Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 14 November 2008, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Friday 14 November 2008

__________

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

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Business Lapsed

General Business Order of the Day (General Order) No. 1 and General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) Nos 1 to 4 lapsed pursuant to Standing Order 105 (3).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (LEGAL STATUS) BILL 2008

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

ANIMALS (REGULATION OF SALE) BILL 2008

Bill introduced on motion by Ms Clover Moore.

Agreement in Principle

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [10.02 a.m.]: I move:

Last year I introduced a bill to ban the sale of pets in pet shops with the tabling of my Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill 2007. I began my speech with the Abraham Lincoln quote: "I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being". Today I refer to Mahatma Gandhi, who said, "the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated". The world's great thinkers have long understood that social progress can be seen in the way a society treats its animals. In response to the introduction of my Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill last year, my office was swamped with letters, emails and phone calls of support. I have a half-a-metre high pile of thousands of signed petitions that I am progressively submitting in Parliament, calling on the New South Wales Parliament to ban the sale of pets in pet shops.

The bill I now table amends my 2007 bill to address some of the concerns raised by the Government and the Opposition. I hope that Government and Opposition members will now support this amended, simplified bill. I hope that Parliament will choose to address the overwhelming community concern about the pet industry. While animals cannot speak or vote, the people who care for them can, and I know that members of this House have also been inundated with letters, phone calls and visits from their constituents calling for action to stop impulse buying that so often leads to dumping and subsequent death of pets as well as cruel mass-breeding practices.

In September the Government responded with a new Code of Conduct for Pet Shops. While I welcomed new measures to make life a little more comfortable for animals in pet shops, the code does nothing to stop cruel mass-breeding practices and impulse buying, and fails to regulate classified sales. Thousands of dogs and cats will continue to be dumped every year and to be euthanased. The Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill 2008 would ban the sale of cats and dogs in pet shops and markets. People will still be able to buy cats and dogs from recognised breeders, animal shelters, rescuers, council pounds and vets who rehome pets. Animal shelters will be able to sell abandoned cats and dogs through pet shops, provided that the animal is not left in the shop unattended. Other mammals such as rabbits and guinea pigs will be banned from shop window displays. Only recognised breeders, animal shelters, rescuers and vets re-homing pets would be able to advertise the sale of cats and dogs, and advertisements would have to direct people to a statement about the animal's basic husbandry requirements.

Providing prospective buyers with a written statement of expected costs and responsibilities would be mandatory prior to any sale. The bill provides for regulations to be created that set mandatory standards for recognised breeders. The bill also makes it an offence to fail to collect an animal from a council pound, or to fail either to collect or to surrender a companion animal at an animal shelter, after being notified that it is there. Australia has the highest rate of pet ownership in the world and pets play a vital role in our society: they give pleasure, they teach responsibility, and for many people—especially those who live on their own—pets provide love and security.

Based on local government and RSPCA statistics, in New South Wales alone last year more than 50,000 cats and dogs were killed in council pounds and animal shelters. There is likely to be under-reporting as rescuers say that pounds and shelters lack the resources needed to keep up-to-date records. Furthermore, the figure does not include the many cats and dogs dumped in national parks. Many other dumped pets are rescued by tireless rescuers and shelter workers who try to re-home them. Shelters and rescuers continually report being at capacity and being unable to re-home rescued animals. Rescuers dedicate their own time and money to clean up the mess left by the pet industry.

While last financial year the number of dogs and cats re-homed by the RSPCA in New South Wales increased by 6.85 per cent on the previous year, but the number of cats and dogs euthanased also increased by more than 9 per cent for dogs and almost 30 per cent for cats. This should cause real disquiet among members of this House. The cop-out from pet industry campaigners that these cats and dogs should be euthanased because of behavioural reasons is offensive. Rescue organisations, animal welfare advocates and animal trainers link these so-called behavioural problems to pet shops, impulse purchases and mass-breeding practices for profit. An email I received from a dog trainer who runs a successful pet shop that does not sell live animals stated:

I refer to comments left on the Lead The Way website, a campaign set up specifically in response to this bill:

A girl I worked with bought a puppy because it was cute. She put no effort into training the dog, it developed terrible habits and when she tried to give it away because she could no longer look after it, its behaviour stopped it from finding a loving home.

These problems can be traced back through the supply chain. In response to a strong community campaign, the pet industry has quoted different figures about where pets come from. However, its figures do not come from independently random-sampled studies. And the fact remains that pet shops encourage impulse buying and, unlike shelters and rescuers, do not desex animals before they are sold, which can lead to millions of unwanted litters in the community. It is worth reminding the House that an un-desexed female cat and her offspring can produce 420,000 cats in only seven years. There is no guarantee that pets sold in pet shops and markets do not come from unregulated backyard breeders and intensive mass-breeding mills. In fact, many registered breeders will not sell to pet shops, which makes it unlikely that pets in pet shops are sourced from reputable breeders.

Puppy farms and pet mills are massive breeding facilities where animals are kept in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions and females are forced to continue to breed until they are incapable of breeding any longer and then they are put down. These breeding practices do not involve proper screening to detect and prevent genetic and behavioural problems making it more likely that companion animals will incur unexpected problems and costs for their owners. The aim of these puppy farms and kitten mills is to mass-produce cute kittens and puppies to get more impulse sales in pet shops.

A recent Australian documentary called "The Puppy Mill" documents the connection between pet shops, which treat animals as commodities, and puppy farms. I understand that each member of this House received a copy from one of their constituents and I urge them to watch this documentary to learn more about the pet industry. Classified and Internet sales also support backyard breeding and puppy farms selling cheap pets to anyone with a credit card. Puppy farms and pet mills are cruel and I strongly believe the wider public would not willingly support their operations.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to President-elect Barack Obama's decision to adopt a dog from a shelter, which is reported to be motivated by his encounter as a Senator with a rescue dog that had been forced to breed for years in a puppy mill. The puppy mill operators had cut the dog's vocal cords to prevent her cries from being heard. After the dog was rescued, one of her legs was amputated because of osteoporosis, which is a common condition in breeding dogs. President-elect Obama's decision hopefully will encourage others to adopt pets from shelters.

The Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill 2008 would ban the sale of cats and dogs through pet shops and markets and would allow only recognised breeders, animal shelters and rescuers, council pounds and vets re-homing abandoned animals to advertise the sale of dogs and cats. The capacity of underground puppy farms and kitten mills to operate would be reduced dramatically. Their source would dry up. As a pet owner, I am really disturbed by the number of companion animals being dumped and then destroyed. I am disturbed by the way animals are being bred purely for profit. Pet shops are uncommon in Europe, where cat and dog euthanasia rates are drastically lower than Australia's.

This bill is about animal welfare, about living in a humane society, and about stopping animal cruelty. Companion animals are live, sentient beings that require long-term commitments of time, money and care. They are not consumable items to be bought and discarded when we tire of them. The pet industry claims that the prices of cats and dogs in pet shops prevent impulse buys. Cute puppies and kittens evoke emotional responses that compel people to part with their money. The Entrepreneur Business Centre guide for pet shops states:

Animal shelters and animal rescue groups overwhelmingly say that the pet industry is a major contributor to the problem of pet overpopulation. They are frustrated by the lack of Government commitment to address this shocking situation, while they continue to re-home the endless supply of abandoned animals. Many rescuers believe that the Government's new code of practice is just an attempt to circumvent the campaign for reform. Rescuers and shelters refer to their work as "adopting", rather than selling, companion animals, as this better describes the responsibilities involved. Rescuers employ intensive vetting processes to find suitable homes for abandoned animals; some even tell me that they visit homes before they let anyone take a pet home. This is in stark contrast with selling animals through classified advertisements, markets and most pet shops, where anyone with the money can take home a pet. And if you do not have the money you can always buy an animal on credit, a practice exposed by Maxine Firth in the Sun-Herald on 27 April.

The Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill 2008 will allow pet shops to continue to sell other mammals and birds and fish, and also to sell pet food and accessories. Many pet shops in Australia do well without selling live animals. This is the normal practice in most European countries. The Paws For Action campaign, set up in response to my bill, is calling for an upper House inquiry into pet overpopulation and associated cruel mass breeding. If the industry has nothing to hide it will also support this call. It will be very telling of the Government's priorities in this debate if it refuses to support a public inquiry. A number of community campaigns are calling for a ban on the sale of pets in pet shops, including Say No To Animals In Pet Shops. Some campaigns were established with the specific purpose of getting this bill passed in Parliament. These campaigns are Paws For Action, Death Row Pets and the already mentioned Lead The Way. The community support I have received has been overwhelming. I will read some comments from letters I have received from residents of this State. Romy says:

I applaud the stand you have taken against the sale of puppies and kittens in pet shops … It makes me sad to see windows full of tiny vulnerable animals who are hostages to fortune.

A veterinarian says:

As a veterinarian who has … worked in pet shops, and later for a veterinary hospital that had a contract to treat puppies and kittens from a busy chain of pet stores, I have long felt strongly about this subject. With literally tens of thousands of unwanted dogs and cats being put to sleep in shelters every year, there is absolutely no excuse for pet shops to continue to ply their trade unchecked.

Glenda says:

It is a huge problem and we have the most beautiful American Staffy called Sophie who we rescued from the pound … She was a Christmas puppy and dumped only to start a wonderful home life with us when she was eight months of age and on the euthanasia list. Sophie is now nearly seven years of age and the most beautiful pet ... it breaks my heart to see animals used in such an inhumane way. Sadly where big money is involved, these animals pay the price.

As a humane society we must act to prevent the shocking overpopulation of companion animals. If we recognise the problem we can act to prevent the cruel dumping and killing of so many innocent, sentient beings who have no voice except through us. More dogs and cats will die unnecessarily and this Parliament be diminished in the process if members fail to support this bill. I commend the bill to the House

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Angela D'Amore and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! It being almost 10.30 a.m., the House will now proceed to Government business.

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (NO 2) 2008

Bill introduced on motion by Mr John Aquilina, on behalf of Mr David Campbell.

Agreement in Principle

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.17 a.m.]: I move:

The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No 2) 2008 continues the established statute law revision program that is recognised as a cost-effective and efficient method for dealing with amendments of the kind included in the bill. The form of the bill is similar to that of previous bills in the statute law revision program. Schedule 1 contains policy changes of a minor and non-controversial nature that the Minister responsible for the legislation to be amended considers to be too inconsequential to warrant the introduction of a separate amending bill. That schedule contains amendments to 27 Acts. I will mention some of the amendments to give members an indication of the kind of amendments that are included in the schedule.

Schedule 1 makes a number of amendments to the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999. The amendments expand the category of persons who may give certificate evidence as to various matters in relation to approved speed measuring devices that are not used in conjunction with approved speed cameras. This category of persons will now include, in addition to police officers, persons authorised by the Commissioner of Police to test such devices. The amendments also make the necessary consequential changes following the transfer of the management of the red light camera program from the New South Wales Police Force to the Roads and Traffic Authority on 1 July 2008. These amendments relate to the approval of camera detection devices, the authorisation of officers to install and inspect such devices and the issue of evidentiary certificates.

Schedule 1 amends the Business Names Act 2002 to provide that investigators appointed under the Fair Trading Act 1987 have all the functions of authorised officers under the Business Names Act 2002. The option of a separate appointment of authorised officers under the Business Names Act 2002 is retained. A comparable amendment is made by schedule 1 to the Motor Vehicle Repairs Act 1980 in relation to inspectors under that Act. Schedule 1 also amends various Acts in relation to powers of delegation. The Justices of the Peace Act 2002 is amended to enable the Director General of the Attorney General's Department to delegate to a senior officer of the department the functions of reappointing a person as a justice of the peace on the expiration of the person's term of office.

The Banks and Bank Holidays Act 1912 is amended to restore a power of delegation in connection with the granting of approvals to enable banks to open on weekends that was previously provided for under the now repealed Shops and Industries Act 1962. The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 is amended to extend that Act's delegation power to functions of the portfolio Minister and director general under particular Acts or categories of Acts that are relevant to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, either because they deal with the reservation of land or because they deal with functions exercisable by an owner or occupier of land.

Schedule 1 makes a number of amendments to the Building Professionals Act 2005. The regulations under that Act currently require accredited certifiers to keep records for 10 years, that being the limitation period for actions for loss or damage in relation to defective building work. The amendments to the Act ensure that the requirements for accredited certifiers to keep records, and to provide those records to the Building Professionals Board on request, extend to a person whose certificate of accreditation has been suspended or cancelled, or has lapsed. The Commission for Children and Young People Act 1988 is also amended by schedule 1, primarily to allow guidelines under that Act to provide for approved screening agencies to collect, on behalf of the commission, specified information currently required to be notified by employers directly to the commission, relating to applicants who are not employed because of the results of background checking. The amendments prohibit approved screening agencies from using or giving access to any such information obtained from an employer other than for the purpose of providing it to the commission.

Amendments in schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1987 aim to simplify the structure of legislation in two ways: first, the amendments remove the need for a schedule to an Act or instrument to be supported by a substantive provision in the Act or instrument that declares that the schedule has effect and, second, the amendments remove the need to enact, in accordance with current standard practice, an automatic repeal clause in each amending Act and to extend that automatic repeal to amending provisions of Acts that are progressively commenced. Schedule 1 also makes amendments to the Police Regulations Superannuation Act 1906, the State Authorities Non-contributory Superannuation Act 1987, the State Authorities Superannuation Act 1987, and the Superannuation Act 1916 in relation to the superannuation entitlement of spouses under the Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975.

The amendments will enable the SAS Trustee Corporation, being the body administering the various superannuation funds under those Acts, to transfer the amount of the superannuation entitlement to the First State Superannuation Fund if the spouse fails to provide details as to the manner of payment of the amount within the required period. This default arrangement for payment is consistent with the circumstances in which other amounts that are not immediately payable in respect of the spouse may be paid under those Acts into that fund. The last schedule 1 matter I will mention is an amendment to the Constitution Act 1902 to substitute "exceptional" for "special" in describing the types of circumstances in which the Lieutenant-Governor or Administrator of the State is to assume the administration of the State due to the unavailability of the Governor, where that unavailability is for a reason other than the Governor's assuming the administration of the Commonwealth, absence from the State, or physical or mental incapacity.

Schedule 2 deals with matters of pure statute law revision consisting of minor technical changes to legislation that the Parliamentary Counsel considers are appropriate for inclusion in the bill. Examples of amendments in schedule 2 are those arising out of the enactment or repeal of other legislation, those correcting duplicated numbering, and those updating terminology. Schedule 3 contains amendments that are consequential on the repeal of certain Acts by schedule 4. Schedule 4 repeals a number of Acts and provisions of Acts that are redundant or of no practical utility. The repeals also extend to provisions of Acts that contain only amendments that have commenced. The Acts or instruments that were amended by the amending Act or provisions being repealed are up to date and available electronically on the legislation website maintained by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

Schedule 5 contains general savings, transitional and other provisions. These include provisions dealing with the effect of amendments on amending provisions, and savings clauses for the repealed Acts. The schedule also contains, for abundant precaution, a power for the Governor by proclamation to revoke the repeal of any Act or instrument repealed by the bill. The various amendments are explained in detail in the explanatory notes set out beneath the amendments to each of the Acts and statutory instruments concerned. If any amendment causes concern or requires clarification, it should be brought to my attention. If necessary, I will arrange for government officers to provide additional information on the matters raised. If any matter of concern cannot be resolved and is likely to delay the passage of the bill, the Government is prepared to consider withdrawing the matter from the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

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

RURAL LANDS PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Steve Whan, on behalf of Ms Verity Firth.

Agreement in Principle

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.27 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill 2008 will put in place a number of important amendments to the Rural Lands Protection Act. These amendments will make much-needed changes to the structure and governance of the Rural Lands Protection Board system. Most significantly, the reforms introduced by this bill will improve critical farm gate services to ratepayers and to rural communities throughout New South Wales. They will ensure that the State's animal health surveillance systems and pest insect and animal management systems are world class. The amendments represent an opportunity to improve the financial viability of the board system into the future. The bill implements recommendations from several independent reviews of the Act.

The New South Wales Rural Lands Protection Board System Review 2008, a fundamental review of the board system, was presented to the New South Wales Government in June 2008 by the peak body, the State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards, seeking action. The State council was seeking action to deal with systemic problems in the board system and to modernise the structure of the system. The New South Wales Government saw great merit in the findings of this review as a means of ensuring the financial viability of the board system into the future. The bill also implements recommendations from the review of the Rural Lands Protection Boards Rating System undertaken by the Hon. Richard Bull, which was released in July 2007 by the State council. As well, the bill includes several amendments remaining from the statutory review of the Act that took place in 2004. Most of the amendments from this process were made by the Rural Lands Protection Amendment Act 2006.

For many generations, rural lands protection boards have been servicing the needs of rural communities in New South Wales. These boards have their roots in organisations established in the 1860s to deal with sheep diseases. Pastures protection boards were established in 1902 to protect pastures and livestock from the depredations of noxious animals. The Pastures Protection Board Act 1934 further expanded the role of these boards to deal with travelling stock; public watering places; rabbit, marsupial and dog-proof fencing; and the identification of stock. In 1990, the Rural Lands Protection Act 1989 significantly modernised the administration of rural lands protection in New South Wales, replacing pastures protection boards with rural lands protection boards. I am sure, Mr Acting Speaker, in the area you represent as in mine, many people still call them PP boards and have done so for many years. The Rural Lands Protection Act puts in place the framework for the rural lands protection board system.

Further changes were made by the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998, which established the State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards as the peak body to oversee the operations of the local level boards. Currently, there are 47 boards established under the Act. Each board is governed by a board of directors who are elected by ratepayers for four-year terms. Boards are primarily funded from rates charged to landowners. As at 31 December 2007, almost 139,000 land holdings in New South Wales were subject to rural lands protection boards [RLPB] rates. In coastal areas, rateable properties are generally those properties which are larger than four hectares; in the far west they start at 400 hectares. Boards are responsible for animal health surveillance in New South Wales. They investigate disease outbreaks and provide advice on herd or flock health problems such as enzootic bovine leucosis in dairy herds, ovine Johne's disease in sheep and cattle, and footrot in sheep.

Boards also play a significant role in emergency animal diseases outbreaks in this State. Over the past few years there have been a number of significant emergency disease outbreaks in New South Wales. The staff employed by boards, such as vets and rangers, have played a significant role in containing these outbreaks. The recent successful equine influenza control and eradication program was a massive task, to which the boards contributed significantly. The achievement of eradicating this disease in record time is a credit to all those involved. The contribution of boards to the value of our primary industries in this State was also demonstrated by their role in the response to the outbreak of avian influenza at Tamworth in 1996 and 1997, and the outbreaks of Newcastle disease in poultry at Mangrove Mountain in 1999 and Horsley Park in 2002. Boards are also responsible for managing declared pest animals, such as rabbits, wild dogs and feral pigs.

Board staff also made a significant contribution to the successful campaign, in spring 2004, to manage the Australian plague locust outbreak. This campaign saved hundreds of millions of dollars in crop and pasture damage, keeping our rural economy afloat. Boards are again playing a critical role now in the current plague locust campaign. Boards also manage most of the State's travelling stock reserves and the movement of stock on public roads. In addition, they play an important role in drought management. All of these examples show the significance of having a sound functioning rural lands protection board system in New South Wales. However, the environment in which boards operate is changing. More sophisticated and nationally focused animal health programs, increasing demands from ratepayers, ongoing record drought and other factors continue to put pressure on the current system.

It is no secret that some boards are struggling to remain financially viable in a time of growing demands for their services. Although the total rates revenue for the board system for 2007 is expected to be about $27 million, there will be significant differences in rate income between boards. For example, four boards, including one in my electorate, collected less than $100,000 in rates. This income is not sufficient to cover office costs, maintain staff or provide effective services for ratepayers, especially in an environment in which demographic shifts in rural and regional New South Wales have created a more diverse range of landholders with different needs and an ever increasing demand for farm-gate services. The system needs to be modernised. Before I outline the reforms proposed in this bill, it is important for the House to note that these reforms will not adversely affect the range of critical front-line and farm-gate services provided by boards. Rather, the reforms are designed to secure the future viability of the board system and renew its purpose and relevance across the rural sector. The Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill will reform the rural lands protection board system in three main ways.

Firstly, the bill makes important changes to the structure of the board system. Secondly, the amendments will improve corporate governance in the board system. Thirdly, the amendments will improve the overall administration of the board system in New South Wales, including changing the way in which rates are calculated. Turning first to the proposed amendments relating to the structure of the rural lands protection board system, rural lands protection boards will be renamed livestock health and pest authorities. The new peak body, which I will describe shortly, will be called the State Management Council of Livestock Health and Pest Authorities. The decision to rename the system was made following consultation by the current State Council with its constituents. It is an important decision. The new name more accurately reflects the roles and responsibilities of the board system.

It also marks a change from the past and the desire of the current leaders to create a modern board system for both present and future generations. The bill facilitates the renaming of the board system by introducing amendments that provide for livestock health and pest districts to be constituted under the Act. Livestock health and pest authorities will be constituted for each district, in place of rural lands protection boards. The bill will replace the State Conference of Rural Lands Protection Boards with a new policy making forum to be known as the State Policy Council of Livestock Health and Pest Authorities. The State Policy Council will be an important forum for representatives of the proposed 14 local authorities to discuss local and regional issues. These local representatives will, significantly, be responsible for selecting the members of the new peak body.

The bill replaces the current peak body, the State Council, with a new governing body to be known as the State Management Council of Livestock Health and Pest Authorities. The new State Management Council will, like the current State Council, be accountable to the Minister for Primary Industries in the exercise of its functions. It will also be required to provide its annual operating plan and budget to the Minister and the State Policy Council. It will report to the Minister at the end of each financial year on its performance against its annual operating plan and its strategic plan. As part of these reforms, the New South Wales Government proposes to reduce the number of new authorities from 47 to 14 through an amalgamation process. It is intended that the amended Act will commence at the same time as the amalgamation proclamation. I take this opportunity to congratulate the State Council, the current board directors and their staff for the significant work they have already undertaken to facilitate the proposed amalgamations. Reducing the number of authorities will be a critical step in ensuring the financial viability of the system into the future. It will also streamline the system's administration and governance functions and allow for a greater focus on front-line service delivery and a renewed local focus.

I now turn to the second main area of reforms. These reforms relate to corporate governance. One of the major findings of the independent review commissioned by the State Council this year was that the board system needs modernising. In response to the recommendations of the structural review, the bill makes important changes to the election, selection, membership and appointment processes for the organisations established under the Act. The membership of the new State Policy Council will consist of two members from each of the 14 new authorities. The council will be responsible for statewide policy setting. This will ensure a renewed local focus in policy making. Its other important role will be selecting and appointing the members of the peak body, the State Management Council. The State Policy Council will be accountable to the Minister. It will be required to report annually to the Minister and to the new authorities on its activities and performance. Unlike the current State Conference of Rural Lands Protection Boards, the State Policy Council will not be responsible for determining the budget of the State Management Council. It will, however, determine how much each authority contributes to the State Management Council's budget.

I turn now to the peak body, the State Management Council. The bill provides for the membership of the new Council to consist of nine members. Eight of these members will be chosen through a merit selection process run by the State Policy Council. This represents a shift away from the current system by which the members of the State Council are elected. Merit selection will ensure that the best and brightest candidates lead the peak body and represent ratepayers at the State level. Six of the members will be drawn from the ranks of directors of the new authorities. Two members will be appointed on the basis of their expertise or experience in law, business, financial management or corporate governance. As I have already noted, the State Policy Council will oversee this selection process. The ninth member of the new State Management Council will be a nominee of the Director-General of the Department of Primary Industries, who has responsibility for biosecurity. This member will be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industries.

That amendment will ensure that biosecurity issues are given the consideration they require at State level. It will also usher in a new era of cooperation between the Department of Primary Industries and the new authorities, which, together, form the first line of defence for biosecurity management in New South Wales. The bill introduces maximum terms for members of the new State Management Council. Generally, members will be able to serve only two four-year terms. This will ensure renewal in the leadership of the peak body. The bill also restates, and amends, the functions of the State Management Council. It will be responsible for supervising the corporate governance of the new authorities, including their implementation of statewide policies, preparing a strategic plan and policies for the new system, promoting the functions and activities of the new authorities, and providing administrative services to the State Policy Council.

As I have already indicated, the bill replaces Rural Lands Protection Boards with Livestock Health and Pest Authorities. The new authorities will consist of six elected directors. In addition, there will be two directors appointed by the six elected directors, following a merit selection process, on the basis of their expertise or experience in law, business, financial management or corporate governance. The bill inserts a definition of "selection on merit". Selection on merit will be defined as the appointment of a member or director after some form of open competition involving the selection of the person who has the greatest merit among the candidates who applied for appointment. The bill makes other important changes to improve the corporate governance of the new authorities. The elected directors will serve a maximum term of office, in general, of two four-year terms. To ensure leadership in the new authorities remains dynamic, elections will be held for half of the elected directors every two years.

The bill will insert a new section into the Act to clarify the animal health functions of the new authorities. The bill also imposes a requirement on an authority to prepare a function management plan in respect of its animal health functions. The bill also provides for the Minister to set remuneration levels for the directors of the new authorities. This will ensure suitably qualified candidates are attracted to the system. To ensure the appropriate standards are maintained by members of the State Policy Council, the State Management Council and directors of the new authorities, the bill inserts a new part in the Act. Proposed Part 6A, Honesty and conduct, gives the State Management Council the power to issue a mandatory code of conduct for all directors of new authorities. A process for suspending or dismissing a director for a breach of the code is also proposed.

In another important reform, the bill provides for ratepayers to be automatically enrolled to vote in elections for the directors of their local authorities. Currently ratepayers have to apply in writing, which reduces the number of people participating in elections. Turning from the governance proposals, I will now outline the third main area of reform. A number of amendments are proposed that are designed to improve the administration of the Rural Lands Protection Act. The bill makes much-needed changes to the way in which rural lands protection rates are calculated. Boards are currently able to levy general, animal health and special purpose rates from ratepayers in their districts. Rates are currently calculated on the basis of the notional carrying capacity of the rateable land holding. The notional carrying capacity is expressed as stock units, or dry sheep equivalents. The rates payable on a holding are determined by the notional carrying capacity multiplied by an amount per stock unit.

This method has proved confusing for ratepayers. It has also been a complicated system for boards to administer. This is because it requires an assessment of the possible stock carrying capacity of the land, even if the land is used for cropping, or for an orchard, for example. The bill provides for rates to be levied on a per hectare basis. The new authorities will also be able to apply general, animal health and special purpose rates differentially across different zones. The zones will be determined largely on land types; that is, by reference to whether it is productive or unproductive land. This will ensure greater equity between ratepayers who have different types of land, but are located in the same district. The bill also proposes to amend the regulations under the Act so that the minimum rateable area for a district will increase to 10 hectares. This approach will deliver greater equity and certainty for landholders. It will be very much welcomed by a number of Monaro electorate ratepayers on hobby farm blocks, for example, and others in the areas surrounding Canberra.

The new method of calculating rates will be easier for ratepayers to understand. It will also be easier, and more cost effective, for the new authorities to administer. To give the new authorities time to implement appropriate new administrative systems, it is proposed that these amendments will commence in 2010. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Meat Industry Act 1978 and the Agricultural Livestock (Disease Control Funding) Act 1998 as a result of the abolition of the concept of notional carrying capacity of land in relation to levies raised under those Acts. The bill will insert a new section into the Act to provide that during an emergency animal disease outbreak the Director-General of the Department of Primary Industries may direct the animal health staff of the new authorities. This amendment is designed to ensure that during such an outbreak, departmental staff and the staff of the new authorities can work together seamlessly. This is a sensible and practical approach to ensure the best use of veterinary and regulatory resources during these times of extreme pressure.

The period covered by an emergency animal disease outbreak will commence as set out in the Animal Diseases (Emergency Outbreaks) Act 1991. Currently, the financial year of the State Council and the boards commences on 1 January. The bill will make amendments to the Act so that the financial year of the State Management Council and the new authorities will commence on 1 July. The bill will introduce an objects clause into the Act and amend the long title to the Act. The objects clause will outline what the Act is intended to achieve. The bill also makes minor clarifications to the issuing of stock permits and reserve use permits and the lease of stock watering places. For example, the bill will make it clear that in future an authority may only issue reserve use permits for travelling stock reserves, or stock permits for public roads or travelling stock reserves, in the authority's district.

The bill includes a number of provisions of a transitional nature to facilitate a smooth transition from the current system to the new system. Transitional provisions also are included in the bill to provide for the calculation of rates for 2009 and to facilitate the changes made to the financial year of the State Management Council and the new authorities. I take this opportunity to correct some continuing misconceptions in some parts of the community about the management of travelling stock reserves. There is a misconception that the bill, and the reforms which will accompany the bill, will change the way in which the Act deals with travelling stock reserves. This is not the case. The bill does not make any changes to the management of travelling stock reserves.

The fundamental review of the board system, however, recommended that the new authorities look closely at how these travelling stock reserves are being used and whether they are being managed appropriately. This recommendation was made, sensibly, in the light of significant resources required to manage travelling stock reserves in this State, and certainly not with a view to selling them off. The review report found that between 2005 and 2007 the board system spent approximately $8.65 million on maintaining travelling stock reserves. This represents 18 per cent of all board expenditure. The report also found that only five out of 47 boards were operating their reserves at a profit.

I now turn to the important matter of the consultation that has taken place in the development of the recommendations that form the basis of this bill. Extensive consultation was undertaken as part of the two review processes I outlined earlier. Consultation took place with ratepayers and current members of the board system. Public meetings and workshops were held and submissions were received and considered during the review process. Key stakeholders such as the New South Wales Farmers Association and Animal Health Australia were also consulted. The New South Wales Government considered a range of diverse views within the rural sector as part of the process of developing this reform package.

I note that the shadow Minister for Primary Industries was quick to support the recommendations from the review commissioned by the State Council on which much of this bill is based. This legislation is sensible, practical and timely. It will make significant improvements to the way the system operates while enhancing the delivery of services to ratepayers and rural communities in this State. Boards have been an integral part of our rural and regional communities for more than a century. It is vital that we ensure the viability and relevance of these important organisations into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

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

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL 2008

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

Agreement in Principle

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.52 a.m.]: I move:

The Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 is the main employment legislation for the New South Wales Public Service. Earlier this year the Act was reviewed by the Government. Public sector agencies and unions were widely consulted as part of the review process. A report on the review was tabled in Parliament in June this year. The report concluded that the Act is fundamentally sound and the identified policy objectives of the Act remain valid. It made a number of recommendations to further improve the operation of the Act. The bill implements the first stage of changes recommended in the report. The changes will ensure that the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 will continue to meet its identified policy objectives. The bill will assist agencies in continuing to provide quality services to the people of New South Wales.

The New South Wales Government's State Plan Priority P3 commits the Government to reducing unnecessary red tape. The bill will assist in reducing red tape for government agencies by providing greater flexibility for agencies and streamlining processes. The changes will also benefit employees by clarifying the operation of the Act in a number of areas and facilitating the appointment of long-term temporary employees to permanent positions. Most of the changes apply only to Public Service departments; however, some changes will also apply more broadly across the public sector. The Government consulted with public sector agencies and unions on the draft bill and has received wide support for the proposals.

As mentioned earlier, the bill will allow temporary employees who have been employed in any department for at least two years to be appointed to a vacant position within their department without the need to advertise the position. This will only be able to occur where the employee was originally employed through a merit-based process and the department head is satisfied that the person has the necessary skills for the position. At the moment only permanent officers can be appointed to those positions. The bill will make it clear that public sector employees on long-term secondments within the same agency can be appointed to the new position without the position having to be advertised or having to serve a period of probation. This only applies where the secondment was initiated by the employee. If being appointed to a higher graded position, the person must have been selected, on merit, through some form of open competition to perform in the position.

The bill provides further clarification in relation to disciplinary and conduct matters, including the operation of probation provisions in the Act. Currently the Act provides that every person admitted to the Public Service as an officer is initially appointed on probation for six months or such longer period as a department head directs. The changes made by the bill clarify that the initial probationary period can be extended at any time before the person's appointment is confirmed or annulled. The bill also clarifies the operation of the suspension provisions. When a Public Service officer has been charged with a serious offence the officer may be suspended from duties. The bill makes it clear that when the officer is found guilty of the offence the suspension remains in place until any disciplinary or remedial action being considered by the Department Head has been dealt with.

In relation to recruitment, the bill will provide for greater flexibility, particularly where there are shortages of qualified applicants. Currently the Act prevents a person who does not have Australian citizenship or permanent residency from being appointed as a Public Service officer. The bill will allow the Director of Public Employment—currently the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet—to exempt a person from this requirement in any case the director considers appropriate. The exemptions are likely to be granted in employment areas where there are identified shortages. I note that the current restrictions in the Act apply to the Public Service and not across the broader public sector.

The bill will also enable appointments to be made pending the vacation of an executive officer position, or any other position in the Government Service, by an officer. A position can become vacant in a number of circumstances. A person may decide to retire or resign and it may be desirable for there to be a hand-over period to mentor the person replacing the current holder of the office. When the incumbent officer has notified the employer that the officer does not intend to continue with the position, the bill will enable recruitment to be undertaken in anticipation of the vacation of the position. The appointment of the new officer may take effect before the incumbent vacates the position. This change will allow agencies to avoid unnecessary red tape and ensure a smooth transition between office holders.

The bill will introduce a new inquiry power into the Act. The Act currently enables the Premier to direct that a special inquiry be held into any matter relating to the Government Service, using royal commission powers. There may be times when it is appropriate for the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, as head of the Public Service, to inquire into the administration, management or services of agencies or officers in a less formal manner. The bill will authorise the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, or a person authorised by the Director General, to carry out an inquiry into the administration or management of a public sector agency. This would include the whole or any part of a public sector service, but does not include the New South Wales Police Force, the service of either House of Parliament or the President or Speaker.

The bill makes a number of amendments in relation to the State Contracts Control Board. The board has responsibility for the procurement of goods and services for the public sector. The bill enables public sector agencies from overseas to access contractual arrangements established by the New South Wales State Contracts Control Board for the New South Wales public sector provided those other agencies operate in New South Wales. In addition, the bill will streamline the membership of the State Contracts Control Board by providing that there is to be a minimum of three rather than five members of the board in addition to the chairperson, and the chairperson is to be appointed by the Minister rather than necessarily being the Director General of the Department of Commerce.

The bill also makes a number of other minor amendments, including, firstly, modifying the criteria for determining merit when appointing a person to a position, by replacing the terms "abilities" and "personal qualities" with "capabilities"; secondly, extending the delegation power of the Director of Public Employment; and, thirdly, clarifying that when a cross-agency position is created the public sector agencies involved can create a single position across the two agencies rather than two separate part-time positions. The measures in the bill will assist agencies in delivering quality services to the people of New South Wales by improving the flexibility of agencies, streamlining processes and cutting red tape. I commend the bill to the House.

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

PUBLIC HEALTH (TOBACCO) BILL 2008

Consideration in Detail

Consideration of the Legislative Council amendment.

Schedule of amendment referred to in message of 12 November

Page 16, clause 20 (5), lines 1–3. Omit all words on those lines.

Motion by Ms Angela D'Amore, on behalf of Ms Jodi Mckay, agreed to:

Legislative Council amendment agreed to.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

HOME BUILDING AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Consideration in Detail

Consideration of the Legislative Council amendment.

Schedule of amendment referred to in message of 12 November

Motion by Ms Angela D'Amore, on behalf of Ms Linda Burney, agreed to:

Legislative Council amendment agreed to.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

SECURITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 30 October 2008.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.00 a.m.]: I want to make a brief contribution on the Security Industry Amendment Bill 2008. I stress that I do not lead for the Opposition. The shadow Minister, the member for Epping, will lead for the Opposition. The object of this bill is to amend the Security Industry Act 1997, the principal Act:

Criminal Records Act 1991

Firearms Act 1996

Security Industry Regulation 2007.

The shadow Minister will lead on behalf of the Opposition. I believed it important to make a brief contribution to the debate to indicate that I understand the purpose of the bill.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [11.02 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Security Industry Amendment Bill 2008. The Opposition does not oppose this bill. The Government, in introducing the bill, claims that the changes are the result of an agreement by the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] to introduce national standards. COAG comprises a group of Attorneys General throughout the country who meet regularly. This legislation is not retrospective. Licence holders are required to renew their licence every one or five years. The bill amends the Security Industry Act 1997, the Firearms Act 1996 and the Security Industry Regulation 2007 in order to establish visitor permits for those licensed in other States to undertake security activities for special events in New South Wales. A "special event" will be declared by the Commissioner of Police—for example, the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting or World Youth Day. The commissioner can refuse applications, especially if the type of security activity is not required. Penalties are also inserted for contravening conditions of visitor permits.

The bill will allow the police commissioner to take into account any spent conviction, where found guilty without proceeding to a conviction, when determining the granting of a licence. Under the Criminal Records Act if a conviction is spent one is not required to disclose to any person for any purpose information concerning the spent conviction and a question about someone's criminal history does not refer to a spent conviction. Additionally, for Acts or statutory instruments a reference in the provision to a conviction is taken to be a reference only to any convictions of the person which are not spent, and a reference in the provision to the person's character or fitness is not to be interpreted as permitting or requiring account to be taken of spent convictions.

All convictions can be spent, except where a prison sentence of more than six months has been imposed, for sexual offences convictions, convictions imposed on bodies corporate and those prescribed in regulations. The bill will exclude people from gaining a security licence if they have received a fine of $500 or more, or a prison term, or both, for drug offences. Holders of security licences, P1D, providing dog-handling security services will be required to undertake relevant training by approved parties. This legislation has several unknown operational elements that are troubling. The legislation is not retrospective. Security industry members could have spent convictions for significant offences, including those relating to the security industry, and remain licensed for up to five years.

The police commissioner will have the power to declare a "special event". It will be declared as such either via the Government Gazette or on the NSW Police Force website, in the Security Industry Registry section, or both. This declaration should be made in both arenas. While the police commissioner has the power to carry out investigations of applicants for visitor permits and can refuse permits, the Government has outlined no provision for additional resources for the commissioner to delegate such inquiries. Little detail is available on measures to be established to authorise master licensees to undertake training concerning P1D licences, to allow them to train staff of other companies or outside parties, for example, for dog handling.

The Police Association has raised concerns that streamlining could possibly result in less rigorous assessment of people conducting security within the State. Our police need the resources and support to conduct appropriate clearances. The association has also commended the amendment of the legislation to deal with spent convictions, but notes concerns that this amendment is not retrospective and it shares these concerns for initiatives relating to exclusion provisions. The Police Association believes that overall the bill presents another example of the security industry making further inroads into police core work. Representatives of the security industry have also added some views with respect to visitor permits. The mutual recognition principle has been in place for some time—in practice it has not been applied to any great extent to security industry operatives, it claims.

The association is concerned that any proposal that does not fully harmonise licences, similar to drivers' licences, will not create any real benefit and may indeed cause the industry greater problems. Schedule 1, item [8], stipulates that interstate licence holders must show evidence that they are licensed to operate in other States when applying for a visitor permit to conduct security activities in New South Wales for special events. The association asks: What limitations are to be placed on those licence applications where the requirements for obtaining a licence in their home State are far less stringent than those in New South Wales? The Government needs to answer that question, and I hope the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will address that issue in reply. In addition, where does that leave individuals where there are no comparable licence requirements in their State who are seeking a visitors permit in New South Wales?

The association also notes concerns about schedule 1, item [3], section 10 with respect to master licences. This provision is to be changed to include "or is a corporation holding a visitor permit authorising its holder to carry on security activities of a kind authorised by a master licence". Representatives of the security industry ask: Does this inclusion provide a "blanket authorisation" for all employees wishing to work in New South Wales who represent that interstate master licensee or is there still a requirement for each employee to also obtain a visitor permit, in addition to this inclusion? Concerns are raised with regard to schedule 1 [8], part 3A, visitor permits, where 39E (2) (c) states:

In that instance they suggest that that clause may pose problems where one company is approved for and another is denied the provision of similar services, albeit for different events. It must be clear in the guidelines outlining which event will result in applications being approved rather than individual applications to operate in New South Wales for clients, per se. The Minister must answer whether consideration has been given to granting temporary visitor permits to security providers, manpower or otherwise, who are required to conduct short-term tasks for clients in New South Wales not related to a major event. The Minister must also answer whether this fee is applied for a single one-off permit? Will applicants be required to submit three applications for three functions to be held over the Christmas and New Year period, for example, or will visitor permits be issued for a period of time rather than per event?

The lack of approved training for new entrants in dog handling activities has resulted in security companies experiencing shortages. It is also worth pointing out that the bill does not cover yard dogs as they do not work with a handler. However, many of the issues experienced with security dogs relate to yard dogs that are not required to be trained. What measures will be introduced firstly to authorise such master licensees to undertake that training. Furthermore, will controls be in place to ensure that those master licensees will provide the training, potentially to unapproved rival companies, that may wish to provide dog handling services? In other words, what is to stop those approved licensees refusing to provide training to other dog handling companies that might approach them?

Schedule 1 [5] refers to approved training by an approved master licensee for P1D licence holders. There is no provision for a registered training organisation to provide those services. Furthermore, I cannot see reference to any checks or controls to ensure that those approved master licensees are fulfilling their obligations legally and professionally. Without registered training organisation intervention, it is imperative that regular and random audits and/or testing be provided to both the master licence holder and P1D licensee. If, as the Government claims, the proposed changes in the bill align New South Wales legislation with the agreed COAG national minimum standards, that will be a step towards nationwide security consistency.

In assessing the bill the Coalition has consulted with the New South Wales Police Association and members of the security industry. We will not oppose this bill, but the shadow Minister for Police, and Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, Mike Gallacher, will move amendments to the bill in that place to require the Commissioner of Police to declare special events in both the Government Gazette and on the New South Wales Police Force website.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [11.13 a.m.]: I support the Security Industry Amendment Bill 2008. We rely on the security industry in this State to perform many vital functions where they will often be in positions of trust such as patrolling and protecting property, installing security equipment and controlling large crowds at major events. Some security licence holders work with security dogs, others use firearms as part of their daily working life. So the issue of public trust is very high on the agenda. Therefore, the community has a right to expect that anyone holding a security licence has been thoroughly checked for their experience and their criminal record. The staff of the Security Industry Registry spend a great deal of time and effort ensuring this happens. I am pleased to note that New South Wales leads the nation in its regulation of the security industry.

Members would agree that the Security Industry Amendment Bill 2008 we are considering today clearly and comprehensively raises our State's regulatory standards to the benefit of the community as a whole. I will highlight two key provisions of the bill dealing with the criteria used by the Commissioner of Police when deciding whether to grant a security licence. First, amongst other things, the bill seeks to exclude the application of section 12 of the Criminal Records Act 1991 in relation to applications for security licences to allow the commissioner to take any spent conviction into account in determining whether a person should be granted a licence. Secondly, the bill amends the Security Industry Regulation 2007 to exclude from obtaining a security licence those persons who have received a fine of $500 or more, a term of imprisonment, or both, for drug offences under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 or prescribed restricted substances under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008.

The Criminal Records Act 1991 makes it clear that the most serious convictions cannot be spent. However, there is a broad range that can be. If a conviction is spent a person does not have to disclose it—it is gone from the record. In my experience I know that occurs with juveniles and other offenders over time. When it comes to the security industry—it is already the case in the tow truck industry—it is in the interests of the community that a person's complete criminal history be considered before they are issued with a licence. Those who work within the security industry are in a position of trust. It is important to know their history. It is too important to not get that level of detail. The Administrative Decisions Tribunal has decided against the commissioner on that very point only recently. So it is very much in the public interest and is a live and relevant issue for New South Wales, as it is a loophole that the bill seeks to close. That will ensure that the complete criminal history is revealed.

The Government is also tightening up, through this bill, the threshold under which someone who has a drug-related conviction is still eligible for a security licence. And the message for those intending to apply for a licence is simple: If you have a history with drugs, you are not suitable for this vocation. The threshold for drug-related offences is tightened considerably through this bill and anyone's chances of being granted a licence are restricted. Changes such as those are not designed to have a punitive effect on the security industry but are intended to raise the integrity of people in the industry. It will be known that when a security guard is seen outside a club or at a particular event or performing a role in the community that person has a very good record, one that could not put in question the integrity of the industry. We know that that person will do the right thing by the public.

Many security licence holders will welcome that provision, there is no doubt about that in my mind. My electorate has issues with alcohol-related crime, as do other electorates. I am pleased to know that clubs and establishments hire and engage the security industry to provide security guards. People can be reassured that those security guards will resist the temptation to take part in drug-related activities; they are people with a good, solid record and they will do the right thing by the public. That is in the interests of both the industry and the community. On those two points and for those reasons I commend the bill to the House.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [11.18 a.m.]: The Security Industry Amendment Bill 2008 amends the Security Industry Act 1997, the Firearms Act 1996 and the Security Industry Regulation 2007 to establish visitor permits for those licensed in other States to undertake security activities for special events in New South Wales, removing existing cross-border anomalies in this area. The bill provides for the Commissioner of Police to declare a "special event", including events such as the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation forum, World Youth Day and other major international events.

The commissioner will be able to refuse applications, including if a particular type of security activity is not going to be required, and there are penalties for contravening the conditions of visitor permits. The bill will allow the Commissioner of Police when determining the granting of a licence to take into account spent convictions where a person has been found guilty without the matter proceeding to a conviction. The bill will also exclude people from gaining a security licence if they have received a fine of $500 or more or a prison term or both for drug offences, and holders of security licences P1D providing dog-handling security services will be required to undertake relevant training by approved parties.

The legislation has several unknown operational elements, which were mentioned by the shadow Attorney General. I note that the agreement in principle speech states that the Government in introducing this bill claims the changes are the result of a Council of Australian Governments [COAG] agreement to introduce national standards. It says the legislation is not retrospective, which is a concern because security industry members could have spent convictions for significant offences—for example, relating to the security industry—and remain licensed for up to five years.

The shadow Attorney General mentioned a point that I think is pertinent and worth reinforcing: While the police commissioner will have the power to declare a special event, it will be declared as such either via the Government Gazette or on the New South Wales Police Force website in the Security Industry Registry section, or both. We are quite adamant that it should be declared in both areas. Why have this flexibility of one or the other or both? Why not just make it a standard procedure that this will be both in the Government Gazette and on the website? It does not take a lot of energy to do it. We believe it is very important to ensure that this information reaches as wide a cross-section of the community as possible, and listing it both in the Government Gazette and on the website is a very sensible amendment. That amendment will be moved by the Hon. Michael Gallagher in another place. We believe that sensible amendment will make this bill a better piece of legislation.

While the police commissioner has the power to carry out investigations of applicants for visitor permits and can refuse permits, the Government has outlined no provision for additional resources for the commissioner to delegate such inquiries. That is another concern. There is not much detail available on measures to be established to authorise master licensees to undertake training for P1D licences or provisions to require them to train staff of other companies or for outside parties. In the interests of community safety and the general public perceiving that they are ultimately safe, we would prefer to have more information about these types of operations listed in the legislation. For example, the shadow Attorney General referred to training companies to undertake training for dog handling and so on. As the shadow Attorney General indicated, the Opposition is not opposing the legislation in this place. However, it will move an amendment in another place.

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.23 a.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Security Industry Amendment Bill 2008. Whilst Opposition members are not opposing the bill they have raised some concerns, in particular why the new requirements are not being made retrospective. There is no evidence that the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] intended that the provisions be applied retrospectively and to do so would appear to amount to a denial of natural justice, as applicants would have applied for licences under different criteria. New South Wales security licences are issued for either one-year or five-year terms. Licensees must reapply on expiration of their licence and complete a full application, including background checks, each time. Therefore, all current licensees in New South Wales would be assessed against these proposed new criteria within a five-year period. In addition, the Security Industry Registry carries out daily probity checks on all licensees, which are designed to monitor any new charges or convictions.

The shadow spokesperson also raised an issue in relation to yard dogs. The legislation is meant to regulate dog handlers, not the dogs themselves. The member for Epping raised an issue in relation to consideration for permits to use when it is not a special event and whether an interstate licence holder would have to submit several applications. The Government is proposing through these amendments an improvement to existing arrangements that require what is in effect a fresh licence application. We have introduced visitor permits, which should take care of that issue. The member for Epping seems to be confused about exactly what COAG is. He said it was a meeting of Attorneys General, which it clearly is not. I place that on record. As usual, he had a go at the Government about resourcing the New South Wales Police Force. I make it clear that the Government provides the police force with the resources and powers it needs. It is not our job to tell them how to do their job; it is our job to give them the resources they need to do the job. It is important to stress that point. I am not surprised by some of the comments made by the member for Epping.

The changes proposed through the Security Industry Amendment Bill 2008 will further enhance the regulatory regime we have in place for the security industry in this State and will help to streamline existing processes. The changes proposed through the bill will align New South Wales legislation with agreed COAG national minimum standards and will provide for an enhanced training regime for holders of subclass 1D licences under the Security Industry Act 1997. The Government will continue to work with the industry to ensure high standards of professionalism and competency are maintained. I thank my colleague the member for Maitland for his contribution. He always provides a very detailed, thorough and knowledgeable contribution when he speaks on bills and amendments. 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.

Passing of the Bill

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

GRAFFITI CONTROL BILL 2008

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 12 November 2008.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [11.27 a.m.]: I will conclude the remarks I was making on Wednesday about some of the programs operating in the Wyong Shire to combat graffiti. I was about to make the point that I am pleased that the number of police in the Tuggerah Lakes Local Area Command has been increased since the 2007 election. Just recently five new detectives have been added to the Tuggerah Lakes command. This is in addition to the $106,000 mobile police station, which I know that the member for The Entrance, who is in the Chair, helped to launch. It has been involved in a number of operations and has increased high-visibility policing in our area. The Government has also added two new youth liaison officers to the command. One of those is a school liaison officer who works in local high schools to talk about antisocial behaviour, which includes graffiti.

We are pushing forward with plans for a new police centre to be built in Wyong to better support local police, and a more than $600,000 upgrade of the courthouse in Wyong has recently been completed. As well as putting in good programs to tackle things such as graffiti, we are also putting the resources on the ground to support those initiatives and make sure that if people are doing the wrong thing we have the resources to catch them. New South Wales police have been mounting targeted operations in different areas of the command and they are continuing to develop strategies to deal with antisocial behaviour, together with the Department of Education and Training, the Department of Housing, the Department of Tourism and the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

The community is frustrated by the useless acts of vandalism that are committed by these individuals. As I said earlier, I do not necessarily have a problem with the art, some of which is quite good. However, I do have a problem with the total disrespect shown by graffiti vandals for people's private property. I am sure that everyone shares the view that it is not appropriate. The Rees Government is actively working to ensure that we have a safer and cleaner community through the provision of additional police resources and appropriate community programs to ensure that young people understand we will not tolerate this sort of activity.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [11.30 a.m.]: I support the Graffiti Control Bill 2008, which will implement a single Graffiti Control Act containing all the legislation concerning graffiti in New South Wales. Some of the benefits of doing so are obvious. Others are no less important but they are a little harder to see. Government agencies, shires and local councils, businesses and the public will now be able to access one clearly written and easily identifiable document when they need to know what the law has to say about graffiti. For example, if one's neighbour has graffiti that he or she wants council to remove, he or she could look at the Graffiti Control Act to establish the correct procedure and powers for its removal.

A small business that wants to sell spray paint might not know where to go to establish the rules relating to the sale of spray paint. The Graffiti Control Bill will contain information relating to all those issues. Having one Act simplifies, clarifies and reduces the burdens placed on those who are engaged in the fight against graffiti. Having a single Act also lets offenders know that the Rees Government is serious about ending graffiti in New South Wales and punishing those who engage in such activity. The incorporation of all graffiti legislation into one Act—this is what occurred in relation to the Domestic Violence Act—shows just how serious the Government is about eradicating this problem.

The regrouping of these offences sends a clear message to the public that the Government is serious about getting on top of this problem. Over time this message, in the language of the criminal law, will result in deterring those who intend to perform such acts, and I am confident that there will be a reduction in the number of graffiti offences. The Graffiti Control Bill takes the old graffiti offences from the Summary Offences Act and amplifies their scope. Previously, sections 10A and 10B of the Summary Offences Act applied only to offenders with spray paint. That has been extended not only to spray paint but also to markers and textas, pieces of shaped metal that are used to carve graffiti into the backs of bus seats, or any other material that comes under the definition of graffiti implements.

Offenders using any of these graffiti implements will be charged under the provisions of this bill. Possession with intent of graffiti implements will attract a maximum penalty of $1,100 and/or three months imprisonment. Damaging or defacing property will attract a maximum penalty of $2,200 and/or six months imprisonment. Offenders who carry around any graffiti implements, not just spray paint, intending to do damage to public property should have no doubt that they will find themselves charged under the provisions of this bill. Police will be able to charge offenders using these graffiti-specific provisions and the State will have the necessary power to charge those who intend to commit such offences. In time this legislation will provide governments with an important diagnostic tool.

This bill will also update the outdated language used to describe some graffiti offences by removing the obscure word "wilfully" and replacing it with the word "intentionally", which is more relevant and up to date with the language of today. Carried over into this bill are provisions regulating the sale and display of spray paint cans. The rationale is that by making spray paint cans harder to get we reduce their use. The bill adds a new power: police and other authorised officers will be able to issue penalty notices to retailers who breach laws regulating the sale and display of cans. This will simplify the enforcement of these laws, hence allowing regulators to broaden their oversight of spray paint retailers.

All these changes reflect that our response to graffiti has entered a new age. Many members have contributed to debate on this bill because of their concern about graffiti. I am sure that many members have seen graphic and unsightly graffiti displayed on backyard fences and on the backs of buildings in American movies. Earlier my parliamentary colleague the member for Wyong said that he liked the art, but graffiti on the backs of buildings can be unsightly. Travelling on the train to suburbs in Sydney I have seen a great deal of unsightly graffiti on the backs of buildings and fences. This problem is apparent in many communities in New South Wales. This bill will send a message to graffitists that they will face stiff penalties.

I urge all members of the community who are concerned about this problem to report the defacing of public property as soon as possible, as its early removal will have the effect of reducing the incentive to do it. Community members have a role to play in the removal of graffiti. The Department of Juvenile Justice includes graffiti removal provisions in its applications for court orders relating to juvenile offenders, and they remove graffiti as part of their community service. Early this week I watched the New Inventors, and I think the member for Pittwater also watched that show. Two members of the public invented a machine that detected solvents in spray paints or derivatives of spray paint 40 metres away from the area in which they were being used. As soon as someone spray painted on a wall the machine would detect the activity, send a signal to a mobile phone that would eventually be transmitted to authorities, and the police would be there in moments.

Graffiti is a high-level crime because it is unsightly, it destroys private property, and it impacts negatively on our communities. The two gentlemen who invented that machine are now trying to market it, which indicates the gravity of this problem. People from all walks of life and stakeholders in the community are attempting to resolve the graffiti problem, and the large number of speakers in this debate on the bill reflects how widespread the problem is. I support this bill, I support the standardisation of penalties, and I support an increase in penalties. I support the fact that legislation has now been rolled into one Act of Parliament, which will give renewed vigour and voice to those who are trying to prevent or reduce graffiti.

The Government is taking this matter seriously, which is good for the police. I look forward to the effect that this bill will have on those who wish to deface public or private property. Councils will have the power to enter private property, with the consent of an owner, to remove graffiti. I welcome any efforts from any quarters that will lessen this problem and increase general deterrence. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [11.38 a.m.]: I thank the member for Maitland for his earlier comments about watching the New Inventors. I wish I had been watching the New Inventors, but unfortunately I was on a bus on the way home from Parliament devising how I might contribute to the downfall of the Government. However, I will restrict my comments to the bill. The Graffiti Control Bill 2008 proposes the consolidation of existing graffiti laws into specific legislation, which is welcome and sensible. After all, we have a great number of laws in this State.

Consolidating the law will make it more easily understandable for the community, particularly for those who wish to engage in illegal activities, because they will see how the community will deal with illegal graffiti vandalism. While consolidation of the law is a good idea, it may end up being little more than reorganising pieces of paper and words on a page. We must ensure that this place, and certainly the Government, focuses more on controlling illegal graffiti than just reorganising bits of paper.

In that respect I make the brief observation that the title of the bill is a misnomer. Young people in my community tell me that they distinguish between local graffiti art and graffiti vandalism. They believe it is possible to engage in graffiti without being a vandal—that is, lawful graffiti commissioned by an organisation. In my community of Pittwater graffiti artists were commissioned by local scout groups to paint the wall of the Mona Vale scout hall. The local Rotary organisation has even come to the party by purchasing paint for these young artists to do their work. Other local councils have commissioned graffiti artists to paint certain walls of public buildings.

Certainly that is a laudable approach and it is great that the community is getting together to focus the activities of graffiti artists in a positive way. Perhaps the title of the bill should include a reference to vandalism because that is effectively what we are seeking to control. The lawful expression of art is terrific and should be endorsed; we should look at new ways of exploring it. However, when graffiti appears as illegal vandalism on private or public property without permission, it should be proscribed and controlled swiftly through appropriate action. Part of the problem is that the graffiti culture, in one sense, celebrates its illegality. Spray cans or marker pens are used because they enable the vandal to get into places easily, make their markings quickly and then get out. Obviously, to use a paintbrush on a wall would be a slow way to communicate their message.

The culture among young people should be acknowledged so that illegal graffiti vandalism can be addressed. That means that young people themselves need to take the same approach to graffiti vandalism. We need to clearly communicate the view through school programs and throughout the community that lawfully commissioned graffiti art is one thing, but graffiti vandalism needs to be proscribed because it is immature, juvenile and illegal. Clause 3 (1) defines a graffiti implement as spray paint or a marker pen or, as detailed in paragraph (c):

My concern with this definition relates to an increasing and alarming graffiti practice in my community. When shopkeepers remove spray paint or marker pen graffiti as soon as it appears—which is the sensible way to control graffiti vandalism—sometimes the vandals come back and maliciously use coins to etch the glass windows of the premises. Of course, scratches on shopfront glass are far more difficult, if not impossible, to remove and replacement glazing is expensive. These acts are entirely malicious and vindictive, but using a coin to scratch a window would not fall within the definition of a graffiti implement unless that coin had been sharpened or modified. Clearly, coins or any other implement used to etch a window are a graffiti implement, but they do not fall within the current definition in the bill. I ask the Minister to address that anomaly in his reply.

The penalty standardisation provided in the bill certainly is sensible. Obviously, the bill seeks to ensure that imprisonment of repeat graffiti vandals is a penalty of last resort, which I endorse. However, the bill should clearly emphasise that point because the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act makes the case that imprisonment is the penalty of last resort. Communities are frustrated that strong signals are not being sent to graffiti vandals. When I speak to community groups, shopkeepers and property owners, they tell me that they simply want the graffiti vandals to actually clean up the mess. Communities do not want retribution; rather they want the vandals to face the humiliation of being publicly seen cleaning up the mess they have caused. To me that is the most prudent, sensible and logical penalty for graffiti vandals.

Clause 7 deals with selling spray cans to young people. Obviously, it is an offence to sell a spray can to a person under the age of 18 years. The provisions in the bill relate to the proper display of spray cans to ensure they are secure and not easily obtained by young people. The burden of proof rests on the shopkeeper or vendor if they thought the person to whom they sold a spray can was over 18 years of age. If shopkeepers or vendors were required to label spray cans with their identification as the point of sale, the police could easily trace the origin of the sale of the can. This would help police gather intelligence to identify a possible weak link that allows easy access to spray cans. It also would put pressure on vendors to ensure that they sell spray cans in accordance with the law. Given that the laws relating to displaying spray cans have not been working effectively and have not managed to control graffiti, perhaps in the interest of the public it is time to reconsider the sale of spray cans being so unrestricted.

For many reasons, it might be time to consider whether purchasers should be expected to produce a master painters licence or show some justification for the purchase of spray paint cans. Obviously, while we do not want to unduly restrict the purchase of goods, there is a clear public interest in ensuring that graffiti implements are not widely available in the community. Protection of the public interest should be weighed against individual interest in considering whether paint spray cans should be able to be purchased freely in the community.

Clause 9 relates to the power of a police officer to confiscate a spray paint can that is in the possession of a minor in a public place. The clause is fraught with difficulty. I have spoken to police officers about it. To avoid prosecution, all a minor has to do is establish that the spray paint can is in his or her possession for a lawful purpose. It is not very difficult to think of a lawful purpose for having a spray paint can in a public place. Justification could be that the person is on the way to a legal graffiti wall or to give the spray paint can to someone else. While the provision sounds tough, in reality I do not believe the provision means a great deal at all. Having raised those general observations about the bill, I also point out that consolidation of legislation is a sensible idea and is long overdue. But after consolidating the legislation, we need to ensure that it delivers what the community needs, which is the control of graffiti vandalism, which is a continuing scourge in our communities.

Mr ROBERT FUROLO (Lakemba) [11.51 a.m.]: I support the Graffiti Control Bill 2008. I am sure most members would be aware of the impact of graffiti in their local communities. Graffiti is more than simply a tag on a wall or spray-painting here and there as a way of young people marking their territory. For many people in our community, graffiti represents the breakdown of law and respect for the rule of law. That leads to a fear of crime among our community and a perception of increased crime. That is why it is important for a Graffiti Control Act to consolidate all graffiti-related Acts of Parliament.

The legislation extends the offence of damaging property with spray paint and the offence of possessing spray paint to include all implements, provides for penalty notices to be issued to retailers who breach restrictions on the sale of spray paint, and contains provisions to allow local councils to remove graffiti on private premises. The provision relating to local councils will be very important. In the city of Canterbury in my electorate, graffiti is causing local residents considerable concern. The council has a dedicated graffiti response team. All staff are encouraged to report graffiti. The council's painters remove graffiti from bus shelters, playgrounds, streets and corporate signage, but, importantly, graffiti is photographed and listed on the council's graffiti register. The images are shared with police before they are removed.

The city of Canterbury spent approximately $150,000 a year on removal of graffiti, which is a considerable expense. The council formed a partnership with the Attorney General's Department to encourage community art to be displayed on traffic signal boxes throughout the city of Canterbury. In Canterbury approximately 80 traffic signal boxes were prime targets for graffiti artists to display their tagging and painting, and essentially the traffic signal boxes were left in a mess. The partnership with the Attorney General's Department resulted in all of the traffic signal boxes being painted by community artists, local residents, school groups and charity groups.

All the groups developed a sense of propriety and now care about the traffic signal boxes, which all displayed wonderful designs that in many cases have been created by children, disabled people and community groups. By and large, the traffic signal boxes in Canterbury have not been the target of graffiti since they were painted by the community. That is an example of the effective working of a partnership between councils and the Government, and the bill provides for more opportunities to do that. The bill will give councils throughout New South Wales even more support to clean up graffiti and keep our streets clean. For the reasons I have outlined, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [11.54 a.m.]: As the member for Pittwater point out, the title of the bill—the Graffiti Control Bill 2008—is a misnomer. This is not a graffiti control bill. Graffiti is out of control, and any member of this House could verify that. Members need only to look around the urban environment and country towns to see that that is the case. I will deal with that point in more detail later. One cannot imagine people responsible for graffiti at The Entrance, Blacktown or Miranda sitting around and saying to one another, "That Mr Rees is having a red hot go at controlling graffiti. He is consolidating existing graffiti-related offences into the one Act. Gosh! We're absolutely scared. We never thought consolidation would be used. We never thought somebody from the Left would consolidate offences. This is an absolute shock! If this is going to be the course taken by the Government, we will have to give up reading Hansard." Of course, one hopes that people will not give up reading Hansard and deny themselves the pleasure of reading speeches made by the member for Miranda, but that is one of the dangerous implications when governments start consolidating legislation and frightening people!

This legislation is the Government's definition of a "red hot go"—the consolidation of offences. I will suggest some practical ways to deal with the problem. The member for Castle Hill said that for more than a decade he sought to have restrictions applied to the sale of spray paint cans. The Government did not do that but finally was dragged, kicking and screaming, to apply some restrictions. As he said, the restrictions did not go as far as he wanted, but at least by making it more difficult for graffiti offenders to obtain their supplies of spray paint cans, to some extent graffiti was curtailed. I commend to members the speech made by the member for Castle Hill because he suggests other ways in which restrictions may be applied.

Mr Barry Collier: It was not a speech; it was a novel.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: It was not a novel suggestion. What the Parliamentary Secretary has said is quite wrong. The member for Castle Hill has made similar suggestions on a number of occasions and the novelty has long since worn off. I commend his speech to the Parliamentary Secretary, who should act upon the member for Castle Hill's suggestions, thereby beginning a new chapter on graffiti control in New South Wales. I will make some other suggestions that the Parliamentary Secretary may find novel because they are practical.

One of the concerns in my community is etching, which has come into vogue. The member for Castle Hill said earlier that etching is particularly nasty and difficult to remove. My electorate office was etched, but more importantly shops near my electorate office were etched. I read in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader that the culprit was apprehended. Despite having caused tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage to small businesses, his penalty was being taken to a conference. That is not a deterrent. The account of the way the offences were handled was published in the newspaper for all to see. The only penalty imposed on someone who was responsible for tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage was that he had to attend a conference.

A further article in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader stated that another person who was responsible for graffiti was apprehended. With the support of his parents, the Sutherland Shire Council wanted him to clean up the graffiti. Could that be done? No, because it would have contravened occupational health and safety regulations. The member for Riverstone smiles. He can read about that in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader. I am sure he would support graffiti artists having to remove their work.

Mr John Aquilina: Of course.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The member might look at some of the hurdles that prevent councils, including those in his area, from taking that approach. The Government did not take seriously the graffiti task force that was established, and abandoned it. However, if it wants to have a red hot go at doing something about graffiti it should get the task force back into action. The task force can do a great deal of work in terms of providing intelligence about the graffiti being done at present. The member for Wagga Wagga had a practical suggestion about that. In outlining what councils could do to deal with graffiti, he said:

During that period the tags should be photographed and catalogued, which would go a long way in the fight against graffiti. As for the removal of graffiti, the member for Lakemba said that graffiti provides an image of lawlessness, as if nobody cares. That is why it is important that graffiti be removed as quickly as possible. Local government wants graffiti removed as quickly as possible but it needs the resources to do so. The member for Wagga Wagga rightly said that graffiti still pollutes our communities and towns and that that pollution is increasing. In 2000 Premier Carr announced that councils would have 66,000 hours of community service made available to them from non-violent, non-serious offenders to clean up graffiti. I have mentioned the problems associated with occupational health and safety when Sutherland Shire Council sought to avail itself of that.

I ask the Government: How many hours of community service have been utilised in the removal of graffiti by offenders since 2000? That is a simple question. Premier Carr announced the community service provision with great fanfare. So let the Government tell us how many community service hours have been provided since Premier Carr's announcement. As I said, graffiti is a serious problem and it needs to be tackled seriously. Simply consolidating these offences is not a comprehensive answer. The member for Pittwater mentioned coins being used as etchings. This bill covers anything that is designed to produce a permanent mark. Coins and other implements are not designed for that purpose, but they can be used for that purpose. It would be interesting to see the effect the legislation when people use coins for etching. In conclusion, I have made a number of practical suggestions and drawn attention to what needs to be done. The Government has taken a few steps in the right direction but much more needs to be done.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.05 p.m.]: I support the Graffiti Control Bill. I am sure members on both sides of the House appreciate that this bill is worthwhile legislation that will have a big impact on controlling graffiti in this State. Some Opposition members have tried to make light of some aspects of the legislation, despite the fact that the Opposition as a whole is supporting the bill. I appreciate that Opposition members are there to oppose; nonetheless they are aware that the strong provisions in the bill will effectively control graffiti throughout the length and breadth of this State and particularly within the various parts of the urban community of Sydney. I echo comments made repeatedly by members of the Police Force in relation to the control of graffiti.

I have had discussions over many years with members of the Police Force who have expressed to me their frustration with the existing laws and how difficult it is to prosecute individuals under those laws. Why was that the case? That was specifically because, although it may have been possible to prosecute people under the various provisions of many different Acts, including the Summary Offences Act, until now there has not been a specific law related to graffiti control. It is not correct for members—the member for Cronulla and one or two other members have said this—to say that this legislation is nothing new, that it simply consolidates many different provisions in various Acts. Indeed, the Government is doing much more than consolidating existing legislation.

The Government is introducing a specific Graffiti Control Act, which has a specific name that can be alluded to in a court of law and which can be highlighted in the media as a specific Act. We can say to young offenders, "We have a Graffiti Control Act and if you disobey the provisions of that Act you leave yourself liable to prosecution under that Act." The existence of a specific law for controlling graffiti is an important tool in itself. We should not underestimate or in any way talk down the significance of having something like that. At the moment most graffiti offenders are charged under section 195A of the Crimes Act 1900, which refers to intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property, rather than specific graffiti-related legislation such as subsections (7) to (10) (a) of the Summary Offences Act 1988.

I was in the Parliament when the Summary Offences Act 1988 was introduced, and I remember that there was a fair bit of criticism of it. Even at that time, more than 20 years ago, there was an indication that the provisions in the Act would not be specific or wide enough to control the issue of graffiti in our community. And so it has proven to be. The Act made it difficult to distinguish graffiti vandalism from other damage offences that could be prosecuted under section 195A of the Crimes Act 1900.

Having a single Graffiti Control Act is expected to have a general deterrent effect by ensuring that all members of the community are aware of the Government's commitment to fight graffiti. It should not be underestimated that the Act will be a powerful tool. This legislation does more than consolidate bits and pieces of other Acts. One of the new provisions provides for penalty notices to be issued to retailers who breach restrictions on the sale of spray paint by failing to properly secure their spray paint can displays, or where spray paint cans are sold to persons under 18 years of age. The bill also contains provisions allowing local councils to remove graffiti on private premises with the owner's agreement. I am sure that many councils and owners of private property welcome that provision.

The bill extends the offence of damaging property with spray paint to include all graffiti implements. Many police officers have remarked to me about the difficulty of successfully prosecuting graffiti vandals who use marker pens, not spray paint cans. I am not referring to felt pens that are used in offices but marker pens that in some cases are up to five centimetres wide that make very significant marks with substances that are impossible to remove other than by extreme industrial cleaning methods. In the past marker pens were not itemised as implements of graffiti under existing legislation. The same applies to the use of etching instruments, a relatively new graffiti method that causes extreme damage.

In our suburbs we see windows or panels damaged by distinct carving caused by sharp etching tools, unlike other forms of graffiti that can be washed away. Some windows and panels are so markedly etched they have to be replaced. It is important to identify the wide range of tools that graffiti vandals use and itemise them in legislation. I hope this legislation will empower my local police to be more positive and vigilant in controlling graffiti. I hope that in Dean Park, Schofields and other suburbs in my electorate, and in the townships of Riverstone, Windsor and particularly South Windsor, where there have been problems with etching, the local police will be able to prosecute the shameless vandals who cause such damage and leave identifying tags, knowing they are immune from prosecution under existing laws.

Members have referred to debate in our community, and particularly among the young, about graffiti being art rather than vandalism. Art is very personal and varies according to individual aesthetic taste. The first distinction one could make is that an artist usually creates a work of art on their own property or where they have approval to create it, whereas graffiti is put on other people's property without approval. The second distinction is that art is a matter of personal taste. A graffiti vandal may think their work is art but the majority of the community thinks it is an image of lawlessness, as another member said earlier. A large amount of graffiti gives a clear message that the community just does not care. We should encourage an alternative means to deal with graffiti. When I was mayor of Blacktown the council undertook the reconstruction of the old Winns Department Store, in the middle of the central business district, to convert it to a library.

We had magnificent architectural designs for the inside of the building but our problem was that the outside of the building was just a plain brick wall which repeatedly over many years had been very heavily vandalised with graffiti. We engaged an artist to devise a plan for the painting of the wall. Instead of paying a lot of people a large amount of money to do the painting, the artist engaged many young people from the Blacktown community to help him paint it. The young people were involved with the planning, design and colours. They happily turned up with paintbrushes and spray cans and for several weeks during the Christmas holiday period they produced a beautiful mural on the wall. That mural remained for 20 years before the building was replaced, and for two decades it hardly ever had a graffiti mark on it. Indeed, in other areas in Blacktown, with community involvement, young people who would have vandalised other property with graffiti created murals in which they still take pride. They protected the murals and made sure that no-one else vandalised them. We should think positively and objectively about controlling graffiti.

I compliment the Government on introducing the Graffiti Control Bill 2008, but other positive community initiatives can be undertaken to ensure that young people are able to exercise their creative powers in a harnessed way to enhance community spirit and not create an image of lawlessness in our suburbs and towns. Members of the New South Wales Police Force who engage with young people will make sure that graffiti does not occur, and if it does they will be able to prosecute offenders. Police officers welcome this legislation. I conclude by commending and thanking the very active and diligent local police officers, throughout both the Quakers Hill Local Area Command and the Hawkesbury Local Area Command, for their work in this regard.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [12.19 p.m.]: The Graffiti Control Bill 2008 is a bill for an Act with respect to the minimisation and control of graffiti and to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 and certain other legislation. The objects of the bill are:

Summary Offences Act 1988

Local Government Act 1993

The bill enables a court to order community service work instead of fining or imprisoning a person for a graffiti-related offence, and to require an offender to pay the cost of repairing any damage caused. Further, the bill enables proceedings to be dealt with summarily before the Local Court and enables changes to offences under the Rail Safety (General) Regulation 2003, relating to graffiti and vandalism, so that they no longer refer to defacing property. However, an authorised officer will be able to direct a person who is damaging or defacing property on a train or on railway land to leave the train or land.

Graffiti has been an abiding interest of mine over the time I have represented the Hornsby electorate, in relation to what more can be done to deter those who seek to dramatically disfigure the property of others. I concur with the member for Riverstone as to what defines a work of art. Many areas where graffiti has been perpetrated are demeaned by it. Residents of a community that lives amongst graffiti view graffiti in a very poor light, as do visitors to the area. People have been known to state that they do not feel as safe in an area where there is graffiti, quite apart from the feeling of lawlessness that pervades an area despoiled by excessive graffiti. I have had occasion to travel by train from Leura to the city on a weekend. When one travels through the more built-up suburbs of Sydney, the amount of graffiti seen along the rail corridor is absolutely staggering. Graffiti certainly detracts from the beauty of what could be a lovely community area. Maybe graffiti has been left in some areas because it has been defined as art. Generally speaking it is quite ugly.

I commend the Hornsby and District Chamber of Commerce and its President, Greg Bepper, for the very successful Tag-a-Tagger project, which mirrors the proposal by the member for Wagga Wagga that graffiti should be identified before it is removed. He suggested it be photographed. Obviously members of the chamber of commerce focus on businesses where graffiti and tags are placed on walls and other areas. Chamber members take a photograph of a tag and then log it into a database. The photographs are used by local police officers to identify perpetrators of like tags in the Hornsby electorate and in the Ku-ring-gai Local Area Command. I commend the Hornsby and District Chamber of Commerce, Greg Bepper and the local area command for a wonderful partnership that is designed to, firstly, identify the tags to isolate the perpetrators and, secondly, remove the tags as soon as possible.

They are to be commended for that project, and it should be extended. It is a wonderful idea and requires future policy enlargement. In the past I have made an attempt, by introducing a private members' bill, to increase the powers of local government to deal with graffiti on substations and similar property belonging to government authorities such as State Transit and to issue orders against those organisations to have the graffiti removed as soon as possible, preferably within 24 to 48 hours. Unfortunately, my private member's bill did not get up. But I still maintain there is significant difficulty in the removal of graffiti from substations, where there is an obvious danger from electricity, and from bus shelters and the like.

The core business of State Transit, EnergyAustralia and other public authorities is not to deal with graffiti removal, even though graffiti defaces their property. Graffiti on substations and bus shelters remains in place for an inordinate time, far too long to deter an offender. I ask the Government to reconsider my suggestion. I also pay tribute to the Neighbourhood Watch groups in my area, particularly at Mt Colah. The prime aim of the Mt Colah group is to remove and reduce graffiti in the suburb. Its members have worked long and hard to remove graffiti along the rail corridor and on local businesses and private premises; they have done a fantastic job. The group has worked with local hardware stores, which provided paint to paint over the graffiti.

It is really a shame that the Government has not seen fit to encourage Neighbourhood Watch groups; they have been completely dumbed down. Sadly, the Mt Colah Neighbourhood Watch is probably the last skeletal group in Hornsby electorate. Local community members want to work in their own neighbourhood to maintain its ambience and beauty. An interesting article on graffiti appeared in the 1-2 November 2008 edition of the Weekend Australian, entitled "The writing on the wall". The article stated:

I emphasise that cost for the information of local governments and the State Government. The article continued:

That illustrates the degree of dichotomy in opinion about this type of alleged art. Some might say that a couple of walls in my electorate that are covered with graffiti—to the dismay of local sporting clubs and other groups, as the graffiti is on walls in large open spaces—are well endowed with art work. There is a dichotomy. What is art? That is a big question. As the member for Riverstone said, if you are placing your artwork on somebody else's property that is totally unacceptable. The Opposition does not oppose this piece of legislation. I have highlighted the need to photograph the tags before they are removed to assist with identifying the perpetrators. I totally agree with the member for Wagga Wagga. I agree with the need to extend the powers of local government to order State Transit and other Government authorities, EnergyAustralia and other owners of substations and the like to remove the work where it is too dangerous for councils to do so. I quote from the same article:

Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Gosford) [12.30 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Graffiti Control Bill 2008. This bill will bring together all the State's existing graffiti laws to make it easier for police and the courts to bring more offenders to account. The New South Wales Government is committed to tackling antisocial behaviour. We are also committed to ensuring that our police and courts have the power to enforce the law with regard to crime against the community, which is really what graffiti is all about. Among the key reforms in this bill are that it makes it illegal to possess implements such as marker pens or etching instruments with the intention of using them to damage or deface premises or property. I again point out to the House that this is a new concept in graffiti offences. This previously applied only to spray paint cans.

There are new powers under this bill to issue on-the-spot fines to retailers who fail to properly secure their spray paint can displays or who sell spray paint cans to persons under 18 years of age. The bill also enables courts to continue to impose community service work on graffiti vandals and gives local councils the power to remove visible graffiti from private property without the owner's consent. Young offenders will be forced to clean up the damage they have caused and there are fines and up to six months' jail for young offenders caught damaging property. Police are also given powers to confiscate spray paint cans from unsupervised minors. I point out that last year the Government set up a New South Wales anti-graffiti action team to drive new measures to reduce graffiti throughout the State. The action team is made up of experts from New South Wales police, transport, local government, and the Department of Education and Training as well as key utilities, including EnergyAustralia, Telstra and Sydney Water.

It has often been said to me—and I am sure it has been mentioned to other members of Parliament—that the Government is to be condemned for getting rid of the Summary Offences Act. I point out to the House that many sections of the Summary Offences Act have been incorporated into other State legislation. The bill is another example of that occurring. Under clause 7 of part 3 of the bill it is an offence to sell a spray paint can to a person under the age of 18 years. The new offence replicates section 10C of the Summary Offences Act 1988, including the maximum penalty of 10 penalty units. Clause 8 of part 3 makes it an offence for retailers not to properly secure spray paint cans that are displayed in shops. This offence replicates section 10D of the Summary Offences Act 1988, including the maximum penalty of 10 penalty units. Clause 9 of part 3 authorises police officers to confiscate spray paint cans in the possession of minors in public places unless the possession is for a purpose that is not unlawful. This new provision replicates section 10E of the Summary Offences Act 1988. I point out to the House that this Government has not done away with provisions of the Summary Offences Act. In fact, we have incorporated them into other pieces of legislation, including this Graffiti Control Bill.

The bill is the latest initiative from the New South Wales Government aimed at reducing and deterring graffiti so that the community feels safer. In 1997 this Government launched its multifaceted graffiti solutions program with initiatives designed to reduce graffiti and develop partnerships across State and local government, industry and the wider community. In 2001 the State Government amended the Local Government Act to enable councils to enter into agreements with private landowners to remove graffiti swiftly. Gosford City Council, which is of course within the electorate of Gosford, has received a number of grants from the State Labor Government over the years to help it tackle graffiti vandalism. Last year the Government provided $65,000 in funding to Gosford City Council to tackle graffiti under the graffiti grants pilot program. Under this program Gosford City Council was able to conduct a crime prevention through environmental design project aimed at deterring and thwarting graffiti vandals.

When the graffiti grants program was launched it was aimed at stamping out graffiti crime, and it was an Australian first. Gosford City Council was one of eight local councils involved in a trial of three graffiti prevention and removal techniques over a 15-month period. In 2000 Gosford City Council received a State Government grant of $15,000 for a community street art project. In conjunction with council's community safety plan, this project provided legal art and creative activities for young people in public spaces. The funding was made available so that local artists could run mural workshops at youth centres and a video could be produced by young people.

The New South Wales Government administers crime prevention approaches to graffiti that involve examining different types and locations of graffiti, the factors that may contribute to its causes, who is affected by graffiti and the cost of graffiti to the community. Another initiative launched by the State Labor Government is the Graffiti Blaster Program. This program is based on a similar program run in Chicago, which uses high-powered environmentally safe cleaning machines to eliminate graffiti on large surface areas affected by graffiti damage. Yet again the Government showed its commitment to the Central Coast, and to Gosford City Council in particular, by including the council in the Graffiti Blaster Program. Along with 12 other councils in New South Wales, Gosford City Council received $25,000 in grant funding to purchase blasting equipment or to enhance their existing graffiti clean-up teams or equipment.

I hope that Gosford City Council will take advantage of all the provisions in this new legislation to make a concerted effort to clean up areas and make our community feel much safer. I am really pleased that the State Government is getting behind local councils, police and other people involved in ensuring our communities are safe and look presentable. I applaud the Government for once again introducing laws that will make life harder for those who insist on doing the wrong thing, which is antisocial behaviour. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [12.38 p.m.]: I rise to make a contribution to the Graffiti Control Bill 2008. At the outset I point out that the objects of the bill are to consolidate the existing graffiti laws, particularly the provisions of the Summary Offences Act 1988 that create graffiti-related offences and regulate the sale of spray paint, into a specific Act dealing with graffiti. Other objects of the bill are to enable penalty notices to be issued for the offence of selling spray paint cans to minors and for an unsecured spray paint can display by retailers. Courts can order community service instead of fining or imprisoning for a graffiti-related offence and a court can require an offender to pay the cost of repairing any damage caused.

Proceedings can be dealt with summarily before the Local Court and the bill changes offences under the Rail Safety General Regulation 2003 relating to graffiti and vandalism so that it no longer refers to the defacing of property. However, authorised officers can direct someone who is defacing property on a train or rail land to leave. I find it somewhat surprising that in that situation the penalty might be merely a request to move on and desist from defacing railway property and public property.

When I read that it reminded me of the responsibility of parents, adults and the community in general. The problem that is facing us often starts with the home and young people who obviously have not had the discipline, and the self-discipline as a result, to control their urge to vandalise public property. When I was living in Orange and commuting to my home at Wollongong while I was in a transfer period, I well remember coming home one Friday evening to be met by my wife, who was extremely upset. Our son, who was 2� at the time, had been observing her conducting some painting prior to the sale of the house. He decided to take it upon himself to indulge in a little of his own painting, using poster paints on the outside wall of the house and painting it in bright colours. This caused us great distress and clearly we had to rectify the problem, but we also had to teach him that it was not acceptable.

This is one of the serious problems that we face in this State. All too often—I will come to this point later—the enforcement is not commensurate with the crime of vandalism, which is what we are talking about today. I refer to some of the steps that we as a community can take—some of the aspects of control that we can take upon ourselves but often fail to do. Like many members, I attend functions on a regular basis. Recently I emerged from a function in the heart of the Albury central business district at about 10.30 p.m. or 11.00 p.m. I was walking back to my car with my wife when I noticed an individual lurking outside the Vision Australia building in Olive Street, Albury. He clearly had something in his hand and he was working on the window in a manner that did not suggest he was sign writer at work after hours. I approached him and asked him what he was doing because I could see that he was about to etch something in the window or scratch it with an object. He was extremely embarrassed and turned around and said to me, "Get away."

It has to be realised that when approaching people of this nature one takes a personal risk. I had no idea what object he was holding in his hand with which he was about to scratch the window. His menacing, "Get away" led to me taking a few steps back. My wife thought that it was probably a little over the top on my part and that perhaps I should just walk away, but I said to him, "Do you realise that you are vandalising public property?" It had the desired effect. It appeared as though he was walking with a group of other students and presumably they had been consuming some alcohol, but he quickly caught up with his fellow students and effectively did not vandalise that window to any great degree.

One evening when I was driving along a main road into Albury to attend a function I noticed on one of the side streets a group of youths loitering and probably drinking. In the evening it is not a desired occupation for youths to gather on the streets and drink, but on this occasion one youth took it upon himself to jump on one of the median strip street signs that informs drivers they should keep left. As I drove past I saw that he was trying to bend the sign with the object of breaking it. I returned to the scene, having done a safe U-turn on the street when it was possible to do so, confronted this individual, asked him his name, told him that he was vandalising and asked him to cease. He did so and was embarrassed. When I returned a short while thereafter the youths had all disappeared.

I am recounting these stories because the community has a responsibility, when they see such action, to point out to people the errors of their ways. It is incumbent upon the courts to enforce that when it comes to their attention. I refer to clause 6, which replicates the offence under section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 of putting up posters on premises. I will not continue to talk about the rest of that clause, but reading it reminded me of a newspaper article that I read prior to the last State election—or it might have been a bit earlier than that. It was during the transition of the now Deputy Premier to the lower House. A newspaper article pointed out that the now Deputy Premier and her husband, a current Federal Minister, were putting up posters on public property, in clear defiance of the accepted rules that political posters should not be applied to electricity power poles and the like.

At the time it was laughed off by the current Federal Minister as being something that everybody does and it was not really all that serious. The point I make is that it is covered by clause 6. Unless we, as the lawmakers of this State, set the rules, how on earth do we expect them to be followed by those who we expect to obey them and by the community whose purposes we are serving? Graffiti is widespread throughout our State. It gives me grief, as it does all members and most members of the community, to see the defacing of public and private property. It is a blight upon our community and, as others have said, it is a scourge upon our society and it is something that needs to be controlled.

Let me give the example of an Albury businessman who became so exasperated after a horror run of vandalism attacks that he offered the public a $1,000 reward for information that would lead to the successful prosecution of offenders. This happened earlier this year in Albury and this particular business owner had been subject to repeated graffiti attacks on his property, and also the scratching of the store's doors with penknives. He said that numerous other buildings were also being targeted, it was happening all over town, and it was getting out of control. He said:

He said:

That led to the police responding. Fortunately, at the time they indicated that they were working on some leads on these graffiti vandals and that they soon hoped to make some arrests. Inspector John Wadsworth of the Albury Local Area Command said:

... the community had been of great assistance and police were confident of arrests, following tip-offs from the public.

That proves that by going public in this instance the owner of that business, Albury Computers, elicited the desired response, the public got behind the identification process and the police became much more proactive. At that point the police said that there were some strong leads and that they were indeed being followed up. In fact, Inspector Wadsworth went on to say:

Police have been foot patrolling certain graffiti hot spot areas and the community could rest assured that they were addressing the problems.

At the time the mayor said that it was a policing matter and that there was little that council could do about it. Businesses as a whole then rallied to the call, said that they were constant targets and that the graffiti was a real eyesore. We all agree with that and we all condemn these mindless graffiti attacks. As the businesses said, it takes time and money to fix not just the graffiti. As we have heard in debate on this bill, graffiti often leads to broken windows and to other forms of vandalism, whether it is the scratching, eggs being splattered on shopfronts and so forth. This graffiti attack then developed into rival gang warfare and windows and signs were posted with alternate tags as various gangs tried to claim their turf and engage in a turf war of sorts.

One businessperson said he was aware of young children—he called them under-age children—trying to buy spray cans before and after the Christmas period. He said, "We, of course, turned them down", but the kids came back trying to get their hands on some cans over the first couple of months of this year. The particular incident to which I referred resulted in the youth handing himself in once the community identified the perpetrators. The police identified other perpetrators who had travelled from Melbourne to indulge in graffiti attacks in Albury. The teenage boy who admitted to the police that he was involved in Albury's recent vandalism spree will be given only a youth caution. The Albury police decided to take this step after interviewing the 13-year-old youth.

My point is how much vandalism he wrought on the community. This youth admitted to committing offences at the Albury Cinema Centre, the Retro (Youth) Cafe, Albury Computers, Balls and Bumpers, The Wine Room, Big W Centro Lavington and McDonalds Lavington. This was not a one-off attack; it was a concentrated and consistent attempt to deface Albury property. The charge resulted in a caution. The problem is that clause 18 of the bill enables a court to require a person convicted of an offence under this proposed Act to pay for the costs of repairing any damage caused by the act constituting the offence.

It is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that the message is loudly and clearly delivered to offenders that they will be expected to participate in the clean-up and to pay for the damage they cause to private and public property. The bill is welcomed in as much as it addresses an issue that is long overdue in its enforcement. Cautions regularly handed out to offenders rather than having them clean up their damage is not the desire of the community. The community demands that the vandals responsible for defacing public and private property should be made to pay, either physically or monetarily.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [12.52 p.m.]: It is evident by the many members who have spoken in this debate today and on previous occasions that graffiti causes great angst in our community. The Graffiti Control Bill 2008 seeks to consolidate existing laws to try to deal with that angst. I was pleased that the definitions in clause 3 of the bill include spray paint or a marker pen as a graffiti implement. Marker pens increasingly are becoming the tool of choice for graffiti artists, particularly as the thickness of the nib increases in size. I congratulate the Minister on including marker pens in the definition.

I do not want to take up much time of the House except to refer to an issue raised by my local council at its ordinary meeting on 11 November. Deputy Mayor Councillor Funnell moved a motion that Camden Council write a letter to the local State member and the New South Wales Attorney General seeking action to make graffiti a punishable first-offence crime, with punishment to cover a range of options including community service for removal of graffiti damage to public property and premises. The motion was passed and the letter is on its way. I sought advice from the Attorney General's office and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address this matter in his reply to ensure that the advice I received from the Attorney General's office is on the record. The advice I was given stated:

I know the Parliamentary Secretary will be familiar with this aspect through his legal background. The advice continued:

If the value of the property damaged is less then $5,000, the maximum penalty is limited to 12 months. Therefore, 6 months for graffiti is an appropriate measure against people that should be afforded a second chance and not immediately be thrown into the stony environment of a New South Wales correctional centre. It should also be made clear that graffiti is a crime.

My notes add that a black mark is placed against that person's name for life—appropriate for a graffiti bill! I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address my concerns in his reply.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.55 p.m.]: Graffiti alienates public areas from the wider community—precisely the reason graffiti offenders commit graffiti vandalism. Graffiti vandalism often is associated with other antisocial behaviours. Many of those in graffiti gangs are young juveniles who commit graffiti vandalism as part of what health professionals call socialised conduct disorder. The problem is increasing with the increased frequency of socialised conduct disorder. The availability of spray cans and wide ball textas have made the graffiti problem even more frequent. Graffiti has existed for many generations, but the availability of new ways of committing graffiti vandalism make this legislation an excellent addition to the current war against graffiti.

In my electorate about one-third of malicious damage reports are about graffiti vandalism. For example, today I spoke to Mr Donald Lobo of Casula. He works very hard during the week and owns a rented townhouse in a Glenfield complex, which has been vandalised frequently—up to eight or nine times—with spray-painted graffiti in the past few months. The offenders often are young juveniles. The residents report the graffiti to the police as quickly as they can. However, by the time the police arrive the offenders have left the scene. We all know that identifying graffiti offenders is difficult unless they are caught in the act.

The most effective prevention for graffiti is high-visibility policing. However, my local area command is examining other ways to prevent graffiti, which include tag identification and personal searches. This new law is necessary for the protection of people such as Mr Lobo. Graffiti costs Campbelltown City Council hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Some residents are reluctant to involve the police for fear of retribution. Campbelltown City Council and Macquarie Fields Local Area Command are considering various ways for residents to report graffiti vandalism anonymously. As the member for Tamworth said, diversion therapies—such as providing appropriate places for these young people to attend—is part of any solution to the problem. These new laws will give the police and my local council an extra weapon against the crime of graffiti vandalism. All of my electorate will welcome these new laws.

Ms ALISON MEGARRITY (Menai) [12.58 p.m.]: I support the Graffiti Control Bill 2008. New South Wales recorded crime statistics from January 2001 to December 2006 show that a total of 591,321 incidents of malicious damage to property were reported to New South Wales Police over that period, with 47,235, or 8 per cent, of the incidents being related to graffiti vandalism. The annual average of graffiti incidents reported to New South Wales Police over the six-year period was 7,873. This bill is but one part, albeit an important part, of the Rees Government's strategy to stamp out graffiti in the State. Ultimately, it is only with a whole-of-government, community and business approach that graffiti can be stamped out in New South Wales.

In recognising that a broad-based approach was needed, in 2006 the New South Wales Government established the Anti-Graffiti Action Team to oversee the development and implementation of the New South Wales Government's graffiti reduction strategy. The Attorney General's Department with membership from the police, other government departments, transport agencies, public utilities, local government and representatives of the paint industry leads the Anti-Graffiti Action Team. The action team recently looked at all legislation to stop graffiti vandalism. Legislative changes since 2003 have primarily focused on amendments to the Summary Offences Act 1988. The drafting of specific graffiti legislation, which also replicates section 67A to section 67C of the Local Government Act 1993, was proposed by the action team as a significant step forward in the fight against graffiti and resulted in the bill before the House.

The Anti-Graffiti Action Team has been very active in its anti-graffiti role. It has addressed many policy initiatives of the New South Wales Government, including the ongoing operation of the Police Rail Vandalism Task Force, which arrested 281 people for more than 700 offences, including malicious damage and trespass in a rail corridor; the development of a graffiti management model and seven fact sheets to assist councils with the development and management of graffiti reduction initiatives, focusing on rapid removal, crime prevention through environmental design and volunteers' involvement; and the introduction of legislation to give police the power to confiscate spray cans from juveniles if they do not have a lawful excuse for having a spray can. That power remains in the present bill.

The Attorney General's Department, together with the Anti-Graffiti Action Team, operates a website, www.graffiti.nsw.gov.au, which is dedicated to stopping graffiti vandals in their tracks. On that site one can find important information to counter the scourge of graffiti. The site has easy links to graffiti reporting, graffiti removal tips and, most importantly, graffiti prevention.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (CLIMATE CHANGE)

Report: Conference Report 13th Annual Conference of Public Works and Environment Committees of Australian Parliaments 2008

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Mr Barry Collier and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 13 of 2008

Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.

Pursuant to standing orders debate postponed.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Report: Report on Examination of the Auditor-General's Performance Audits Tabled July 2006 to March 2007

Report: Annual Review 2006-07

Motion by Mr Paul McLeay agreed to:

Question—That the House take note of the reports—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote) [1.03 p.m.]: The Public Accounts Committee is a bipartisan committee of the lower House whose members strive to represent the review role of the House in relation to public finances and accounts of the State. Members of the committee have a very successful relationship, and many committee members are present in the Chamber. Changes to membership of the committee have occurred over the past 12 months, so when I refer to the annual report I include former members of the committee in my comments. I know that the current members of the committee look forward to the future work of the committee with keen interest. Certainly, members of the committee have been working very positively and successfully together.

The two reports that will be discussed this morning are the "Report on Examination of the Audit-General's Performance Audits Tabled July 2006 to March 2007—Condition of State Roads, Educating Primary School Students with Disabilities, Major Infectious Disease Outbreaks: Readiness to Respond, Helping Older People to Access a Residential Aged Care Facility, Attracting, Retaining and Managing Nurses in NSW, Distributing Legal Aid in New South Wales, Addressing the Needs of Young Offenders and the "Annual Report 2006-07". The committee has been very ably assisted by the secretariat under the leadership of Russell Keith, who is an excellent committee manager. I thank Russell and his team for their patience over the past 12 months and for their outstanding expertise in compiling reports.

In relation to the report on examination of the Auditor-General's performance audits, the committee decided to change the way in which the committee functions. In the past the Public Accounts Committee has produced between six and eight reports each year, and they are somewhat equivalent to the reports on performance audits completed by the Auditor-General. The major difference is that the committee chooses the audits to review through referral by the committee, referral through the Parliament, or referral by the Treasurer or a Minister of the Crown. The committee has decided that it will produce follow-up audits of 100 per cent of the Auditor-General's performance audits. The committee has the capacity to undertake financial audits as well, and that may be done at a later time, but at this stage the committee will confine itself to performance audits.

By expansion of the role of the committee, the Auditor-General's reports will be given teeth. I imagine that some agencies would not necessarily be happy about having the Auditor-General turn up to spend a few months going over the way they do business and spend public money, and then, when they finally complete that process, discover 12 months later that the Public Accounts Committee will revisit the matters to ascertain how the departments and government agencies have responded to the Auditor-General's recommendations. Having said that, I hasten to add that so far we have found the response to the Public Accounts Committee's expanded role has been acceptance at worst and government agencies and departments being quite pleased that the Public Accounts Committee has come back to take another look at best.

We have noticed a mixture of the way people respond. In some cases, we need to bring representatives of government agencies and departments back before the committee to give further evidence. In addition to that, in some cases the committee has had to seek clarification. However, in contrast to that, in some cases the committee has simply been able to conduct its review as a desktop exercise. In those cases, after the committee has received a response, it is clear that there is no need for the committee to take up any more of the time or energy of the government agency or department, either because events have moved on, such as in relation to homelessness that has been subject of several changes in the manner in which the New South Wales Government and the Federal Government deal with it, or there has been a general acceptance of the Auditor-General's recommendations.

In relation to homelessness, the committee obtained a comprehensive report on the changes that have taken place, and therefore determined that it was not necessary to pursue recommendations of the Audit Office made 12 months previously. In the case of general acceptance, the committee was able to satisfy itself by a purely desktop exercise that it was unnecessary to take further action by, for example, obtaining further evidence. The concept of reviewing 100 per cent compliance with the Auditor-General's reports gives teeth to the Auditor-General's reports. The Auditor-General certainly at this stage has warmly accepted the process the committee is undertaking and encourages the committee to continue. The Auditor-General feels that it provides the opportunity to do a proper follow-up to community standards.

The Audit Office will speak to agencies and make recommendations. It is appropriate that the Public Accounts Committee goes back 12 months later to see whether the agencies have responded, how they have responded and how they intend to respond further. If they have not accepted the recommendations, the Audit Office will ask why not. It is also a good quality-assurance process for the Auditor-General to ensure that his office is not overstepping the mark or missing its key performance areas. The process is a healthy one; it lets us know if the Audit Office is setting recommendations that are out of whack or not acceptable to the agencies. If that is the case it will assist us with one of our responsibilities, that is, to do an audit of the Audit Office. That will give us a good insight into the process.

We are also debating the 2007-08 annual review. While not many reports were tabled, it laid the foundation for the future of the Public Accounts Committee. As I said, we have decided to begin a process of examination of performance audits by the Auditor-General. We have also begun a process of inquiring into State Plan reporting. Fifteen meetings were held in 2007 and 2008. We held hearings into State Plan reporting, as well as attracting, retaining and managing nurses in hospitals, distributing legal aid and addressing the needs of young offenders. Twenty-five witnesses appeared before the committee throughout four hearings. The Public Accounts Committee has provided briefing sessions for members of Parliament. After the recent budget the Public Accounts Committee, in conjunction with New South Wales Treasury, held a briefing session to explain how the budget papers and process work. That was well attended, and we appreciate the efforts of New South Wales Treasury.

Also, the Public Accounts Committee hosts the Auditor-General after each tabling of performance or financial audit reports. On the Wednesday of sitting weeks when the Auditor-General's reports are tabled, the Public Accounts Committee hosts a briefing at which members or its staff can ask the Auditor-General and the appropriate staff in his office who conducted the inquiries, questions about the inquiries and recommendations. The relationship between the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General continues to be strong. We work cooperatively. We continue to give the Auditor-General and his office recommendations for the way ahead and audits they propose to undertake, as well as feedback on his performance. The Public Accounts Committee is a member of the Australian Council of Public Accounts Committees [ACPAC]. We work together with ACPAC and have attended several of its meetings in preparation for conferences. We will continue to work with other groups that require our assistance, such as Certified Practising Accountants [CPA] Australia. We work cooperatively and enjoy a good relationship with the CPA.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [1.13 p.m.]: As a new member of the Public Accounts Committee I reinforce the words of our chair. It is a very good committee. I am privileged to be able to serve on it. Today I inform the House about something that is of great interest to me, that is, the committee's examination of the response to the performance audit on attracting, retaining and managing nurses in hospitals. New South Wales appears to be facing a chronic nursing shortage at present.

Alarmingly, it is believed that should nothing be done to address this problem, in four years we will have approximately 8,000 fewer nurses than we need to provide quality care in New South Wales hospitals. While the ageing population and medical advances have increased the demand for highly trained nurses, hospitals are struggling to meet that increase due to, among other factors, insufficient university places, the move to part-time work, plus an ageing workforce. Indeed, in New South Wales there are half as many nurses in their thirties as there are in their forties, which is alarming, and half as many in their twenties as there are in their thirties.

Given this situation, it is clear that NSW Health faces a real challenge to maintain sufficient numbers of nurses to provide the quality of health care required. The Auditor-General conducted a performance audit to seek assurance that this challenge was being addressed. The Auditor-General made his recommendations in December 2006 and the committee commenced its examination a year later to see how NSW Health had responded. The Auditor-General's performance audit examined whether nursing resources were well managed, whether hospitals effectively attracted and retained staff, and whether NSW Health was adequately addressing the risk of a future shortage of nurses in public hospitals. The Auditor-General found that the department had performed well in attracting and retaining nurses, with a 4 per cent average annual increase in nurse numbers.

Strategies used by NSW Health to increase nurse numbers included improving wages, recruiting overseas nurses and former nurses, and creating more flexible rosters. The department was also moving to manage nurse workloads in a more transparent, consistent and consultative way, and hospitals were moving to determine the number of nurses on a ward according to patient load, reviewing the work of nurses and employing more enrolled nurses. However, there were indicators that there may still not have been enough nurses available, even using overtime, and with the number of agency nurses increasing 21 per cent from the 2001-02 period. The Auditor-General made 14 recommendations that focussed on understanding the scope of the problem, improving workforce management and planning, plus reducing resignations. The committee found that NSW Health had responded positively to the audit and was in the process of implementing the majority of its recommendations.

It was also apparent that the challenge of maintaining sufficient nurse numbers was going to require the ongoing attention of the department. However, the committee was concerned that the lack of indicators of the impact of nurse numbers on patient care could weaken the capacity of NSW Health to manage nurse shortages effectively. The committee concluded that to adequately address the shortage NSW Health would have to continue to review and implement its workload monitoring tool, implement its integrated human resource information system, develop policies and tools for the management of nursing arrangements for patients with special needs, redesign workloads, and review the use and cost of overtime, and of casual and agency nurses. The committee also concluded that adequate measures of the impact of nurse numbers are essential to effectively manage the nursing workforce in a climate of chronic nurse shortages.

It recommended that NSW Health develop and implement measures regarding the impact of nurse numbers on patient care. This recommendation was part of a theme that arose from a number of agency responses to the audits the committee examined in this report. The committee found that agencies were taking on the Auditor-General's recommendations and implementing changes to improve services. However, it appeared that there was some reluctance to measure and report the impact of the agency's work. To most effectively manage the delivery of services, agencies must understand the impact of what they are doing.

In an environment of ongoing nurse shortages, decisions will need to be made on how to position existing nurses to provide the greatest possible quality of patient care. To do this, NSW Health needs to measure how changes in nurse numbers impact on the quality of that care. Despite this concern, it was apparent to the committee that NSW Health is addressing the challenge of managing and maintaining nurses. The committee expresses its gratitude to the staff of NSW Health for their professionalism and assistance with this inquiry, and for their commitment to providing quality health care to the people of New South Wales. We look forward to receiving the Government's response on this important matter in due course.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance) [1.18 p.m.]: I am pleased also to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which has always been regarded as the most significant and important committee in Parliament. The chair and the committee staff make it a pleasure to be a member of the committee. It is apparent that the way the committee conducts its reviews has changed. The systematic way the reviews and evaluations are conducted is a credit to all those who have been associated with the committee, as well as the current members. I refer to the committee's examination of the Legal Aid Commission's response to the Auditor-General's performance audit on the distribution of legal aid in New South Wales.

The audit found that Legal Aid had expanded the delivery of its services to marginalised groups across New South Wales in the face of funding pressures and increased demand. While the committee was impressed with this result, and the implementation of the majority of the Auditor-General's recommendation, it was disappointed that Legal Aid did not adopt the Auditor-General's recommendations on the need for outcome-based performance targets, measuring and reporting the time it takes to process cases and changing its appeals process.

In 2006 the Audit Office examined whether Legal Aid was properly distributed to those entitled to it. The audit found that Legal Aid was performing well in delivering services, and that its practices of making people aware of legal issues and its services were comprehensive. However, the Auditor-General thought that Legal Aid could improve how it understood and reported on the delivery of its services. Consequently, the majority of the Auditor-General's 15 recommendations focused on the need to measure unmet demand across its target areas, and improve accountability and management information through benchmarking, peer review and reporting against targets.

Upon examining Legal Aid's response to the Auditor-General's recommendations, the committee was pleased to find that the commission was enhancing its publications, toolkits and website; developing a new grants management system; implementing a new case management system; engaging the Law and Justice Foundation to do a national legal needs survey; considering the means tests of other jurisdictions when setting its own levels; and considering whether its access and equity officer would conduct a whole-of-commission access and equity review. Although Legal Aid rejected six of the Auditor-General's recommendations, the Auditor-General and the committee were of the view that Legal Aid's actions were consistent with the intent of three of those recommendations. Legal Aid declined to adopt outcome-based performance targets, and measure and report on the time taken to process cases on the grounds that the information generated would be meaningless because of the range of factors that are outside of Legal Aid's control. As Legal Aid stated:

[a] failure to meet predetermined service volume targets may merely reflect … a decline in arrests made by police.

However, the committee is of the opinion that the crucial issue concerning whether to measure performance against outcome-based targets is not the extent to which circumstances are under Legal Aid's control, but rather the extent to which Legal Aid wishes to manage its service delivery in order to achieve particular outcomes, such as the equitable delivery of legal aid services across the State or a reduction in its processing times. The committee is aware of instances in which the cost of measuring performance against particular targets will outweigh the benefits obtained from the information generated and, where that may be the case, the committee suggests that Legal Aid undertake a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to monitor its service delivery in that way.

The committee also suggested in its report that the Attorney General introduce legislative amendments to enable appeals from refusals of grants of legal aid to be reviewed by a single panel member rather than a committee. The committee acknowledges Legal Aid's concern, which is that a single member review may be less robust than a committee review, but it notes that evidence from Victoria and Queensland demonstrates that a single member review is sufficiently robust, while also being more cost and time effective. I thank Legal Aid New South Wales for the assistance it provided to the committee. I hope it will give further consideration to the issues that have been raised in the House.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [1.22 p.m.]: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to the committee's report on the examination of the Auditor-General's performance audits. I pay tribute particularly to staff of the Public Accounts Committee: Russell Keith, committee manager; Bjarne Nordin, senior committee officer; Simon Kennedy, research officer; Eve Gallagher, research officer who is in the gallery; Alexis Steffen, committee officer; and Mohini Mehta, assistant committee officer. I also congratulate the Auditor-General, Peter Achterstraat, on his great work. He has done a fantastic job. The Auditor-General, a unique individual that one very rarely comes across in public life, is one of the best Auditors-General that this State has ever had.

The committee looked at the condition of State roads, educating primary school students with disabilities; major infectious disease outbreaks; readiness to respond; helping older people access a residential aged-care facility; attracting, retaining and managing nurses in hospitals; distributing Legal Aid in New South Wales; and addressing the needs of young offenders. Under the leadership of the committee chair, the member for Heathcote, there has been a general change in examining performance audits. The committee has worked very hard and I thank my fellow committee members.

The committee sought responses from the responsible agencies 12 months after audit was tabled and referred that agency's submission to the Auditor-General for comment. If there are outstanding issues, the committee proceeds to a public hearing with the agencies and the Auditor-General. The process was introduced gradually, with the first four audits only being examined on the bases of written responses. The benefits to the people of New South Wales are it brings public accountability to how agencies respond to Auditor-General's reports, it enables agencies to demonstrate what change has been made, it ensures recommendations of value are not neglected and it provides a reality check to the Auditor-General's recommendations.

I will touch briefly on the report in relation to addressing the needs of young offenders. The Auditor-General assessed how well the Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force support young offenders to reduce re-offending. It focused on how well the organisations identified young offenders' needs, addressed those needs and worked with other service providers to reduce reoffending. It found that both organisations had varying degrees of success in identifying and addressing the needs of young offenders and there were barriers to information exchange that prevented the organisations from collaborating with other service providers to reduce re-offending, and made 16 recommendations on identifying offenders' needs, accessing services and reporting the results of programs.

The committee focused on the extent to which the organisations had adopted checklists to identify the needs of young offenders, systems for following up referrals, multisystemic therapy—a family-based treatment program—systems to increase information exchange and the accessibility of services, and better reporting structures. In relation to the first four topics of inquiry, the committee was pleased that the police had implemented a checklist to better identify young offenders' needs, the Department of Juvenile Justice had introduced multisystemic therapy in Newcastle and western Sydney and would extend it to other areas and cross-agency structures had been developed to exchange information, follow up referrals and improve access to support services.

In relation to the last topic of inquiry, the committee recommended that the Department of Juvenile Justice include in its annual reports trends in re-offending for each young offender group and that the NSW Police Force include in its annual reports trends in the number and proportion of young offenders diverted from the Children's Court and trends in re-offending for young offenders receiving cautions. The committee thought that more detailed reporting requirements would provide a greater understanding of young people who reoffend and of agency performance. I commend the work of the committee, particularly the Auditor-General.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [1.26 p.m.]: Included in this report is the committee's examination of the Auditor-General's audit on how the Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force are addressing the needs of young offenders. As the Government noted in its State Plan with respect to its aim of reducing reoffending, prevention is better than cure, and early intervention works best to reduce re-offending. The committee hopes that its report will be of assistance to the Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force as they attempt to achieve this aim. In assessing how well the Department of Juvenile Justice and the police were supporting young offenders, the Auditor-General considered how well they identified young offenders' needs, addressed those needs and worked with other government and non-government service providers to reduce reoffending.

The audit found that both organisations had varying degrees of success in identifying and addressing the needs of young offenders. For example, while they were particularly effective in helping young offenders in detention or under community supervision, they were less effective in helping young offenders who had been diverted from the court system. Inadequate processes for identifying the needs of young offenders, and for then referring them to appropriate support services, was identified as one of the major reasons for the agencies' inconsistent responses. The audit also found that barriers to information exchange prevented both organisations from collaborating with other service providers to reduce reoffending.

The Auditor-General's recommendations for the Department of Juvenile Justice and police focused on the need to establish better frameworks for providing, monitoring, and reporting on the results of their services, and on the need to overcome cross-agency barriers to information exchange and the accessibility of services. The committee found that the agencies had accepted and made significant progress towards implementing the majority of the audit recommendations, and focused on the extent to which they had implemented checklists to identify the needs of young offenders, systems for following up referrals, multisystemic therapy, systems to increase the accessibility of services and information exchange, and better reporting mechanisms.

The committee was pleased with the agencies' responses in relation to the first four topics of inquiry, but thought that both should include more information in their annual reports to allow for a greater understanding of the needs of young offenders and closer scrutiny of the extent to which their needs are being met. Police informed the committee that they had implemented a checklist for youth liaison officers to use so that they could take into account all relevant factors when addressing the needs of young offenders issued with a caution. The police also informed the committee that youth liaison officers, cross-agency case management committees and antisocial behaviour pilots were assisting the police to follow up referrals.

Multisystemic therapy is a family-based treatment program that has had a positive impact on indigenous people in Western Australia, and the committee is eager to see it extended to indigenous people in New South Wales. According to the Department of Juvenile Justice, this program has commenced in Newcastle and western Sydney and will be extended to those areas of the State in which it is deemed viable. Both agencies were involved in programs that sought to overcome difficulties associated with exchanging information and accessing services, including the Cross-Agency Management of Young Offenders Senior Officers Group and the human services and justice clusters CEO group. The committee was pleased to see that the level and consistency of information between the Department of Juvenile Justice and the New South Wales Police Force had increased, and was hopeful that the antisocial behaviour pilots that had been facilitated by Privacy Commission exemptions would result in further improvements.

The committee recommended also that the Department of Juvenile Justice include in its annual report information on trends in reoffending for each young offender group. The Committee recommended also that the New South Wales Police Force include in its annual report trends in the number and proportion of young offenders diverted from the Children's Court and trends in reoffending for young offenders receiving cautions. The committee considered that making disaggregated data available to the public would allow for a greater understanding of the problem of youth recidivism and provide a useful indicator of agency performance.

I thank the Department of Juvenile Justice and the police for their cooperation with our inquiry and for their commitment to supporting young offenders. I take this opportunity, as did the Chair and other members of the committee, to thank the committee members and all the staff who helped us conduct the inquiries, particularly Russell Keith. I am very pleased to be part of this very important committee.

Question—That the House take note of the reports—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Reports noted.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

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

GOVERNOR'S TUMUT VISIT

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [1.30 p.m.]: On Tuesday 4 November 2008 I had the great pleasure of welcoming to the Wagga Wagga electorate the Governor, Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir. The Governor arrived via that great regional airline, Regional Express Holdings Ltd., known as Rex, and we departed for Tumut, which is now included in the Wagga Wagga electorate. We were met at Tumut High School by the Principal, Mr David Deitz, the Head Teacher of Special Eduction, Mr James Hayes, and also School Captains Bradley Bulger and Lucy Corkhill. We then proceeded to the hospitality room where the morning tea and the greeting we received were absolutely first class. I acknowledge the efforts of the hospitality students to ensure that everything went well; it was terrific.

We moved on to room A1 where we met with students with emotional disturbances. It was an experience for me to watch the Governor's interaction with those students. Indeed, the students enjoyed the visit as well. We moved to room A4 where we met with students with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities. We also met two students in year 6 with special needs in transition for 2009. The interaction of the Governor with the students was wonderful. I congratulate the students on the work they were doing and the way in which they embraced their classes and the education process delivered there. We moved to the library, where we met year 11 students. We participated in the singing of the national anthem. Her Excellency spoke for quite some time and thoroughly enjoyed the occasion. Her Excellency also participated in a questions and answers session. Her Excellency then presented a Duke of Edinburgh Bronze Award to year 11 student Hayley Webb. I congratulate Hayley on her efforts.

After photographs were taken and the visitors' book was signed, we then went to the opening of the Tumut Riverglade Wetlands Project. We arrived at about 12.30 p.m. and were met by the Mayor of Tumut Shire Council, Councillor Trina Thompson; the General Manager of Tumut Shire Council, Mr Chris Adams; council delegate Mr Geoff Pritchard; former Mayor Mr Gene Vanzella; and Aboriginal elders. We received a wonderful welcome to country and were given an overview of the project by Mr Pritchard. Her Excellency opened the Riverglade Wetlands and toured the area. She was presented with a beautiful gift from the people of Tumut. The wetlands area is part of the Catchment Management Authority's plan to reconstitute some of the neglected wetlands.

The Governor has seen at first hand the works that were carried out at Narrandera a few weeks ago. A few months ago I had the great pleasure of opening the Catchment Management Authority conference in Wagga Wagga. All the participants who had been learning skills and doing restoration work came together to celebrate their achievements. We then departed for the Valmar Support Services in Jarrah Street, where we were met by Mr Ron Humphries and Mr Gerry Proft of the Valmar Board of Directors. Presentations were given by Mr John Stanfield and Mr Michael Smart before a tour of the factory, where we met many workers.

We travelled to Tumut's Old Butter Factory, run by Valmar, which provides a caf�, a meals-on-wheels service and a transition-to-work service. We had a great hour there, including partaking of afternoon tea that included a glass of champagne while we enjoyed watching the running of the Melbourne Cup. Sadly, I did not win, but we had a great time and those with us certainly enjoyed the company of the Governor. On our trip back to Tumut we travelled through Adelong, in the Wagga Wagga electorate, where we stopped for a short street walk. We visited the wonderful museum, which highlights the goldmining history of Adelong, and met with Tom Wilds, a great historian of the town, and others. All in all, it was a wonderful opportunity for the students and people of Tumut to meet the Governor and enjoy her company. I have since written to the principal of Tumut High School. I wrote:

CENTRAL COAST ACADEMY OF SPORT

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [1.35 p.m.]: With the constant media bombardment about the rising rates of childhood obesity and the diminishing fitness levels within our society, it is easy to overlook the good things that are happening in our communities to promote healthy living. One organisation serving my electorate, in fact the whole Central Coast, does just that through involvement in sport—the Central Coast Academy of Sport, based at the Mingara Recreation Club, Tumbi Umbi. The Central Coast Academy of Sport is one of 11 independent not-for-profit community-based academies of sport operating throughout New South Wales. It was officially launched in April 2004, by the then Premier, Bob Carr, with the aim of providing opportunities for athletes, coaches, administrators, officials, sports science practitioners and other sports-related parties from all sports on the Central Coast.

Currently, academy squads exist for golf, surf lifesaving, surfing, netball, basketball, rugby union, tennis, football, speed skating, lawn bowls, and athletics, and it has also a Future Stars Program. The academy is looking to add swimming and cycling to its program. The academy successfully assists the development and enrichment of the local community through the identification and development of children who demonstrate emerging sport talent. It also provides specialist education for athletes, coaches, administrators and officials. Like all academies of sport, the Central Coast Academy of Sport plays an important role in strengthening and building pride in his community. Across the Central Coast it encourages healthy lifestyles and a spirit of teamwork and partnership through participation in physical activity, development of volunteers, education of coaches and officials, amongst other things.

The Central Coast also successfully hosted the Academy Games involving all regional academies over the last couple of years. Last Monday night I had the pleasure of attending the Central Coast Academy of Sport awards night at Mingara. Approximately 250 people were in attendance to congratulate more than 100 athletes and volunteers on their achievements. Thirty mayoral certificates were presented by Wyong Mayor Bob Graham and Gosford Mayor Chris Holstein acknowledging excellent attendance, community involvement, respect and responsibility. It was refreshing to witness the excitement of the night and see so many young people and their parents, coaches and supporters there to celebrate all the achievements. It is commendable that the academy recognises and encourages the talents of many young people and helps them to develop and excel in their chosen field as well as to develop many important life skills along the way.

The major award winners included David Graham, a freestyle mogul skier from the academy's future stars squad, who was Male Athlete of the Year. Female Athlete of the Year was Lauren Stone from the surf lifesaving squad, and Luke Cullen from the short track speed skating squad received the Chairman's Award. I am told that the skating arena at Erina Ice World in the electorate of the member for Terrigal is one of the premier ice-skating rinks in Australia. It is located on the Central Coast and that is why they have the speed skating program there. Two new awards were introduced this year. The Donnica Clarke Foundation Scholarship was presented to Chris Dodd, a high jumper from the athletics squad, and the Ray Sandell Volunteer Award was presented to netball coach Marion Van Munster, my former physical education teacher.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to congratulate the team at Central Coast Academy of Sport, under the management of Ian Robilliard. The benefits provided by this organisation and indeed all other academies of sport throughout New South Wales are long-term and far-reaching. Being not-for-profit organisations, it is essential that all academies of sport are provided with adequate funding so they can continue their great work developing and encouraging the youth, volunteers and coaches of our State. I know their funding for 2009 is secure, but all members of this House must be loud in their support for future funding. These organisations are good news for so many reasons.

They are a perfect example of a policy that works and New South Wales Treasury in particular must recognise this by funding them appropriately. This support should be increased in the future, not cut back. I know the Minister for Sport is actively working on this issue and I certainly thank him for his interest. I also know that the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Richard Torbay, is a big supporter of regional academies of sport. The Central Coast Academy works. It promotes excellence in sport and gives young people wider skills in organisation and management. We must ensure these worthwhile organisations across the State can continue to effectively deliver the many wonderful services currently offered. Our communities need them. They are good organisations and they do a good job for our young people. We should and must support them.

SCHOOL STUDENT TRAVEL SCHEME

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [1.40 p.m.]: The majority of my electorate of Burrinjuck has been in drought for over six years. In September just past, Yass, Cootamundra, Boorowa, Young, Grenfell, Cowra, Crookwell, Gunning, Harden and Gundagai were all drought-declared. It will take a long period of sustained good conditions for these areas to recover from the financial pressures that the drought has placed on families over six long, hard years. Then along comes the mini-budget. Parents in my electorate will face an additional cost of $190 a year as a direct result of the mini-budget if they have two primary age children, because they will face the loss of $100 in back-to-school allowance and a $90 school bus charge. Parents in my electorate would rather use that $190 to buy two pairs of school shoes, two sun hats, two school polo shirts, two lunch boxes and some pencils for their two children, but now they will have to pay that hard-earned money into the State Government's coffers.

One such family I know facing this exact predicament, by way of example, is a shearer living at Bookham, who cannot find work because of the drought, and his wife, both of whom now have to work off-farm travelling long distances, to make ends meet. Their farm has not produced any income for at least five years. They tell me that all their neighbours are in the same boat. For families to have just two children in rural areas is probably below average. Many families have three, four or many more, all of whom require school materials and the families are suffering from increasing budgetary pressures. Country families with four children will be $380 worse off as a direct result of this ill thought out mini-budget.

Some parents have expressed concern that the parental co-payment will force families away from school bus runs and into driving their own children to school. This will increase congestion on dangerous roads such as the Barton Highway and around busy school zones, and put more children at genuine risk of being involved in an accident involving a motor vehicle. In Murrumbateman there is a rather unique situation where the New South Wales Government has continually refused to open a public school despite my many requests and a real and demonstrated demand for this service, so school bus travel is essential. The Parents and Citizens Association of Yass High School has also written to me about school bus travel. Mary Cochrane, the secretary of the Yass Parents and Citizens Association wrote saying:

Farming families have been hit hard in this area by drought, economic instability, falling prices for their commodities and rising prices for necessities. They can least afford to pay for having their children access their local schools when the cost of almost everything else has gone up too. Needless to say we can ill afford the environmental and safety issues that an increase in private vehicles, bringing children to school will cause.

Ms Cochrane's views are also shared by the president of the Yass Parents and Citizens Association, Robyn Diamond, who emailed me to say that the students of Yass High School would be severely disadvantaged if the school travel subsidy was removed. She stated her strong objection to schools being made to collect money for the Government from families that are required to pay a contribution for school transport. She says that this will add another burden to a school system that is already short of resources. Unfortunately, this is what has happened. It seems Premier Rees has turned every school administration assistant in the State into a tax collector.

I got a letter from Reverend Don Jamieson from the Anglican Parish of Harden saying that if rural parents have to meet the cost of transporting their children to school it will be another huge impost on already depleted funds as almost all of the population of rural communities suffers from the impact of the prolonged drought. He said that even the possibility of a reasonable season ahead does not immediately change the financial position of rural communities and that it will take many seasons to balance the books. He said:

Either the Premier, the Treasurer or their Ministers for Education and for Transport somehow believe that this will not impact on rural communities or they don't really care. It is a great pity that they don't spend more than token time amongst people who are really hurting financially so that they might better gauge how only the smallest of financial imposts can bring a family to breaking point.

I have received phone calls and correspondence from bus and coach services throughout the Burrinjuck electorate, including Loader's Coaches in Grenfell and Young, the Cowra Bus Service, Terry Carroll Motors in Grenfell, and Crookwell Bus Service, and I have had personal discussions with Yass school bus services, all of which are concerned by the State Labor Government's actions in scrapping free school bus travel for country children. The Premier clearly does not understand how his actions are hurting the parents of children living in country New South Wales by introducing this new tax on getting children to school, which is compulsory to attend as we all know.

My Nationals colleagues and I strongly oppose this new tax on country parents and we have determined we will reinstitute free school bus travel when we win government, because our constituents are demanding that that happen. People can sign an online petition at www.savestudenttravel.com.au. I have signed it and I hope many others do so. We plead with this Government to please reintroduce free school bus travel for all country children.

PRINCES HIGHWAY, LOFTUS, SPEED LIMIT

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote) [1.45 p.m.]: I rise today to talk about the speed limit along the Princes Highway at Loftus. Several members of my community have written to me, lobbied me and made their views known regarding the car park exit and entrance for Loftus-Yarrawarrah Rovers Soccer Club, whose oval is on part of the Royal National Park at Loftus and is used by hundreds of young families every Saturday morning during winter soccer as well as for cricket and various other activities. There has been a long campaign in relation to this matter and I thank very much John Lane, the president of the club, for his patience over several years of raising this agenda item with me, and the club. I am sure today they will be very pleased because as of Wednesday the speed limit on the road was reduced from 90 kilometres per hour to 80 kilometres per hour. This will make a lot of people very happy because it is about community safety.

I know that whenever we lower speed limits there will be rejection from some people, particularly those of my constituents who live in the Illawarra and who travel north to Sydney for work. They get very frustrated at the lowering of speed limits and find it very challenging to use their routes to and from home. As we found when we lowered the speed limit in Heathcote after several deaths, the last one being of a 14-year-old boy, people were very upset. However, it was the right thing to do. I am sure that in this case just as many people will be upset with the lowering of the speed limit from 90 kilometres to 80 kilometres, but it has been done for all the right reasons. It is all about community safety. I thank the Roads and Traffic Authority for responding to these concerns. Today I would like to refer to a number of people who have raised concerns about these issues. I received a letter from Paul Hentville of Loftus, who states:

I received another letter from Michael Travers of Loftus, which states:

I received an email from David Horton in the following terms:

Mr Paul Ryan wrote as follows:

On 24 July 2007 the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader published the following letter from Greg Storey, President of the Lilli Pilli Football Club, entitled "Sober lesson to learn". That letter states:

Leader

Speed limits in New South Wales, as in other parts of Australia, are determined by a number of factors, including the surrounding conditions, road alignment, road usage, adjacent development, vehicle types and volumes, and crash history. This Government has responded to these concerns. A recent review shows that between 2003 and 2007—a five-year period—there have been 215 crashes, resulting in two fatalities and 114 injuries. On 10 October the proposed speed limit changes were raised with the Sutherland Traffic Committee and no objections were received. As I said, the figures speak for themselves. I thank the Acting Road Safety Manager, Hilary Johnson, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Minister and all those concerned. This is a commonsense proposal for the people of Heathcote.

NORTHERN BEACHES HEALTH SERVICES

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [1.50 p.m.]: I again demand—many of my colleagues on the northern beaches have demanded—answers to the future of health services on the northern beaches. Ever since this Government assumed office 13 long years ago there has been continuing uncertainty over the future of two local community-based hospitals on the northern beaches. We have endured long, passionate and hotly fought debates about the future of health services on the northern beaches, the need for two hospitals, the location of the two hospitals, and the mix of services to be provided at those two hospitals. All the while there has been a constant, gradual and alarming decline in the facilities and infrastructure available at existing hospitals.

Even more insidiously and significantly, there has been an ongoing erosion of public confidence in our health system. Quite simply, it is as though the Government has sought to create a situation where people will resign themselves to a substandard health system because of uncertainty, constant undelivered promises by a succession of health Ministers, and a complete vacuum of leadership or vision from the Government. A lack of leadership on this issue has undermined certainty and increased confusion and resentment among people on the northern beaches. Let me provide some examples. Quite simply, this Government does not keep its promises. On 30 March 2006 former Premier Morris Iemma announced:

There will be a new high level acute hospital at Frenchs Forest ... critical care, emergency and intensive care, maternity, paediatric services. Mona Vale hospital will ... provide complementary services.

Last year, in answer to a question asked by my colleague the member for Davidson, it was noted that the planning process for the hospitals should be completed in the second half of 2007, with construction expected to start after that, taking at least three years to complete. It was reported that the hospital would be functional by 2010. In April 2008 the member for Miranda stated that the new hospital that would be built at Frenchs Forest. He said:

The new hospital is a major component of the $500 million northern beaches strategy and on completion will deliver state-of-the-art facilities and services to the northern beaches community.

He also said that it was expected that the project definition plan would be completed by mid-2008. Despite all these promises and despite two meetings with former health Minister Reba Meagher, the clinical services plan has not been released, there is no budget, and there is no timetable to show when our new hospital will be built and when the existing hospital at Mona Vale will be upgraded to its complementary role. None of that has happened. Earlier this week the Treasurer, in his mini-budget, said in suitably vague and bureaucratic terms:

To accommodate these priorities within existing budget limits, some planned capital projects may be deferred. Final decisions on project deferrals will be subject to discussions with the Commonwealth regarding availability of national infrastructure funds for health-related projects.

People on the northern beaches simply do not know whether they can believe this Government. We have had too many promises and too many cries of wolf. My community does not believe the promises that this Government makes. I call on the Government to deliver on its promises. Hope Healthcare recently opened the Cora Adcock Palliative Care Day facility at Mona Vale hospital to provide treatment and support for terminally ill patients. Dr Andrew Broadbent, the palliative care director, is keen to expand palliative care services at Mona Vale, and negotiations have been underway with NSW Health to enable the expansion of the current palliative care cottage. Despite a meeting that I facilitated in June this year, nothing has occurred. There is no lease and no draft heads of agreement. Mona Vale hospital auxiliary is ready and willing to allocate money to pay for these new facilities, but NSW Health will not allow us to get on with providing services and expanding facilities.

Raymond Close Health Inc. provides software for X-ray machines for Gosford and Wyong hospitals. Because of the mismanagement of our health system he is still chasing an invoice for $35,000 that he submitted in July this year. These sorts of uncertainties are emblematic of the disarray in our health system. It cannot continue. We have incredible staff at our northern beaches hospitals, for example, Anthony Dombkins, Director of Nursing; Karen Draddy, Nursing Unit Manager, Maternity; and Michael Wu, Head of Emergency at Mona Vale hospital. We have wonderful staff and wonderful community people helping our hospitals. The Government must deliver on its commitments.

TAMWORTH TOY LIBRARY TWENTY-FIFTH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [1.55 p.m.] Recently my daughter Eliza, who turns 10 next month, and I had the honour of attending the twenty-fifth birthday celebrations for the Tamworth Toy Library. We were invited to cut the birthday cake and we had a fantastic morning with the supporters and members of the organisation. Eliza thoroughly enjoyed herself and it brought back great memories for her. When she was younger and in day care she went to the library and borrowed toys. Over the years many people have been involved with the Tamworth Toy Library, and the benefits that it brings to the community are well recognised. Despite the fact that it has moved home seven times over those 25 years, it has managed to grow and expand its membership.

Tamworth Toy Library was formed following a public meeting held on 24 March 1983. The staff of the developmental disability unit at Tamworth Base Hospital first brought forward the idea for the library and a committee was established, with Esther Halliday as President, to start the library. It was pleasing that Esther, as well as Susan Barratt, the inaugural secretary, and Laurie Beattie, who worked for Youth and Community Services and approved the funding at the time, were all able to be in attendance at the twenty-fifth birthday. After many months of preparation my predecessor Noel Park officially opened the library on 26 October 1983 during International Children's Week. A 1986 newspaper article celebrating the library's third birthday states:

It was established to provide a service for intellectually and physically disabled as well as disadvantaged children, but since then there has been a rapid growth, and because of continued government funding and community support, the library can offer its services to all children who will benefit from playing with toys.

Toy libraries promote the importance and value of play in a child's development. As the toy library celebrates its twenty-fifth birthday, it has 100 members and supports over 400 children in the Tamworth and Werris Creek areas. The members and committee acknowledge the annual funding from the Department of Community Services, which allows the library to employ two librarians and to open for three hours, three times a week. Support from the local community also greatly assists the library as it continues its commitment to local children and families.

The Tamworth Toy Library has had many ups and downs over 25 years of operation. The management has battled through a shortage of volunteers and overcome challenges in maintaining membership, while its many moves have all been undertaken professionally with the organisation continually growing through these experiences. As recently as 18 months ago the library faced the prospect of having to move again when it was proposed to demolish the building that is its current home. Thanks to support from the seniors club next door, council reversed that decision and the toy library continues to occupy these premises with more certainty for its future. In addition to support from the Department of Community Services, the Tamworth Golden Oldies Dance Group, Tamworth Branch of the Country Women's Association, Cargill Beef Australia, and many other people and organisations have donated new toys over the past year.

The organisation was recently successful in obtaining a grant from Joblink Plus to allow the carport area adjacent to the library to be enclosed, providing extra storage, including additional internal storage, and improved shelving. Bunnings provided the paint and shelving. Tamworth Lions Club has been a long-time supporter of the library, making the first donation of $200 for its establishment in 1983. Bunnings has helped with the library's various moves and assisted to renovate one of its premises. Bunnings' support was evident at the birthday celebrations with Lions Club members hard at work cooking the sausages. An organisation like Tamworth Toy Library is successful because of the passion of its members. I pay tribute to current President Fiona Downey and her fabulous committee, Allison, Marion, Beth, Kelly and Denise, and their very dedicated librarians Margo and Kris.

Why is a facility like Tamworth Toy Library so important? Play is how children learn, and making it fun is nature's way of ensuring that children get lots of practice. Even tiny babies play by moving their hands or sucking their toes, which helps them to learn to control their bodies. The games that children play are directly linked to the needs of their growing bodies and minds. Children's play has been closely studied by child psychologists who have catalogued a pattern of skill development and abilities from birth. Children have so much to learn and so many skills to master: how to walk and talk just for a start. Every child needs lots of time playing and practising to perfection. Society cannot afford to begrudge children time to spend at play because that is how they learn.

If play is a child's work, then they must also have the tools for their trade. Toys are the tools that help a child to enjoy play, and that is why the library is so important. Parents and carers want to give children every possible advantage and Tamworth Toy Library provides them with many opportunities. I encourage the Government to continue supporting such worthy programs. I congratulate all the individuals and organisations that provide ongoing support to the library. Most importantly, I wish Tamworth Toy Library another 25 years of successful and rewarding operations in our city.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [2.00 p.m.]: I thank the member for Tamworth for bringing to the attention of the House the wonderful work of the members, volunteers and workers of the Tamworth Toy Library. I am sure all members will join him in congratulating the library on its twenty-fifth birthday, which started with founders like Esther Halliday right through to its current President, Fiona Downey, and her wonderful committee. As the member for Tamworth said, we cannot underestimate the importance of play in the development of children's minds, motor skills and social skills. I congratulate the 100 members, the volunteers, the donors and the supporters of the Tamworth Toy Library. Congratulations and happy birthday.

TWEED HEADS HOSPITAL

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [2.01 p.m.]: Once again I am 100 per cent for the Tweed. I bring to the attention of the House a terrible issue in my electorate. Recently I was approached by leading members of our medical fraternity, particularly Dr Nicolas Crampton, the Chairman of the Medical Staff Council, Tweed Heads District Hospital, and Dr Umesh Patel, Director of Radiology, Tweed Heads District Hospital. They showed me a copy of a damning letter they wrote on 8 October 2008 to the Minister for Health, Mr John Della Bosca. I shall refer to certain parts of it. The letter states:

Tweed hospital has one of the busiest accident and emergency departments outside Sydney and is situated in one of the State's fastest growing areas. Just on 27 per cent of our population is over the age of 65 years. We have double the State's average of elderly people within our electorate. They use the hospital regularly. The letter continued:

A number of patients in intensive care requiring magnetic resonance imaging scanning were too sick to be placed in an ambulance and transferred to John Flynn hospital—a return journey of four hours. The letter continued:

My colleague Ms Jenny Gardiner raised this matter in the upper House directly with the Minister for Health. I have a copy of the Minister's answer recorded in Hansard, which says that all processes need to be open and transparent to protect the taxpayers of New South Wales. I do not disagree with that. I disagree with the reason that 12 months has passed and no approval has been forthcoming to take up the offer. Even if approval were given today, the machine would not be installed until early in the New Year. The people of New South Wales are suffering harm. Some doctors said to me recently, "Geoff, this is more a case of good medicine by good luck rather than good medicine by good management."

I call on the Minister for Health to urgently investigate this matter. Let us get this machine up and running not only to look after the elderly people in our town, but also to look after our young children, who are our future. Once again this gross mismanagement of the health system impacts on the northern rivers. I have raised previously in this House the lack of medical supplies to the Tweed. I am pleased to announce that the Minister for Health recently released $6.3 million, which vindicated everything I had said in this place. We need equity in regional New South Wales and I will not rest because I am 100 per cent committed to the people of the Tweed. They need this magnetic resonance imaging machine. I hope the Minister will make a good announcement early next week, if not at some point beyond that. We need this machine for the people of the Tweed. I will continue in this place to fight and push for it because once again I am 100 per cent for the Tweed.

PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS CHRISTMAS CARD COMPETITION

Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Gosford) [2.06 p.m.]: As we enter into the 2008 Christmas season it is my pleasure to announce to the House the winner of my 2008 Christmas card competition. Last month I wrote to all primary school principals in my electorate inviting their year 3 students to design an artwork to be used on my 2008 Christmas card. This year saw a significant number of entries from many artistic year 3 students. The artworks were creative, colourful and full of Christmas spirit. I am pleased to announce that the student whose artwork will appear on my 2008 Christmas card is Michaela Conway from Point Clare Public School. For her brilliant effort Michaela will receive a $50 gift voucher from Australian Geographic. In addition, Point Clare Public School will receive a $200 gift voucher from Scholastic to purchase books for the school.

Such was the high calibre of entries from all participants this year that a student from each participating school will receive a Highly Commended Certificate as well as a $10 gift certificate from Australian Geographic. Students who will be receiving the Highly Commended Certificate are: Carina Kerr from the Chertsey Primary School, Emma Carenvale from the Kariong Public School, Ellise Beasley from the Point Clare Public School, Zali Kassi from the Umina Public School and Sarah Loaney from the St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School. All of the students who entered the competition will receive a Certificate of Participation, which I will distribute in the near future.

I extend my thanks to all teachers who assisted and encouraged their students to participate in this year's competition. The outstanding contribution from so many students is a reflection of the hard work that teachers in our schools undertake. I also extend my thanks to the principals of the participating schools: Mr Lee Oliver of the Point Clare Public School, Mr John Anderson from the Chertsey Primary School, Mr Ivan Padgett from the Kariong Public School, Mr John Blair from the Umina Public School and Mr Frank Cohen from the St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School. The schools in the Gosford electorate do an outstanding job in educating our children. We should all be proud of our students and thankful to those who dedicate their careers to the education of our future adults.

This year is the fourth successive year that I have held the competition in my electorate. Since the inception of the Christmas card competition, I have received many positive comments over the years about how beautiful the pictures are on the cards. I believe there is nothing better than children's art to capture the feeling of the Christmas season. I look forward to sending out my 2008 Christmas cards, which will showcase the artistic endeavour of Michaela Conway. Well done, Michaela, for all your efforts!

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [2.11 p.m.]: I thank the member for Gosford for bringing to the attention of the House her 2008 Christmas card design competition. I look forward to one of those cards being received by the Miranda electorate office. I also congratulate Michaela Conway for both winning the competition and winning a prize for her school. I have run similar competitions in my electorate. I have found them to be a great source of delight for both children and parents, and they reflect credit on the schools. The quality of the artwork of children in year 3 is quite astonishing. I commend the member for Gosford, who is a very popular local member, on her support for and commitment to schools in her electorate. I take this opportunity to thank members of the Ettalong Memorial Bowling Club and the member for Gosford for their hospitality during a recent visit by the New South Wales State Parliamentary Bowls Team. We copped a hiding from the Gosford locals, but it was most enjoyable. I thank everyone concerned for their hospitality.

PAMBULA HOSPITAL PUBLIC MEETING

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [2.13 p.m.]: Last night 900 committed and passionate residents met in Pambula's community hall to protest against the State Government's mismanagement of Pambula hospital. I note the presence in the Chamber of the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Health. I hope he will convey to the Minister for Health the issues I raise. That 900 people attended a public meeting to protest speaks volumes about their concern and passion over the way in which the current hospital is being managed and services delivery takes place. The meeting follows the decision of the Labor Government to cut services at the hospital, including paediatric services and maternity services, and has resulted in the resignation by a number of doctors.

Last night's meeting was not about the location of a region-based health facility. It was not about whether it was between Bega and Pambula or about what resources should be given to the hospital. All communities on the far South Coast depend on both hospitals being resourced and managed properly. Last night's huge turnout was in aid of Pambula hospital, its future services, the return of lost services as well as the retention and enhancement of current services. I state for the record in the strongest possible terms that the State Labor Government should stop using the excuse of a new hospital as reason to reduce services at Pambula hospital when it does not even know if or when a new hospital will be built. The community of the far South Coast has been lied to every step of the way in relation to the $100 million hospital. The reality is that the State Government does not have the money to build it.

Labor's mini-budget, which was handed down on Tuesday, requires area health services to cut more than $200 million from their budgets over the next four years. That is stated in black and white in the budget papers, and it means that there will be cuts to front-line services. The delay in provision of the new hospital means that our utmost priority must be the enhancement of services at both Bega and Pambula hospitals. As I indicated earlier, the delay in construction of a new hospital should not be used as an excuse for not upgrading and restoring hospital facilities and services. There are a number of measures and plans that I would like to see roll out at Pambula hospital. I call on the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Health to take notice of these matters and I call on the Minister for Health to act immediately.

First, there should be immediate re-engagement of the doctors who resigned in protest, engagement with the nursing staff to listen to their concerns, and work undertaken on strategies to address low morale. Second, there should be an immediate overhaul of governance at the hospital with the appointment of an independent board of administrators that will include community representatives, nurses and doctors, who are empowered to implement a new system of management and decision making. Third, there should be a new clinical services plan to enhance services in the light of the decision to shut down maternity services. Fourth, there should be an upgrade of the hospital's facilities and funding for maintenance. Fifth, there should be better utilisation of the operating theatre with new surgery lists and, in particular, there should be increased availability of ophthalmological, general surgical and orthopaedic treatments. Sixth, there needs to be a mechanism to ensure better coordination between both hospitals, given that Bega and Pambula hospitals are dependent on each other. Seventh, there must be clear performance benchmarks at the Pambula hospital.

I was not able to attend last night's meeting because of the sittings of the Parliament, but I arranged for a statement to be read to those of the community who attended the meeting. I will be forming a community hospital action group with the intent of ensuring that current services at Pambula are enhanced, lost services are restored and, in the lead-up to completion of the new hospital, decisions are made in consultation with the local community, including local medicos, on the future of the hospital site and services that may be delivered in the future. I will hold a meeting on Saturday 22 November at 12.30 p.m. I invite interested members of the community to be part of the hospital action group. Given the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Health is present in the Chamber, I extend an invitation to him and any other member of the Government to attend the meeting.

Last night's meeting represents an enormous outpouring of concern from the community. When 900 people attend a public meeting in Pambula, it means that an incredible number of people are passionate about ensuring that hospital services are secured and restored. There is a way forward. I am willing to work with the Government, but I will not sit back while the Labor Party mismanages this facility and uses the potential delays associated with a future hospital development as a reason for cutting health services.

MACQUARIE FIELDS ELECTORATE CRIME PREVENTION

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields—Parliamentary Secretary) [2.18 p.m.]: Crime prevention in the Macquarie Fields electorate is an important issue. I am pleased to report on a recent meeting of the community safety precinct committee held on 19 August 2008 at the Macquarie Fields police station. The Macquarie Fields precinct committee provides an opportunity for local council and community members to meet with the police local area commanders and share their perspective on local crime and safety issues. The aim of the committee is to identify local problems and implement local solutions by focussing on shared issues and using accurate information to develop strategies to drive down the area's crime rates.

The meeting provides opportunities for community members and business owners to get involved in crime reduction strategies. For example, the meetings are attended by many of the local school principals, including Bev Newitt and Kathy Strong from my electorate. Dean Smith, who is the acting local area commander, opened the meeting and wisely observed that crime is not just a policing issue. His comments were followed by comments from Meredith McNeil, an intelligence supervisor and crime analyst. Meredith referred to the current crime issues in the Macquarie Fields Local Area Command. The six core crimes that affect the Macquarie Fields Local Area Command are assault, breaking and entering, robbery, stealing from vehicles, stealing and malicious damage.

The figures for assault, break and enter, robbery and stealing from vehicles have all reduced since July 2008. Stealing and malicious damage rates are stable. Starting with assault, much of this is related to domestic violence. Every case of domestic violence is reviewed by the domestic violence liaison team, which currently has five staff. They review each case of domestic violence to ensure that policies are followed, and they also review matters that are withdrawn. As members of this House are aware, witnesses in domestic violence cases are now compellable to give evidence. This gives police the freedom to prosecute cases of domestic violence when the perpetrator all too often intimidates the victim. Also, proactive policing allows police to walk through licensed premises, to obtain intelligence on offenders, and to check apprehended violence order compliance.

Moving on to break, enter and steal, the police now give careful consideration when determining bail for persons charged with break and enter. Fingerprints and DNA are collected at each crime scene. There is also a list of people who overuse pawn shops. Each property crime now has a 14-point checklist when a report is submitted. As well as attacking crime, there is also crime prevention, where packages to victims of crime identify areas to prevent reoccurrence. High-risk offenders are targeted and monitored, and offered help, which is occasionally taken up. Looking at malicious damage, the most effective prevention for malicious damage is high-visibility policing. About a third of malicious damage reports are that of graffiti, which is an increasing problem.

I welcome the passage today of the Graffiti Control Bill 2008. Some residents in areas where graffiti is a problem are reluctant to notify police because of fear of retribution. Both Campbelltown Council and Macquarie Fields Local Area Command are considering options for anonymous reporting. Moving on to robbery, efforts include targeting high-risk offenders and the continuation of high-visibility policing. Many of the robberies in my electorate are crimes of opportunity, especially the stealing of mobile phones, laptops and iPods. Laptops and satellite navigation devices in cars are now also a target and residents are advised to keep these away from view. Stealing from cars in car parks remains an issue. There is certainly a reduction in the number of stolen vehicles in the area over the past few months. That is partly because proactive policing is being targeted on weekends. Much is talked about in crime. The staff at Macquarie Field Local Area Command do a wonderful job, and I commend them for their hard work.

WSN ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS BELROSE SITE

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [2.22 p.m.]: Garbage is a fact of life, but in our increasingly throwaway modern society it has become a bigger problem over time. With the increase in garbage per head and population increases, waste disposal has become a larger part of government services. Until the 1970s it was a council problem and usually solved by selecting a gully on the edge of suburbia. And with a dump truck, suddenly the garbage was gone! This happened in Flat Rock Creek at Willoughby and next to Mona Vale Road in Ku-ring-gai. In the 1980s the problem was becoming too big to be solved on an individual council basis and the State Government became involved. The Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation was started by the New South Wales Government to take over the council tips and introduce better, cleaner methods of disposal than the crude method I mentioned earlier. In 2005 the corporation changed to WSN Environmental Solutions—a new name but the task was the same.

The Belrose tip was started by Warringah Council, but it is now one of the sites run by WSN Environmental Solutions, which is currently a statutory State-owned corporation. It now services the garbage disposal needs of the Pittwater, Warringah and Manly councils. The then environment Minister advised on 24 July 2008, in response to my written question, that the expected closure date of the WSN Belrose landfill site was mid-2010, which was a later date than previously advised. Last Monday, 10 November 2008, WSN met with local community groups to advise of its updated plans for the Belrose landfill site. This was the day before the New South Wales Labor Government flagged the likely sale of WSN in its mini-budget. Despite previous promises and undertakings to local residents, WSN now proposes that the site be used to dispose of an extra 180,000 tonnes of landfill, raising some areas by as much as 13 metres over previously advised capped levels. This will further restrict the future construction of recreational facilities in this area. Furthermore, it appears that the intention is now for the site to be locked up and the community denied access for recreational use.

Over many years numerous plans have been drawn up by WSN and government agencies about recreational facilities on the site for community use. WSN has now indicated its desire that the site will be off-limits to the community for public liability reasons associated with surface pipes to capture escaping greenhouse gases. However, WSN has a duty to ensure that the site is remediated to make the surface reasonably safe. In Australia we have exclusion zones at the nuclear test zones of Maralinga and Monte Bello Islands, and now the New South Wales Government and WSN want to have another local exclusion zone—the Belrose garbage tip. The Davidson-Belrose plateau was short-changed in community facilities as the suburbs spread in the 1960s. In the area we have many houses, some main roads but no freeways, no trains, and a deficiency of local facilities. Using the Belrose tip site for active or at least passive recreation facilities is an important part of correcting this imbalance. The residents have been told over many years that this would occur with the closure of the tip, including in formal community forums that were professionally facilitated.

When the Davidson plateau was being created eons ago it was formed without any prominent features. This has been altered with a capped dome of garbage on the edge of the Middle Harbour Valley. We have had at least 15 years of future plans for the area, including concept plans in 1995, 2002 and 2005, and other undated versions. Uses proposed have included sporting ovals, netball courts, and mountain biking, horseriding, jogging, walking and off-leash dog areas. It is clear that there must be waste management facilities for New South Wales residents. However, the Government has failed to adequately establish long-term strategies for the disposal of waste in Sydney, requiring resort to short-term solutions with additional dumping in existing suburban sites to the unfair detriment of local residents. This week I have also asked the Minister for Environment and Climate Change various written questions on notice related to these matters.

I commend the actions of the local community residents and the Belrose Rural Community Association, led by Mary Armstrong, who have fought long and hard for a satisfactory transition of much of the Belrose tip site to a recreation area. They are now feeling a mixture of frustration and annoyance with the Government over all past planning and promises being potentially overturned. On behalf of the local community I call on the Government and the WSN board to establish clear pre-sale guarantees, which take greater account of local stakeholders who will remain behind well after the State Government has sold the site and spent any funds from the flagged sale of WSN Environmental Solutions. At best, the latest indicative plans from the State Government-owned WSN are a breach of good faith; at worst, they represent deceitful manipulation of long-suffering local residents and sporting groups.

GLEN INNES AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ADVISORY STATION

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands—Speaker) [2.28 p.m.]: The State mini-budget this week was marked by a series of arbitrary decisions that reflect poorly on the Government's policy-making processes. A slash-and-burn strategy to chase a credit rating that most experts believe is pointless is bad enough. But when these decisions are hastily made and come at the expense of long-term research projects vital to the country and the planet, we must question the judgement of those responsible. Today I am referring to the proposed closure of the Glen Innes Agricultural Research and Advisory Station. Perhaps members will be surprised to hear that this Government research station has been recording soil carbon levels since 1934 as part of its crop rotation experiments. I have been told that it is one of a very small number of research facilities in the world to have carbon records reaching back that far. This data is invaluable as it dates back to well before there was any serious consideration of the phenomenon of global warming.

Soil carbon readings are vital to climate change science and to have such a wealth of information to hand at the Glen Innes station is of enormous value. Any right-minded person would say that the readings should continue and the research capacity of the station be expanded to capitalise on the work already undertaken. I call on the Government to reconsider its position on closing the Glen Innes ag station, as it is known locally. I suggest that instead it should seek industry and Commonwealth Government partnerships to expand existing research work to focus on climate change and the environment in particular. It should employ the existing research officer at the station and the 16 other support staff members, and look at taking on further staff as the research projects grow. The sudden decision to close the facility has outraged the local community. Relocating 16 families to Tamworth, as has been proposed, would have a devastating effect on the Glen Innes district.

Until recently the station had two eminent researchers. The head researcher, Dr John Ayres, has only just retired. Advisory services to the rural community employ five people, the research centre employs up to seven people and farm management services employ four people. In its current form the facility benefits from economies of scale between the advisory, research and farm staff, which also allows for integration and for all units to remain grounded in production agriculture. Significant research has been undertaken at the station, particularly into clover and trefoil. Further work is needed to complete these projects. The station also undertakes joint integrated research partnered by the University of New England and private companies as part of the Sheep and Beef Cooperative Research Centres.

Last year the agricultural station conducted 54 workshops and field days, its staff produced seven journal publications and it attracted four new alliances within the industry. It is Australia's sole dry land pasture research station for the temperate perennial grass and legume zone, and it is a national breeding station for perennial legumes such as white clover, birds foot trefoil and tall fescue. The station conducts agronomy research to improve the feed base for sheep and cattle in temperate grazing systems and natural resource management. The station works closely with industry and the community through its extension courses and workshops and won a 2007 Cooperative Research Centres Association of Australia award for excellence in innovation for its role in beef profit partnership groups with graziers in the Northern Tablelands. It currently runs the merino bloodline evaluation project to assess the commercial value of genetic improvements through sheep breeding.

The station also works with farmers and catchment management authorities on wetland management on farms. Funding partners include Meat and Livestock Australia, Australian Wool Innovation, the National Heritage Trust, Land and Water Australia, the Grains Research and Development Corporation and private companies co-investing in pasture breeding. There are also a large number of alliances with government and private partners in other major programs. The agriculture station was established in 1902, and between 1912 and 1942 was a centre for youth education in agriculture.

Among its students were the Dreadnought Boys, English boys brought to Australia to be trained in farm work. Not long ago I toured the station and was impressed with its historic buildings, the dedication of its staff, the scale of research projects and the level of service it provided to the community. A facility like that should not be closed. I ask the Government to work with the local community, stakeholders, partners, the private and public sectors to strengthen the Glen Innes Agricultural Research Station so that it can continue to deliver the important services this nation so much needs at this time in history.

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

Private members' statements noted.

The House adjourned at 2.33 p.m. until Tuesday 25 November 2008 at 1.00 p.m.

_______________

Last modified 05/12/2008 14:25:57 : Update this page