Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 11 June 2002, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 11 June 2002
______

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge that we are meeting on Eora land.

LIQUOR AMENDMENT (SPECIAL EVENTS HOTEL TRADING) BILL

POULTRY MEAT INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (PRICE DETERMINATION) BILL

Bills received.

Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

Bills read a first time.

CIVIL LIABILITY BILL

Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING AND RELATED OFFENCES) BILL

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

John Murray

Consideration of message deferred.

PETITIONS

Freedom of Religion

Petition praying that the House retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from the Hon. Jan Burnswoods.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 withdrawn on motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

BUDGET ESTIMATES AND RELATED PAPERS

Financial Year 2002-03

Debate resumed from 4 June.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [2.40 p.m.]: The 2002-03 budget is every bit what we have come to expect from a traditional Carr-Egan Labor budget. It is a triumph for the spin-doctors on the evening it is delivered but unravels the next day when the fine print is examined. This lazy budget was such a risk for the Government that its release had to be carefully scheduled to come to notice only an hour before the evening news, because, like a vampire, it would not survive a moment of scrutiny in the daylight. This budget has already started to unravel. That is not my opinion; that was the judgment delivered in a Sun-Herald editorial at the weekend.

The Hon. Michael Egan: You read the Sun-Herald?

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: Yes, and I hope the Treasurer read it, and read it carefully. It stated:

We will be reading a bit of the fine print of the budget during this contribution. The editorial continued:

So interested is the Treasurer that he is leaving the Chamber, unable to take the scrutiny.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: First, the honourable member totally breached an undertaken given by the Opposition Whip and is speaking to protect his leader. Second, he made scurrilous allegations about the Leader of the Government.

The Hon. John Jobling: Point of order: The point should be made clear that in my humble opinion there is no point of order. The member speaking is leading for the Opposition; whether it is the Leader of the Opposition or another member should make no difference. It is the choice of the Leader of the Opposition who will speak. Clearly, there is no point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Only the member who seeks and receives the call may address the Chair. However, I remind members that Standing Order 81 is clear: imputations and personal reflections against other members of the Parliament are disorderly.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I was only stating a fact, Madam President. The same editorial continued:

Now that the Carr Government has been in office for eight years, we see patterns emerging that establish for certain that it is a tired, lazy and visionless Government whose best days are behind it. Spending on Education in this budget is 10 per cent less than the Fahey Government allocated to that portfolio in 1994, when measured as a proportion of the whole budget. In 1994, Education spending made up 26.5 per cent of the general budget sector. This year the Carr Government will commit only 23.7 per cent. In the 1994 budget, the Fahey Government spent 26 per cent of its budget on Health, compared to 25.2 per cent in this budget. In real terms, the Carr Government is now spending less on capital works for improving public transport than John Fahey did in 1994.

For example, in its last budget, the Fahey Government committed $677 million to the various arms of State Rail. This year's budget for rail transport is $783 million, just 15 per cent more, during a time when prices have risen by 20 per cent. I cannot believe it: there is only one representative of the Government in the Chamber, not even a Minister, to hear the Opposition's reply to the budget. That indicates the unbelievable arrogance of the Government. When it comes to building and renovating new hospitals, the Carr Government's record is even worse. 'The $504 million that the Carr Government will allegedly spend on hospitals during the next year represents a decrease of 10 per cent in real terms when compared to the last Fahey Government budget. And I say "allegedly spend", because this year's capital works budget for the Health portfolio includes around $50 million worth of projects that were either not started or completed last year.

This budget commits $50 million to office fit-outs and relocations and just $40 million to new hospital building projects. That fact alone benchmarks how much the Carr Government has lost touch with the needs of the people in this State. While the Government spends $50 million on moving public servants in and out of new office space, undervalued nurses struggle with pay packages that do not measure up to those of equivalently trained health professionals. The budget does nothing to address the issues that keep half of the registered nurses in New South Wales out of our public hospitals. And without nurses, hospital waiting lists climb and the health needs of many are left unattended.

Currently, 52,200 patients are waiting for elective surgery, and nearly 8,000 of them have been waiting for more than a year. When Labor came to power over seven years ago on a promise of halving hospital waiting lists there were 44,700 waiting for elective surgery, and only 2,265 who had waited for more than a year. Teachers still struggle in crowded infants' classrooms, with the exception of those lucky few who may be involved in the embarrassingly low $5 million trial of smaller class sizes. This budget does nothing to address the falling retention rates that this Government has presided over. When Bob Carr took office in 1995, 70 per cent of young people completed six years of high school. Now the number is just over 67 per cent and it is falling. If it were not for the better rates that are experienced in the private school system the numbers would be even worse.

Department of Community Services workers now claim that the Government has amputated itself from humanity. Very little of this budget is directed to addressing the distressing and increasing levels of child abuse and neglect in our State. Under this Government the face of the Police Service has increasingly become an eaglenet telephone on a locked police station door. The Government has closed 80 police stations, thereby shredding the link between the community and the police that is so necessary for responsive law enforcement. We could compare the Government's public relations babble that appears in the budget papers to the more objective statements about performance indicators for police that appeared in last year's review by the Auditor-General. He wrote:

Report on Government Services 2000

A fair amount of the Treasurer's Budget Speech was spent biting the hand of the Howard Government, ignoring the fact that it has been generously feeding him for the past seven years. The bottom line is that the budget is hundreds of millions of dollars better off because of the sound economic management of the Howard Government.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Oh, come on.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: The budget papers brag that interest payments have dropped from 8� for every revenue dollar to just 3�, saving more than $1,000 million dollars every year. And who did that! Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-13, states:

Gross debt interest expense is expected to fall from $1,792 million to $670 million over the next eight year period ending 30 June 2006 due to ongoing debt reductions as old loans in the debt portfolio are replaced with new loans at lower prevailing interest rates.

And who has been working on interest rates? Clearly, it was the Howard Government. State Government coffers will also be improved as a result of John Howard's policy of giving tax incentives to families to encourage them to take up private health insurance. Fees paid by private patients treated in our public hospitals will increase to $542 million this year compared with $406 million a year in 1999. That means that the State Government has $136 million more to put into the Health budget, a fact that makes its poor performance in Health capital works even more reprehensible.

Over the four years to 2001-03 Commonwealth grants have exceed the New South Wales budget forecasts by well over $900 million. Rather than blaming the Howard Government, the Treasurer should be thanking Mr Costello and Mr Howard for building an economy in New South Wales that has delivered the Carr Government, and the people of New South Wales, windfall after windfall, covering up Labor's lack of financial discipline and credibility.

The budget papers show that the Treasurer misled the media and people across the State when he claimed that the budget had to be delayed a week because New South Wales had been shortchanged by the Commonwealth. The budget papers show that this year New South Wales will receive $15.1 billion in Commonwealth grants for 2002-03. This represents $250 million above the estimate in last year's budget. The Treasurer should stop carping about the changes to the Commonwealth tax-sharing arrangements. The money they are complaining about losing this year is the six-monthly increases in petrol tax that the Commonwealth no longer collects. This tax has gone because the people of Australia wanted action to stem increases in petrol prices. The action the Commonwealth has taken will contribute to a reduction in the rate of inflation, and that will be welcomed by the community at large and assist the bottom line of the New South Wales budget by reducing expenditure in the future.

The Treasurer has done his usual grandstanding at lunches in the central business district, telling businesses that the budget produces a surplus. The surplus in the budget is achieved by accident, not by responsible economic management. That is not a partisan assessment from the Opposition; successive reports of the Auditor-General prove beyond doubt that the Government would have faced a deficit in the past three years if it had not been rescued by an unexpected boom in the property market yielding unexpected tax windfalls. For example, in assessing whether the Government had complied with the principles set out in the General Government Debt Elimination Act, the Auditor-General said in his March 2000 report to Parliament that it was "unclear" whether:

He also said:

But fortunately for the Government, he also said:

Last December he said something very similar about last year's budget. He said:

The GFS-based 'Statement of Budget Result', dealing only with the General Government Sector, showed a surplus. This surplus, while very close to the Budget estimate, came after revenues and expenses both substantially exceeded Budget.

He went on to say:

Excluding [significant] items, the actual result was a $268 million deterioration on Budget. Expenses exceeded Budget by $1.8 billion but the impact of this was largely offset by unbudgeted revenue of over $1.5 billion.

If I were to accuse the Treasurer of providing the Parliament with budget papers which were totally unreliable and practically indecipherable he would accuse me of crass politics. However, that is what the New South Wales Auditor-General has said, albeit in a slightly more tempered way. In his introduction to his annual report on the Treasurer's public accounts and the total State sector accounts, the Auditor-General said:

Nothing in these budget papers does anything to address that concern by the Auditor-General. However, I understand the reason, and it was well explained by the Auditor-General, who said:

The Auditor-General is being way too generous to this Government. There is no way that this Government, which values spin over substance, would ever want honourable members or the public to know whether their budgets were produced by accident, chance or sound management. The likelihood is that they are the result of accident and chance. It is no surprise that the Government has failed to rein in expenditure or provide meaningful tax relief. The Labor Government has collected $12.2 billion in additional revenue over and above what it had estimated between 1995-96 and 2001-02. Actual revenue has on average exceeded budget estimates by 6.5 per cent annually—usually more than double the rate of inflation.

The budget figures show that in 2001-02 Labor will collect total revenue of $33.5 billion, which is $1.3 billion more than estimated, and State taxes of $13.358 billion, which is $1.27 billion more than estimated. In the time Bob Carr has been Premier, revenues have increased by 54.6 per cent. In the same time inflation has increased by only 20 per cent. In real terms, Bob Carr has 34.6 per cent more money to spend than the previous Coalition Government received in its last year of office. One would have to say that with that sort of revenue, only a fool would not be able to balance the budget. The Premier and the Treasurer have simply been riding the property boom. In 2001-02 the Labor Government collected $4.344 billion from property taxes—$1.019 billion more than it had estimated. It has once again underestimated its 2002-03 figures. It estimates that it will collect $4.1 billion from property taxes in 2002-03—but it is very likely to again collect much more.

Behind these statistics are hard-working families who are struggling to get ahead. A family that lives in a median-price home valued at approximately $350,000 and wishes to buy another house, perhaps to improve their job prospects, will have to take into account that the Treasurer's stamp duty will be an extra $11,240, which, if added to their mortgage, will cost them an extra $80 a month. Renters have not missed out on their chance to contribute to the State Government either. Land tax, as a proportion of State taxation, has doubled under this Treasurer, and the receipts have risen from $538 million under John Fahey to $1,047 million in this year's budget, a staggering 94 per cent increase—five times the rate of inflation. A land tax bill may have a property owner's name on it, but it will be a tenant, frequently someone of modest means, who will wind up paying the increase.

The story is similar for payroll tax—the Government's tax on jobs. The budget anticipates receipts of $4,246 million in payroll tax this year. That figure is 64 per cent higher than the amount collected under the last Coalition budget, representing a rate of increase more than three times the rate of inflation. Before I leave the topic of payroll tax I should give a full analysis of the Treasurer's alleged generosity. This budget claims to reduce the payroll tax rate from 6.2 per cent to 6 per cent. That is still the highest rate of payroll tax in the nation. However, the revenue lost by the rate cut will be almost made up by broadening the payroll tax base to include fringe benefits and eligible termination payments. After handing business back $142 million in a full year from the rate cut, the Government will claw back $117 million by broadening the payroll tax base. The full benefit of this budget's tax relief of $215 million pales into insignificance when compared with the $1,600 million extra tax the Government is due to collect on current estimates. It equates to a tiny 0.65 per cent of the total revenues in the budget.

I should leave the last word on tax and expenditure restraint to the Auditor-General, just in case the few honourable members opposite accuse us of partisanship. Last December the Auditor-General included two very interesting tables in his report to Parliament in an attempt to show what the budget result would have been if the Government had increased revenue and expenditure by no more than the amount required to compensate for inflation and population growth. In the budgets from 1996-97 to 2000-01 the Carr Government raised $5.7 billion more in revenue and spent $6.5 billion more than the amount needed to cover inflation and population growth. These results suggested that the Government does not know the meaning of the word "restraint".

While many of the budget overruns were expected, such as the bail-out for HIH insurance policies, budgets have to be framed in such a way as to cater for the unexpected, particularly in times of buoyant revenues like the present. This Treasurer, in particular, does a lot of bragging about his efforts to contain public debt. It is instructive to read the last budget of the former State Government. It becomes very apparent from that document that the former Greiner and Fahey governments initiated most of the policy settings that have resulted in the reduction of the State's debt. The sale of the State Bank removed a huge amount of contingent liabilities. The restructure of the State's public sector superannuation schemes was completed between 1989 and 1992, well before the Carr Government took office. From 1994 the Coalition Government commenced making provision for additional funding to cover unfunded superannuation liabilities.

All the current Government needed to do was continue the same policy. The Treasurer's only contribution to the reform of State superannuation appears to have been an abject disaster. In 1999 the Treasurer legislated to authorise a $3 billion loan aimed at funding an offer to remaining members of old superannuation schemes to convert their entitlements into a lump sum and then join the less expensive First State Super [FSS], which is the fully unfunded superannuation scheme started by the Fahey Government. The Government claimed that the offer had the potential to significantly improve the State's financial position. The Treasurer said that if 16,000 public servants accepted the conversion offer, the unfunded superannuation liabilities would be reduced by more than $1.5 billion. From here I should let the Auditor-General tell the story:

The Auditor-General went on to say:

I am certainly waiting—because it has not happened yet—for the Treasurer to explain to this Parliament why he spent $3 million of the State's scarce resources achieving nothing. It is instructive to read a couple of paragraphs from Budget Paper No. 2 that try to hide, but nevertheless acknowledge, the efforts of former Coalition governments in the so-called miracle that this Treasurer frequently and unfairly claims entirely for himself. The first paragraph reads:

Guess who was in office for nearly half of that period? The second paragraph reads:

Most of what the Treasurer claims as his effort to fund unfunded superannuation liability is the result of a mathematical accident, and that is not something he tells the House too often. The policy settings that he inherited were left behind by the former Coalition Government. Because the Government likes to make crass political statements about the Hon. George Souris, it is important to point out that one of the contributors to the funding of the superannuation unfunded liability was the former finance Minister, George Souris. I have noticed over time that the amount of information provided in the budget papers has become less and less, and what is left has become increasingly technical. Constant changes in accounting standards and methods make year-to-year comparisons more difficult.

Additionally, the Carr Government has done nothing to provide better output information that members of parliament and the public must have to make assessments as to whether government services are provided effectively and efficiently. Increasingly political public relations and spin replace information in the budget papers. Information that the Government may find embarrassing is somehow lost. For example, honourable members will look a long way to find the table of interstate taxation severity that used to be in the Fahey Government budgets. That has gone, mainly because the New South Wales Government finds it too embarrassing to publish. The Auditor-General has also made a number of speeches that make a similar point, and it is worthwhile quoting them for the information of the House. The Auditor-General reported:

Each year the taxpayer contributes around $1.5 billion to the New South Wales Police Service. Why do police services in New South Wales cost less per capita than in Victoria? Or, to put it another way, why do we spend less on police services here? Is it because the police are more efficient here, or is it because they provide a lower quality service? Or is it because we have less crime in New South Wales?

That is certainly not the case. The report of the Auditor-General demonstrates that we have more crime in New South Wales and fewer police, so the only reason the Government spends less on police is that it obviously does not regard that as a high priority for attention. The Auditor-General's report continues:

Honourable members will not find any of that information in the annual reports or the output data in the budget papers, the very information that would tell the public whether the money that is being spent in New South Wales is being spent with any effectiveness. Given the increasing levels of taxation and expenditure in this State, and despite the fact that elective surgery is not decreasing in this State, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that an enormous amount of the health budget in this State is wasted. I am pleased to say that my Leader, John Brogden—in contrast to the Treasurer, who I hope has delivered his last budget—has committed a future Coalition Government to two new measures that will improve budget transparency. First, he has committed us to an independent review of State taxation. Second, he has committed future Treasurers to having budget forecasts signed off by the Secretary to the Treasury to certify that the figures in them have been prepared by officials free of political interference.

I challenge the current Government to subject itself to that sort of transparency. We will spend all of three days considering the budget estimates, and the hearings will all be cobbled together at a time designed to attract the least media attention. The level of scrutiny that this Government has clamped on the budget papers is a complete disgrace. The only reason it has done so is that the Opposition, like the Auditor-General, has concluded that the budget papers disclose nothing. They are full of political spin. They do not provide any meaningful information to the public to allow us to work out what the budget papers mean. If honourable members have discovered in their efforts to read the budget papers that are not very clear, they are not alone: the Auditor-General, who used to work in Treasury, is battling for better detail. I would like to see more detail because, as I have often said to this House, the most powerful thing a government does after it is elected to office is spend the considerable resources that are collected in revenue—about $33 billion a year as it now stands.

A comparison of the level of scrutiny we give to legislation, which often does not touch the lives of individuals, and the lack of scrutiny given to the budget—largely because any attempt to scrutinise it is clamped down on by the Government by its clever use of the numbers in this House—marks a sad day. Those are matters to which we should pay more attention because they are the benchmark of whether this is a useful House of review. If we do not review the budget and subject it to scrutiny, the Government gets away with blue murder—as it has done with this budget. This Government spends billions of dollars but provides little feedback on whether that level of spending has any beneficial impact.

I am not an opportunist regarding rising levels of crime, and I generally temper my views on law and order, but if the Auditor-General of New South Wales says that crime in this State is increasing, I cannot deny or ignore that. If the Auditor-General says that this State spends less on police than any other State in the nation, I cannot ignore that. If the Auditor-General says that we have no meaningful data by which to assess the Health budget, I cannot ignore that. If waiting lists published by the Government tell us that three times more people are waiting for more than 12 months to have elective surgery than when Labor came to office in 1995, the people of New South Wales will not ignore that and will keep that in mind until they chase this Government out of office.

There is every reason why the Coalition should be ebullient about its chances at the next election. At last we are beginning to demonstrate that this Government is more committed to issues management than to the real things that affect the people of New South Wales. If the Government has the audacity to admit in its budget papers that this year it will spend more on moving public servants to new premises than it will spend on new public hospital facilities or projects, then its best days are behind it. The Government is tired and arrogant. It will not be long before the people of New South Wales wake up to that fact, throw it out of office and pass the baton to a group of people, led by John Brogden, who are determined to make sure that this State's public servants and all the resources available to it serve the people of New South Wales to the best extent possible.

I look forward to the further, though limited, scrutiny that Opposition members will be able to give this budget. I have no doubt that the Coalition will seek to demonstrate that the Government has failed on critical social measures. The Government is not protecting children, healing the sick in our hospitals, or protecting the community as it should with the Police Service and court system. Fair Trading is not protecting consumers. No matter what portfolio is referred to, overwhelmingly the Government is failing by any benchmark to do with its budget the things that it should be doing to make the lives of the people of New South Wales better. The Government is coasting on the coat tails of revenues provided by the Howard Government, but it is not putting much thought into expenditure of those revenues. I commend the further scrutiny of the budget to the House. I have little doubt that by the time the scrutiny of this budget is finished the people of New South Wales will be more convinced than ever that the Coalition is well suited to take over from the Labor administration after the election in March 2003.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

LEGAL PROFESSION AMENDMENT (NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY REVIEW) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.13 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Given that leave has been viciously denied me, I will give the House the benefit of my written words. The Legal Profession Amendment (National Competition Policy Review) Bill continues the process of reform to the regulation of the legal profession which the Government has undertaken since 1995. The changes to the system of regulation represented in the bill will reinforce the position of New South Wales as the pre-eminent Australian jurisdiction in terms of the effective and transparent regulation of the legal profession. Many of the reforms outlined in the bill were first recommended by the Attorney General's Department in its report on the National Competition Policy review of the Legal Profession Act. Since that report was completed, a detailed consultation process has taken place, and the result is the bill before the House.

The first major reform contained in the bill relates to the practising fees for solicitors and barristers. The Act already provides that membership of the Law Society, in the case of solicitors, or the Bar Association, in the case of barristers, is voluntary. However, the practising fees levied on solicitors and barristers include the cost of both membership services and the regulatory activities that the Law Society and Bar Association conduct, as required by the Legal Profession Act. The bill provides for the practising fee to cover only the costs of the regulatory activities undertaken by the Law Society and the Bar Association. This fee will be approved by the Attorney General. The membership or representative activities will be included in a separate, optional membership fee, which solicitors and barristers will not need to pay unless they propose to join the Law Society or the Bar Association. This reform will bring about a true separation of the regulatory and membership functions of the Law Society and the Bar Association. The resulting benefits will include more transparent cost structures of the Law Society and the Bar Association, and potential savings for consumers; and the ability for solicitors and barristers to choose whether they wish to contribute to the cost of membership activities conducted by their professional associations.

In order to ensure the accountability of the Law Society and the Bar Association, the Attorney General may request that budgets be submitted to him before approval of the practising fee. The bill also provides for a person to be appointed by the Attorney General to examine the accounts of the Law Society and the Bar Association, if it is necessary. These measures will ensure that the Law Society and the Bar Association are accountable for their regulatory activities to the profession and to consumers, who ultimately bear the cost of practising fees paid by lawyers. These amendments will commence on 1 July 2004. This will allow enough time for the Law Society and the Bar Association to implement the internal management and accounting changes necessary to accommodate the formal separation of practising and membership fees. As my comments are germane to the bill and as some of the points that I am about to make have already been made in another place, I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

I commend the Bill.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.17 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the bill. It is part of the move to implement National Competition Policy and is designed to ensure that the New South Wales legal profession is able to practise throughout Australia. I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on his most edifying comments. Obviously, I agree with many of them. As I was a solicitor before I came to this place, I have experience of some of the issues addressed by this bill. Indeed, I recall in my early years in practice frequent reference to the dingo fence of restrictions which the Queensland legal profession imposed for many years to ensure no practitioner from any other State was able to practise in Queensland. That did nothing to advance the principles of competition policy or to ensure proper legal practice. I also have the opportunity to be a member of the Law Society Council. I applaud the move to true voluntary membership of the association. That will make that a much more vibrant and reflective body.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Tell us about the campaign office you started in Ryde.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The interjection of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods is quite interesting. This bill does a great deal to move forward the practice of law in Australia, and the Opposition commends it.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Kelly): Order! Honourable members will put down the signs.

The Hon. John Jobling: Point of order: Will the Hon. Jan Burnswoods and the Hon. Amanda Fazio remove the signs they are continuing to raise?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! I have asked that the signs be put away.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [3.20 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I participate in debate on the Legal Profession Amendment (National Competition Policy Review) Bill. The Greens support some aspects of this bill, but certainly will oppose others. Currently, solicitors and barristers pay a practising fee that covers the cost of membership services and the money that is needed for the respective organisation to carry out its regulatory functions. This bill creates a distinction between the two functions. The bill allows solicitors and barristers the option of being voluntary members of the Law Society or the Bar Association. While they will still have to pay a fee so that their organisation can carry out its regulatory functions under the Legal Profession Act, membership fees will be entirely voluntary.

The Greens have a problem with this approach as it amounts to voluntary unionism—a concept that is opposed by the Greens. Compulsory unionism helps unions to become more effective with additional members and more resources. The more members and resources a union has, the more effective it is in negotiating rights and benefits for its members. As a general principle, voluntary unionism is unfair, as often non-members benefit to the same extent as members. For example, the Public Service Association of New South Wales secured a 14 per cent pay rise for its members over four years. Non-members receive this pay increase, despite not having contributed anything whatsoever toward the campaign. With regard to the Law Society and the Bar Association, one aspect of its work which could be construed as a membership function is lobbying.

The Law Society and the Bar Association frequently lobbies the Government, the Opposition and crossbenchers on behalf of its members on issues that affect its members and their clients. Some lobbying is successful and can achieve beneficial results for members and their clients. Why should some members of the profession, who choose not to pay, benefit to the same degree as those who do pay? There are some aspects of the bill that are supported by the Greens—for example, the proposal that requires both the Law Society Council and the Bar Association to publicise disciplinary action that is taken against solicitors and barristers, and requires the Legal Services Commissioner to set up a public register of such action. Lawyers and barristers are extremely expensive. The public should have the right to know what they are paying for. Having said that, I indicate that the Greens do not oppose the bill.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [3.23 p.m.]: The Unity party supports the bill, which is part of the National Competition Policy and is designed to open the New South Wales legal profession to all of Australia. Basically, by effectively acknowledging that Australia has moved away from a historically fragmented legal profession, which is a leftover from the old colonial days when each State had a separate legal system, the bill takes us into the twenty-first century. This legislation will allow the States to continue to regulate their legal systems. However, it facilitates the interstate movement of lawyers. The bill provides that any practitioner who holds a practising certificate from another Australian jurisdiction can practise in New South Wales so long as he or she meets certain standards that are set out in the Act. I guess that makes sense, given that increasing competition has the potential of delivering tangible benefits such as choice and, hopefully, reduced legal fees for consumers.

An important consequence of this bill is the separation of the regulatory role and the membership functions of the Law Society and the Bar Association. This is facilitated by the separate imposition of membership and practising fees. The resulting benefits will include more transparent cost structures of the Law Society and the Bar Association, hopefully leading to savings for consumers. Lawyers can choose to contribute, or not, to the cost of membership activities conducted by their legal professional associations. To further protect consumers, this bill also makes a breach of the newly imposed ban on advertising by solicitors sufficient grounds for disciplinary action against the barrister or solicitor. The bill also promotes multidisciplinary practice in the legal profession by removing the power of the Law Society to make practice rules, which prevent solicitors from practising with other professionals, such as barristers, in multidisciplinary partnerships.

Another welcome consumer protection provision of the bill is the requirement for the Law Society Council and the Bar Association to publicise disciplinary action that is taken against solicitors and barristers through a public register of such action. The public register will allow consumers to find out whether a barrister or solicitor they plan to engage has been the subject of disciplinary action by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal following a consumer's complaint. This bill means greater consumer benefits and protection by providing for greater transparency and competition in the legal market in New South Wales. For these reasons, I will support the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.25 p.m.]: This bill is part of the Government's ongoing process to reform the legal profession which began in 1995 and touched on issues such as advertising, multidisciplinary practices and, generally, more transparency of the business of the legal profession. The bill contains a number of changes to the profession's practices. The amendment that has gained the most focus relates to membership. The National Competition Policy, as it applies to the legal profession, will mean that solicitors and barristers will be free to join a legal association other than the Law Society and the Bar Association. At present, membership of the Law Society for solicitors and the Bar Association for barristers is voluntary, but practising fees include both the cost of regulatory activities and the cost of membership services. One provision of this bill will separate these two cost components.

The Law Society has not opposed this bill and is obviously confident that its present members will continue to support the society. My experience is, however, that when people are given a choice of paying a separate membership fee, two-thirds of the membership disappears. I imagine there will be a number of groups with differing interests who may see the advantage of clubbing together outside the confines of the Law Society and, to a lesser extent, the Bar Association. One could imagine the larger firms, of the likes of Freehill and Allens getting together, and perhaps the Labour Lawyers, women's lawyers and so on. Time will tell. Second, the amendment regarding misconduct charges for contravention of solicitors' advertising rules smacks of censorship of the legal profession. Solicitors were permitted greater freedom to advertise through previous legislation, but with the cutting of workers compensation, and now personal injury claims, the Government seeks to again threaten the profession for having the temerity to inform members of the public of their ever-diminishing rights. The Attorney General in his second reading speech set out the Government's attitude. He stated:

Honourable members will be aware that the Government moved quickly to ban certain kinds of advertising by solicitors and advertising relating to personal injury services, when the depth of community concern about solicitors' advertising, and its relationship to the public liability crisis, became clear.

It is clear from that statement that the Government had already begun to contemplate gagging debate on the public liability issue before it introduced its Civil Liability Bill. Third, the amendment regarding multidisciplinary practices removes the power of the Law Society to make practice rules to prevent solicitors from practising with other professionals. In 1999 the Law Society removed restrictions on profit sharing between lawyers and non-lawyers. This amendment seeks to ensure that the way is open for multidisciplinary practices. Obviously, the Government does not trust the Law Society. Some concern was expressed in the other place that it was not a good idea to have, say, accountants and lawyers in practice together. The question is whether accountants would have the same grasp of professional ethics as solicitors. That is a matter upon which honourable members must make up their minds.

Solicitors will still be subject to the same code of ethics that applied to them before the introduction of this bill, even if accountants are not, and perhaps in those circumstances there will be a conflict of sorts. However, the availability of a more flexible business structure is in line with National Competition Policy by making that type of mixed profession more competitive nationally and generally in the marketplace. I must confess that I have some misgivings. Fourth, the amendment requiring barristers and solicitors rules to be publicly promulgated before being made is a good move. If only the Government could apply this type of consultative process to some of its own legislation.

Fifth, the amendment to allow legal practitioners from any other jurisdiction to practise in New South Wales is a good one. It will promote a national legal services market, which will give practitioners more work options. Sixth, the amendment to require the Law Society and the Bar Association to publicise disciplinary action taken against solicitors and barristers is a positive measure. It is proposed that a public register be set up by the Legal Services Commissioner, which will be available on the Legal Services Commissioner's web site. As honourable members would know, I have a bill before the House—the Government (Open Market Competition) Bill—which deals with a similar philosophy, to make government contracts open and accountable.

Overall, the bill may be seen as an attempt to diminish the lobbying power of the legal profession. Over the last five years or so—certainly since I have been a member of this House—the Law Society has been an effective voice for opposition to Government legislation. Indeed, I believe that the legal profession has been a more effective opposition than the Opposition in this Chamber. Its views and suggested amendments to law and order bills especially have been useful to me and many crossbench members. I do not always agree with the Law Society's views but at least they offer an alternative point of view that is well reasoned and well researched. Naturally, at times there is an element of self-interest but that is to be expected from any lobby group. Very often the Law Society acts strongly in the interests of plaintiffs and I believe it should be commended for that. The Law Society is not opposing the legislation and obviously believes that there will be life for it after this bill. We generally support the bill, although we have some misgivings about certain aspects of it.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.31 p.m.]: The Legal Profession Amendment (National Competition Policy Review) Bill initiates further reforms of the legal profession in New South Wales based on the National Competition Policy review. I believe that in general it will further increase the transparency of the legal profession, which is to be supported. The reforms included in this bill are the separation of the functions of the Law Society and the Bar Association, disciplinary action for breach of advertising rules, the encouragement of a national legal services market, and a public register for disciplinary proceedings.

I understand from the Minister's second reading speech that many of the reforms in the bill were recommended by the Attorney General's Department in its report on the National Competition Policy review of the Legal Profession Act 1987. That review was part of the Government's obligations under the Competition Principles Agreement, which was agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in April 1995. I spoke in this House on the Legal Profession Amendment (Complaints and Discipline) Bill 2000 and the Legal Profession Amendment (Incorporated Legal Practices) Bill 2000, both of which dealt with reforming the legal profession. I supported the Legal Profession Amendment (Complaints and Discipline) Bill as it improved the complaints-handling procedures against solicitors.

However, I strongly opposed the Legal Profession Amendment (Incorporated Legal Practices) Bill. I spoke against that bill as I believed that the incorporation of solicitors firms would result in solicitors being less accountable to clients and the public and being too concerned about shareholders and the financial bottom line. At the time there was opposition to this bill from the New South Wales Bar Association, the Law Institute of Victoria, the New South Wales Legal Reform Group and other Australian groups representing the legal profession. I recall that I opposed that bill even at the second reading stage and the Hon. Peter Breen did the same as we felt so strongly about it. It is seldom that I vote against a bill at the second reading stage.

In my view this bill incorporates aspects of both previous bills. For instance, I do not agree with the separation of the membership and regulatory functions of the Law Society and the Bar Association, and I will discuss that issue later in reference to the Law Society in particular. However, I am supportive of amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1987 in relation to disciplinary issues. The difference between this bill and the Legal Profession Amendment (Incorporated Legal Practices) Bill is that there is no strong opposition to this bill. I have checked with the Law Society and I understand that it is happy with the bill as it stands.

I would now like to discuss the separation of regulatory and membership functions of the Law Society. Honourable members may be aware that until now solicitors and barristers automatically paid for membership of either the Law Society or the Bar Association when they paid for their practising certificate Membership was included in the fee. Most people, many lawyers included, would presume that as the fee was included in the fee for the practising certificate, membership was compulsory. However, as I discovered, membership is in fact voluntary, but due to the interlinking of the regulatory and membership functions that was not clear. The bill will change that. When these changes commence on 1 July 2004 solicitors and barristers will simply pay for their practising certificate and choose optional membership of the Law Society or Bar Association.

I have reservations about the separation of these functions, and although I will not oppose the bill I would like to make clear my reasons for objecting to this. Although I agree with the statement in the Minister's second reading speech that dividing the regulatory and membership role could mean more transparency and may bring savings to consumers, I still believe that being a member of either the Law Society or the Bar Association is important to provide solicitors and barristers with a sense of security and certainty of standards for members.

If legal practitioners decide not to join their professional organisations, the credibility of both organisations may suffer, and I do not believe solicitors or barristers will be better off in the long term. As all honourable members know, the Law Society does considerable work in lobbying the Government, the Opposition, and members of the crossbench. Only last week the President, Kim Cull, and the Director of Policy and Strategy, Shaugn Morgan, spoke to members of the crossbench on the Civil Liability Bill. My concern is that if many solicitors choose not to become members of the Law Society, it will no longer be able to properly represent members. I hope that is not the case. Like any organisation, the strength is in numbers of members. If it does not have sufficient numbers, it cannot be said to represent the legal profession.

The Law Society of New South Wales currently performs two vital functions for solicitors in this State. The society's web site explicitly states that the society has "two primary areas of responsibility. It acts as both licensing and regulating authority and trade union for its members." Historically, the law—like medicine and other professions—has always preferred to be self-regulating, without outside interference. That is clearly why the Law Society has had a dual role in lobbying on behalf of members and also the capacity to discipline them and to maintain professional standards. That is the point I made earlier. If not enough members join the Law Society it cannot be said to represent the legal profession.

As a former solicitor I would like to alert honourable members to the historical background of the Law Society of New South Wales and the importance of membership of the society for all solicitors in this State. According to the Law Society's web site, in 1842 Sir George Gipps, then Governor of New South Wales, stood in this House and stated that solicitors were causing delays in the administration of justice, increasing expense in legal proceedings and claiming excessive remuneration for services. Some honourable members may think that not much has changed since then, but that is a moot point. What is important is that as a result of the Governor's statement six solicitors, with James Norton as leader, joined together as the Sydney Law Library Society and responded to the Governor in the daily newspapers.

More than 40 years later, in 1884, the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales was established. Again I refer to the web site of the Law Society of New South Wales. The institute aimed to "consider, originate and promote reform and improvements to the law, to represent generally the views of the profession, and to encourage and promote the study of law". In 1935 the institute was granted powers under the Legal Practitioners Act relating to solicitors' trust accounts, the discipline of solicitors and the issuing of practising certificates. Solicitors who paid the practising fee automatically became members of the institute. In 1960 the institute changed its name to the Law Society of New South Wales, which reflects changes to the role of the society and to the legal profession as a whole. I am sure that those honourable members who studied law will recall that the Law Society of New South Wales set up the Law Foundation, which is now called the Law and Justice Foundation, from the interest earned from solicitors' trust accounts.

Through the Law Foundation the Law Society was able, in 1973, to establish the College of Law, which continues to provide practical legal training for solicitors instead of articles of clerkship. In 1986 I attended the College of Law after I finished my law studies at Macquarie University. In those days everyone who studied law and who wanted to practice law went to the College of Law to complete their practical qualifications. But these days only half of all law graduates finish their studies at the College of Law. When my daughter finished her law studies at the University of Sydney she did not go to the College of Law. Not everyone wants to practise law.

I refer now to disciplinary proceedings against solicitors and barristers. As someone with a legal background I am fully aware of the difficulties that consumers face when making complaints about solicitors or barristers. Members of the public face these difficulties because they are not told about the disciplinary actions that are taken against lawyers. I am pleased that the Law Society Council and the Bar Association now have to publicise disciplinary actions taken against solicitors and barristers. The Legal Services Commissioner has to keep a public register of disciplinary action on the commission's web site. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, this will increase the transparency and accountability of the legal profession. The legal profession has an important task to perform in the public interest.

I know of someone who was recently involved in a huge court case who had difficulty in dealing with his solicitor. The solicitor, who had already been paid, refused to act in the way that was expected of him and, in the process, he jeopardised the court case. If a complaint is made about that solicitor and disciplinary action is taken against him by the Law Society of New South Wales it would help all other consumers of legal services to know that that solicitor was brought into disrepute. Consumers would, therefore, be more wary of hiring such a solicitor. Such solicitors should be held accountable and consumers should be able to lodge complaints against them. I support the Legal Profession Amendment (National Competition Policy Review) Bill and commend it to the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.43 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Legal Profession Amendment (National Competition Policy Review) Bill, which will amend the Legal Profession Act 1987 in a number of areas relating to National Competition Policy reform. I am particularly supportive of paragraph (b) in the overview of the bill, which states:

(b) to provide that a contravention of the advertising rules for barristers and solicitors is capable of being professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct.

The bill will control advertising—if possible, there should be no advertising—by solicitors and members of the legal profession. Such advertising has had a negative impact on workers compensation and civil liability cases. I am pleased that there is provision in the bill for specialist training schemes. As laws are amended and changed, barristers and solicitors should keep up to date with those procedures: they are an essential requirement in our complex society. Paragraph (d) in the overview of the bill states:

(d) to make it clear that solicitors may practise in multidisciplinary partnerships, despite anything to the contrary in the solicitors rules, and that barristers may also practise in multidisciplinary partnerships, subject to the barristers rules.

I am sure that all honourable members are concerned about multidisciplinary partnerships. Honourable members would be aware that I am not a lawyer, but I have watched a number of programs on television depicting such partnerships. I suppose that I should not judge the legal profession in Australia by the legal practices that are depicted in American television programs such as LA Law. However, they appear to convey an element of ruthlessness that is apparent in large corporate legal firms. It would be a pity if that sort of ruthlessness developed in Australia. It might already be apparent in a number of large legal firms in Australia. Paragraph (g) in the overview of the bill states:

(g) to require the Bar Council, the Law Society Council and the Legal Services Commissioner to publicise disciplinary action taken against barristers and solicitors.

I support that provision in the legislation. I am concerned about recent public revelations about barristers—I do not believe too many solicitors were involved—who deviously and immorally evaded income tax by not lodging tax returns. I am sure many other honourable members feel the same way. Tax bills worth millions of dollars would accumulate over a number of years and those barristers would then declare themselves bankrupt, thus evading their taxation bills. As they had declared themselves bankrupt there was no requirement for them to pay the tax bills. They would continue in their legal practices and go through the same exercise. One or two barristers declared themselves bankrupt on more than one occasion.

When that story was made public, obvious embarrassment was shown by representatives of the Law Society and the Bar Association, but they could not bring themselves to condemn those barristers. I was disappointed that they appeared to be nervous about coming on too strong. They should have been more outspoken and condemned the activities of some of their members. Since then action has been taken in relation to those respective bodies. In the main I have always had good service from solicitors and barristers.

I have had a great deal to do with Ferguson and Carter, solicitors in Gerringong, who have been helpful and efficient. I have also had good service from Beswick, solicitors in Sydney. On one occasion when a barrister represented me in a defamation case I reluctantly agreed to an expensive settlement. I had to pay out tens of thousands of dollars in a case in which I, as a layman, did not believe I was guilty, but I had to accept the legal advice of the barristers who were representing me.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Did you have to pay the mardi gras some money?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: No. I had to pay the Chief Censor because I criticised its approval of the Hail Mary film. How can a person be found guilty of defamation when dealing with the Chief Censor? I thought those sorts of people were open to criticism from the Left and the Right. I criticised the Chief Censor for allowing the film to be shown. After the settlement the barrister sent me a bill for the following week when the case was to go before the Supreme Court. The case did not go before the Supreme Court but the barrister thought I should still pay his fees for that week.

I was particularly disappointed when I found out he had another important case—and I will not mention any names—which he must have known about some weeks prior to my case being listed. My barrister could have adjusted his calendar to fit in my case. I paid the barrister's fees because I was threatened. I did not know that other avenues were open to me. I was told, "If you do not pay these fees you will go on some sort of black list and no-one will represent you in the future." I reluctantly paid thousands of dollars for a court case that was never held. With that exception, in the main I have received good service from barristers and solicitors. I support the bill.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [3.50 p.m.]: I support the broad objectives of the Legal Profession Amendment (National Competition Policy Review) Bill. Most importantly, the bill draws a distinction between fees paid to the Law Society and the Bar Association in connection with the exercise of their regulatory functions on the one hand and member services on the other hand. As a consequence of the bill becoming law, membership of the Law Society and the Bar Association will be voluntary, at which time I believe members will leave the Law Society in droves as most solicitors regard it as a waste of space. Most law consumers would express a similar view once they had any experience with the Law Society. Unfortunately for the Law Society, it has never succeeded in representing the interests of both solicitors and law consumers. In my opinion, the Law Society has failed everybody.

The problems with the Law Society to which I have referred—I have also mentioned them in previous debates—centre on two issues: first, the Law Society's professional indemnity insurance company, LawCover Pty Ltd, and, second, the conduct and discipline of the legal profession. Self-regulation simply does not work at the Law Society. I was pleased to read in the Attorney General's second reading speech that he plans to bring forward a comprehensive reform package in that respect in the near future. That reform package is well overdue. The issues paper has been around for some time and on several occasions the Attorney General promised to address the matters dealt with originally by the Law Reform Commission. The Attorney General in effect took it out of the hands of the Law Reform Commission, and many people are waiting anxiously for his final decisions about the various issues.

Allowing the Law Society to look after the conduct and discipline of the legal profession is a nightmare for law consumers. As for LawCover, the Law Society's professional indemnity insurance company, hardly a week goes by without my receiving a complaint about the way it goes into battle against law consumers on behalf of New South Wales solicitors. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile related a personal incident concerning a barrister and legal costs, and I was reminded of an issue that was brought to my attention only last week when I received a telephone call from Fred and Evelyne Lettice requesting an appointment. I had seen a report about their case on Stateline and, although I was not fully acquainted with the facts, I was happy to speak with them about it and to canvass the various issues involved.

In 1994 Mr and Mrs Lettice sued their solicitor for negligence over a conveyancing error. When they bought their 25-acre property at Theresa Park in 1982 their solicitor made a mistake about a right of way and, as a result, part of the property is landlocked. Based on further legal advice, Mr and Mrs Lettice sued in the Supreme Court over the reduced value of the land as a consequence of the solicitor's mistake. As honourable members might expect, Mr and Mrs Lettice won the case. However, the referee's decision was not good enough for LawCover, and the solicitor's professional indemnity insurer appealed the Supreme Court decision to the Court of Appeal. Three judges held on appeal that the solicitor's mistake was discoverable within the six-year period of the statute of limitations, and therefore Mr and Mrs Lettice could not recover their damages from the solicitor.

Reading the judgment of the Court of Appeal in that case left me shaking my head. The logical conclusion of the court's ruling is that every conveyancing transaction undertaken by a solicitor must be checked every six years. After six years, law consumers lose the protection of the solicitors professional indemnity insurance policy. That decision gives a whole new meaning to the expression "time heals all wounds". One wound the decision will not heal, however, is the hole in Mr and Mrs Lettice's pocket. The day after I interviewed Mr and Mrs Lettice they received a creditor's petition from LawCover's solicitors, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, following the issuing of the bankruptcy notice to recover LawCover's costs on the appeal. What were those costs? The creditor's petition claims the sum of $408,420.57. Needless to say, this is an obscene amount of money and, as far as I am concerned, it is a scandal that LawCover and its marble and glass lawyers can take action of this kind under the negligent solicitors insurance policy in respect of a bona fide claim.

In my opinion, Mr and Mrs Lettice were robbed by their solicitor when they bought the land, they were robbed again by the Court of Appeal when it overturned the Supreme Court decision and, finally, they were robbed when LawCover's solicitors issued the creditor's petition for legal costs of Oz Lotto proportions. Alex Mitchell wrote an excellent article, which appeared in last weekend's Sun-Herald, about why lawyers do not want to become judges. He quoted the colourful criminal lawyer Chris Murphy as saying that many barristers regard elevation to the judiciary as an escape from unemployment at the bar. My advice to unemployed lawyers is to get a job at Mallesons Stephen Jaques, where members of the legal profession earn thousands of dollars for standing by a fax machine and terrorising ordinary people who have been dudded by their solicitors. Opposite Alex Mitchell's article appeared a piece by David Brown of the University of New South Wales headed "Silly old duffers' tag taking toll on Bench". In the article Brown referred to:

However, the judiciary is not immune to criticism. Its members are lawmakers and part of the government. If judges fail ordinary people such as Mr and Mrs Lettice they deserve to be criticised.

The next part of the bill refers to advertising by a barrister or solicitor. The conduct of the Law Society has been particularly bad in this area. Members of the Law Society never wanted to advertise their services but the Law Society negotiated with the Greiner Coalition Government to allow solicitors to do so. The resulting advertisements caused an enormous amount of anxiety in the community and brought a great deal of discredit to lawyers. Honourable members will be aware that barristers never advertised; it was only solicitors who decided to go down that track because of a decision made not by them as a group but by their representative body, the Law Society. I commend new laws that limit advertising by solicitors but I question the likely effectiveness of the bill's provisions that deem certain types of advertisements professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct.

By way of comparison, overcharging is also professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct and is an enormous problem for law consumers who constantly knock on my door to complain about their solicitors' and barristers' bills. The example that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile gave a moment ago is no isolated incident: the majority of complaints made to the Legal Services Commissioner involve lawyers' costs. Today I looked through the current edition of the Law Society's publication Law Society Journal, which is the magazine distributed to members of the Law Society. I was interested to read an article by Marina Wilson about overcharging, which concludes:

As I said earlier, the majority of the complaints that the Legal Services Commissioner deals with relate to legal costs. The commissioner is frequently confronted with the question: Does this level of overcharging constitute professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct? The Legal Services Commissioner frequently comes to the answer that it is simply too difficult to argue with the solicitor or barrister about whether their costs are excessive.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
_________

NORTH HEAD QUARANTINE STATION

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment. Is the Minister aware that the decision to lease and deny public access to the North Head foreshore and Quarantine Station will result in thousands of tourists trampling through the critical breeding habitat of the near extinct fairy penguin? Has the Minister raised concerns about the survival of the fairy penguin colony with the Minister for the Environment and the Premier? If so, what was their response?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The House would be well aware that my colleague the Minister for Planning has set up a commission of inquiry to assist with the assessment of the quarantine station proposal. The inquiry will examine, in an open and transparent manner, all environmental and heritage implications of the proposal. The public hearings of the commission of inquiry have now been completed, and the Minister for Planning is awaiting a report from the commissioner.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe raised issues with regard to critical habitat declaration. The Threatened Species Conservation Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act set out the requirements for approval of activities within an area identified as critical habitat. Activities that have been approved through an environmental impact statement [EIS] and a species impact statement determination can be undertaken within an area identified as critical habitat.

With regard to the proposal for the use of the quarantine station, both an EIS and a species impact statement have been prepared in full knowledge that a critical declaration was contemplated to assess the range of likely impacts on the little penguin population. The EIS and the species impact statement are presently being assessed through the commission of inquiry and the determining authorities. If the proposal is approved, the activity may proceed and any final critical habitat declaration will not affect the terms of the approval.

While concerns have been expressed about the quarantine station proposal by a range of sources, it may be useful to remind the House that the entire leasing process was commenced by the Coalition when it was last in government by none other than the honourable member for Gosford.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House how the New South Wales industrial relations system promotes industrial co-operation?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Honourable members would be well aware of the campaign by the Howard Government to take over the industrial relations systems in New South Wales and the other States. The Federal Minister for Workplace Relations, Tony Abbott, has made his plan very clear—although he conceded to journalists in Sydney last month that it was virtually impossible while Labor was in power in New South Wales. He was quite right: it was an accurate observation. A Labor Government in New South Wales will not give away the co-operative system developed over the past 100 years. But Mr Abbott is persistent. His latest attempt works in this way. He will insist that any Federal moneys used for construction projects will require unfettered on-site access by the Office of the Employment Advocate to police the ideological agenda of the Howard-Abbott Government.

If Tony Abbott is truly committed to ensuring good industrial relations and greater productivity outcomes on construction projects, he should carefully examine the success of the best-ever Olympic Games, which were held in Sydney. The Games set the benchmark for industrial co-operation between unions and employers and was underpinned by the making of an award in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. The Government-union partnership that resulted ensured a high priority on safety, a commitment to worker training, no illegal employment practices, and minimal industrial disputes. It showed how industrial relations on this massive project could succeed and contribute to the productivity and success of the overall project.

Let us compare this to the microcosm of Tony Abbott's vision of industrial relations: Victoria, which had its industrial relations laws jettisoned in favour of Federal legislation. The Victorian industrial landscape is now held captive by intractable disputes between parties, with a hamstrung Federal commission unable to effectively resolve their differences. That has led to a phenomenon in which employers are trapped in a system where every action they take meets with an equal counter-reaction by unions. Examples of that phenomenon include the 2�-year dispute at the O'Connor meatworks in Pakenham, which finally ended last year; the Nestle dispute at Echuca, which involved strikes and work bans for three months in 2001; a five-week dispute as part of the campaign 2000 dispute at Feltex carpets, and the creation of militant and anarchic groups such as Workers First.

That might look great in the ideological agenda of Tony Abbott and John Howard, but it is no good for Victorian workers or, ultimately, for Victorian employers. The Carr Government has stated before, and will state again, that it will not hand over its industrial relations powers to Canberra. Any move to a unitary system of industrial relations, whether by a direct method of legislative handover or by this latest backdoor attempt by Tony Abbott, will be firmly resisted by this Government.

POLICE TARGET ACTION GROUPS

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. What action has the Minister taken following the break-up of the Georges River region Target Action Group [TAG] at Hurstville to ensure that officers are redeployed to local area commands in the Sutherland shire? Can the Minister inform the House why 10 of these TAG officers, who were to be based at Cronulla from 1 July, have now been told to apply for positions elsewhere? Has the Minister investigated concerns that the nearest TAG unit to the Sutherland shire will now be an undermanned squad at Riverwood which currently has insufficient staff to look after its own designated areas?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Leader of the Opposition's question is rather premature, because no decisions have been made regarding the TAGs. As a consequence I am not able to respond to allegations about changes that are not in the pipeline. As soon as the decisions are made in relation to TAGs and the allocation of all scarce resources within the police restructure, I will make those details available for the public of New South Wales.

ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Given that Monday 3 June marked the end of National Reconciliation Week and, most importantly, the 10-year anniversary of the High Court's Mabo decision, will the Minister inform the House what action the Government is taking to ensure that the reconciliation process stays alive in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Government is very conscious of its obligations in relation to reconciliation and, as the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho would be aware, a number of initiatives were undertaken to mark that commitment. It would most appropriate for me to get a detailed response to the honourable member's question from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and provide it to her as soon as possible.

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister inform the House about the new Information and Communications Technology Centre of Excellence?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Last month the New South Wales based National Information and Communications Technology bid was chosen as the preferred candidate to establish and operate Australia's Information and Communications Technology [ICT] Centre of Excellence. The centre will be a world-class research and training institution with significant links with industry, including commercialisation opportunities for Australian information and communications technology [ICT] companies through collaborative research, incubator development, staff exchanges and information sharing. It will build on the status of New South Wales as the ICT capital of Australia and one of the leading ICT hubs in the Asian-Pacific region. The $130 million centre is expected to attract domestic and international investment and inject more than $1 billion into the New South Wales economy over the next 15 years.

The centre will staff up to 660 researchers and students and create more than 500 new PhD places over the next ten years. The New South Wales Government's initial commitment of $20 million will bring jobs as well as investment into the New South Wales economy. In the first year alone 50 jobs will be created at the Redfern site, growing to 400 jobs over the next five years. In the long-term more than 1,000 jobs will be created in information, communication and technology employment. The centre will establish its headquarters at the Australian Technology Park in Redfern and will have additional locations at the University of New South Wales and the Australian National University in Canberra.

The announcement that the Information and Communications Technology Centre of Excellence will be located in Sydney has already had an impact. Leading international information technology companies have been in contact with the New South Wales Government to explore the option of locating on site with the centre of excellence. Through its integrated approach to innovation, education and ICT industry development, the Information and Communications Technology Centre of Excellence will boost the capability of our ICT industry and deliver substantial productivity gains across all sectors of the New South Wales economy. As a result, the centre will contribute to better living standards and higher rate of economic growth for New South Wales and the Australian community as a whole. I welcome the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place. It suggests that there is another leadership coup under way. It does not matter who they want to serve up to us, we will knock them over.

DOG CONTROL

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Leader of the Government, in the absence of the Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Local Government. Is it a fact that the Minister has decided, on expert veterinary advice, not to ban certain breeds of dog which have been associated with a series of recent savage attacks on children and adults? Is the Minister satisfied with the level of compliance with the legal requirement to have a dog under restraint at all times while off the owner's premises? If not, and in view of the decision not to ban vicious dogs, will the Minister ask local councils to enforce the leashed dog laws and, if necessary, will he legislate to provide those councils with adequate penalties to encourage compliance with the law, that is, to make people keep their dogs on leads?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I suppose if I had kept my dog on a leash he would not have run away! I thank the Hon. John Tingle for an important question. I do not know the answer. I will refer it to my colleague in the other place and obtain a response as soon as possible

POLICE RECRUITMENT TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is to the Minister for Police. What has been the total cost of producing and buying large slabs of air time for the new so-called police recruitment television advertisements? Given that the advertisements barely acknowledge the fact that they are for recruiting purposes, should they not instead be labelled as election advertisements, to be paid for and authorised by Sussex Street?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I take exception to the comments made by the honourable member. I have had nothing but good feedback about the advertisements; they are very good. The police officers I have spoken to congratulate the police force for investing in those advertisements because not only do they depict circumstances that police encounter daily, they also project an image of policing that the community wants to see. That is important for police morale. The police have advised me that the advertisements have been tremendously successful. The police web site has received approximately 33,000 hits since the advertisements commenced. The normal number is 2,000 hits per day. These advertisements have been a tremendous success. They fit in with the recruitment campaign to lift our record police numbers to greater record numbers. Again I thank the Treasurer for his generosity this year. I cannot mention the budget—that is for another time—but I thank the Treasurer for his generosity with a record amount of funding. The police have also advised that since Sunday 9 June, when the advertisements went to air, they have had 2,718 requests for information application packages.

The Hon. Michael Egan: How many?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: They have received 2,718 requests for information packages—a tremendous result from the advertisements. The figures show how successful the campaign has been. One has to understand that the advertisements make it clear how tough policing is but how, at the same time, it can be a rewarding profession. The advertisements tell it as it is and remind the community that our police are heroes. So it is with great pleasure that I congratulate the police force for its advertisements. They work; they are doing what they were designed to do. In relation to the cost, as the commissioner said on the first day of the campaign, $1 million was spent developing the advertisement. I do not have the actual cost of the campaign with me but I am certainly able to get those details and make them public. There are no secrets. The advertisements are aimed at the important process of ensuring that adequate numbers of police come through our training courses. That is what we have now: great numbers. As honourable members know, there were 410 from the last attestation.

In answer to a question asked last week by the Leader of the Opposition I said that there are clear problems in finding places for the next attestation, given the record numbers coming through. I made it clear that we will hold the next attestation in Goulburn. Certainly there is a problem, but it is a problem we want. What a problem: not enough room for attestations because of the record numbers coming through! The police advise me that at the moment there are 1,300 people in training. It is a tremendous achievement to be in a position where we have to look at alternative venues because of the record numbers. The fact that there were 33,000 hits on the police web site after the advertisements shows it is a tremendous campaign. I congratulate everybody who was involved in the production and airing of the advertisements.

YOUTH PARTNERSHIP WITH ARABIC SPEAKING COMMUNITIES

The Hon. RON DYER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister inform the House of progress in the youth partnership with Arabic speaking communities?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: It is an important initiative, particularly because the initiative came in the first instance from members of the Arabic community who put an idea to the Premier two years ago. Members of the Arabic community were concerned about development opportunities for young people in their community and the idea was for a partnership with government that would provide targeted support to young people from Arabic speaking backgrounds and their families. This idea has become the youth partnership with Arabic peaking communities. The partnership is overseen by an implementation committee which comprises, importantly, young people as well as community organisations and leaders in government, assisted by my colleague the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries.

Backed by Government funding, community leadership and support, the youth partnership is an innovative program that is making a difference. Its aims are to promote the well-being of young people of Arabic descent, to increase parental support and education, to help prevent risk-taking behaviour and to provide better learning opportunities and increased participation in sport, recreation and culture for long-term personal development. The first stage of the project has put in place youth liaison teams whose job it is to meet with young people in places where they gather. This is very much in recognition of the fact that young people often do not actively seek out services, even when they need them. If we are to be effective in linking young people with appropriate services, we need to be in the places where young people are. We need to talk with them in a less formal way and in that way have the opportunity to link them up with services, should that be necessary.

The teams are also working with families, schools, local councils, police, health and other agencies to connect young people to services they need. Two weeks ago in Bankstown I launched the next stage of the Government's youth partnership with Arabic speaking communities, which is the Youth Leadership Development Program. This program is a partnership between the Government, the Institute for Cultural Studies at the University of Western Sydney, young people and community organisations.

The program aims to give at least 75 young people the chance to learn skills and take on a leadership role within their communities and neighbourhoods. It involves workshops and training followed by the design and implementation of a local project picked by the young people in the program. Some of the projects could include web site development, advocacy at local council level for a youth issue or setting up a mentor scheme. Those who complete the program will receive recognition from the University of Western Sydney and they will also have the chance to go on to apply for the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme. It is a promising program with large community support.

Iktimal Hage Ali and Mahmoud Dehn are two young people who have been actively involved with the implementation committee. Those young people are to be congratulated on the contribution they are making. Hopefully, the leadership program will ensure that other young people of Arabic speaking background will have the opportunity to improve their ability to be leaders within their own community. The Government's contribution ensures that the program will be relevant and real for those young people who will participate. I look forward to reporting further progress to the House.

POLICE POWERS LEGISLATION PROCLAMATION

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that almost a year ago Parliament passed the Government's Police Powers (Internally Concealed Drugs) Bill at the request of the police to catch dealers who seek to avoid arrest by swallowing the evidence, such as balloons of heroin. However, as of today the police still cannot use these powers because the Government has yet to proclaim this legislation. Will the Minister detail to the House the nature of the delay and advise when the Government intends to proclaim these powers?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: There is no intention not to proclaim the legislation. I am advised that it will be proclaimed on 1 July. Suitable arrangements have been made with health practitioners so that the searches can take place. As honourable members will appreciate, these searches are an unpleasant task and they need to be undertaken by the appropriate people. The cause of the delay has been putting the appropriate health practitioners in place to undertake police searches. As I said, the legislation will be proclaimed on 1 July.

POLICE NUMBERS

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. Why has the Minister failed to put monthly statistics relating to police numbers on the New South Wales police web site since March, given his commitment in response to a question I asked on 27 November last that they "will be placed on the web as soon as possible"?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Police statistics are going onto the web site as soon as practicable.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Why are they taking so long?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: If the Leader of the Opposition will relax, he will hear the answer. If it were not for me, the statistics would not be going on the web site in the first place. The Government placed those statistics on the web, or directed the police force to place them on the web. They are important statistics and everybody is entitled to know what the police numbers are.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are ashamed of them, aren't you?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, I am certainly not ashamed of statistics that will show 410 additional probationary constables from the last attestation. The statistics will show that we have more police officers now than we have had over the past five or six years. We certainly have more police than were around when the Coalition was in government. If those statistics are not on the web site, I will make inquiries and make sure that they are put on. These matters do not come directly under the jurisdiction of my office. They need to be dealt with through police management, and I will speak to police management about them. There is no intention of not putting those statistics on the web site. It is the policy of the Government that they be there.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Why has it taken six months?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It certainly has not taken six months. That is ridiculous. The statistics have been on the web. The question asked by the honourable member talked about the statistics for last month.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Last month?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: May and April I think he is talking about.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: No, the last three months.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, that is not right. They have been on the web. We will put the statistics on. There is no intention of not having them there. I would be proud to have them there because they will show that under our Government this State has record numbers of police. We are proud of that.

CAR HOONS

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. What are the latest government measures to target car hoons?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The problem of car hoons was first brought to my attention by the honourable member for Kogarah and the honourable member for Rockdale. They are both outstanding members of Parliament who have been fighting for their community for a number of months to ensure that the problem of car hoons is dealt with. If only the Liberal Party could find some outstanding members similar to them, it might be in a position to make an impact on the politics of this State. Unfortunately for the Liberal Party, people of this quality will not go anywhere near it.

I was startled to hear from residents and shopkeepers in the Brighton-le-Sands area about the problems associated with car hoons. I made a commitment to discuss the matter with the Minister for Transport to see if we could resolve the problems in the interest of the community. Anybody who has been there will have seen how these kids—and they are not only kids—with expensive and dangerous toys cause a great many anti-social problems for local residents, with tyres screeching and music blaring from very loud speakers. Some of these people illegally modify their cars by taking out the back seats and putting in large speakers which play music very loudly.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: With coloured shirts?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is a blue shirt. The Government has developed a sensible response to the car hoon problem. From 1 July car hoons will be hit where it hurts—on their licence. My colleague the Minister for Transport will introduce a demerit points system for car hooning and will double many fines. Some of the penalties are the loss of two demerit points for excessive vehicle noise. Causing offensive noise from a vehicle sound system will mean the loss of another two demerit points. Someone who starts or drives a vehicle causing excessive noise or smoke will lose two demerit points. The best way to deal with car hoons is to target them where it hurts, that is, their licences.

Police tell me that many of these drivers spend $5,000 for a set of alloy wheels—or even $25,000 on a paint job. For repeat offenders, the current fines are not effective. That is why we are linking these offences to the demerit point system. People who continue this sort of behaviour will lose their licences. They will be off the road completely. Added to that, a pool of Environment Protection Authority officers will join with police and the Roads and Traffic Authority in blitzes on hoon hotspots. The more the chance of getting caught, the more chance there is they will get the message.

These changes build on the Government's illegal drag racing laws introduced in 1996. That legislation gave police the power to issue defect notices in relation to illegally modified vehicles and to impound any vehicle involved in street racing. So far this year 135 cars have been confiscated and more than 400 charges have been laid. The Government, NSW Police and the community will not tolerate car hoons. I commend the honourable member for Kogarah and the St George Local Area Command for their work in developing these initial proposals. As I said, we have two terrific members of Parliament in that area who put a lot of effort into meeting the concerns—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Unlike the rest.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, the rest of them are good too, as you will see. These two members of Parliament have put a lot of effort into dealing with the problem of car hoons. It is because of their efforts that the new demerit points system will come into effect from 1 July. I congratulate both members on their efforts.

OLNEY STATE FOREST THREATENED SPECIES PROTECTION

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is to the Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. Is the Minister aware of alleged breaches by Forestry NSW of the integrated forestry operations approvals regulations regarding threatened species in compartment 35 of Olney State Forest? What is the result of the inspection by the threatened species unit of the National Parks and Wildlife Service on 5 June this year? Will prosecutions result from this inspection?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The question raises a number of detailed issues to which I cannot respond today, but I will refer the question to the Minister in the other place and get a response as soon as possible.

JUANITA NIELSEN DISAPPEARANCE INVESTIGATION

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Given his stated admiration for the New South Wales Crime Commission, which he referred to as a fantastic body, will he undertake to establish what that agency will do to solve one of the State's highest profile unsolved crimes: the Juanita Nielsen case? If the Crime Commission tells the Minister that it cannot solve that crime or that it will not try to, will he undertake to advise the House of the reason for such an assessment?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That question clearly involves an operational matter. I will take advice before I comment on the matter.

HUNTER FILM INDUSTRY

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Will the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development provide the House with details of the latest achievements of the New South Wales film industry in the Hunter?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Like the earlier question of the Hon. Tony Kelly, the question asked by the Hon. Amanda Fazio is a good one. I am pleased to inform the House of a recent report by the Newcastle and Hunter Film and Television Office which shows that almost $1.1 million has been injected into the Hunter economy by visiting film crews over the past 18 months.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: They are making a police commercial.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: We make a lot of television commercials in Australia. They are not just television commercials for Australia; they are for countries all around the world. We are an attractive location for many reasons. We have an excellent film industry in New South Wales and our costs are cheaper compared with those of other locations around the world. I am also told that we have another attraction: the quality of the light in New South Wales. Since July 2000 564 film and television production people, including units from Japan and the United States of America, have visited the Hunter. In fact, the region has recently attracted its first Indian Bollywood feature film. Bollywood is the Indian equivalent to Hollywood.

The Newcastle and Hunter Film and Television Office report increased interest in the Hunter as an on-site location. Many directors and location managers are particularly impressed with the diversity of landscapes and architecture, which offer a good range of potential film and television locations. Our fabulous locations are clearly catching on: New South Wales recently took out three major awards at the annual locations trade expo in America, beating leading film-making countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan and the United States. The Hunter enjoys a diverse industrial infrastructure and skills base to accommodate the needs of film and television production. The film industry can use and complement existing local industries and create new employment industries, providing a boost to the local economy.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Where are they going to get the Morris Oxfords?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: My family used to have a Morris Oxford. Film-related employment opportunities involve everything from film technicians, actors and extras to accommodation, restaurants, caterers and retail outlets as well as tradespeople, animal trainers, and portaloo and generator hire suppliers. It is pleasing to report that the Hunter community has developed a thriving local film culture in recent years. Newcastle is home to the popular Shoot Out Film Festival, where every year makers of short films converge on the city to make a film in 24 hours. The region offers a variety of film and video tuition, provided by the WEA Hunter, Newcastle TAFE and the University of Newcastle. Many talented local actors are represented by a variety of talent agencies, which provide casting assistance for visiting production crews. Feature films made in the Hunter include Bootmen, 15 Amore and Escape from Absalom. I look forward to hearing of many more feature films and television productions taking advantage of the great resources and facilities the Hunter has to offer.

M5 EAST EXHAUST STACK HEALTH IMPACTS

The Hon. IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Has the Minister received any notification of complaints about adverse health impacts from the M5 East stack or tunnel? Is the Minister aware that several previously healthy adults who live close to the top of the stack have developed asthma since the tunnel opened? Will the Minister provide details of complaints received? Has any action been undertaken by the health department in response to complaints?

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Good question.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not know whether it is a good question. I live about 30 metres as the crow flies from the Eastern Distributor stack.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: But you are always sick.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Since the Eastern Distributor has been in full operation my health has improved immeasurably. This is the first year in a number of years that I have not been sick at budget time. I am not suggesting that is a result of the Eastern Distributor stack. The Hon. Charlie Lynn said that it was a good question. I am not sure that it is, but I will refer it to my colleague the Minister for Roads and we will ascertain whether it is a good question. As soon as the Minister has had the opportunity to consider the honourable member's question I am sure he will give the House a detailed and satisfactory reply.

OPERATION FLORIDA LISTENING DEVICES WARRANT

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Has the Minister for Police to date apologised to two civilians who were erroneously named on a listening devices warrant, along with 112 police officers, in relation to Operation Florida? If not, will he now give an undertaking to the House that he will apologise to the two civilians in question?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: I am not sure whether the Hon. Greg Pearce should be in this Chamber or asking a question because in one of the weekend newspapers he was referred to as the Liberal member for Ryde.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As all members of the House should be aware, as I hope the honourable Dennis Denuto, that there was an inquiry into this matter. I do not intend to add any further to that inquiry.

POLICE MINISTER'S ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: My question is to the Minister for Police. What is the latest information on the Police Minister's Advisory Council [PMAC]?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is a very good question and it is appropriate that I report to the House on the Police Minister's Advisory Council, a council that was established in early December to strengthen the partnership between police and the community. The council's priorities are to consider community views on the effectiveness of local policing and crime prevention strategies; to develop plans for more effective local crime prevention; to assess the adequacy of police powers to prevent and solve crimes; to consider community views regarding front-line police deployment and efficiency; and to consider opportunities for integrating new technologies into policing.

The Hon. John Ryan: That was an initiative of the former Commissioner of Police, Peter Ryan.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Given the Hon. John Ryan's interjection, I make the point that this is not a replacement for the former police board. It has no role to play in operational issues, and has no executive or statutory powers over New South Wales police. The council gives the community a voice in policing, and it helps me to do my job as Minister. I want to hear the views of regional and rural New South Wales, Western Sydney and the business community, and that is reflected in the membership of the council. The council comprises the State Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive, Margy Osmond; the Mayor of Barraba, Shirley Close; the Vietnamese Women's Association President and domestic violence expert, April Pham; former Assistant Police Commissioner Geoff Schuberg; the Commissioner of Police, Ken Moroney; the Director-General of the Police Ministry, Les Tree; and the President of the Police Association, Ian Ball.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Is anyone from Treasury on it?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No. The council would not have Treasury representatives on it. They just tell you what you cannot do. I acknowledge the work of the council so far. The council is proving to be an extremely productive forum. Over the past six months the council has played a role in developing initiatives to help front-line police and the communities they serve. The initiatives include the supplementary policing trial; the review of police recruitment, retention and training; the police accountability community teams; the New South Wales police restructure; the trial of infringement notices for minor, non-violent offences; cutting police paperwork; police promotions; long-term sick; and a task force to develop better strategies to combat fraud.

The council will continue to meet at locations across the State to hear the views of local communities on policing. The first country PMAC meeting was held at Armidale on 17 May. The PMAC members discussed local policing issues with community representatives at the Armidale City Council chambers. It was a valuable experience, which will be repeated when the council meets at locations in metropolitan and rural New South Wales—including Cabramatta, Dubbo, Nowra and Kogarah—later this year. I look forward to reporting on the progress of the council to date. It is an important body and its meetings are fruitful. We have discussions with local community representatives, as we did in Armidale. Those views are taken very seriously, and we respond to the community when it raises issues of concern.

Not only has the council been involved in some of the important decisions that have been made in relation to extending police powers and police visibility. It is also very much involved in the restructure of the police force. The council has had briefings from the Police Ministry in relation to the restructure. If any issues arise as the restructure is implemented people will have an opportunity to talk to representatives of the PMAC and have those matters dealt with through the Police Minister's Advisory Council. I congratulate all those who are involved, and I thank them for their efforts to date.

GREY NURSE SHARK PROTECTION

The Hon. ALAN CORBETT: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Fisheries. Is it a fact that the Minister set up a grey nurse shark draft recovery team to advise him on the measures that needed to be taken to save the grey nurse shark from extinction? If so, what is the Minister's response to claims that he has now totally ignored the unanimous recommendations of the team by not incorporating its suggestions in the May draft recovery plan for the grey nurse shark?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I had better be careful with my response because, speaking as a layman, I would be quite happy for all grey nurse sharks to be gotten rid of, at least where I swim. However, if grey nurse sharks are back in favour, I will find out from my colleague the Minister for Fisheries what he is doing to ensure that they recover from whatever illness or misfortune they have been suffering.

[Interruption]

I swim all over the place. Although some of our waterways, such as Sydney Harbour, have been improved, I am not sure that I would swim in Sydney Harbour in an unprotected location. I once would have.

The Hon. Don Harwin: There are six sharks.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: There are six grey nurse sharks. Has the Hon. Don Harwin met them all? As long as there are none at Bondi Beach, I will be happy.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: They all have names, they are so precious.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not on speaking terms with them so I will have to take the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti's claim at face value.

The Hon. John Ryan: They wouldn't tolerate the competition.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, they probably would not. I will refer the Hon. Alan Corbett's question to the Minister on his return.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY CONTESTABILITY

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Vice President of the Executive Council. What is the Government's response to comments by the Treasurer's colleague the Queensland Treasurer, Terry Mackenroth, who has said that the results of the switch to full retail contestability in New South Wales and Victoria have been "dismal" and "hardly impressive"?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not surprised that Mr Mackenroth would say that because the Queensland Government has decided not to introduce full retail contestability for electricity consumers and I suppose for that reason it would be looking for any excuse to justify its decision.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You gave it to them, didn't you?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, Queensland does not have it. It does not have full retail contestability.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But yours was hardly a success.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No. The papers to which I am not allowed to refer show that Treasury is suggesting that by the end of the calendar year there will be something like 100,000 contract customers in New South Wales. I would not place much store on that prediction because, in any event, that is not the measure of success as I see it. The success of full retail contestability is that every electricity retailer in New South Wales, whether it is publicly owned or privately owned, knows that every one of its customers can walk away if they are not satisfied with the service they are getting. So the fact that customers are not changing is, to some extent, a reflection of satisfaction. The fact that retailers know that customers can choose at any time makes them pull up their socks and improve their performance. By the way, Terry Mackenroth is a pretty good bloke but that is not to say that he and I do not have major disagreements. And I will be telling the House about some of them on appropriate occasions.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE PAYMENTS CORPORATION

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House what actions are being taken by the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Corporation to ensure the availability of community language information to workers?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am pleased to advise the House that industry feedback continues to confirm that the portable long service scheme is clearly providing worthwhile long service benefits to workers in an industry that remains largely itinerant and has a large proportion of workers who speak a language other than English. The scheme administered by the corporation protects the long service leave of workers in the building and construction industry—a significant component of work entitlements notwithstanding the economic situation of the industry or the financial viability of employers wherever they are across the State. The 2000-01 year was another year of record payments: $34.7 million was paid to workers from the scheme managed by the corporation. A similar level will be achieved in 2001-02. The provision of such a worthwhile scheme is not a static process, and the corporation is continuously reviewing its operations to improve the quality and range of services available to its clients.

In 2001 the corporation completed the translation of the extensive information for worker members on the scheme into 14 community languages. The translated material is included on the corporation's web site and can be readily printed off, making the information easily accessible to workers and employers. The corporation can also provide the information in printed form directly to customers should they request it. The initiative is being promoted widely throughout the industry by the distribution of a site poster that, in particular, highlights the new community language material. The corporation maintains a statewide telephone help line service for the cost of a local call from a fixed phone anywhere in the State. The service can access telephone interpreter facilities at no charge to the caller. These actions are significant in the process of protecting workers entitlements in a key industry.

M5 EAST EXHAUST STACK

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Roads. Between February and April this year why were extraction fans for the M5 stack turned off completely or why were their operating hours not in conformity with agreed operating times?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Where was that?

The Hon. Richard Jones: On the M5 stack.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not know.

The Hon. John Jobling: Why not?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No-one told me. If I had been told that that question was going to be asked I would have found out the answer. I will find out and come back to the House with the answer.

ENERGYAUSTRALIA POWERTEL INVESTMENT

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. What has been the total cost to New South Wales taxpayers of EnergyAustralia's investment in the PowerTel consortium? Given that EnergyAustralia announced a significant write-down of its PowerTel investment to the amount of $24.9 million, will the Treasurer guarantee that that State-owned corporation will not waste any more taxpayers' dollars in that venture?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am aware that the investment in PowerTel has been written down. Honourable members would be aware that PowerTel is a venture by an American company and a consortium of Australian electricity retailers which, from memory, consists of EnergyAustralia, Energex in Queensland and one from Victoria. It is true that PowerTel has not thus far performed as well as one might have hoped when it was established, but it is not alone there. A number of other companies, including AGL, invested in a telco company called Dingo Blue.

The Hon. John Jobling: How much more is EnergyAustralia investing?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: As far as I know it is planning no further investment in PowerTel.

HITACHI LTD REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. What recent success has Sydney had in securing hubs of major information technology companies?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: One of Japan's largest companies, Hitachi Ltd, has established its regional headquarters in the New South Wales information technology [IT] precinct at North Ryde. My colleagues the Premier and the Hon. John Watkins recently opened a new $1.8 million site, which will house 90 highly skilled IT professionals. The site was selected over its sister operations in New Zealand and other Australian States. Thousands of international companies are now operating out of New South Wales, the engine room of the Australian economy. The new headquarters marks a first for Hitachi Ltd as two major divisions of the company, Hitachi Australia and Hitachi Data Systems, move into the one regional head office.

The new offices will also house a new state-of-the-art interactive customer solutions centre. Hitachi will be able to run technical hands-on workshops for existing customers and bring staff up to date with the latest breaking technologies. The centre will service clients and staff across Australia and New Zealand. Hitachi's operations will build on the State's information and communications sector, which employs more than 100,000 people and generates more than $26 billion annually. The combined revenue of the Hitachi group of companies in Australia is well in excess of $500 million annually and the group provides employment to more than 500 Australians across the country.

The Hon. John Ryan: They will pay more payroll tax.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Hitachi would have paid a lot more payroll tax if it had come here when the Coalition was in office. At one stage it would have paid 8 per cent, which is a full 33� per cent more than it pays now. What is more, if it had come here seven years ago it would have paid debits duty on every occasion that it had a transaction on its bank account or on its credit card—every single time. Thank heavens for a Labor Government! That is one of the reasons why companies such as Hitachi come to New South Wales. We have reduced taxes by almost 11 per cent since we came to office. That silly man over there always highlights the problems of the former Government. He cannot get away from his shame about the performance of his high-taxing, high-spending, high-deficit colleagues. The head office of Hitachi Ltd operates out of Hitachi City in Japan. The opening of the head office represented another win for New South Wales. I congratulate Hitachi Ltd on its decision and on the confidence it has shown in Sydney and in New South Wales.

M5 EAST EXHAUST STACK HEALTH IMPACTS

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: I ask the Treasurer to ask the Minister for Roads to ensure that the Roads and Traffic Authority conducts an urgent health study in conjunction with the Department of Health to verify the rash of health complaints from people living near the M5 East stack. Will the Minister act immediately to have that stack filtered to protect both residents and motorists from pollution?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I refer the honourable member to my answer to a previous question today.

MOOREBANK POLICING

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is to the Minister for Police. What action has the Government taken to return Moorebank police station to its former status as a fully operational patrol command, particularly given the concerns of local residents over rising crime in that area?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As the honourable member is very well aware, Commissioner Moroney is currently reviewing police station operating hours. I suggest that if the honourable member has a submission to make to the review that he make that submission. The reality is that the Carr Government has done more than any other government to increase policing resources and to ensure that the community has the police force it wants: that is, a front-line, visible, active police force. The only people who are opposed to this are Ned Flanders' mob. They call visible policing a knee-jerk stunt.

They have a problem with our police being back on the streets, which is where the community of New South Wales wants them. I can assure the Hon. John Ryan that we will not be deflected by silly questions in this House and silly statements in public from giving the community what it wants, that is, front-line visible policing. I know that is so because I talk to the community. This policy is overwhelmingly supported by the community, which wants a 24-hour police presence on the streets. That is what the Government, in conjunction with the new Commissioner of Police, will deliver for the community.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 7 May the Hon. Alan Corbett asked a question concerning genetically modified organisms. My colleague the Minister for Agriculture has provided the following response:

CONTAMINATED INDUSTRIAL WASTE FERTILISER USE

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On 8 May Ms Lee Rhiannon asked a question concerning contaminated industrial waste fertiliser use. My colleague the Minister for Agriculture has provided the following response.

Sydney Morning Herald

Questions without notice concluded.

LEGAL PROFESSION AMENDMENT (NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY REVIEW) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [5.02 p.m.]: Earlier I referred to the enforceability of the measure in the bill that provides that certain lawyers' advertisements are capable of constituting professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. I wanted to make the point that similar provisions about overcharging are basically unenforceable because the Legal Services Commissioner is in no position to take on the marble and glass law firms. One recent case that comes to mind is that of Wee Waa farmer Alan Baker, who was overcharged $150,000 by the law firm Phillips Fox. Mr Baker complained to the Legal Services Commissioner, who found a hundred reasons why he should not prosecute Phillips Fox. However, the only valid reasons were his lack of resources and the complexity of the law so far as it relates to professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct.

I fear that the provision in this bill that relates to advertising will suffer the same fate as the rules about overcharging, that is, lawyers in sole practice and small suburban firms will be easily intimidated by the Legal Services Commissioner, while the marble and glass lawyers will act with impunity. In any event what constitutes an advertisement? That question could be argued until the cows come home—but only if the lawyer enjoys the backing of one of the large firms. So we have two different set of rules: one for sole practitioners and solicitors in small firms and the other for lawyers in the larger firms. The remaining provisions of the bill represent positive developments for the legal profession in New South Wales. Under the bill accredited training schemes get a guernsey. One curious provision allows the Attorney General to direct the Law Society and the Bar Association to recognise particular schemes. One can only conjecture what such a scheme might be. Perhaps a scheme involving parliamentary drafting would be a good scheme to recommend to the Law Society and the Bar Association.

Multidisciplinary partnerships receive further statutory recognition, and I commend those provisions of the bill. Movement of lawyers between States and Territories is also recognised under the bill. Amendments to Bar Council and Law Society council rules must be made available for public discussion. Finally, disciplinary action taken against barristers and solicitors must be available for public scrutiny. In a sense that information is already available on the Internet. The decisions of the Administrative Decision Tribunal are certainly available on the Internet. I suppose it could be argued that people looking to inquire about particular barristers or solicitors might not know where to look, so the provisions of the bill putting the obligation on the Law Society and the Bar Association to make the information available for the public are commendable.

I do have one reservation, however, about the last amendment regarding public notices and the availability of information about disciplinary proceedings. I would have preferred to consider that provision in the context of the Attorney General's review of the conduct and discipline of the legal profession. That review is long overdue and I sincerely hope that the provision to make disciplinary action public is not the only change to the conduct and discipline of the legal profession between now and the next election. I suppose time will tell. In the meantime I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.05 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this important legislation. The Legal Profession Amendment (National Competition Policy Review) Bill will achieve a number of important reforms that will help consumers who deal with lawyers and improve the governance of the legal profession. By making membership of the Law Society and the Bar Association truly voluntary, the bill will remove the need for lawyers to pay for services they do not use. The cost savings can be passed on to consumers. Ensuring that breaches of advertising rules can be professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct will protect the public from false or misleading advertising by lawyers. The bill will ensure that solicitors cannot be prevented from practising in multidisciplinary practices, ensuring that the public has a wide choice of legal services. The bill will allow any practitioner who can practise in Australia and who holds a practising certificate to come to New South Wales and provide legal services.

Finally, and most importantly for consumers of legal services, the bill will require the Legal Services Commissioner to establish on his web site a public register of disciplinary action taken against barristers or solicitors. For example, people will be able to see whether a lawyer they are planning to engage has been found guilty of misconduct in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. Consumers have a right to know about the disciplinary record of practitioners before they engage them. The bill is an important step forward in promoting the transparent regulation of the legal profession and cementing the position of New South Wales as the leading jurisdiction in legal profession regulation.

The Hon. Ian Cohen indicated that the Greens oppose voluntary membership of the Law Society. Voluntary membership will lower the costs of legal practice, and the Government expects these costs to be passed on to consumers. However, the Government expects that most practitioners will elect to join the Law Society or Bar Association because if they do not they will not receive membership benefits, such as access to the Law Society Journal, the members' dining room, social functions and precedent database. The Law Society supports the reforms and will work closely with the Government to ensure that essential licensing functions are included in the mandatory practicing fee, and that the membership fee represents only the cost of those activities that are not essential to legal practice.

The Hon. Peter Breen made a number of statements about the dealings of the Lettice family with LawCover. I will take this opportunity to put on record the action the Attorney General has taken in response to that case. The Lettice family bought land that was had a defect in its title, a defect which the family's solicitor failed to notice. The Lettices discovered the defect when they decided to subdivide the land. They made a claim against the solicitor on the ground of his negligence. However, the Court of Appeal found that their action was barred by the statute of limitations. The conveyance had taken place in 1982. The Lettice family discovered the negligence only in 1993 or 1994. They could not reasonably have discovered the defect earlier. There was no question but that the solicitor was negligent.

However, the Limitation Act provides that these types of actions must commence within six years of the date the action arises. The Court of Appeal found that this date was the date of the conveyance, not the date that the Lettice family became aware of their misfortune. This result meant that LawCover did not have to pay the Lettice family compensation for their solicitor's negligence. It also allowed LawCover to pursue the Lettice family for its costs.

The Attorney General has encouraged LawCover to resolve this matter. However, he cannot intervene in the decision-making process of LawCover, which is an independent company. However, the Attorney can fix the law so that other people do not have the same misfortune. In March the Attorney General's Department released an issues brief proposing amendments to the Limitation Act to specifically address the problems faced by the Lettice family. Submissions closed on 1 June. The department is considering the submissions, and will act quickly to resolve the issue. The Hon. Peter Breen also asked whether the provisions in the bill for a public register of practitioners who have been subject to disciplinary action will be the only reform to disciplinary provisions. I can assure the House that the Attorney General will bring forward comprehensive reforms to the disciplinary scheme once the review is complete. The public register provisions were included in the bill only because the Government considered that this issue needed to be dealt with urgently. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

COMPENSATION COURT REPEAL BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.11 p.m.]: I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Compensation Court Act 1984

the provision of funding by Coal Mines Insurance to the District Court;
administrative matters relating to the handling of issues within the District Court; and, finally
whether strategies will be put in place to ensure that there is not a loss of expertise in relation to coal mining matters.

Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [5.11 p.m.]: The objects of the Compensation Court Repeal Bill, as stated in the overview, are to repeal the Compensation Court Act 1984 and abolish the Compensation Court, to provide for the appointment of existing Compensation Court judges and acting judges as judges or acting judges of the District Court, to transfer the jurisdiction of the Compensation Court to the Workers Compensation Commission or the District Court, and to make consequential amendments to various Acts. Due to changes made to workers compensation in 2001 and the establishment of the Workers Compensation Commission, no disputes have been filed with the Compensation Court arising from workers compensation claims since April last year.

Judges of the Compensation Court will be made judges of the District Court with the same seniority, and any pending workers compensation matters will be transferred to the Workers Compensation Commission, except for those relating to coalminers. One aspect of the jurisdiction of the Compensation Court is the "hurt on duty" provision under the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act. The bill provides for the transfer of these matters to the District Court. Judges of the Compensation Court will now be made judges of the District Court even though they do not have the same experience or expertise as judges of that court. That is a matter of some concern. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation but notes, as background to the presentation of the legislation, the failure of the Government's compensation scheme.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.14 p.m.]: The bill revisits the workers compensation debacle that has been such a low point of the second term of the Labor Government. As we can see, the bill closes down the Compensation Court and transfers its judges to the District Court as a consequence of changes to the workers compensation system made last year in this place. The Greens did not support those changes, and we do not support this bill. It completed the dirty work done last year to the employed people of New South Wales. It robs them of an independent jurisdiction to which they can turn for resolution of dispute. The Greens opposed changes to the workers compensation system because those changes devastated the rights of injured workers and were based on a manufactured debt crisis that we maintain could have been handled more rationally.

At the time my colleague the Hon. Ian Cohen and I were particularly critical of the transfer of compensation matters from the court to the commission. We were deeply suspicious of the level of independence of the commission from WorkCover and the Minister. We noted the impartiality with which the Compensation Court had dealt with disputes and the enormous respect the court had earned over almost two decades. We moved amendments to give the commission a more judicial nature. As we know, many of these amendments were unsuccessful. The Greens put on record at the time that we were particularly disturbed by the appointment of Justice Terry Sheahan as the president of the commission. Prior to his appointment, Justice Sheahan conducted an inquiry for the New South Wales Government into the common law aspect of workers compensation.

The report under his name formed the basis for the hatchet job on common law in subsequent legislation. The Greens doubt that many workers will now have much confidence in Justice Sheahan's appointment. It is interesting to note that Justice Sheahan, together with the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeal, is the highest-paid judge in New South Wales. This payment is no doubt the cause of much speculation amongst the legal profession as to why a former Labor Minister and the author of a report destroying common law rights of injured workers goes on to become the highest-paid judge in the State. Of particular concern to the Greens is the abolition of the separate Dust Diseases Tribunal, which will now become part of the District Court.

The tribunal does an excellent job in securing justice for workers with work-related lung diseases. Its relocation to the District Court will place that excellent work at risk. I ask the Minister to make clear in his reply how the special nature of that work will be supported when it is moved over to the District Court. The Greens remain committed to the rights of injured workers to secure adequate compensation. Unfortunately, the bill is another insult to the employed people of New South Wales who, once injured, have little chance of fair or reasonable compensation. The bill will make it even harder for them to find such compensation. The Greens oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.18 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Compensation Court Repeal Bill as part of the ongoing reform of the workers compensation arrangements in this State. The bill will repeal the Compensation Court Act 1984 to disestablish the Compensation Court, provide for existing Compensation Court judges and acting judges to be transferred to the District Court and transfer the jurisdiction of the Compensation Court to the Workers Compensation Commission or the District Court. The bill is necessary because of amendments to the workers compensation legislation made last year. The Workers Compensation Commission commenced operations in January 2002 and no new compensation matters have been filed with the Compensation Court since April 2002.

Because it has a current caseload, the court will not be disestablished by this bill until 31 December 2003. Last week General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 received at a hearing of its inquiry into workers compensation a submission by Mr Justice Sheahan on the operation of the Workers Compensation Commission, which is still being established but is already involved in some matters. I was quite impressed by his outlining of the operations of the commission, its employment of arbitrators and so on. It seems that all required structures are in place. It seemed to me that the system involves a more direct role for trade unions to assist injured workers. Under the new arrangement provided for under the legislation I believe the unions will have a greater role to play. I hope that the commission, as it expands its operations and receives matters, will have greater support from both employers and unions. I also hope that injured workers will feel they are being treated fairly by the commission, so that in the long run justice will be done. We support the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.21 p.m.]: This bill is the end result of the Tory Carr Labor Government's draconian workers compensation reforms. The bill will disestablish the Compensation Court, which is a respected and revered institution that has been in existence since the 1920s. That court was once known as the Workers Compensation Court and later just as the Compensation Court. The objects of the Act governing the court were to ensure that workers who were injured at work were fairly and justly compensated. The Government has abandoned workers and motor accident victims, just as last week it abandoned people who were injured in other circumstances through no fault of their own. The Government has not thought up a comprehensive alternative regime; it has merely cut back the benefits. This proposal regarding the Compensation Commission does much the same. Mr Carr's regime will soon be marching backwards to deny compensation to those unfairly dismissed from their employment. So from now on, people had best be careful not to lose their jobs, have a motor vehicle accident or get injured at work, because if they do they will live the rest of their lives on the human scrap heap.

Since it began operating in January 2002 the Workers Compensation Commission has been dealing with matters formerly dealt with by the Compensation Court. No new matters have been lodged with the Compensation Court since 1 April 2002. The court has been given until 31 December 2003 to complete the matters it has before it. Any workers compensation matters still not resolved at the court repeal date will be transferred to the Workers Compensation Commission, where they will be dealt with under the new procedures applicable in the commission. Matters have been dealt with very slowly. After nearly four years in this place, I am still seeing patients who were injured before I became a member of this House yet have still not had their matters resolved. It seems quite unfair to put people who were injured under the rules for the Compensation Court under the jurisdiction of the commission.

There is provision in the bill to transfer matters involving coalminers to the District Court, so surely it would be logical to do the same with other workers compensation matters. There should not be two sets of rules operating at the same time—one for coalminers and one for everybody else. As with the Civil Liability Bill, this bill will create two classes of compensation applicants. Under the Civil Liability Bill, which was debated in this Chamber last week, those who sue the government get a better deal than people who sue anybody else. That ensured that the victims of the Glenbrook train accident were not seen publicly to get the bad deal that everybody else will get as a result of that bill. The effect of the bill now before the House is to transfer coalminers' compensation matters to the District Court and the cases of all other injured workers to the Workers Compensation Commission. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Engineering Union is to be congratulated. It has done its job and achieved a good deal for its coalminer members. But other workers have been left in the lurch.

I will move an amendment to address that inequity. I hope the Government and the Opposition will see the merit in transferring all matters to the District Court and providing an even playing field. Compensation issues arise from poor management of claims, and the Government has to do more than capitulate to vested interests by removing the rights of little people. As I said when speaking to the Civil Liability Bill last week, the whole issue needs to be better thought through and better mechanisms need to be worked out. If Australia is to be the clever country into the future, each profession must give value for the dollar. It must give the best result in public health and public policy terms for the least capital input. Sadly, the fact that New South Wales has a plentiful supply of lawyers has not resulted in the stakeholders getting together to achieve public policy objectives of balancing risk, injury and compensation.

Basically, we are adopting a third-world approach to these types of issues. We still have the legal machinery, but we are being niggardly about payouts. We should be doing better. If we are to be competitive in this world, we should not be racing to the bottom in regard to payouts; we should devise more sophisticated systems to prevent accidents. As everyone knows, Australia does not do well in accident prevention. Again, I believe that is attributable in part to poor management of claims, and poor prevention measures resulting from claims due to the lack of a feedback loop. We must do better than enact legislation that reduces benefits. This bill, which marks the demise of the Compensation Court, is a milestone along the wrong road. The Government and the professions as a whole ought to find better ways of compensating people, so that we may turn our attention to accident prevention. Those injured under the old rules ought to be dealt with under the old rules.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.27 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. It is proposed that matters making up the residual jurisdiction, upon transfer to the District Court, will be listed before former judges of the Compensation Court. To the fullest extent possible, matters that are part heard will be listed before the same judge and treated as continuing in the new forum. The bill makes provision for that continuity. The residual jurisdiction proposed to be transferred to the District Court covers, first, disputed coalminers' claims—as the changes to the workers compensation scheme do not apply to coalminers' claims; second, review and appellate jurisdiction under a range of statutes including the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, the Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942 and the Sporting Injuries Insurance Act 1978; and, third, jurisdiction in relation to other statutes such as the Workers Compensation (Bush Fire, Emergency and Rescue Services) Act 1987.

As at 1 July 2002 the Compensation Court had just over 30,000 existing claims remaining to be resolved. It is anticipated that the Compensation Court will be able to dispose of the bulk of those matters by the end of 2003. Any claims still pending at the end of 2003 will be transferred to the commission or the District Court, as appropriate. A regulation-making power has been included so that the exact distribution can be fine-tuned closer to the time, when the extent of any residual workload can be better assessed. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.31 p.m.], by leave: I move Democrats amendment Nos 1, 2 and 3 in globo:

7 Proceedings pending before the Compensation Court

Basically, the amendments deal with cases that are before the Compensation Court and have not been dealt with when the Compensation Court is abolished. The amendments merely transfer those cases to the District Court rather than to the Workers Compensation Commission so that they can be dealt with under the same rules as those applying in the Compensation Court. I believe that is the more equitable approach; it was adopted for the coalminers, and I put it to the Committee that this is the equitable way to deal with the matter and ensure that there is one class of person under the rules. That seems to me to be a fair way of dealing with these matters. There may be reasons why some cases are delayed longer than others so that they may not be heard within the time frame. There would not be very many of those cases. I think a great case can be made for the preservation of equity in justice in New South Wales.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.32 p.m.]: I seek clarification on the impact of the amendment No. 3, which seeks to remove from the long title the words "Workers Compensation Commission or". The long title would then read, " … to transfer the Compensation Court's jurisdiction to the District Court". The amendment appears to create a problem because the bill establishes the commission. How can the commission be eliminated from the title?

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.33 p.m.]: I believe that the commission is already established.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: No. This bill establishes it.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: No. The commission is already established as an entity, and the jurisdiction of the Compensation Court is now finite in the sense that it is not taking on more cases. Removal of the words "Workers Compensation Commission" for that jurisdiction means that the cases default to the District Court. I believe that the drafting is correct.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.33 p.m.]: The Government opposes amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3. The bill provides for workers compensation disputes that remain with the Compensation Court on 1 January 2004 to be transferred to the commission. The amendment moved on behalf of the Australian Democrats proposes instead to transfer these matters to the District Court. This is not supported by the Government and cannot be. The bill as drafted provides flexibility so that regulations may be made it if it is found that some matter should go to the District Court—for example, where a judgment is about to be delivered. However, it is difficult to see why all matters should be treated the same. In cases where few steps have been taken, the dispute can, and should, be resolved in the commission. That approach will provide a simple and fast system for resolving disputes.

The extent of the pending caseload in the Compensation Court as at 1 January 2004 cannot be known until much closer to that time. It is hoped and anticipated that the Compensation Court will continue its outstanding work of succeeding in disposing of all pending matters by the deadline. If it fails in that endeavour, the bill as currently drafted will let the Government manage the situation effectively and flexibly at that time.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [5.34 p.m.]: The Opposition notes that amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3 were delivered at 2.56 p.m., rather late in the day, and certainly the Opposition did not have them until after 5.00 p.m. In the circumstances, and after listening to the Government spokesman's comments on the proposed amendments, the Opposition takes the view that it will not support the amendments.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.35 p.m.]: To provide more certainty I wish to clarify a matter that was raised by the Greens. A separate list will be maintained in the District Court consisting of those matters formerly dealt with in the Compensation Court and transferred to the District Court. They will be heard by the judges who formerly sat in the Compensation Court.

Amendments negatived.

Clauses 7 to 12 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (BUSHFIRES) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.38 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Crimes Act

might

Rural Fires Act

Crimes Act

Rural Fires Act

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [5.19 p.m.]: The overview of the bill states:

In essence, the bill proposes to create a new offence under the Crimes Act 1900 of causing a bushfire, with a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The bill specifically excludes firefighters and those acting under their direction. By way of background, the proposed offence, which largely follows the recommendation of the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, follows the horrific Christmas bushfires last summer in New South Wales and the revelation that many fires were deliberately lit. The bill creates a new property offence determined on the basis of recklessness. To the keep the penalty for causing a bushfire in line with other analogous offences, the maximum penalty has been set at 14 years—one year less than the recommendation by the Model Criminal Code.

It also provides for the offence to be dealt with summarily unless the prosecutor or accused elects to have the matter heard on indictment or by a jury. The bill discourages arsonists by creating a new serious offence with a significant penalty. There is already provision under the Crimes Act for deliberately lighting fires and/or causing damage to persons or property. This legislation could easily be seen as another Government stunt to disguise the fact that few people are charged under criminal offences compared to those charged under the Rural Fires Act 1997—offences carrying significantly lesser penalties.

The provision for the presumption that the offence will be dealt with summarily unless the prosecutor or accused requests otherwise will result in convicted persons receiving a significantly reduced penalty, such as a fine, a bond or a community service order. The Opposition does not oppose the bill but it highlights the fact that this legislation is another example of a Government that is happy to impose high penalties at random without giving consideration as to whether they will be imposed by the courts—a significant point. Obviously, there is a need for the courts to relate to the reality of provisions which provide for higher penalties.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.44 p.m.]: Legislation pops up in odd ways in this place, but it is clear that this legislation flowed as a result of media comment. The Premier was desperate and we were going through terrible times with the bushfires. However, resorting to such simplistic solutions will not make people safer, it will not protect homes and it will not protect the environment. This legislation is a ham-fisted attempt to address a complex and difficult problem. How do we stop people from lighting unwanted fires? This legislation does not give us any answers.

After listening to the comments of the Hon. James Samios in his contribution to debate on this bill I gained the impression that the Opposition shares some of these concerns. Faced with this problem of lighting fires, and the public's understandable desire to see some action, the Government has responded in the only way it knows how—to beat them up, lock them up, put more laws through the Parliament and to talk tough. It makes us wonder whether there is any problem or any issue that the Carr Government would not try to fix with new offences and longer sentences. The fundamental problem with this bill—and the basis of the Greens' concerns—is that the Government has presented no evidence at all to show that these offences and these long sentences will do anything to prevent unwanted bushfires.

Honourable members should keep in mind that the issue about which we are talking is unwanted bushfires—that terrible disaster that is experienced in Australia. However, as our population spreads it is a problem with which we must deal. The Greens concur that unwanted bushfires are often disastrous events. We, as a society, must look at ways of checking the damage that is occasioned to people, their homes and the wider environment. Although fire is an essential component of Australian bush it should be regulated on a scientific basis to ensure that ecological values are maintained and that people's lives are not put at risk.

Unwanted, random bushfires can cause tremendous damage, not only to life and property but also to our natural ecosystems if the fires occur more often than the bush can cope with. We must, however, take a hard look at the reasons why people start these fires. That is the way in which this Government should have responded as opposed to its knee-jerk response in introducing this legislation. Often the cause is a psychological illness that leads to a compulsive obsession with fire. Sadly, some of the people who light fires are firefighters. When those cases go before the courts there appears to be some deep angst that drove those people to do that.

On occasions the cause of unwanted fires might be the same cause for other problems such as vandalism and petty crime. I refer in this instance to alienation and social exclusion. Those problems will not be sorted out by tough laws. There will not be fewer fires because of those laws. Whatever causes an individual to light bushfires, there is no evidence that I have seen that indicates that the law and order approach will bring results. Again I ask the Minister in reply to offer any evidence that shows there have been results from that sort of approach. As I said earlier, it is a simplistic and knee-jerk solution to a complex and difficult problem. What is more, it may be an unjust solution.

If a person lights fires because he or she has a psychological illness, is it really appropriate to lock up that person for 14 years? Will it really result in fewer fires? I put it to all honourable members that it will not. Surely the focus should be on getting those people some help, therapy, counselling or other services that will help them work through their problems while ensuring that they are not in a position to light further fires. If a person commits an offence due to a psychological illness, surely a compassionate approach is called for. The public should be protected from the impacts of further offences, but that does not preclude a compassionate approach that deals with the offender as primarily an unwell person and not a criminal. It would be far more productive if the Government put its efforts into community education campaigns to reduce accidental fires, or into more resources, training and research to prevent the roughly 20 per cent of unwanted fires that start life as deliberate back-burn or other types of wanted fires.

The impact of this bill will be to distract from the other factors at play regarding unwanted bushfires. That is why I suggest to honourable members that this bill will not have the intended result of reducing the number of bushfires. We must deal with this problem in a much more sophisticated and diverse manner than this bill allows. The Government has failed to adequately regulate development in fire-prone areas. Developers must be compelled to design fire-friendly developments, with roads placed between houses and bushland. For too many years we have allowed dangerous ridge-top developments in bushland areas. This is a comprehensive failure of urban planning: a victory for developer greed over safety, and an abdication of responsibility on the part of government.

I take this opportunity to place on record the Greens' position on hazard reduction burning. Contrary to the mistaken view that seems to be held by many—our opponents, some of whom are in this place, like to fan this misconception—the Greens are not opposed to hazard reduction burning, and never have been. In fact, the Greens recognise that deliberate burning is essential to maintaining the ecological values of most Australian ecosystems. These ecosystems evolved over thousands of years of Aboriginal burning and now depend upon various types of fires for their survival. For example, many plant species cannot regenerate without a fire trigger.

It is essential that hazard reduction burning is conducted in line with scientific research about the optimum frequency and intensity of fire needed to satisfy the twin goals of maintaining ecological values and reducing the fuel load. This goal is achievable but must be approached in a scientific manner rather than with the attitude, "We're going to burn the bush today." All too often in Australia a cowboy mentality has reigned, with hazard reduction conducted in an unscientific and haphazard manner that has damaged the environment and placed human life at risk. Let us not forget that hazard reduction burning that is conducted in an unscientific manner can place people's lives at risk.

Sadly, we will never be able to prevent all unwanted bushfires in this country. Whether lit accidentally or deliberately, unwanted fires will inevitably occur. All that we as a society can sensibly do is to prepare properly for this outcome, carefully plan our at-risk urban areas, put in place preventative measures to intercept potential offenders, and commit to a scientifically rigorous approach to hazard reduction. That comprehensive approach is not rocket science; it is basic commonsense. However, we are not seeing that from the Government, which is taking advantage of a tragic situation in order to beat the law-and-order drum. More and more people are starting to realise that this is not the way to deal with complex problems such as this.

We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to our firefighters, both paid and volunteer, who bear the brunt of unwanted fires. Although backed by many other volunteers, those firefighters put their lives on the line on many occasions. The tragedy is that this bill will not help them in any way. Like so much that this Carr Government does, it is all spin and hype and very little substance. It is a sorry day when a government takes that approach to an issue as important as bushfire control.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.53 p.m.]: For 22 days between 24 December 2001 and 16 January 2002 bushfires ravaged this State. Some fires were started accidentally and others were deliberately lit. The bushfires resulted in the devastation of approximately 753,000 hectares of bush and grasslands and 331 homes and buildings. The bravery and selfless action of the New South Wales Fire Brigades, the Rural Fire Service, the State Emergency Service and the Police Service during the crisis cannot be ignored. On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I congratulate them on a job well done. We certainly hope that fires such as that never occur again.

The Crimes Amendment (Bushfires) Bill is part of the Carr Government's response to the recent bushfires. As I said before, some of the bushfires were deliberately lit by pyromaniacs and now the Carr Government is applying its tough law and order agenda in this area as well. However, the Government has produced not one skerrick of evidence that this approach will deter people from deliberately lighting fires. That should be the object of this legislation. Will this bill work? There is not one skerrick of evidence that it will, and I think it is totally irresponsible for a government to introduce legislation without any proof that it will achieve the desired outcome. The only thing of which we can be certain is that someone who is gaoled for 14 years for deliberately lighting a bushfire will not light another one during his or her period of incarceration.

If the rationale for this bill is that, in the absence of a solution, it will prevent people from reoffending by incarcerating them for 14 years, the Government should say so. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, the Government is seeking not to fill a gap in the criminal law but to emphasise society's abhorrence and condemnation of the deliberate lighting of bushfires by introducing specific measures to deal with that activity. In seeking to emphasise society's abhorrence and condemnation of such acts, the bill is a form of revenge: it translates society's reaction into law. I believe we, as legislators, should lead society, not simply follow the public's instant reaction of abhorrence.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Have you heard of democracy?

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: That is a very human reaction, and we should respond not by giving in to that gut reaction—as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's interjection suggests—but by thinking through the problem and arriving at a solution rationally. Psychological profiling, which has been much pooh-poohed, has been used very successfully to solve crimes of violence, particularly serial murders and serial rapes. The psychological profile of the criminal who commits a certain crime is determined and used to identify likely future offenders. If that method were used to identify potential arsonists, programs involving victims could be established to demonstrate the consequences of this offending behaviour—it is not about the excitement of watching the flames; there is a downside.

Incarceration of each prisoner costs $60,000 per annum, so we can calculate how much it costs to keep an offender in gaol for 14 years. We could use that money to fund programs to identify likely offenders and address preventative measures. There are alternative solutions to this problem. I do not claim that they are necessarily correct, but I do state that the Government has no proof that these legislative provisions will work. The Government does not appear to have considered any alternatives. It is a case of "shoot first and ask questions later". The Government is riding a tide of public opinion instead of trying to solve the problem.

The bill inserts a new offence in the Crimes Act 1900 relating to sabotage. Under new section 203E (1) a person who is found guilty of intentionally causing a fire and who is reckless as to spreading the fire to vegetation on any public land or land privately owned by another person can be sentenced to a maximum of up to 14 years imprisonment. New section 203E (3) provides a defence to or an exemption from this offence for firefighters or a person acting under their direction in the course of fighting a bushfire or during hazard reduction operations. New section 203E (2) codifies the recklessness of the offender that can be used by the prosecution to prove mens rea, or criminal state of mind. In his second reading speech the Minister said:

Schedule 2 amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to provide that this new indictable offence can be dealt with summarily. This bill is intended to be viewed as part of a bushfire prevention strategy. However, as consideration of "hazard reduction and other fire prevention measures" was part of the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee on Bushfires, it would have been appropriate to refer this bill to that committee while it was conducting hearings. It is disappointing that the Government continues to pass legislation without any real evidence to support whether it will work. We will not get good legislation unless we first identify the problem, ask sensible questions about it, develop some hypotheses, test those hypotheses against whatever evidence is available, and come up with better preventive solutions. Rather, this Government simply adopts a populist punishment mentality, which this legislation encapsulates.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.00 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Crimes Amendment (Bushfires) Bill, which will amend the Crimes Act 1900 to include a specific defence of causing a bushfire. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is a member of the Australian Democrats, which presumably advocates democracy, but apparently he does not adopt the party's policies. I should have thought that his party's policies are representative of the majority view, so it seems that the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans does not understand what democracy means. If there is a strong reaction in the community and the community wants stronger laws, there is nothing wrong with the Government responding to that call. Given the number of fires that were lit during the Christmas-New Year period, and the anger that gradually arose in the community when it was realised that many of the fires were deliberately lit, obviously a message had to be sent to the community, particularly to young people who may think it is a minor matter to start a bushfire.

I presume the Government will publicise this legislation and the impacts of it, including the maximum penalty it provides. Some members have suggested that everyone who lights a fire will go to gaol for 14 years. Obviously the court will take into account all the factors and circumstances. Exceptions to the offence include where the person is a firefighter. I think everyone was shocked to learn that one of the people who lit fires during the Christmas-New Year period was a firefighter, a young man who seemed to get a good feeling from lighting fires and then going to fight them. It seems that his was not a malicious act but was probably a matter of his immaturity.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Do you still want to give him 14 years, Fred?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: No. I am simply saying it is a problem. We have to assess the people who are recruited into the firefighting service, to ensure that firefighters have some maturity. Firefighting is not simply a matter of running around in a fire engine, as some immature people believe. Those sorts of people are not suitable for the firefighting service. The young man I spoke about should never have been recruited into the service in the first place. Even though the Rural Fires Act 1997 provides for a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a fine of $110,000 for lighting a fire, I believe it is important to balance that with a new section in the Crimes Act, as the bill does. The offence in that next section is based on the Model Criminal Code offence established by the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, which represents a thoughtful group of people. Therefore we have confidence in the legislation and support it.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [6.03 p.m.]: I wish to add to Ms Lee Rhiannon's comments on the Crimes Amendment (Bushfires) Bill. I am concerned that the Carr Government is introducing draconian legislation. It almost appears as though there is no bushfire legislation in existence. As Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile accurately said, there are already adequate bushfire laws. I doubt very much whether the fact that there is new legislation providing for an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment will have an impact upon an arsonist or firebug who wants to go out into the bush and light fires. Surely the Government can come up with a strong series of advertisements or statements to educate the community so they realise the present laws are quite adequate. People who light fires in the bush need to be taught that, under the existing law, they will really feel the heat, so to speak, if they are caught. But it is a far deeper issue than this.

How do we catch people lighting fires in the bush, and how do we deal with the situation? Simply introducing legislation that makes the Government sound as though it is beating the law-and-order-drum does not necessarily resolve the problem. It will not turn around the behaviour of someone who is emotionally immature, regardless of their age, who goes into the bush and lights a fire. Juveniles who light fires often think it is a bit of a lark when they see those fires on the television; they think they are having a bit of a go at society. Similarly, as has been referred to, a number of members of bushfire brigades have been pyromaniacs, and a few of them have been caught.

The Government needs to consider regulating the problem in a way that really has an impact. The impact lies with education. Some people do not understand—hopefully, given the devastating fires of recent times they will now understand—the impact that this type of reckless activity can have on people's livelihoods. I am certain that the threat of a 14-year gaol term instead of a five-year gaol term will not make any difference to those who have a psychological illness. They will not change their ways, yet they need to be controlled.

With bushfires it is extremely important that we work towards getting the community on side. That means looking at farming practices and people's acceptance of reckless bushfire management. We need to get more people on side so that lighting fires is not accepted, and so that people will refer to fire management authorities before they go ahead and light fires. A member of the other place who is a bit of a political incendiary, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, was caught lighting a fire in a high fire-danger season.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Was it reckless?

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Yes, it was reckless, and one would expect members of Parliament to set a better example. Why did it happen? It seems that old habits die hard. It seems that in country areas there is a tendency for people to want to light up, and it can be quite careless. Time and again we hear of people in rural areas lighting fires, in some circumstances knowing that conservationists on neighbouring properties will suffer as a result. Having said that, I do not think that the Carr Government will resolve the problem by simply introducing legislation that increases the penalties.

As Ms Lee Rhiannon said, the Greens are not opposed to fire management, but it is important that there be proper scientific management. Certain areas of bush should not be burnt, but unfortunately they are, and this creates an imbalance in the ecosystem. Rainforest areas are being burnt and species are disappearing. One might argue that indigenous fire management over many generations has resulted in changes to the ecosystem, and that is not necessarily a plus for the environment. These days we have very sensitive ecosystems that, without proper scientific research, are torched inappropriately. Often this is generated by fear. But why is there so much fear of fires? The answer is largely that our building design does not provide maximum protection in terms of fire rating, ameliorative measures such as rock walls in appropriate places, and so on, and that housing estates are built in fire-prone bushland areas that are likely to be affected by wildfires. And, of course, building design and placement are really the responsibility of councils.

Greater attention needs to be given to the positioning of developments, particularly in the Blue Mountains, where local councils have been slow to acknowledge the danger of developing on land contiguous to fire-prone areas. We have heard of brave volunteer fire fighters fighting bushfires while twisted people are running around starting other fires. Deliberately lighting a bushfire has to be one of the lowest acts. The community needs to be educated so that those who light the fires are caught. People are able to get into isolated areas, start fires and get away with it. In a National Parks and Wildlife Service area near to where I live I ran to a fire that had been started. A couple of young blokes came around the track; they had obviously started the fire but my first priority was to try to put the fire out, so they got away with it.

Attitudes can be frustrating. Community vigilance must be enhanced, but this legislation does not add anything to it. I just wish that the Carr Government would focus on community education and proper methods of scientific bushfire assessment, rather than keeping its eye solely on the coming election. The problem can be dealt with by discouraging people from starting bushfires and by achieving greater scientific management over the fire regime in rural areas. Greater community education and awareness will greatly assist in this endeavour.

We were all dismayed on hearing that about 700,000 hectares of bush had been razed, many buildings lost, and people's homes and family lives destroyed. A clear scientific approach is needed, not the knee-jerk reaction in this bill. The legislation seems to be part and parcel of the support for more bush burn-off. In urgent times we need clear heads. Proper fire management can include burning off but it is not a panacea for every problem. Wholesale burn-off could end up destroying many more endangered plant and animal species. We need to be led by science on this matter, not by emotions. I commend the work of the Fire Brigades Commissioner and his staff for putting forward a balanced position on a number of vexing issues. The legislation does not get to the root of the problem and resolve it, and does not do what education could do to create a more fireproof conscious society.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [6.13 p.m.]: The Crimes Amendment (Bushfires) Bill proposes to insert into the Crimes Act 1900 a new offence of causing a bushfire. The offence is aimed at persons who intentionally cause a fire and intend the fire to spread or are reckless as to the spread of the fire beyond their control to vegetation or public land or land belonging to another. The Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for Emergency Services said, in reply to the second reading debate on 8 May 2002:

I would also like clarification on why section 101 of the Rural Fires Act is insufficient and why this bill is required at all. It may be that the penalties under that Act may need to be increased and made more severe. Why is this bill required? Why cannot that legislation be amended? Is it because during the Christmas bushfire emergency a fuss was made over the arsonists—and there were reported to be many of them, and as far as I know only one has been found guilty—to obscure, particularly in the Daily Telegraph, the lack of hazard reduction carried out by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the declining amount of hazard reduction that has taken place during the term of this Government? I live in a bushfire prone area now and I put my hand up to join the Rural Fire Service. I have done all the basic training, and mixing with the other firefighters I hear their anecdotes about arsonists and so on. Anyone who is prone to be an arsonist tends to be known in the area: they are relatively easily identified.

The Hon. Ian Cohen: Why don't they report them to the police?

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: They are reported, but you have to catch them doing it. There was one fellow—and everybody knew who he was—who lost his driver's licence and they caught him because he lit a fire and he was coming back from the fire on his bicycle. But that was many years ago. Ms Lee Rhiannon said that the Greens are in favour of hazard reduction. The Hon. Ian Cohen reiterated that view but went on to argue why there should not be hazard reduction. During the bushfire inquiry—which I attended on a number of occasions to listen to the evidence—the first cab off the rank was the Nature Conservation Council. They argued strongly against hazard reduction burning.

A professor from Wollongong University spoke strongly against hazard reduction based on the history of fires that had been researched in Brisbane Water National Park, but he absolutely refused to differentiate between the large holocaust type fires that we have experienced in the last few years and the relatively cooler fires experienced in hazard reduction burning. He wanted to lump them altogether. There were comments by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife about why they should have gates on the wilderness areas. Gates are dreaded by the Rural Fire Service blokes. They hate the thought of those gates. Heat distorts the gates. The lock is in a long tube, and it is difficult to put the key in, particularly if it is red hot.

The Hon. Ian Cohen: You would not be going in if the gate was red hot. Give us a break.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: If you are firefighting, you can go down a trail with the very best of intentions and the fire can turn around completely—180 degrees—and you can find yourself running for your life along any trail that exists.

The Hon. Ian Cohen: I withdraw my objection.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: Then you come to the impassable gate made of 100 millimetre steel. If the damned thing is warped, even with a key you cannot open it. I pray it never happens, but if anybody is burnt to death in those circumstances it would be the greatest tragedy. The Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife went on to say that these gates keep people out of wilderness areas. You would have to be pretty stupid to travel into an incendiary bomb to explode it and then expect to survive. The bill is probably marginally worth supporting.

The Hon. Richard Jones: Would it make any difference?

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: The primary consideration is to protect the public from an arsonist who is prone to lighting fires. The public can be protected from such acts by locking up the arsonist for a substantial period of time. I do not believe people light fires for a lark. However, many fires are lit by people who have serious resentment problems and probably need psychiatric attention, and those people have to be found and given treatment. Primarily, however, the public has to be protected. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [6.23 p.m.]: I want to speak briefly on the Crimes Amendment (Bushfires) Bill. The bill establishes the criminal offence of causing a bushfire. This offence includes lighting a fire, maintaining a fire or failing to contain a fire. I am sure honourable members will remember only too well the mayhem and fear caused by the bushfires at the end of December 2001 and in early January this year. This bill is the Government's response, as expected by the community. I imagine that all honourable members have come across the tragedies of people having their homes burnt down and losing valuables and family heirlooms. Losing a home is a devastating event at any time, but I am sure that the loss was felt even more by those people whose homes burnt down on Christmas Day. I remember hearing of people who lived in areas just outside Sydney and who had come to Sydney for Christmas celebrations, only to return home to ruins. I recall that day vividly. The sun was an unnaturally bright pink and it was almost impossible to breathe due to all the smoke and ash flying through the air.

Some members would have had friends or family who were personally affected during the January bushfires. A member of the Legislative Council committees staff, Annie Marshall, lost her home during this time. I am glad that members and staff of Parliament rallied together to hold a fundraising sausage sizzle for her in January. I congratulate all the organisers in Parliament House on that small but well-meaning gesture. Despite the losses wrought by the bushfires, I felt truly inspired by the great Australian tradition of helping out others in need. Many people, ordinary Australians, volunteered during the January bushfires, sometimes risking their own homes and at times their own lives. Many people volunteered for firefighting, giving up their Christmas holidays, to stop the fires from spreading. Others helped by making sandwiches or by looking after their neighbours' children. Both the Premier and Prime Minister publicly praised the great Australian volunteer spirit. Indeed, these people should be commended for their time and effort.

The effort that Australians put into fighting those fires can be compared to the Olympic spirit we showed the world in September 2000. I am proud to say that the Chinese community also was very involved in helping out victims of the bushfires. On 12 January, in a very quick response, Robert Ho and I helped a women's group, the Way-In Women's Network, and the Golden Century Seafood Restaurant to organise a community fundraiser during this difficult time. We raised more than $75,000 for the bushfire victims. It was pleasing to receive a message from the Premier on this occasion. It was very encouraging. Part of that message from the Premier said:

The fundraiser luncheon was attended by Mr Greg Mullins, Assistant Commissioner and Director of State Operations for New South Wales Fire Brigades. I was pleased to receive an email from him after the luncheon. He was very generous. He stated in the email:

In praising the volunteer spirit, we need also to condemn the destructive actions of many people in lighting bushfires deliberately. Most Australians were shocked and even outraged to learn that about half of the bushfires were lit deliberately. I can imagine the sadness that accompanies the loss of a home and important personal belongings. However, the knowledge that many of the fires were deliberately lit would have made these losses even harder to bear. I think we can all understand the anger and even the outrage that people would feel on discovering that the loss of their homes was the result of a person intentionally lighting a bushfire. People who deliberately light a bushfire should be punished, and punished severely.

I can understand that in the aftermath of the bushfires there were many community calls for harsh penalties for arsonists. This bill reflects this community expectation. We are all aware that this bill sends a message that we as a society condemn the deliberate lighting of bushfires. Yet, while I understand the emotional sentiment behind the bill, as a lawyer I feel it is important to question whether this is good law. It is important to remember that in January the Director of Public Prosecutions spoke out against the Premier's call for tough new penalties for juvenile offenders, saying that existing laws were sufficient. This is true. I agree with that, and it is acknowledged in the Minister's second reading speech. The criminal law is already sufficient to deal with malicious damage to property. Sections 195B and 196B of the Crimes Act both provide penalties for malicious damage to property.

However, having said that, I will not oppose the bill. I support it. I believe that bills passed in this House and in the other place are, in large part, educative—the intention is often to change the behaviour of certain citizens. This bill may do some good in deterring some people from lighting bushfires next summer, and, hopefully, the summers after that. I also hold some hope that this bill, once it becomes law, will make the community feel more secure. While I do not believe that retribution and revenge is the way to stop bushfire arsonists, I believe the community has the right to express its absolute contempt for such actions. By having a specific offence of causing a bushfire, the community will feel protected. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. John Hatzistergos) left the chair at 6.30 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (PLACES OF DETENTION) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, Minister Assisting the Premier on Public Sector Management, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast) [8.00 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

As the second reading speech is lengthy and has already been delivered in the other place I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.