms. The clarifications to the matching table are being made to provide abundant clarity as to the way certain profiles can be matched against each other. The clarifications draw on the practical lessons learned as the DNA database is put to greater effect.

New South Wales has agreements to match, and is matching, with South Australia, Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Tasmania and the Commonwealth—a matter raised earlier by the member for Epping. Together, these jurisdictions represent about 80 per cent of the Australian population. Negotiations with the Northern Territory and Queensland continue, and the Attorney General's Department hopes to have final arrangements drafted in the near future. We already have an agreement with Queensland to exchange DNA profiles on a case-by-case basis. Matching with other jurisdictions has already provided important information to New South Wales in the fight against crime.

We have already had more than 800 links, most of which provide important information to police. The member for Epping identified seven of the indices, each of which contains DNA profiles and associated data required in different circumstances. The suspect index contains DNA profiles taken by police from people suspected of committing a crime. The crime scene index contains profiles taken from crime scenes in the course of investigation. The offenders index contains profiles taken from known criminals who have been convicted of an offence and had their DNA sample taken. The missing persons index contains profiles of people who are missing and the families of missing persons who give their profiles in order to locate loved ones. There are two volunteer indexes. One provides for people who volunteer their DNA unconditionally and the other provides for those who volunteer on a limited basis.

Profiles from unknown deceased persons are held in the unknown deceased persons index. By dividing up profiles into different indices we can ensure that the balance between law enforcement and privacy is kept. The changes to the Act will maintain that balance. The details of the clarifying changes are important in that they make it clear that crime scene profiles can be matched against limited purpose volunteer profiles and vice versa, as long as they are matched for the limited purpose for which the volunteer DNA profile was placed on the database. Offenders profiles, missing persons profiles and unknown deceased persons profiles can be matched against limited purpose volunteer profiles in similar circumstances. Offenders profiles can be matched against unlimited purpose volunteer profiles and vice versa.

Missing persons profiles can be matched against suspect profiles. Previously, the table in section 93 of the Act had anomalous entries concerning matching between these indices. This legislation seeks to clarify changes to the matching table. The bill implements important election commitments concerning DNA and makes matching and sharing DNA by New South Wales much more effective. 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 18 June 2008.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [9.23 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I speak in debate on the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentences) Bill 2008. However, some pertinent matters in the bill should be aired in this House. The purpose of this bill is:

(a) to restrict to one the number of further applications that an existing offender may make to the Supreme Court for a redetermination of his or her original life sentence, and

(b) to require the Supreme Court, when giving consideration to such an application, to have regard and give substantial weight to the level of culpability of the offender in the commission of the offence for which the sentence was imposed and the heinousness of the offence, and

(c) to allow an existing offender to withdraw such an application, and make a further such application, only with leave of the Supreme Court.

This bill was introduced partly in response to a number of applications by high-profile prisoners who sought a redetermination of their sentences, only to withdraw such applications at the eleventh hour, to the significant distress of the families of the victims. One recent such application was made by John Ernest Cribb, only to be withdrawn at the last minute. Previous attempts have been made by the Government with life sentence redetermination legislation to ensure that certain prisoners would never be released. Initial attempts to cement in certain prisoners failed. In the case of Bronson Blessington and Matthew Elliott, 2005 NSW Supreme Court 340, the Government had to go back and revisit the whole issue.

It should be noted that these types of laws are susceptible to High Court challenge and it would not be surprising if this new law became the subject of a further High Court challenge. The arguments in favour of the legislation include: to ensure that only one application for redetermination can be made by those remaining prisoners serving life sentences; to avoid frivolous applications for determination and last-minute withdrawal of the same; and to give the families of victims some degree of finality. Apparently 17 prisoners are remaining in prisons in New South Wales—prisoners who were sentenced to imprisonment for life prior to the introduction of the truth-in-sentencing legislation in 1989.

Those remaining 17 prisoners are probably people who would have been sentenced to life imprisonment under the truth-in-sentencing legislation. They are the worst of the worst, which is why, up until now, either they have not made an application or they have become so institutionalised that they will never make an application. There are some who have made a previous application, such as John Ernest Cribb. The ones that are set in cement are the ones generally involved in highly-publicised murders of victims such as Anita Cobby and Janine Balding, and a never-to-be-released recommendation indicates that the sentencing judge, had he or she been operating under the truth-in-sentencing legislation, would not have allowed their release and would have given them a life sentence.

One of the effects against this legislation might be that many judges might feel that, because this is the only chance a prisoner has, they will grant the application for a redetermination at that stage. Whilst they might set a longer non-parole period than in other cases, nevertheless, they will give prisoners a chance to be released. That might be an argument against the legislation, but it is probably one of the consequences of it. We have sought consultation from the Law Society, the Bar Association, the Director of Public Prosecutions and legal aid but at this stage we have not received any submissions. I seem to recall that in the past those agencies have opposed this type of legislation.

I mentioned earlier the case of John Ernest Cribb. My friend the member for Castle Hill is likely to go into some detail about that matter because the family of the victims are constituents of his, and he has given them great support. I am sure that they appreciate that support. In 1979 John Ernest Cribb was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of three members of one family, and he was sentenced to 12 years penal servitude for rape. No non-parole period was set as in those days the sentence was a mandatory life sentence. Justice Roden sentenced him and, as I understand it, in November 1979 Justice Slattery subsequently sentenced him for more offences of kidnapping and sexual assault.

On 1 May 1991 Mr Cribb applied under section 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989 for determination of a minimum term and an additional term for each of those three life sentences. This application was made after the commencement of the new Sentencing Act—truth-in-sentencing legislation that the Greiner Government introduced. The application came before Justice Newman on 26 August 1993. In a reserved judgement delivered on 12 November 1993 His Honour, under the terms of section 13A (4) (b), declined to determine a minimum term and an additional term and dismissed the application. Subsequently Cribb appealed and on 4 November 1994 Justice Badgery-Parker, with Justices Finlay and James concurring, refused the application. Justice Badgery-Parker said that he was of the opinion, for the reasons he had given, that the challenge to the decision of Justice Newman had not been made good. Justice Badgery-Parker said:

On the contrary, my consideration of this matter leads me to the view that even were it to be concluded that Newman, J. had applied the wrong test in the determination of the application, so that this court was called upon to reconsider it as it would reconsider the sentence where an error in an original sentencing process was made good, I would myself independently have reached the conclusion, upon consideration of all the matters adverted to above, that the only possible sentence to be imposed upon this applicant in respect of the charges of murder having regard to the need to formulate a sentence which reflected the totality of the criminality of those offences, the armed robberies for which he was still liable to serve a balance of parole and the escape and the offences committed while at large following that escape in April 1979, was a sentence of penal servitude for life, meaning penal servitude for the term of the prisoner's natural life without the prospect of release on parole.

Although he granted leave to appeal because of the importance of the issues, the appeal itself was dismissed. I will not go into the horrendous facts of the case, which involved torture, cruelty and a murder of the most despicable kind with other indignities perpetrated on the victims. Cribb is one prisoner who will be affected by this legislation and who now can make only one more application. We commend that decision: he should be allowed to make only one application. He has already made one application and has been refused. It could be put forward that he is now rehabilitated, but if that is so, why does he continue to apply for a determined sentence and then withdraw the application? He must doubt the success of it.

Another matter that attracted enormous publicity and attention by this Parliament and the courts involved persons named Elliott and Blessington. The 2006 New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal at 305 examines legislation that had been introduced basically to cement these men in jail. The legislation was extreme because the applicants were very young at the time of the offence—teenagers aged 14 years and 16 years. If they had committed the offence after the enactment of truth-in-sentencing legislation—certainly at the present time—because of their age they could not be given a life sentence. However, in this notorious case, another horrendous murder involving torturing and leaving the victim, Janine Balding, to die, the courts consistently refused to redetermine the sentences of the offenders.

It is pertinent to read the explanation of Chief Justice Murray Gleeson in the High Court decision of Baker, which is another decision involving a non-release recommendation. In the first appeal of Elliott and Blessington, Justice Gleeson had been critical of judges making that recommendation because there was no statutory power to recommend someone never be released. Nevertheless, in his concurring judgement in Baker v The Queen 2004 High Court of Australia 45 he said in paragraph (8):

When the 1997 amendments to s 13A, the subject of the present constitutional challenge, were made, there was a limited number of prisoners serving life sentences who had been the subject of non-release recommendations. Their identities, and the circumstances of their crimes, were widely known. The New South Wales Parliament decided that, in the scheme of s 13A, they should be treated as exceptional cases. It made special, and different, provision for them. As a matter of legislative power, the Parliament was entitled to do so. Senior Counsel for the appellant acknowledged in the course of argument that, if Parliament had simply named the persons in question and excluded them from the operation of s 13A, then his Kable argument would not have arisen—

a reference to the 1995 decision of Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions.

It might be argued, as a matter of legislative policy, that it was unreasonable of Parliament to single out for special, and disadvantageous, treatment those prisoners who had been sentenced by judges who were willing to make non-release recommendations when others who had also committed heinous crimes might have escaped such recommendations because of the inclinations of a particular sentencing judge. As a matter of policy, I see the force of that argument, but its significance in terms of legislative power is another matter. Parliament may have taken the view that at least those people in the position of the appellant should be subject to a special regime, and if others whose crimes were just as serious were given the benefit of more favourable treatment then that would have to be accepted. It is evident from the Parliamentary material referred to in argument that the view was taken that public opinion demanded some form of legislative recognition of the fact that, included amongst prisoners serving life sentences, there were people whose crimes were so extreme that sentencing judges had been moved to recommend that they should never be released. As a matter of legislative power, it was open to the New South Wales Parliament to enact legislation reflecting such opinion. The distinction drawn by the legislature was not arbitrary. If, for any reason one wanted to identify prisoners who had committed the most heinous crimes, searching for those who had been the subject of a non-release recommendation would be at least a good start. In the view of some people, it would be unreasonable to stop there, and unfair to discriminate solely on that ground. Choices of that kind, however, are generally within legislative competence.

Persons who were the subject of a non-release recommendation had one thing in common: the legislature knew that the judges who sentenced them thought that their crimes were so serious that, in their cases, imprisonment for life should mean exactly that. There may have been other cases where sentencing judges held the same opinion, but did not express it.

There is a further consideration that Parliament is entitled to take into account when legislating about crime and punishment. Parliament is not functioning in a hermetically sealed environment.

The public are aware that there are some prisoners whose crimes have attracted judicial condemnation of the utmost severity, and that such condemnation, at least in the past, has sometimes taken the form of an expression of opinion that a particular prisoner should remain in custody for life. The complex legal and political issues that surrounded the 1989 'truth-in-sentencing' legislation in New South Wales resulted from a notorious difference between the appearance and reality of some sentences. When Parliament decided to permit prisoners who had been sentenced for 'life' to apply for determinate sentences, which to the public would almost certainly appear to be lower than the original sentences, it was foreseeable that it would want to address, and perhaps reserved for special treatment, the most extreme cases, however those cases were to be identified.

One other case to which I refer involves David Jack Glen, who ultimately was given a life sentence redetermination by Justice Barr. The sentence was appealed against by the Crown and was examined by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Regina v Glen [2006] NSWCCA 153 is a decision of Justice Grove with Justice Adams and Justice Hislop concurring. On 10 October 1985 Glen murdered and mutilated his 10-year-old cousin. The mutilation was extremely serious to her vagina and anus. He then hung her on a coathanger inside a cupboard and allowed her to choke to death while he went shopping. On 22 December 1986 Justice Wood sentenced him to life imprisonment but made no recommendation that he was never to be released because Glen was only about 19 at the time he was sentenced. After eight years had passed, which was the minimum requisite period for making an application, Glen lodged an application for redetermination.

By then Justice Wood was the chief judge at common law and heard the application on 1 October 1999. This case exemplifies why I think the spirit of the current amendment is an accurate one: it shows the agony of the victim's relatives. This man kept saying he would apply but over many years kept delaying, and the matter was continually not ready to be listed. The court's judgement sets out that on 1 October the matter came before Justice Wood in accordance with the practice that such applications would be dealt with by the original sentencing judge if that judge remained available. The judgement states:

The respondent sought a further adjournment (until about June 2000) to allow him to complete a SORT [Sexual Offenders Redirectional Training] programme. His Honour refused the application for adjournment. He considered it "utterly inappropriate for an application of this kind to remain in limbo for six years".

The relatives of the deceased agonised each time the matter came on for mention, being so utterly upset and, as it were, tortured by the process. The judgement goes on to state:

[Justice Wood] … noted that until March (1999) the respondent was resisting encouragement, which had been offered to him, to engage in psychological counselling and to participate in a sexual offenders diversionary programme. The change in expressed attitude apparently coincided with a callover of the pending application under s 13A.

In dismissing the application Justice Wood reduced the two-year period within which reapplication was permitted to 18 months. Mr Glen filed a further application on 2 April 2001, which was 18 months and one day after dismissal of the previous application. The application was supposed to be made under section 13A of the Sentencing Act, but that had been repealed. The provisions of schedule 1 to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act had been substituted for the Sentencing Act, and that applied to life sentences, whether imposed on or after 12 January 1990, which was the commencement date of the relevant amendment that introduced section 13A.

The second application came on before Justice Barr because Justice Wood was no longer available. Justice Barr heard the application on 16 September and 14 October 2005. There was some evidence that at that time Glen was being rehabilitated, but he had not been able to get into the Custody Based Intensive Treatment Program, which was supposedly the best program for sexual offenders. It was the most intense program that had the most success. Herein is the problem that the Government must resolve. It is not easy for people in high classifications, such as Mr Glen, to qualify for the Custody Based Intensive Treatment Program. Special orders have to be made. Many people seeking to be released on a life sentence redetermination in the past have been blocked by classification difficulties.

Justice Barr granted the application and substituted for the existing life sentence a total term of 36 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 24 years dating from 10 October 1985. The earliest date of eligibility for Mr Glen's release is 9 October 2009. According to the Court of Criminal Appeal, Justice Barr made some errors. The Crown appeal was allowed. Mr Glen's redetermination was quashed, but the court maintained the non-parole period. The court ordered that the application to set a specific term of sentence imposed by Justice Wood be declined, but pursuant to clause 4 (1) (b) of schedule 1 to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 there be set a non-parole period of 24 years to date from 10 October 1985 and expire on 9 October 2009. That means that if Mr Glen were given parole and breached it he would be returned to custody for a period up to the term of his natural life.

I have examined in some detail several sad leading cases under these provisions to make several points. One is that, as can be seen from the Elliott and Blessington matter, under the redetermination legislation or the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentences) Bill 2008, young people aged 14 and 16 who have had life sentences imposed on them, although they are eligible to have their sentences redetermined after serving 30 years, effectively become eligible on their deathbed. Is that fair when compared with sentences imposed on young people who have committed murder since the introduction of the truth-in-sentencing legislation? I was involved in a case in which a 13-year-old murdered a 3-year-old. The offender's behaviour, since being sentenced to 20 years gaol with a 10-year non-parole period, has been deplorable. His own psychiatrist said he was very dangerous, as did the Crown's psychiatrist, and his subsequent behaviour confirmed that. Is this Government fair dinkum from the point of view of the victim and the victim's family if it imprisons for life or limits to one application one category of prisoner whereas another group cannot get life imprisonment?

Today I was criticised in the other place—which does not worry me one bit—for being soft on young offenders. But I challenge the Attorney General to put up or shut up. I challenge him to consider our laws—which this Government has controlled for the past 13 years—that enable very dangerous young people who kill in a monstrous manner to be released because they do not apply to their situation. I have another challenge for the Government. Although the relatives of homicide victims may be able to give third party sentencing impact statements—witness impact statements and victim impact statements—the Government has not passed legislation to enable the court to take them into account as an aggravating factor. It has had the opportunity to do so through various amendments to sections 22A and 22B of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. On one occasion five judges reviewed the situation.

There seems to be an anomaly in this area. Of course, the degree of cruelty and suffering inflicted on a victim's family is a matter of opinion. But when a mother is conned by a criminal who ambushes her family, then kills her son in front of her and permanently injures her husband, does the effect of that offence on her not deserve to be treated as an aggravating circumstance? If the Government is fair dinkum about caring for victims it should put its money where its mouth is and enact legislation that will give the families of homicide victims the opportunity to get things off their chest and receive real justice. The effect of the offence of them should be taken into account when handing down a sentence.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [9.52 p.m.]: I support the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentences) Bill 2008. Earlier this year my constituent Mrs Christine Rogers, the sister of murdered mother of six Valda Connell, and Valda's husband, Paul, came to see me. Mrs Rogers laid out in graphic terms the reasons that the law relating to life sentences should be changed. I supported her then, and I am happy to support her in the House today. In 1978 Valda Connell was kidnapped from her home in Baulkham Hills, raped and murdered by a man named John Ernest Cribb. But Cribb was not satisfied with murdering just Mrs Connell. He also murdered two of her children: Sally, aged ten, and Damien, who was aged just four at the time. The member for Epping spoke about the relative difference in punishment between people who are young when they commit heinous crimes and are sentenced to life in prison and those who are older at the time of their crime. But, any way you want to look at it, this man took away the lives of two young children and I believe he deserves to stay in jail for the term of his natural life.

I do not want to revisit the details of Cribb's crime. As the member for Epping said, it was in the worst case category of offences. It may not be well known that he was on parole at the time the crimes were committed. Cribb was convicted before the Greiner Government introduced the truth-in-sentencing legislation in 1989 in response to community anger at the way in which criminals' sentences were being reduced for good behaviour. Today the Leader of the Opposition alluded to the way in which the then Minister for Corrective Services, Rex Jackson, accepted bribes for the early release of prisoners. Of course, he was later sent to jail. The legislation provided for a head sentence and a minimum non-parole period. It also provided that "life meant life", not 10 or 20 years in prison. However, some prisoners who had been given life sentences before the reforms took effect were allowed to have their sentences redetermined because, as the Minister said in his agreement in principle speech, the Government did not want the legislation to be retrospective.

As an unintended consequence of the legislation men such as John Ernest Cribb have been able to make repeated appeals for sentence redetermination. Every time this happens the family must relive the horror of that murderous day in 1978, and also anticipate that the appeal might be successful and the man might leave jail—goodness knows what might happen then. But it is worse than that. While the victim's families have to prepare victim impact statements a full month before the hearing and psych themselves up to appear in court, the offender can withdraw the application at the very last moment. That is exactly what happened to Valda Connell's family. They prepared their victim impact statements and gathered in Sydney for the hearing. Some family members flew from Townsville for the occasion: people came from all over Australia to try to keep this man behind bars. Yet 24 hours beforehand—not the eleventh hour but one minute to midnight—John Ernest Cribb withdrew his application, perhaps because he was judge shopping, as the Minister suggested, or perhaps because of the sheer strength of the forces aligned against him.

Certainly, the Director of Public Prosecutions wanted the family members to read their victim impact statements in court, which would have been tough going. But Christine Rogers told me that the family was absolutely determined that John Cribb should die in jail and they would leave no stone unturned in making sure that happened. One of the hardest things for the family to take was the fact that Cribb wrote to the court in 1992 claiming that he had not raped Valda and further suggesting that Sally, the 10-year-old he murdered, was his child. I think that gives us some idea exactly what sort of animal the man is.

Mr Barry Collier: Animals wouldn't do that.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: No, they would not. There has been no rehabilitation and there is no justification for releasing this man. There is certainly no justification for the sort of trauma that the family endured on that occasion. Cribb had previously applied to be released in 2003, and at that time the family chose not to do anything about it. I am sure they have had many discussions about their lucky escape: Cribb's application was refused at that time. As I said earlier, the family is now determined that it will do everything in its power to ensure that he dies in jail. Christine Rogers described the effect of the withdrawal of his application on the family as "horrific". She came to see the Attorney General and me to get something done to change the situation. I am glad to say that that is what the bill does.

The legislation affects only a handful of people—about eight. From now on those people will get only one chance to apply for a redetermination of their sentences. If the Supreme Court turns the offender down, the offender will die in jail. If an application was made before 17 June 2008 the court may direct that the offender may never reapply to the court. If such a direction is not given the offender may not reapply for the next three years, and if the application is refused the offender will die in jail. I am glad to say that the bill provides that the court will determine whether offenders are able to withdraw their applications at the last moment. If the Supreme Court grants leave for withdrawal the offender may make a further application only with the agreement of the court. In considering whether to grant leave to withdraw an application or to make a further application, the court must give substantial weight to the number of times the offender has previously withdrawn an application for redetermination. The fact that an offender has put the victim's family through this horrendous and horrific trauma will go against the application.

New section 6A provides that if the court refuses to grant leave to make a new application for redetermination, the offender will die in jail. It will still be possible for an offender to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court to the Court of Criminal Appeal, so there is still the possibility for the offender to make one further appeal before resigning himself or herself to the fact that he or she will serve the term of his or her natural life in jail. That is the way it ought to be, for history shows that this type of legislation has been overturned by the High Court. I know that because of the case of Gregory Wayne Kable, which the member for Wakehurst mentioned.

Members may not know that more than 13 years ago I attempted to have passed dangerous offenders legislation to deal with that very difficult and unusual set of circumstances in which Mr Kable, who was charged with murdering his wife, was convicted of manslaughter because something went wrong in court. He was released after three years, without a parole period. He was a free man, deemed to have served his time, yet a number of reports suggested that he posed a threat to others. Indeed, he had made phone calls and written letters from jail that were terrifying in their intent. Unfortunately, I am now aware of the case of John Ernest Cribb, and I am glad that this bill addresses the concerns that Christine Rogers and other members of the Connell family have brought to my attention. Probably only eight people in New South Wales do not support the legislation, and that is the way it ought to be. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.00 p.m.], in reply: The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentences) Bill makes amendments to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 by restricting to one the number of applications that an offender sentenced to life prior to the 1989 so-called truth-in-sentencing laws may make to the Supreme Court for a redetermination of his or her life sentence. When considering such an application the bill provides that the Supreme Court will have regard to, and give substantial weight to, the level of culpability of the offender and the degree of heinousness of the offence for which the sentence was imposed. Finally, it only allows offenders to withdraw such an application with leave of the Supreme Court. I thank the member for Epping and the member for Castle Hill for their contributions to the debate.

There are 17 inmates in New South Wales who were sentenced to life imprisonment prior to the truth-in-sentencing reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Of those, nine inmates are serving life with non-release recommendations, that is, their files have been marked "never to be released". The remaining eight inmates are those who have either applied for redetermination and been refused, or who have not yet applied. The truth-in-sentencing reforms meant that from 1990 onwards offenders sentenced to life imprisonment served the rest of their life in prison. But to avoid the life-means-life provisions from having retrospective effect, the Greiner Government's reforms provided that offenders who had been sentenced to life before truth in sentencing could have their sentences redetermined. That meant that the offenders were given a minimum term, which must be spent in custody, with the prospect of an additional term during which they may be released to parole.

In the early 1990s I had the privilege of working in the Court of Criminal Appeal section of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Sydney, under the senior solicitor, Mr Phil Thompson. I was involved under his tutelage with a number of redeterminations of life sentences. I pay tribute to the work of Mr Phil Thompson, which was highly regarded by Supreme Court judges. Under the redetermination of sentences, inmates serving a sentence could apply to the Supreme Court to have their sentences redetermined, but there was no limit on the number of times an offender could seek a redetermination. Yet, as the member for Epping and the member for Castle Hill said, each time the offender reapplied the families of the victims had to go through stress and trauma, prepare themselves mentally, write victim impact statements and appear in court. Often after that stress they would turn up to court only to find the offender had withdrawn his or her application at the last minute. The Government has brought forward this bill to address the problem. No longer will inmates sentenced to life under the old system be able to repeatedly seek sentence redeterminations.

The purpose of this bill is very clear: offenders should have only one opportunity for redetermination. They should not bring an application for redetermination until they are ready to have it heard. The bill continues to allow offenders to apply to the Supreme Court to have their life sentences redetermined but it puts a stop to multiple applications. Nine inmates are subject to non-release orders, that is, they have been given a life sentence with a recommendation from the judge "never to be released". Technically, this legislation applies to them: when they become eligible to apply for a redetermination they will be able to do only once. It is important to note, and the member for Epping alluded to this, that under the current "cement them in their cells" laws passed by Premier Bob Carr, these offenders cannot seek redetermination until they have served 30 years in custody and can satisfy the Supreme Court that special reasons exist that justify the making of such a determination.

Even if they did get a re-determined sentence, these inmates whose files have been marked "never to be released" cannot be paroled unless they, first, are in imminent danger of dying, or are incapacitated to the extent that they no longer have the physical ability to harm any person, and second, have demonstrated that they do not pose a risk to the community. Significantly, the amendment to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act is not retrospective. Each of the remaining offenders will be allowed one final determination, regardless of whether he or she has previously made an application. The will get only one more chance, however, and this strikes the right balance between protecting victims, ensuring that court orders are respected and preventing any unfair impact.

If the offender makes an application, and then wishes to withdraw it, the offender can only do so with the leave of the court. If leave is granted, the court may direct the inmate cannot make a further application for a specified period of time, and then the offender will only be able to withdraw with the leave of the court. The Crown can also oppose any application to withdraw, and seek to have the redetermination application heard. The court, when considering whether to grant leave to withdraw or reapply will be required to take into account and give substantial weight to how many previous applications have already been made and subsequently withdrawn. Importantly, when an application is withdrawn the Crown will be able to ask the court to prevent the inmate from reapplying within a specified period of time.

Significantly, the legislation provides that upon an application for redetermination of a sentence, the court is to have regard to all the circumstances surrounding the offence for which the sentence was imposed, as well as a number of other factors, including reports by the review council, relevant reports prepared after the offender was sentenced, the need to preserve the safety of the community, and the age of the offender at the time of the offence and at the time the Supreme Court dealt with the matter. That is the current legislation. The bill adds two specific factors for consideration to which the court should give substantial weight, namely the culpability of the offender in the commission of the offence and whether the offence was in the worst category of cases.

The Homicide Victims Support Group, the Victims of Crime Assistance League and Enough is Enough have been consulted and they have indicated they support the changes. The Attorney General also met recently with Gary Connell and his sisters, and the Government acknowledges both the trauma they have been through and the contribution they have made to these changes. The Attorney General worked through these changes with Mr Connell and his family. The families of the victims of these inmates have suffered enough. Old wounds were opened anew every time an inmate lodged an application, and the families had to relieve the horrific crime that took their loved ones away from them. The legislation ensures that victims will have to go through only one redetermination rather than ride the rollercoaster of emotions when the offender reapplies and then withdraws on the eve of the hearing.

The member for Epping raised the CUBIT program, which has been designed for and shown to be most effective for offenders when approaching the end of their sentence. All the inmates sentenced to life under the old system have been convicted of murder, and some of them have been convicted also of sex offences. CUBIT is just one of many rehabilitation programs for inmates convicted of such serious offences. For example, a murderer whose offences included a sexual offence is able to undertake many other program in custody that will demonstrate that offender's commitment to reforming his thinking and antisocial, criminal behaviour and attitudes. The incidence of sex offending can also be reduced by addressing other criminogenic factors such as drug and alcohol abuse, antisocial attitudes, anger, aggression, violence and lack of pro-social associates. The Department of Corrective Services offers a range of programs to reduce reoffending by sex offenders. These include educational, preparatory, therapeutic and maintenance programs in custody for offenders at a range of risk levels. Accordingly, the Supreme Court when hearing a redetermination application is concerned with an offender's demonstrated willingness to participate effectively in jail services and programs, and a capacity to stay out of trouble while in custody.

It should be noted that when the truth in sentencing laws came into effect hundreds of inmates had indeterminate sentences. With the exception of less than 20 inmates, they have had their life sentences redetermined. This group of hundreds has included many sex offenders, who would not necessarily have been in a position to undertake the CUBIT program prior to lodging their application for redetermination. One of the factors that the court also takes into account is a report from the Serious Offenders Review Council, which includes not only a detailed review of courses undertaken to date by the inmate, but also forecasts a future program pathway for the intimate, should the court redetermine the sentence and provide the offender with a sentence that includes a non-parole period. Of course, when redetermining a sentence, the court usually sets a non-parole period that does not expire for quite a few years. This will allow offenders to complete the CUBIT program once a determinate sentence has been set.

Finally, it is important to realise that if, on an application by an inmate, the Supreme Court declines to set a non-parole period under this legislation or a fixed term sentence, subject to appeal that will be the end of the matter and the offender will have to serve the term of his or her natural life in prison. This bill makes needed reforms to the redetermination of life sentences. The Opposition supports the bill. The members for Epping and Castle Hill have spoken in the debate. The member for Castle Hill in particular has had contact with the Connell family and of course the Attorney General has taken the family through the various stages of the legislation and has consulted widely with victims' group. 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.

Consideration of the Legislative Council amendment.

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [8], lines 3 and 4. Omit all words on those lines.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [10.13 p.m.]: I move:

That the House agree to the Legislative Council amendment.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [10.14 p.m.]: The Opposition, under the leadership of the Hon. Catherine Cusack, the shadow Minister for Fair Trading, proposed this amendment in the other place because it believes the retention of this power is essential to the credibility of Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal subpoenas and orders. We note that only the chairperson can exercise the power to compel witnesses to appear. The fact that the power has not been used is not sufficient justification for deleting it. The Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal also appears to have failed to use its powers to hold any party in contempt, which the Opposition finds extraordinary. Such powers are essential should a future move be made to ensure that the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal is taken more seriously by parties. We are concerned that the Tribunal has failed to act on the problem of parties declining to appear before it. It makes a mockery of the process and leaves the other party in a dreadful position. We hope that with the passing of this amendment Parliament has sent a clear message to the tribunal that it must address this problem. It is appropriate to acknowledge the work undertaken by the shadow Minister in this instance. It is good political theatre to watch the shadow Minister keep the Minister for Fair Trading accountable. given the ongoing problems she is having in her portfolio. Well done to the shadow Minister in that regard!

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [10.15 p.m.]: I find it somewhat amazing that the Opposition wants to move along these lines, given that the powers being referred to have never been used. It would appear this debate is purely academic. If the Opposition wants to pursue this amendment, that is fine. Nothing has happened in the past in relation to this power and one would assume nothing will happen in the future. In relation to the work of the Minister, about which the member for Bega has spoken, I can only say she is obviously doing a great job because the Opposition feels inclined at every opportunity to comment on her performance. That in itself says to me and everybody else on this side of the House that the Minister is making her mark. She is obviously very effective, so much so that she evokes a response from the Opposition even though that response is meaningless in every sense.

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

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council amendment agreed to.

Motion by Mr John Aquilina agreed to:

That this House do now adjourn.