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

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

Debate resumed from 25 February 2010.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [10.06 a.m.]: It is with pleasure that I lead for the Liberal and National parties in debate on the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2010. At the outset I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, the bill represents a second set of reforms following a review last year by the Casino Liquor and Gaming Control Authority. The amendments provide legal certainty in relation to removing excluded persons, reduce some red tape, and remove some legislative anomalies and barriers that inhibit the operation of the Casino Liquor and Gaming Control Authority and prevent it from implementing its regulations.

Before dealing with the provisions in detail, I indicate that this second set of reforms arose from recommendations by the Casino Liquor and Gaming Control Authority rather than from requests of the operator. The amendments are not the result of renegotiation of a licence or the issuing of a new licence. They do not arise from additional measures or concessions that are consequential upon the review. All of that has already occurred; for example, renewal of the licence occurred some time ago. It is worthwhile pointing out that the Government has adopted the Opposition's longstanding policy, which is that New South Wales will remain a one casino State. The fact that the renewal has now occurred under those arrangements cements it for the term of the current licence. It accords with Opposition policy.

I turn to the inclusions in the bill. In relation to controlled and notifiable contracts, the bill seeks to limit controlled contracts to those relating to the supply or servicing of gaming equipment. In the past controlled contracts included, for example, air-conditioning services. The casino was required to include such contracts. Now the casino will be required to maintain records, but only those contracts that are specific to the supply or servicing of gaming equipment will be deemed controlled contracts—those previously required more administration than presently occurs with all contracts. As to the licensing of special employees, according to their function special employees were prevented from working elsewhere in the casino. This new provision will license employees according to their various areas of competency. They will be able to work in areas of the casino according to their licence on the basis of competency. Training courses for employees will enable the operator to issue certificates of competency referring to the licensing of special employees.

In relation to the conduct of gaming, the bill seeks to limit the use of gaming equipment in accordance with its approval to permit mechanical poker games and other modern technology as it emerges and clarify the prohibition of inducements to enter the casino. That is not a new area but it does clarify it as a prohibited activity to offer inducements. As to exclusions from the casino, the bill will direct the New South Wales Commissioner of Police to direct the exclusion of anyone who has been excluded by a police commissioner in another jurisdiction and will require the New South Wales police commissioner to notify police commissioners in other States of any New South Wales exclusions.

I thought this provision was already in practice. At least now it will be legislated that any person who has been excluded from another casino in another State or Territory automatically carries that exclusion throughout Australia. That provision also applies to any person who has been excluded from the casino in New South Wales. That obviously is a benefit in the quest of keeping people who are excluded out of the casinos throughout Australia. As to the removal of excluded persons, the bill will give legal protection to the New South Wales police commissioner and persons removing excluded persons from civil or criminal liability. This does not extend to cases where negligence causes injury or death of a person and provides only limited protection in relation to gaming-related losses. In that regard I refer to Legislation Review Digest No. 2 dated 8 March 2010 of the Legislation Review Committee, which states:

The Committee is concerned about the immunity provided to individuals who are involved in the removal of an excluded person from casino premises. In particular, the Committee draws attention to a previous incident in which the unjustifiably forceful removal of a casino patron occasioned in that person's death.

The life, health and safety of all individuals is of paramount concern and the Committee is of the view that the criminal justice system is best left to determine criminal conduct in circumstances where a casino patron has been injured or killed while being removed.

The committee made some further comments in relation to this provision. The bill does not extend to the exclusion of a patron that results in injury or death. I assume the committee is saying that a general protection, albeit excluding injury or death, may create a climate conducive to more forceful behaviour than would otherwise occur. I do not know if that was in the mind of the committee members. I inquired of the casino and received a response that casino employees only accompany government officials in the process of excluding a patron. They are present potentially for assistance, if required, rather than being directly involved in the forceful exclusion of a patron.

This provision exists within the hotel and club industry. It would be extraordinary if this provision were not extended to include casino employees. If we believe it is a good provision—which I do—it should be in operation throughout the industry. If we do not believe it is a good provision and perhaps go along the lines of the Legislation Review Committee, then this measure should be removed from the hotel and club industry. I would not support that action. On those arguments of logic, it is entirely appropriate that this provision is included in the bill. Other provisions include providing the operator with a formal capacity to seek to change systems of controls and procedures and replacing the limit of 10 per cent of the maximum amount of penalty that could be imposed by the court to a penalty not exceeding the maximum amount.

The bill has other minor administrative amendments such as a new definition of "junket" whereby non-gambling group trips, called junkets, to see a show, for example, will not require pre-registration. I suspect that this is the only Act in which the word "junket" is given a legal definition. It is interesting that the word has even been used. However, I appreciate the purpose of the amendment that a junket that has no gambling purpose is not a junket for pre-registration purposes. To put it more plainly, a group of people may board a bus trip to the casino to eat at a restaurant or to see one of the great shows that are staged at the Lyric Theatre, then reboard the bus and go home. That does not have any relevance to the gaming activities in the casino. It obviously is a waste of time for the group to go through pre-registration procedures.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, these measures have come about not at the behest of the casino. Although the casino would be pleased with a number of the measures, particularly those that streamline administration, these amendments represent requirements that enhance generally the responsible performance of gaming activities and the ability of the casino, the Government and the Police to be able to pursue measures to enforce responsible gaming laws. The bill ensures that the right climate exists and that this State protects the integrity of that climate surrounding our solitary casino in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [10.18 a.m.]: I speak in support of the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2010, which contains amendments that are the result of a thorough review of the Act conducted by the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority and the casino operator. These amendments serve to increase the authority's scrutiny of certain aspects of the casino's operations. Controlled contracts are limited by this bill to the supply or servicing of gaming equipment approved under the Act and other types of controlled contracts the authority declares as being materially significant to the integrity of the operation of the casino. This will allow a modern, risk-based approach to the assessment of sensitive contracts. It will allow the authority to engage in even closer scrutiny of the contractors associated with them.

The authority will continue to review other contracts as part of its statutory reviews and ongoing oversight of the casino's operations. This bill also shifts the arrangements for the licensing of special casino employees to a more contemporary certificate of competency-based system from one where each licence specifies the functions of the employee. Under this proposal, the authority will set the standards for certificates of competency issued to special employees by the casino. Making this change will allow the authority to more closely scrutinise the level of competency of special employees. Where special employees perform multiple tasks, the authority will monitor if such task allocations are incompatible to the extent that they may compromise system integrity. To ensure that this scrutiny can occur, the casino operator must ensure that it maintains records of all training provided and certificates of competency it issues. These records must be provided to the authority on request.

In no way does this bill diminish the broader regulatory oversight of the casino's operations or the authority's role in maintaining the integrity of gaming and general operations at the casino. The statutory review of the casino operator's licence conducted under section 31 of the Act is clearly an important part of the regime for ensuring the integrity of gaming at the casino. However, it is by no means the whole story. The authority supports the statutory review process with a regime of ongoing assessments of the casino's operations. It assesses the implementation of statutory review recommendations, reviews internal controls, processes and staff training to examine any deterioration in standards or any systemic failure and reviews compliance with contractual obligations. The officer carrying out these ongoing assessments reports to the authority's Casino Licence Oversight Committee. This committee was formed in 2004 and comprises at least two part-time members of the authority and the chief executive.

The Casino Licence Oversight Committee assesses, during any calendar year when a statutory review is not conducted, the ongoing status of matters relevant to the ongoing suitability of the casino licence. The committee advises the authority on any matters it considers requires investigation by the authority. The committee also conducts ongoing reviews of the recommendations of previous statutory reviews to ensure that they are being implemented. In addition, authority inspectors maintain an on-site presence at the casino on a 24/7 basis to keep under constant review all matters connected with the casino. These inspectors also detect and monitor illegal and undesirable activity and liaise with law enforcement agencies. They meet fortnightly with the Police Casino Investigation Unit and casino investigators in order to ensure effective communication of criminal intelligence and they meet monthly with City Central police and casino security to review issues relating to crime in the local area. Finally, both the 2003 and 2006 section 31 reviews acknowledged that the casino has been operated in a responsible manner consistent with the objectives of the Act. This is clear evidence that the authority's ongoing scrutiny of the casino's operations is effective. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [10.22 a.m.]: The Casino Control Amendment Bill 2010 represents a second round of reforms following a review by the Casino Liquor and Gaming Control Authority last year. The amendments provide legal certainty in relation to removing excluded persons, reduce some red tape, and remove legislative anomalies and barriers inhibiting the authority from implementing its charter. These recommendations are important. I support the comments by the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing, the member for Upper Hunter. I will detail a few issues with the proposals. In terms of the controlled and notifiable contracts, the bill seeks to limit controlled contracts to those relating to the supply and service of gaming equipment. The provisions will not relate to other contracts, such as air conditioning contracts, although records of those contracts will be kept.

I have worked in the gaming industry for just on 27 years and in the club industry in particular. Overall, any moves to make it simpler for the operator to report details would add a greater level of transparency. The club and hotel industries strive to create transparency in reporting details but the process can be onerous. I can remember the extra administrative burden that resulted from the introduction of poker machines with cash flows some 20 odd years ago. However, I stood with the rest of the club industry and supported that change as it created more transparency and accountability to the Government and, more importantly, to the wider community. Also, the bill provides for the licensing of special employees according to their function. In a casino, as in registered clubs, there are many different functions, from the gaming areas to levels of access. All of those functions require a great deal of training and trust by the operator and the employees in return. The new provisions will licence employees according to their area of competency.

The training courses for special employees will enable the operator to issue certificates of competency referring to the licensing of special employees. The ability to licence those employees in their areas of training is important. The gaming industry is a growth industry in terms of hospitality and tourism. Star City casino is a well-run organisation and it is a central focus piece. It is run by the same operator of Conrad Jupiters Casino in Queensland, which is not far from the great Tweed Heads. The high level of expertise at the casino and its relationship with the community are continued at Star City. Also, the bill seeks to limit the use of gaming equipment in accordance with its approval to permit mechanical poker games and other modern technology as it emerges and clarifies the prohibition of inducements to enter the casino.

The technology in gaming machines is ever evolving. I can remember when multi-gaming terminals were introduced, followed by horse racing machines and a raft of other types of gaming machines. It is difficult for operators to keep up with new technology and explain it to the wider community. I support limiting the use of gaming machines in accordance with approval. Inducements are a terrible thing. The general rule of thumb in the gaming industry—this is no reflection on the casino or those who participate in gaming—is that about 80 per cent of the profit comes from 20 per cent of the customers. The casino, as well as the hotel and club industries, promote gaming and train their staff on responsible gambling requirements. Gambling is a legal form of entertainment, but I stress that everyone who gambles needs to do it within their means and in a responsible fashion.

Also contained in the bill are exclusions. The bill will direct the New South Wales police commissioner to direct the exclusion of anyone who has been excluded by the police commissioner. I support the comments made by the shadow gaming Minister in that regard. However, I understood that that was already taking place. Casinos, clubs and hotels have an informal system of supplying the names and addresses, et cetera, of excluded people. I refer to Legislation Review Digest No. 2. I am sure the Minister is an avid reader of the digest and takes on board the committee's comments. Paragraph 18 of the digest states:

The Bill is not specific about what the standard of "in good faith" will actually be and with which party the onus will lie. The Committee resolves to write to the Minister and the Attorney-General to seek advice on this matter.

I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that and advise the House of their response. Other provisions include providing the operator with a formal capacity to seek changes to systems of control and procedures, and replacing the limit of 10 per cent of the maximum amount of penalty that could be imposed by the court to a penalty not exceeding the maximum amount. As well, the bill has some minor administrative amendments and a new definition of "junket", whereby non-gambling group trips to a casino to see a show will not require pre-registration. The previous speaker made a valid point about this provision. Having worked in the club industry, I know that a large number of our patrons, who were in a group, came to see a show or to dine and never went near the gaming machines.

I also note that the shadow Minister has consulted with Star City Casino and with ministerial and departmental staff in relation to this bill. I support the fact that the legislation will run in conjunction with the regulations governing clubs and hotels so there will be uniformity across our great State of New South Wales. I know how onerous it is to be a licensee of a gambling establishment, a club or a hotel and I applaud the hardworking professionals within the industry. I therefore do not oppose the bill.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [10.30 a.m.]: I speak in support of the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2010. This bill contains amendments that are the result of a thorough review of the Act conducted by the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority and the casino operator. These amendments improve the efficacy and efficiency of the regulatory arrangements for the casino, but do not compromise the future integrity of the casino's operations. Removing red tape is a key aspect of improving the efficiency of the casino's regulation. The bill reduces the administrative burden on the casino operator and the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority in a number of ways. Simulated gaming is conducted only for testing, demonstration or training purposes. No money is used and no chips are used in place of money. It is a normal activity of the casino operator. Red tape has been removed by no longer requiring the casino operator to have the authority approve the conduct of simulated gaming.

With respect to the provision of training for special employees more generally, the bill cuts red tape by providing greater flexibility for the casino operator when developing training programs and by removing the need for the authority to approve the content of programs. Clearly this alleviates the administrative burden on both parties. Limiting controlled contracts to contracts for the supply or servicing of gaming equipment and contracts that the authority declares as being materially significant to the integrity of the operation of the casino allows the authority to take a risk-based approach and undertake even greater scrutiny of high-risk contracts than currently occurs. This change does not diminish the authority's role in vetting contractors associated with sensitive contracts but reduces the administrative requirements placed on the casino operator.

Removing the casino operator's administrative burden in relation to what are currently referred to as notifiable contracts further reduces red tape. This bill does not affect the authority's power to access information on these other non-controlled contracts. The only change is that the casino operator does not have to provide the authority with formal written notification that these contracts have been entered into or varied. Under this proposal the authority will no longer be required to approve every device or thing that is capable of being used in association with gaming. The bill allows the authority to focus on approving only equipment relevant to the integrity of the conduct of gaming and thereby frees the casino operator from having to seek unnecessary approvals from the authority. Requiring these approvals is no longer contributing to the integrity of gaming operations at the casino. This is yet another reduction in red tape.

Of course, the bill provides further reductions in red tape to those achieved through the amendments to the Act passed last year. Those amendments eliminated unnecessary administration and costs associated with the statutory review of the casino's licence and the licensing of casino special employees, for both the authority and the casino operator. The changes made last year reduced red tape by simplifying the process by which the casino operator makes changes to the internal layout of the casino. The authority can now be more flexible where minor layout changes do not require the approval of a complete new layout. It makes it easier to adjust the casino's internal layout in the advent of new technology.

In addition, the authority is no longer required to publish the approval of a game or the rules of games in the Government Gazette. It can now post game approvals and up-to-date rules on its website. This is a much more efficient way of publicising changes to game rules. This bill and the amendments to the Act passed in 2009 are a further demonstration of the Government's commitment to reducing red tape. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MATTHEW MORRIS (Charlestown—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.34 a.m.]: It is with pleasure that I speak in support of the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2010. The bill contains a range of amendments to the Casino Control Act 1992. As we know, the amendments are the result of the review of the Act conducted by the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority and the casino operator. The authority has advised the Government that it is completely confident that the amendments do not compromise the future integrity of the casino's operations. Also, the authority considers that the amendments improve the efficacy of the regulatory arrangements. The authority's support for the changes contained in this bill carries significant weight.

During debate on earlier amendments to the Act members in the other place quite rightly pointed out the importance of gambling harm minimisation measures. I will take a moment to comment on that issue. The Casino Control Act and the Casino Control Regulation already provide substantial assistance for problem gamblers. All of the assistance provided has been carefully considered and none of it is in any way lessened by this bill. While this bill is principally aimed at streamlining administrative procedures and controls on the casino operator, it makes a refinement to the gambling harm minimisation measures affecting the casino.

The bill tightens up the anti-gambling inducement provisions by removing some existing uncertainty regarding persons offering inducements to gamble at the casino. In addition, the bill makes the remaining changes to the Act needed to facilitate the use of harm minimisation technology, such as pre-commitment cards and virtual chips. Stored value cards for storing credits and virtual chips will allow the adoption of the technology that will permit patrons to set pre-commitment limits prior to gambling, whether on table games or gaming machines. Pre-commitment limits cannot be set if patrons are using only cash or using cash to purchase the physical chips traditionally used in casinos.

No Australian jurisdiction currently is using card-based technology with respect to gambling pre-commitment limits. However, South Australia and Queensland have conducted trials of different card technologies for setting pre-commitment limits on gaming machines. Some participants in the trial of a cashless, card-based pre-commitment system in Queensland found cashless gaming to be a useful form of spending control. The results of these trials will inform the development of the national gambling pre-commitment policy standard announced by the Ministerial Council on Gambling. The aim of the national policy is to ensure consistency in the pre-commitment technology if used across Australia. New South Wales will be directly involved with the other jurisdictions in developing this policy. The Productivity Commission has also considered gaming machine pre-commitment technology as part of its inquiry into gambling. The Productivity Commission's final report and the national pre-commitment policy will inform the New South Wales position on this matter.

Other amendments to the Act in 2009 gave the casino operator other options for providing information to patrons about the rules of games; for example, via electronic information booths located in the casino as well as the more conventional pamphlets. It should be noted that a range of other harm minimisation measures remain, such as a prohibition on offering free or discounted alcohol as an inducement to gamble, the mandatory provision of player information concerning the chances of winning prizes and the dangers of gambling, a prohibition on providing credit, banning automatic teller machines or like devices in the casino, self-exclusion arrangements for problem gamblers, the provision of counselling service contact cards, and a problem gambling counselling service for patrons. The Act has accommodated the self-exclusion of more than 2,300 problem gamblers from the casino. The Act continues to require the casino operator to contribute to the Responsible Gambling Fund, which funds, among other things, a statewide 24 hours a day, seven days a week problem gambling counselling service.

The maximum number of gaming machines in the casino remains limited to 1,500. This limit has been set by taking into consideration that the casino has been established with a comprehensive regulatory structure in place to facilitate gambling, that the limit represents only a small proportion of the gaming machines operating in New South Wales and that a regime of harm minimisation measures, which I have just detailed, is in place for the casino. In that context 1,500 machines are seen as a reasonable limit. The limit on the number of gaming machines that the casino can operate is also subject to an agreement negotiated in good faith between the Government and the casino operator. In short, this bill in no way diminishes the gambling harm minimisation measures in place in the Act or under its regulations and lays the groundwork for the implementation of further technology-based measures. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr KEVIN GREENE (Oatley—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [10.40 a.m.], in reply: I thank members representing the electorates of Upper Hunter, Tweed, Smithfield, Camden and Charlestown for their contributions to this debate. The Casino Control Amendment Bill 2010 completes amendments to the Casino Control Act 1992 that were commenced by the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2009. Members will have noted that the bill is the result of a thorough review of the Act conducted jointly by the authority and the casino operator, and was needed to ensure that New South Wales has the current best practice for casino regulation. I reiterate that it is not the Government's desire to change the current single casino arrangement for New South Wales. I also reassure members that, as with the amendments made to the Act in the 2009 budget session of Parliament, the best expert advice available indicates that the amendments contained in this bill do not diminish the degree of regulatory oversight of the casino's operations.

I note that the member for Upper Hunter and the member for Tweed do not oppose this bill, which I understand is code for saying they actually support it. However, because they have great difficulty saying those words, I am more than happy to say it on their behalf. The Government appreciates their support of this legislation. Obviously the member for Upper Hunter, in particular, understands this legislation. Those members referred to a letter sent to me by the Legislation Review Committee that dealt with exclusion. My response to that letter clearly addresses its concerns and states:

New South Wales legislative precedents for an in good faith defence include section 136 of the Crimes Act 1900 which relates to the destruction of wills and securities and sections 49(5)(a) of the Gaming Machines Act 2001, and section 76(7)(a) of the Liquor Act 2007. Both provisions relate to removing self excluded persons from the premises.

The member for Upper Hunter beat me to the mark and understood exactly what the Government proposed. That requirement is all about bringing the casino's operation in line with clubs and hotels, particularly with regard to the Gaming Machines Act that deals with self-excluded people. Obviously it is a matter for the courts to decide if someone oversteps the mark with potential criminal activity. The Government is merely providing the same conditions in this legislation that currently exists in the Gaming Machines Act 2001. The Government has highlighted that notation to the Legislation Review Committee and I am sure it will be satisfied. As has been indicated by all speakers, these are necessary amendments to bring our Act up to date, particularly in relation to criminal elements who may infiltrate into New South Wales from other States to make sure that any rightly excluded criminal elements from our casinos are also excluded from other casinos throughout Australia. This amendment fixes many other issues particularly in relation to red tape and removes various anomalies. I thank all speakers who have so generously given their support to this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

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

Debated resumed from 10 March 2010.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [10.46 a.m.]: I lead for the Liberal-Nationals in debate on the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010. The bill amends the Crimes Act 1900 and the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 in order to change the law as it relates to child pornography, which will be referred to as child abuse material, so that, first, the defence relating to material produced for child protection or for scientific, medical, legal, artistic or other public benefit purposes will no longer be available, and, second, the law is generally more consistent with Commonwealth offences relating to child pornography. The objects of the bill are also:

(b) to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to provide for the use of random sample evidence in proceedings for a child abuse material offence,

(c) to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to extend to a witness in sexual offence proceedings the same protections as those afforded to a complainant in the proceedings, in cases where it is alleged that the accused person has committed a sexual offence against the witness that is not the subject of the proceedings concerned.

(d) to make consequential and related amendments to the above Acts and other legislation.

That other legislation includes the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988, the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998, the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, the Ombudsman Act 1974, the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912, and regulations, and the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996. The background of the bill is that it belatedly follows the furore surrounding the Bill Henson exhibition on 22 May 2008 when the opening night of the Sydney photographer's 2007-08 exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington, Sydney, was cancelled after complaints were made concerning photographs of a nude 13-year-old girl. Although a number of the images in the exhibition were seized by police with the intention of charging Mr Henson and/or the gallery with publishing an indecent article under the Crimes Act, no charges were ever brought.

Thereafter, in October 2008, the New South Wales child pornography working party made certain recommendations. This bill has been introduced in answer to those recommendations and it is touted specifically as removing the artistic merit defence presently available under the Crimes Act. Presently the offence of child pornography is created in section 91G and 91H of the Crimes Act. Section 91H(1) states:

child pornography means material that depicts or describes (or appears to depict or describe), in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person who is (or appears to be) a child:

(a) engaged in sexual activity, or

(b) in a sexual context, or

(c) as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse (whether or not in a sexual context).

Section 91H (2) creates the offence of production, dissemination or possession of child pornography, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment. The defence of artistic merit is created by section 91H (4) (c), which provides that it is a defence to any charge for an offence that, having regard to the circumstances in which the material concerned was produced, used or intended to be used, the defendant was acting for a genuine child protection, scientific, medical, legal, artistic or other public benefit purpose and the defendant's conduct was reasonable for that purpose. Presently—prior to the enactment of this legislation, if it is passed—in order to establish the offence the prosecution is required to prove that the material falls within the definition of section 91H. Thereafter, if this legislation is passed, it will be for the defence to raise the artistic merit defence and to establish on the balance of probabilities that, having regard to the circumstances in which the material was produced, used or intended to be used, the defendant was acting for a genuine artistic purpose and the defendant's conduct was reasonable for that purpose.

The amendment in this bill will remove the specific defence. The issue will then be whether the matter complained of falls within the definition of "pornographic material", to be known as "child abuse material". If it is pornographic, there will be no defence. Although the intention is that these amendments should be in harmony with the Commonwealth legislation, it is noted that the Commonwealth Criminal Code does not provide a specific defence of artistic merit but, rather, includes "literary, artistic or educational merit" as one of the matters to be taken into account in determining whether reasonable persons would regard the material as offensive. That is covered by section 473.4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

It is interesting to note the Supreme Court decision of Justice Adams in McEwen v Simmons [2008] NSWCSC, dated 8 December 2008, where Justice Adams ruled that possession of a series of cartoon figures depicted by apparent human genitalia was an offence under section 91H (3) of the Crimes Act 1900 and also section 474.19 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995. In that case the issue was whether the cartoon character—I think it was one of the Simpsons—was a person within the definition of the relevant legislation. Because the New South Wales Act did not specifically refer to cartoon depictions, it was necessary for the judge to interpret the wording of the relevant section to reach a decision that such cartoon depictions were "as a question of fact and degree" a depiction of a person within the meaning of the Act. He relied on Western Australian and Canadian authority to reach that conclusion. The Opposition's examination of this bill suggests that it also covers such material provided that that decision was correctly decided.

I will now deal specifically with the bill. The bill generally substitutes the term "child abuse material" for the term "pornography". "Child abuse material" is defined in proposed section 91FB (1) as material that "depicts or describes in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive". That includes:

(a) a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child as a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse, or

(b) a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons), or

(c) a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child in the presence of another person who is engaged or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity, or

(d) the private parts of a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child.

When determining whether a reasonable person would regard the material in question as offensive, the court is to take into account whether reasonable persons would regard particular material as being in all the circumstances offensive and also to consider the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; the literary, artistic or educational merit, if any, of the material; the journalistic merit, if any, of the material, being the merit of the material as a record or report of a matter of public interest; and the general character of the material, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific nature.

Material that depicts a person or the private parts of a person includes material that depicts a representation of a person or the private parts of a person, including material that has been altered or manipulated to make a person appear to be a child or to otherwise create a depiction referred to in proposed subsection (1). The private parts of a person are defined as the person's genital area or anal area or the breasts of a female person. I understand that the references to "sexual pose" and "implied" are extensions to the current definition. Accordingly, the issue of artistic merit is taken into account in the initial determination as to whether the material is offensive and thereby falls within the definition of child abuse material.

Proposed new sections 91H and 91HA relate to the production, dissemination or possession of child abuse material and the defences of innocent production, dissemination or possession. Proposed new section 91HA provides for specific defences of public benefit for law enforcement officers in the course of duty, for classified material and for approved scientific, medical or educational research. Proposed new section 91HA (7) provides that it is a specific defence to an offence against proposed section 91H that the material concerned was classified under the Commonwealth Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. In that Act the word "publication" is defined as meaning any written or pictorial matter.

The Criminal Procedure Act 1986 is amended to insert a new part 4A to provide for the use of random sample evidence in proceedings. The amendment enables an authorised analyst to conduct an examination of a random sample of child abuse material or alleged child abuse material the subject of the proceedings. The prosecutor may then adduce evidence of the findings of the authorised analyst. Evidence of the findings of the authorised analyst as to the nature and content of the random sample is admissible as evidence of the nature and content of the whole of the material from which the random sample was taken. It is a bit like drug sampling—obviously an entire 500-kilogram haul of cannabis or buddha sticks is not sampled. Accordingly, it is open to a court to find that any type of child abuse material present in a particular proportion in the random sample of the material is present in the same proportion in all of the material.

Evidence of the findings of an authorised analyst may be given in the form of a certificate. Random sample evidence may be admitted under the provision only if the accused person or his or her Australian legal practitioner has been given an opportunity to view all of the material concerned. This will remove the enormous distress and pressure that is put on the jury, the court, the judge, the magistrate, the prosecutors, the defence lawyers and the police officers who are required to look at this filth. One would call it filth because it generally depicts action of a sexual kind between an adult and a child.

A new section 294D provides for the extension of protections afforded to complainants in sexual offence cases. At present special arrangements apply to the giving of evidence by complainants in sexual offence cases. For example, complainants may give their evidence during an in-camera session of court or may give their evidence from outside the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television facilities. An accused person is not permitted to personally examine or cross-examine the complainant. Schedule 2 [6] extends these special arrangements to sexual assault witnesses.

Arguments in favour of the amendments include that it will better enable the authorities to distinguish child abuse material from art and thereby protect victims and facilitate prosecutions. It arguably enables expert evidence to be led on the question of artistic merit. It enables the use of random sample evidence, which provides an element of protection to all parties involved in a prosecution from exposure to copious amounts of disturbing, offensive and graphic material. It will better enable magistrates and judges to determine whether material is or is not pornographic by removing the present twofold determination of whether material is pornographic and whether it is art pursuant to the current exception. It removes the artificial argument that certain pornography is acceptable because it is art.

Mr Kerry Hickey: That is right.

Mr GREG SMITH: It is in harmony with Commonwealth legislation. The specific consideration of journalistic merit in section 91FB (2) should protect images captured by genuine photojournalism. I am sure the member for Cessnock would be concerned to ensure that. The extension of special arrangements in regard to sexual assault witnesses will enable the court to make an order protecting that witness's identity and better protect sexual assault witnesses against whom an accused person is alleged to have committed a sexual offence but who are not subject to the proceedings concerned. That would be when a person gives eyewitness observation of an assault on someone else or tendency or coincidence evidence, I would imagine.

The Government has indicated the following arguments in favour of the amendments: They expand protection for previous victims of sex offenders, allowing evidence to be given via closed-circuit television, preventing cross-examination by the accused, and providing victims with access to a court support person. They reduce the trauma experienced by police, prosecutors and juries involved in child pornography cases by allowing the use of random samples to represent vast amounts of images rather than analysing every single one. They make it easier for police to prosecute instances where images are disseminated via the internet by standardising New South Wales laws with Commonwealth laws; and they change the definition contained in the legislation from "child pornography material" to "child abuse material" to make it clear how devastating the practice of child pornography is for children. Included in arguments against is that expert evidence can be expensive and may prolong prosecutions. I do not worry about that too much. Otherwise there are no significant arguments against.

We have consulted with a number of parties—the Law Society, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Legal Aid NSW. The Bar Association has noted some differences with the Criminal Code. The bill refers to a person who is implied to be a child. This is absent in the code's definition of child abuse material and child pornography material. It is not apparent to the Bar Association why an offence should be created where material is implied to be of a child. Another difference between the bill and the code is that the bill does not require that the dominant characteristic of the material be the depiction or description of private parts or that it be for a sexual purpose. Furthermore, the code's definition of child abuse material and child pornography material requires recklessness in relation to the material whereas the bill contains no such element. If the disseminator was unaware of the risk the offence should not be made out by mere negligence—so says the Bar Association.

The Bar Association also had concerns in relation to the bill's provision allowing a certified analyst to make a finding based on a random sample of the material. The association is of the view that this is too broad and would allow opinion evidence from somebody who may not be expert in the field. Its views are that the analyst should be permitted to describe the material only in factual terms; that the provision should be subject to section 76 of the Evidence Act; and that the analyst should not be permitted to provide an opinion on the material. Again, that is the Bar Association's view and I am sure views will differ.

I think the practical importance of random sampling outweighs the concerns and, if the expert does not stand up to cross-examination, the evidence may not be of credibility and the whole lot may have to be called, so there will be great discipline on the police and the prosecution to make sure that their experts are experts and can sustain the intentions of the Act. Robyn Ayres, the Executive Director of the Arts Law Centre of Australia, has indicated that the centre has no objection to the bill. Accordingly the New South Wales Liberals and The Nationals do not oppose the bill.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [11.06 a.m.]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010. We must be cognisant that the bill has come about because of a working party that studied the issues and was given the task of looking at how to remove the defence of artistic purpose without infringing the individual rights of people who are at liberty to put together such artistic pieces. That is the balancing act that the working party had. Its recommendation was that the particular section dealing with this would be more in line with the Commonwealth bill, and that that would enable the defence to be removed, and I think that is a very sound outcome given the recommendations and the state of the law. I do not know whether it comes directly from the Henson case because I understand that the pictures in that case were categorised or classified, but the defence itself has been used only once—unsuccessfully—so that is not really a concern. The recommendation was for the defence to be removed, and the Government has supported that recommendation.

The member for Epping mentioned the McEwen v Simmons case—what is called the Simpsons case, because it involved the cartoon characters of The Simpsons. There was argument that it was only a cartoon and therefore could not be offensive or pornographic, but it enabled the court to determine that, because The Simpsons is a show that depicts normal family situations and contradictions in society and it is a show watched by adults as well as children, the cartoons were offensive and pornographic. That is an example of how the Commonwealth definition can be used to take account of all the circumstances. What it is about is enabling the court to look at all the circumstances and, as the member for Epping pointed out, the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults—because what was acceptable in 1960 may not be quite as acceptable in 2010; the literary, artistic or educational merit, if any, of the material; the journalistic merit, if any, of the material, being the merit of the material as a record or report of a matter of public interest; and the general character of the material, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character.

My short contribution here today is simply to affirm my support for a bill that enables the court and the common law system that we have to take into account reasonable standards in the community, which can be done by removing the defence and using the Commonwealth definition. The Simpsons case, as we know it, is a great example of how it can be done. I do not know whether this legislation is in response to a specific case. However, it is certainly a good recommendation from the Attorney General and I congratulate him for that.

In my experience the random sample concept is a good one. There is already provision in the Evidence Act—I think it is section 50, but I am not sure—to enable expert summaries to be admissible in court for the jury to look at, instead of going through the whole business record. I think it is a business record exception to the hearsay rule to enable expert summaries to be presented. The provision in the bill is along those lines. That is also a very good step forward. For those reasons I commend the bill to the House.

Mr VICTOR DOMINELLO (Ryde) [11.10 a.m.]: Although my colleagues and I do not oppose the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010, I do have some misgivings that I would like to place on the record, namely, the deletion of the term, "child pornography" from the Crimes Act 1900, and its replacement with "child abuse material". Child abuse is a very broad concept. Child abuse is the blanket term to describe four types of child mistreatment: physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect. Examples range from verbal abuse to leaving a child unattended in a car with the windows up to physical assault. In 1990 Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention is an international human rights instrument. As a party to the convention the Australian Government accepted specific international legal obligations towards the children and youth of Australia. Article 19 of the convention states that:

Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

It is interesting to note that in article 19 of the convention the United Nations makes specific reference to sexual abuse. Article 34 of the convention states that:

Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.

Article 34 then goes on to specify exploitation of children through prostitution and pornography. In this article the United Nations uses the words "sexual exploitation" and "sexual abuse". Importantly, sexual abuse is not subsumed into the general notion of abuse. A reason why sexual abuse and sexual exploitation have not merged into the general notion of abuse may be found in the European Union law enforcement agency Europol's published paper on child abuse in relation to trafficking in human beings. In this January 2008 paper Europol states that:

… it is clear that crimes related to the sexual abuse of children need a special approach, not only because they are increasing but also because the criminality behind them exhibits different dynamics and characteristics to those seen in other forms of trafficking in human beings.

The obvious extension of this statement is that crimes related to the sexual abuse of children need a special approach, not only because they are increasing but also because the criminality behind them exhibits different dynamics and characteristics from those seen in other forms of child abuse. The different dynamics and characteristics are a probable and rational explanation for the dichotomy that exists in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. Interestingly, this Act came into existence after the United Nations convention was ratified by Australia. Pursuant to part 10.6 division 473.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, child abuse material is separately defined from child pornography material.

This separation continues with part 10.6 division 474.19 stating the offence of using a carriage service for child pornography material and division 474.22 stating the offence of using a carriage service for child abuse material. The member for Miranda, in his agreement in principle speech, went through the bill in detail explaining the background and rationale for same. In fact his speech contained over 2,700 words. However, only three sentences were proffered to explain why the term "child pornography" should be expunged from the vocabulary of the Crimes Act. Relevantly, the member for Miranda said:

Another significant change recommended by the working party was to replace the term "child pornography" with the term "child abuse material". The Government supports this change in terminology. Child pornography is a form of child abuse and the community and the Government will not tolerate predators who engage in this type of behaviour.

In the first of these sentences the member for Miranda appropriately acknowledged that the removal of the words "child pornography" represented a "significant change". Given the significance, one would expect a detailed and considered explanation for the change. However, no explanation was given other than that child pornography is a form of child abuse and the Government supports this change in terminology. Given the barren explanation provided by the member for Miranda, I reviewed the Child Pornography Working Party's report, which was released on 10 January this year. At page 24 it noted:

As previously discussed, the Commonwealth model distinguishes between material that is defined as child pornography and material that is defined as child abuse material. Although the CPWP is of the view that NSW should follow the Commonwealth model, the CPWP recommends that, in the NSW context, the definitions should be merged, and the term 'child abuse material' used to cover both child abuse material and child pornography material, as defined in the Code. The rationale behind this is that as child pornography is a form of child abuse, it may be artificial to split the two. The CPWP has also considered the term 'child exploitation material', which is also commonly used to describe such material. However, the CPWP is of the view that the term 'child abuse material' has a more settled meaning and describes conduct that is clearly criminal. Although child pornography and child abuse material is exploitative, it is foreseeable that conduct could also fall under this category that is not necessarily criminal.

The report noted that New South Wales should follow the Commonwealth model. However, it stated that in light of the "New South Wales context" the definitions should be merged. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to detail what is the New South Wales context. How is the New South Wales context so different as to warrant such a significant change of terminology and departure from the recommended Commonwealth model? Is it for economy of words? With great respect, the chimes of legislative economy rarely sound in this Chamber, so I ask why the Government now chooses to sound these chimes in order to silence the term "child pornography".

I would like to raise an additional issue in relation to the bill. Schedule 3 lists amendments to other legislation that, at present, contains reference to the term "child pornography" as this is defined in section 91H of the Crimes Act. These Acts include the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 and the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912. In this last case the proposal seems to be to add "an offence involving child abuse material" to the existing reference to "child pornography", but this may be to capture offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code where both terms are in use.

Schedule 2 [10] contains what the explanatory notes call a transitional provision that extends these arrangements to proceedings that have already been commenced. As I see it, the gap relates to those Acts that regulate the medical and related professions and that contain reference to criminal proceedings that involve child pornography. A full list of these Acts is set out on page 40 of the Parliamentary Library research paper on Child Pornography Law, Briefing Paper No. 9/2008. Basically, these Acts require practitioners to notify their regulating boards of any relevant convictions, criminal findings or charges. One example is section 20 (1) (e) of the Chiropractors Act 2000, which refers to:

(e) details of any criminal proceedings pending against the chiropractor at the end of the return period, in this State or elsewhere, for a sex/violence offence alleged to have been committed against a minor or to involve child pornography (whether or not alleged to have been committed in the course of the practice or purported practice of chiropractic).

My concern is that this bill leaves provisions of this sort in a kind of legal limbo or no man's land. Proceedings that have already been commenced are provided for. However, my question relates to whether provision is made for future proceedings under these Acts that regulate the medical and related professions. Have they been forgotten or overlooked? Unless these Acts are amended to reflect the change in terminology from child pornography to child abuse material, the relevant provisions of those Acts will become inoperative. Even if that is not the case it would be in the interests of clarity and consistency to amend all the statutes that presently employ the term "child pornography" consistently.

In conclusion, I have concerns about the removal of the term "child pornography" from the Crimes Act and related legislation. It is a term that the community understands. Whilst it is a subset of child abuse it is a particularly depraved form of child abuse that requires special recognition. Make no mistake: child pornography is an enemy of children. Not only do I want to know the face of our common foe; I also want to know its name. Unfortunately, the term "child pornography" will now be cloaked by anonymity. Alarm bells are starting to ring. This bill takes us down a path of increasing shadows.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.22 a.m.]: In participating in debate on the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010 I wish to focus in particular on protections for artists and maintaining the classification defence. Before deciding whether particular material constitutes child abuse material the court must consider whether reasonable persons would regard that material as being offensive in all the circumstances. One of the matters that the court must consider is whether the material has any artistic merit. On page 24 of its report the Child Pornography Working Party noted:

... by requiring the literary, artistic or educational merit of the material is determined prior to the work being defined as child pornography, it ensures that works with genuine artistic merit are not confused with child pornography. It also ensures that a defence is not available for the creators of material without any artistic merit, but produced under the guise of an artistic purpose.

In this way the work of artists is distinguished from child abuse material. In addition, police are now able to consider the artistic merit of a work before any charges are laid rather than it operating as a defence to be raised once criminal charges have been laid. The working party released its report in January this year. The Government then consulted with arts groups, the media and victims groups on the proposed changes. During this consultation many stakeholders from the arts sector were concerned that the proposed changes would remove the existing classification defence.

Arts groups recommended that this defence be retained. They argued that the classification defence provided a safeguard for emerging artists who may not have an established body of work, which may be a consideration that the court takes into account in determining whether a work has artistic merit. If the defence were retained, emerging artists could apply to the Classification Board to have their work classified. In this way artists and art galleries could be confident that the work they display is not child abuse material, and they will not be liable for criminal prosecution. The Government has listened to this feedback and decided to retain the classification defence. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [11.25 a.m.] I speak in debate on the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010, the objects of which include amending the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to provide for the use of random sample evidence in proceedings for a child abuse material offence and to extend to a witness in sexual offence proceedings the same protections as those afforded to a complainant in the proceedings, in certain cases. Another object on which I will focus my comments today is to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to change the law as it relates to child pornography, which will now be referred to as child abuse material, so that the defence relating to material produced for child protection, scientific, medical, legal, artistic or other public benefit purposes will no longer be available.

This bill removes the standalone defence of artistic merit, expands the definition of "pornographic material" in a reworked definition of "child abuse material" and specifies a list of factors that must be taken into account when determining whether material is offensive, including the existence of any artistic merit. The legislation involves two strong principles that are in tension but that are not necessarily irreconcilable. They are the protection of children and the freedom of expression. In the arts freedom of expression is limited by law. The interests of an artist and the interests of children can conflict. When a creative process involves children the law properly imposes certain limits and constraints designed to protect children from exploitation or harm.

As the father of four young children I particularly abhor the activities of people who mistreat or abuse children for their own sexual gratification. All of us surely condemn the sick child abuse behaviour of all such people, unfortunately including the former member for Swansea—or at least I hope we all do. However, the proposed amendments appear to be more about window-dressing than about attacking child abuse in our society. In this respect I note the admission of the current Acting-Speaker, the member for Maitland, that the defence has been used only once and in that case it was unsuccessful. It is questionable as to whether this change will result in different outcomes in child protection. What it does do, however, is potentially increase the bureaucratic process, anxiety levels and potential costs for artists. One can understand the view expressed in the media to the effect that the reform is essentially a politically motivated and cynical initiative driven in a post-Henson furore. Article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

John Stuart Mill's famous essay On Liberty, which was published just over 150 years ago, remains a source of inspirational guidance today. Mill spoke in his essay of principles of freedom and said:

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence. And to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.

Prevailing opinion can be distorted and misinformed so as to make it unjust and oppressive to individuals. Of course, harm against others, particularly children, must be reasonably prevented. However, a socialist philosophy that promotes a controlling and overprotective State can unfairly relegate individual rights. Indeed, Sir Robert Menzies in his 1942 speech "The Four Freedoms" spoke of freedom of speech and expression by stating:

… what appears to be today's truth is frequently tomorrow's error.

We parliamentarians should be careful to preserve the freedom of our minds and spirits as legitimately contained in artistic expression. Where is the Minister for the Arts? Why is she not speaking for her portfolio's constituency? The Legislation Review Committee in its latest digest recorded that stakeholders such as the National Association for the Visual Arts and the Arts Law Centre for Australia appear satisfied that the bill will not adversely impact on the work of artists. Importantly, the committee noted:

… the Bill retains the defence of classified material at proposed section 91HA(7) which allows an absolute defence when the material concerned was classified (whether before or after the commission of the alleged offence) under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, other than as refused classification. In this regard, artists may seek classification of their work by the Classification Board to determine what restrictions, if any, will apply to their work. The retention of this provision safeguards artists, and their work, from being unintentionally caught by the definition of "child abuse material".

This Commonwealth classification defence becomes more important in light of the removal of the artistic merit defence. However, the classification process available to artists is a largely bureaucratic and costly exercise and potentially will hit the pockets of often-struggling artists. I note that the definition of "child" under Commonwealth law refers to children under 18 years, whereas under New South Wales law a child is under 16 years. Commonwealth classification guidelines provide that publications will be refused justification if they promote or provide instruction in paedophile activities, or if they contain descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18. The depiction of a person who is or appears to be aged 16 or 17 years may fall through the gap, receive a refused classification and result in a prosecution despite not being caught under New South Wales legislation.

From 2000 to 2004, before I entered this place, I performed the roles of deputy convenor and, for a short time, acting convenor of the Australian Classification Review Board. This board meets as needed to review its classification decisions, generally in response to an application for review from the original applicant. The board comprises a representative group of trained individuals with relevant skills and experience. In my appointed capacity I was charged with reviewing classification decisions in accordance with the regulatory framework set by this and other parliaments. I did that faithfully, sometimes in difficult circumstances, respecting the criteria for which others were responsible but, importantly, taking into account relevant impact and context when assessing material. On one occasion the board was asked to consider the classification of an image, following the criteria set out by politicians, for the purpose of a foreshadowed prosecution. My role now in this place is as part of a lawmaking forum responsible for setting the criteria. What guidance or instruction will a jury be given to make such a decision? What training and experience would a randomly chosen jury have?

While the Opposition does not oppose the legislation, I am concerned that the removal of the artistic merit defence may have unintended or unfortunate consequences. I refer, by way of example, to the controversy over the sculpture of a little boy at Tamarama Beach as part of the most recent and excellent Sculpture by the Sea exhibition. In an act of censorship the local council required that the sculpture be clothed in swimmers rather than displayed in its intended naked form. I conclude my remarks with the words of Bernadette McMenamin, Director of Child Wise, a child protection charity, as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 1 November 2009:

It will certainly attract its fair amount of perverts who will come down, but I do not want Australia to become a puritanical society where we have such black and white rules about not just art but about nakedness.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock) [11.35 a.m.]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010. The objects of the bill are:

(a) to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to change the law as it relates to child pornography (which will now be referred to as child abuse material) so that:

(i) the defence relating to material produced for child protection, scientific, medical, legal, artistic or other public benefit purposes will no longer be available, and

(ii) the law is generally more consistent with Commonwealth offences relating to child pornography,

(b) to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to provide for the use of random sample evidence in proceedings for a child abuse material offence,

(c) to amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to extend to a witness in sexual offence proceedings the same protections as those afforded to a complainant in the proceedings, in cases where it is alleged that the accused person has committed a sexual offence against the witness that is not the subject of the proceedings concerned,

(d) to make consequential and related amendments to the above Acts and other legislation.

I shall address why "child pornography" has been renamed "child abuse material" in this bill. Possessing, disseminating or producing child pornography is committing child abuse. These activities have a devastating effect on the victims involved. The abuse occurs not only when the photograph or video is being taken, but also through continued exposure of the image or video. For this reason the Government supports the Child Pornography Working Party's recommendation to replace the term "child pornography" with the stronger term "child abuse material". New South Wales has chosen to follow the Commonwealth legislation in other respects also. The Child Pornography Working Party noted that offenders who obtain child pornography via the Internet often are simultaneously committing offences against State law, such as possession of child pornography, and Commonwealth law, such as obtaining child pornography material for use through a carriage service.

The working party advised that frequently it is the case that both offences are charged against the one offender. It is also the case that offenders caught downloading child pornography will often, upon execution of a search warrant, be found in possession of an extensive collection of child pornography resulting in Commonwealth and State charges for the different bundles of pornography. Police officers and practitioners will encounter difficulties if the tests to determine what constitutes child pornography vary according to whether the State or Commonwealth charge is being considered. There is potential also for a jury hearing a trial involving both charges to be confused by having to apply two different tests. The working party noted that harmonising New South Wales law with Commonwealth law would assist with law enforcement and the prosecution of these offences. For those reasons, I support the bill.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [11.39 a.m.]: In contributing to debate on the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010, which seeks to amend the Crimes Act 1900 and the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to make changes to the law pertaining to child pornography, I believe I join every reasonable member of our society in supporting the nominal intention of the bill: the protection of children from exploitation and harm at the hands of people who would use legitimate art as a camouflage for improper exploitation. For that reason, I support the bill.

However, I must place on record my concerns over the huge and ongoing onus upon the Government to steer a path through the broad grey area in which a distinction must be drawn between what is art and what is not. The bill deals with an issue that creates strong emotions and views throughout the community. By its very nature, it is complicated. The bill adopts definitions that are used by the Commonwealth, which goes some of the way towards reducing cross-jurisdictional confusion of definitions, but other areas remain quite obscure. The Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Miranda, stated during his agreement in principle speech on 10 March that the intention of the bill is to disallow "artistic purposes" as a defence, without infringing on the rights of artists to depict valid situations involving children. Of course, that will be a difficult balancing act.

Nothing in the bill instils any confidence that a suitable method or set of criteria have been established to allow legitimate artistic expression while simultaneously prohibiting pornography. In theory, the intention of the artist should resolve the matter, but this is largely impossible to determine. What remains is a subjective opinion by a third party of what is acceptable and what is not. The Government's Child Pornography Working Party stated that material that is otherwise offensive because of the way in which it depicts children should not be protected because its creator claims an overriding artistic purpose for it. I believe that to be a reasonable view, but under this bill reliance will be placed on a third party's expert opinion to determine artistic merit.

There is a risk that an artist may produce what he believes to be a work of art without evoking in his mind any notions of sexualisation, sexual abuse or exploitation of children, but subsequently he may find that others believe that the material is unlawful under this legislation. Has that person committed an offence? At what stage was the offence committed? Was it during the course of composing the work, on completion of the work, on exhibition of the work, or at the stage at which it is determined by the Classification Review Board or other experts that the object or image depicted amounts to sexual or abusive images relating to children? If it is determined that an item contravenes the Act, do the authorities take action against the creator of the item for the production of child abuse material?

Those who abuse the innocence of children deserve all the condemnation that current laws express, but legitimate artists need a way of being sure that they are not seen as purveyors of pornography or abusive material. This is the dilemma that will likely result in future storms of media attention and public protests when someone, perhaps innocently, crosses that arguable line. One aspect of the bill that does not fall subject to interpretation or misinterpretation is that treatment of witnesses during legal proceedings should be equal to that of complainants. I strongly support that further protection for witnesses.

As I have stated, I support the intention of the bill. Therefore I will vote in favour of it, but I caution that, due to the complex and subjective nature of the issue, there are likely to be unintended consequences and grey areas that will be impossible to chart. It will be important for the Government and, indeed, the community to closely watch the implementation of this legislation and to be prepared to make changes, if and when required. In spite of the concerns I have expressed, I believe that this legislation is a genuine attempt to further protect children within New South Wales from exploitation by sexual predators and abusers. I fully support the intention of the bill.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [11.43 a.m.]: An important issue to address in discussion of the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010 is why the definition of "child pornography" has changed. The bill introduces a new definition of what constitutes "child abuse material", based on the definitions used in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. Currently "child pornography" is defined as material that depicts or describes, in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person who is, or appears to be, a child engaged in sexual activity, or in a sexual context, or as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse, whether or not in a sexual context. The bill significantly expands that definition by referring to material that depicts or describes the private parts of a child.

After enactment of this bill, "child abuse material" will be defined as material that depicts or describes children in such a way that reasonable persons would regard the depiction as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. The "private parts of a person" are defined as a person's genital area or anal area, or the breasts of a female person. The specific inclusion of material that depicts or describes the private parts of a person who is, or appears to be, or is implied to be a child, will assist the prosecution in cases in which nude photographs, which are not overtly sexual, have been taken of a child, but which reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive—for example, if they were in a person's possession for the purpose of sexual gratification.

The Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] has advised that difficulties have been experienced in proving that such photographs depicted a child in a sexual context. For example, in the case Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Annetts, the accused had secretly filmed boys in a change room. The accused was arrested in possession of a video containing short films of the boys, some of which concentrated on the genitalia. The accused was charged with possession of child pornography. The matter was dismissed on appeal in the District Court following a finding by the judge that:

… one simply looks at the images, in applying the objective test, in determining whether or not the images depict a person, under the age of 16, 'in a sexual context'.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that:

The fact that the images were secretly recorded is not relevant to whether or not the material is child pornography. Furthermore, the reasons which motivated the photographer are not relevant. These matters may inform an understanding of the context in which the film was made but are not relevant to an understanding of whether or not the video depicts boys in a "sexual context". That question must be answered after considering the content of the film itself.

The court found:

Although the motivation of the photographer and the method he used to film the boys was not relevant all of the content of the images, including that all the images were of young boys, concentrated on their genitalia and were taken over a period of time, and, if this is apparent from the video, were taken in a men's change room, were relevant to the question of whether or not the material depicted a person "in a sexual context".

After this legislation is passed, the prosecution will not have to prove that the images were depicting a person in a sexual context. It will be sufficient that the images depicted or described, in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive, the private parts of a person who is, or appears to be or is implied to be, a child. The number of images and the context in which the photographs were taken, such as surreptitiously taking photographs in a change room, will be able to be considered by the court in determining whether or not reasonable persons would regard the images as offensive. The purpose of the photographer when taking photographs, such as for sexual gratification, also is relevant.

It is noted that the Commonwealth definition of "child pornography material" includes material the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ, a representation of such a sexual organ or anal region, or the breasts of a female person in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. Thus, for material that depicts the sexual organs of a child, the depiction of the sexual organs must be the dominant characteristic of the material, and the depiction must be for a sexual purpose. The material also must be material that would be regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstances, offensive.

However, the New South Wales Government is of the view that a simplified approach is preferred. The words "for a sexual purpose" have not been included in the New South Wales definition of "child abuse material". That is because it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which material that depicts the sexual organs of a child for a sexual purpose would not be considered by reasonable persons to be, in all the circumstances, offensive. Therefore, such depictions already will be covered by the definition that is part of the bill. However, an important safeguard—that reasonable persons must regard the material as, in all the circumstances, offensive—has been included to ensure that family happy snaps depicting images such as children in the bath or playing naked outside under a sprinkler are not caught by these provisions. A family's treasured photograph album will not be covered by the provisions of the bill.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [11.49 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010. We all recognise that it is important to protect our children, and child pornography is a deeply offensive and troubling crime. Like other members, I think the Parliament needs to respect issues of culture, art and the freedom of the western world to think and explore ideas. After all, historically, the great advantage the west has always had over its competitors is the encouragement of freedom in thought and ideas, and that includes art. It would be most unfortunate if this bill impinged on that in any way.

It is admirable that these cases will end up before courts and that artistic merit will no longer be included as a defence but, rather, as a factor that needs to be taken into account. The issue that I raise is: How does a jury decide whether the material is offensive? Commonsense should always prevail, and that is what juries are for. These issues are complex, and on this occasion the Government and the Attorney General's Department should provide juries with some guidance. For example, what is offensive? I find most violent movies offensive and deep down inside I would not mind seeing them banned. However, they are not offensive to other people. Deciding what is offensive is extremely difficult, as we found in the great censorship debates of the 1950s and 1960s. That is why progressively governments have stepped back from them. Instead, we have sought to include more objective tests in the definitions and in the way we think about them.

For example, it is important for a jury to consider whether the material it is considering would incite someone to commit a crime. When paedophiles are on trial—paedophilia is obviously the crime we are most concerned about here—it is important for us to know whether they have in their home such material as George Lambert's painting of The Bathers, which as we all know is a full-frontal painting of a naked boy. It is one of Australia's best-loved and most famous paintings of children at the beach in about 1910. I do not know whether that painting can be found on Dolly Dunn's wall. We must always bear in mind that the sort of material paedophiles keep in their homes that obviously incites crime is mostly of a violent and completely depraved nature; artistic works, including, I would have thought, Mr Henson's works, are rarely, if at all, found in these homes. I think that is an important consideration for a jury. Does such material incite a person to commit a crime?

As I said, offensiveness of itself is a consideration, but it is a difficult one to consider in this modern day and age when almost anything goes. I often feel that there are good ideas behind government legislation but that it lacks community debate and engagement. That means that the legislation is doing more than simply arresting a wrong or addressing a new concern; it is also engaging the public and getting us all to think about these issues. In particular, it is a pity that this issue does not help us with what a major concern and that is the sexualisation of children. One cannot deny that Bill Henson's photographs, which I found very troubling, sexualise children. He would say they show the vulnerability of children and the sexual vulnerability of children, which is an important consideration for us. I am not sure that I am convinced, but that is the argument in the arts community.

The sexualisation of children is rarely a problem at the high end of art or artistic endeavours. The fact is that children are sexualised with trainer bras and bras for eight-year-olds, strapless gowns for eight-year-olds, and little girls of eight at school concerts—I have attended some of them—looking like pole dancers and being encouraged to be overtly come-hitherish in their actions. Often that is a much bigger problem for us as a modern society than artistic images. I think the Parliament is serious about addressing the sexualisation of children because of the obvious consequences for young adults and teenagers. It is extraordinary that we have seen an increase in the teenage pregnancy rate in this State in the past two years. While it is great to have legislation that deals with images of children more broadly than just as pieces of art and that no longer allows that as a defence but provides that it be one of a number of factors in these cases—it is putting the arts industry, the photographic industry and the cultural industry on notice that they must be more thoughtful in the future—this is also a good time for us to think more broadly about the sexualisation of children.

The sexualisation of children is not just a matter for the arts fraternity but also for the advertising industry and for what we think is acceptable for six-year-olds to see on television at six o'clock at night. Sadly, this bill does not go any way towards that and I sense no debate about it. If the bill were not being rushed through the Parliament and if the debate had not come on so quickly, this would have been a wonderful opportunity to engage advertisers, convenors of children's activities, designers of children's television, and television and radio networks in a much bigger debate about the sexualisation of children and whether it makes a difference. I do not think there is evidence to show that the sexualisation of children is encouraging higher rates of child sexual abuse or indeed teenage sexual abuse. I simply make the point that we all feel that it is having other unfortunate and damaging consequences for the latest general of young people.

The bill is not opposed by the Opposition. Certainly, the children who are of my immediate portfolio concern will be protected. The police have told me that when they go into homes where there is domestic violence or drug abuse sadly there are often distressing sexual images of children. If this bill makes those children less vulnerable, then that is a good thing. But we need to bear in mind that this legislation involves risks and unintended consequences. The history and achievements of western civilisation need to be preserved and treasured, and that includes the capacity to think and express ourselves freely. When juries are considering these cases I hope they will think about these other issues as well as the issue immediately before them. It will not be an easy task for juries to decide what is offensive, using commonsense alone, and I would encourage juries to also consider the wider implications.

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [11.58 a.m.]: I thank members opposite for their support of the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010. I note that some of them seemed to have spent the morning or last night working heavily on Google or another search engine to find appropriate quotes such as that of John Stuart Mill and the United Nations. Also mentioned were the statue of liberty speech, Socrates and many other people. So I thought I would quote from a journal of record. I will use only parts of it; there is no filibuster in this House. I refer to the 1991 edition of the Australian Reference Dictionary. I suggest that the library update its copy.

We all use the word "pornography" but I wonder how many of us know its accurate definition. On page 613, pornography is defined as being the explicit representation of sexual activity, visually or descriptively, to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings. The word comes from the Greek word porné, meaning prostitute. I am sure many members, including me, have never checked its ancient definition. The pornography that was drawn on the pyramids of Egypt, on the walls of ancient Rome, and in caves in the mists of time, was not meant to be offensive or erotically stimulating but was related to fertility and the reproduction of the species.

The member for Davidson and the member for Goulburn spoke about the need to make sure that the bill is not a beat-up or an over-reaction to the Henson material, which, had it been ignored, would have disappeared into an artistic gallery, to be seen by very few people. The bill has not come out of that event but out of a broader child pornography review. Society has tried to deal with this issue for hundreds of years. During the 1960s, books such as Portnoy's Complaint by Philip Roth and Lady Chatterley's Lover by D. H. Lawrence were banned in Australia. The member for Coffs Harbour probably secreted copies at home, as did many young men of about his age. If he feels I am verballing him I will withdraw that comment; if not, I will check out his copies later.

This issue is serious. The Government has introduced this bill. Normally the Opposition would want to be seen to be farther to the right than God and Thee in these matters, but today it is lecturing members of this House about artistic rights. The Minister for the Arts could well have spoken on this legislation but it is the Attorney General's bill and it could result in offenders being sent to jail if the offences that are created by the bill are proved by evidence and testimony. An important reform that is effected in the bill but is not directly connected to child pornography is the extension of victims' protections to what are called tendency witnesses.

Currently, complainants in sexual offence proceedings are entitled to the benefit of a number of provisions within part 5, division 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, including provision for closed courts, provision for non-publication of the names of people involved in a court case especially those under-age, and restriction of cross-examination about sexual experience. That last provision may have gone out of general use 20 or 30 years ago, but it had the effect of stopping people, especially women, taking their case to court, because they found the prospect of cross-examination about previous experiences too distressing. For victims of rape, the trauma of the offence was compounded by having to give evidence and reveal in court any previous sexual experience, or lack of it, so rapists were left free to walk the streets.

Government legislation already provides that a complainant should not be examined or cross-examined by the accused person, that a complainant may give evidence by alternative arrangements, such as closed-circuit television—so that if a trial miscarries the complainant would not have to give evidence again because the recorded evidence can be replayed or the transcript of it can be read—and that a complainant is entitled to have a support person present whilst giving evidence. Those provisions do not restrict an accused person's right to a fair trial. Before laying charges, police must have a reasonable case that they believe can be won and their witnesses must receive reasonable protection. This bill extends those protections to witnesses in sexual offence proceedings who allege that an accused has committed a sexual offence against them.

Attempts to use hearsay evidence about an accused's previous similar crimes would be immediately objected to by any good lawyer. I am surrounded by lawyers in this Chamber but I do not feel as threatened as the member for Mount Druitt. Objections to hearsay evidence are usually upheld as such evidence is not admissible. Everybody should know that. This legislation will encourage more witnesses to give evidence about previous sexual assaults or child abuse, and more victims will report abuse, confident that witnesses will attest to an offender's pattern of behaviour. The witnesses, mostly young people, would be examined about what they do or do not know, and because the witnesses are protected a complainant would have a much better chance of a successful prosecution. More victims will come forward and report abuse. It is for those reasons that the Government has introduced these reforms. The Government is committed to minimising the distress caused to victims of sexual assault who give evidence. It is not possible to distinguish between the difficulties faced by witnesses and by complainants in sexual assault trials.

In conclusion, the bill provides for closed courts and non-publication orders. We know from what happened recently to two famous people who are well-known in sport and fashion that protective provisions are necessary. Newspapers and other media tend to want it both ways. The member for Goulburn made a fair point, that newspapers often express outrage on their front pages about what the Government is doing—for example, in their reports about the relocation of Dennis Ferguson, with photographs of people holding crosses and coffins—yet publish photographs of beach girls on page three. In the car section of the papers one finds photographs of young girls presenting trophies to V8 race winners and the like.

We watch serious programs on television, such as Today Tonight, dealing with the types of issues we are talking about here, and then we see advertisements that could be said to be almost on the verge of child abuse, using young children as models—that happened only a few years ago, involving 12- and 13-year-old girls particularly, but also young boys. They might not be depicted for artistic purposes, but they are being used to promote products. Probably no-one would dare to take on a television station, but that is an important aspect and I believe the member for Goulburn was on to something there.

We are just a bit hypocritical, not about chasing genuine paedophiles and trying to stop child pornography and abuse, but I think sometimes the modern media plays it both ways. They want to publish salacious stories and pictures, yet call for the death penalty for anybody who might have read this book or looked at that picture. In conclusion, the bill extends protection provisions to witnesses in sexual offence proceedings who are alleging the accused has committed a sexual offence against them. With those words, I support the bill and the Government's intention, but I do understand some of the points made by Opposition speakers.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.11 p.m.]: One important issue that the bill deals with is the introduction of random sample evidence provisions. I would like to take this opportunity to outline how they work. As part of its consideration, the child pornography working party examined the likely impact on child pornography prosecutions of the development of a project that will create an Australian National Victim Image Library [ANVIL] and the use of the Microsoft software child exploitation tracking system [CETS]. The Australian Federal Police and Queensland Police are jointly leading development of this program. As the submission to the child pornography working group from the New South Wales Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions explained:

Essentially CETS is comprised of software and a database that will enable a cloned version of a hard drive to be entered into a database and it will identify any pornographic images that are known to the database, and produce a report that will count the number of images that fall within prescribed categories. The database will ultimately be an international collection, where the same criteria have been used to classify the images.

This will mean that over time, once there are enough images on the database, an investigating officer will not have to view all the images, and the prosecutor and court will be able to rely in the most part on the report produced to quantify and scale the images. At some point the investigating officer will need to examine images that are not identified by the software and, if they turn out to be child pornography, enter those images onto the database. There will be a transitional phase while the database is being created where both the software and manual analysis will need to be used to investigate. Ultimately it is envisioned that most collections will already be on the database.

The child exploitation tracking system has clear benefits in that it can quantify as well as qualitatively assess any given child pornography seizure. However, the child pornography working party noted that the ANVIL-CETS program is at the business case stage. A time frame for delivery cannot be committed to as the business case will need to be considered at a national level and senior officer group level through the national Ministerial Council for Police Emergency Management. The problem remains regarding prosecutions conducted in the meantime. To address this interim problem, the child pornography working party was of the view that the creation of a legislative rebuttable presumption was warranted in child pornography matters. The presumption would be based on a genuine random sample of the images seized and the test for disproving the presumption would be on the balance of probabilities. The random sample evidence provisions implement this recommendation of the child pornography working party.

I wish to discuss how these provisions assist the prosecution of child pornography matters. The random sample evidence provisions assist police in the prosecution of child pornography matters by only requiring the investigating officers to view a portion of the total seizure rather than each and every image. Often seizures involve thousands upon thousands of images so this is a significant and welcome development. It will reduce the exposure of the investigating officers to these horrific images. It will also assist in reducing the number of images that have to be shown to a jury or judge who is hearing a child pornography matter, the court staff, the Director of Public Prosecutions solicitors, Crown prosecutors and legal representatives involved. Not only does it reduce the occupational health and safety impact of having to view such disturbing material, but it also reduces the further dissemination of the actual image, which will be of some comfort to the victims displayed in the photos or videos. I commend the bill.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.18 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members representing the electorates of Epping, Maitland, Ryde, Macquarie Fields, Davidson, Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Wallsend, Goulburn, East Hills and Shellharbour for their contributions to the debate. I note at the outset that the Opposition supports the bill. The shadow Attorney General, Mr Greg Smith, pointed out many positive features of the bill, which in his submission were overwhelming. In fact I believe he said that there were no significant arguments against, but for, payment of experts. As the bill says, experts may play a very important role in prosecution of these offences. The member for Epping inadvertently referred to some concerns of the Bar Association, but has agreed after checking that they were not the concerns of the Bar Association but concerns raised by Mr Stephen Odgers SC, with which I will deal later.

The member for Epping raised the issue of the definition of "child pornography material" in the Criminal Code, which is somewhat different to the definition contained in the bill. The definition of "child abuse material" contained in the bill differs from the definitions of "child abuse material" and "child pornography material" contained in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Under the Commonwealth code, for material that depicts the sexual organs of a child, the depiction of the sexual organ must be the dominant characteristic of the material and the depiction must be for a sexual purpose. The material must also be material that would be regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. However, for material that describes the sexual organs of a child, it is not necessary that the description of the sexual organs be the dominant purpose of the material or that the purpose of the description be for a sexual purpose. It also must be material that would be regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstances, offensive.

New South Wales has not followed this approach because it appears to be inconsistent. It is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which depiction of the sexual organs of a child as the dominant characteristic for a sexual purpose would not be considered offensive by reasonable persons. Under the New South Wales model, the fact that the sexual organ of a child is the dominant characteristic and whether it is depicted for a sexual purpose can be taken into account by the court when it considers whether the material is offensive to a reasonable person. This is consistent with the Commonwealth approach to material that describes the sexual organs of a child. For instance, in the case of a doctor's report describing a child's sexual organ for a medical purpose, the medical character of the material is taken into account in deciding whether reasonable persons would regard the material as being offensive in all the circumstances.

The child pornography working party noted that the Commonwealth Legislation distinguished between material that is defined as child pornography and material that is defined as child abuse material. The working party recommended that the definitions should be merged and the term "child abuse material" used to cover both child abuse material and child pornography as defined in the code. The child pornography working party was of the view that, as child pornography is a form of child abuse, it is artificial to split the two. There was a question raised as to why the New South Wales Government was following the Commonwealth legislation. The child pornography working party noted that offenders who obtain child pornography via the Internet are often simultaneously committing offences against State law, such as the possession of child pornography, and Commonwealth law such as obtaining child pornography material for use through a carriage service.

The working party advised that it is frequently the case that both offences are charged against the one offender. It is also the case that offenders caught downloading child pornography will often, upon the execution of a search warrant, be found to be in possession of an extensive existing collection of child pornography, resulting in Commonwealth and State charges for different bundles of pornography. Difficulties will be encountered by police officers and practitioners if the tests as to what constitutes child pornography vary according to whether the State charge is being considered or whether the Commonwealth charge is being considered. There is also the potential for a jury that is hearing a trial involving both charges to be confused by having to apply two different tests to the two charges. As noted by the working party, harmonising the law with the Commonwealth will assist with law enforcement and the prosecution of these offences.

The member for Epping mentioned the case of McEwen v Simmons. The court held in that matter that cartoon images were in breach of child pornography provisions despite the fact they did not involve real children. The Child Pornography Working Party reached the conclusion, assisted by the submission of Mr Paul Winch, Public Defender, that this interpretation of the provisions was in conformity with the intent of the legislation, by ensuring that materials showing abuse of children did not get distributed to a large audience and normalise this behaviour. As such, the working party recommended no changes to the law in this regard.

I turn now to some issues raised by Mr Stephen Odgers, SC. Firstly, there is the issue of "child abuse material" and "child pornography" in section 473.1 of the Criminal Code. The Commonwealth legislation distinguishes between material that depicts a person who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18 years and material that described a person who is, or is implied to be, under 18 years of age. The use of the word "appears" refers mainly to visual images and the use of the word "implied" applies to non-visual material. The New South Wales legislation has retained this model albeit in a modified form.

Mr Odgers also raised the concern that the definition of "child pornography material" in section 473.1 of the Criminal Code refers to "(b) material the dominant characteristic of which is depiction, for a sexual purpose of", what is defined as "private parts" in the bill. The definition of "child abuse material" contained in the bill differs from the definition of "child abuse material" and "child pornography material" contained in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Under the Commonwealth model, for material that depicts the sexual organs of a child the depiction of the sexual organ must be the dominant characteristic of the material and the depiction must be for a sexual purpose. The material must be also material that would be regarded by reasonable persons as being in all the circumstances offensive. However, for material that describes the sexual organs of a child it is not necessary that the description of the organs be the dominant purpose of the material or that the purpose of the description be a sexual purpose. It also must be material that would be regarded by reasonable persons as being in all the circumstances offensive. New South Wales has not followed this approach, as I have said, because it appears to be inconsistent.

A further issue was raised by Mr Odgers in relation to the Commonwealth Criminal Code and the terms "child abuse material" and "child pornography material" requiring at least recklessness in relation to the material; for example, Criminal Code section 477.22 (2) (b). The response to that is that the bill retains the current position in relation to the accused's knowledge that already existed in the Crimes Act 1900 of New South Wales. The Child Pornography Working Party did not recommend any change to the requisite intent that the accused had to possess in relation to the offences of possession, dissemination or production of child pornography.

Mr Odgers also raised an issue in relation to the bill making admissible a certificate by a certified analyst containing "the findings of the authorised analyst as to the nature and content of the random sample" of the alleged child abuse material under proposed section 289B (4) (c). Mr Odgers suggested this was too broad. In response to that, the certificate under section 289B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 will allow the prosecutor to adduce evidence about the nature and content of material based on an examination of the nature and content of a random sample taken from that material. It is expected this will include factual evidence about the number of images contained in the sample, description of the content of the images, and descriptions of where the images fall on an agreed scale of seriousness, such as the Child Exploitation Tracking System or the Oliver scale. This does not amount to opinion evidence. The opinion rule in section 76 of the Evidence Act will therefore still operate. In addition, the content of the certificate can be further constrained by the regulation-making power contained in section 289B (8).

The member for Ryde questioned why "child pornography" has been renamed "child abuse material". Possessing, disseminating or producing child pornography is committing child abuse. These activities have a devastating effect on the victims involved. The abuse occurs not only at the time the photography or the video is being taken, but also through the continued exposure and proliferation of that image or video. It is for this reason the Government supports the Child Pornography Working Party's recommendation to replace the term "child pornography" with a stronger term, "child abuse material".

The member for Ryde was also concerned as to why the definition had changed. The bill does introduce a new definition of what constitutes "child abuse material" based on the definition used in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. Previously, "child pornography" was defined as material that depicts or describes, or appears to depict or describe, in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person who is, or appears to be, a child engaged in sexual activity or in a sexual context, or as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse, whether or not in a sexual context. The bill significantly expands this definition, including by referring to material that depicts or describes the private parts of a child. "Child abuse material" is now defined as material that depicts or describes in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being in all the circumstances offensive:

(a) a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child as a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse, or

(b) a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons), or
(c) a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child in the presence of another person who is engaged or apparently engaged in a sexual pose of sexual activity, or

(d) the private parts of a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child.

The "private parts of a person" are defined as a person's genital area or anal area, or the breasts of a female person. The specific inclusion of material depicting or describing "the private parts of a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child" will assist the prosecution in cases where nude photographs have been taken of a child that are not overtly sexual, but which a reasonable person would regard as being in all the circumstances offensive—for instance, if they were possessed for the purpose of sexual gratification. The DPP has advised that difficulties have been experienced in proving that such photographs depicted a child in a "sexual context". For instance, in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Annetts [2009], New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal 86, the accused secretly filmed young boys in a change room. The accused was arrested in possession of a video containing short films of the boys, some of which concentrated on their genitalia. The accused had been charged with the possession of child pornography and the matter had been dismissed on appeal in the District Court following this finding by the judge:

One simply looks at the images in applying the objective test, in determining whether or not the images depict a person under the age of 16, in a sexual context.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held at paragraph 10:

... the fact that the images were secretly recorded [was] not relevant to whether or not the material [was] child pornography. Furthermore, the reasons which motivated the photography [were] not relevant. These matters may inform an understanding of the context in which the film [was] made but are not relevant to an understanding of whether or not the video depict[ed] boys in a "sexual context". That question must be answered after considering the content of the film itself.

The court went on to find:

... although the motivation of the photographer and the method he used to film the boys was not relevant, all of the content of the images, including that all the images of young boys, concentrated on their genitalia and were taken over a period of time, and, if this is apparent from the video, were taken in a men's change room were relevant to the question of whether or not the material depicted a person "in a sexual context".

Now the prosecution would not have to prove that the images were in a sexual context; it would be sufficient if the private parts of a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be a child, were depicted or described in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. The context in which a photograph is taken, such as surreptitiously in a change room, as well as the number of images, would now all be able to be considered by the court in determining whether or not reasonable persons regard the material as offensive. The purpose that the photographer had when taking the photographs, such as for sexual gratification, is also relevant.

It is noted that the Commonwealth definition of "child pornography" includes material, the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ, or the anal region of a person who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18; or a representation of such a sexual organ or anal region; or the breasts, or a representation of the breasts, of a female person who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18 years of age in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. Thus, for material that depicts the sexual organs of a child, the depiction of the sexual organs must be the dominant characteristic of the material and the depiction must be for a sexual purpose. The material must also be material that would be regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstances, offensive.

However, the New South Wales Government is of the view that a simplified approach is preferred and the addition of the words "for a sexual purpose" has not been included in the New South Wales definition of "child abuse material". This is because it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which material that depicts the sexual organs of a child for a sexual purpose would not be considered by reasonable persons to be, in all the circumstances, offensive. Such depictions will therefore already be covered by the definition included in the bill.

The member for Ryde referred to the change of the term "child pornography" to "child abuse". It is clear that the Child Pornography Working Party, when referring to the New South Wales context, was talking about the legislation and not any other form of context. This is clear from the paragraph that speaks about the artificiality of using two definitions in the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995. New South Wales has used only one definition for all material that depicts children as objects of torture and other abuse, and/or in a sexual setting, in contrast to the Commonwealth, which divides the two into different definitions. Other States use various terms, including "child pornography" and "child abuse". The Government supports the recommendation of the working party that New South Wales should use the term "child abuse". It stated:

The rationale behind this is that as child pornography is a form of child abuse, it may be artificial to split the two. "Abuse" makes it clear that all images of children involved in sexual activity are abusive whereas "pornography" does not make this clear.

The member for Epping and the member for Davidson referred to the classification defence. The working party released its report in January this year. The Government consulted with arts groups, the media and victims groups on the proposed changes. During the consultation many stakeholders from the arts sector were concerned that the proposed changes would remove the existing classification defence. Arts groups recommended that this defence be retained. They argued that the classification defence provided a safeguard for emerging artists who may not have an established body of work, which may be a consideration that the court takes into account in determining whether a work has artistic merit. If the defence were retained emerging artists could apply to the Classification Board to have their work classified. In this way artists and art galleries could be confident that the work they display is not child abuse material and that they will not be liable for criminal prosecution. The Government has listened to the feedback and it has decided to retain what is known as the classification defence. The member for Davidson said that this bill was politically motivated and cynical.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: No, I did not. I said that the media suggested that.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: The member appeared to support the artistic merit defence, which seems to be contrary to the views of other Opposition members.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: Point of order: That is not what I said. In the context of the current debate it is important to be accurate and not to misrepresent what I said. If the Parliamentary Secretary looks at Hansard he will see that that is not what I said. I indicated that it was a media report that I thought, in the context, was an understandable media report. I did not agree with—

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! That is not a point of order. Members will not engage in debate across the Chamber. The Parliamentary Secretary is speaking in reply.

Mr BARRY COLLIER: I give the member for Davidson an undertaking that I will check Hansard. My note indicates that the member for Davidson appeared to support that defence. The member for Davidson asked why the defence of artistic merit was being removed. In late 2008 the New South Wales Sentencing Council recommended that the defence of artistic merit be removed from the child pornography provisions contained in the Crimes Act 1900. The Government supported this recommendation and established a high-level working party to examine how the defence could be removed without infringing on the rights of journalists and artists to depict valid situations involving children.

The working party was chaired by Judge Peter Berman, SC, and comprised members of the New South Wales Police Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Justice and Attorney General, Legal Aid NSW, the Public Defenders Office, the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Law Enforcement Policy Branch of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The working party recommended that New South Wales should follow the Commonwealth's approach to this issue. Under the Commonwealth legislation the artistic merit of a piece of work is considered by a court when it is determining whether reasonable persons would regard particular material as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. This means that a defence to a charge of child pornography will no longer be available for creators of material without any artistic merit but produced under the guise of an artistic purpose.

The changes give clear guidance to the court as to what it should consider in deciding whether reasonable persons would regard particular material as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. These include the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; the literary, artistic or educational merit, if any, of the material; the journalistic merit, if any, of the material, being the merit of the material as a record or report of a matter of public interest; and the general character of the material, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character. The changes represent a commonsense approach to this matter and ensure that works with genuine artistic merit are not confused with child pornography.

The changes have the support of both victims groups and the artistic community. I am sure that the member for Goulburn will be interested to know that the following groups were consulted: the National Association of Visual Artists, the Australia Council, the Arts Law Centre of New South Wales, and Arts NSW. All those organisations were consulted and these changes have their support. These changes will make New South Wales law relating to child pornography more consistent with the Commonwealth law in this area. The member for Davidson and the member for Goulburn said that judges should give juries guidance about matters that are before the court. I say to both the member for Davidson and the member for Goulburn that a judge will instruct a jury as to the law and the evidence in relation to both common law and statute law. The judge will ask the jury, as he or she always does, to apply common sense and their everyday experiences of life to the matters that are before them.

The member for Lake Macquarie referred earlier to the questions that were asked by juries. The jury, bringing to bear its common sense and everyday experience of life as to the law together with the directions of the judge, will consider whether a reasonable person regards the material as offensive in all the circumstances. It is important to note that a jury can be assisted in its determination by expert evidence. Expert witnesses play an important role in all jurisdictions from family law through to criminal law. The prosecutor will examine the expert witness, who then will be cross-examined by counsel for the defence. It is important also to note that the material having been classified by the classification board—other than as refused classification—is a complete defence. New section 91HA provides another defence of innocent production, dissemination or possession.

The judge will provide the jury with guidance with respect to the law and evidence—physical and circumstantial, including expert evidence—regarding the material it should consider to make its decision. I have great faith in the jury system of this State. Juries will make their decisions based on the material before them assisted by the guidance of the judge. An important part of the bill that should not be overlooked is the changes to how sexual assault victims give evidence in court. Currently complainants in sexual offence proceedings are entitled to the benefit of a number of provisions set out in part 5, division 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act. These include providing for closed courts, non-publication orders, restricting cross-examination regarding sexual experience, the complainant not being examined or cross-examined by the accused person, the complainant giving evidence by alternative arrangements such as via closed-circuit television and screens, and the complainant being entitled to have a support person present whilst they give evidence.

These are extremely important protections for any alleged victim of a sexual offence, particularly that they cannot be cross-examined directly by the alleged abuser. This bill extends these protections to witnesses in sexual offence proceedings who allege that the accused has committed a sexual offence against them. It is not possible to distinguish between the difficulties faced by witnesses and complainants in sexual assault trials. The reforms are aimed at encouraging more victims to come forward and report sexual abuse. The Government introduced this bill for those reasons. The Government is committed to minimising the stress caused to victims of sexual assault when giving their evidence.

This bill makes important changes to the criminal law by, firstly, amending the Crimes Act and other laws surrounding child pornography; secondly, allowing the use of random sample evidence in proceedings for a child abuse material offence; and, thirdly, amending the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to extend to witnesses in sexual assault proceedings who allege the accused person has committed a sexual offence against him or her the same protections as those afforded to a complainant in those proceedings. This bill makes far-reaching and welcome changes based on consultation with communities and on the reports of a very important committee. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: I seek the call under Standing Order 65. The Parliamentary Secretary has misunderstood or misquoted what I said in my contribution to the debate on the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010. I seek to read the relevant paragraph onto the record.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Ms Alison Megarrity): Order! I remind the member for Davidson that under Standing Order 65 he may briefly be heard in explanation. However, he cannot introduce new material or debate the matter. With that in mind, he may proceed.

Mr Barry Collier: Where is this from?

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [12.48 p.m.], in explanation: From my speech. I will read the relevant paragraph from my speech onto the record. I said:

As the father of four young children I particularly abhor the activities of people who mistreat or abuse children for their own sexual gratification. All of us surely condemn the sick child abuse behaviour of all such people, unfortunately including the former member for Swansea—or at least I hope we all do. However, the proposed amendments appear to be more about window-dressing than about attacking child abuse in our society. In this respect I note the admission of the current Acting-Speaker, the member for Maitland, that the defence has been used only once and in that case it was unsuccessful. It is questionable as to whether this change will result in different outcomes in child protection. What it does do, however, is potentially increase the bureaucratic process, anxiety levels and potential costs for artists. One can understand the view expressed in the media to the effect that the reform is essentially a politically motivated and cynical initiative driven in a post-Henson furore.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

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

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

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.46 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The Registrar-General Legislation (Amendment and Repeal) Bill 2010 seeks to repeal the Registrar-General Act 1973 and transfer the provisions relating to the Registrar-General to the Real Property Act 1900. Most importantly, this proposed bill will grant the Registrar-General a power of delegation common in most legislation. The Registrar-General Act is an antiquated piece of legislation that in many ways has been made redundant due to the commencement of other legislation over the years. Section 3 (1) of the Registrar-General Act refers to the Registrar-General being appointed by the Governor under the repealed Public Service Act of 1902. Similarly, the section refers to deputy registrars-general being appointed by the Governor.

Appointments to positions in this manner are made redundant by the provisions of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, which governs the appointment of public service staff and officers. It is no longer a requirement that the Governor appoint senior executive officers to public service positions. The Registrar-General Act is silent on the ability of the Registrar-General to delegate his powers. Delegation powers are common in most of today's legislation where there is a senior officer or chief executive officer. In fact, there is a general delegation power in the Public Sector Employment and Management Act for all division and department heads, although it should be noted that the Registrar-General is neither a division nor a department head.

The Registrar-General has requested delegation powers so that he may effectively exercise his powers and functions under the various pieces of legislation that require his services. The Registrar-General may not be available at times, therefore, enabling him to delegate his functions to another person will ensure that the Registrar-General's functions are being performed at all times. There are no significant changes that this bill introduces to the office of the Registrar-General. The amendments are designed to allow the Registrar-General to efficiently discharge his powers and duties more effectively. The office of the Registrar-General is of central importance to the economy of this State. All land dealings and plans are handled by the Registrar-General, through the Land and Property Management Authority. Land dealings comprise a significant portion of this State's economy, and assisting the Registrar-General's office to effectively deal with his duties is an important task. The Registrar-General's most important duty is to maintain the register, which is the heart of the Torrens system. This system enables people to deal with land with the confidence that what is shown on the register is conclusive.

The office of the Registrar-General has been in existence since 1844. At that time all registrations of land grants and all certificates and registers of births, baptisms, marriages and burials were transferred from the Supreme Court to the office of the Registrar-General. In the ensuing years the Registrar-General was called upon to undertake many other functions. On 1 January 1863, when the first Torrens title legislation was introduced, the administration of the Real Property Act came under the Registrar-General's control. During those early years the Companies Act of 1874, and the later Companies Acts of 1899 and 1936, were also administered by the Registrar-General. By the Transfer of Records Act 1923 numerous other registrations such as bills of sale, newspapers and printing presses that were formerly effected at the Supreme Court were transferred to the Registrar-General. In more modern times the Registrar-General has been relieved of some of his earlier functions, in 1962, of registering companies and of registering newspapers and printing presses, in 1973. The function of registering births, deaths and marriages belonged to the Registrar-General until 1 January 1976.

Over the years the diversified functions vested in the Registrar-General have been reduced so that his main responsibilities centre on matters relating to the registration of land. In this regard the Registrar-General is responsible for the administration of a range of Acts, including the Real Property Act, the Conveyancing Act, and the various strata legislation. These Acts each contain provisions relating to the powers of the Registrar-General. Therefore, the need for a separate Registrar-General Act no longer exists. The bill will repeal the Registrar-General Act and do away with the executive appointment of a deputy registrar-general. This bill will insert a new section 4A in the Real Property Act. This new section will provide for the delegation of the functions of the Registrar-General and for the use of the Registrar-General's seal of office.

There are other minor consequential amendments that this bill makes. Firstly, the Registrar-General will now be defined in the Interpretation Act 1967. He is referenced in many other pieces of legislation that do not specifically deal with land, such as the Trustee Act and the Anglican Church of Australia (Bodies Corporate) Act. As a consequence, a definition of his position is required. Secondly, section 5 of the Registrar-General Act provides that a statutory declaration may be made before the Registrar-General or a deputy registrar-general. As that Act will be repealed by this bill, this provision will be reflected in the Oaths Act 1900, which will provide that statutory declarations may be made before the Registrar-General or a deputy registrar-general. An added benefit of this bill is that it will modernise the Real Property Act and bring it into line with other legislation by granting delegation powers to the Registrar-General. This will ensure that the Registrar-General will be able to discharge his duties effectively and efficiently by ensuring that his position is always filled. 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.

[The Assistant-Speaker (Ms Alison Megarrity) left the chair at 12.54 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Kang De Bing and Mrs Kang from Guangdong Province, Zhoaqing City, Secretary of the Department of Transport, guests of the member for Wagga Wagga.

[Question time commenced at 2.21 p.m.]

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. How can the community have any confidence in the Minister for Police when, despite public advice claiming that it is open, Malabar police station in the Minister's electorate was shut, with the signs removed and flags taken down, last year?

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: That speaks volumes about the Opposition's lack of understanding of the New South Wales Police Force. All the good things the police are doing across New South Wales is good news. Crime is falling in 16 out of 17 categories—

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

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: —Operation Vision on the commuter network—

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

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: With all the good things the police are doing for communities across New South Wales, the only thing the Leader of the Opposition can do is resort to trying to get some political advantage in my seat. That shows a fundamental lack of understanding of policing. Policing is not simply about where stations have historically been or where the Leader of the Opposition thinks they should be. Crime is falling in 16 out of 17 crime categories because police are out of stations and doing proactive work, on which I congratulate them.

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

Ms ALISON MEGARRITY: My question is addressed to the Premier. How is the Government improving literacy and numeracy in our schools?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I thank the member for her interest in education. Quality education is one of the greatest things about living in, and in particular having a family in, New South Wales. New South Wales has a wonderful education system. It is a system built on dedication and care, and a system that produces superb results for our children and their parents. New South Wales students consistently lead the nation in national literacy and numeracy testing. The New South Wales Higher School Certificate is one of the most respected high school benchmarks in the world. And we are continuing to build on this excellence. We are setting the highest benchmarks for numeracy and literacy and we are giving teachers the skills they need to develop the next generation of students.

I inform the House that 1,000 teachers a year will be trained under the Targeted Early Numeracy Program, part of the Government's $117.4 million, four-year Best Start initiative. Every kindergarten and year 2 teacher in New South Wales will receive specialist training to help identify and develop students with numeracy difficulties—a good outcome. Schools across the State will receive $1,000 per teacher to provide professional development so they can give extra support to early childhood students. We know early intervention in a child's education works. This program is a two-pronged approach that will set the highest standards for numeracy in our schools and provide teachers with the skills they need to help our children meet those high standards. This year in every primary school in the State more than 60,000 kindergarten students were assessed in their first week at school. The program provides schools with information about its students' needs and works as an early warning system so problems can be identified early and extra help can be provided.

Best Start also includes an extra 200 reading recovery teachers and 44 positions to provide expert literacy and numeracy teachers to support schools. This initiative is in addition to the Smarter Schools National Partnerships Program, a joint initiative of the Commonwealth and State governments that is putting more than $1 billion in new funding into New South Wales schools during the next five years. Literacy and numeracy are the foundations of further learning. We already lead the nation on these critical education criteria. But we can never do enough. So we are working hard to ensure that our children continue to have the skills to learn throughout their school years and throughout their lives to make the most of every opportunity in life. That is what every parent wants for their child.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Roads. Families are being slugged the Government's $500 million motor tax statewide, which is being spent only on Sydney transport, despite two-thirds of road deaths occurring on country roads. Why is the Minister ignoring people outside Sydney, including a Labor member of the Legislative Council, Tony Catanzariti, who said on behalf of so-called Country Labor that the tax is "not something we suggested, I can assure you"?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: What a desperate and feeble attempt by the Leader of The Nationals to distance himself from photo-gate yesterday. He had the wrong photo in the Chamber, he could not read the paper right and now he asks this sort of nonsense. The proposed increase in weight charges ranges from $5 to $30 per year, which works out to be a maximum of less than 60¢ a week for motorists. The changes favour lighter cars that have less of an impact on our roads. Under the changes, exemptions from the increase include motorcyclists and eligible pensioners, and concessions for primary producers will continue to apply. The Opposition has conveniently overlooked that primary producers are already given generous concessions. Primary producers are entitled to concessional rates of motor vehicle tax for vehicles with a gross vehicle mass of up to 4.5 tonnes. The primary producer concession rates are 55 per cent of normal business motor vehicle tax for trucks and trailers, and private registration rates instead of business rates for other light vehicles, excluding buses and motorcycles.

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

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: This represents $23 million of forgone revenue this financial year, which is a saving of $23 million a year for people in the bush.

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

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The question also contains almost a policy from The Nationals. It suggests that The Nationals would only ever spend in the bush what is raised in the bush. They would not see the sense in people in Sydney paying revenue to a government that then provided services in the bush. So there is almost a germ of a policy from The Nationals about containment of revenue collected in the bush for spending in the bush. They will run away from that in a very big hurry.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD: What is the latest information on the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Sydney is a growing international city because it is a great place to be. It is a place where people want to live, work and raise their families—and we want that. If people want to live in Sydney, if families want to stay in Sydney, we will need places for them to live and work. Today we welcome news that New South Wales leads the nation in new housing construction starts, with new construction leaping by 16½ per cent in the December quarter, higher than any other State. That is good economic news for our State.

As our household sizes change, and they are changing, as our technology and our transport change, and they are changing, and as the jobs we do change, and they will, then inevitably our city will change too. We cannot close our eyes and attempt to ignore the unbreakable link between our jobs, housing and the planning of our cities, yet that is exactly what those opposite are attempting to do. The Leader of the Opposition has been attempting to sell something that has as much credibility as one plus one equals three. He has the view, "Oh yes, we can grow the economy, we can grow jobs, we can grow investment, but Sydney won't need to change—oh no. Neighbourhoods will never change. We don't need to plan for growth". The Leader of the Opposition says, "We'll just park everyone and everything on the western fringes of the city. That will be our plan for growth for Sydney." He might be more aptly termed the member for anywhere but Ku-ring-gai. Sydney can grow, as long as it does not grow in his backyard.

How you really protect neighbourhoods, how you really protect green spaces, is that you plan growth so that it occurs close to transport and close to jobs, so it is sustainable and it provides housing choices for Sydneysiders now and in the future. The Leader of the Opposition seems to think that is something that belongs in the former Soviet Union. That thinking is illogical, uneconomical and grossly irresponsible. However, apparently the member for Manly—the fresh wave for Manly—does believe in urban planning. A year ago in this House the member for Manly spoke of a Coalition planning policy—a mythical policy that legend said would revolutionise our planning system. He foretold that it would cut lead times in half, but here we are, 12 months on, and there is no coherent Coalition policy to be seen. A Coalition planning policy is like the Holy Grail—many have searched, but none have found it.

Thankfully for the people of Sydney and for the people of New South Wales, this Government has a keen interest in Sydney's role as the engine room of the Australian economy. This Government has a plan for Sydney's growth: the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. It is a living, contemporary plan, regularly reviewed and updated to meet Sydney's needs and expectations.

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

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Earlier today the Minster for Planning commenced public consultation to review the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. Sydney's population is expected to reach six million by 2036. We already have the longest life expectancy in the English-speaking world. We have an ageing population and falling household sizes. We have a need for some 770,000 additional homes and some 760,000 jobs in Sydney by 2036. Rather than ignore these realities and leave the fate of Sydneysiders to some expansionist march through to the western fringes of the city—

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

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: —the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy focuses on providing jobs closer to where more people are living, providing more jobs, services and homes closer to public transport, and providing people with choices of housing and, most importantly, choices within their own communities. The review includes public consultation, an online forum and stakeholder workshops because we want communities to have their say to ensure that Sydney continues to be one of the greatest places to live, work and raise a family.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Roads. What is the latest information on the Camden Valley Way upgrade?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I thank the member for Camden for his question and for being so alert in the House—most of us on this side of the House expected the next question to come from the Opposition. However, the member for Camden is always on the ball and always advocating for his electorate. One of the key road upgrades in south-western Sydney is the upgrade of Camden Valley Way. The member for Camden has worked extremely hard for these upgrades, and I thank him and acknowledge his hard work. Right now work is taking place to upgrade Camden Valley Way from two lanes to four lanes between Bernera Road and Cowpasture Road. This $60-million project is going well, with work on the upgrade due to finish mid next year. It is great to see the upgrade progressing well, and the member for Camden will be pleased to know that tenders have been called for the construction of the Narellan to Cobbitty section of the Camden Valley Way upgrade.

The next stage of the upgrade will turn Camden Valley Way from a two-lane road into a four-lane divided road between Narellan Road and Cobbitty Road at Harrington Park. The next stage of the project will include an off-road shared pedestrian-cyclist path on the western side, a wide central median between Anderson Road and Cobbitty Road, with landscaping consistent with other upgraded sections of Camden Valley Way and, importantly, bus priority lanes at intersections and new bus bays on each side of Camden Valley Way. This work is part of a combined project to upgrade around 17 kilometres of Camden Valley Way to four lanes. The work on Camden Valley Way is all part of a strategic plan for the south-west. It links into the upgrade of Cowpasture Road and the widening of the F5. This is something the Leader of The Nationals would not know about, whether it comes to south-west Sydney or indeed the rest of the State. He does not know much.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: He cannot even look at pictures properly, as we saw yesterday. Let us examine one of the Opposition's strategic plans for the south-west.

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

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: They have committed to starting construction on the South West Rail Link when they win office—when they win office! I am sure everyone on the other side of the House has their ticket to Barry's little Liberal Party shindig on 28 March in good old working-class Warrawee.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Minister to refer to members by their correct titles.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: With bubbles and quiche to celebrate—wait for it—the last year in Opposition. How arrogant is the Leader of the Opposition, swanning around Sydney doing no work, with no policy and no ideas?

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

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: He is expecting to simply roll off the couch and into government next year. That is why the member for Willoughby and the member for Manly are counting numbers. I recall another little shindig that John Hewson booked—

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

Mr Malcolm Kerr: Point of order: Standing Order 129. The Minister is a long way from Camden.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will hear further from the Minister.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I well recall another little shindig that John Hewson booked at the Wentworth Hotel some years ago for after an election that did not turn out so well for the Liberals.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: Standing Order 129. The question was about Camden, not about fundraising. We are happy to debate fundraising—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will take a point of order, not debate the matter. I advise the Minister to refer to the question before the House.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I will be back to the south-west very shortly, Mr Speaker. Guess who the State Director of the Liberal Party was for that Hewson shindig? It was Barry O'Farrell. To the Leader of the Opposition I say, beware of hubris. He should have learnt by now that pride cometh before the fall.

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

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: For the record, while the Liberals say they will start building the South West Rail Link when they win office, they missed one little detail. The fact is the Government has already started construction on the South West Rail Link. Last time I checked on construction, on 1 March, when I visited the site with the Premier, the member for Camden and the member for Macquarie Fields, construction was underway, and here are the photos.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will not use a prop in the Chamber.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I can guarantee—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I can guarantee that they are of the right place. They are of south-western Sydney. Construction of the South West Rail Link is underway in south-western Sydney. I was there on 1 March with the Premier and the local members. They are pictures of the construction. They are not pictures of Wyangala Dam or Bundarra.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: Standing Order 129—relevance. We want to see the photos. We want to know they are accurate photos.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: This is an accurate photo—Wyangala Dam and Bundarra are 656 kilometres apart!

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The Minister will not use a prop in the Chamber.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: These photos show construction on the South West Rail Link. They are not photos of the remaining 2 per cent of people who support The Nationals. The member for Oxley and the Leader of the Opposition have no strategic plans; in fact, they have no plans at all. All they have are glib one-liners. The New South Wales Government, right now, has the Camden Valley Way upgrade under construction, the Cowpasture Road upgrade under construction, the F5 widening under construction and the South West Rail Link under construction.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Mr Speaker, my question—

[Interruption]
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will ask his question. Government members will remain silent.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: My question is directed to the Minister for Health.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The member for Murrumbidgee will ask his question. I call the member for Blacktown to order for the second time.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Given the Government promised no nursing homes would be sold unless positive outcomes could be guaranteed, but that is clearly not the case, will the Minister now stop the sale of nursing homes, including Carramar, Garrawarra and Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital?

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the member for his question—finally. With regard to State Government nursing homes, the Government is in the process of transferring some homes to the private or non-government sector. This process has been underway for many years, so it is interesting to finally get a question about this issue. I assume it has been prompted by the fact that the good people of Leeton have visited the Parliament today to press their case for Carramar nursing home. I had the opportunity to meet some of the representatives of this delegation. I heard firsthand their concerns, which are understandable. I made it very clear that the Government's approach to this issue is to make sure that in any transfer that takes place the quality of the services will be maintained.

The reason the State Government is transferring State-owned nursing homes to the non-government sector is that the depth of experience of non-government providers makes them well placed to provide quality care to residents. I am advised that NSW Health has completed an interim evaluation of the proposals for the transfer of the State-owned nursing homes and following this evaluation I have announced that Wallsend and Murrumburrah-Harden will not be transferred to the non-government sector. I am now waiting for the completion of the evaluation of the tender proposals for the transfer of the other 10 State Government nursing homes.

However, as I said, our top priority is to make sure that quality care for residents continues, and to ensure there is minimal disruption during any transfer that might take place. These are important guarantees to residents and their families. We understand that these nursing homes provide important services. We are making sure that residents will stay in the local area and that services will not be diminished. I make it very clear that transfer proposals will be accepted only if they deliver positive outcomes for residents, their families, staff and the health system.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading. I have had representations from my local real estate agents raising some issues in relation to the proposed reforms of the Residential Tenancies Act. Could the Minister please explain what the proposed reforms around subletting and alterations, for example, will mean for landlords?

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides of the House will come to order.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: I thank the member for Dubbo for her question about these very important reforms. I am sad to say the question only highlights the Opposition's obvious complete lack of interest in these matters because I do not think the Liberals or The Nationals have ever raised a Fair Trading matter with me during question time. However, I digress. There are more than 644,000 private rental properties in New South Wales. It is entirely possible that almost every adult in New South Wales has been either a tenant or a landlord at some point in their lives. Our plan is to make a balanced law that reflects the way people live and make investment decisions today, not 20 years ago.

The draft Residential Tenancies Bill contains more than 100 amendments. It is the result of an extensive consultation process and I can assure members that public feedback has had a direct influence on the development of proposed reforms, and that includes the views of key stakeholders, including real estate agents. On the issue of subletting, the draft bill continues the current requirements for tenants to seek the landlord's consent to sublet any part of the property. It clarifies, in line with laws in other States and Territories, that the landlord should not unreasonably refuse a request to sublet part of the property, such as a spare room or an unused garage, or to transfer one of the names on the lease—for example, if a loved one who is a co-tenant passes away or a relationship breaks down.
It also strengthens protections for victims of domestic violence. If an apprehended violence order is granted against a partner, his or her name can be taken off the lease and he or she has no legal right to live in that property. I again inform landlords that tenants cannot sublet properties without their consent. If they do, they are in breach of their tenancy and can be served with a notice to quit the premises. At no stage can they sublet a whole property. Currently, many tenants sublet rooms without asking for fear of refusal, which is in nobody's interest. Importantly, landlords will be able to refuse unreasonable requests, for example, when the person being proposed is listed on a tenancy database.

The member for Dubbo asked also about alterations. Let me make it clear for those who are interested in listening—and obviously Opposition members are not—that tenants will still be required to seek a landlord's consent to make alterations, as they do now. Any failure to do so will be in breach of the lease. However, the draft bill proposes that landlords must not unreasonably refuse a request from a tenant to make minor or cosmetic changes, for example, to make the home safer. That might include things such as window safety measures for young children so that they do not fall out of windows, security features such as a peephole or an extra lock on the front door, or installing a grab rail in the bathroom to assist the elderly or tenants with a disability. Currently, such a request can be unreasonably refused, leaving no right of appeal for the tenant.

It has been brought to our attention that some landlords have prevented the installation of window locks. I make no apology for such a reform, which has the potential of saving a child's life. The changes will not give tenants licence to do what they like with a property. Despite the scare campaign from the mob opposite that claims tenants will be able to paint the place purple, cement the garden, or rip out the kitchen, that is simply not true and it is absolutely dishonest. What else would one expect from those opposite? The changes will not give tenants licence to do what they like to a property, despite the scare campaign from those opposite on this issue.

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

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: I invite further questions from members on these proposed reforms so that people across this great State of ours, whether they are property investors, tenants, or real estate agents, receive accurate information and not the blarney—on St Patrick's day or not—spoken by members opposite.

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

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the Raymond Terrace police station?

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: In his time in this place the member for Maitland has demonstrated a genuine interest in the Police portfolio and, in particular, police infrastructure for the people of Maitland. As members would be aware, the Government is all about working hard to support the good men and women in the New South Wales Police Force. As I reminded the House last week, the Government has allocated $160 million for police capital funding in this financial year alone, as part of a policy to continue to support our police and to give them modern infrastructure. Part of this funding will be used to build a brand-new, state-of-the-art, $13 million three-storey police station at Raymond Terrace for the Port Stephens Local Area Command headquarters.

This station will accommodate 118 staff, front-line uniformed officers, the Highway Patrol, prosecutors, court processors, investigators and Crime Management Unit officers, all part of the Government's program to help New South Wales continue to lead the way in the nation's economic recovery through the construction and development of police stations across the State supporting, I am told, up to 3,000 jobs in the construction industry.

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

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The commencement of construction on this police station began on 12 November last year—construction which, along with the member for Maitland, I witnessed firsthand this week when I dropped in to inspect the pouring of concrete for the station's foundations. The station has an expected completion date of early 2011. The Government is proud to equip police in New South Wales with the resources they need to continue producing outstanding results for the people of Maitland. The Government is building real infrastructure, not make-believe infrastructure, not Tonka toy coloured building block infrastructure, the kind about which the Leader of the Opposition was talking when he remarkably called for shadow expressions of interest at a convention centre early this month.

[Interruption]

I am not joking; it is on the Liberal Party website. It is dated Tuesday 2 March 2010 and was written by George Souris, MP, Barry O'Farrell, MP, and Mike Baird, MP—stunning authors. Member should listen, as this is great stuff. The website states:

NSW Liberals & Nationals ... will build a world class convention and exhibition centre in Sydney ...

To ensure construction can start as soon as possible ... the NSW Liberals & Nationals will begin the process immediately by—

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

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: This is worth waiting for. The website states:

... the NSW Liberal & Nationals will begin the process immediately by ... Releasing "shadow" Expressions of Interest—

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

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The Leader of the Opposition lampooned himself further by stating:

I acknowledge starting the process from Opposition is unusual.

Get out of here!

Mr Malcolm Kerr: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Malcolm Kerr: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. This may be conventional but it is not appropriate.

The SPEAKER: Order! The question of the member for Maitland referred specifically to Raymond Terrace police station. While I always extend a degree of latitude, I remind the Minister of the question before the House. The member for Murrumbidgee will cease interjecting.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: I am pleased to inform the House that on 30 June this year I will win the $10 million lottery. I will call for shadow expressions of interest from members of the House to accompany me on a shadow cruise to the Bahamas. The member for Maitland is in, as he wants to celebrate the building of his new police station. I can just see the member for Maitland with his shadow suntan and his shadow Oakleys, lying on the deck of a shadow cruise ship—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. Raymond Terrace is in the seat of Port Stephens. The Minister needs a geography lesson.

The SPEAKER: Order! I again remind the Minister of the question before the House.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The member for Murrumbidgee is right; I accept his point of order. It was all part of sad fantasy, and so is the stuff about the cruise. While Opposition members take shadow expressions of interest and fantasising about being in government—well before their time—we will use real excavators and real trucks in Raymond Terrace to dig real holes and to fill them full of real concrete. The Leader of the Opposition might well be reminded to keep looking over his shoulder for the shadow steamroller that the member for Manly is driving in his direction.

Mr GREG APLIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading. Given that her department is responsible for investigating unfair practices, will she investigate the Minister for Education and Training over the many well-documented cases of schools being ripped off by State government agencies under the Federal Government's Building the Education Revolution?

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Minister has the call.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: How typical! The member for Albury had an opportunity to ask me a question relating to his shadow portfolio of Fair Trading but he asked me a dud question about the Ministry of Education, which is ridiculous and out of order. The member for Albury is out of touch and out of place.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to resume her seat.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: I refer to Standing Order 129. The Minister may not want to answer the question, but her department is responsible for investigating unconscionable business practices.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. The question was in order.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: I just wish the member opposite would actually do his homework. This is a typical question we expect from the Opposition. I have already answered that question in detail and I will leave it at that.

Mr NICK LALICH: My question is addressed to the Minister for Western Sydney. Could the Minister inform the House on the latest information regarding the Western Sydney Parklands?

Mr DAVID BORGER: I thank the member for Cabramatta for his question. Obviously, he has had an ongoing commitment to the parklands and western Sydney generally. One in 10 Australians lives in greater western Sydney and while they may be some distance from the great Sydney beaches, they have an abundance of open space and parks. The greatest of these parks, certainly in size, is the Western Sydney Parklands. The Government has a strong commitment and vision for these parklands.

The Western Sydney Parklands Trust recently acquired 66 hectares of land to ensure the parklands remain one of the largest urban parklands in the world. This accumulation of land is an investment in our kids' future. We are saving green space for future generations. As our population increases it is important that we have our Central Park in western Sydney. The vast Western Sydney Parklands stretch from Liverpool to Leppington, taking in 27 kilometres of walking and cycling tracks. Our new land acquisition shows how serious our Government is to keep alive the commitment for contemporary urban living in western Sydney, unlike those opposite who do not represent western Sydney electorates and may not have had the chance to visit the Western Sydney Parklands.

Mr Steve Whan: Or anywhere in western Sydney.

Mr DAVID BORGER: Or anywhere. The parklands are a great asset of western Sydney. They provide a range of passive and active recreational opportunities for visitors to rival other similar areas in Sydney. The new $4.5 million walking and cycling track allows public access to the entire 27 kilometres of the site. One can ride their horse, walk their dog on a leash, watch fast motor sports, visit a working farm and native wildlife park or just relax and do some bird watching in a fantastic area of native and remnant Cumberland Plain bushland. These established grounds have many picnic shelters and barbecues that the people of western Sydney do not take for granted—these types of places are packed on weekends. The community very much appreciates that the New South Wales Government is able to add to their weekend enjoyment.

People can enjoy healthy outdoor activities at the parklands as well as meet and socialise with family and friends. Each weekend many migrant families in western Sydney are seen picnicking across the length and breadth of this 27-kilometre public space. Active groups also care for the biodiversity of this massive park that surrounds Prospect Reservoir. I encourage all members, particularly the Opposition spokesperson for western Sydney, the member for Ku-ring-gai, to experience what the parklands offer the families of western Sydney. A key part of the trust's program is the restoration of biodiversity and bushland. The trust's strategy includes linking high-quality habitat in core areas, such as around Prospect Reservoir and at Kemps Creek, by creating a new bushland corridor. To date 30,000 trees have been planted in this corridor using local Cumberland Plain species.
The Western Sydney Parklands are a fantastic asset for the people of western Sydney. Many local mayors and councillors are enthusiastic about the parklands because we are taking responsibility for this huge piece of open space by conserving and enhancing it for future generations. We are keen in future to arrange for more agricultural activities in the parklands so that western Sydney can access some of our great fruit and vegetables closer to home. We are looking also at providing agistment at the parklands.

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

Mr DAVID BORGER: There has been great interest and enthusiasm from western Sydney agricultural producers to take up some space within the parklands. Obviously, it is important that we are able to generate additional revenue for the maintenance, conservation and preservation of such a huge land asset—a primary purpose for the establishment of the Western Sydney Parklands Trust. The people of western Sydney are willing to accommodate such a proposal.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr DAVID BORGER: The latest acquisition means that almost 96 per cent of the Western Sydney Parklands is now in public ownership. Over time our challenge must be to provide greater access for the people of western Sydney through additional routes in and out of the site, and to enhance those critical parkland areas that draw huge crowds from the western Sydney suburbs each weekend. We now have an additional 66 hectares of land, which is another step in the growth of this community resource. Western Sydney communities support this growth because whenever I am at the parklands I am reminded of the great investment of the Government in improving the public life of western Sydney families on weekends.

Question time concluded at 3.06 p.m.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: Earlier in question time the Premier, in outlining her new numeracy and literacy policy made a typical statement under the guise of question time. My concern is that a press release has been issued full of typos, full of mistakes, which demonstrates the Government is not capable of delivering a literacy and numeracy program—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. I do not appreciate the Leader of the Opposition abusing the taking of points of order. Government members will come to order.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS, by leave: Yesterday, the Minister for Planning in the other House chose to impugn my reputation by stating that I struck fear into the residents of Rouse Hill. Last week 600 residents of Rouse Hill received a letter from the Department of Planning advising them that their homes may be—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hawkesbury will state how he has been personally impugned.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: The Minister advised the House and placed on the record that I have struck fear into the community. I advise that the letter from the Minister through the Department of Planning is the only thing that struck fear into the community, which suggested their land would be taken from them.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hawkesbury will resume his seat.

Mr Michael Daley tabled, pursuant to section 26 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, variations of the receipts and payments estimates and appropriations for 2009-2010 arising from the provision by the Commonwealth of Specific Purpose Payments in excess of the amounts included in the State's receipts and payments estimates—Department of Industry and Investment—Primary Industries Division, and Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.
The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by fewer than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:

Petition requesting that the rescue helicopter service at Orange be operational 24 hours a day seven days a week and be winch equipped, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition requesting the rebuilding of the Hornsby Kuring-Gai Hospital, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition requesting funding for and the commencement of construction of a new Wagga Wagga Base Hospital in this parliamentary term, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

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

Petition asking that vital equipment be provided immediately to both Tumut Hospital and Batlow Multiple Purpose Service, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition requesting funding for a second respite house and the provision of accessible access to the existing respite premises in the Wagga Wagga electorate, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Petition requesting commencement of the construction of the new bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Petition opposing any reduction in rail services on the South Coast line, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition opposing the relocation of and reduction in staff on the South Coast Illawarra rail line, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting adequate toilet facilities on the corner of the Princes Highway and Sussex Road, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting funding for safety improvements on the Little Forest Road-Princes Highway at Milton, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition asking that priority be given to Federal Auslink funding for upgrading of the Barton Highway to dual carriageway, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition requesting that the proposed closure of rural rail branch lines be rescinded immediately, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

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

Petition requesting improved services on bus route 311, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition asking that TAFE fees be frozen at the 2007 level until 2011, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition requesting fair negotiations with TAFE teachers, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition opposing the proposed expansion of sandstone quarry operations at Champions Quarry in Tuckurimba northern New South Wales, received from Mr Thomas George.

Petition opposing the construction of tourism developments in national parks, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition opposing the Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009 in its entirety, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition opposing any adoption law changes that take away the right of adopted children to be raised by a mother and a father, received from Mr Andrew Fraser.

Petition requesting a 24-hour-a-day police presence in Yamba, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Petition requesting funding for the establishment of a new police station in the central Shoalhaven area, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting that Cowra police station be staffed 24 hours a day, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition calling for allocation of more police resources to rural and regional communities throughout New South Wales, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.

Petition opposing the closure of Berowra Police Station and requesting an increase in the number of officers to man the station, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Petition opposing the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal recommendations to increase retail electricity prices from between 44 per cent and 62 per cent, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

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

Petition requesting that single pensioners in public housing receive the full benefit of recently increased pensions, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Petition requesting the water level be reduced from 1.25 metres to 0.9 metres to allow the manual opening of Burrill Lake to alleviate community concerns and reduce the negative environment effects of the lake closure, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Petition requesting that Cowan households be connected to a mains sewer service, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by more than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:

Petition opposing the sale of Carramar (Leeton Hospital Aged Care Unit), received from Mr Gerard Martin.

Petition opposing any redevelopment of the site bounded by Coogee Bay Road and Arden and Vicar Streets under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, received from Mr Paul Pearce.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [3.09 p.m.]: I move:

That the General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) given by me this day [motor vehicle taxation] have precedence on Thursday 18 March 2010.

I have moved that the motion objecting to Labor's new car tax, of which I gave notice earlier today, take precedence tomorrow because as recently as last Sunday, 1,400 people signed a petition against the tax on the Coalition's website, www.axethecartax.com.au. The petition calls on Kristina Keneally to axe the new big tax on car registrations. Under that monstrous tax on motoring, everyone across New South Wales who drives a medium to large car will be slugged, or taxed to the max, to pay for Labor's Sydney transport election scam. The motion deserves precedence because hardworking families in the State have had enough of this Government. No matter where families turn, this Labor Government rips more money directly out of their pockets. In this instance, regional families are being slugged for transport infrastructure that they very rarely, if ever, will use. That is another reason that the motion deserves to take precedence.

The Premier lives so near to Parliament House that she can ride a bike here. The Treasurer, who proposed the tax, has a taxpayer-funded four-wheel-drive motor vehicle, and is driven by a chauffeur 10 kilometres to his office. Guess who will pay his increase in registration fees? The taxpayer! The Treasurer enjoys options that are not available to most people in the State. It is clear that the Labor Government hates cars and hates motorists, but it is not just four-wheel-drive owners who are being slugged in this State. Owners of regular cars, such as Ford Falcons or Holden Commodores, will be slugged with this big new tax. Mr Speaker, I am sure you would be aware of just how popular family-size vehicles are throughout New South Wales. For example, in regional areas, large cars are part of the everyday lives of people. Country roads are deathtraps, as a result of the Government's failure and incompetence. Two-thirds of road fatalities occur on regional roads.

This motion deserves to take precedence because it is not just motorists in regional areas of New South Wales who are incensed by this $500 million monstrous motoring tax. The idea that car drivers are being asked to foot the bill to pay for million-dollar after million-dollar mistake by the Labor Government is not popular. The Government has wasted $350 million on the CBD metro, and guess who will pay for that—poor old car drivers in New South Wales. The motion should take precedence tomorrow because motorists throughout the State, including those in metropolitan Sydney, look at Labor's dubious record on infrastructure delivery and, quite rightly, question the merits of taxing motorists for projects that probably will never be delivered.

I inform the House that people from the electorates of Maitland, Cessnock, Granville, Marrickville, Mount Druitt—I notice the member for Mount Druitt is present in the Chamber—Mulgoa, Blacktown and Heffron have signed up to our "Axe The Car Tax" petition, which calls for the abolition of this monstrous $500 million motoring tax. The people who have signed the petition are from Labor electorates as well as from all the other regional electorates throughout the State, and they have lost faith in Labor's ability to deliver infrastructure and transport solutions. They are hardworking families from western Sydney and other areas throughout the State who cannot avoid the tax. Hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Prius, are too expensive for hardworking families, and they cannot squeeze their families into micro-bubble cars.

The motion should take precedence tomorrow because the issue is garnering outrage. Recently a man contacted my office and stated, "I am retired and cannot get the health card. This extra tax will force me to sell my LandCruiser." Another constituent wrote to me and stated, "I spend 500 kilometres on open roads at 2.00 a.m. to go fishing." Government members probably do not know much about those lifestyles. The member for East Hills used to have an open mind, but his brain has fallen out. My constituent stated:

I spend 500 kilometres a week on open roads at 2 a.m. to go fishing. No way you will find me in a micro-car on those roo infested roads with all my fishing gear.

People right throughout the State are sick and tired of being taken for granted by the Labor Government. The motion deserves to take precedence tomorrow because 7 million people in the State deserve better than New South Wales Labor and its merry-go-round of transport projects. The people of the State should not be taxed another $30 slug on top of their annual registration fee, bearing in mind the increased cost of living in this State. The motion deserves to be debated tomorrow.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.14 p.m.]: For anyone to seriously suggest in this Chamber that a person may be forced to sell his LandCruiser because of a tax ranging from $5 to $30 a year is absolute lunacy. It illustrates the low level of debate to which the Opposition has descended. The Opposition has resorted to complete scaremongering. The motion and remarks made by the Leader of The Nationals bear no relationship to the facts whatsoever. The Leader of The Nationals made his comments with a serious look on his face. Does he expect anybody to take him or the Opposition seriously in relation to this motion?

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: The remarks of the Leader of The Nationals exemplify the lunatic-type approach to politics that the Opposition has been peddling throughout the State, yet members opposite expect people to support them. The Opposition comes up with spurious claims and expects people to believe them. The increase will range from $5 to $30 a year, and the Leader of The Nationals expects us to believe that someone has said, "I cannot afford my LandCruiser because of a $5 to $30 a year increase." That is absolute nonsense.

The Metropolitan Transport Plan represents $50.2 billion in expenditure over the next 10 years. As part of the plan, there has been a small increase in the motor vehicle weight charge—I emphasise "small increase"—to assist in funding new public transport projects that will come into effect in July this year. The Metropolitan Transport Plan is comprehensive and it will deliver benefits for commuters and motorists, including country motorists. As has been said time and time again, formulation of the Metropolitan Transport Plan will involve consultation with regional communities over coming months. The planning team will formulate localised regional plans that will be released towards the middle of this year. If the Opposition wants to do something constructive, it should put in a submission to those who will be preparing localised regional plans.

The increase in the vehicle weight charge will apply to all motorists across the State and will mean an increase ranging from—listen to this—$5 to $30 a year, which works out to be less than 60¢ a week. The Leader of The Nationals is suggesting that people are saying, "I am going to sell my car. There is no way I can afford an extra 60¢ a week. There is no way I will be able to afford to drive my motor vehicle." The Opposition is complaining about an extra 60¢ a week. Is the Leader of The Nationals serious? The Leader of The Nationals is wasting the time of the House by debating this issue.

Let me examine what the Metropolitan Transport Plan will accomplish. Roads are the backbone of the New South Wales and Australian economies. The State's road network serves well the people of New South Wales, thanks to the continued investment by the New South Wales Government. I will briefly describe what the Government proposes to undertake across the network.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 176, which states:

A Member cannot vote on any question in which the Member has a direct pecuniary interest not held in common with other citizens of the State.

The Leader of the House for the Government has a taxpayer-funded car.

The SPEAKER: Order! If I upheld that point of order, we would be going home early.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: The plan provides for upgrading of connecting roads and roads that service metropolitan areas across the State over the next five years. By 2014 a total of $3.6 billion will be invested in the continual upgrading of the Pacific Highway between Hexham and the Queensland border. That is $3.6 billion, not $3.6 million. Right now there is not a single road in this country that is not having more government funding invested in it. The $560 million Great Western Highway upgrade includes widening the highway to four lanes between Emu Plains and Katoomba. In 2009-10 more than $115 million will be allocated towards the Great Western Highway upgrade and a further $7.5 million will be allocated for maintenance. Our Government will continue to work cooperatively with the Federal Government to upgrade the Great Western Highway.

In the May 2009 budget, the Federal Government announced the allocation of $1.45 billion from the Building Australia Fund to build the Hunter Expressway, with the State Government providing $200 million. Let us be serious: this is Parliament, not kindergarten. Debating the motion for which the Leader of The Nationals has sought precedence tomorrow would be to reduce this Parliament to a kindergarten. The Government opposes the motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.27 p.m.]: My motion must be accorded priority because it is imperative that the House deal with the New South Wales Opposition's determination to outsource thousands of New South Wales jobs. It is bad enough that members opposite constantly talk down New South Wales, and they sing the praises of other States to our detriment. Now they say that a Coalition government, if they are successfully elected, will outsource thousands and thousands of New South Wales jobs. We need to deal with that as a matter of priority and urgency.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [3.28 p.m.]: My motion is about the State Labor Government's approach to the New South Wales community. It is about Premier Lights-Cameras-No Action Keneally, and the fact that she has added to that title; her new title is Premier Lights-Cameras-No Action-Ignore the Community Keneally. It is crucial that a leader has the trust of the community and reciprocates every aspect of trust with the community. However, the New South Wales community no longer trusts the Premier because of a litany of actions by her that have broken promises to the New South Wales community.

Communities across New South Wales feel that this Government is not listening and does not care. Social housing is an example of where a Government can utterly fail. For 15 years this Government has ignored the need for social housing. On behalf of the Liberals-Nationals in New South Wales I support getting public housing in place and looking after those who need support from government and the community. But for 15 years this State Labor Government has done nothing and now it is steamrolling over local communities under the guise of the Federal funding package and ignoring communities and local councils.

Premier Keneally promised that the Government would listen to the community in this process but communities across the State—Kiama, Swansea, Charlestown, Maitland—feel they are no longer being listened to. The Lake Macquarie Council Senior Development Planner, Elizabeth Lambert, said of the Charlestown development, "This development would appear to have been designed to fail and will lessen the occupants' quality of life." That is the message the Opposition gets all across this State. I have been at numerous public meetings. Everywhere we go the Liberals-Nationals listen to the community and say there is absolutely no reason why the Premier had to remove their voice in the process or remove the development control plans that they have established through their councils.

Now there is another broken promise because the Premier also said that the process would only last as long as the Federal stimulus money was available. A few weeks ago the Premier announced that she is now looking at extending the steamrolling over local communities program well beyond the end of the Federal stimulus package. This Government will not listen to the community and is continually breaking promises, compliments of our lights-camera-no action Premier. It is similar regarding schooling across the State. The Liberals and The Nationals welcome money being spent on our schools but we want it spent wisely. After 15 years of a State Labor Government it is ludicrous that it has spent absolutely nothing on maintenance or capital works in schools. What would have been golden opportunities have been killed by State Labor, and it has not ensured that the moneys are being spent wisely.

I will turn to property rights, which is sacred to people right across the Western World. Kristina Keneally is our Premier from Ohio. I thought maybe in Ohio property rights can be taken away so I looked at section 1.01 of the Ohio Constitution which states, "All men are, by nature, free and independent"—

Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order—

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Don't you want to listen? You want to go back to Wollongong and do some more shifty deals!

Ms Noreen Hay: The member for Wakehurst should learn that she is the Premier of New South Wales and an Australian citizen. He does not like it because she has got him rattled. Get your act together!

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

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I looked for reasons why she is so prepared to breach faith. I looked at where she came from and thought maybe it happened in Ohio all the time, but it does not. Section 1.01 of the Ohio Constitution states:

All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights … acquiring, possessing and protecting property …

Instead, New South Wales has a proposal to steal people's homes and onsell them to developers. Property is protected in Ohio, it should be protected in New South Wales. The message to Kristina Keneally is, do not proceed to steal people's homes!

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

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.43 p.m.]: I move:

That this House condemns the Opposition's plan to outsource thousands of New South Wales jobs.

The cat is now out of the bag. The ugly truth of that lot on the other side has revealed itself yet again. The Leader of the Opposition plans to sack workers. If he ever gets the opportunity to sit on the Treasury benches we should all be very worried. His secret scheme has been revealed.

Mr Mike Baird: Who wrote this?

Ms NOREEN HAY: We could question who revealed it, of course. We could suggest it was someone from outside. We could suggest that maybe someone found out about it. But no, it was revealed by one of his shadow Ministers in the other place who he is now saying is making things up.

Mr Mike Baird: You are making things up.

Ms NOREEN HAY: I am quoting the Opposition's words. If they keep throwing them around, I will quote them. If members opposite are suggesting that their own shadow Minister has not got his act together, so be it.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order. I cannot hear the member for Wollongong. I am sure that Hansard cannot hear the member either.

Ms NOREEN HAY: Not only will the Leader of the Opposition sack New South Wales workers; he plans to send our jobs overseas. I remind the House that it is not the first time that members opposite have threatened to sack workers. Before the last State election they were going to sack 20,000 public servants.

Mr Richard Amery: It started off at 29,000.

Ms NOREEN HAY: I am corrected by my colleague. They were going to sack 29,000, but thought that proposition might be a bit difficult for them with the election and so downsized the sacking of public servants to 20,000. Needless to say, it did not help them. It is the modus operandi of the Opposition to threaten workers' jobs. That is what it does. Now it is not just about sacking workers and getting rid of jobs. I still recall that the last time the Opposition was in government it sacked a load of teachers, closed hospitals and put health workers out of work. Now the idea of the Opposition is to send jobs overseas. Opposition members not only talk down New South Wales continuously—and we are doing very well, according to the statistics, in spite of those people—they are always coming in here promoting another State. They will export our jobs overseas should they ever be elected, which I for one—contrary to what they might think—doubt. I do not believe that the New South Wales community is fooled by the Opposition for one second.

Mr Thomas George: What about the 400 jobs in the North Coast Area Health Service?

Ms NOREEN HAY: What about when the Opposition closed hospitals? Think back to that. What about when they left a big hole where there was going to be a cancer unit for the people of Wollongong? We are not silly. We have good memories of the Opposition in government. What an act of treachery on the hardworking families of New South Wales the Opposition presents. What it proposes is too risky for the community to trust, and a kick in the guts for this State's businesses.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Lismore to order. He knows better than to behave in such a manner.

Ms NOREEN HAY: Let us go through the facts. The headline on page 30 of the Australian newspaper on 16 March was:

Coalition to increase outsourcing.

Let me quote from Fran Foo's story:

The NSW Opposition would increase IT outsourcing activities. Financial management spokesman Greg Pearce said the coalition was open to the idea of outsourcing.

It goes on exposing in black and white the Opposition leader's secret plan to sack workers across New South Wales. Let me quote the Opposition IT spokesman the Hon. Greg Pearce directly from the article:

Clearly we've got to do more outsourcing. Offshoring raises all sorts of political concerns. We are looking at what we can do with outsourcing.

As I said, the cat is out of the bag. New South Wales jobs are to go offshore under Barry O'Farrell. This is the official policy as set out by the Opposition's spokesperson on this issue. In recent months we have seen a lot of positive economic news for New South Wales. Just last week we saw that New South Wales was the only State to record a fall in unemployment. The unemployment rate for New South Wales for the month of February 2010 was 5.4 per cent. This was a decrease of 0.2 per cent compared with the figure for January. This is good news for New South Wales families. Members opposite may well laugh—they do not want to hear good news for New South Wales. I am not sure whom they represent. The bad news is that the Leader of the Opposition wants to take an axe to New South Wales jobs. While the Keneally Government's No. 1 priority is supporting jobs in this great State, the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that his priority is to sack people and, worse, to send our jobs overseas. Let me repeat the policy:

Clearly we've got to do more outsourcing. Offshoring raises all sorts of political concerns.

That is the Opposition policy: outsourcing jobs and off-shoring them. What a callous phrase to describe what they want to do to New South Wales workers. It gets worse for the Leader of the Opposition. In the other place yesterday afternoon in question time the Treasurer gave the Opposition's IT spokesperson the chance to clarify his position. Maybe it was a horrible misquote, maybe a slip of the tongue. Would a Liberal government really sack IT workers? Would a Liberal government really send New South Wales jobs overseas? Let me quote from Hansard to clear it up once and for all:

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Hon. Greg Pearce has exposed Barry O'Farrell's hidden policy to outsource New South Wales jobs offshore—I do not know to where but clearly China is on the agenda because Barry has just been over there on a one-man holiday. I quote Fran Foo from today's the Australian:

The NSW Opposition would increase IT outsourcing activities. Financial management spokesman Greg Pearce said—

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [3.49 p.m.]: It is quite incredible that the member for Wollongong stood up to talk about jobs. Not only did we not hear about any matters of substance or any concrete steps that this Government has taken to support businesses that are trying to make a living, and mums and dads that are trying to make a living from those businesses, but also she forgot to mention a business in her electorate. I will come to that. I move:

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

this House condemns the Government's performance regarding employment in New South Wales and notes its hypocrisy given plans to reduce 130 data centres to 2.

The member spoke about jobs but I remind her there is a company in her electorate called Poppets Schoolwear, which is run by a mother and daughter who are trying to earn a living by making school uniforms. What happened to them? The woman running the business said the amount of payroll tax she paid last financial year was the equivalent of wages and benefits for eight full-time workers. Unfortunately, that business had to retrench 47 of its 76 staff because the business could not compete. The member for Wollongong talks about jobs but what did she do to help Poppets? This business in her own electorate was ignored by the Labor Government. The Government did nothing. I went down there and met with the workers. I understand what they are trying to achieve.

It is businesses like Poppets that are going to take this economy forward but unfortunately the Labor Government has left them alone and not supported them. All those jobs have gone in the member's electorate because of a lack of action by this Labor Government. It is incredible that the member for Wollongong can talk about jobs. Then the member raised the issue of outsourcing. The Government is outsourcing its trains to China. It is buying police hats that do not fit from China. The Government cannot criticise us for talking about outsourcing; the Government is outsourcing.

Ms Noreen Hay: So you admit it?

Mr MIKE BAIRD: No, my colleague will talk about outsourcing. The Government is outsourcing; do not be so hypocritical. I want to talk about jobs because the record of this Government is incredibly poor. We remember very well the claims—we hear them all the time—that the Government's infrastructure plans will support 160,000 jobs. Does the member agree with that?

Ms Noreen Hay: What is your plan? Tell us.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: In relation to this stupid, fictitious and spin-driven concept of 160,000 jobs, what did Robert Carling say?

Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order: The motion we are debating—

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I amended it. There is no point of order.

Ms Noreen Hay: The Deputy-Speaker will decide that. Sit down!

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I will hear further from the member for Wollongong on the point of order.

Ms Noreen Hay: I suggest the member for Manly is addressing neither the leave of the motion nor his amendment.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The amendment specifically refers to employment.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: Robert Carling, a former senior official with Treasury, said:

The statement that infrastructure spending will "support up to 160,000 jobs" is an unsourced, unsubstantiated assertion … For my part, I am willing to concede that the infrastructure spending and associated tripe will help support 70 jobs—those of the Labor members of the NSW Parliament.

It gets better, because we can refer to the speech made by the Premier in relation to jobs. We are talking about jobs in this State. The Premier's speech relating to the budget was reviewed and the information was that notes were provided by Treasury. I have to say there may not have been notes because the Government is very good at blaming public servants. Even if members of Treasury did provide notes my guess is it was probably Eric Roozendaal or the Treasurer at the time who wrote the comments—whoever was in the job, because they rotate the Treasurer's portfolio on the Government benches. You can imagine Eric sitting down with the speech draft and getting out his pen.

The Premier made the comment that it was the largest ever infrastructure investment in a single year by the New South Wales Government. That is what the Premier was going to say in the budget speech. It was going to support jobs such as the 300 jobs being created in the building of Orange hospital. Next to the words "300 jobs" is the notation "can't verify". Was that Eric's note, or whose was it? Then there was reference to 2,000 jobs with a notation next to it that it might actually be only 400 jobs. The word "generated" is crossed out and "supported" substituted. It goes on. The speech refers to the metro as a network that will in time spread rapid underground transit links across Sydney. The notes refer to "a long time".

Ms Noreen Hay: You are just waffling to use up time.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: No, this is absolutely relevant. The speech then says it also builds on the Government's landmark commitment to create 6,000 cadetships and apprenticeships. The note next to that says, "can't verify". The member for Wollongong talks about the Government creating jobs but there is nothing to substantiate her comments. What does it mean? The Government's approach has led to the very clear situation that unemployment in New South Wales over the past five years has been higher than the national average.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The Government puts out spin pretending it is trying to do something about jobs but the truth is the Government is doing nothing about jobs, to the point where Treasury says it cannot verify the claims made in the Premier's speech on the budget.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: The "State of the States" report ranks the economic performance of this Government. That is compiled by an independent body, not by me. Where did New South Wales come? I will let the member for Wollongong answer. New South Wales came last on every material indicator. That is the truth. The reason this State is in such a mess is that the Government plays with numbers. It creates spin and makes speeches about creating jobs that do not exist. The member for Wollongong has a hide to stand here today and talk about this Government supporting jobs, particularly when Poppets in the member's own electorate has lost all those jobs and the Government did nothing about it. That is a snapshot of the economy. Businesses such as Poppets take this State forward but the Labor Government did nothing to help it.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [3.56 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the member for Wollongong condemning the Opposition for its public comments, which have been highlighted in the Australian newspaper. It is not something the member for Wollongong has made up but something published in a respectable newspaper. I commend the Australian for bringing forward something to do with Opposition policy. The Opposition has been confronted with a motion by the Government accusing it of having a hidden agenda to get rid of information technology [IT] jobs. One would have thought there would be a denial from the Opposition spokesman. One would have thought the Opposition would have said that that was not its policy and the comments made by Mr Pearce were incorrect or were incorrectly reported.

There was no such denial and no contrary policy has been put forward by the Opposition. Why is that the case? Former Premier Nick Greiner, in addressing the shadow Cabinet some time ago, gave it some strategic advice. From his point of view he has been successful. He is the only Liberal leader to win an election in this State since 1965. He said to the shadow Cabinet, "Do not outline your policies. Do not outline what you are going to do in government until you get there." In other words, do not expose yourself to any public scrutiny of your policy. Why would he say that? It is because it has worked so well in the past. He came to office in 1988 saying it was time for a change that was needed to clean up New South Wales.

Did he tell the people before the 1988 election that he would shed something like 10,000 jobs from Sydney Water? No. I remember seeing a Sydney Morning Herald article in which the job losses in the railways were put at something like 16,000. Did he tell the people who worked just down the road from here at the Government Printing Office—about 500 of them I understand—that he was going to close that office? He did it by way of a press release. There were no negotiations with staff; they were simply sacked. There was also the much-touted policy that his Government would sack 2,500 teachers, which was not promised before the 1988 election. He did not promise that and he did not say it. He waited until he got into government. That is what the Opposition is all about now. I hope that, with a year to go until the election, the Australian and the media in general start asking Opposition members about the Opposition's jobs policy. They have not denied the allegations put to them by the Government today, they have not denied the article in the Australian, and they have not countered with a policy that says they are not going to outsource IT and the like.

In response to the comments of the member for Manly about the state of the economy I say that the Liberal-Nationals Coalition has no policy. The member for Manly did not deny any of the earlier statements that were made but he made plenty of personal attacks against the member for Wollongong. The member for Manly concentrated in his speech on one business in Wollongong and said nothing about his general outsourcing policy. I am not saying that the jobs in that company are not important, but it is not the only company in New South Wales. One would have thought he would have made a general reference to his own job creation policy.

This Government has reported, through official figures, that unemployment is down, employment is up, economic growth has increased, and retail sales have increased. Today the Premier told the House that home building in New South Wales is at the highest rate of any State in Australia. Let me put those economic indicators to one side and refute the nonsense being put to us today by the member for Manly. I refute the comments that some Ministers made: the Opposition does have a policy. Its policy is not to announce any policy before the next election. It has policies and ideas all right, but it will not bring out those policies or ideas until after the next election. It will go around telling everyone that it has won the election and Opposition members will attend a celebratory dinner to talk about their last year in opposition. This boastful Opposition has no policies but it does have something in its back pocket. New South Wales workers should remember the old saying of George Santayana, a philosopher from the last century, who said:

He who forgets the past is bound to relive it.

If at the next election the workers of New South Wales forget what Greiner did in the lead-up to the 1988 election, electorates and workers in New South Wales are bound to relive it.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [4.01 p.m.]: Unemployment in New South Wales has been consistently above the Australian average. For 53 of the past 54 months unemployment in New South Wales has been higher than the Australian average.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! While we all appreciate the enthusiasm of the member for Shellharbour, she will come to order. The member for Davidson has the call.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: The uncertainty and the mismanagement created by this State Labor Government is the main reason for that. It has resulted in the loss of employment in this State and a loss of infrastructure projects, the most glaring of which, of late, has been the CBD metro project, which has been mismanaged to the extent of one-third of a billion dollars, and counting. This State has lost major events, including to other States, which has meant the loss of jobs. This State has lost jobs to overseas. Let us look at a few recent examples. In the context of another train project going off the rails, last week a $3.6 billion contract for the next generation of Chinese-made trains was reported as running five months late, and further undermined by a lack of confidence. The week before, Boeing shut the Sydney plant, with a loss of 350 jobs. A couple of weeks before that Chesty Bond turned its back on Australia, with the loss of 1,200 employees—from this State—Wentworthville, Cessnock and Wollongong, lost to China.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: We have only the Government of New South Wales to thank for that. Wollongong will lose as a result. Last year there were plenty of other examples, including the textile manufacturer who condemned the Government for overlooking local companies in awarding a multimillion-dollar upholstery contract for 600 new train carriages.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call member for Shellharbour to order.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: I have many more examples. This Government is attempting to prop up jobs by employing more bureaucratic and highly paid backroom jobs. In only six months last year 180 backroom jobs cost over $20 million a year.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Shellharbour will come to order, or I will call her to order for the second time.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: Those valuable taxpayers' funds could have been used to employ hundreds more nurses, teachers, police officers and other desperately needed front-line staff. I must highlight that one of those jobs was that of a manager of governance and risk management in the Department of Services, Technology and Administration, with an annual remuneration package of $152,000 plus. The Government needs more governance in information technology because it has been dreadfully mismanaged. The Auditor-General has repeatedly highlighted the information technology area as one in which there are real problems in properly managing and delivering projects.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wollongong will have an opportunity to reply to the debate.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: That was highlighted in volume 7 of the Auditor-General's November 2009 report. The Government's appalling management of information technology projects continues to impact adversely on this State's finances and, ultimately, on the hip pockets of taxpayers and every resident in New South Wales. The Government has to have better processes and better governance, including project management and scoping work, before commencing the development of information technology projects. I note that I was quoted to that effect in an article in the Australian. I also point out that the Government, and the member for Wollongong in particular, deceptively and selectively quoted from the article in the Australian on the Government's plan to close 130 government data centres and replace them with two facilities. The Government, which kicked an own goal, needs to come clean with its own secret Labor plan to slash information technology staff. The journalist, Fran Foo, stated:

From the list of 17 submissions from various consortiums, a request for tender was meant to be sent to a short list of participants by the first quarter of 2010.

Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order: The member said that I was deceitful. The article in the Australian states that there is an increase in outsourcing.

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

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: The Government has kept mum on the progress of this exercise. It first announced it in October 2008. Nothing happened for 12 months and it again announced it in October 2009. Outsourcing is a legitimate consideration in how we best consider managing public resources. Under this Government outsourcing occurs all the time. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition supports outsourcing within New South Wales. We support jobs in New South Wales.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.06 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Mount Druitt for his contribution to debate on this priority motion as I know he is interested in protecting local jobs and jobs within New South Wales. While the member for Shellharbour did not contribute to debate on this motion, I acknowledge her commitment to protecting jobs. All Government members want to create and protect jobs, and help families in New South Wales. An Opposition spokesperson in the other place made the comment—which has not been denied in debate today—that jobs in New South Wales would be outsourced—

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: In New South Wales.

Mrs NOREEN HAY: Overseas. Everything that Opposition members do goes overseas. I forgive the member for Manly for what he said because he knows not what he does. The speech of the member for Davidson was in much the same vein. The member for Davidson agreed that if information technology workers were paid higher salaries the Government should get rid of them and that workers in New South Wales should not be properly remunerated. All members know what this Liberal-Nationals Coalition wants to do with jobs. Before the last election it said that it would sack 29,000 workers. Twelve months before the next election it is talking again about sacking workers. What is it with the lot opposite?

Mr Daryl Maguire: We are going to sack you.

Mrs NOREEN HAY: The member for Wagga Wagga will not get a chance to sack me. It would take a better man than he is to get rid of me. In order to clear this up once and for all I will quote from Hansard, which states:

The Hon. Greg Pearce has exposed Barry O'Farrell's hidden policy to outsource New South Wales jobs offshore—I do not know to where but clearly China is on the agenda because Barry has just been over there on a one-man holiday. I quote Fran Foo from today's the Australian:

The NSW Opposition would increase IT outsourcing activities. Financial management spokesman Greg Pearce said—

Again I quote Hansard:

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Absolutely.

This is a rock solid commitment from the Liberals: New South Wales jobs will go overseas. The Leader of the Opposition's secret plan has been exposed. The Keneally Government supports jobs. The Liberals want to sack workers and ship New South Wales jobs offshore. The only difference is that last time the Coalition was not sending jobs offshore, but it might have been stopping people coming in. I am pleased to note that since March 2009 more than 66,000 additional jobs have been created. Guess where?

Mr Daryl Maguire: Queensland!

Ms NOREEN HAY: No, New South Wales. I know the Opposition would like to talk up Queensland, but we talk up New South Wales. An additional 66,000 jobs have been created in New South Wales. On a trend basis, employment in New South Wales has increased for 11 consecutive months. Did the member for Davidson hear that? That is good news for New South Wales families and businesses. The bad news is that this State's families and businesses now have to contemplate a policy—if the Coalition ever has a policy, and this is not one—from the Coalition to sack workers and send our jobs overseas. I have successfully defended and represented jobs in my electorate. For 12 years the former Federal Coalition Government ripped money out of the New South Wales health system, robbed this State of $3 billion in GST and did us over at every opportunity. Where was the member for Manly when the people of Wollongong sought help on a host of job fronts?

Mr Mike Baird: I went down there.

Ms NOREEN HAY: He was silent. We asked those opposite to telephone their mates in Canberra because they had ravaged funding to this State for jobs, investment, health, education and schools. The past few years of the former Federal Government demonstrates how it managed this State while that lot opposite sat quietly, mouths shut, saying nothing. Apparently, as long as whatever the Liberals-Nationals do is negative, that is all right because they promote other States ahead of New South Wales.

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 185 applied.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Government Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given, by leave.

The SPEAKER: The House will now proceed to private members' statements.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [4.28 p.m.]: I advise the House of the terrible experiences of a local woman who battled the final stages of lung cancer at the hands of the New South Wales Labor Government—on this occasion, through Tomaree Community Hospital. I preface my remarks by saying that, against the odds, the staff at Tomaree Community Hospital do a terrific job. The Tomaree Community Hospital is under incredible stress and is desperately in need of adequate funding and resources from the State Government. The terrible experience of the Maudson family is indisputable evidence of that fact. In December last year 87-year-old Elizabeth Wilson, who was suffering from the final stages of lung cancer, was sent home from the Calvary Mater Hospital in Newcastle. Her family was told that she had just weeks to live.

Towards the end of December Mrs Wilson's son, Peter Maudson, and his wife, Lyn, took her to the palliative care unit at Tomaree Community Hospital. Two days before Christmas she was sent home. The Maudson family say that they were told there were no beds available for their dying mother. On Boxing Day Mrs Wilson's condition deteriorated significantly, and her desperate family took her back to Tomaree Community Hospital. On New Year's Eve Mrs Wilson once again was discharged from hospital. However, because her son, Peter, was unable to pick her up, Mrs Wilson was sent home in a cab into the care of her disabled son. On the following day Mrs Wilson stopped breathing. Greatly distressed, her family called an ambulance, which took her back to Tomaree Community Hospital, where she died five days later.

Needless to say, the Maudson family are horrified, disgusted and deeply distressed by the treatment their mother experienced in her final days. It is hard to imagine what they must have been going through at that time, seeing their critically ill mother treated in such a way. Mrs Wilson and her family are more helpless victims of the State's struggling health service. The staff simply cannot be blamed for this; this is the fault of a Government that has mismanaged and starved this health system to the point where staff across New South Wales constantly struggle to do their job properly. A formal complaint has been made to the Health Care Complaints Commission. I note recent media reports which have announced that the Hunter New England Area Health Service has since met with the Maudson family and apologised for any distress caused while Mrs Wilson was in the service's care. To quote the ABC, the health service says "it conducted a review into the patient's case and spoke to staff who may have been involved with her treatment". I quote:

Hunter Health says to ensure appropriate discharge processes are in place, staff will undertake education with a specific focus on communication with family members.

Again, this is the result of a systematic problem within the entire health system, and some superficial training of staff will not help. Once again, this Government is passing the buck and using its staff as scapegoats. The New South Wales Labor Government should be taking responsibility and it should apologise. That apology from the health service will go some way to providing the Maudson family with some closure, but it will never make up for the distress and heartache they endured in their mother's dying days. But the Maudson family has told me that they do not just want an apology. They have spoken out about this case because they want to ensure that this does not happen to anyone else. They do not want to read in the papers about another family going through the same trauma.

I have written to the Minister demanding an explanation. I have not yet received a response but I eagerly look forward to seeing how this Government will spin its way out of it. But the Maudsons, people in the wider Tomaree community—many of whom have contacted me in disgust about the case—and I want a commitment from this Government to ensure that this does not happen again. Will the New South Wales Labor Government invest more in the Tomaree Community Hospital? Of the $4 million budget allocated to Tomaree Community Hospital last year, almost one-quarter was spent on ambulances transferring patients away from the hospital to other hospitals for treatment, as well as X-ray services. Would that money not be better spent upgrading services and equipment at the hospital, taking pressure off the John Hunter, Calvary Mater and Maitland hospitals?

Over the Christmas break, on certain days Tomaree Community Hospital was rated one of the busiest emergency departments in the Hunter, second only to John Hunter Hospital. Surely that warrants an upgrade to the hospital—at least more than the locum doctor service currently available. Sadly, despite cases such as that of Mrs Wilson, the New South Wales Labor Government continues to spruik services at the hospital as "adequate". When will it learn?

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [4.33 p.m.]: Today I pay tribute to Bill Hoffman, a beef cattle officer based at Casino, who last Friday brought to an end his 37 years with Industry and Investment NSW, formerly the Department of Primary Industries and other names associated with the department in the past. For the past 26 years Bill has been based at Casino as the cattle officer with Industry and Investment NSW. He has decided to call it a day. It is a sad day for the beef cattle industry, but no doubt his expertise will not be lost to the industry. I am sure many industry organisations will consult Bill in the future because he has, as I said, 37 years of experience.

Bill has been described as one of the most widely known and respected identities in North Coast agriculture. During his 37 years with the agriculture department he has had a huge impact on the beef industry. He has worked closely with producers to bring the latest and most effective techniques and technologies into practice, not only in the Northern Rivers but also throughout the cattle industry in Australia. He has stood with local producers and producers generally over the past four decades through highs and lows, and droughts and floods, and he has seen the lowest cattle prices as well as prices that have been well received by producers.

I remember Bill and Jayne coming to Casino some 26 years ago, and they have become personal friends. Bill followed Gary Want, who now is the Orange-based manager of extensive livestock industry development. Gary paid tribute to Bill as he was a major advocate for, and played a major role in, the introduction into the North Coast environment of the cattle cross-breeding program. I well remember when Bill and the department started to run trials in Grafton. People could not believe that in an area with predominantly hereford and angus cattle the department would spend so much time and money on a cross-breeding program using brahman females to produce F1 females to be the basis of a herd. Nevertheless, that is history. The program has continued, and there would not be many herds now that do not have a cross-breeding fusion. That was brought about by the leadership of Bill Hoffman.

For 11 years Bill has put together Beef News, which has been useful to beef producers not only on the North Coast but across the industry. I noticed in this month's news reference to a reunion of the North Coast beef team from 2007. Bill said he can now join the team, which comprises Roger Barlow, Helen Hearnshaw, Tony Gaudron, Brian Sundstrom and Phil Doyle. Those names are synonymous with the beef cattle industry and their contribution as livestock officers with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Primary Industries and now Industry and Investment NSW. I am sure Bill has reflected on his 37 years in the industry. He has always received the support of Jayne and his two children, Stuart and Ashley. He can look back with great pride. He will always be remembered for his contribution to the beef cattle industry. Bill has just turned 60. I am sure he will enjoy his retirement with his family. All I ask is that God continues to bless Bill and Jayne and that Bill is successful in his retirement.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock) [4.38 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of members a function I attended on Saturday night for the Sportsman of the Year Awards at Cessnock Leagues Club. I congratulate the people who brought the function together: Mr Bruce Wilson, the Editor of the Cessnock Advertiser, the Cessnock Supporters club and Wine Country Rotary Club. Ray Nicholson was in attendance, along with the Rotarians. They put together a wonderful function where we celebrated the opportunities and the achievements of many sportspeople across the Cessnock electorate. Such events provide a wonderful opportunity to highlight and celebrate the great performances of local sports men, women, boys and girls across the Cessnock area.

I understand that the finalists on the night represented 22 sports and their collective results boast five international, five national, eight State and six local titles over the past 12 months. These achievements were exceptional and are a testament to the great depth of sporting talent in the Cessnock community. It was wonderful to see the awards recognise not only the athletes but also the necessary support people who assist them to the pinnacle of their achievements: the coaches, trainers, officials and managers. Those roles are often performed by volunteers and provide the backbone for the sporting roles they follow throughout the region and across Australia. I also mention the parents who behind the scenes fund, transport and nurture the athletes on the road to success. The youth in the community of Cessnock are often labelled wayward but it was great to see them acknowledged for their roles.

Sports represented at the night were many and varied, for example, the World Masters Games. The junior winner was Josh Macdonald for motorcycling. The sports administrator award went to Diane Partridge in masters swimming. The team award went to Cessnock Archery Club. It was wonderful to see the faces of the recipients of those awards. A special honour award was made to Kevin O'Neill, a soccer stalwart who has represented Australia numerous times in international soccer and is a legend in the community. It is vital to acknowledge and promote the achievements of these athletes. Sport plays an important role in providing a healthy and positive environment for young people to engage each other and it strengthens our communities. New South Wales is committed to assisting sportspeople achieve. I am proud of the longstanding support provided by the New South Wales Academy of Sport and particularly the efforts of Ken Clifford.

The acceptance by athletes of the regional academy shows that we are doing a good job in the Hunter region. It was a pleasure to see the glowing and positive faces of special children with disabilities receive awards. To see them being embraced by the community shows me that this community has a long bright future ahead of it. Athletes will continue to achieve and I am sure the organisers of the evening will continue to do so in a very positive manner. Everybody who left that hall on that night embraced the youth of Cessnock. A number of problems such as waywardness are put on the youth by the older generation but this night was great. It showed positiveness and the kids should be congratulated on their achievements in sport.

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.43 p.m.]: I inform the House of a significant concern facing my electorate of Bankstown and the neighbouring electorate of East Hills, represented by Alan Ashton. I am extremely concerned about a decision made by Bankstown Airport Limited, which owns our local regional Bankstown Airport—the airport was sold to that consortium under the leadership of the former Prime Minister—to close a major road, Tower Road, at junctions between Marion Street, in my electorate, and Henry Lawson Drive, which runs through the electorates of Bankstown and East Hills. What does it mean? It simply means that the thoroughfare that was used by local residents since World War II has now been closed. The road has been treated fairly and reasonably by the local council and residents and has not suffered problems of over-use. This road closure will create a huge dilemma because it will force a lot of traffic on to other arterial roads.

I was amazed to read in today's local Bankstown Torch newspaper that the spokesperson for Bankstown Airport Limited, Meredith Laverty, said that the road designed for light traffic has in recent years become "a financial burden to the airport". This is a classic case of user pays. We share the amenities of this airport in our local region and we understand that we have all got to contribute to make sure that local amenities work in partnership with all State, Federal and local government agencies. But Bankstown Airport Limited made a decision to close this road without any consultation with the local community, the member for East Hills or myself. Yesterday in a media release in the Bankstown Express newspaper Bankstown Airport Limited announced that Tower Road will not re-open.

Two weeks ago the member for East Hills and I attended an on-site meeting at the Georges River Golf Club, which is located at the junction of Tower Road and Henry Lawson Drive, when we talked about significant local traffic issues with members of the golf club. Importantly, we related that we had been told by Bankstown Airport Limited that Tower Road will re-open in mid-April. We based that on information on the website of Bankstown Airport Limited to which we were referred by the personal assistant of Kim Ellis, the general manager. We were told we could rely on such information. On 17 February the website simply stated:

A reminder to parents and carers getting ready to take their children to school that Tower Road on Sydney Metro Airport Bankstown is closed for essential maintenance.

"Tower Road has been closed from 1 January 2010 for essential maintenance works on the road and runways. The works are expected to take four months to complete and we anticipate reopening in April 2010," said Mr Craig Smith, Facilities Manager, Sydney Metro Airport Bankstown.

Even though Bankstown Airport Limited (Sydney Metro Airports) has publicly announced the decision to close Tower Road, its website has exactly the same message today. The member for East Hills and I have given local residents, Albert Jones, spokesperson for Henry Lawson Drive action group, and people we met at the Georges River Golf Club that information. We told them that the airport will re-open Tower Road for use by residents to access residential areas but that has been reneged on. I am extremely disappointed about this decision and I hope that Bankstown Airport Limited reviews its decision. Today I spoke to Kim Ellis, a fair and reasonable bloke with whom I have worked for many years. I hope that the member for East Hills and I, along with the Federal members of Parliament, can justify this decision in a way that suits the local community and re-opens Tower Road to local residents.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [4.48 p.m.]: I would like to address one of the most important issues in my electorate in the eights years I have been a member of this House, that is, Hornsby hospital. Hornsby hospital has had an onslaught of attention. I am about to address some of the issues that have been raised with me. Hornsby hospital is very old, has great standing within the community and is well loved by residents, who fearlessly fight to uphold its name and to keep it in the area given that in 1996-97 there was a serious threat by this Government to close it.

Some work has been done to Hornsby hospital, but many of its buildings still need to be refurbished, and in some cases demolished and rebuilt. It has suffered badly under the amalgamation of the area health service, becoming the Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service, as have most hospitals in that particular area health service in terms of the gigantic nature of the area and the juggernaut task of managing it. But I have to say the consistent thing I hear about Hornsby hospital is that the staff are completely committed and hardworking—and they are hardworking often in the face of resources that really are not up to scratch.

It has not been all bad news in terms of Hornsby hospital. Funding has been allocated to it for some vital improvements through the lobbying of the local community. I have worked very closely with the local community and we have seen $20.9 million for the construction of a new accident and emergency unit, psychiatric emergency care centre and maternity and paediatric unit; $6.8 million for the construction of the mental health intensive care unit; $1.1 million for the development of the transitional care unit; $636,000 to provide all-weather linkways; $989,000 to install a 64-slice CT scanner; $235,000 for the purchase of equipment and structural and refurbishment works for the radiology room upgrade; and $121,000 for the supply and installation of air-conditioning in operating theatres.

However, there are matters that this Government has not addressed notwithstanding calls from doctors, nurses and staff members, including ancillary staff members. This hospital has been in the news consistently since late last year, the latest tragedy being when a senior nurse slipped over in the operating theatres due to a leak in the ceiling of the operating theatres and had to undergo what was considered to be extremely serious surgery for the career-changing type of injury that she sustained. The Government has offered to put a new $1.5 million roof over the operating theatres. That is totally unacceptable to everyone who has visited the hospital—except for the Government. It seems that the Government does not see the need for substantial spending to at least rebuild the operating theatres. There is much more that needs to be done and the medical staff council has been very vocal. It has listed problems in a submission to the Minister and it states:

Hornsby Hospital is a busy and important community asset. It has been sadly deteriorating physically for many, many years. It is now the time to address this problem seriously.

Some of the problems are that walkways, internal roadways and parking areas are in poor condition, body protection areas are not compliant, lifts are old and dysfunctional and roofs are in poor condition. Fire safety in theatres is poor. There is a need for upgrading of air-conditioning and a need for asbestos removal and painting. We have a message for the community: The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals in government will conduct an audit of all hospitals across the State to determine replacement and refurbishment needs and will develop a 10-year forward plan and criteria to determine priority.

Those criteria will include questions about compliance with fire regulations, occupational health and safety issues, whether facilities provide a clean, safe environment for optimal patient care and whether they allow efficient use of resources. As Hornsby hospital would rate very poorly on the basis of such criteria, it is anticipated that it will be placed very high on the list of priority projects, which will be tackled by the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals within a time frame based on the budget situation that will be inherited from Labor hopefully in 2011 at the March election.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [4.53 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to inform the House about the New South Wales Community Partnership Program with respect to my electorate of Smithfield. As all members would be aware, the New South Wales Government's $35 million Community Building Partnership is a great program which supports working families through the provision of jobs for construction and improvement of community facilities. The program aims to inject funds at a local level into every electorate within New South Wales. The end result is more employment, enhanced local infrastructure and a better New South Wales.

I am pleased to advise that the program delivered $400,000 to my electorate of Smithfield and, with the promotion of this program, it was not long before the different community groups and councils within my electorate began asking questions and applying for funding, demonstrating the popularity of the program in Smithfield. To demonstrate the output that was generated by the $400,000, I am pleased to report that the following projects were approved and construction will commence shortly: An amount of $53,850 will go to Aspect Western Sydney School, which is a school for autistic children, for a playground and equipment upgrade; $26,000 will go to the Australian Croatian folkloric group for the installation of a dance floor for the King Tomislav Croatian Club; $12,859 will go to Bossley Sports Club for the inclusion of outdoor fitness equipment at Terone Park; $30,000 will go to Emmaus Catholic College for cricket nets and volleyball courts; and $105,000 will go to Fairfield City Council for shade and weather structures at Brenan Park, Stockdale Reserve and Bosnjak Park in the Smithfield electorate. These funds will be matched dollar for dollar by Fairfield council and will be very much appreciated by the many sporting groups that use those fields.

An amount of $10,000 will go to Peckys Limited for the development of an outdoor recreation area; $13,000 will go to Penrith City Council for footpath construction in Chameleon Drive, Erskine Park, which again is a dollar for dollar grant; $29,999 will go to the Rotary Club of Wetherill Park for the installation of playground equipment at Fairfield hospital; $20,000 will go to the Scout Association of Australia to replace the roof and metal railing in the Smithfield scout hall; $12,000 will go to the South West Italo-Australian Association for the installation of disability ramp railings and a pathway access; $30,000 will go to St Thomas the Apostle Chaldean Catholic church for a playground; $28,080 will go to the Parks Community Network for the Prairiewood Youth Centre Youth Support Program; and $30,000 will go to the Parish of St Gertrude's for the replacement of the floor at Montefano parish hall.

The New South Wales Community Building Partnership Program will make a big difference to these organisations. I am pleased that, as a team, this Government and the community can work together and provide local infrastructure to boost services within Smithfield. I visited the Smithfield scout hall recently and was happy to see our young scouts excited about the upgrade of their hall to facilitate their activities. I was told that the funding assistance provided under the program would help promote the scout cause within the community and help with their recruitment. I have received phone calls from many different sporting groups expressing their appreciation for the approval of three awnings. I also spoke to every successful applicant and they have all expressed their gratitude for the grant and the importance of these programs.

Apart from benefiting organisations, the $400,000 worth of projects funded by the Community Building Partnership Program will provide a number of jobs within our local community. These jobs will help boost economic activity within Smithfield and its surrounding suburbs whilst ensuring that workers do not have to travel too far to work so they can spend less time on the road and more time with their families. I applaud the New South Wales State Labor Government for the creation and implementation of this program and I look forward to its continued operation for years to come.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool—Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [4.58 p.m.]: I congratulate the member for raising this issue and highlighting the good work that has been done under the Community Building Partnership Program. It is indeed a tribute to this Labor Government that the program has been able to be delivered. It has delivered incredibly valuable facilities across the State, particularly in western Sydney. The member's electorate is very close to mine and certainly the grants have been particularly useful in areas of western and south-western Sydney delivering desperately needed community facilities in parts of Sydney that might not have otherwise been able to afford them. I congratulate the member on raising those issues and endorse his comments about the virtue of the program.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [4.59 p.m.]: Once again I am 100 per cent committed to the Tweed and bring to the attention of the House a great organisation in which I am actively involved, which is Neighbourhood Watch, with particular reference to youth crime prevention in the Tweed. The Tweed can be proud that its network of Neighbourhood Watch groups is among the strongest in the State, with new groups being set up regularly and even a School Watch initiative with local students. That is the first pilot program in New South Wales and it engages young schoolkids, the future of Australia, with elderly people in our town to report crime and try to prevent crime. Neighbourhood Watch volunteers are the eyes and ears of the police and thus play a very significant role both in preventing crime and helping police with identification of offenders. This is particularly important in the Tweed because although our local police men and women do a fantastic job, they are clearly short-staffed and under-resourced. I will refer to that later in my speech.

I encourage all Tweed residents to get involved with their local groups, which can be contacted through our coordinator, the hardworking Gordon Levenson. This need take up only a small amount of people's time but they will make a real difference. Tweed Valley Neighbourhood Watch started in 1984. When I was general manager of the Tweed Heads Bowls Club I was one of their major sponsors because I really believe in actively engaging the community to make the community a safer place. Crime prevention and community safety is all about recognising the need for all sections of the community to take responsibility for securing a safer environment for people in which to live and work.

One of the objectives of Neighbourhood Watch is to encourage members and local communities to always report crime and suspicious activity to the police. There has been a big spike in youth crime recently. This was outlined in some detail on the Stateline program about three weeks ago. A 62-year-old gentleman, Martin Grove, was continually harassed by local youth gangs. Finally Martin had had enough and one day took a gun and went to the house of one of the alleged offenders and shot himself in front of the house. That occurred at three o'clock in the afternoon.

We have good support from our local police association but currently there is one policeman for every 750 of population. The State average is 1:550. The rate of youth crime needs urgent attention. Last year alone 2,300 cases of child abuse were reported to the Department of Community Services. They had sufficient resources to investigate only 600 cases. That left 1,700 cases of child abuse and child neglect not investigated in the Tweed electorate. That is not acceptable. I have been talking to the Minister for Housing for some time about the establishment of Square One, which would provide emergency accommodation for up to 47 youths. I came to Sydney and had lengthy discussions with Father Chris Riley and took on board a lot of the good work he does with Youth off the Streets.

We need urgent action in the Tweed because the situation is getting out of hand. The community has clearly had enough. The Minister for Police came up to Tweed several weeks ago to discuss the situation but to date we are still lacking police resources. At times people can wait for up to three hours for a response to an urgent call. The Tweed is a special place. Thirty per cent of our population is over the age of 65 and there are a number of elderly people, hardworking citizens of New South Wales, who are too scared to go out their front doors. The town is reclaiming the streets. I have been working to convince the town to do this. On 28 March we are holding "Regaining the Tweed Streets", an initiative by a number of community groups, led by Simon Nance. We are holding a massive rally at the Cudgen Leagues Football Club on the morning of Sunday 28 March. At that meeting I will be presenting a petition to bring back to this place to give to the Minister for Police requesting more police. I believe there will be well over 5,000 signatures.

We are also attracting national media attention. Recently the Tweed was featured in the Monthly magazine and we were on Stateline, and I believe a number of other major organisations will shortly feature our area. It is a bit of a shame file but the town is buckling down and getting together. I will be the front man down here and I will bring matters to the police Minister's attention time and again. I will also be working to get facilities for kids on the street. Once again I am 100 per cent for the Tweed.

Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Gosford) [5.04 p.m.]: It is always a tragedy when any young person loses their life. When they lose their life in the course of protecting the community, it strikes a chord with all of us. On 17 November 2009 I represented the Minister for Police at a bridge naming ceremony dedicated to the memory of New South Wales Police Senior Constable Peter "Gordy" Wilson, who lost his life whilst on duty on 11 November 2006. The ceremony was held in the Don Craig Room at the Laycock Street Theatre in North Gosford. Peter Gordon Wilson—affectionately known as "Gordy" to his family and many friends—was killed while on duty with the Brisbane Water Highway Patrol. He had been performing radar checks on the F3 freeway north of the Somersby interchange. It is fitting that the bridge named in his honour is located on the F3 at Somersby, where Senior Constable Wilson lost his life.

I am pleased to say that there was a large contingent of police at the bridge naming ceremony, in addition to many family and friends of Senior Constable Wilson, including his fiancée, Kylie MacFarland, and his three children, Amy, Caitlin and Callum, together with Kylie's parents and her brother, Douglas. Representing the New South Wales Police were Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione, APM, the Superintendent of Brisbane Water Local Area Command, Geoff McKechnie, APM, the Superintendent of Tuggerah Lakes, David Swilks, police chaplains the Reverends Lowe and Watts, Deputy Commissioner David Owens, APM, Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn, APM, who was recently appointed the Commander of the Northern Region, Assistant Commissioner Michael Corby, APM, and Chief Inspector Steven Kentwell. A number of Gordy's former colleagues in the highway patrol and other police officers were also present.

Inspector Irene Juergens, APM, acted as the master of ceremonies for the day, assisted by Assistant Protocol Officer Senior Constable Allan Tunnicliff. I might add that Irene Juergens recently retired from the New South Wales Police Force after over 40 years of dedicated loyal service. At the time of her retirement, Irene was the longest serving female police officer and was in charge of police volunteers statewide. Also officiating was the Hon. Mike Gallacher, MLC, Opposition spokesman on Police and himself a former police officer. Whenever a New South Wales Police officer begins his or her duty they do so in the knowledge that they are continuing a long and proud tradition of protecting the community. But with this responsibility comes serious risk. Senior Constable Wilson paid the ultimate sacrifice whilst protecting the community from speeding motorists and unsafe driving.

Senior Constable Wilson was born in Scotland and joined the New South Wales Police Force as a student police officer in 1997. He was promoted to constable in early 1999 and to senior constable in 2002. Senior Constable Wilson was awarded the prestigious New South Wales Police Medal in recognition of his integrity and diligence, not only as a member of the police force but also for the people of New South Wales. As well as the naming of the bridge in his honour, Senior Constable Wilson will forever be remembered on a touchstone at the National Police Memorial in Canberra. The National Police Memorial was opened in 2006 and has the names of 719 fallen officers inscribed on brass touchstones—with their date and place of death—distributed randomly across the wall. Senior Constable Wilson's name was added in 2007.

Senior Constable Wilson was passionate about soccer. Before his death he was involved in organising a charity game of soccer between local police and firefighters. Senior Constable Wilson had organised for the proceeds to go to the children's ward of Gosford Hospital. It was fitting to know that his friends and colleagues made sure that that soccer match went ahead. This is now an annual event—the Gordy Wilson Charity Tournament—with teams from New South Wales Police, New South Wales Fire Brigades, New South Wales Ambulance and Central Coast Health all competing for the Peter "Gordy" Wilson Shield.

Immediately following Senior Constable Wilson's death while on duty the New South Wales Police Force implemented a number of safety measures. Therefore Gordy's death was not in vain. All stationary light detection and ranging [LIDAR] operations were suspended and replaced with vehicle mounted LIDAR. Stationary random breath testing is conducted only in speed zones of 80 kilometres per hour or less, and a statewide memorandum was issued by the then Commissioner of Police to reinforce the need for supervisors to ensure officers comply with stationary speed enforcement in the revised operating procedures. I take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation to the late Peter Gordon Wilson for his services to the people of New South Wales.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [5.09 p.m.]: People in my community of Pittwater are at their wits end with the Government over its lack of vision and ill thought out planning to address traffic congestion on the northern beaches. For more than 15 years now we have been at the mercy of a Government that is seemingly incapable of implementing any long-term or effective plans that will see an improvement to our major arterial roads. All the while Labor has pushed more and more residential flat buildings into areas without providing any additional infrastructure to support them. It seems as though its policy is to identify the most congested parts of our suburbs and then to put more people and more cars into the most congested areas, which is breathtakingly stupid. On Saturday mornings Narrabeen, Collaroy and especially Dee Why are in gridlock, with about 230,000 people locked on the wrong side of the drawbridge at The Spit.

Over the past 15 years we have witnessed countless government reports, inquiries and plans on how traffic congestion between the northern beaches and the central business district can be addressed, but all to no avail. The Government, in its latest moment of brilliance, decided to address increased congestion by announcing plans to convert the bus lane on the Burnt Bridge Creek deviation in Balgowlah into a bus-only lane. The member for Wakehurst alerted me to the fact that a number of residents in Wakehurst who have been trapped on the wrong side of the Spit Bridge are saying that the Government's decision to turn the transit lane into a bus-only lane is short-sighted and stupid. Despite waiting years for a positive and effective plan to help tackle traffic congestion on this important transport corridor, it now appears as though the State Government is so ignorant of the issues faced by local motorists that all it can do is to come up with a plan that is likely to worsen the situation.

Transit lanes are a proven and effective way of encouraging motorists to adopt car pooling arrangements, reducing vehicles on our roads and helping to prevent congestion during peak periods. More than 3,400 people every hour use the transit lane on the Burnt Bridge Creek deviation, demonstrating how relied upon and effective it is for local residents to get to work in the morning. According to the Roads and Traffic Authority, because of perceived difficulties in monitoring the compliance of motorists, the transit lane is now to be scrapped and placed in the Labor Government's ever-growing too-hard basket. Just the other day the Manly Daily reported the Roads and Traffic Authority as stating that there is widespread abuse of the transit lanes by cars carrying fewer than three people. However, policing the transit lane along the deviation is impossible because there is no room for police cars to be parked while officers check the compliance of cars using the lane.

What is really puzzling about this decision is that the Labor Government has already announced plans for a new enforcement bay on this stretch of the road, with works scheduled to commence in mid-2012 and to be completed by mid-2013. The transit lane will be scrapped because there is no enforcement bay, yet the Roads and Traffic Authority is also telling us that it will build the enforcement bay. Which is it to be? Is it a case of one side of the Government not knowing what the other side is doing, or is it the Government's subtle way of telling us, yet again, that it has broken another promise? The plans for the compliance bay project at Burnt Bridge Creek deviation—diagrams and all—are still clearly displayed on the website of the Roads and Traffic Authority. Either the Government is completely ignorant of the projects that it has announced for the northern beaches and this is all a big mistake or this is yet another example of the Government failing to deliver on its promises to residents on the northern beaches.

With a rapidly increasing population and enormous demand being placed on local infrastructure and services, we simply cannot afford ill-conceived decisions such as this that will further disadvantage long-suffering residents. With many of Pittwater's existing bus services currently unable to meet demand during peak periods, it is completely beyond me how this Government believes that removing the transit lane will somehow have a positive effect on traffic congestion. All that is likely to result from this is for the Government to be left having to find a solution to an even greater number of vehicles travelling along this traffic corridor and an even greater number of infuriated motorists waiting for a proper solution.

What is needed now is for the State Government to come clean with local residents on whether it has scrapped plans for the new transit lane enforcement bay as some type of cost-cutting measure, or whether this is all a big mistake that will soon be reversed. It is bad enough that this Labor Government has failed to fund any major improvements to this vital highway without also having previously announced projects ripped out from under our feet in favour of a half-baked and potentially disastrous plan. Such a move would be a cheap, low and unacceptable act that would only contribute to congestion and apply a further kick in the guts to long-suffering residents on the northern beaches. I urge the Government to reassess the situation and to ensure that the transit lane is allowed to continue operating; the previously announced enforcement bay should be constructed as a matter of urgency.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.14 p.m.]: It is with great sadness that I inform members of the passing of a great Wollongong icon—Mr Edward Walter Tobin, OAM. Edward was affectionately known to his family and to a vast number of friends and associates as Ted or Tuck. After many years of pain brought on by the spinal disease ankylosing spondylitis, and after having suffered a heart attack last year, sadly, Ted's health deteriorated noticeably. The former alderman, sports administrator and father of three passed away on 8 February 2010 aged 72 years. Ted Tobin was one of the region's most well-known and respected residents—the people's man—providing countless hours of dedicated hard work over many years and helping to lay the foundation for a better community.

Ted's exceptional and distinguished work included 13 years as an alderman from 1971 to 1984 on Wollongong City Council; 15 years on the Wollongong Sportsground Trust; three years as Illawarra County Council chairman; more than 25 years of contribution as the founding father of the Illawarra Academy of Sport; administrative director, board member and 10 years as chairman during his 20 years on the board of the Illawarra Leagues Club; 15 years as captain and president of the Wollongong Surf Life Saving Club; and director of City Coast Credit Union for nine years. In the early 1980s Ted led support for what is now known as the Crown Street Mall, believing it would lead to job regeneration and city pride and save the city's shopping heart. He was also the driving force behind the Beaton Park Leisure Centre—a project that has been and will continue to be of great value to residents of Wollongong and the greater Illawarra region.

In 1992 Ted was made a Fellow of the University of Wollongong. In 1977 he was awarded the Queen's Jubilee Medal for services to local government, and in 1995 he was awarded an Order of Australian medal. More than 1,500 people packed the chapel, the hallways and the car park of Hansen and Cole Funerals, Kembla Grange, to say their farewells. Among them were Australian representative athletes, politicians from three tiers of government, business people, and hundreds of others that Ted had touched in his life. People who knew Ted best said that, aside from his sporting and civic achievements, he had always stood out as an exceptionally loyal friend. John Kosten, one of Ted's long-time friends, said:

I found him to be a wonderful friend, a person who was trustworthy and who would always go out of his way to help others.

Testimonials to this giant of a man flowed in thick and fast following his passing, each one echoing memories of a very special man. Ted's love of all sports, his passion for the Illawarra region, in particular Wollongong, and his enthusiasm will be sadly missed. Although we might have lost a real gentleman, the results of his work will remain with us for a long time to come. I take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathy to Ted's wife, Bev, and to the Tobin family on their loss. Ted will be remembered as a leader of his generation: a civic-minded man dedicated to the advancement of the Illawarra and Wollongong. Last week I received confirmation that Ted wanted to come to see me to obtain government funding to support the Orb Bowling Club in Figtree. Ted did not leave one in any doubt as to what he wanted to achieve and what he thought one should do to ensure that he achieved it.

It is sad that Ted passed away before the Government granted him the funds that he sought for the Orb Bowling Club. Early next week I will talk to representatives from the Orb Bowling Club. Right to the end Ted Tobin fought at every turn to achieve better things for sports groups and organisations. As the member for Wollongong I had many dealings with Ted pursuing his desire to obtain more resources for sporting venues, Beaton Park and the like. I will miss Ted. I place on record my thanks for his dedication. I thank his family for giving up much of their time so that Ted could pursue these things for the community. Everyone in Wollongong will sadly miss Ted Tobin.

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands—Speaker) [5.19 p.m.]: One of the best unkept secrets of the Henry tax review is a plan to impose higher taxes on the wine industry. The plan is to replace the current wine equalisation tax and related rebate with an alcohol content volumetric tax similar to that for beer and spirits. I am sure that representatives of the wine industry have contacted many of my parliamentary colleagues to point out that the tax adjustment would raise an estimated $237 million for the Commonwealth, but that the wine producers would suffer a loss in sales revenue of around $830 million. This proposed tax change would be particularly devastating to the small local producers who are the backbone of the boutique wine industry. In the Northern Tablelands electorate, which I proudly represent, virtually all 40 vineyards, with their 25 cellar door outlets, would struggle to survive: I am told that many would go to the wall.

Currently, under the wine equalisation tax, known as the WET tax, small wineries producing less than $1.72 million in domestic sales can claim a full rebate. These wineries already pay GST and other taxes associated with their industry. If they were required to pay the volumetric tax, based on alcohol content, there would be no provision for a rebate of any kind. In my region the cool climate wine industry is still in its early stages. All the vineyards produce boutique wines, which sell for upwards of $15 a bottle; no cheap, bulk wine is produced. In January 2008 after four years' hard work the geographic indicator "New England Australia" became the world's newest officially recognised wine region.

The Southern New England Vignerons Association and the New England Wine Growers Association in the northern part of the electorate joined forces in a mammoth effort to overcome many hurdles to achieve this important status. However, the amalgamation has made a difference and the future is looking promising. The high quality of New England wines is making an impact and many are taking out major prizes and establishing a reputation within Australia and overseas. The implementation of the wine equalisation tax system was a government initiative that supported the development of sustainable small business in regional areas. It encouraged the New England wine industry to a point where it now adds some $32 million a year to the regional economy. The region's small operators undertook significant levels of long-term investment to achieve this result. For some this investment is in the millions of dollars. Currently approximately two million bottles of regionally branded wine are produced each year.

The local industry provides 250 to 300 part-time jobs and seven vineyards have winemaking facilities. At present the two wine industry groups are putting together a marketing and branding strategy that not only will promote their products but also will promote the entire region. A consultant has been chosen for the project to ensure that the strategy will complement other food, wine and tourism activities undertaken in the region. The multiplier effect from the local wine industry is an enormous bonus for local tourism. Small boutique wineries with cellar doors and restaurants have become a major attraction. They promote the region and encourage other producers to take initiatives. Wine lovers always are seeking new experiences and the wines produced in the New England are unique and of special interest to an increasing number of visitors.

This evolution does not happen overnight. It requires time, patience and expertise to develop. Axing the wine equalisation tax with its rebate system to encourage the growth of smaller wineries would negate many years of hard work and place a growing industry on the back foot. A united industry, where people work together towards a common goal and which includes other groups wanting to promote the region, is to be encouraged. It does not happen by chance and should be supported by governments. I note the support of the Government in promoting the geographic indicator in the New England area. Wine producers in our region gratefully acknowledge the assistance they have received from government departments and agencies in their push to put their industry on the map. This assistance has been crucial to their success. The State Government is to be commended for offering its strong support to achieve such positive results.

Now is the time to ensure that all the work is not wasted through a poorly considered tax. I urge the relevant Ministers and the Premier particularly to raise this issue at the Council of Australian Governments as other New South Wales wine regions and the industry generally will give their strong support to prevent the introduction of this regressive tax, which would decimate the popular and burgeoning boutique wine industry in New South Wales.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [5.24 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to a matter of grave concern: the safety of abandoned babies. Despite our nation's relative wealth, not all infants begin life at home or in a hospital surrounded by expert support and love. In 2007, for instance, a baby boy was found dead at a Perth recycling plant. Last year a dead infant with the umbilical cord still attached was discovered at a rural Victorian bus stop. About a year ago the dead body of a premature infant was found on a conveyor belt at Spring Farm tip. At approximately the same time in my electorate a newborn baby was found on the doorstep of a Dubbo townhouse. Named Sunday April after the day and month she was discovered I am happy to report this little girl has been adopted into a loving family. However, many stories of this nature do not end so happily.

It is not my intention to catalogue all such accounts when newborns are discovered on doorsteps, in shopping bags, in public toilet blocks or wrapped in newspaper and put out with the garbage. What I will say is that each of these accounts highlights the urgent need for a network of accessible and appropriately run baby safe havens. Some women, for whatever reason, feel unable to care for their infant and feel equally unable to publicly reveal the child's birth. Why that continues to be the case in this day and age is an issue on its own. We need places where a person can leave their newborn without fear of prosecution or public exposure.

Baby safe haven laws or programs already operate in many countries. Appropriate surrender points can be established in hospitals, for instance, or other locations where staff are available around the clock and are appropriately trained. This issue has been simmering for some time and I am grateful for the work of Tasmanian Senator Helen Polley, who has been a staunch advocate for baby safe haven laws. Senator Polley has done much to raise the matter at State and Federal levels. This month I received another communication from the Senator's office expressing hope that all States may begin to work cooperatively to ensure baby safe havens are placed on the Federal agenda.

There do not appear to be any significant legislative roadblocks to establishing these lifesaving havens in New South Wales. While a person is unlikely to be prosecuted for abandonment, that person may be held liable for any subsequent or foreseeable neglect of the child or infant. For instance, a person who leaves a child with another person, hospital or church must have the reasonable expectation that the infant will be appropriately cared for. Therefore, the introduction of any baby safe haven scheme is likely to require amending relevant legislation, particularly two key provisions within the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900.

Section 43 provides that abandoning or exposing a child under seven years of age is a criminal offence if it causes a danger of death or serious illness to the child. Section 43A refers to a person with parental responsibility who, without reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly fails to provide the necessities of life and that failure causes a danger of death or serious injury. Certainly, these are not insurmountable issues and really are matters of clarification. After all, the overwhelming purpose of baby safe havens is to remove the very recklessness and danger referred to in the Act.

Baby safe havens already are well advanced in other nations. In the United States about 15 States provide facilities where babies up to 72-hours old can be surrendered. In 14 other States and jurisdictions babies up to the age of one month, 45 days and 90 days can be surrendered. The salutary lesson from this problem comes from Nebraska because authorities failed to nominate a cut-off age for relinquishing babies and discovered teenagers as old as 17 years were being surrendered to havens. An age cap is important, not only because of the scenario I have outlined but also it ensures that these havens remain focused on their purpose, that is, the immediate care of newborns. Havens are not a stopgap for when parenting gets tough; other programs are in place to help to resolve those problems.

Baby safe haven providers in the United States predominantly include emergency service centres and hospitals. In some parts of the United States and elsewhere in the world churches are designated surrender points. Parents may, in some places, dial an emergency number and have an infant picked up from an agreed location. There is not time to go into other programs around the world, including the more informal processes such as the baby hatches in Europe where parents can drop off a baby in a discrete location and slip away unnoticed. In some instances a weighted cradle sounds a bell when a baby is left inside.

In Australia any baby safe haven laws must address other issues. These include the reclamation of children at a later date; parental rights, when perhaps one parent has surrendered an infant without the knowledge of another; and immunity from liability for haven providers. Once again, these are not insurmountable problems but, rather, are important issues that must be addressed. The importance of anonymity and immunity from prosecution are apparent from all these baby safe haven schemes. That is what makes them tick. As a State and nation we must come to grips with that anonymity in providing a safe, understanding and compassionate alternative to abandonment. I encourage members to support these efforts to ensure that the introduction of baby safe haven laws and the protection of vulnerable newborns become a reality.

Private members' statements concluded.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Debate on private members' statements having concluded, the House will now proceed to the matter of public importance.

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

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.30 p.m.]: Next week is Seniors Week, which is a time when we as a society honour the contribution and importance of our older citizens. It is also a time for focusing on issues of significance to seniors, especially where their continuous safety generally is concerned. Fire safety is one such issue and one aspect of overall safety. It is a tragic fact that older people—and in this case I am referring to those aged over 65—make up one in three fire deaths in New South Wales.

The research shows that most seniors think it is more likely that they will be a victim of a crime than experience a home fire. Despite this fear, both Australian and international research on the subject of older people and crime shows consistently that seniors are significantly less at risk of crime than any other age group is. In Australia, one in three fire-related deaths involve people aged 65 years and over whereas Australian Institute of Criminology data shows that less than 5 out of every 100 people aged 65 years and over will experience a breaking and entering. To address this we must ensure that special care is taken to help our older citizens, both when it comes to understanding fire dangers and when assessing their fire safety arrangements.

The kitchen is the scene of most residential fires, which often start as a result of cooking that is left unattended on the stove. Other common causes of fire in the home, which may particularly impact upon the elderly, include the improper use of heaters and electrical blankets and faulty electrical appliances and wiring. Our response to home security must be proportional to home fire safety measures to ensure that an escape from fire or another emergency is probable. It is absolutely vital to ensure that locked doors do not prevent people from making a quick escape should a fire occur in the home. It may seem to be a blindingly self-evident statement, but people must know where their keys are. Stumbling around in a dark smoke-filled house can have fatal results. New South Wales Fire Brigades recommends that people leave keys in deadlocks or on a hook next to the door but out of the reach of possible intruders.

If people have bars on windows that cannot be removed from the inside it is even more imperative that they have a home escape plan and know where their keys are. Seniors also should install smoke alarms to provide an early warning of smoke and fire. In a blaze every second counts. I point out that New South Wales has nearly a million seniors and this number is growing rapidly, especially as the baby boomers start to enter retirement. Fire risks affecting this population are becoming of greater concern to fire experts. New South Wales Fire Brigades has identified that the greatest fire risks to seniors are mobility issues, failure to recognise fire dangers, difficulty with installing and maintaining smoke alarms, and social isolation. With an ageing population and these fire risks, we must be vigilant to try to reduce the potential for tragic situations in the future.

I am pleased to say that this Government has made it mandatory for all homes and residential accommodation to have at least one working smoke alarm in places where people sleep. I strongly urge all older members in our community to ensure that they have installed smoke alarms in their home, that they test their smoke alarm each month, and that they change its battery every year. Older people who need help with their fire safety devices can take advantage of the New South Wales Fire Bridges special program for the elderly and people with limited mobility known as SABRE, which is the Smoke Alarm and Battery Replacement for the Elderly Program. Under the program firefighters visit the homes of elderly and immobile residents to install battery-operated smoke alarms and change smoke alarm batteries, free of charge.

Educating the community about fire safety and what people can do to protect themselves is one of the many roles of a firefighter. The challenges for our firefighters are raising awareness of older people and changing behaviour to reduce fire hazards. In many parts of the State we are seeing how fire safety education sessions are making a real difference to the lives of seniors. I pay tribute to a senior resident, Mrs Marjorie Wells, who, after having attended a senior fire safety presentation with New South Wales Fire Brigades last October in Erina on the Central Coast had the confidence and ability to save her home from a kitchen fire.

This elderly resident was preparing dinner on the evening of 25 January this year when a small kitchen fire took hold as sausages were grilling and fat ignited. That is a fairly common occurrence. I often think of the advertisement about the woman who forgot leaving the chips on the stove. Armed with senior fire safety knowledge from New South Wales Fire Brigades, Mrs Wells used a fire blanket to smother the flames. Were it not for her quick thinking and quick actions the fire could have completely destroyed her unit, or worse. Her skills in extinguishing the fire and using her fire safety knowledge are admirable. I am sure all members join me in congratulating Mrs Wells on a job well done.

Mrs Wells is just one example of how the community is benefiting from senior fire education sessions conducted by the Government. Last year firefighters helped 9,580 older citizens to check and replace their smoke alarm batteries. This year firefighters are developing a united strategy involving health and social agencies as well as voluntary organisations to reduce fire risks for older people. Improving fire safety for seniors certainly will be part of the Government's focus during Seniors Week, with firefighters working in their communities and hosting close to a hundred events to inform elderly residents and prevent more fire tragedies from occurring this year. I found the session New South Wales Fire Brigades held for seniors a very valuable experience. Feedback from the seniors was that the demonstration was fantastic. I also took part in a simulated kitchen fire at Norah Head, where local residents could see what happens when water is poured on a fat fire. It was quite spectacular.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [5.37 p.m.]: I endorse the sentiments expressed by the member for Wyong. In my capacity as the shadow Minister for seniors and on behalf of the Liberal-Nationals I express profound support for the New South Wales Fire Brigades participation in Seniors Week in such a helpful and constructive manner. Practical demonstrations within our communities are useful. Bearing in mind the extensive advertising undertaken by the Government, it would be good if some of the money could be redirected towards the provision of an informative education-based television and radio campaign on fire safety.

There seems to be an over-reliance on the Internet. As we all know, seniors are not as Internet savvy as many other people in the community are. In preparing for this discussion I visited the terrific website of New South Wales Fire Brigades to ascertain information and suggestions about what seniors can do. The suggestions include installation and maintenance of photoelectric smoke alarms; development and practising of a home escape plan regularly, particularly for seniors who live alone, and involvement of neighbours; installation of deadlocks that can be opened from the inside without a key; preparation for an emergency by ensuring that keys can be easily located; for the hearing impaired, installation of special smoke alarms that have a flashing strobe light and a vibrating pad that can be placed under a pillow while people are asleep; and dialling triple-0 in an emergency, ignoring the presumption that someone else may have done so during a fire emergency.

My concern is how this information can be communicated to our seniors community. Other programs operated by the Government should be integrated into the provision of information relating to fire safety during Seniors Week. For example, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care conducts the Telecross program through the Red Cross. I hope that as winter approaches volunteers assisting the Red Cross in the delivery of that program inform seniors about information sessions on fire safety preparedness which will be conducted by the New South Wales Fire Brigades during Seniors Week. I also hope that the Government is considering other programs that can be used holistically to better target seniors in the provision of safety information. I am not sure that that has happened. Programs such as Telecross need more funding. At the moment the program is servicing 2,000 to 3,000 seniors. That figure should be more closely aligned to the 10,000 to 12,000 people who are over 65 and living in social isolation in New South Wales.

While we recognise the work being done by New South Wales Fire Brigades, it is important to better use other agencies and programs currently available to the Government to ensure that we are getting the message across. As I said, tens of millions of dollars are spent on television advertising each year. That money should be directed to this issue, particularly as a third of fatalities in house fires are people in the seniors age bracket. It is a tragedy and simply shows that seniors are at risk. The Government needs to focus not only during Seniors Week but also beyond next week to ensure that seniors in this State are protected. As I said, I am not criticising New South Wales Fire Brigades. Indeed, they are doing a terrific job of focusing on seniors. The Smoke Alarm Battery Replacement for the Elderly Program is a wonderful initiative.

However, we are concerned about some of the issues facing New South Wales Fire Brigades that can directly impact on seniors in the community who experience fire emergencies. For instance, there is a shortage of firefighters across the State; that problem has been identified in the annual report. According to the annual report, the number of community fire unit volunteers, which are run by New South Wales Fire Brigades, has fallen from 6,500 to 5,800 in the past two financial years. That is a drop of 11.8 per cent. The Productivity Commission has conducted an assessment of emergency management. Since 2005 response times to structure fires have increased in some instances. For instance, in 2004-05, in the fiftieth percentile in terms of major cities, the response time was six minutes; in 2008-09 that figure was 7.1 minutes. When we know that a third of fatalities involve seniors, we must ensure that those response times decrease. Those figures are provided in the Productivity Commission's report.

It is important that the House has brought on this debate as a matter of public importance. We want to see what the Government is doing beyond Seniors Week and beyond the issues New South Wales Fire Brigades is dealing with to get other government departments and agencies involved to provide a holistic approach to addressing the critical issue facing seniors. Seniors who live in social isolation are forever worried about their security, and they are worried about issues such as fire and the impact it can have in their home. As much as possible, we need to fire ready seniors in this State. While this is a small but important step, we want more done to protect the over 65s in New South Wales.

Mr ROBERT FUROLO (Lakemba) [5.44 p.m.]: Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Frank Terenzini), I congratulate you on your excellent chairing skills. The contribution of our senior citizens cannot be overstated. They have seen wars, depression and life experiences that are invaluable to this State and to this nation. But it is, as my colleague the member for Wyong noted, a sad fact that seniors are the highest fire risk group in the community and are most likely to be killed in a house fire. In fact, older people represent more than 31 per cent of all fire fatalities in New South Wales and the risk to this group is nearly three times greater than that of the general community. Seniors Week is the perfect opportunity for firefighters, seniors and their carers to come together and talk about ways to reduce fire risks in the home. Creating a safer community is what our firefighters strive to do. The job involves not only fire fighting but also fire safety education, fire prevention and developing community resilience to help empower the community to prepare for and prevent emergencies, as outlined by my colleague.

I am pleased to advise the House that New South Wales Fire Brigades will launch a new fire education resource next week to help reduce household fire risks for older people. The new resource, known as Senior Ed, is one of several teaching aids to be used by firefighters in helping prevent fire deaths among seniors. Senior Ed features a DVD, fact sheets and other safety materials to increase fire safety awareness, and will be used by firefighters as part of fire safety information sessions for seniors. This new resource will greatly aid firefighters in their work of saving lives and making New South Wales a safer place to live. Throughout Seniors Week firefighters will be urging seniors to ensure that they have a simple but essential life-saving device: a working smoke alarm. The need for a working smoke alarm should never be underestimated. It is designed to provide an early warning of fire and give the best chance possible to escape safely.

Seniors who have difficulty hearing should consider installing special smoke alarms that have a flashing strobe light and a vibrating pad that is placed under the pillow and activates when the smoke alarm operates. It can ensure that seniors have the extra seconds needed to escape a fire, and it is absolutely vital to practice this plan, especially for those with reduced mobility. A working smoke alarm, together with a home escape plan, will greatly increase the chances of escaping a household fire. A home fire escape plan involves identifying escape routes from each room of the home, as well as agreeing on a place to meet once everyone is safely out. The three simple steps seniors need to take are to clean their smoke alarm regularly with a vacuum cleaner to keep it free from dust, test it every month by pressing the button with a broom handle to ensure that it is working and once a year replace the battery.

It can be difficult for elderly people to climb up a ladder to change a battery in a smoke alarm. If older people need help with these things, I strongly encourage them to take part in a special program run by New South Wales Fire Brigades, the Smoke Alarm and Battery Replacement for the Elderly Program, known as project SABRE. As part of SABRE, firefighters will change the smoke alarm batteries for elderly and immobile residents. I am pleased that the city of Canterbury, where I have the honour of being the mayor, is a strong supporter of project SABRE. Since 2003, in conjunction with our local fire brigades, we have funded the installation of 857 smoke alarms, replaced 436 batteries and installed 14 special smoke alarms for the hearing impaired. These measures can make all the difference in people making it out of a fire alive.

The Government is doing its part, and I now ask each and every senior in the community to seek the assistance of our fantastic firefighters to reduce the risks and tragedies from house fires this year. People should make the most of Seniors Week and speak to their local firefighters on ways to stay safe. Throughout Seniors Week firefighters will be working with communities to give advice about smoke alarms, home escape plans and even change smoke alarm batteries for less mobile residents. This Seniors Week I encourage residents to give some thought to getting the balance right when it comes to security. Home security means more than just keeping intruders out. It is about striking a balance to ensure that security does not become a fire hazard and that older residents can escape in the event of a fire in their home. People should not become a victim in their own home. They should make sure that home security and fire safety go hand in hand with some careful and considered plans.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.49 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Bega and the member for Lakemba for their contributions in this matter of public importance. It is important that this House gets the message out about the importance of fire safety for seniors. The member for Lakemba demonstrated great insight into the challenges of seniors. He also mentioned the new education kit called Senior Ed that will be available to help seniors learn about the importance of having safety plans in place, installing smoke alarms and other matters.

The member for Bega recognised the importance of the work of the New South Wales Fire Brigades and referred to special smoke detectors that operate with lights and vibrations for people with hearing problems. In relation to his reference to an increase in response times to fire incidents by the New South Wales Fire Brigades, I point out that response times depend on local factors, such as traffic and the location of the fire. For example, there are longer distances to travel in rural areas. Overall, those results always vary greatly and will fluctuate from year to year. The first thing that came to mind when he made that reference was that Sydney has greater traffic densities, which slows down response times.

Earlier I said that older people are more likely to die in a fire than to be a victim of crime. As people become older and more vulnerable they start to make their home like a fortress, with roller shutters, deadlocks on all doors and bars on windows. It is important for them to protect themselves, but they must also be able to exit the premises in the event of a fire. A lot of people get trapped by their own security measures. Seniors should put keys in easy-to-access places and develop and rehearse an escape plan in case of fire. They should alert neighbours as to where they have put spare keys or even provide their neighbours with spare keys so that in case of a fire the fire brigade does not have to cut through steel bars to try to rescue them.
As we move towards winter we must emphasise the importance of safety in relation to heaters. I know that a lot of elderly residents still have bar heaters in front of which they sit with a blanket. As one does, one also dozes off in front of the television. Cigarettes can also pose a fire danger, but hopefully people are heeding the health messages about smoking. Certainly there is the potential for blankets to roll on to heaters or for heaters to be knocked over and thus cause a fire. Seniors also need to be sure that their double adapters, power boards and any wiring are safe because they can trip on the cords or short out the power. Older homes do not necessarily have the same safety switches that trip during an electrical disturbance or short with an appliance. Seniors need to check on the safety of their homes.

Seniors should install smoke detectors, have an escape plan and use the Smoke Alarm Battery Replacement for the Elderly [SABRE] Program. If they cannot change the batteries in their smoke detectors or if they do not have family members to assist them, they can get the assistance of members of the New South Wales Fire Brigades to change them. I mentioned briefly my involvement in a session as part of the Central Coast Hospital auxiliaries' annual general meeting with New South Wales Fire Brigades, which the seniors found very valuable and at which they learnt a lot. The most interesting one was at Norah Head with a mobile simulated kitchen. New South Wales Fire Brigades showed what happens when water is thrown on to a fat fire. It was spectacular, but very dangerous.

Discussion concluded.