Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 18 June 2002, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 18 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.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VACANCY

Resignation of the Honourable Douglas Frederick Moppett

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt from Her Excellency the Governor of a communication notifying the resignation of the Hon. Douglas Frederick Moppett and intimating that it had been accepted with effect from 14 June 2002. Her Excellency advised also that the resignation had been acknowledged, and that the Hon. Douglas Frederick Moppett had been informed that the President of the Legislative Council had been notified of the resignation. A copy of the resignation is attached to the message. I have acknowledged Her Excellency's communication, and the resignation has been entered in the Register of Members.

CHILD DEATH REVIEW TEAM

Report

The President announced, pursuant to the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998, the receipt of the report of the Child Death Review Team entitled "Fatal Assault of Children and Young People", dated June 2002.

The President announced that she had authorised that the report be made public.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

That in the event of the attendance in this House on Tuesday 18 June 2002 of His Excellency Mr Kai Rala Xanana Gusmao, President of the Democratic Republic of East Timor, he be invited to take a seat on the dais.

The PRESIDENT: I draw the attention of members to the most distinguished presence in my gallery of His Excellency Mr Kai Rala Xanana Gusmao, President of the Democratic Republic of East Timor. Pursuant to the resolution I invite His Excellency to take a seat on the dais.

(His Excellency Mr Gusmao thereupon entered the Chamber and took a seat on the right of the President.)

The PRESIDENT: I warmly welcome into this Chamber once again His Excellency Mr Gusmao, Mrs Kirsty Sword Gusmao, and His Excellency Dr Jose Ramos-Horta. I would like to record the hard work done by our Deputy Clerk, Lynn Lovelock, who spent two months in Dili working with what was to become the parliament of our world's newest nation. I welcome you all and I hope that our relationship will remain as strong and as warm as it is today.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Michael Costa tabled the following report:

Ordered to be printed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND ETHICS

Report

The Hon Helen Sham Ho, as Chairman, tabled report No. 16 of the committee entitled "Report on person referred to in the Legislative Council (Mr T Bidder)", dated 18 June 2002.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [2.37 p.m.], by leave: This is the sixth report of the committee recommending that a right of reply be accorded to a person who claims to have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Legislative Council. On 22 May 2002 the President of the Legislative Council, the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann, MLC, received a letter on behalf of Mr T. Bidder requesting the incorporation of a response under the Legislative Council resolution of 13 November 1997 relating to the protection of persons referred to in the Legislative Council. The letter referred to a statement made by Ms Lee Rhiannon, MLC, during the adjournment debate in the Legislative Council on 9 April 2002. The President, having accepted the letter as a submission for the purposes of the resolution, referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics on 22 May 2002.

The committee has considered the submission and recommends that a response agreed to by Mr Bidder and the committee be incorporated in Hansard. The committee reminds the House that in a matter of this nature it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by honourable members or persons; rather, it ensures that a person's submission and, ultimately, the response that it recommends accord with the criteria set out in the resolution of the House of 13 November 1997 referred to earlier.

PETITIONS

Local Government Boundary Changes

Petition praying that the House conduct a public inquiry into the proposed local government boundary changes and ensure that a plebiscite takes place before any boundary changes are made, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras

Petition praying that the annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras be reorganised on a State and national level with a view to producing a multicultural ethnic parade to show the diversities of ethnicity, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Circus Animals

Petition praying for opposition to the suffering of wild animals and their use in circuses, received from the Hon. Richard Jones.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Withdrawal of Business

Private Members' Business item No. 79 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING [2.45 p.m.]: I move:

I have much pleasure in moving that motion in my capacity as the New South Wales Chairman of the Defence Reserve Support Council. As the House should be aware, our colleague the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti has been a long-term reservist in the Defence Force and has the rank of Brigadier. He is a specialist anaesthetist and will be attached to the United Nations Military Hospital in Dili. This will be his fourth tour of East Timor. He is also the Assistant Surgeon General of the Australian Defence Forces' Army, a very high position. Previously he has undertaken two tours of Bougainville and one of Rwanda.

As reservists make up over 32 per cent of the Australian Defence Forces, members of this House should encourage employers to support their employees to join the reservists so that the Defence Force is maintained. Without our reservists we would not have been able to make the first tour into East Timor. During the next rotation to East Timor we will see for the first time in many years a full reserve rifle company, with both troops and officers. Mostly they will come from Third Division, which is based in Victoria, but some support will come from 8th Brigade, which is based in northern New South Wales. I call on all members to support the reserves and to encourage employers to ensure they release any reservists in their employ to undertake this vital duty. I commend our colleague for his service to our country and ask honourable members to support this motion unanimously.

Motion agreed to.

MINING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

Second Reading

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [2.49 p.m.]: I move:

The Carr Labor Government remains strongly committed to protecting the health and safety of this State's mineworkers. To do this the Government will maintain an up-to-date, effective and responsible regulatory framework. This includes correcting any inadequacies in existing legislation, as they become apparent, to improve health and safety outcomes across all sectors of the mining industry. The Mining Legislation Amendment (Health and Safety) Bill is a responsible approach by this Government to ensure that health and safety legislation associated with mining in New South Wales offers the best possible protection for the State's 15,000 mineworkers. The bill will amend a number of Acts to achieve three important objectives.

First, it will give the State's peak mining industry safety advisory body, the Mine Safety Advisory Council, a basis in legislation with increased status, and permanence arising from that. Second, it will allow the consistent administration of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 across the entire mining industry, and give Department of Mineral Resources officers additional authority and powers under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Finally, and very importantly, it will move New South Wales toward a position where it will fully comply with International Labour Organisation Convention 176, which enshrines important safeguards for mineworkers. In 1997, against a backdrop of tragic deaths and near misses, this Government commissioned a wide-ranging review of mine safety in New South Wales, and implemented a number of key reforms.

The mine safety review made it very clear that effective processes of consultation and communication are fundamental to a safe industry in which the risks are managed, and mineworkers are protected from harm. In recognition of this and to provide a focus for the implementation of the recommendations of the review, the Mine Safety Council was formed as a tripartite council with representation from industry, employee representatives, and government. The primary role of the council was to provide advice to the Minister. Since that time significant progress has been made with reforms to create a safer and healthier workplace for New South Wales miners. Under the chairmanship of Professor Dennis Else, a world-renowned expert in occupational health and safety, the Mine Safety Council has been a major contributor to the reform process in providing strategic advice on ways to improve health and safety in the mining industry.

As the peak advisory body covering the entire mining industry, the Mine Safety Council is critical in co-ordinating a truly industry-wide approach to health and safety. The Government believes that giving the council a basis in legislation will reinforce its importance to the mining industry, and enhance its status and permanence. This is also consistent with International Labour Organisation Convention 176, which requires that members have a peak consultative arrangement that includes representative organisations of employers and employees. The council's three industry sector advisory committees—the coal, metalliferous and extractive industry advisory committees—will continue to support the important work of the council. As the council will cover the whole of the mining industry, it is appropriate that its legislative basis will be in the Mining Act rather than in the individual mining health and safety Acts that cover specific parts of the industry.

The bill will provide the Mining Safety Advisory Council with the necessary function of providing advice on policy matters relating to occupational health and safety in mines with other advisory functions to be prescribed in regulations. The Occupational Health and Safety Act already applies to all workplaces, including mines. This reflects the longstanding arrangement in New South Wales of having the Occupational Health and Safety Act as the centrepiece or umbrella legislation for all industry. Although the Occupational Health and Safety Act applies to all industries, responsibility for its administration is shared. Under current arrangements the Minister for Industrial Relations administers the Occupational Health and Safety Act for industry generally. I, as the Minister for Mineral Resources, with the support of the Department of Mineral Resources, administer the Occupational Health and Safety Act in mines.

The bill will ensure that powers and functions are available to front-line Department of Mineral Resources officers to appropriately administer and, where necessary, enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to mines. For example, it will ensure that occupational health and safety committees at mines can call upon the assistance of government inspectors where necessary. Presently, the committee cannot call on WorkCover inspectors because they have no jurisdiction in mines. A mining inspector is not an inspector recognised by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and may not enter a mine for this purpose. Under current arrangements, officers from the Department of Mineral Resources who are responsible for ensuring compliance and enforcement of the State's mining legislation and regulations operate without the full powers available under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

This situation is no longer tenable while provisions to improve health and safety in mines are present in the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The bill provides for the Minister for Mineral Resources, or a delegate, to appoint our existing mining inspectors, mine safety officers and investigators to exercise the appropriate powers under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The bill corrects an existing inadequacy, and allows the Minister for Mineral Resources to ensure that front-line Department of Mineral Resources officers have the capacity to exercise important powers and functions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The bill limits the exercise of these functions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to a mine or other premises to investigate matters in relation to a mine.

The additional powers to be provided to Department of Mineral Resources officers will not only complement existing arrangements but ensure that those currently enforcing mine safety have the necessary authority under the State's principal safety legislation, the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The bill will also ensure that the new provisions in the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 concerning workplace consultation can be administered effectively and, where necessary, enforced. Currently, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act workers in all industries are covered by a general duty for employers to undertake consultation with employees on matters affecting their health, safety and welfare at work. This requirement is framed to explicitly enable employees to contribute to the making of decisions that will affect them. The importance of effective communication and consultation in the workplace cannot be overemphasised.

This is especially the case in an area like health and safety, where people's lives may directly depend upon an understanding of safe and healthy ways of working. In an industry like mining, where the dangers may be considerable and their discovery and control may depend on the vigilance of those at the coalface, effective communication and consultation are paramount. Along with the other general duty of care, the bill will ensure that the consultation duties are applied equally to mines as they are to other industries. I turn now to the amendments to the associated mining legislation that are set out in schedules 1 and 2 to the bill. Under the associated mining legislation, a person who is required to answer questions by an inspector, mine safety officer, or investigator has a right to have another person present while that questioning takes place. This is a longstanding feature of the mining legislation, and is recognised as an important factor in fostering co-operation in investigations.

The amendments to the associated mining legislation will protect that right if a person is required to answer questions under a power from the Occupational Health and Safety Act. As I said at the outset, one objective of the Government is to bring New South Wales law and practice into line with International Labour Organisation Convention 176. To achieve this it is necessary to amend the definition of "owner" in the Coal Mines Regulation Act to make it clear that provisions applying to contractors extend to subcontractors. A similar amendment for the same purpose was made in 1998 to the definition of "owner" in the Mines Inspection Act. The Mining Legislation Amendment (Health and Safety) Bill is a demonstration of the Government's ongoing commitment to do all it can to protect the lives of those who work in our mines and whose labour ultimately provides considerable benefits to the State. I expect that anyone with a similar shared commitment will support the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. John Ryan.

CRIMES (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 June.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.00 p.m.]: When the Government introduced the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Bill in 2000, which paved the way for widespread DNA testing in New South Wales, the Greens expressed many concerns about the implications for civil liberties, the potential for the miscarriage of justice, and the fallibility of the testing technology. In the short time that DNA testing has been in place in New South Wales, many of our original concerns have been borne out. This bill attempts to address some of the shortcomings of the original legislation, but it also introduces several unwarranted measures which may further erode civil rights. The bill admits to drafting errors in the original legislation, which the Greens pointed out at the time. Those errors, which were born of haste, have impaired the operation of the Act. Unfortunately, the review conducted by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice was largely ignored.

The Hon. John Ryan: Somewhat.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. John Ryan and cannot emphasise it enough. It is a pity the review was largely ignored, because it contained some worthwhile recommendations. It is also disturbing that the Government continues the trend of displaying its contempt for Legislative Council processes. The real losers in the Government's contempt for the democratic process are the people of New South Wales. Our House is most democratic and is genuinely representative of the community. New South Wales would be an even less democratic State without this institution. We have had the opportunity through debate in this House and through the consideration of our committee to propose useful suggestions for the bill. Unfortunately, the Government has largely ignored them. The bill is poorer for the decision of the Government to ignore the recommendations of a committee of this House.

The Standing Committee on Law and Justice report makes interesting reading. Expert witnesses gave evidence that the bill should be scrapped and that the Government should start again. It is particularly interesting that such evidence came not only from those concerned about the negative impact of DNA testing but also from those concerned that DNA testing should proceed as quickly and efficiently as possible. The fact that both sides—and I emphasise that that includes those in favour of the legislation—raised considerable criticism adds weight to the Greens' argument that this bill, and other legislation the Government is desperately trying to get through the House, is part of a law and order spin to help the Government in its re-election campaign.

The Greens are concerned that the amendments to section 10 give police the power to exclude an interview friend if police believe on reasonable grounds that the interview friend may be a co-offender of the suspect or may be involved in some other way with the suspect in the commission of the alleged offence. This amendment clearly gives police a broad power which will be susceptible to abuse. The provision in the Act for interview friends is an important safeguard, particularly with suspects who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders or others who may be intimidated or have difficulty communicating. If a suspect does not choose another interview friend, or at least an interview friend that police feel comfortable with, the amendment allows police to appoint one. This amendment is a significant erosion of one of the few provisions in the Act that was designed to protect the rights of suspects. With such detrimental provisions, the legislation is going backwards.

The Greens are concerned also that the power to request or order forensic procedures is being broadened to include all police involved in an investigation, rather than the senior investigating officer. The amendments to part 8 are illuminating. Part 8 was never proclaimed. Perhaps the Government realised that it was poorly drafted. Why did the Government act with indecent haste in the first place to pass legislation in such a state? The answer is that this legislation is part of the law and order spin and the Government is desperate to get it through Parliament as quickly as possible. A few drafting errors are part of the road kill the Government will accept to push it through.

The amendments to part 8, although reasonable in part, also leave questions unanswered. The samples obtained from volunteers will not be able to be used in proceedings against them. The volunteers will be informed of this provision prior to giving a sample. However, will volunteers be informed that a sample could be used in an investigation with the result that a compulsory DNA test could be admitted as evidence? In other words, although an original sample given by a volunteer cannot be used against the volunteer, will it lead to fresh forensic procedures? This matter needs to be clarified.

There are some positive aspects to the bill. The Greens welcome the correction of the drafting error in relation to samples from prisoners whose convictions are overturned. We also welcome the more formal acknowledgment of the self-administered buccal swab as the preferred method of obtaining DNA samples by the removal of the silly requirement that it not be carried out in the presence of a member of the opposite sex. The Greens are pleased that the period in which the Ombudsman is required to report upon the exercise of the functions of the Act has been extended.

I refer to the extraordinary situation that has occurred in the past week or so in which a prisoner in New South Wales, who was described as someone of interest in the Falconio murder investigation in the Northern Territory, was forced to undergo 50 DNA mouth swabs. That is an extraordinary number of swabs. I note that increasing media coverage has suggested that the testing was a set-up to help create an atmosphere of an urgent need to rush this legislation through Parliament.

Many people commented that forcing a person who is picked up in New South Wales on an unrelated offence, when there is no evidence to associate him with the murder, to undergo such procedures is an abuse of the person's rights. Prisoners in this State have basic rights that need to be observed. The Legislative Council inquiry also recommended that if police want to examine hair, it should be taken one at a time rather than by ripping out a cluster of hair. That is another recommendation that this bill has not implemented. It is a shame that the people of New South Wales have been left unprotected. In expressing reservations about the implementation of regimes to regulate DNA testing, Justice Michael Kirby said:

Our legal system … also assigns great importance to other social objectives. These include the control of the power of the state to intervene in the lives of individuals, and the imposition on the state of the obligation to prove its case against persons accused and to do so by strongly convincing evidence.

The Greens are concerned about these counterbalancing objectives. We were critical when the original bill was passed, and we have been critical about its implementation. We remain critical of this bill and we will voice our concerns publicly. There has been a very short period between the original legislation and this bill. When we consider the haste with which the Government is pushing this bill through Parliament, we can be fairly confident that in the not too distant future we will be back debating DNA testing.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [3.09 p.m.]: The Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill makes various changes to the Act, some of which arise as a result of the report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. However, a number of the important recommendations of the standing committee are not implemented. Additionally, this bill, just as the Act did before it, fails to reproduce a number of important recommendations of the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee [MCCOC] and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. The New South Wales Act is not consistent with the Commonwealth's Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Act 2001 and the bill does not adequately address the anomalies.

To illustrate my point I would like to make an example of the matters to be considered by a police officer or magistrate before requesting or ordering a forensic procedure. The Commonwealth Act and the MCCOC model bill require that the police officer be satisfied that the procedure is likely to produce evidence tending to confirm or disprove that the suspect committed the relevant prescribed offence. The most obvious benefit of the use of DNA identification in criminal investigations arises when the technique generates a link between a suspect and a crime that ultimately leads to the conviction and punishment of the criminal. This avoids costly and less efficient alternatives, which in some cases can lead investigators to target the wrong person.

However, under the Act in this State it is sufficient that the police officer is satisfied that the procedure might produce evidence tending to confirm or disprove that the suspect committed the relevant prescribed offence. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice unanimously agreed that the New South Wales threshold is unreasonably low and preferred the threshold contained in the Commonwealth Act and the MCCOC model bill. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee report on the inquiry into the provisions of the Commonwealth legislation noted:

Crimes Act

Raising the threshold from "might produce" to "likely to produce" would provide uniformity with the Commonwealth legislation. It would also provide important and necessary guidance for police and the courts. Specifically, it would ensure that police and the courts must be appropriately satisfied that the conduct of a forensic procedure is justified and that unnecessary procedures are not carried out—including procedures that may be only marginally related to the offence in question. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice noted the opposition of the Police Service to the higher threshold but did not find that the grounds for that opposition were convincing.

The Police Service argued that the higher threshold may be unworkable because material with a low chance of yielding DNA—such as objects handled by a perpetrator—would not meet that threshold. However, the committee determined that this argument was applying the threshold to the crime scene rather than the suspect and was inappropriate. Therefore I shall move an amendment in Committee to provide that the threshold be raised to "is likely to produce". Without this, the making of a request or order is possible in a very broad range of circumstances, many of which may be tenuous or unjustified.

The right of people to seek legal advice when they come into contact with police is an important component of the "detention after arrest" provisions of the Crimes Act and the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000. However, the right to obtain legal advice is illusory unless there are practical measures in place to ensure access to expeditious, competent and free legal advice. If the Police Service is given extensive new powers, there must be a commitment to train police in using them, in ensuring compliance, and in ensuring that the rights granted under the legislation can be exercised. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice determined that the availability and accessibility of legal advice were identified as essential requirements for informed consent.

Under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 a suspect must be given reasonable opportunity to communicate or attempt to communicate with a legal practitioner of the suspect's choice. Volunteers may also communicate with a legal practitioner before consenting to a forensic procedure and must be advised of this right before they consent. The Law Society has indicated that the lack of real access to legal advice is one of its major concerns with the Act, because it does not provide to suspects and those who are required to be the subject of forensic examination any ability to obtain or receive legal advice prior to the examination being conducted. According to the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, it is possible that an unsuccessful attempt by a suspect to obtain legal advice would still satisfy the requirements of the Act. The Act simply entitles a person to attempt to communicate with a lawyer. The commission states:

The Legal Aid Commission considers that without 24-hour access to free legal advice, most people will not have access to a legal practitioner to seek information about forensic procedures. It further states:

The Standing Committee on Law and Justice expressed concern at the lack of access to legal advice to people who are considering consenting to a forensic procedure. Naturally, legal advice is an important part of informed consent and while the Act provides for suspects, offenders and volunteers to seek advice from a legal practitioner, in reality the cost of legal advice is often prohibitive. The committee notes that the establishment of a 24-hour phone hotline would be less resource intensive than a duty solicitor scheme and would still enable individuals to obtain the information and legal advice they require to make an informed decision. The committee recommends the establishment and funding of a 24-hour telephone legal advice hotline, run by the Legal Aid Commission for access by persons requested to consent to a forensic procedure. Therefore, I shall move amendments in Committee to establish such a 24-hour hotline, as recommended.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [3.16 p.m.]: The Hon. Richard Jones was concerned about a number of matters that are not dealt with in the bill, and as a member of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice I agree with a great deal of what he said. However, the Opposition's view is likely to be that it will only support the amendments if they receive some support from the Government, which should be the case.

The Hon. Richard Jones referred to civil liberties issues that the bill does not address. However, the Government should have dealt expeditiously with information given to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice by the New South Wales Police Service about the inexplicable need for the convoluted warning that must be given to suspects who provide a DNA sample voluntarily. The Police Service believes it is obliged to give the warning in line with the provisions of the Crimes Act, but even a legal practitioner would have difficulty understanding the value of the warning. If the warning is not delivered appropriately and the person being warned does not understand that warning, there is a very real chance that some of the samples being taken by the Police Service will be called into question by a court at some later stage—perhaps at a more critical stage in a criminal investigation.

I have no idea why the Government has not acted on this important recommendation of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. If the courts decide to call into question a sample that has been taken in circumstances where the committee has clearly warned the Government that there is a need for legislative change, it will be on the Government's head because this bill is not well drafted and the Government has not acted in accordance with the committee's recommendation. Indeed, the Government should have acted before this. The committee also expressed concern about procedures relating to DNA samples taken from people who have been convicted of an indictable offence and are in prison. At present those people can volunteer to give samples but before a sample can be taken they must go through a rather protracted procedure in order for consent to be given.

However, it is well known that, if people choose not to give consent, a court can order that a sample be taken. That is likely to happen in the case of an indictable offence. Jeremy Gans, an academic from the University of New South Wales, made the sensible suggestion to the committee that the measure relating to seeking a voluntary sample from a person convicted of an indictable offence should be removed from the Act. It is perfectly obvious why DNA samples are taken from people convicted of an indictable offence. As I understand it, there is only one complication: if an indicted offender gives a sample voluntarily and his or her conviction is later quashed or overturned on appeal, that offender may have the right to have that sample removed from the DNA database. I believe that is appropriate. If an indictable offence for which a person is imprisoned is demonstrated not to be proven, that person should be treated in the same way as a member of the public who was not convicted of any offence.

In order to ensure legal certainty and to guard against the undue coercion of prison inmates to provide DNA samples, it seems sensible to have clear and simple legal procedures governing the taking of such samples without consent. However, the committee heard stories and evidence from Corrective Services staff about several inmates who were holding out and refusing to consent to the taking of a sample. They were threatened with having their classification changed as they had proven to be "difficult" prisoners, for example. Those issues should not arise as a result of this legal procedure. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice sensibly suggested that we dispense with this farce, which is what it is. There is no doubt that the State intends to take a sample from indicted offenders in prisons. This aspect of the bill creates undue complications and should be removed.

The Hon. Richard Jones made submissions regarding the level of proof required in order to take a sample. It seemed to committee members that that level of proof was remarkably low: a police officer had only to be satisfied about what that evidence might produce. When would a person fail that test? I can imagine no circumstances in which the taking of the DNA sample might not produce evidence. It appears to be a remarkably low standard of evidence. However, the academic Jeremy Gans pointed out that that definition is not necessary for other reasons. He took the view that, for the sake of simplicity, perhaps the concept of what standard of proof was necessary need not apply.

The Commonwealth model bill provides the alternative satisfactory standard, and the committee considered that to be reasonable: a police officer must be satisfied that a sample might reasonably produce evidence. However, the Opposition is aware that the Government will quickly snap up any suggestion that we are slack about law and order and use it in evidence against us. We have no intention of agreeing to an amendment that the Government does not support. However, I would like to hear the Government give good reasons why it would not support an amendment of that nature, given the evidence that has been referred to the House in the report of the Standard Committee on Law and Justice.

The Government should pay more attention to that report. The Hon. Ron Dyer said that the Government has assured him that in the future these matters will be attended to by a more general review of the Act. That is welcome and we look forward to it. However, I can think of no reason why the Government could not have acted more quickly and efficiently on the report produced by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice and why its recommendations could not have been embodied in this bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.24 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats are not impressed with the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill, which amends the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 following a review by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, whose report was published in February this year. Honourable members may recall my objections to the original bill, which are outlined in my speech during the second reading debate on 21 June 2000. Chief among those objections was that the bill did not follow the model bill that emanated from the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and its working party. On that occasion crossbenchers drafted more than 30 amendments at short notice in an attempt to bring the bill closer to the model bill. However, the Government chose to ram that legislation through without allowing time for proper consideration.

The Standing Committee on Law and Justice made 56 recommendations for changes to the original Act, very few of which are in this amending bill. That is very disappointing. The bill implements some of the report's recommendations. Though it must be conceded that the implementation of some recommendations does not require legislation, the bulk of the committee's report is not implemented in this amendment bill. On the positive side, the bill clarifies the definition of "volunteer" in part 8 of the Act so that it does not apply to victims of personal violence. It will also improve the way in which the Act applies to family members when screening missing persons, by making a sample inadmissible in proceedings against a person who has volunteered it. However, it should be noted that these people are not likely to be victims of violence or to be suspects, so I am not sure that that provision has much effect in addressing the civil liberties of suspects.

The bill also extends by 18 months the period of review by the Ombudsman, which is a sensible move. The Attorney General has flagged further possible changes to the Act when the statutory review of the Act is completed, which is scheduled for the end of 2002. So we cannot help wondering why these changes are being made now. It is a shame that the Government continues to ignore the input of crossbenchers in improving legislation that comes to this place. These amendments are the result of a review undertaken two years after the introduction of the original bill, and even they are very minor. I think the Opposition should also take some of the blame for refusing to get behind sensible and useful amendments that would have made the bill fairer and more workable. The Law Society has made some useful suggestions. It is concerned that the amending bill does not implement the changes suggested by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, and it points out:

Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000

I remind honourable members of last week's DNA fiasco in the Falconio case. The suggestion that a person arrested in New South Wales might be a suspect in that case generated a great deal of excitement. However, it turned out to be a media or public relations beat-up by the law enforcement agency. It seemed to be drawing a longbow and proved ultimately to be a false alarm. However, it is interesting to observe that when a big crime is committed the net is cast everywhere, thrown more in hope than in expectation.

I note that the technique used in Wee Waa of surveying everybody is again being used in a murder investigation in Queensland. Corruption allegations have been made today by the Sydney Morning Herald about firearms being thrown overboard in the Hawkesbury—basically firearms that were used to frame people. I wonder how many people are in gaol because they were set up, or framed as the term goes. I wonder how many of those cases will be reviewed and how many people are languishing in gaol because they have been set up. Of course, the point that has to be made is that no matter the technology, including DNA analysis, it must be very easy for things to be set up. One does not actually need a gun which would have to be disposed of later. One could simply say, "Well, there was some saliva here or saliva there." I would think it would be very easy to set up somebody with a DNA analysis.

So the idea that DNA provides irrefutable proof depends on its collection, the scientific chain of security if you like; ensuring that the specimen is the right one going to the right person; that it was found in the place it was said to have been found—at the crime scene. All of this does provide an opportunity to set up or frame people, as is evidenced by newspaper reports of corruption in the police force some time ago. It is of concern that the Government seems not to be worried about the civil liberties involved. It does not even bother to follow the model criminal code or the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The Law Society suggests that an incorporation of the material from the uniform code would:

that police and the Court must be appropriately satisfied that the carrying out of a forensic procedure is justified;
that unnecessary procedures are not carried out (including procedures that may only marginally be related to the offence in question or procedures designed as a "fishing expedition");
closer uniformity in investigating Commonwealth and State offences.

I gather that in the Falconio case the classification of DNA and the different State jurisdictions were problems. The Law Society continued:

The society recommended:

to the effect of having forensic procedures conducted if they are likely to produce evidence tending to confirm or disprove that a suspect committed a prescribed offence, and

to insert balancing guidelines and requirements to assist police and authorised justices/magistrates.

Some of that has been implemented. The change in wording is a step in the right direction but, as I said, only one step when quite a number of other steps are needed. This bill too is a step in the right direction but I am afraid only a very small step, given the 56 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice and the gap between this proposal, even as amended, and the model bill for Australia. It is a very disappointing bill, although the Democrats will be supporting the proposed amendment of the Hon. Richard Jones, which tries to give force to some of the recommendations of the Law Society.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. The Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill will make a number of sensible and practical changes to the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000. Those changes are intended to improve the way the Act operates in relation to victims and persons who volunteer samples for the purpose of the Missing Persons Index. The amendments will also make some minor changes to improve the way the Act works in practice. The amendments in items [10] to [20] of schedule 1 are intended to improve the application process for interim orders under the Act. The bill will also extend by 18 months the period under which the Ombudsman keeps the Act under review.

The bill makes a related amendment to the Police Service Act 1990 to authorise the Commissioner of Police to require an applicant for appointment as a police officer to provide a fingerprint or hand print, and to require New South Wales police to destroy the prints of persons who do not become police officers. The amendments implement some of the recommendations by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice as well as suggestions made by NSW Police and other stakeholders. Many of the recommendations by the standing committee that have not been addressed in this bill will still be considered in the statutory review of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act which was conducted by the Attorney General's Department this year. The report in relation to that review will, pursuant to section 122 of the Act, be tabled in both Houses of Parliament by 5 January 2003.

I am further advised that the majority of the standing committee's recommendations are being considered in the current statutory review. It does not follow that the committee's recommendations have been ignored. Indeed, several of them are being adopted in this bill. There is a significant interest in forensic procedures within the community. Options vary widely. What matters is that the Act be workable and that it employs sufficient safeguards. The Government believes that it has struck this balance. In reference to the Hon. John Ryan's concerns about the warning, the Government is committed, in the interests of all parties, to reducing the warning to plain, readily understood English. The Hon. John Ryan expressed concern also about removing consent in the case of serious indictable offenders. The recommendation has been actively considered by the Government. However, it is a more complex matter than meets the eye. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [3.37 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 1:

[8] Sections 12 (c), (d), (e) and (f), 20 (d) and 25 (f)

The New South Wales threshold for suspects differs from that of the Commonwealth's Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Act 2001 and the Commonwealth and the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee [MCCOC] model bill. In relation to matters to be considered by police or magistrates before questioning or ordering a procedure, the Commonwealth Act and the MCCOC model bill require that police be satisfied that the procedure is likely to produce evidence tending to confirm or disprove the suspect committed the relevant prescribed offence. However, under the New South Wales Act it is sufficient that the police officer is satisfied that the procedure might produce evidence tending to confirm or disprove that the suspect committed the relevant prescribed offence. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice unanimously agreed that the New South Wales threshold is unreasonably low and preferred the threshold contained in the Commonwealth Act and the model bill, and my amendment reflects these recommendations.

I believe that the Opposition would have been able, and would have wanted, to support this amendment but for the fact that it feared being accused of being soft on crime—and that would be quite ridiculous of course. However, given the lead-up to the election in eight months time, I understand why the Opposition would not support the bill at this time, but I am disappointed that it did not have more moral courage to support what is clearly an appropriate amendment.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.40 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. At the time the Act was drafted a considered decision was made to diverge from the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee [MCCOC] model bill on this point. The rationale for this divergence was that as long as there were requirements that there be reasonable grounds for a police officer to believe that the procedure might produce evidence and for the police officer to be satisfied that the procedure is justified in all the circumstances then this was a sufficient threshold test as to whether a forensic procedure could be conducted. At the time the forensics Act was drafted it was decided that the Crown Solicitor should be asked to provide advice concerning the limitations of this "is likely to produce evidence" test. The Crown Solicitor stated in part that the "is likely to produce evidence" test could give rise to challenges to the admissibility of evidence obtained by way of forensic procedures on the basis that the test had not been satisfied.

There was also a concern that it would be difficult for police to apply the test and determine what is a real or substantial prospect that the forensic procedure will produce evidence. As suggested by the Crown Solicitor, the investigating police officer will need to consider a number of factors before asking a suspect to consent to a forensic procedure. This was a concern for a number of reasons. First, at the time a suspect is in custody or available for the carrying out of forensic procedures police may not have enough information at hand to determine whether a procedure has a real or substantial prospect of producing evidence. This may result in the loss of crucial fragile evidence, especially where a person comes to police notice shortly after the commission of an offence and there is little known about the circumstances of the offence or the offender.

Once the information is available the suspect may no longer be able to be located for the purposes of the procedure. If this occurs, the investigation may lose momentum or unnecessarily focus on irrelevant leads. The test of "real and substantial prospect" is not easily applied by operational police, who are not lawyers. The test may result in police being required to carry out an investigation concerning whether there is a real and substantial prospect that the procedure will produce evidence before a request can be made. If this test is adopted, numerous legal challenges concerning whether the test had in fact been met could be made. For all the reasons above, if the test is adopted, it may be a disincentive for police to carry out forensic procedures, especially in high-volume crime matters, due to the time-consuming and complex nature of the test.

I am advised that if the Hon. Richard Jones has his way, the following difficulties may emerge. In many cases police will not be able to ask a suspect to consent to a forensic procedure until any samples found at the crime scene have been analysed and a DNA profile has been derived. The delay in requesting consent from a suspect may compromise the investigation insofar as the suspect may no longer be able to be located for the purpose of a forensic procedure. If this occurs, the investigation may lose momentum or unnecessarily focus on irrelevant leads, wasting police resources, and may inhibit the ability of police to solve the crime. In other cases police will not be able to ask for consent to certain types of forensic procedures where it is unknown until the procedure is carried out whether it will produce any evidence. For example, in most cases when a fingernail scraping is conducted it is not possible to determine prior to the procedure whether or not any material of use will be found under the nail or whether that material will produce a result upon analysis.

The same issue arises when taking gunshot residue swabs. In that case, even if there is strong evidence the person fired a firearm, the person may have washed or wiped his or her hands in the interim, which significantly diminishes the possibility of locating any residue. In those cases police may lose important evidence. It is also interesting to note that several other jurisdictions have adopted a lower threshold than the MCCOC model bill. For the manifest reasons outlined the Government cannot support the amendment.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [3.45 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [3.45 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 2:

[46] Section 116A

116A Access to advice by persons requested to consent to forensic procedures

Legal Aid Commission Act 1979

The Standing Committee on Law and Justice determined that the availability and accessibility of legal advice is an essential requirement for informed consent. The Legal Aid Commission is not currently able to provide detailed legal advice to adult suspects requested to provide a DNA sample. Without access to free legal advice most people will not have access to a legal practitioner to seek information about forensic procedures. This amendment would establish a 24-hour telephone legal advice hotline run by the Legal Aid Commission for access by persons requested to consent to a forensic procedure as recommended by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.46 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. The amendment concerns recommendation No. 27 of the report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. This recommendation is being considered during the review of the Act this year, as are many other recommendations of the committee. It is appropriate that propositions that affect the distribution and use of departmental resources be considered in this way and not adopted on the run. While this type of proposal will receive consideration during the current review of the legislation, it should also be pointed out that the Attorney General yesterday, 17 June, announced the launch of Law Access NSW. This free service is aimed at providing a single point of access to legal and related assistance services in New South Wales. Its main job is to help people in New South Wales find information and services that are best able to assist with legal problems and questions. Law Access also provides for free one-off telephone legal advice where the customer's circumstances, type of matter or finances meet Law Access criteria. The Government will genuinely consider this matter in the course of the next few months but it is not presently in a position to agree to it.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [3.47 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 June.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.50 p.m.]: This bill makes minor amendments to various Acts and a large number of changes to the membership of certain boards and committees. We spend a lot of time debating the make-up of boards and committees to be established by legislation. Some members may not be fully aware of the impact of proposed changes to the makeup of such bodies. I am concerned about the proposed amendment to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 which seeks to omit the words "person having parental responsibility" and to insert instead the word "parent". I am concerned because that omission does not take into account the role of grandparents who could be acting with parental responsibility.

The bill will amend the Christ Church Cathedral, Newcastle, Cemetery Act. Previously any sale or exchange of such land, or dealing absolutely with, mortgaging or leasing land, could not proceed without the consent of the Minister. The amendment will remove that restriction and give to the trustees sole authority for the land. In the early days of the colony most of the land would have been granted to the churches; the land would not have been purchased. The Act would have ensured that the lands were used for the purposes for which they were granted to the religious body, be it Anglican or Catholic. The wiser course may have been for that consent to remain with the Minister. Obviously, the Minister would agree to any land dealing because it would have been at the request of the church body. That would be the reason that the Minister would be involved in any negotiations, and the approval would have been a technicality. I support the bill in principle.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [3.53 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I note that the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is, in the traditional manner, a cost-effective method of dealing with amendments. Schedule 1 to the bill will amend 28 Acts, and the modus operandi employed is similar to that used with other amendments to the statute law revision program.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [3.54 p.m.]: I support the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Our office consulted with the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, the Law Society, the Humane Society and the Nature Conservation Council about this bill. An early concern with the bill has proved not to be a problem. Consequently, we support it.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID (Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.54 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions and support, and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

WESTERN LANDS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 June.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.56 p.m.]: A number of members of the grazing community believe this is a very good bill. Over the weekend I met with graziers from Broken Hill who asked to be remembered to the Hon. Richard Jones, with regard to kangaroos. They wondered why he had not visited them, because he said he would do so.

The Hon. Richard Jones: I have.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They said that he has not visited them. One gentleman said he spent considerable time on the telephone speaking with the Hon. Richard Jones, who told the grazier that he would call on him. Apparently the Hon. Richard Jones has not done that. Graziers believe this is a good bill. It is a far cry from the recommendations of the Kerin report—and that in many regards is a blessing. Everyone knows my thoughts on John Kerin: he tried once to destroy the wool industry when he was the Federal Minister, but failed. Later he had another go, and succeeded. This bill contains some of the best components of the Kerin report.

I have been approached by Lightning Ridge Miners Association Ltd to put its concerns on the record. Many honourable members may not realise that that association is a very professional organisation; it has paid for many improvements in the township. I was hoping that the Minister for Mineral Resources would be listening, but he is not. I hope that the Minister's advisers are listening. I hope that even one Government member is paying attention to what I am saying; the Minister for Mineral Resources refuses to listen to me.

The Hon. Eddie Obeid: I am sorry, I was distracted.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am seeking an assurance on behalf of the Lightning Ridge Miners Association. Will the Minister assure the House that the rights of access granted under section 18D (1) (iii) of the Western Lands Act 1901 and the relevant access arrangements under the Mines Act 1992 will not be diluted by part 9C of this bill, which relates to public roads and rights of way? That is of real concern to these people. I hope that someone from the Government will take this on board. I have an acknowledgement from the Minister's staff, and I thank them for that. Sometimes when the Minister does not listen, his staff does, and I appreciate that. Section 18D (1) (iii) of the Western Lands Act 1901 provides:

Schedule A (k) provides:

If this has happened accidentally I hope it will be redressed.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
_________

CHINATOWN CRIME

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. Why did his much-heralded South-East Asia Crime Unit, which the Premier described in November last year as the next step in targeting gang-related crime, fail to detect and prevent the violent crime that occurred last night in Chinatown?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition asked this question because it gives me an opportunity to put on the record the disgraceful behaviour this morning of the Opposition. Yes, we had a serious incident in Chinatown and my information is that police from a range of areas are investigating it: the Central City Local Area Command, local detectives, State Protection Group officers, the Dog Squad and detectives from the South-East Asia Crime Unit of Crime Agencies Command. Detectives are in the process of investigating what occurred. I am particularly concerned about the desperation of the Opposition. Today divisions on mandatory sentencing were exposed within the shadow Cabinet. This was supposed to be their Tampa, the killer punch that would get a bankrupt Opposition without any policies over the line.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister for Police was asked a specific question about the South-East Asia Crime Unit. He is now going on with all sorts of other issues about crime. The answer the Minister is giving at the moment is in no way relevant. I request that his attention be drawn to the question that was asked and not what he would like it to be.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I draw the Minister's attention to the new sessional order that requires answers to be relevant to the question asked.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: My answer is completely relevant to the question. The Opposition went to a crime scene where detectives were investigating a very serious incident in an attempt to gain political capital. It was absolutely disgraceful. I know of no-one who has gone to an active crime scene to gain political capital. It is a complete disgrace. The only reason the Opposition would do it is that it is bankrupt on policy. It really cannot come up with a sensible policy to deal with these concerns. Today Opposition members pulled a stunt of the worst kind: interfering in the operations of the police at a very serious crime scene. I call on John Brogden to desist. It is John, is it not? Is his name Brogden? I do not know. The Daily Telegraph has indicated who he is. I think it is John Brogden. I call on John Brogden and Andrew Tink to desist. I actually thought Andrew Tink was a responsible person. I like Andrew. I think he is a decent bloke. But today he has really stretched our relationship by getting involved in what is clearly an operational matter.

For the Opposition to go down there to try to score cheap political points because it is fundamentally bankrupt on policy is completely outrageous and shows that it is a long way from being able to govern this State. Do I get another three minutes? The Opposition is really stumbling today. It was exposed in the other place as having significant divisions in the shadow Cabinet.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister is now flouting your ruling. He goes on to discuss Opposition policy but he has not been asked about Opposition policy. He has been asked about the South-East Asia Crime Unit. We have been more than generous in listening to his critique of the Opposition. I would ask you to remind him that he has been asked a question about an incident in Chinatown. He has not been asked to comment on Opposition policy.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: The Minister is obviously replying to the question asked of him. He cannot refer to Opposition policy because there is no Opposition policy.

The PRESIDENT: Order! If statements were made by Opposition members about the incident in Chinatown, then the Minister is in order referring to those statements. However, the sessional order makes it clear that answers must be relevant to the questions asked.

MOTOR ACCIDENTS AUTHORITY WHEELCHAIR SPORT SPONSORSHIP

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is to the Special Minister of State. Is the Minister aware of measures the Motor Accidents Authority is taking to assist people with disabilities?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Paralympian John Maclean is currently undertaking an epic marathon by hand cycling from Brisbane to Melbourne. I met John when he hand cycled into the Central Coast last week. We were at Erina, in the seat of Gosford. I was hoping that the honourable member who represents Gosford might be in the gallery today so that he could hear this answer. I was happy to announce that the Motor Accidents Authority is contributing $25,000 to his effort. John is raising money to purchase or upgrade wheelchairs for children with disabilities. The $25,000 sponsorship of the marathon ride recognises the importance of wheelchair sport and the inspiration provided by athletes like John. John Maclean is a former Penrith Panther rugby league footballer. He was hit by a truck some years ago when training for a triathlon. He is now a wheelchair athlete.

The green slip scheme supports people like John Maclean. His immense spirit is contributing to the development of wheelchair sport in Australia. John's work has also helped to increase community understanding of the needs and abilities of people with disabilities. He is again testing his physical strength in a gruelling effort to raise funds to provide new wheelchairs for young people. As a major sponsor of the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games and with a long history of supporting wheelchair sport, the Motor Accidents Authority is committed to helping injured people to achieve their full potential. I congratulate John Maclean and his hardworking team on their efforts. I commend the Kilometres for Wheelchair Kids appeal.

CHINATOWN CRIME

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is to the Minister for Police. Were the series of serious attacks on restaurants in Chinatown last night—attacks involving the use of tomahawks, mallets and table legs—initially classified as incidents of malicious damage by New South Wales police? At what stage was the decision made to reclassify the attacks as possibly gang or extortion-related? Why did it take police so long to come to that conclusion?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question because it allows me to finish my answer to a previous question. The incident that occurred in Chinatown is a very serious one and has the full attention of the Commissioner of Police. The commissioner has taken the unprecedented step of asking people who have any information about this incident to contact him personally at his office on 9339 5011. I suggest if the Opposition has any relevant information, rather than grandstanding in Parliament or in Chinatown at an active crime scene, it should take the opportunity to ring the commissioner and provide the relevant information. In the meantime, the Opposition would be doing a service to the community of New South Wales if it clarified its position on policing. The community knows that this Government stands for record budgets and record expenditure in policing, with 14,400 police by December 2003.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister for Police keeps making reference to Opposition policy. He has not been asked about Opposition policy on policing. The question is about a specific incident, not policing. I ask that he be directed to give an answer relevant to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As I ruled previously, if Opposition members have made statements about the incident, it is in order for the Minister to comment on those statements.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is revealing that the Opposition is in disarray about my responses—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister for Police is clearly talking about Opposition policy. I ask you, Madam President, to address the points of order taken by the Opposition and request the Minister to answer the question put to him. The question is clear. The Minister has deliberately stepped around the question because he cannot answer it.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: To the point of order: The Minister for Police has waffled on for almost two minutes. Even with the scope granted by your ruling, that the Opposition made statements about the incident, the Minister must answer the substantive question within the time frame.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister for Police once again that an answer must be relevant to the question. The Minister may continue.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will continue to answer the question as I see fit. The reality is that I was asked a question about Chinatown and I am giving an answer within the confines of operational parameters. The Opposition should know—particularly the Leader of the Opposition, who is a former serving police officer—that the Government does not comment on operational matters, particularly when those operational matters are under investigation. I ask the Opposition to give a commitment to the community of New South Wales that it will not seize on incidents such as the incident that occurred— [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the Minister's long and detailed answer, will he tell the House, yes or no, whether this particular situation was initially classified as an incident of malicious damage and how long it took to reclassify the attacks as possible gang- or extortion-related incidents?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am grateful for the opportunity to further elucidate on my answer. As I said, operational matters ought to be the preserve of the police force. The Opposition has to learn a lesson from its stunt today in Chinatown. It will not get any support for interfering in the operations of the New South Wales police force. Its members made a fundamental mistake today by their activities in Chinatown, and it will come back to haunt them. The Opposition should keep its nose out of active crime scenes. The real issue for the community about the Opposition is who on the Opposition benches supports mandatory sentencing. I do not know. Clearly there is a division.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister for Police continually flouts your very clear ruling and talks about other issues such as sentencing and Opposition policy. The question relates to policing in Chinatown. It has nothing to do with the subject the Minister has now commenced talking about.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister for Police to remain relevant to the question.

ROCKDALE CITY COUNCIL COOKS COVE PROJECT CONSIDERATION

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, representing the Minister for Local Government. Is the Minister aware of a proposal before Rockdale City Council that, in accordance with the section 10A (4) of the Local Government Act 1993, the council resolve itself into closed session tomorrow night to discuss the sale of land and commercial matters relating to the highly significant proposed Cooks Cove project? Does the Minister consider it inappropriate that councillors currently under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption should make such a decision under the circumstances? Will the Government accept the decision made by the council as it is currently constituted? If not, what will the Government do about it?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has asked a detailed question. I am pleased to convey that question to my colleague the Minister for Local Government for a detailed answer.

FIREARMS LICENSING

The Hon. RON DYER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. Would the Minister advise the House of processes being established for consultation with the firearms community?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Government has worked hard to put in place the toughest firearms laws in Australia. New South Wales is the only State in the country to have fully implemented the National Firearms Agreement after the tragic events at Port Arthur. Following our implementation of that agreement, we undertook a review of firearms laws in New South Wales. Most of the recommendations of that review have been implemented. However, we have of necessity concentrated on those aspects that relate to illegal firearms. We have focused on illegal guns because we know that gun crime is perpetrated by criminals who possess unlicensed, unregistered guns. That is why we have always made a clear distinction between the criminal use and the legitimate sporting or agricultural use of guns.

The time has come to address the remaining issues outstanding in the review. I intend to form a ministerial firearm licensing advisory council in the near future. The council will provide me with advice on the way forward in relation to the remaining recommendations of the review and on other licensing matters. Whilst the exact make-up of the council has yet to be determined, it will have broad representation, including shooter, regional and primary producer organisations.

OZONE PROTECTION LEGISLATION

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Madam President—

[Interruption]

I look forward to spending time in this House in the next Parliament with Ms Lee Rhiannon and Sylvia Hale. We will make a significant impact and we will make you all eat your words.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: The Hon. Ian Cohen should not preface his question with obvious untruths.

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

The Hon. IAN COHEN: The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti is, as usual, somewhat deluded. My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment. Would the Minister explain the Government's position on the recommendations of the task force to review the Commonwealth's ozone protection legislation? In particular, does the Minister support the proposed extension of the Commonwealth's powers to regulate the end user controls on the use of environmentally hazardous refrigerants in the refrigeration and airconditioning industries, which is currently controlled by the States? Does the Minister support the proposed rejection of a national environmental protection measure to control emissions of environmentally hazardous refrigerants? Does the Minister support rejection of the use of taxes, industry limits for use of ozone depleting substances and transfer or auctioning of quota to end users?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. Ian Cohen has asked a detailed question with a number of parts. I will refer it to the Minister in the other House and undertake to obtain a response as soon as possible.

CRIME AGENCIES

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. Will the Minister give an undertaking to the House that a dedicated Asian crime strike force will continue within the Crime Agencies Command, irrespective of any proposal to amalgamate these specialist police with other crime agencies? Was this proposed yesterday at a meeting of crime agency personnel at which the Minister was present?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: On 12 February I announced a review of the Crime Agencies Command and the Information and Intelligence Centre [IIC] as part of a broader restructure of NSW Police. The honourable member's question gives me a chance to go into some of the details associated with that, and I am happy to do that. Ken Moroney and I have already announced that there will be a new agency created from the two merged units of NSW Police. The new agency will deliver an important increase in the detective capability of the police. It supports Commissioner Moroney's priorities of back-to-basics policing and greater specialisation in criminal investigation.

The core of the new agency will be eight crime response teams. Each crime response team will have between 40 and 50 detectives. Each team will consist of a dedicated group of detectives specialising in the investigation of that particular crime. Each team will be led by an experienced detective, in most cases at superintendent level. The teams will be accountable for statewide crime statistics in the corresponding crime categories. There is a need to link greater specialisation to increased detective numbers. Commissioner Moroney has made it clear that one of his priorities is the recruitment, retention and training of detectives. I am advised that by the end of the year there will be an extra 400 detectives.

The new agency will also include a Crime Management Support Unit. The unit will co-ordinate the detective and intelligent resources of local area commands to ensure the maximum detective capability across the State. The merger between crime agencies and the IIC is being finalised. Commissioner Moroney has advised me that the merger is expected to be completed by 1 September. He has also given an undertaking to ensure full consultation with all police and civilian staff affected. The commissioner and I visited the crime agencies on Monday to meet with the detectives at that command. We had a very positive meeting. We had a discussion about a number of issues involved in the merger. We have given the detectives a commitment that we will return before the merger is finalised to deal with any outstanding issues that may need our attention.

The merger will create a new focus for criminal investigation across this State. I look forward to further updating the House about these measures in the future. This is part of the Government's refocusing of our record police force based on a record police budget and on what the community wants, that is, front-line, visible policing. As we saw last week Operation Vikings II delivered that again. The only people opposed to these sorts of operations are the Council for Civil Liberties and the Opposition. It will be interesting to see how this Unity ticket responds to the divisions within the Coalition on mandatory sentencing. Obviously, one section of the Coalition—

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister was asked a question about crime agencies. He is now straying into other issues. I ask that he be drawn back to the leave of the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister once again of the relevant sessional order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not need to refer to the divisions within the Coalition on mandatory sentencing—[Time expired.]

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask a supplementary question. Will any of the teams that the Minister has just referred to be specifically targeting Asian crime? If not, why not?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As I have indicated, we are currently reviewing the operations of both organisations.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: No.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Leader of the Opposition should not jump to conclusions. He would not support mandatory sentencing, would he? Where does he line up on that question?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You didn't even know it existed until last night.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The decisions will be made. In relation to Asian crime, the commissioner alluded today to the wall of silence that exists in Chinatown about these sorts of incidents. I urge members of the Opposition, rather than playing stunts, to encourage people to come forward and provide information to the police so that our more than capable police, with record numbers and record budgets, can get on with the business of cleaning Chinatown of crime. The Opposition has a responsibility not to play political stunts but to be involved in doing something appropriate for the community, that is, passing on information.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS LEGISLATION COMPLIANCE

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Minister inform the House on how the Government's activities are improving awareness of, and compliance with, industrial relations legislation?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The New South Wales Government, through the New South Wales Department of Industrial Relations, acts decisively to investigate and resolve complaints concerning the non-payment of employment entitlements under New South Wales industrial relations legislation and industrial instruments. Since January 1998 the Department of Industrial Relations has received more than 1,000 complaints about employers from the mid North Coast to North Coast and Northern Rivers region. These complaints usually involve employees and former employees who have not been paid the correct hourly rates of pay or have not received their annual leave entitlements. Retailers, restaurateurs and cafe owners are the most nominated employers.

As a result since 1998 the department's inspectors have actively targeted key industries throughout the New South Wales North Coast. One of the largest targeting exercises conducted by the department commenced in 1999, covering over 500 restaurants from Newcastle to the Queensland border. This campaign was conducted in association with the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association and the New South Wales WorkCover Authority. It involved free seminars held in Newcastle, Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Ballina and Byron Bay. More recently, inspectors have targeted larger shopping precincts in Grafton, Coffs Harbour and Taree. These campaigns have focused on retail shops, restaurants and cafes, pharmacies, takeaway food shops and medical practices.

I have spoken previously about the compliance activities undertaken in relation to 26 employers in Grafton shopping centres covering 197 workers' employment records. Initially, only four employers were found to be in compliance with our State's employment laws. However, employers rectified these efficiencies and are now playing their employees correctly. A similar targeting exercise was conducted in late 2001 in shopping precincts in Coffs Harbour. This campaign covered 32 employers. Workplace inspectors examined the employment records of 203 workers and a total of 30 separate breaches of New South Wales industrial relations laws were identified. Only four shops in the Coffs Harbour campaign were initially found completely free of breaches. However, the remaining employers have since worked with the department's inspectors and now comply in all respects with the law.

The department has followed these campaigns with a smaller targeting exercise in a major shopping precinct in Taree. In February inspectors targeted shops, cafes, a hairdressing salon and pharmacy, which employed a total of 67 workers. Five of the eight employers were found to be in breach of their legal obligations. Again, these employers have since worked with the department's inspectors and now comply with the law. The effectiveness of this sort of intensive targeting activity in improving compliance with industrial relations legislation is now becoming apparent. The level of industrial complaints received by the department in 2001 concerning North Coast employers was 27.4 per cent lower than the 1999 level.

As a result of this success, workplace targeting activities will continue across the North Coast and will be expanded to the New England and north-west New South Wales regions. This will bring increased certainty for employees throughout the North Coast. The target activities will also improve employers' understanding of their legal obligations, which will reduce their exposure to underpayment of wages claims in future.

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PLANS OF MANAGEMENT

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: My question is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment, representing the Minister for the Environment.

The Hon. Michael Egan: What about me?

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: Unfortunately budget estimates are coming up and we cannot ask any questions of you.

The Hon. Michael Egan: I have been here for half an hour. Do you think I come here to look at the curtains?

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: Such a waste of talent! Will the Minister for the Environment make clear the position of, and the department's attitude towards, the needs of motorcyclists in National Parks and Wildlife Service plans of management that are currently under consideration?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: In order to answer that question adequately I will require a bit more information from the Hon. Malcolm Jones about which plans of management he is referring to. The formulation of national parks plans of management obviously involves significant consultation with the community and park users. I imagine that there would be some issues associated with the riding of motorbikes in national parks, but I may not be aware of a particular aspect of the honourable member's question. As I have said, the process of developing plans of management involves community consultation. That does not always mean that everyone will be happy about the outcome. The reality is that the use of national parks involves compromise and balance. At the end of the day we hope that most people will be happy about the outcome, but some may not. I believe the community consultation process should at least ensure that everyone understands why particular decisions have been made—even if some people do not like them.

CHINATOWN CRIME

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Earlier in question time the Minister indicated that the overnight attacks in Chinatown are being investigated by City Central detectives and others rather than by a Crime Agencies Command strike force. Is it the case that the Crime Agencies Command is under strength by 130 personnel and is therefore unable to investigate adequately those serious incidents with its limited resources?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Once again the Hon. Dennis Denuto has got it wrong. He clearly was not listening. My answer was very clear.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: He hasn't got the vibe.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is right; I think Tracey Flick has taken it from him. My answer was very clear. I indicated that general duties police from City Central Local Area Command were involved in the investigation with local detectives. State Protection Group officers were also on the scene, together with the Police Dog Squad and the South-East Asian Crime unit of the Crime Agencies Command. If honourable members listened they would understand the resources that the police are allocating to this matter. However, it is fortuitous that the Hon. Greg Pearce asked this question as it gives me another opportunity to respond to his claims that the record numbers in the New South Wales police force have led to an inadequate allocation of detectives—I think that is the gist of his question.

We have a record number of police—13,700—in New South Wales, and we are committed to having 14,400 police by December 2003. As I said, I have been to the Crime Agencies Command and had a long discussion with the officers there about a number of matters—which is probably why I am much more informed about the issues than is the Hon. Greg Pearce, as his question reveals. The incident last night in Chinatown was tragic and unfortunate and it is being investigated by the police. I repeat my challenge to Opposition members: If they have information that can assist the police they should feel free to ring Commissioner Moroney on 9339 5011—he gave his telephone number publicly today—and produce that information. Visiting an active crime scene and grandstanding while police are undertaking active operations does not help anybody. In fact, it is irresponsible and disgraceful. It is a political stunt.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: Madam President, you have repeatedly drawn the Minister for Police to the issue of relevance when answering questions. My question was very specific: Is the Crime Agencies Command under strength by 130 or so personnel? The Minister is talking about all sorts of other issues and should be drawn back to my question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister for Police was answering in a general fashion, but I remind him once again of the sessional order. Honourable members wishing to engage in conversation should leave the Chamber.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The question asked whether any detectives from the South-East Asian Crime Unit were involved in the investigation. As I said, detectives from that unit were at the scene. This does not mitigate against the irresponsible and disgraceful political opportunism of those cynical political vultures who swooped onto a crime scene in an effort to score political points. That is irresponsible, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the police operate and it shows that they are not fit to have anything to do with police operations.

TURBOMECA AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer give the House details about the expansion of Turbomeca Australasia Pty Ltd in Sydney?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It is a sad day when the Leader of the Government in this House must wait for a dorothy dixer to get the opportunity to provide an answer. One would have thought that in 36 minutes there would be a question for the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Notwithstanding that this question is a dorothy dixer, I am grateful for the opportunity at least to get to my feet.

Turbomeca is a French manufacturer of a range of medium-power gas turbine engines for aeronautical, land and marine use. In early 1998 the New South Wales Government began working with Turbomeca to establish a local manufacturing and repair facility for its range of gas turbine engines. It was envisaged that the facility would repair engines in use in the Australia-Pacific region and also undertake manufacture if opportunities arose. Turbomeca chose to set up this project in New South Wales in the face of competition from Melbourne and Singapore. The company established operations at Bankstown aerodrome in 1999. The facility was expected to involve capital investment of $4.6 million and create 12 new jobs. However, it has been operating beyond initial expectations and has nearly doubled its work force.

The Australian Army recently announced the purchase of 24 Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters. Turbomeca will assemble and test the MTR 390 engines of these helicopters in Bankstown and is currently extending its building to allow for this increase in work capacity. This development was anticipated when the New South Wales Government commenced working with Turbomeca in 1998 but was contingent upon the Army selecting the Tiger helicopter. New South Wales has a vibrant aerospace sector, with Hawker Pacific providing wing ribs and tail assemblies for Airbus and Boeing passenger aircraft at Bankstown and BAE Systems assembling the Hawker lead-in-fighter at Newcastle.

I am very pleased to report that the aerospace industry has chosen New South Wales as the location for manufacture, assembly, component supply and repair over a number of competing locations because of the experience of New South Wales companies in this demanding industry, the supply and quality of the State's work force, the advanced technology available and New South Wales' competitive cost status. Turbomeca's recent expansion is an important win for the reputation and ongoing development of the New South Wales aerospace industry, and I wish the company every success in the future.

WHIAN WHIAN STATE FOREST CATCHMENT LOGGING

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: My question is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for Forestry. What is the Government doing to protect the water supply of the people of Ballina and Byron Bay by preventing logging in the Whian Whian forest catchment? Will the Government act immediately to protect this vital catchment just as it acted to protect the catchment of the people of Sydney, or are the people of the North Coast simply second-class citizens whose water supply does not matter?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Once again I feel obliged to reject the assumptions that he makes at the end of his question about the Government assuming that certain groups of people are second-class citizens, but I will, nonetheless, refer the substance of the question to the Minister in the other place and undertake to get a response as soon as possible.

CLARENCE RIVER MULLET FISHING EXEMPTIONS

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is to the Minister for Fisheries. It relates to the exemption that the Government has made to the forthcoming closure of a small part of the Clarence River to commercial fishing: an exemption to allow fishing during the mullet travelling season of April to August each year, even though the mullet fishing would occur within the bounds of a recreational fishing area. As the mullet run is not the target of recreational fishers, is this not a good example of sensible co-existence between anglers and commercial fishers? Will the Government therefore consider permitting similar exemptions for other locations where the mullet run crosses into recreational fishing areas, for example, the Richmond River near Ballina? If not, what is the explanation for the inconsistency?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: An exemption to allow commercial fishing on the Richmond River was well canvassed at a number of meetings, and the creation of recreational fishing havens was the will of those who attended those meetings and those who made submissions.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Rick Colless should listen. He might have a good chance, when he is in opposition next year, to be a spokesman for Fisheries, because the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner is not doing a good job. This Government has listened to the community.

The Hon. Rick Colless: When?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: We have accepted the recommendations of the community and all those who had the courtesy to participate.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Outside the Clarence?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Outside the Clarence, yes. I am just getting to the Clarence. I am talking about the Richmond now. We have accepted the recommendations of that community and we will uphold what the community has told us to do. I have not accepted any other than the recommendations that were put to me for the 30 recreational fishing havens. Returning to the Clarence, the professional fishers—that is the commercial fishers—and the recreational sector, which decided to get together after the announcement of 29 recreational fishing havens, felt there were certain sectors of the Clarence River that should be closed and restricted to recreational fishing only.

This was not something the Government instigated, nor did we ask them to reconsider the issue. They had their meetings, they made decisions, they made recommendations and we accepted them. But, in hindsight, they thought they must look at it again and that was to their credit. This is about the community; it is about a commercial fishing sector that is working closely with its community. I have said on a number of occasions in this House that they are an example of fine commercial fishers who care about and work with their community. Therefore, when the time comes their community supports them. Once again, they met with recreational fishers and other sectors of the community and asked the Government to close four other small sections of the Clarence to recreational fishers.

I am more than happy to say, on behalf of the Government, that we will always listen to the community; we will always listen to the stakeholders. This is a perfect example. When the original recommendations were made for the 29 recreational fishing havens the Clarence did not have any closures, but the community and recreational and professional fishers got together and rethought the issue and made these recommendations. I am more than happy to say we will continue to listen to the community. Our duty is to listen to the community because we are only here on trust; we are here to govern on their behalf for their benefit.

The Hon. Michael Egan: How many recreational fishing havens do you have?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: We have 30 recreational fishing havens. I hope that the Hon. Michael Egan—who has been good enough to allow us to borrow $20 million to pay out the commercial fishers on a very good model and to create these recreational fishing havens—will one day enjoy the recreational fishing benefits that these havens will provide. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, who has not been a very successful spokesman for Fisheries, is not only negative but she has objected to us consulting the community. She rejects the principle that we should talk to the community before we come up with wonderful legislation, and this is what this Government is all about.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You are not listening to the community.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: The Opposition does not listen to the community.

The Hon. Rick Colless: We do listen to the community.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: You do not want us to listen to the community. Your only policy has been to say "We will abolish all these recreational fishing havens and we will get rid of the recreational fishing licence". To your benefit, there are more takers for the recreational fishing licence than we were expecting. It has been a very successful process. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I ask a supplementary question. If there is now demonstrated goodwill between anglers and professional fishers in the area of the Richmond River, will the Government make an exemption for the mullet run in that and other like cases where such goodwill would be demonstrated? If not, why not?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I just want to confirm that the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner would not know what the professional and recreational fishers are saying. As I said earlier, she would have no idea what they are saying because she is not talking to them. I have always said that I will listen to the recommendations of the stakeholders and I will not pre-empt what they might or might not say, but on each occasion this Government has accepted the full recommendations of each area of our community. Over a period of two years 9,000 people along the coast were involved in making submissions, and 4,000 attended 62 meetings. We listened and listened again. We accepted the 30 recommendations of the community and we will stick by the principle that the community must be listened to.

We will listen to them and make legislation that is appropriate and fair and will work with the community. The Opposition does not want that; it has never listened to the community. The Opposition does not have any policies; it has not advocated any policies in this House. Its only policy has been "We do not like the recreational fishing licence and therefore we are going to get rid of it." Members of the Opposition have forgotten how much good it does not only for research and fishing clinics, and Fishcare volunteers, but for compliance and restocking and ensuring that we have adequate recreational fishing areas where the ordinary mum and dad can take their children and enjoy a day's fishing and hopefully catch a fish. This mean lot do not want to see families catching fish.

COMMERCIAL FISHING RESEARCH

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. What has the New South Wales Government done to ensure commercial fishing research is relevant and carried out in regional areas?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I thank my colleague the Hon. Tony Kelly, the convenor of Country Labor, for his keen interest in everything to do with regional New South Wales. He is always at our door advocating more jobs and more investment in country New South Wales. I am more than happy to reply to his question. Long-term sustainability of our fisheries is a priority for the Government. One of the most effective and practical ways to conserve this resource is to design better fishing gear. Finding more environmentally friendly ways of harvesting our commercial catches benefits everyone. It is less damaging in the aquatic environment and reduces by-catch. It ensures better management of our commercial fisheries. This Government is serious about protecting our marine environment and managing our fisheries in a sustainable way.

The New South Wales Government's Conservation Technology Unit aims to do just this. This research centre is a first for Australia. In keeping with this Government's commitment to create regional jobs, the unit is based at Coffs Harbour. Coffs Harbour is an ideal location for this research as it is close to many of the State's major commercial and recreational fishing industries. Four new jobs have been created with the gear technology unit. The new Fisheries staff are based at the National Marine Science Centre. This highlights the close working relationships between the New South Wales Government and the New England and Southern Cross universities. The unit is already well under way, developing and researching gear that will help make our commercial fisheries more sustainable.

The unit is led by Dr Matt Broadhurst, an internationally recognised researcher who has also worked in Chile, Brazil, Portugal and Venezuela. I am pleased to advise the House that a three-year study into prawn harvesting is now being carried out in the Clarence River and other North Coast waterways. The research aims to reduce the number of undersized prawns being harvested. The project is being run in close partnership with the commercial fishers of the Clarence River. I am advised that even before this project is completed local commercial fishers are already modifying their gear to better protect juvenile prawns. I thank the Clarence commercial fishers for their efforts to protect this resource. The unit is also developing ways to reduce by-catch and discard from different types of mesh and trawl nets used in estuarine and ocean commercial fishing. I am advised that the New South Wales Government Conservation Unit is quickly establishing itself as a national and international centre of excellence in more environmentally friendly fishing gear.

DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Police whether the possession and use of the drug marijuana, also known as cannabis, is against the law in New South Wales? Is it a fact that the New South Wales police force knew that the Kings Cross coffee shop formerly called the Amsterdam had been openly selling marijuana to customers since March 2002, yet the police acted only a few days ago after the Daily Telegraph publicised this illegal drug activity? At the recent Nimbin tenth Mardi Grass Festival was marijuana openly sold in the main street, was a marijuana joint rolling competition held, was a bong throwing competition held and did the marijuana cone competition judges have to smoke? A person charged with trespassing was accidentally found to have a small amount of marijuana in his possession and so, reluctantly, he was charged with possession. Is the New South Wales Government serious about the implementation of New South Wales drug laws, especially in Kings Cross and Nimbin? Will drug offences be restored to the police priority list?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: There were two parts to the question: operations in relation to Cafe Karma and activities at Nimbin. Perhaps the Hon. Richard Jones or someone else is better qualified to answer on Nimbin because I was not there, but I will get information about police operations at Nimbin and provide it to the honourable member. I suggest Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile have a conversation with the Hon. Richard Jones about the atmosphere there and everything else that was going on. Cafe Karma has been the target of an undercover operation called Vansbro. Police have identified a number of targets. While a significant arrest has been made, police fear the investigation may have been seriously compromised by recent publicity.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Oh!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I would have thought an operational police officer—but I suppose he is a long way from operational policing—would have understood how police operate in these areas. They collect information, they run undercover operations and they build up a brief to have people prosecuted. Unfortunately, this operation may have been compromised by recent media publicity. Once again, it gives me the opportunity to warn the Opposition that media stunts around active police operations can jeopardise operations. They need to understand—

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister was asked a question by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile about a problem at Kings Cross. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Opposition. I would be grateful if you would remind the Minister that the answer should be relevant to the question.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: I do not believe that it is a valid point of order. Media stunts are quite within the Minister's purview because of the recent photograph of the Mayor of Sydney, Frank Sartor, and the police Minister in exactly the same area in Kings Cross. So the Minister knows about media stunts and he should be able to comment on them.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was making a statement about media coverage of events that were referred to in the question. Consequently, his remarks were in order. There is no point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As I said, I am certainly one who would favour Frank Sartor taking over the Cross. It would give us an opportunity to apply some of the principles that have worked in the rest of Sydney—things like Safer by Design, which would make it a lot easier to deal with some of the problems in the Cross. But, clearly, the Opposition has a different view, given all the petitions that Opposition members have been tabling in relation to that particular matter. I have been advised that the publicity about Cafe Karma seriously compromised the recent operations in that area by the police. Legislation has been raised as a potential issue in this matter. When Cafe Amsterdam first came to attention of police it was unclear whether the Disorderly Houses Act could be used to close such premises. The then Minister initiated a review of the laws. While the review was taking place the Supreme Court was considering an order against Cafe Amsterdam. The court did not reach a decision on the question because it allowed the owners to lease the premises to new tenants. It remains the case that the Disorderly Houses Act has not been tested in the case of drug dealing. At the time the police advised— [Time expired.]

Mr PETER FALCONIO MURDER INVESTIGATION

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is to the Minister for Police. Is it true that Northern Territory police determined as early as Saturday 8 June that the man detained in Sydney and purported to be a suspect in the Falconio case could not have been responsible for the suspected murder? When was this information passed on to New South Wales authorities?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This is clearly an operational matter. I do not know what has happened to Opposition members today but they really are stretching the limit in relation to operational matters. They were down at Chinatown this afternoon getting involved in active crime scenes. Now they are asking questions about matters that are still under investigation. These are clearly operational matters. My press conference with the Attorney General was only in relation to a request for regulatory change to facilitate the exchange of information. The matter is under active investigation. What I find most intriguing about this is the research that has been done by the honourable member to ask this question. It obviously relates to an article that was in a newspaper on Monday. Again, a lot of research done by the Opposition, a lot of penetrating questions! No wonder it is in disarray over its mandatory sentencing gaffes today. No wonder the Opposition has no policy when one of its leading shadow cabinet members dismisses its key policy in relation to crime by saying that that policy is a policy that is politically expedient but practically useless.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The question the Minister was asked had nothing to do with Opposition policy, which is clearly what the Minister was addressing himself to. He was asked a question about an incident in the Northern Territory and DNA testing. I would be grateful if you could remind the Minister about the need for the answer to be relevant to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the requirements of the relevant sessional order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As I was saying, the matters that the honourable member was alluding to are matters that are operational. It is inappropriate—and Opposition members ought to know this—for these matters to be canvassed in public. The police have to be allowed to undertake their investigations. I have full confidence that our police force will act appropriately in all policing matters. Obviously this question follows on from some assertions in an article in the Daily Telegraph. I am surprised that the honourable member did not spend a bit more time coming up with a much more pertinent question, one that would test the Government. The Opposition has run out of questions, it is in complete disarray and is using the Daily Telegraph as source material for its questions.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: That is pathetic.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes, it is pathetic. At least the Opposition has given up on the Sydney Morning Herald. Last week the Opposition used the Sydney Morning Herald; now it is using the Daily Telegraph. That is appalling. Taxpayers pay good money to have members of the Opposition do some good research and ask us challenging questions.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: In view of the appalling quality of questions and as none from the Opposition have been directed to me, I intend to close down question time immediately. If members have further questions, they can ask them tomorrow.

KINGS FOREST THREATENED SPECIES PROTECTION

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: On 6 June the Hon. Ian Cohen asked me, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question regarding Tweed Council Kings Forest stop work order. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following answer:

Questions without notice concluded.

WESTERN LANDS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.01 p.m.]: Before question time I said that the Lightning Ridge Miners Association Ltd had some concerns with this bill that it sought to be addressed. On 6 June the association wrote to various people including the honourable member for Barwon, Ian Slack-Smith; the honourable member for Murray-Darling, that unfortunate member who is losing members of his party at an alarming rate; the minerals policy adviser for Minister Obeid; the legislative policy adviser for Minister Aquilina; the principal policy officer for the Department of Land and Water Conservation; Susan Streeter from the New South Wales Minerals Council; and the Director of Resource Planning and Development at the Department of Mineral Resources.

I will not mention any names but the letter stated that a person from Minister Aquilina's office had been kind enough to supply the miners association with a copy of the Western Lands Amendment Bill and the association passed on its concerns to a gentleman from the Department of Land and Water Conservation—the letter contains his name—and that person explained that whilst the bill may be passed by both Houses, and enacted, the Government can commence different provisions of the amending bill at different times. That is the interesting part, which is helpful to the association but is of concern to members of this House.

The departmental officer advised that the amendments concerning public roads and rights of way would not be commenced until the legal network of roads and easements was in place. He also undertook to relay the department's concerns to the appropriate people. He suggested that the department may be able to work with other interested parties in resolving this problem, which is unique to the opal industry, to balance the rights and interests of lessees and opal miners. I do not disagree with the suggested solution, because one great concern of farmers in that area is the fly-by-night operators, and from experience I know that the Lightning Ridge Miners Association is also concerned about that.

Local graziers accept that that is a professional organisation, but there must be a balance between it and the fly-by-nighters who fly to the area, leave gates open, create damage, and do not clean up their mess. My concern is that that departmental officer indicated that the Government was considering enacting parts of the bill at different times. While we are debating this bill I seek an explanation from the Government of how it intends to do that. I heard nothing in the Minister's second reading speech or in any contribution about that. I hope someone in the ministerial office is listening—

The Hon. Michael Costa: I am listening.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Opposition will be asking for answers to matters of concern. We have received a letter that indicated that different parts of the bill will commence at different times. Neither the Minister in this House nor the Minister in the other place said anything about that. The concerns of the association need to be addressed. The Western Lands Amendment Bill differs from the Western Lands Act 1901 as it affects the Mining Act. I hope that departmental officers will address my concerns and the anomalies expressed in the letter. The Opposition will be looking for some answers.

The Opposition believes that this is a pretty good bill overall, and a lot of people in the Western Division are enthusiastically looking forward to its enactment. We congratulate the Government on the bill but hope that it can come up with some sensible answers so that the legislation does not impinge on farmers but allows responsible miners to do the right thing.

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) [5.08 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his offer of support and indicate that if I do not satisfactorily address the specific points he raised I will ascertain responses from the Minister as soon as practicable. I concur with the observation by my colleague in the other House that this bill represents the most important and historic package of reforms to the management of the Western Division in a century.

The access problems that the bill addresses have been recognised for many years, but until now successive governments have not be able to overcome the political inertia that has delayed necessary action on this problem. Without the development of a proper system of legal access the people of the Western Division will be hampered in their efforts to diversify and expand their region's economy, to reduce its dependence on traditional activities that are now in decline, and to boost the development of newer sunrise industries.

I am aware that some Aboriginal groups have expressed concern about the effect the bill's access provisions may have on access by Aboriginal people to western lands leases. The Government is not seeking to reduce Aboriginal people's current level of access to and through western lands leases. The Government accepts that many Aboriginal people have an interest in gaining access to sites to which they have a particular association. I understand that in many cases Aboriginal people have successfully negotiated informal agreements with lessees by which they have access to certain sites. These arrangements will not be affected by the amended legislation.

There are cases where Aboriginal people have had difficulty negotiating access by consent. In these cases there are two possible legal mechanisms that potentially can be used by Aboriginal people to gain access. One is under sections 47 and 48 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, and the other is in subdivision Q of the Commonwealth Native Title Act. Although it appears to have been seldom used to date, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in particular provides a practical, legal mechanism for dealing with disputed access.

Legal rights of access for Aboriginal people will not be altered by this legislation, although there are perceptions that that may be the case. This is something that the Government will need to address in the education and information program under the new access provisions. As I said earlier, Aboriginal people gain access to traditional lands or sites that lie on leases mainly by arrangement with the lessee.

As a fall-back, there are access provisions in the two Acts to which I referred earlier. The Government will keep the operation of the new legislation under review. If it appears that the legislation is operating to the detriment of Aboriginal people and it has the effect of obstructing reasonable Aboriginal access, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation will take appropriate action. If necessary, the Minister will seek Government support for further amendment to the Western Lands Act or other appropriate legislation in consultation with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Mineral Resources if that is appropriate. In answer to the matters raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, yes, the provisions will not divert current access under the Mining Act. I hope that is clear.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is a "yes" to the question I asked?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yes, the provisions will not dilute current access under the Mining Act.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: During the Committee stage will you tell members whether they will delay the commencement as stated in the letter?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yes, I give that commitment to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. By the time we are in Committee we will have answers to those questions. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

PASTORAL AND AGRICULTURAL CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 June.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.14 p.m.]: The Opposition is pleased to support the bill. It is good legislation that has been a very long time coming. As usual, the Government has been slow to respond. The Coalition recognises the importance of legislation to deal with crimes specific to rural and regional areas, such as the theft of livestock, tools and equipment, fuel, agricultural machinery, agricultural chemicals and pesticides, fencing material, timber, seed, grain, horticultural products, wool, hides or skins; and other crimes such as vandalism, rural arson, break and enter of rural premises, rural fraud, illegal trespass, illegal shooting, dumping of rubbish, and the growing of cannabis and other drugs on rural properties.

In April the then new Leader of the New South Wales Opposition, John Brogden, and the Leader of the National Party, George Souris, released a comprehensive policy that contained a number of measures designed to deal with rural crime on a broader level. I am sure that is what has prompted this belated response by the Government. Among the initiatives contained in the Opposition's policy is the creation of a specialist rural crime squad to consist of an additional 32 police officers attached to non-metropolitan local area commands to focus full time on rural crime and provide initiatives to the livestock industry to assist in the uptake of the National Livestock Identification Scheme [NLIS] in New South Wales.

Under Coalition policy a regional headquarters would be created for the rural crime squad. A free-call telephone service would be established to allow easy reporting of rural crimes, including livestock theft. Coalition policy stresses that the officers attached to the rural crime squad would be new positions rather than positions created by the relocation of resources. It is important to stress that they would be new positions and not people who are rebadged to deal with the perception of crime. It is interesting to note that one of the roles of the new commissioner is to deal with perception. This is another smoke-and-mirrors job. It is perception more than anything else. We anticipate bringing in specialists. It is not easy to identify various breeds and different stud bulls without a proper identification scheme and with only a couple of days training at university.

I would have thought—and a lot of people have suggested—that it would make a lot of sense to bring in retired stock and station agents, rural land protection board officers or farmers—people who know animals and livestock—rather than force people through a couple of days training at university, then push them into something they do not know about. People have to know their way around saleyards to identify what is happening and see the people who are working there. Officers should look for people who have dogs that do not bark, not people with F100s and blue heelers that make a lot of noise. Officers should look for people who can move a truck into a paddock at night, people with quiet dogs that do not bark, people who move stock in small lots. They should be able to identify who is buying and selling stock, and who is moving them. Such expertise is built up through a knowledge of the industry. It is not gained overnight.

According to research from the Institute of Rural Futures at the University of New England, reports of livestock theft escalated to record highs in 1999, when 2,808 cattle, valued at $1.393 million, were stolen. In 2000-01, 24,195 head of sheep, valued at $922,000, were reported stolen across New South Wales. During those years the Government did absolutely nothing about this issue. It belatedly decided to do something after the Opposition announced its policy. We had asked the Government for some time to put measures in place, yet the Government did nothing until the Opposition put out its policy. If we had known that is what it would take, we would have issued our policy eight years ago.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Put some more out so we can see what you stand for.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Well may the Minister for Police say that we should put out some more policies. The Government is a policy-free and idea-free zone. It is a Government in decline. It has no idea where it is going. It is a tired Government. The Minister for Police comes into this House day after day and cannot, or refuses to, answer the questions asked of him.

The Hon. Ian Cohen: It is a Government in recline.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is a Government in decline. According to the Pastoral and Agricultural Crime Working Party, it is believed by many in the industry that there is underreporting of crime on rural properties, including stock theft. That means that the livestock theft figures do not fully reflect the extent of the problem. In my experience, to report theft in this State one rings the police assistance line [PAL] and one is given a number to put in one's insurance claim. The PAL in New South Wales is no more than a filing cabinet in which the Minister hides the crime statistics. The Minister sits on his hands and does absolutely nothing.

From my experience, and that of the people and local government of regional New South Wales, the PAL system is a system in which the Government hides crime statistics and the effects of crime. The Government does not allow people to report crime. The Minister claimed last night that the incident in Chinatown involved malicious damage and therefore should have been reported on PAL. That is how the Government operates. It does not deal with crime. It prefers to put crime reports in the filing cabinet and find an easy way out.

As we can see from the figures, stock theft is a significant issue which cannot be ignored. This legislation stems from the final recommendations of the Pastoral and Agricultural Crime Working Party. The Government effectively withheld those recommendations for the best part of two years. It took George Souris and John Brogden to make the Government do something. That shows how lazy the Government is. As with some of the other legislation we have been dealing with in the House in the past fortnight, it is strange that the Government has taken so long to formulate a response.

The bill proposes changes to several key pieces of legislation. The objects of the bill are to amend the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 as to penalty notices, to amend the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 in relation to livestock transport issues, and to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 to create an offence of entering onto private land and hunting with an animal without the consent of the owner or occupier of the land and to provide for the issue of penalty notices for the offence.

I will speak briefly about the amendments to the Acts. The proposed amendments to the Inclosed Lands Protection Act relate primarily to the protection of goats that are earmarked or eartagged. Under the present legislation, goats that are branded or wearing collars cannot be destroyed. The amendment will bring this legislation into line with accepted marketing practices and will protect goats wandering onto private property from being destroyed in the same way that feral goats would be destroyed. The amendment has been brought about because of the high prices that goats are currently fetching.

Another amendment to the Inclosed Lands Protection Act will enable penalty notices to be issued for trespass offences. I understand that this amendment is in line with the recently announced plans of the Minister for Police to issue penalty notices for minor offences and it is designed to ensure that these offences are dealt with in a manner that does not take up the time or resources of the court system. One of the greatest concerns of people in the pastoral industry, those who operate farms, is illegal trespass on their land. Most trespassers are shooters but some people feel they can go onto any land at any time.

The Hon. Ian Cohen: The Game Bill, which you are supporting, will encourage that.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Not for the first time the Hon. Ian Cohen has delivered a stupid interjection. I welcome his re-election because, although he is very silly, he is the more sensible of the two Greens. That does not say much, but it is an indication that if the Greens are going to have one silly member here we would prefer the Hon. Ian Cohen.

The amendments to the Rural Lands Protection Act relate primarily to practical issues surrounding the transportation of livestock. The amendments will require livestock transporters in charge of a vehicle transporting sheep, cattle and other stock prescribed by regulations to carry certain documentation, and allow police officers and other authorised officers to stop and search vehicles for the purpose of inspecting that documentation. The current legislation does not make it explicit that an authorised officer has the power to stop livestock transport vehicles to inspect stock statements.

Whilst this part of the legislation is welcomed, it indicates that the Government is lazy and has not rationalised this measure. It has split it between the police and the Rural Lands Protection Boards [RLPB]. If the Government were fair dinkum about making the legislation work, it would have given the authorisation to either the police or, preferably, the RLPB. Whilst this is an added protection, the Opposition is concerned that RLPB officers should be properly trained and of a high calibre, and do not create a nuisance. In the past, some RSPCA and RLPB officers in particular areas created problems with stock operators who were operating legally and professionally. The professionalism of the officers was not on a par with the carriers.

Having said that, the Opposition welcomes that measure. Indeed, if the Government were more diligent it would have adopted the Opposition's suggestions, which would make the process less cumbersome. In this instance police officers will be classified as authorised officers under the legislation. I understand that the current provision relating to documentation is due to expire in September, which is why the bill contains the legislative basis for the retention of the documentation system. I believe that responsible farmers and transporters will have no problem conforming with this new system. Livestock will be easily identified while it is on the road, with details as to the origin, destination, and type of stock carried.

The bill proposes that a committee, comprising representatives from NSW Police, NSW Agriculture and the Livestock Transporters Association, oversee the accreditation process. The accreditation could be extended to existing commercial documentation, such as a commercial consignment note, which is a sensible amendment. The work of the committee is important, but I would like the Minister to explain in his reply why no representative from the New South Wales Farmers Association is to be included on the committee. This is a strange omission, as the association represents farmers, who are the point of origin for most livestock transported around New South Wales. Therefore it is only logical that they be represented on the committee. I understand that the Ministry of Police and the Minister have rejected the suggestion and if that is the case, I implore the Minister to re-examine the matter and address it in reply. I wonder whether national vendor declarations will be treated under this bill as well.

The Farmers Association wishes to be included in accreditation committee meetings as an observer at the very least, but I contend it should have representation on the committee. In the absence of a suitable explanation from the Minister the Opposition will consider moving amendments in Committee to include a representative of the New South Wales Farmers Association on the accreditation committee. Concerns have been expressed today that the bill proposes amendments to the Summary Offences Act. An offence will be created of hunting on private land without the permission of the owner or occupier. The offence does not apply where there is a lawful excuse for hunting without permission. I do not know whether that is so sensible.

The Hon. Richard Jones: How can that be sensible?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I cannot see that it is sensible. I agree with the Minister that it could be lawful for rural lands protection board personnel to destroy rural animals and pests, although it is not often that I agree with him. The bill includes specific provisions to ensure that traditional hunting, subject to strict conditions, is also a lawful excuse. The amendments make it clear that hunting permitted under native title or the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 is a lawful excuse.

The Opposition will not oppose the bill. The Coalition has proposed a wide-ranging package of measures to address rural crime and these measures go further than anything the Government has announced to date. Stock theft needs to be dealt with immediately, which is why the passage of this bill is important. Although the bill was introduced belatedly we support it because, in many respects, it reflects the Opposition's views rather than those of the Minister when he was first elected. He has had a change of heart and has included in the bill the views of the Opposition.

The Hon. Michael Costa: That's not true—what about the stock squad?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is true. Yours was a farcical thing. It was a perception rather than a reality. It reflects your time in this job. You are more interested in perceptions than reality.

The Hon. Ian Cohen: That's the Government's legislation style and you support it most of the time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You had one win this weekend. It is about the only one you will get this year.

The Hon. Ian Cohen: I bet we get a higher percentage than the National Party at the next election.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I doubt that. When you win a lower House seat, come and talk to me. We support the legislation.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [5.35 p.m.]: I support the Pastoral and Agricultural Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill. I have a couple of queries, but I regard it as good legislation in that it will assist police in reducing stock crime in New South Wales, which is far too high to be in anyone's interest. Apparently the offence of hunting on private land is designed primarily to stop hunting with dogs without permission on private land and is quite specific. As it currently stands a person found on private land with a dog can be charged with trespass. However, people tell police that their dog was on the back of the truck and jumped off, and they were chasing it. In this way they seek to avoid prosecution. The Minister's office has advised me that in smaller communities police would have some knowledge of offenders and could take that into account in deciding whether they believe that story.

Under this legislation police will have the option of issuing a penalty notice immediately, as a deterrent. I will move an amendment in Committee to increase the penalty from 10 penalty units to 50 penalty units because I regard the violation of people's privacy and endangering their stock as a serious matter. I understand that the Government intended to impose a heavier penalty but was advised by a number of land-holders that they preferred the lesser penalty because it would be easier for police to issue a penalty notice rather than take an offender to court. Of course, police could issue the lesser penalty in any case. Nevertheless, I understand that the Government will not accept my amendment. Section 28J states:

(a) the person did not know that the land was private land.

In other words, people could profess ignorance that it was private land but that will not necessarily excuse them from prosecution. I was wondering whether this measure should be changed but I am informed that it is consistent with section 93H of the Crimes Act and that any change would make it inconsistent with other legislation. Therefore, those who claim ignorance that the land is private will not necessarily avoid prosecution. I hope this bill goes some way towards preventing illegal hunting on private land, particularly with dogs, and that it reduces stock losses in rural New South Wales.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.38 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Pastoral and Agricultural Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill. The legislation is the result of the Pastoral and Agricultural Crime Working Party that was formed in response to the growing concern about stock theft, grain and wool theft, and other forms of crime that are particular to primary producers. I am sure that over recent years honourable members have been shocked to read reports of the large numbers of cattle and sheep that have been stolen.

Such large numbers of stolen animal would have to be transported in semitrailers, which raises a question about the co-operation of the owners of the trucks if they do not belong to the criminals. Are those animals sold in New South Wales or to abattoirs interstate? This bill is necessary. As a non-farmer, I am surprised by the apparent gap in the system regarding documentation. In the past when police stopped stock transports they were never sure whether the animals were stolen. This legislation has adopted the working party's recommendations about stock identification and transport documentation as well as strengthening police powers, training and programming.

The bill also amends the Summary Offences Act regarding hunting on private land and the destruction of goats. It refines and updates the livestock transportation documentation system. I note that the Government has indicated that, as well as this legislation, operational responses will include the creation of 32 specialist rural crime investigators in non-metropolitan local area commands. I commend the Government for that initiative as well. We are pleased to support the bill and look forward to the elimination of organised crime in the primary industry sector.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [5.41 p.m.]: The Greens support the Pastoral and Agricultural Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill. We have some questions about its relevance, but I listened with interest to the contributions of other honourable members, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, whose speech clarified several points. It is interesting to note that, although we recognise that farmers suffer losses through stock theft, the Minister for Police failed in his second reading speech to provide evidence of those stock losses. I ask him to give honourable members those figures. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition remedied that situation to a great degree, and I welcome that further information. However, I would like to hear more from the Minister about that.

Honourable members have referred to criminal activities that are peculiar to rural areas. They include rural arson, the theft of seeds and stock, and the dumping of rubbish. The growing of cannabis was also mentioned and, while I would not put it in the same category as the other offences, it certainly can cause the misdirection of police resources from more important issues. Honourable members have mentioned stock losses before and pointed out that the authorities have great difficulty dealing with that problem.

It is hoped that the creation of 32 specialist rural crime investigators in non-metropolitan local area commands will have an impact. The Greens would like to have evidence of that impact before we feel comfortable about this move. It is one thing to put more police on the beat but quite another to identify their relevance. I acknowledge that the creation of these positions may be necessary, and we hope they will be sufficient to administer the powers provided in this bill.

I note with interest the moves towards a national identification scheme and the free-call telephone line for information about stock theft. This will not necessarily solve the problem but it is certainly a step in the right direction. I ask the Minister to confirm whether these powers will be extended to inspect licences issued by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Some 2,808 cattle worth about $3.4 million were stolen in 1999, and $922,000 worth of sheep were stolen in 2000-01. This points to the need for police activity in these areas. I live in a non-metropolitan area and I am aware of the difficulties that police face in dealing with traffic accidents and general policing issues in local urban centres. Even on the North Coast, police must cover vast distances when attending domestic violence and other incidents. Police resources are often overstretched.

I also note the bill's provisions regarding the destruction of feral goats and other animals. I am sure that honourable members are aware that many businesses have been established and now profit from the capture and export of feral goats. The Greens do not support the export trade in live goats: we would prefer to see goats slaughtered in Australia under the auspices of the appropriate local authorities. It is about value adding. The Hon. John Ryan laughs, but the export of live goats—

The Hon. Michael Costa: It's for religious slaughter.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Religious slaughter can be, and is, done in Australia. Halal meat is produced in Australia by people who have the necessary religious specifications.

The Hon. John Jobling: In specific halal butcher shops.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: The honourable member is correct: There are specific halal butcher shops and halal abattoirs in Australia. It is about value adding. In addition, the Greens believe—as I do personally—that the export of live animals is a cruel practice. The slaughter of animals should occur according to Australian standards and in a manner that offers increased benefits to industries in rural communities that are often economically stretched and could benefit from that type of activity. While we support the opportunistic nature of these enterprises that capture and kill feral goats, I think it is quite reasonable to oppose the cruel practice of exporting live animals. The Greens would like to see employment created in rural areas through the establishment of abattoirs and associated services.

I am pleased that the bill accepts traditional hunting as a lawful excuse. The amendment foreshadowed by the Hon. Richard Jones seeks to increase penalties for unlawful hunting. Although I understand his consistent concerns about this issue and the possible danger that hunting presents for native animals, I will need to talk to him about this, given the Greens' belief that increased penalties are not necessarily the way to go, and that education is often more appropriate. The Greens are concerned that this provision could be a prelude to the Game Bill by specifying that the destruction of goats may not occur in certain circumstances, such as if they are earmarked or legally branded. This protects the interests of those who successfully capture and herd feral goats, but we question the shooters' ability to distinguish the markings on goats from a distance.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You shouldn't; it's a sensible measure.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I acknowledge that interjection, and I am open to any further information on that subject. As a Green, I am clearly concerned about the proliferation of feral animals, such as goats, in rural areas where they can do significant damage. If captured, herded and dealt with appropriately, with a minimum of cruelty under the circumstances, the Greens believe this would be a step in the right direction.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There is a concern shared by members on this side of the House, because goats have become so valuable that feral goats as well as domestic goats are being taken.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I acknowledge that position, and the fact that it is very difficult in a hunting situation to determine whether the goats are marked in some way, either earmarked or branded.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They are big tags.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I take the honourable member's view on that. I hope that would be sufficient, but perhaps the shooter is aiming at something else rather than the tag on the ear.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But these goats are not normally shot; they are taken by truck.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: If that is the case, it is clearly a case of theft. I look forward to the Minister responding to these issues. I support the bill.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [5.51 p.m.]: In speaking to the Pastoral and Agricultural Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill I give support to the eloquent speech made by my parliamentary colleague the Hon. Duncan Gay, which was indicative of his vast experience with such matters. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Enclosed Lands Protection Act 1901, the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 and the Summary Offences Act 1988. In March 2000 the Government formed the Pastoral and Agricultural Crime Working Party, which comprised representatives from the New South Wales Farmers Association, the New South Wales Police Service, the Ministry for Police and the office of the Minister for Agriculture, to examine the effectiveness of the current legislative provisions put in place to deal with pastoral and agricultural crime. The object of the bill is to implement several working party recommendations including amending the Enclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 to allow authorised officers to issue penalty notices for offences under the Act and to prevent the destruction of goats that are ear marked or wearing tags; to amend the Rural Land Protection Act 1998 to require persons transporting stock by vehicle to carry appropriate documentation to allow authorised officers to stop and search vehicles transporting stock and to require that authorised officers provide identification when exercising their powers; and to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 to make it an offence to hunt on private land without the permission of the owner or occupier and to provide for the issue of penalty notices for such an offence.

Rural crime is a significant problem. It is having a demoralising effect on farmers in terms of their economic position. It has not been properly addressed in the past by policies and legislative provisions. I hope that the bill will provide the necessary panacea for the rural community, which plays such a pivotal role in the social and cultural development of our economy.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Police) [5.54 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The Opposition has attempted to take credit for policies that have their genesis in the March 2000 Pastoral and Agricultural Crime Working Party. I think we should be fair dinkum about this. If anyone can take credit for this bill, it is the New South Wales Farmers Association, which lobbied me tirelessly on a range of these matters. In fact in its own publications it made it very clear that it was very comfortable with the outcome. Rather than attempt to score political points on this, we should give credit where it is due: to the New South Wales Farmers Association. There have been some changes on both sides. The Opposition clearly held a position about a stock squad that was rejected by the New South Wales Farmers Association. The Government was lobbied very intensely to make the 32 rural investigator positions full time and additional. Given the record number of police that we have, we were able to meet that requirement.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Record number of resignations.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am trying to be statesmanlike. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should relax. I am giving him the credits. What is the point of trying to be statesmanlike–

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You can't!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Then I shall say what I wanted to say. The National Party stuffed up once again. Its own constituency knocked it back. It was running around arguing for a stock squad, but the association did not support the proposal. Then the National Party decided at its conference to change its position in relation to the stock squad. That is what happened. They are the facts. It is hypocritical of the National Party to try to take credit for matters that were really out of its control. I am happy with the outcome. It appears that everybody involved is happy.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If you are prepared to pay so much tribute to the Farmers Association, why don't you have it represented on your committee?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will come to that. I am happy with the outcome. It has been universally endorsed. It is a good policy. I think we all recognise that. It is good to be involved jointly in getting a good policy through the Parliament—a policy that will have, hopefully, the desired effects. The Greens referred to figures relating to cattle and sheep theft. I am advised that it is very difficult to quantify the incidence of such offences, largely because there is some underreporting of the activity. But certainly the figure that has been quoted of over 2.7 million appears to be a reasonable estimate. Hopefully, with the new arrangements reporting can be undertaken by those who are unfortunate to find themselves in such circumstances. Then we will have more accurate figures. The New South Wales Farmers Association has been given an undertaking by the police that it will be invited to attend each meeting. I understand that is acceptable to the association. The relevant industry body is the Livestock Transporters Association, but I am happy to put on the record that if the Farmers Association has a desire to attend any meeting, we will facilitate that desire.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why don't you move your own amendment in the other place and give the association a place on the committee?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It has not asked to be on the committee. But I put on the record: if the association indicates that it wants to be on the committee, I have no difficulty with it being there. As I said, this bill is the result of the co-operative efforts of everyone in the industry. It implements the recommendations of the Pastoral and Agricultural Crime Working Party and is part of the Government's rural crime fighting strategy, which also includes the appointment of specialist rural crime investigators; extra training for country-based police; updated licensing and record-keeping procedures under the Wool, Skin and Hide Dealers Act to help reduce the risk of theft and to help police investigate such cases; and the proposed implementation of a livestock identification scheme. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [6.00 p.m.]: I move my amendment:

Page 16, schedule 4 [1], proposed section 28J, line 20. Omit "10". Insert instead "50".

The amendment proposes to increase the penalty for an offence under schedule 4 [1] from 10 penalty points, about $1,100 currently, to 50 penalty points, about $5,500 currently. People entering land and hunting illegally, particularly with dogs, is a very serious problem for many land-holders. I think that those who have suffered from this time and again would be happier with a higher maximum monetary penalty than 10 penalty units. That monetary penalty is out of kilter with the 12 months imprisonment penalty provided. A monetary penalty of 50 penalty units would be more appropriate and in line with the imprisonment penalty.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Police) [6.01 p.m.]: The Government is opposed to the amendment. The Government has relied on advice from the New South Wales Farmers Association and the rural lands protection boards in setting the penalty. We initially wanted higher penalties but those two organisations indicated to us that the penalties should be at a level that did not cause excessive challenge in court. It is considered that the smaller penalty would enable it to be used more effectively. I accept the advice of the Farmers Association and the rural lands protection boards on that matter. We can always revise the penalty if there is a need in the future.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.02 p.m.]: Speaking as a land-holder, I am attracted by what the Hon. Richard Jones proposes. As I indicated in the second reading debate, one of the greatest scourges to land-holders is illegal hunting on their land. Law-abiding citizens are getting on with their job and yahoos come onto their land without permission and endanger their lives on a daily basis. Having said that, I accept the Minister's explanation and I further indicate that when the Game Bill comes before this Chamber the Opposition will move further amendments to protect the position of land owners. We support the Minister's stance on the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

POULTRY MEAT INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (PRICE DETERMINATION) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Police) [6.05 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.

Poultry Meat Industry Act 1986

Poultry Meat Industry Committee

Poultry Meat Industry Act 1986

The Committee applies a "model farm" concept to determine an indicative growing fee which is equivalent to the average total cost of production.

The parameters of this model are reviewed every three years.
In addition, the model is updated in arrears every six months according to changes in the Consumer Price Index and other costs which directly influence growing costs.

A model or standard fee is determined by the Committee for the six-monthly period dating from the last price adjustment day. It is this price which is approved by the Minister and is gazetted under Section 10 of the Act.

Each processor negotiates with its growers a number of adjustments to the model fee so as to reflect market conditions and throughput. The price paid to growers is a result of altering the model fee by these negotiated adjustments. The adjustments are ratified by the Committee or, if in dispute, can be taken to the Committee for resolution.
Administratively determined adjustments for market conditions and throughput are agreed between each processor and its growers and automatically approved by the Committee if within a certain percentage of the cost model. If beyond this percentage then the processor must demonstrate that there had been no abuse of market power in arriving at the adjustment level.
Grower returns may be further influenced by a pooling system used to rank individual growers according to efficiency criteria, such as feed conversion ratio and mortality. An associated efficiency rating system, whereby individual growers are assigned an efficiency score per batch, also influences payments.

Trade Practices Act 1974

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.05 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Poultry Meat Industry Amendment (Price Determination) Bill, which seeks to extend and clarify the regulations governing the legal relationship between the State's 350 poultry meat farmers and the poultry meat processing companies. However, I state from the outset that the present intention of the Opposition is to move amendments in Committee. The Opposition has consulted representatives of both the poultry growers and the processors on the provisions contained in the bill and their likely ramifications for the poultry industry. Poultry growers are understandably anxious to ensure that their interests in the poultry meat industry will continue to be adequately protected by legislation. On the other hand, equally, processors favour the introduction of more flexible arrangements enabling them to negotiate with growers in a manner which best suits their interests and the continuation of a healthy industry.

My staff indicates that, despite the fact that the Government has rushed this legislation through the lower House and into this place, as I speak negotiations continue on the amendments that ultimately will be moved. I will speak to some of the amendments that are the subject of negotiation. Despite assurances from the Government that a point of agreement has been reached, there has been no indication to me of that at this stage. I have informed the Government that unless the debate on the bill is adjourned at the second reading stage the Opposition will oppose the bill in its entirety. I have been informed that the Government will adjourn debate on the bill at the second reading stage to allow the Opposition, at the very least, and the crossbenchers to be apprised of the current situation with the amendments. Having the principal players affected by the bill unaware of the latest stance is not a suitable way to run a government or a parliament on a matter of such importance to a major industry.

The Hon. Richard Jones: And at loggerheads.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: And at loggerheads. The first of the amendments that we intended to move—we may or may not proceed with them—would ensure that no effective efficiency incentive agreement between processors and growers could be submitted to the Poultry Meat Industry Committee for its approval without satisfying the requirement of obtaining the agreement of at least 75 per cent of growers. The second amendment is an enabling amendment to facilitate the inclusion of the third amendment, which will ensure that the base rates for batch poultry will be determined at six monthly intervals by the Poultry Meat Industry Committee. The fourth amendment would enable growers as well as processors to vary the terms of an efficiency incentive scheme. The fifth amendment would define the date of termination for existing agreements. The final two amendments are of a consequential nature. The Opposition's amendments seek to ensure that growers who lack a certain amount of bargaining power are not disadvantaged by whatever changes the Government introduces. Having said this, I respect the investment that the processors have in the industry. They are an important part of this partnership. It is one of the anomalies of primary industries that one cannot live without the other. For this reason it is paramount that a harmonious environment is created for the two parties to achieve greater results for the industry.

The Government is aware of the amendments and knows what they are designed to achieve. The Government has indicated to growers and to the Opposition that it supports the principle encompassed in the amendments. Before the Minister says too much, I warn him that he should be aware of what his colleagues have done. If the Government decides that it will not support the amendments on a legal technicality or because of the wording, it must clarify to the House the reason the amendments are unworkable. The bill is essentially the responsibility of the Government and the onus is on the Minister to ensure that it is workable.

A review of the Poultry Meat Industry Act was undertaken during 1998-99 to fulfil a commitment under the competition principles agreement. Significant changes were recommended to the Act and to the role of the Poultry Meat Industry Committee. The Government considered that recommended measures designed to fundamentally change the way in which the Act regulates the relationship between growers and processors would, if implemented, have led to industry instability. The Government decided not to support those proposed changes, instead it opted to introduce legislation to simplify the procedures of the committee in determining prices and to streamline its administrative processes.

The Opposition agrees with that. The principle under which the committee operates is appropriate although there has been considerable disquiet among processors and growers. The simplified procedure is the right way to go. The bill does not satisfy the growers and processors and has not addressed the existing commercial arrangement between the processors and the growers. The arrangement has been treated as one of government responsibility. However, the Government is essentially an intermediary in the matter. The arrangement between poultry growers and processors is a commercial one, run by a political agenda. The bill, as it stands, will not solve the fundamental structural problems existing between the growers and processors of the poultry meat industry.

The bill is merely a band-aid solution. For that reason the Opposition will introduce a number of amendments that will ensure that growers who lack a certain amount of bargaining power are not disadvantaged in their negotiations with processors. The Opposition does not oppose the first and second amendments proposed by the Government, which will remove the definitions of "pool fund" and "pool fund payment agreement" and replace them with "efficiency incentive agreement", "efficiency incentive scheme" and "standard agreement". The amendments are an improved description of the different methods of payment that are consistent with current industry practice for batch poultry.

The Opposition does not oppose the administrative function of the third proposed amendment, which outlines the criteria that the Poultry Meat Industry Committee must take into account when endorsing an efficiency incentive agreement. These criteria reflect current industry practice of preparing formulae that vary individual payments to growers, based on efficiency criteria. The Opposition does not oppose the fourth amendment, which deals with processors having to notify details relating to agreements. If the processor seeks to vary any of the efficiency incentive rules, it will be necessary for 75 per cent of growers who are subject to those rules to agree to the amendment. The processor must be able to satisfy the committee that that has occurred.

This amendment is important for the committee's records. The Opposition does not oppose the administrative functions of items [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Item [6] seeks to amend a typographic error, and items [5], [7], [8] and [9] are minor amendments that remove the former terminology and replace it with updated terms that are consistent with current industry practice. The Opposition is supportive of item [10], which removes divisions 2, 3 and 4 of the bill and replaces them with three clauses that outline the means by which the price paid to the grower is to be calculated.

Proposed section 11 allows the processors to establish, maintain and administer agreements for the purpose of paying growers. It also sets out what must be stated in the rules that are to govern efficiency incentive agreements and how variations to those rules may be made. Proposed section 12 specifies the amount that must be paid into the efficiency incentive agreement by the processor in relation to batch poultry delivered to it by a grower under an efficiency incentive agreement. Proposed section 12A deals with what must be paid to a grower for batch poultry delivered to a processor under an efficiency incentive agreement. The price paid to growers under a standard agreement is to be no less than the base rate for birds of that class.

The Opposition does not oppose items [11] to [14], which ensure that agreements that have been entered into before the commencement of the bill and up until the proclaimed date are validated and all payments to growers under those agreements are validated. Proposed section 12B refers to payment for batch poultry that would have been normally paid out of an efficiency incentive agreement, but is excluded from its operation by agreement of the grower and the processor. Proposed section 12C specifies the amount that must be paid to a grower for batch poultry delivered by the grower to a processor under an agreement that provides for payment otherwise by means of an efficiency incentive agreement.

Proposed section 12D prevents processors and growers from contracting out the provisions of part 4 of the principal Act. Proposed section 12E allows inspections of the records of an efficiency incentive agreement by a member of such an agreement and enables regulations to be made in relation to the audit of the fund's accounts. The poultry processors have made an application, without the support of the growers, to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for authorisation under section 88 (1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Although it is clear that both the processors and growers perceive the Poultry Meat Industry Committee to be a less than perfect vehicle for facilitating agreements, the committee has been instrumental in delivering to growers a certain amount of bargaining power in determining the prices paid by processors for chicken that would otherwise not exist. It has been suggested that a deregulated environment would accelerate the push towards capital-intensive, high-technology and expensive tunnel-ventilated sheds without an accompanying price increase for growers. It has also been made apparent that in such an operating environment more than 25 per cent of growers could lose their businesses. Already the Opposition is aware that 41 Bartter growers and 29 Ingham growers have been notified by their respective companies that their contracts will not be renewed beyond 2004.

We support item [7] of schedule 1, which inserts section 9A, which will amend the Act to ensure that the actions of processors and growers in negotiating a consensus on prices, and entering into contracts in accordance with the requirements of the Act, will be specifically exempt from part IV of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974. This has been made necessary by the actions of poultry processors in making their application to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] under section 88 (1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Although the Opposition does not oppose the legislation, it seeks to deliver more power to growers by moving amendments to the Act, which has repeatedly failed in its original intention to provide growers with a platform of equality for negotiations. Having said that, I advise that the Opposition greatly respects the processors in New South Wales. The poultry industry has the potential to be a major economic contributor in Australia. It is introducing new technology that will put us light years ahead of our competitors in other countries. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that this industry operates in the most effective and, importantly, harmonious environment possible.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [6.20 p.m.]: The Hon. Ian Armstrong in the other place got it just about right: when people in Australia go to buy their chicken they can be assured that they are buying the safest and healthiest chicken in the world because of a co-operative effort over many years and the development of a very competitive, even aggressive, market between groups of processors and associated growers, who sought and obtained huge efficiencies of scale. My father was a chook fancier. He bred Rhode Island Reds. At that time it was uncommon in Australia for families to enjoy a roast chicken lunch every Sunday; that was considered to be a luxury. Nowadays chicken is probably the cheapest protein on the market bar none. Fish and beef were relatively cheap then. Economies of scale, and efficient and effective breeding programs have been remarkable.

Recently, the poultry meat industry was threatened by processors having an advantage over growers. They were not certain of securing long contracts because processors were able to deal with only one grower at a time. During the last Federal election I attended a meeting called by Bob Baldwin, my colleague in the Federal Parliament. He called in representatives of the ACCC, who listened carefully to the growers. They then went and spoke to the processors. The ACCC granted an exemption that enabled growers to deal efficiently with their processor. Growers on the Central Coast cannot transport their birds to Tamworth; it is too risky, too stressful, and inhumane. They would lose too many birds.

Because processors provide the genetic material for the chickens to grow, they are able to dictate the style of growing to meat industry best practice. They want growers to make large investments, $40,000 or $50,000, in their tunnel-ventilated sheds without any guarantee or certainty about the length of the contract. The bill and the amendments referred to by the Hon. Ian Armstrong, which we will debate on another day, will deal with some of the remaining imbalances. It is important for New South Wales to have vigorous, effective and efficient processors. It is equally important for growers to be efficient and effective, and have some certainty in the market. When families go to Woolworths to buy their chicken they can be assured that chicken processors are competing one on one throughout New South Wales in a most aggressive fashion.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: And with processors from other States.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: And with processors from other States—and, in some cases, overseas. At least the Federal Government was able to stop that nonsense. The housewife and the family can now buy chicken very cheaply because of our large internal market and the way in which chickens are prepared. The bill is worthy of support, with modifications. It is important that people realise that the regulation of these industries under environmental legislation and sewerage and water regulations is extraordinary for both the processor and the grower. When the industry was threatened by Newcastle disease the Government was very slow to react. Eventually it came to the party and we now have a huge industry. People who are relatively poor are able to access high-quality protein. We are the envy of many other countries. Australians can have a balanced high-protein diet because of the efficiency and effectiveness of this market. It is worthwhile protecting. The legislation can be improved. I trust that the Government will listen to and consider our amendments. They will disadvantage neither the processor nor the grower, but produce a balance between the two.

The Hon. Michael Egan: You're a socialist at heart, though, aren't you?

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: No, I am not a socialist at heart.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [6.25 p.m.]: The bill deals with a price that will be paid to growers for certain kinds of poultry. As we have heard in a number of meetings to date and crossbench briefings, growers and processors have opposing positions. From the growers perspective, processors own the livestock, transport, abattoirs, and wholesale and some retail outlets, and employ the veterinarians. Farmers sit in the middle, provide some expertise, land and variable costs. They receive a growing fee of about 6 per cent to 8 per cent of the retail chicken price. The growers were happy with the original deal the Government introduced into the Legislative Assembly, but they are very unhappy about the amendments moved by the Government in the lower House. They believe the amendments are deregulation by stealth. They are particularly concerned about how the amendments will impact on the ability of growers to bargain collectively.

Growers are also concerned about inadequate provisions in the bill to review batch rates for batch poultry. They want certainty. The basic rate must be determined at least every six months because growers operate at marginal cost. They believe there must be a mechanism for regular review of rates. The Greens have significant sympathy for them in this regard. Growers are concerned about the unilateral application of onerous schemes by processors when consultation has occurred with the grower, but not with grower agreement. From the point of view of the processors, New South Wales has eight powerful, privately owned processors. Currently, one price for poultry covers the entire State and is determined by the Poultry Meat Industry Committee.

Processors argue that the current way of determining the price of poultry through the Poultry Meat Industry Committee is inhibiting the uptake of new tunnel shedding and adversely affecting the growth of the industry. Processors are investing interstate and taking jobs out of New South Wales. They want more flexibility and the ability to negotiate one to one with the growers. They have major problems with the entire legislation, but they have been advised by the Minister that further changes will be made to fix the problems. If growers are compelled by market forces to install new technology—tunnel shedding—and if the processors get their way, will the environment in which the chickens live be more humane? There is a strong argument that the new type of shedding is better for both production and the condition of the chickens. I would be interested to know why the debate does not have another perspective, particularly from smaller, struggling growers.

I am advised that the organic chicken market is fetching premium prices. Alternative markets would allow a certain diversification for those who are struggling to deal with what they regard as an inappropriate relationship with processors. One wonders whether there might not be opportunities for niche marketing. Processors are all powerful and growers are vulnerable. Processors do not want any market inhibitions, such as collective bargaining, because they want to make as much profit as possible. Currently, growers across the State get the same price for their poultry, regardless of the condition of their sheds. Growers with old sheds cannot keep up with those who have the latest technology. The Greens are concerned about the rights of growers to have a say in the process. We are also concerned that growers are not controlled by processors. In light of the position taken by the Opposition to support the Government's legislation, we do not oppose the bill.

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 7.30 p.m.]

COMMUNITY SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

Second Reading

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [7.30 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

New South Wales has the most complex oversight arrangements of community service providers of any jurisdiction in Australia. The Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill represents a significant reform to these arrangements, whilst retaining and enhancing the protections for vulnerable people in our society. The bill provides for important changes to the roles of the Ombudsman, the Community Services Commissioner and the Coroner. It has been formulated on the basis of some fundamental principles: that the independence of oversighting agencies, the transparency and independence of the review and reporting process and the potential to share information should be strengthened wherever possible; that any gaps or uncertainties in the current system should be remedied; that client access and complaints handling are to be improved; and that none of the current protections in the review and monitoring systems of community services should be weakened. The Government has adhered to all these principles.

The bill simplifies, clarifies and strengthens the roles of the Coroner and the Ombudsman in the review and monitoring system. By amalgamating the Ombudsman and the Community Services Commission, it adopts the best and most effective powers currently available to those organisations. The bill has a number of other key benefits. It removes the jurisdictional uncertainty that currently exists for the Community Services Commission under the Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act 1993. It strengthens the independence of the monitoring, review and complaints handling functions. The Ombudsman can independently report to Parliament and is accountable to a joint parliamentary committee.

The bill creates a single responsible organisation with sufficient powers, skills and resources to undertake its functions. It reduces the chance of gaps in the investigation and handling of complaints. It provides clients with better access to the oversighting system through a single entry point. It enhances the capacity of the Coroner to provide the best system of investigating individual deaths of vulnerable children and people with disabilities. It also ensures the effective transfer of information about these deaths between agencies. The bill provides maximum opportunity for using information from individual deaths to target the monitoring and review of service providers, and to influence changes to systems and practices. It increases resources for improving services to the community by reducing corporate overheads and time spent on interagency duplication. Additional resources will be provided to the Coroner and the Ombudsman to deal with their expanded roles under this proposal.

The system established by the bill has been described by the Community Services Commissioner, Mr Robert Fitzgerald, as the most advanced scheme of its kind in Australia. I now turn to the substance of the bill. The bill will make significant amendments to the Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act 1993, the Coroners Act 1980 and the Ombudsman Act 1974. It will make minor consequential amendments to a number of Acts, including the Adoption Act 2000, the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 and the Disability Services Act 1993. The bill makes some substantial structural changes to the system of oversight of community service providers.

The bill will amend the Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act 1993 to establish the Community Services Division in the Ombudsman’s Office and to require the Ombudsman to appoint a Deputy Ombudsman as the Community Services Commissioner. The bill will also abolish the existing Community Services Commission and the office of the existing Commissioner of Community Services. The bill clarifies and streamlines the roles of agencies in regard to the investigation of individual deaths of children and people with disabilities in care, the systemic review of those deaths, the monitoring and review of community service providers, and complaints handling. I will deal with each of these roles in turn.

Currently, the investigation of individual deaths may be undertaken by a number of agencies, including the Coroner, the police, the Community Services Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Disability Death Review Team, the Child Death Review Team and agencies conducting internal investigations. The bill streamlines responsibilities for the investigation of individual deaths. It significantly amends and enhances the functions and capacity of the Coroner. The bill inserts new provisions in the Coroners Act requiring the mandatory notification to the Coroner of the death of certain categories of children in care and people with disabilities in care. There is currently no legislative requirement to ensure that these deaths come to the notice of the Coroner. The bill also provides that the Coroner will be solely responsible for the investigation of these deaths.

The mandatory reporting of deaths is a significant enhancement to the powers and functions of the Coroner. It will ensure that the deaths of the most vulnerable members of our society are properly investigated. The Government will provide the Coroner with additional resources to undertake the expanded role. The resources will include the appointment of an additional Deputy Coroner. Broadly, under new section 13AB of the Coroners Act, the deaths that must be notified to the Coroner include the deaths of a child or young person who has been notified to the Department of Community Services within two years of the child's death; whose death is or may be subject to abuse or neglect or due to suspicious circumstances; who is under the parental responsibility of the Minister for Community Services or under a care order of the Director-General of the Department of Community Services, pending court proceedings; who is in out-of-home care; and who is in juvenile detention.

The mandatory notification of deaths will also include the death of a person—other than a child in care—who is in a target group within the meaning of the Disability Services Act 1993 and who is in the care of a service provider within the meaning of the Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act or receives a service from a service provider that allows that person to live independently in the community. The Coroner will also receive notification of the death of people with a disability living in residential centres licensed under the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 and known as "licensed boarding houses".

I turn now to systemic review of deaths in care. Currently, the Child Death Review Team and the Disability Death Review Team undertake the systemic review of deaths. The bill amends the Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act to make the Ombudsman, through the Community Services Division, responsible for this function. The Ombudsman will be responsible for the review of all deaths of children and people with disabilities in care. These terms have the same meaning as in the Coroners Act outlined previously. This will include the deaths of people in licensed boarding houses and the deaths of children in juvenile detention centres.

The Ombudsman will look at the circumstances of, and the potential for, preventing these deaths. He will also undertake detailed reviews of information relating to these deaths and make recommendations aiming to improve systems and prevent or reduce such deaths where possible. The Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act 1993 will be amended to provide the Ombudsman with such unrestricted access to the records of the Coroner and other service providers as is necessary to fulfil the functions I have just referred to. Linked to the mandatory reporting of deaths to the Coroner, this proposal provides a powerful tool for focusing investigations and improving services.

Also, as part of these changes, the Child Death Review Team will be retained with some amended functions. The Child Death Review Team will continue to keep a register of child deaths. It will continue to have a role in formulating recommendations regarding policies and practices to be implemented by government, private agencies and the community for the prevention or reduction of child deaths. For that purpose, the Child Death Review Team will continue to review information concerning deaths of children, except for children in the categories to be reviewed by the Ombudsman. The Child Death Review Team would seek to identify patterns and trends relating to those deaths and would undertake detailed research as appropriate. In this respect, specific information powers are contained in the bill to allow information to be shared by the Child Death Review Team and the Ombudsman.

The proposals in the bill regarding the Child Death Review Team have been developed after extensive consultation with all members of the team. The Ombudsman has undertaken to use the independent members of the existing Child Death Review Team as expert advisers for at least the first 12 months of his expanded role. This recognises the valuable skills and experience of those members. In relation to monitoring and review of community service providers, the bill will insert a new part 3 into the Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act that makes the Ombudsman responsible for the monitoring and review of community service providers.

This function will include the review of statutory functions of government agencies. Under this part, the Ombudsman may, on his own initiative, review the situation of a child in care or a person with a disability in care. Importantly, this power has been extended to allow the Ombudsman to review the situation of a group of children or people in care, not just individual cases. The Ombudsman may review such aspects of the child or person's care as he thinks fit. The Ombudsman will have extensive information-gathering powers to undertake this task, powers not available to the existing Community Services Commission.

Part 3 requires the Ombudsman to provide a report of his findings to the relevant Minister and the service provider. Importantly, however, the Ombudsman has a general power to report independently to Parliament. I note that the important Community Visitors Scheme will be retained in its entirety. Appointments of Community Visitors will be made by the Minister for Community Services, as is currently the case. However, such appointments will be made on the recommendation of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will be responsible for the co-ordination of the Community Visitors Scheme. I further note that the Ombudsman will be responsible for the existing powers in the Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act relating to the promotion, and assisting in the development of standards, for the delivery of community services, and the education of service providers about those standards.

Currently, both the Ombudsman and the Community Services Commission handle complaints. The bill will insert a new part 4 into the Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act to make the Ombudsman responsible for complaints handling. Under that part, a person can make a complaint to the Ombudsman about the conduct of a service provider with respect to the provision, or failure to provide, of a service, or the withdrawal, variation or administration of a community service. The complaint can be made in respect of a service provided to a person or a group of people.

These new powers are in addition to the existing rights to complain under the Ombudsman Act. The bill ensures that complaints can be made about the statutory functions of agencies. To ensure appropriate access to the complaints handling system for all people, the bill provides that a complaint may be made personally or on behalf of another person. It also provides that complaints may be made orally or in writing. The Ombudsman will have extensive powers to investigate and conciliate a complaint. The Ombudsman will also have the power to review the internal complaints handling systems of service providers and make recommendations about those systems.

The bill addresses potential or perceived conflict between the investigatory and advocacy functions currently contained in the Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act. Under part 3, division 1, the Ombudsman will explicitly promote access to advocacy support for people receiving community services, make recommendations for improvements in the delivery of community services, assist in the making of complaints, provide information, education and training, and consult with persons and groups with an interest in the provision of community services.

This bill increases the accountability of community service providers and government. It strengthens the complaints handling process. It strengthens the review powers under the Community Services (Complaints, Review and Monitoring) Act. It subjects community service providers to the transparent and independent scrutiny of the Ombudsman's Office. The proposals in the bill have been the subject of extensive consultation. We have worked closely with both government and non-government agencies to develop a proposal which protects the rights of vulnerable people, strengthens the accountability of service providers, and clarifies and refocuses the roles of oversight agencies. The Government is committed to effective reform of the system for oversighting of community service providers. This bill is strongly supported by the Ombudsman, the Community Services Commissioner, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Coroner. It represents significant and sensible reform. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. John Jobling.

CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PENALTY NOTICE OFFENCES) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Police) [7.49 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Notice Offences) Bill 2002. The bill provides police officers with three new significant powers and corresponding safeguards. The purpose of the bill is to establish a trial to enable police officers to issue penalty notices for certain offences in certain locations. The bill will enable police officers to require persons who are to be issued with penalty notices under the trial to disclose their identity. It will allow police officers to take fingerprints and palm prints from people when serving penalty notices under the trial, and will allow police officers to take fingerprints and palm prints from people served with court attendance notices. Penalty notices are utilised by the police and various government departments as an important tool in dealing with a limited number of offences. In 1997 the Law Reform Commission concluded in its sentencing report that:

The proposal to issue penalty notices for an extended number of offences provides police with an additional enforcement tool. It allows police to use their discretion to deal with minor matters in an appropriate way. The scheme is not mandatory. It does not exclude the exercise of discretion to dispose of an offence by administering a warning or to file a charge. The courts will still deal with more serious offences and offenders. Police will continue to exercise their discretion to caution and warn where appropriate in very minor matters. The offender’s right to have the matter determined by the court and to plead in mitigation of penalty is retained.

This is an "opt-in" program: Any person issued with a penalty notice has the option of either paying the fine—set at the median fine amount for that offence—or requesting that the matter be heard in court. A recent Victorian report found that the overwhelming majority of persons receiving infringement notices opt to pay the amount set out in them. This is because the offender knows in advance what the penalty is and the infringement penalty is fixed at a monetary level lower than the normal statutory maximum fine for the offence. In addition, payment of the fixed penalty results in the offender acquiring neither a conviction nor a record. The offender can avoid the social stigma and legal disabilities that attach to prosecution and conviction in a criminal court.

I turn now to the provisions of the bill. Schedule 1 inserts a new part 8 into the Criminal Procedure Act. Proposed section 161 provides police with the power to issue penalty notices for the offences described in the regulations. Those offences, as listed in schedule 3, are common assault; larceny, where the value of goods stolen is up to $500; obtaining money or benefit by deception; goods in custody; offensive language or conduct; obstructing traffic; and entering a vehicle or boat in a public place without the owner's consent. The trial will operate for a period of 12 months and will take place in 12 local area commands designated in schedule 3. In recognition of the limited capacity to pay, proposed section 163 prohibits penalty notices for offences covered by this trial from being issued to juveniles.

In addition, penalty notices may not be issued in relation to an industrial dispute, demonstration or protest, procession or organised assembly. Under section 166, if a person opts to pay the penalty notice, that person is not liable for any further proceedings for the alleged offence. The penalty notice will not form part of the person’s criminal history. The NSW Police Service will keep a record of the penalty notice issued in order to ensure that notices are not issued inappropriately—for example, to the same offender for further offences of the same nature in the future. I emphasise that there is no requirement that police officers must issue a penalty notice rather than a caution or warning or proceed by way of a court attendance notice, summons or charge. Proposed section 170 makes this clear. Each officer will use his or her discretion, taking into account the seriousness of the offence or any prior convictions of the person, for example, before issuing a penalty notice.

The second significant power proposed in the bill is outlined in section 169. This power enables police officers to request the name and address of a person about to be issued with a penalty notice in order to identify that person. A penalty of $220 may be enforced if the person fails, without reasonable excuse, to provide that information. Several safeguards must be adhered to by the police officer when making that request. These safeguards include providing evidence that he or she is a police officer, providing his or her name and place of duty, informing the person of the reason for the request and warning the person that failure to comply with the request may be an offence.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Crimes Act to enable police officers to take fingerprints and palm prints from persons who have been issued with a penalty notice under section 353AC or a court attendance notice under section 353AD. This is the third significant power in the bill. It is important for me to reiterate that this power—indeed, this trial—does not apply to juveniles. Proposed sections 353AC (2) and 353AD (2) require that fingerprints and palm prints must not be taken from juveniles who have been issued with a penalty notice or court attendance notice. In relation to the penalty notice trial only, fingerprints and palm prints are to be destroyed once identity is confirmed upon payment of the penalty notice.

In the case of court attendance notices, the normal procedures will apply—that is, defendants found not guilty or who have had their charges dismissed may apply to the court for the destruction of their fingerprints. Proposed section 353AE contains the safeguards attached to the exercise of these powers. There is no offence attached to not consenting to have prints taken in the field, but police may warn the person that if he or she refuses to consent he or she may be arrested and conveyed to a police station and charged, and his or her prints taken.

Proposed section 172 requires the Ombudsman to monitor the operation of the trial. The ease with which penalty notices can be issued makes it open to criticism that notices will be used when a caution or warning without further action would have been more appropriate. The education and guidelines that will be provided to police officers will address this issue. In addition, the Ombudsman’s review will pay close attention to any net-widening effect of the legislation. The evaluation of the trial will ensure that any operational issues are identified and solved before a decision is made whether the legislation should be implemented statewide. This proposal extends the use of penalty notices and allows them to become a general tool in the array of responses available to police. It provides police with greater flexibility in their response to criminal behaviour. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. John Jobling.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (POLICE AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Police) [7.57 p.m.]: I move:

I am pleased to introduce the Crimes Amendment (Police and Other Law Enforcement Officers) Bill. The bill creates a number of new offences that will offer police and certain other law enforcement officers and their families greater protection from threats, harassment and intimidation. It is a sad fact that many law enforcement officers and their families are subject to threats and harassment as a result of their duties. These threats are designed to influence police investigations or the progress of court matters, or they may be issued simply because the person does not like police in general.

For example, officers working at some police stations have been targeted for death threats following the murder of one of their colleagues. This type of behaviour was demonstrated towards officers at Mascot police station and also occurred at Fairfield police station following the murder of Constable David Carty. I am advised that officers at the station received death threats against them, their partners and their children. The New South Wales Crime Commissioner has also reported that he is concerned that threats against police and New South Wales Crime Commission officers are increasingly being made by organised gangs, most notably by members of outlaw motorcycle gangs. These threats may be accompanied by direct surveillance of officers by gang members. Gang members engage in intimidation tactics by following officers, making telephone calls to officers’ families and by compiling intelligence dossiers on officers.

Police and Crime Commission officers have reported receiving death threats against them and their families; threats to assault officers and their families; bomb threats; threats to rape officers’ children; and reports of efforts by violent criminals to obtain officers' home addresses, telephone numbers and other information. Such intimidation is extremely serious. It not only has the potential to pervert the course of justice in relation to a particular investigation or court matter, but leaves officers and their families living in a state of fear. Where the target of the threats is an officer’s family, the psychological effect on the family can be particularly far-reaching. For these reasons, it is proposed to introduce a range of new offence provisions in the Crimes Act 1900.

The current provisions in section 60 of the Crimes Act are insufficient to offer protection to off-duty police and their families against threats, stalking, harassment and intimidation. Currently the only off-duty offence recognised by the Act is that of assault; there is no recognition that a person may target a police officer simply because he or she is a police officer—rather than because of something the officer has done or may do. It should not matter whether police officers are on or off duty if they are threatened or attacked because of their job. That is why this bill will amend section 60 of the Crimes Act to extend protection to police officers who are stalked, harassed or intimidated whilst off-duty. These new offences will attract the same maximum penalty as would occur if the offence occurred whilst the officer was on duty.

The bill will mean that a person who assaults, stalks, harasses or intimidates a police officer while in the execution of his or her duty, whether on or off duty, will be liable to imprisonment for five years; if actual bodily harm is caused to the officer, the maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment; and, if the officer is wounded or suffers grievous bodily harm, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 12 years. The bill also extends coverage to police who are targeted simply because they are police, rather than because of, or in retaliation for, actions taken in the execution of their duty.

In addition to measures relating to police officers, the bill also creates new offences in the Crimes Act relating to other law enforcement officers. The Crimes Act currently has no specific offences for threatening or intimidating law enforcement officers other than police. It is the view of the Government that law enforcement officers who investigate serious crime or corruption, or who perform detention-related duties, require additional protection against threats and harassment. This bill will therefore create in the Crimes Act a series of offences relating to other law enforcement officers.

Proposed section 60A mirrors the protections provided to police officers in section 60 of the Crimes Act for those officers who perform investigative, confiscation, or detention functions from the NSW Crime Commission, the Police Integrity Commission, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Department of Corrective Services, and the Department of Juvenile Justice. This will mean that a person who assaults, stalks, harasses or intimidates one of these law enforcement officers while in the execution of his or her duty, whether on or off duty, will be liable to imprisonment for five years If actual bodily harm is caused to the officer, the maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment, and if the officer is wounded or suffers grievous bodily harm the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 12 years.

Proposed section 60B (1) creates a new offence of assault, stalk, harass or intimidate the family or loved ones of police or other law enforcement officers. The offence will apply where a person who is in a domestic relationship with a police officer or a relevant law enforcement officer is targeted because of his or her relationship to the officer. The maximum penalty for this offence will be the same as that for targeting the officer—five years imprisonment.

The New South Wales Crime Commissioner has received intelligence reports that outlaw motorcycle gang members are collecting information on police and crime commission staff and compiling intelligence dossiers which enable gang members to stalk, harass, intimidate and even assault officers and their families. Currently there are no laws that target such acts in preparation for the commission of such an offence. The Government is concerned at these reports of the concerted efforts to collect personal information on police and other law enforcement officers in order to influence officers who may impact on their illegal activities. This is of particular concern given the apparent willingness of outlaw motorcycle gangs to engage in organised violence and murder.

The methods used around the nation by some outlaw motorcycle gangs in their crimes of violence have demonstrated considerable organisational ability, a capacity to maintain longstanding grudges against individuals, the ability to gather intelligence on the movements of their targets, the ability to use extreme violence to perpetrate their criminal ends, and the ability to manufacture bombs and procure illegal firearms. Legislation is therefore needed to allow police to act before an officer or an officer’s family is threatened or hurt.

Proposed section 60C will make it an offence to collect personal information on police or other law enforcement officers with the intention of using or permitting the use of the information to assault, stalk, harass, intimidate or otherwise harm the officer. This new offence will attract a maximum of two years imprisonment. Section 60B (2) extends this offence to cover the collection of personal information on a police or other law enforcement officer’s family and loved ones, where the intention is to use or permit the information to be used to cause the officer to fear harm. This new offence will also attract a maximum of two years imprisonment. Whilst the provision for new offences with appropriate penalties will not remove the threat posed by criminals to police officers, it will nevertheless create a regime in which attempts may be stopped before an officer or his/her family are actually hurt. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. John Jobling.

POLICE SERVICE AMENDMENT (NSW POLICE) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Police) [8.07 p.m.]: I move:

I am pleased to introduce the Police Service Amendment (NSW Police) Bill, which has been developed in consultation with NSW Police, the Police Association and other relevant interests. The bill gives legal recognition to the Police Service of New South Wales being renamed NSW Police. These changes are made by items [1] to [5] of schedule 1 and by schedules 2.3 to 2.13 to the bill. Front-line police have repeatedly expressed their dissatisfaction with the name "Police Service" and its bureaucratic connotations. That name was introduced in 1990 when the Greiner Government passed the Police Service Act 1990 to integrate the police officers of the Police Force with the civilian administration of the Police Department. It is typical of the Coalition that it made no attempt to see how the police officers of New South Wales felt about that name change, a point made by Peter Anderson, MP, when the legislation was debated.

The feeling of police officers about the name of their organisation is of critical importance. It goes directly to their sense of identity and has an impact on morale. The Carr Government has listened to what front-line police want, and the name change reflects their wishes. The name "Police Service" was introduced by Commissioner John Avery, a visionary and reformer for whom I have the greatest respect. Commissioner Avery argued that the name was necessary to encourage community-based policing, a view he expressed in his 1980 book Police—Force or Service, a book that everyone with an interest in policing should take the time to read. Whilst the name "Police Service" may have been relevant twelve years ago, it no longer reflects community and police expectations.

Early last month I had the pleasure of visiting Port Macquarie and having dinner and a couple of drinks with John Avery, Rob Oakeshott and John Tingle, among others. We discussed the importance of community-based policing, and John Avery agreed that the name “Police Service” has probably outlived its usefulness. The new name, "NSW Police", is consistent with the approach taken by all other Australian jurisdictions, with the exception of Queensland, which still uses the term "Police Service". Whilst NSW Police will be the organisation's formal name, the term "police force" will be restored to popular currency. The term is one of which police are justifiably proud. It has a strong history, and reflects the community's expectations and the Government's priority of highly visible front-line policing.

Schedule 1 [8] to the bill responds to recommendations made by the Police Integrity Commission [PIC] in its Operation Bangkok report to the Commissioner of Police. Operation Bangkok investigated the fundraising activities of the NSW Police Cricket Association and found that the President of the Association, a police officer, had engaged in misleading fundraising activities. This finding led to the imprisonment of the officer for misappropriating $72,000 and giving false evidence to the PIC. The PIC also found that the association had breached provisions of the Commissioner's Instructions and Police Service Handbook relating to sponsorship and the provision of financial statements. The PIC recommended that the Commissioner of Police consider withdrawing the approval for the continued existence of any police sporting body that did not provide NSW Police with its audited financial statements or otherwise comply with NSW Police directives.

NSW Police policy provides that a non-compliant affiliated association may be disciplined by "suspending the association's privilege or right to use the words NSW Police Service or any similar derivative within the association's name or title". However, it has received legal advice that these provisions are unenforceable. There is no effective sanction for bodies that imply some association with NSW Police and engage in corrupt or other inappropriate conduct that can bring NSW Police into disrepute. They may continue to operate under a name that implies an association with police. The Police Service Act requires amendment so that NSW Police can prevent inappropriate persons or bodies from claiming, or continuing to claim, an association with police.

Schedule 1 [8] to the bill creates a new section 204A of the Police Act, which makes it an offence for a person or body to carry on any activity under an operating name that includes the word "police" without the consent of the Commissioner of Police. Bodies that already use the term in their name will not be required to seek the commissioner's consent. There are a number of exemptions to the above scheme. Section 204A (4) (a) is of critical importance. It recognises the right to freedom of speech and freedom of protest in exempting any organisation that has, among its primary objects, the object of commenting on, objecting to or protesting against the policies or practices of public authorities such as the NSW Police. The following persons and bodies are also exempted: industrial organisations; corporations; statutory bodies; persons who have the word "police" in their own name; and other bodies and classes of bodies specified by the regulations.

Schedule 2.13 [7] provides for a new regulation that excludes Police and Community Youth Clubs, Police Legacy, Police Credit Union, and the Justice and Police Museum from the scheme. The Department of Fair Trading will contact NSW Police when an application is made for a business or association name that includes the term "police" to see whether the commissioner consents to such a name. I will be writing to the Federal Government to see whether the Australian Securities and Investment Commission is prepared to introduce similar arrangements in respect of corporations. Section 204B enables the commissioner to consent to persons or bodies using the term "police" in their operating name, and to attach conditions to such a consent. It also enables the commissioner to revoke a consent to prevent a person or body from continuing to use the term "police" in an operating name. The commissioner will do this in circumstances where the person or body engages in improper conduct.

Section 204B requires the commissioner to give written notice that a consent is to be revoked and to allow the relevant person or body 14 days to make submissions on the proposed revocation. If the commissioner then determines to revoke the consent, the bill provides the person or body with a reasonable period in which to cease operating under the restricted name. The commissioner will advise the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading when a consent is revoked for a body operating under a business name or incorporated association name. Schedule 2.2 amends the Business Names Act 1962 to prevent a person from using a business name that is prohibited under another Act or law.

Schedule 2.1 amends the Associations Incorporation Act 1984 to enable the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading to direct an association to change its name where the commissioner revokes a consent, and to enable the cancellation of the association's incorporation where it does not change its name. The maximum penalty for unlawfully conducting activities under an operating name that includes the term "police" is 100 penalty units, consistent with the penalty in the related Queensland legislation. A penalty of imprisonment would be inappropriate, given the regulatory nature of the offence. Items [6], [7] and [9] of schedule 1 increase from 10 penalty units to 100 penalty units the penalties for related offences under the Act, being offences of impersonating a police officer, unauthorised use of police uniforms and police insignia, and the use of police designations by non-police in a business or employment context.

Proposed section 216AA is a key provision of the bill. It extends special risk benefit arrangements to students of policing and is part of a broader benefits package to increase the level of injury and death coverage for policing students. Students of policing are not employees of NSW Police until they are appointed as probationary constables. This means that they and their families are not entitled to statutory employment-related compensation such as workers compensation or special risk benefits in the case of injury or death.

However, students of policing are exposed to risks of a kind that other tertiary students are not exposed to. The Diploma of Policing Practice, delivered through Charles Sturt University, requires students to undergo firearms and self-defence training, as well as having driver safety and physical training elements. Students are also attached to a police station for 80 hours of practical training. Whilst students undergoing this practical training do so as observers, and do not themselves exercise any police powers, their attendance whilst police perform operational duties may expose them to risks not experienced by other categories of student.

The tragic death of student of policing Robert Brotherson earlier this year during a police pursuit demonstrates that the Government can do more, and must do more, to better care for students of policing and their families. They willingly embrace risks so they can embark on a career of serving the people of New South Wales and this commitment needs to be acknowledged. NSW Police, the Police Association and Charles Sturt University have been working on increasing the university's general student insurance coverage from a maximum of $80,000 in the case of death to a level for students of policing that the parties agree is broadly comparable to workers compensation benefits. The parties intend to have this package ratified by the Industrial Relations Commission on 7 July as part of a settlement in a matter concerning the entitlements of students of policing.

The second element of the package is the provision of a special risk benefit for students of policing. This can only be achieved through legislation. Section 216AA is modelled on section 216 of the Police Service Act, which provides special risk benefits for police officers. It enables the Commissioner of Police to pay a benefit where a student of policing dies or is totally and permanently incapacitated for work, as assessed by the Government Medical Officer, as a result of being exposed to risks that other tertiary students would not generally be exposed to.

The benefit is payable to the student in the case of the student being totally and permanently incapacitated for work. The spouse or personal representative of the student is entitled to the benefit in the case of the student's death. Section 216 links special risk benefits to a police officer's salary. Student police obviously do not receive a salary, so the benefit is indexed at 80 per cent of the benefit payable to a probationary constable of the same age and gender as the student. The average benefit payable under these arrangements would be approximately $100,000. This payment is made in addition to other insurance or legal entitlements of students of policing.

The bill also amends section 216A of the Act to enable students of policing, their spouses or personal representatives to apply to the Compensation Court if the Commissioner of Police does not make a payment under section 216AA. The District Court will hear such applications upon the commencement of schedule 1.7 of the Compensation Court Repeal Act 2002. A special benefits package for students of policing is appropriate, given that the special risk of policing activity is already recognised in legislation and that the nexus between tertiary policing education and police employment is closer than is the case with other educational arrangements as tertiary policing qualifications are the gateway for employment with a single employer, NSW Police.

Whilst the State of New South Wales might not be legally liable for assisting the family of Robert Brotherson, the Government has recognised that it has a moral responsibility in this matter. That is why a special ex gratia payment has been made whilst other compensation-related matters are being finalised. For the moment the ex gratia payment is equivalent to the special risk benefit arrangements in this bill. I commend the actions of the Police Association, which, through Police Legacy, has given the same support to Melissa Brotherson and her two young sons, Blake and Ewen, as it would to the family of a deceased police officer.

Schedule 1 [14] to the bill enables regulations to be made to set out the educational or other qualifications or experience required for appointment to a particular rank, grade or position within NSW Police. The making of such regulations will be confined to police officer positions. The New South Wales Court of Appeal held in the 1999 case of Meehan and Ors v Commissioner of Police that the Commissioner of Police may determine eligibility criteria for appointment to particular police positions, including rank, academic qualifications, length of service, particular language skills, completion of assessment centre processes, et cetera. However, the Crown Solicitor has advised that the commissioner's power extends only to individual positions, not classes of positions, such as those within a rank of grade.

This may leave the assessment centre process recommended by the Wood royal commission open to further legal challenge, as it is applied to ranks rather than individual positions. It also means that the commissioner cannot introduce time-at-rank requirements for police promotions between ranks, a requirement that has been called for by NSW Police, the Police Association and 72 per cent of officers surveyed in the 2000 Police Service Survey Report on the Selection/Promotion Process. Assessment centre processes and time-at-rank requirements may only be free from legal challenge if the commissioner considers their application to each and every individual police position. This would result in the police promotions process being further bogged down in red tape.

I intend to introduce regulations to require police officers to have served at least 12 months at a certain rank, including time acting at rank, before they are eligible for promotion to a higher rank. Both NSW Police and the Police Association have expressed concern that the current system allows officers to be promoted to positions with significant supervisory and management responsibilities without necessarily having demonstrated experience in meeting supervisory and management challenges at lower ranks. It is considered that demonstrated experience in meeting the challenges associated with positions of a certain rank is a critical factor to be considered in the merit-based promotion process.

Progression without minimum experience at rank can also negatively impact on command staff turnover. Some officers who receive a promotion will immediately focus their energies on a further promotion rather than consolidating their position and gaining necessary experience. Officers who receive a further promotion leave a vacancy that then must be refilled. The regulations will recognise that senior sergeants from western New South Wales who are duty officers have relevant management experience in applying for superintendent positions. The regulations will create a more stable promotions system that recognises proven experience at rank without unreasonably restricting the promotional opportunities of the most capable officers. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

FIREARMS AMENDMENT (PUBLIC SAFETY) BILL

SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC SAFETY) BILL

Bills introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Police) [8.24 p.m.]: I move:

I am pleased to introduce the Firearms Amendment (Public Safety) Bill and the cognate Summary Offences Amendment (Public Safety) Bill. Firearm-related crime is a major concern for both police and the community. In July 2001 the Government introduced tougher firearm trafficking laws designed to inhibit the illegal supply of firearms, and this bill is a further strengthening of our laws. The Firearms Amendment (Public Safety) Bill will authorise the use of firearm detection dogs by police in public places. Under proposed section 72A, firearm detection dogs may be used in any place or premises open to the public or used by the public, as well as any road. That includes streets, public transport services, licensed premises and entertainment venues.

These provisions are based on the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, which commenced in February this year. Our firearm detection dog teams will increase from six to 26. The dogs will be deployed in metropolitan and regional hot spots to work with local police. The dogs will perform covert detection operations with plain-clothes police, and random detection sweeps. The dogs are capable of detecting firearms, ammunition, gunshot residue and explosives. Any licensed firearm users who are detected by a dog will simply need to show their licence to police and explain the reason for their carriage of a firearm in a public place.

The Ombudsman will prepare a report to Parliament on the exercise of the powers after two years. Currently there is no specific offence for those who manufacture a firearm without a firearms dealer licence. This bill will introduce a maximum penalty of 20 years in gaol for illegal manufacture of a prohibited firearm or hand gun. In order to allow sufficient time for consultation with firearm dealers, the bill includes, in part 4, transitional provisions to extend existing dealers' licences which are due to expire this year. Unless they are revoked or otherwise cease, existing dealer licences which would otherwise expire will automatically continue until 30 June 2003.

Proposed sections 11 (5A) and 29 (3A) will allow the Commissioner of Police to refuse firearm licence and permit applications on the basis of criminal intelligence holdings. This will mean, for example, that if police possess intelligence that a person has committed, or is about to commit, violent crimes the commissioner must refuse any firearm licence application from that person. Section 75 (3) provides that an appeal may be made to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal against any such decision by the commissioner. However, in order to avoid jeopardising police operations, the reasons for the refusal and the criminal intelligence on which it was based will not be released by the commissioner or the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

To crack down on possession for the purposes of illegal trafficking, proposed section 51D will introduce an offence of possession by an unlicensed person of three or more unregistered firearms. This will mean that criminals warehousing illegal guns for sale on the black market will be liable to up to 20 years in gaol if the firearm is prohibited or is a hand gun. To avoid confusion for collectors of pre-1900 breach-loading firearms, who have only recently been required to licence and register their guns, there will be a 12 month licensing and registration amnesty. An offence is also to be created of knowingly supplying materials or information to illegally modify firearms.

Not only will proposed section 63 (3) ban the unauthorised conversion of a non-prohibited firearm to a prohibited firearm, but proposed section 63 (4) will prevent the illegal trade in information which teaches people to perform such conversions. Schedule 2 to the bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Firearms Act to clarify the operation of existing penalties. Schedule 3 to the bill will ban so-called brass catchers, which police are concerned are being used by criminals to prevent police detection and investigation of expended cartridges at crime scenes. Legitimate licensed shooters who use those devices will be able to possess them under their current firearm licence.

The Firearms Amendment (Public Safety) Bill builds on the 2001 firearm trafficking reforms to provide increased public safety in relation to illegal firearms. I reassure legitimate licensed shooters that this bill is aimed fairly and squarely at criminals and the illegal firearm market. I know that more reforms to the Firearms Act were flagged by the review of the Firearms Act that was produced in June 2000 by the Director-General of the Ministry for Police. To date we have concentrated on reforms to illegal firearm legislation. However, I intend to form a Ministerial Firearm Licensing Advisory Council in the near future. This council will provide me with advice on the way forward in relation to the remaining recommendations of the review and on other licensing matters. Whilst the exact make-up of the council has yet to be determined, it will include broad representation including shooter, regional and primary producer organisations.

Introduced cognate with the Firearms Amendment (Public Safety) Bill is the Summary Offences Amendment (Public Safety) Bill. The objects of this bill are to increase the maximum penalty for having a knife in a public place without reasonable excuse to $2,200 or gaol of two years, and to clarify the operation of the directions power in section 28F of the Summary Offences Act by making it clear that a police officer can proceed to the second direction and warning if a person fails at any time to follow an earlier direction, and police may give a reasonable direction to a group of persons in a public place. These laws will allow police to use their discretionary powers more efficiently in the interests of public safety. They are intended to be in place before the NSW Police restructure officially begins on 1 July. The Government is working closely with NSW Police to ensure officers have what they need to increase safety in public places. I commend these bills to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. John Jobling.

LEGAL AID COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

Second Reading

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.31 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Legal Aid Commission provides legal aid services to socially and economically disadvantaged people throughout the State. It works in partnership with private lawyers who represent more than half of all legally assisted people in case matters. In 2000-01 approximately $37.8 million was paid to private lawyers by the commission, and 57 per cent of the commission's casework was assigned to private lawyers. In August 2000 an independent consultant was retained by the commission to review the operation of its grants function. The consultant's report was presented to the commission in December 2000 and it contained a number of recommendations designed to streamline processes and achieve efficiencies in the determination of grants, and to respond to perceived problems of fairness and equity in the method of assigning grants to private practitioners. The commission has made substantial progress in implementing the report's recommendations, but there are a number that require legislative amendment. These recommendations are that the commission implement panel arrangements for private practitioners, develop service level agreements and practice standards with private solicitors and in-house practitioners, and establish an audit and professional standards function for the Grants Division.

The objective of the Legal Aid Commission Amendment Bill is to enable the commission to implement these recommendations and thereby improve the delivery of legal aid services to the community. The bill provides that the commission may establish panels of suitably qualified and experienced private practitioners to act on behalf of legally assisted people. The bill requires the commission to be open about the establishment criteria for these panels, such as where the panels will operate, and what type of matters they will handle. It is envisaged that the panels will be implemented in a staged process, commencing with the Children's Court panel and followed by panels for child representation in the Family Court, State care proceedings, general family law and eventually all types of legal matters. The Legal Aid Commission intends to issue an expression of interest document that will contain information about the selection criteria that private practitioners must meet in order to be appointed to a panel for a term of two years. These criteria will normally include demonstrated knowledge or specialist accreditation in a particular field of law.

Applications for appointment to panels will be assessed by a selection committee. The bill provides that the selection committee will include a nominee of the Law Society, a nominee of the Bar Association, and such other persons as may be appointed by the commission. I am advised by the commission that the other members of the selection committee are likely to be a nominee of the Grants Division of the commission and another person, not necessarily a lawyer, with relevant expertise. After the selection committee assesses an application for appointment to a panel it will make a recommendation to the commission as to whether, in its opinion, the applicant is a suitable person for appointment to the panel or panels for which he or she has applied. It is anticipated that, generally, panels will not be restricted in size and the majority of interested practitioners who apply will be appointed. Appointments to panels will apply to specific individuals and not to firms. However, it will be possible for firms to have a number of solicitors appointed to the same panel or other panels. Should a panellist leave a firm, it will be possible for an expression of interest addressing all relevant criteria to be submitted by another solicitor of the firm, for possible inclusion on the panel for the balance of its term. The commission plans to implement a program of conferences and education programs to assist private practitioners to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge for admission to panels.

The commission is obliged by section 12 of the Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 to observe a number of duties in respect of the provision of legal aid, such as ensuring that legal aid is provided in the most effective, efficient and economical manner. Section 12 (f) of the Act currently requires the commission to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that a legally assisted person obtains the services of the lawyer of his or her choice. In order to preserve the principle of lawyer of choice as far as possible, while accommodating the need to establish panels so that legal aid may be provided more effectively and efficiently, the bill will insert a new section 12 (f). The new section will require the commission to take into account not only any choice expressed by the legally assisted person for a particular private practitioner, but also that persons' interests, and the need to distribute work fairly and reasonably among private legal practitioners. In addition, the commission will be required to ensure that the principles by which it determines the assignment of legal aid work are publicly available.

The bill also provides that before work is allocated to a legal practitioner who has been appointed to a panel, the practitioner must enter into a service provision agreement with the commission. A service provision agreement will contain the terms by which the relationship between the Legal Aid Commission and private practitioners will be conducted. Under this agreement, the practitioner will be obliged to comply with commission practice standards and to provide regular written reports on the progress of matters. Practitioners will also be required to participate in a rostered duty lawyer service, and to submit, from time to time, to an audit of legal aid files. A breach of a service provision agreement may result in a practitioner being asked to show cause why he or she should not be suspended or removed from a panel. To ensure fairness and transparency, the bill provides for the establishment of a monitoring committee, which will include nominees of the Law Society and the Bar Association, to monitor service provision agreements.

After being provided with written notice of an apparent breach of a service provision agreement, a practitioner may be directed to provide a written response to the monitoring committee by way of explanation. To ensure procedural fairness, it is important that practitioners be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard in respect of apparent breaches. If a practitioner is found to have breached a service provision agreement, the monitoring committee will be able to make a recommendation to the commission to the effect that the practitioner should either be removed from a panel, or that no work should be assigned to that person for a period of up to two years, or that no further action should be taken. The commission will not be able to refuse to appoint a legal practitioner to a panel, or suspend or remove a practitioner from a panel—other than at the person's request—unless that person has been given written notice of its reasons and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The only exception to this general rule will be those practitioners who are no longer entitled to practise because of disciplinary proceedings. These people will automatically be removed from panels.

The commission will deal with an in-house solicitor who fails to comply with practice standards and policies in accordance with its internal disciplinary procedures. Unlike private practitioners, in-house solicitors are subject to the requirements of a range of Acts, including the Public Sector Management Act, the Public Finance and Audit Act and the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. The commission also intends to introduce a new performance management system that will further enhance supervision over the work of its employed solicitors. As I stated at the outset, the Legal Aid Commission paid more than $37 million in the 2000-01 financial year to private practitioners to act on behalf of legally assisted people. Without question, this is a significant sum and it is quite appropriate for there to be adequate measures in place to ensure these funds are properly expended. While the Legal Aid Commission Act contains a number of provisions that oblige both practitioners and clients to notify of changes in means and circumstances, there is no specific audit power in the Act. The bill will remedy this deficiency by amending the Act to expressly confer on the commission a power to conduct audits.

The commission intends to establish audit protocols with the Law Society and the Bar Association, and the audit will normally be carried out by staff of the commission's Audit Branch. Safeguards are included in the bill to minimise the risk that if a member of the commission acts for another relevant party information obtained in the course of an audit is improperly disclosed to that staff member. For example, it will be open to the commission to contract an external person to conduct audits. It is anticipated that audits will be both random and targeted, and the bill provides that practitioners will be given advance written notice of the purpose and scope of audits. As far as practicable, audits will be carried out at times that are convenient to practitioners.

The main purpose of the audits will be to verify claims and certifications made by practitioners during the application and account-payment processes. The bill provides that the commission may require a practitioner to produce for inspection files, records and documents relating to an assigned matter and to give the commission such other information as is reasonable for the purpose of the audit. The commission will be required to reimburse practitioners for photocopying and other such reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a consequence of audits. The proposed auditing power will be an important risk management tool for the commission as it moves towards greater reliance on the use of the internet and email for lodging legal aid applications and processing payments to practitioners. The commission needs to have the means of verifying that claims made during the application and account-payment processes are accurate, so that it can ensure that legal aid funds are being expended appropriately.

The conduct of audits will also have an educative role. If breaches of service agreements, practices standards or relevant policies are detected, these will be notified in writing to the practitioner concerned, and he or she will be required to undertake any necessary remedial action. A failure by a practitioner to comply with a request for a file audit or a refusal to co-operate may result in termination of the services of that practitioner, his or her removal from a panel, or the commission refusing the practitioner payment. The Legal Aid Commission Act confers a broad immunity on the commission for any acts and omissions done in good faith. The proposed amendments will make it clear that the commission will not be vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of panellists, and that the existing immunity provision will extend to the appointment, suspension, removal of practitioners from panels, the assignment of work to private practitioners, and the conduct of audits in respect of private practitioners.

The bill also makes a number of miscellaneous minor amendments to enable the operation of the Act to be more efficient. The bill provides that the commission may offset an amount payable by it to a legal practitioner by any amount the practitioner owes the commission; and allows practitioners to remit cheques to the commission in the same way as they can remit money. The bill also reduces the quorum required for a meeting of the Legal Aid Review Committee, which comprises three members, from all of its members to two of its members. The main benefits of the proposed panel and auditing arrangements are that they will provide a transparent and accountable system for referral of legal aid work to private practitioners; provide a process to evaluate the expertise and competencies of practitioners who want to act for legally assisted people; establish an agreed level of service delivery standards for legal aid clients; provide a process of appropriate quality control and risk management; and permit the commission to streamline applications for legal aid and payments to private legal practitioners.

For more than 20 years the commission has continually explored and adopted ways of more effectively providing information, assistance and legal representation to those members of our community who are most socially and economically disadvantaged. The establishment of panels, service agreements, and practice standards and effective monitoring of these arrangements through proper audit processes, continues the commission's commitment to continuous improvement. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

MISCELLANEOUS ACTS AMENDMENT (RELATIONSHIPS) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

Second Reading

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary [8.45 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill proposes to extend the definition of "de facto relationship" contained in the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 to a range of statutes. These statutes confer employment benefits and entitlements, or relate to rights, powers, protections or other legal consequences, that arise from a person's status as a partner in a marriage or a de facto relationship. The definition of "de facto relationship" contained in the Property (Relationships) Act speaks of a relationship between two adult persons who live together as a couple and who are not married to each other or related by family. The definition therefore does not differentiate between same and opposite sex couples.

This definition was introduced into New South Wales law through the passage of the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 1999, which replaced the earlier De Facto Relationships Act 1984. These 1999 amendments acknowledged that New South Wales law needed to recognise and accommodate the range of domestic relationships that exist in our society. In addition to introducing a neutral definition of de facto relationship, the legislation passed in 1999 made consequential amendments to 25 statutes to give parties to de facto relationships, regardless of their sexual orientation, the same rights and responsibilities on the hospitalisation or incapacitation of their partners. Amendments were also made to end the discrimination that existed in the operation of wills and probate and family provision legislation.

The bill continues the law reform agenda that was set in train by the 1999 amendments. It is also consistent with initiatives adopted by this Government to extend equal rights to opposite and same sex partners with regard to public sector superannuation and workers compensation. Moreover, the bill's amendment of 25 Acts will bring us closer to the desirable goal of achieving a consistent definition of "de facto relationship" across all New South Wales legislation. Each of the Acts proposed for amendment presently operates to exclude or discriminate against same sex de facto couples. In a number of instances the Acts also presently exclude opposite sex de facto couples. The bill will cure this situation by extending the Property (Relationships) Act definition of "de facto relationship" to those Acts so that their provisions will capture all bona fide spousal relationships, whether married or de facto, and regardless of sexual orientation.

Some of the changes that will be brought into effect by this bill include amendment to the Public Sector Management Act 1988, the Police Services Act 1970 and a number of other Acts to allow employment entitlements and other financial benefits to be paid out to a de facto partner on the death of the person who accrued those benefits. Amendment to these Acts will put surviving de facto partners on the same footing as married spouses in relation to these entitlements. Same sex partners will be given the same rights as married and heterosexual de facto spouses in the conduct of certain court proceedings, including the right to appear on behalf of a spouse in local court proceedings. Same sex partners will be able to access the protections provided under the Evidence Act 1995 and the Defamation Act 1974 in relation to the compellability of spouses to give evidence. They will also be brought within the provisions of the Trustee Companies Act 1964 in relation to who can apply for an account of estate, as well as provisions relating to the conduct of compensation to relatives proceedings.

The Credit Act 1984 will be amended to bring same sex spouses within the ambit of provisions relating to guarantors. Amendment to the Health Insurance Levies Act 1982 will make same sex spouses eligible to access family membership benefits in certain areas of health insurance, and changes to the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1988 will apply certain pensioner tax exemptions equally to de facto as well as married couples. An amendment to the Adoption Act 2000 will enable people in de facto relationships to access adoption information about their partner in certain circumstances. In relation to these amendments I emphasise that the proposed changes are restricted to adoption information. They will have no effect on provisions governing the adoption of children or any other aspect of the Adoption Act.

The Industrial Relations Act 1996 will be amended to include same sex partners in provisions governing certain mortality fund benefits, and contract agreements in the area of public vehicles and carriers. As well as continuing this Government's law reform agenda with domestic relationships, the amendments contained in this bill will bring New South Wales into line with many of the initiatives adopted in Victoria, Western Australia and other States. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. John Jobling.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND MANAGEMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

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) [8.51 p.m.]: I move:

The object of this bill is to replace the Public Sector Management Act 1988 with modern public sector management and employment legislation. The bill also amends the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal Act 1980—the GREAT Act—and the Transport Appeal Boards Act 1980—the TAB Act—in ways that I shall detail later. In the 1990s Australia, with the rest of the world, experienced a period of great change. The way we work, conduct business, communicate with each other and spend our free time has been fundamentally transformed.

These changes arise from technological advancement, increases in the movement of global capital, improved communication systems, increased migration and mobility of people, and the removal of trade barriers. For the people of New South Wales—and particularly for government—these represent a fundamental challenge to how we manage the impact of those changes socially, economically and environmentally. The public sector in New South Wales has had to accelerate its adaptation to change in the past decade to meet these challenges. The public sector continues to face increasing demands for its services within a tight fiscal environment. The changes proposed in this bill respond to these challenges.

The bill strikes a balance: updating the relevant pieces of legislation to accommodate new service delivery models and reducing red tape while ensuring that public service employees have appropriate security of employment and conditions of employment. The bill introduces changes to the following main areas. Objectives for the public service disciplinary scheme are to be introduced by the bill to emphasise that discipline is concerned with the public interest and not just penalties and punishments. The Government has worked closely with the unions to develop a less prescriptive, streamlined disciplinary process which emphasises natural justice rather than bureaucratic process.

The New South Wales Government has placed significant priority on agencies working together to deliver better services to the community and agencies working together to address the needs and expectations of the community in a seamless way. The focus is on outcomes rather than structures and processes. In order to assist agencies to achieve these Government priorities, the bill introduces provisions to enable cross-agency employment. The new provisions will result in an increase in the range of services offered in New South Wales, particularly in the bush. Career opportunities will be expanded without diminishing the rights of staff.

With this Government's focus on providing quality services to the people of New South Wales, staff movements across the public sector are essential. This bill will provide agencies with the ability to acquire suitably skilled staff and just as importantly to provide developmental opportunities for employees. The bill removes the role of the Governor from the majority of the administrative functions associated with the appointment to and removal of officers from positions. These changes will free the Governor from the never-ending task of signing the requisite paperwork. The new, streamlined approach will also result in significant savings for agencies.

Work in the public service has changed over time. The demands of new models of service delivery and the concern to match industry norms in employment arrangements signal a need to modernise employment categories. Therefore, in particular circumstances, people will be employed on a temporary or casual basis. However, the Government has made a strong public commitment to prevent casualisation of employment within the New South Wales public sector. As a result, the bill for the first time makes clear that the usual method for employment in the public service is ongoing, as a permanent officer.

As with the public service disciplinary scheme, this bill will remove red tape and streamline the appeal processes in New South Wales. These changes will enable appeals to be resolved at an early stage. This will alleviate the stress and anxiety of both the employee and employer and lessen the costs for both parties. This bill also brings forward many of the provisions of the current Public Sector Management Act 1988. The Government and the unions have worked together to develop this bill. The proposed amendments respond to the challenges facing public sector agencies. But just as importantly, they reflect the outcomes of extensive consultation with the Public Service Association, the Labor Council and affiliated unions.

In accordance with the bill, guidelines will be issued on the new public service disciplinary system, cross-agency employment, staff mobility and the new categories of employment. The guidelines will be developed in the same inclusive way this bill has been developed—in consultation with agencies and unions. The relevant parts of the bill will not commence until the guidelines have been finalised. Once issued, the agencies affected by the guidelines will be required to comply with them.

I now turn to some of the details contained in the bill. Objectives for the public service disciplinary scheme are to be introduced. The objectives are: to maintain appropriate standards of conduct and work-related performance in the public service; to protect and enhance the integrity and reputation of the public service; and to ensure that the public interest is protected. Underpinning these objectives will be a streamlined public service disciplinary process. The former New South Wales Industrial Court described the law in this area as "overly detailed and intricate". There are currently 14 mandated steps in any disciplinary matter. Matters can take up to 12 months or more to resolve. This obviously results in a detrimental impact on the workplace and the employee being investigated.

The procedures for this new disciplinary system will be contained in guidelines. The bill makes clear that the guidelines must be consistent with the rules for procedural fairness. The bill will simplify the current 16 breaches of discipline, introducing a general ground for disciplinary action called "misconduct". The bill also ensures remedial action can be taken as an alternative to disciplinary action. Remedial action includes formal and informal counselling, staff development, training and staff rotations. Both employers and unions have expressed concern about the current disciplinary system because it treats unsatisfactory performance in the same way as a disciplinary matter. This bill separates the two.

The bill for the first time introduces provisions to enable cross-agency employment arrangements. Agencies will now be able to employ one person to undertake the functions of more than one agency. This will be a particular benefit in rural and regional New South Wales as agencies often face significant problems employing qualified people when only a part-time job is on offer. The aim of the new provisions is to facilitate cross-agency employment for compatible positions which currently have different statutory obligations. The bill requires one agency to be the employer for the purpose of conditions of employment and in relation to disciplinary matters. The new provisions address issues such as the power to delegate and different statutory obligations, including confidentiality and mandatory reporting. Employees will not be disadvantaged by these arrangements.

Currently, there is no legislative basis for officers to temporarily move—sometimes known as secondments—across the public service. In addition, there are no legislative provisions to allow for movement from the public service to the wider public sector and vice-versa. Often the employee has to take leave without pay in order to transfer temporarily from a public service department like, for example, the Premier's Department to an authority such as the Roads and Traffic Authority. The uncertainty arising from the lack of these legislative provisions is a disincentive for staff to move across the public sector. To address these concerns, the bill allows for permanent and temporary movements across the New South Wales public sector.

A separate issue raised by agencies is their inability to fill, on a permanent basis, long-term temporary vacancies created by staff movements. Agencies are concerned that service delivery is hindered by the instability that results from long-term temporary vacancies. At the same time agencies do not wish to limit developmental opportunities for employees. Under the new provisions, a position may be permanently filled when it is vacant for more than a year as a result of an employee-initiated movement provided the employee wishes to continue with the host agency for the duration of the existing project. This approach will balance the needs of the employee to gain new skills and experience and the chief executive officers' need to ensure stability within their agency. This will not interfere with the current arrangements regarding vacancies arising from maternity leave, workers compensation and sick leave. A position will not be able to be permanently filled when an employee has been directed to move temporarily to another position by the chief executive officer.

No other jurisdiction in Australia retains the role of the Governor to the extent that exists under the current Public Sector Management Act 1988. This bill removes the role of the Governor from the majority of administrative functions associated with the appointment to, and removal of, officers from positions. Under the new provisions, the Premier or delegate will now approve the appointment and termination of chief executive officers. The relevant department head will approve all other appointments and terminations. The removal of the role of the Governor will result in significant savings for agencies. It has been estimated that removing the administrative role of the Governor could save a large department approximately $335,000 a year.

The bill also removes the schedule of senior executive service [SES] positions from the current Act. Amendments to the schedule require the Governor’s approval and are also resource intensive. Transparency will be maintained as the Premier’s Department will be required to keep an up-to-date list of SES positions on its web site. I am informed that Her Excellency the Governor has not expressed any concerns regarding the proposed changes affecting her role in this bill. The changes will in no way diminish the current rights of employees or the transparency of current processes.

In relation to SES officers, the current Act provides only for the re-appointment process to commence approximately six months prior to the end of their term of appointment. Re-appointment at an earlier stage may be necessary to ensure the retention of key executives. The bill provides for these circumstances. Under the current Act, there are only two types of employment arrangements available to public service departments: ongoing as an officer or temporary employment for a period of up to four months. These two categories of employment are restrictive and do not cover the full range of employment arrangements available in other parts of the public sector in New South Wales and in other Australian jurisdictions.

Under the new provisions there will be three categories of employment in public service departments: ongoing as an officer, temporary or casual. The bill introduces temporary employment for a period of up to three years in specific circumstances—for example, when recurrent funding is not available or when there is a specific time frame for a project. Employment for periods in excess of 12 months will be subject to merit selection. Longer-term temporary employment—as opposed to four months—will provide greater financial security for employees. The bill also recognises a category of casual employment. Casual work is justified in certain circumstances—for instance, when there are unplanned absences in critical front-line positions. It is defined as employment for work that is irregular or intermittant. Casual employment is to be used only when a department’s workload needs to be addressed in the short term or in an urgent or emergency situation. Direct engagement of casual employees is to be preferred to the use of staff provided by labour hire firms.

I reiterate at this point that the Government has made a strong public commitment to preventing the casualisation of employment within the New South Wales public sector, and the bill makes it clear that the usual method for employment in the public service is ongoing, as a permanent officer. The bill brings forward the provisions from the current Act regarding competitive neutrality in tendering. Due to the important nature of the functions undertaken by the State Contracts Control Board, the board will now be established legislatively rather than by regulation, as is currently the case.

I turn now to the changes to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal [GREAT] and the Transport Appeal Board [TAB] Acts. The proposed changes adopt best practice from the GREAT, the TAB and the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC]. This will benefit employees, employers, the GREAT and the TAB. The proposals in the bill do not, on the whole, affect current appeal rights. In summary, the following are the main changes to the promotional and disciplinary appeal processes in New South Wales. In relation to disciplinary appeals, one of the changes proposed to the GREAT Act is the inclusion of the IRC practice of requiring conciliation before all disciplinary proceedings. This is a practical change because a lot of disciplinary matters can and should be resolved at an early stage without the need to have a formal disciplinary hearing.

The New South Wales Industrial Relations Act 1996 contains provisions prohibiting certain appeals to the IRC. This includes probationary employees, certain casuals and those employed for a specific time or task. The bill largely replicates the Industrial Relations Act 1996 provisions in the GREAT Act in regard to these categories. The bill removes legal technical barriers to disciplinary appeals. The bill also deletes the current GREAT prohibition on implementing an agency disciplinary decision until the outcome of the appeal is finalised.

In relation to the TAB, the bill removes current provisions that allow disciplinary decisions to be further appealed back from the tribunal to the employing agency. Another commonsense amendment introduced by the bill is to provide GREAT and TAB with the power not to proceed with a promotional appeal if, for example, the recommended appointee withdraws from the promotional position. Another practical, yet important change will be that GREAT will now have the power to strike out a promotional appeal if the tribunal is of the opinion that it is vexatious or frivolous, or when the appellant is not able to put forward an arguable case in favour of his or her appointment. This will enable GREAT to focus its resources on hearing genuine promotional appeals. Currently, all promotional appeals before the TAB are formal, including legal representation and cross-examination. The TAB Act will now provide that appeals may be informal.

In conclusion, the Government is committed to ensuring that the community receives value for money and quality services from its public sector bodies and employees. The changes introduced by the bill will greatly assist the Government to achieve these outcomes. This bill will give effect to the Government’s strong agenda to reform and revitalise the New South Wales public sector. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT (ANTI-CORRUPTION) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Declaration of urgency agreed to.

Second Reading

Local councillors have an important responsibility to the community to ensure that they exercise their statutory functions honestly and with integrity. It is very important that the community has confidence in their elected representatives and in the planning system. There are 172 local councils in New South Wales. Every year those councils must determine more than 120,000 development applications across the State. These applications cover all forms of development. All development that is approved has implications, be they environmental, economic or social. Development takes place within a community. The community must have confidence that the process for obtaining approval for that development is untainted by the corrupt conduct of any local councillor.

The Minister for Planning recently announced a comprehensive package of reforms aimed at restoring public confidence in the development assessment process in New South Wales. This confidence has been somewhat shaken by the recent allegations of corrupt conduct made against certain Rockdale councillors in the inquiry held by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The Minister for Planning does not want to pre-empt the findings of this inquiry. However, it is clear that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires strengthening to give clear power to both the Minister for Planning and the Land and Environment Court to suspend any development consent that has been obtained corruptly.

The Land and Environment Court is to be given broader jurisdiction not only to suspend a decision of a consent authority that is tainted by corrupt conduct, but also to revoke such a decision. The bill provides the power to suspend or revoke development consents obtained through serious corrupt conduct. Serious corrupt conduct is defined in the bill as "corrupt conduct [within the meaning of the ICAC Act] that may constitute a serious indictable offence." "Serious indictable offence" is, in turn, defined in the Interpretation Act as "an indictable offence that is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of five years or more".

In cases where building work has substantially commenced, or the property has been transferred to an innocent third party, thereby making suspension or revocation of consent impossible, the Director of Public Prosecutions will be able to take action in the Supreme Court under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act to seize profits from the original developer. The Carr Government appreciates that it is important to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in the legislation to protect the interest of any innocent third parties who may be affected by either the revocation of a development consent or its suspension. Accordingly, the bill provides that the Minister for Planning, or the Land and Environment Court, respectively may not suspend or revoke a development consent if the work authorised by the consent or modification has been substantially commenced. The Land and Environment Court cannot revoke a consent or modification if the revocation will significantly disadvantage a person who was not a party to the corrupt conduct.

A further safeguard is that the Minister for Planning may lift a suspension at any time and if proceedings to revoke the development consent are not commenced within six months of a suspension, the suspension is automatically lifted. The Land and Environment Court may also lift a suspension imposed by the Minister. Another important initiative will enable the appointment of an administrator to assume the environmental planning and assessment functions of a local council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Minister can take such action where the ICAC recommends that consideration be given to such an appointment because of serious corrupt conduct by any of the councillors.

The Carr Government recognises that the majority of local councillors take the exercise of their functions seriously and act honestly. Unfortunately, there are a few rotten apples in the barrel. The Carr Government is determined to ensure that there are sufficient powers within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to actively discourage those who would seek to gain an unfair advantage from mis-using the planning system. The old adage remains true: cheats shall not prosper I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. John Ryan.

ADJOURNMENT

AIRPORT SECURITY

The Hon. IAN WEST [9.14 p.m.]: I wish to speak about airport security. Following the events of September 11 last year, much of the world has been in a state of panic, with international and domestic security issues at the forefront of political and economic decision making. Billions of dollars have been spent on a chase around the world for a few individuals who, it is said, are responsible for terrorism per se and only without them will the threat of terrorism abate. It seems no expense is too big in this particular hunt. Yet, those responsible for maintaining security at our airports—airport screeners and security workers who are covered by, and members of, the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union [LHMU]—have taken on massive new responsibilities without attendant recognition from their employers, backup from airports, the Federal Government or airlines.

Furthermore, in the approximately nine months since September 11 the Federal Government and others have failed to enforce uniform security standards at all airports; install new screening equipment; act on "airport rage" directed towards security guards; decrease casualisation of the workforce; apply new standards in relation to security workloads; improve workers' morale; treat workers with the appropriate respect; improve wages and conditions; or improve security standards nationally.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Minister for Transport has been informed of these issues and his response has been less than satisfactory—quite the opposite. An internal report prepared by the Federal Department of Transport on the failure of screening equipment and processes has been kept from the public, with the media prevented from gaining access under freedom of information laws. Additionally, screeners have been employed by security companies who regularly allow untrained and unlicensed screeners to work at checkpoints. Furthermore, security tests at major airports since September 11 have shown that prohibited items are still slipping through undetected because of failures of equipment.

Airport security screeners are among the lowest paid workers at airports nationwide. On 11 June this year airport security workers were given a decision by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, which improved the pay of Melbourne airport security workers. The pay increase of 97 cents an hour, which includes an earlier interim 50 cents, was much needed. Those LHMU members at Melbourne airport have been campaigning for an increase for over two years—well before the attacks of September 11. They were forced to take strike action last year due to the belligerent approach of their employer. The LHMU continues to campaign for an upgrade of its security standards, including screening, improved training, equipment and pay. More than 100 airport screeners and security workers at Brisbane airport have successfully negotiated their way to a 29 per cent pay increase over three years. That might sound like a lot but they were on a mere $11.75 an hour up until that point, with a nett take-home pay of approximately $300.00 per week.

Airport security standards are being tightened with the help of the union. But there are repercussions. Just today a Darwin airport screener was punched and assaulted in the latest example of airport rage that has spread across the country as airport security standards are tightened. Security workers are attempting to cope with abuse because governments, airports, airlines and security companies are not taking responsibility to educate the travelling public about the need for higher security standards. It is clearly not good enough.

Last week a female airport screener at Darwin was punched and assaulted by a member of the public who did not understand the new rules. Security workers should have the right to perform their tasks with an appropriate level of support, including counselling in the event of an assault. The union has been campaigning for better signage for many months now, informing the travelling public of the need to co-operate with the new systems. Current signage is poor and is well below the standards now expected overseas at domestic and international airports. I am a proud life member of the LHMU, which represents more than 150,000 workers across Australia. Their work in raising these issues of local and national importance and in improving the conditions and pay of the formerly under-recognised section of the workforce deserves the support of this House. I congratulate the LHMU for its campaign to date and look forward to further improvements for these workers and the safety of the general public.

WORLD WAR II PAPUA NEW GUINEA CAMPAIGN WAR MEMORIALS

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [9.19 p.m.]: I congratulate the Federal Government and the Minister for Veteran Affairs on the recent announcement that this year they will allocate $1.5 million for three new war memorials: on the Kokoda track, Milne Bay and at Popondetta. These memorials will mark the 60th anniversary of the Papua New Guinea campaigns during World War II. I have studied Isurava closely over the past few years because for the first eight or nine years that I went to Papua New Guinea I was always told that the location of the Isurava battle site was near the village of Isurava. But that did not make sense because what I had read and the ground of the village did not coincide. In 1997 I took a global positioning system with me and I was able to locate the original battle site. Since then we have taken veterans there for a final parade and this year the Government is going to honour that battle site with the construction of what I believe is a fine memorial. It is long overdue because Isurava, as I have pointed out in the House before, is our Alamo. Unfortunately, Australians know more about the Alamo than they know about Isurava. But it was in Isurava on 29 August 1942 that Private Bruce Kingsbury of the 2/14th Battalion won the first Victoria Cross to be awarded on Australian territory.

The average age of the young Australians at the battle of Isurava was 18� years. They faced an overwhelming force that outnumbered them by 6:1. But they knew they were all that stood between the advancing Japanese army and their families back in Australia. They fought fearlessly and ferociously in defence of Australian territory. We should look at the memorial at Isurava as the first step in our long overdue honouring of the diggers who served in Papua New Guinea during World War II.

The battle of Milne Bay in late August 1942 happened at the same time as the battle of Isurava because it was part of a two-pronged attack: a seaborne landing at Milne Bay and an advance along the Kokoda Track through Isurava. The attacks at both Isurava and Milne Bay were co-ordinated to start on 26 August 1942. It was at the battle of Milne Bay where the Allied defenders, which included 4,500 Australian infantrymen, supported by Royal Australian Air Force Kittyhawk fighters, drove off the enemy forces, thereby inflicting the first military defeat of the war against a Japanese amphibious force. It was also the site where another Australian, Corporal John French of the 2/9th Battalion, won the Victoria Cross. Popondetta was the staging area for the Australian offensive against the Japanese positions in the northern beachheads of Buna, Gona and Sanananda, the scene of one of the fiercest battles in Papua New Guinea.

I have often been critical of successive Federal governments since World War II because of their neglect of our history in Papua New Guinea. I believe our approach has been wrong in that we have built structures there that have created false expectations among the locals that something would eventually happen as some sort of legacy, but when we have withdrawn nothing has happened and the structures have fallen into decay. I believe we need to establish what I call a self-sustaining eco-adventure trekking industry and give ownership of the industry to the local people. They own the land that is very sacred to our military heritage. If they are given ownership of the industry they will protect the area and provide for the safety of the young Australians who very soon will discover the challenge of places such as the Kokoda Track, as they have with Gallipoli. We have a national responsibility to make sure that they can visit the areas safely. When they go it should be both an educative and a commemorative experience, and it should provide to Papua New Guinea a form of ongoing income and economic development that will allow people along the track to become self-sufficient. I have been critical in the past but tonight I compliment the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Federal Government on the allocation of $1.5 million as a first step in this process.

PARLIAMENTARY LIONS CLUB CHARTER PRESENTATION DINNER

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [9.24 p.m.]: I am delighted to inform the House of the success of the New South Wales Parliamentary Lions Club Charter Presentation Dinner last night at Parliament House. I say at the outset that the support that our club received from so many people from different sectors was absolutely overwhelming. The dining room last night was filled to capacity with well over 400 people. Tickets sold out long before the event and large numbers of people had to be turned away. As honourable members may know, the dinner was an historic occasion with the club officially becoming the first State parliamentary Lions Club in Australia. During the charter presentation ceremony, which was conducted by Lions Clubs International, the club was presented with its charter certificate and each charter member in attendance received a charter membership certificate. The names of all 27 charter members, which included 22 serving members of Parliament, one former member, the Premier, the Opposition leader, the Speaker and the President as honorary members, are featured on the charter certificate. A framed copy of the club's charter will be displayed in Parliament House by permission of the Speaker.

Honourable members may also recall that the club unanimously decided at its formation meeting to conduct the charter night as a fundraiser for the Ted Noffs Foundation and the Sir David Martin Foundation. I am pleased to announce that, after ticket sales, donations and sponsorships as well as last night's impressive charity auction and raffle, the club raised well over $80,000. Frank Chou from the Teo Chew Association and C. K. Chan from the Australian Council for the Promotion of the Peaceful Reunification of China bid $8,888 for an Olympic torch, which was the second highest bid. The highest bid was $9,000 for the Qantas ticket, which was bought by Mr Lim. After expenses, the amount raised will be split between the two charity foundations, which are desperately in need of financial support. Like many charities, the Ted Noffs Foundation and the Sir David Martin Foundation rely upon donations in order to fund much of their work. But at this stage of the electoral cycle, about nine months from the next State election, the majority of fundraisers will be directed at raising money for political campaigns. It is extremely difficult for charities to compete with this, which is why the fundraiser coincided with our charter night.

As I mentioned earlier, our club is quite special, being the first of its kind to be formed in Australia. But there are many other factors that make our club unique. To give one example, we do not hold monthly meetings as other Lions clubs do. Since the formation of the club many charter members have commented to me that they had wanted to join Lions for a while but felt that they did not have time to attend meetings. Knowing that members of Parliament are always so pressed for time, our club decided to meet formally only four times each year, with business conducted through fax and email. This system has worked quite well so far. In fact, we organised our entire charter night without having to meet once. After our formation meeting no meeting whatsoever has been held. Another very distinct thing about our club is that it has cross-party support.

I am delighted that I can say that members of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Australian Democrats and Independents have become charter members of the club. In my 14 years as a parliamentarian I have not on many occasions seen so many members of Parliament from the major and minor parties, from both Houses of Parliament, Ministers and shadow Ministers, band together as they did last night in a big community function in support of a common cause. It was great. The evening was quite extraordinary and memorable in that sense. As well as the charter members of our club, guests at the dinner included representatives from Lions clubs across Sydney and even the Australian Capital Territory—supporters of the two foundations—and business and community groups. The Speaker, the Premier's representative, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, and two shadow Ministers, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and Mrs Jillian Skinner, also came along as invited guests. I was a little disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, withdrew his acceptance and did not attend. I thank the members who attended for their company last night.

Before I conclude I take the opportunity to thank some of the people who helped to make our club's inaugural charter night a great success. I appreciate the guidance and assistance of our sponsoring club, the Kellyville Lions Club. I acknowledge the support of our major sponsor, HSBC, in providing a $10,000 sponsorship. Other sponsors included Star City and the Club Managers Association. My appreciation also goes to our performers Barry Crocker and Ms Faye Hung. A major contributor was Qantas airlines. I am also grateful to Alex and Nancy Ma of 1A Communication, who took care of all our printing needs. I also thank Mr Eric Tam of AEF Trading Pty Ltd, who generously donated more than 400 photo frames so that our guests could have a memento to go home with and so that members of Parliament could frame their charter membership certificates. I must also thank my husband and my two staff, who worked so hard on this occasion. [Time expired.]

TRIBUTE TO PROFESSOR JEREMY WEBBER

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS [9.29 p.m.]: Tonight I speak in relation to Professor Jeremy Webber, the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney, who will be leaving to take up an appointment in the research institute of the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. I had the pleasure of attending farewell drinks for Professor Webber at the University of Sydney Law School last Friday. Others in attendance included the Chancellor of the University, Justice Kim Santow, and the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Gavin Brown. Professor Jeremy Webber was appointed Dean of Law at the University of Sydney in February 1998.

Prior to that appointment Professor Webber had taught for 11 years at McGill University, where he served as associate dean from 1994 to 1997. He holds degrees in political science, with honours, from the University of British Colombia, and in common law and civil law from McGill University. He holds a Master of Laws degree from Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto. He was the Aim� Geoffrion gold medallist and won many prizes at McGill University. He was awarded the Viscount Bennett Fellowship of the Canadian Bar Association at the post-graduate level.

From 1984 to 1986 Professor Webber practised with the Vancouver litigation firm of McAlpine and Hordo. Since then he has consulted with other firms, the Ontario Law Reform Commission, the Canadian Department of Justice and the Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. He has been a frequent commentator on constitutional, Aboriginal and administration of justice issues in the Canadian context. Professor Webber has published widely in the fields of labour law, Canadian legal history, Aboriginal rights, constitutional law and legal theory. He has been an active participant in Australian legal life. He spent eight months here in 1976-77, during which time he worked with a mining company in central New South Wales.

In 1993-94 Professor Webber spent a sabbatical year as a visiting scholar at the University of New South Wales and has visited Australia to present papers on many occasions. He has also published on Australian topics, especially in the field of Aboriginal rights. His article entitled "The Search for Standards of Justice in Mabo" is a most notable contribution in that field. Whilst a dean at the University of Sydney his accomplishments included establishing the Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence, which is currently in its third successful year. He also played a pivotal role in significantly building the university's links with law schools in China.

Professor Webber managed to secure a site that, subject to senate approval, will take the University of Sydney Law School onto the main campus, particularly for its undergraduate work. He has established many links between the school and the legal profession. He has contributed to strengthening the school's status by educating school students on the University of Sydney Law School. Other accomplishments include developing research facilities at the university while not ignoring the teaching role that the university has to play, particularly at the undergraduate level.

Professor Webber is a distinguished person not only in his own right but through the many distinguished contributions he has made in Australia, notwithstanding that he is a Canadian and spent a large part of his early career in Canada. He has been outspoken on important topical issues. Recently when attacks were made on Justice Michael Kirby he was outspoken in his support of the judge. He stated that the case raised important questions about the role of the Federal Attorney-General and the responsibility attached to parliamentary privilege. He said that the actions of Attorney-General Daryl Williams, the chief law officer of the Crown, had been profoundly disappointing and that he had failed in his responsibility to ensure that judges were treated fairly. Professor Webber stated:

Professor Webber has made a profound contribution to the University of Sydney Law School, and his contribution was acknowledged last Friday by all present, including Justice Kirby, about whom he had strong words to say. I am sure that I am joined by all members of Parliament in wishing him all the best in his new position at the University of Victoria, Canada, and hope that an occasion will arise on which he will come back to Australia to give us the benefit of his knowledge and commentary on legal issues.

EAST TIMOR INDEPENDENCE

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [9.34 p.m.]: Today we had the privilege and pleasure of having the first President of East Timor, His Excellency Mr Kai Rala Xanana Gusmao, present in the Chamber. Earlier I was pleased to be a guest at the reception held by the Premier and to hear the very straightforward and humble speech by President Gusmao to that gathering. I take honourable members back to the period leading up to the relief by Australia and the international force, Interfet, in September 1999. Militia and other violence was directed at the Catholic Church and particularly at Bishop Carlos Belo. Massacres left 27 dead in the Suai church and 22 dead at the Liquisa church, and the burning of Bishop Belo's house on the Dili waterfront left 10 dead.

The Catholic Weekly of 26 May reported that Bishop Belo celebrated mass just hours before the declaration of East Timor's independence on 19 May. President Gusmao was called "Timor's hero" and following the fight put up by the Catholic Church deflected that praise to Bishop Belo. The mass was attended by Foreign Minister Jos� Ramos-Horto, with whom Bishop Belo shared the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize. Minister Ramos-Horto was also in Sydney today. I was privileged to be invited to the independence celebrations in East Timor, but was unable to go.

Prime Minister John Howard attended as Australia's representative, together with the New South Wales Attorney General as the New South Wales Government representative. The people of New South Wales and their Government have had a very strong relationship with the emerging new nation of East Timor from the very beginning. People from New South Wales Health, Public Works and Services, Transport and other departments, along with many doctors and nurses, went to Darwin to help refugees. Lynn Lovelock from the Legislative Council went north to advise and assist the refugees. The State Government has spent a lot of money to make sure that the people from East Timor are well prepared to rebuild their lives and to become the baby nation of the new millennium.

It is rather thrilling to realise that in barely two years, with the assistance of many nations, the Republic of East Timor has come out of the ashes and re-established a relationship with Indonesia. Today President Gusmao said he had rebuilt with his neighbours a trusting and working relationship that will stand all of us in good stead in the region. Without a strong Indonesia, East Timor and Australia the region will not progress as best it can. I congratulate the East Timorese on taking on the challenge and I wish them all the best for the future.

I am pleased that soon I will return to East Timor to see how things have progressed since I was last there six months ago. It seems that many new things are happening and it will be interesting to see how they have re-established their police force and their internal transport system and developed new infrastructure. I am particularly keen to see how well they have re-established their schools. At lunch today President Gusmao said he is determined to be the education President of East Timor, because he believes it is only through education that he will be able to bring his people forward into this century and the future. I congratulate, belatedly, East Timor on its independence and wish it the very best of luck. On my return I will report to the House on how things are going with the support of Australia and many other nations.

Mr JAKE SOURIAN AND POLICE CORRUPTION

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.38 p.m.]: Recently there has been much attention on the continuing problem of corruption within the ranks of New South Wales police. A neglected aspect of that corruption is the plight of victims of corrupt police. Previously I have called for an inquiry into the case of Ms Roseanne Catt. After the Attorney General was presented with fresh evidence that the arresting detective had admitted to planting a gun on Ms Catt, a fresh appeal was ordered. Ms Catt was subsequently released from prison on bail and the matter is still before the Supreme Court.

This evening I focus on Mr Jake Sourian, who was arrested in 1988 by the very same detectives who arrested Roseanne Catt: Mr Peter Thomas, who later left the police force and became an insurance investigator in Queensland, and Mr Carl Paget, who is still a serving detective in Newcastle.

Jake Sourian was the victim of an arsonist who burnt down his successful muffler business on the Pacific Highway, Chatswood, in 1988. Caltex, which owned a number of service stations, hired Nelson Chad to carry out inquiries into the fire. Mr Chad had been dismissed from the New South Wales Police Service after being found guilty of three charges of misconduct. In May 1988, acting on false information supplied by Chad and others, Thomas and Paget arrested Mr Sourian and charged him with arson, making a fraudulent insurance claim and a number of other offences. While Mr Sourian and Ms Catt's cases were still before the courts a New South Wales judge in another criminal case found that Detective Thomas had acted reprehensibly and would use "fairer means or foul" to convict a person. Despite the accused receiving more than $200,000 court costs the Crown did little or nothing to alert other people who had been charged by Thomas. Finally, five years after his arrest Mr Sourian was acquitted of the charges.

Evidence showed that stock sheets that supported Mr Sourian's fire insurance claim had been withheld from the court. In awarding Sourian $96,000 court costs, the judge remarked on the unhealthy relationship between the police and those involved with investigating the insurance claim. Unfortunately, this award does not even cover the legal costs triggered by Mr Sourian's false arrest. He lost his home and other assets. The impact of this injustice on Mr Sourian's family, including his children, has been appalling. Mr Sourian became involved in a series of civil actions to try to reclaim his assets. In most court hearings he was unrepresented.

Finally, in 1999, Mr Sourian, frustrated and exhausted, threatened the Supreme Court with violence. For this offence he was imprisoned for seven months. While Roseanne Catt was serving 10 years in prison and Jake Sourian's life was being pulled apart, Detective Peter Thomas built a flourishing insurance investigation business in Queensland. The ABC's Four Corners and the Sydney Morning Herald have documented a number of cases in which he pressured potential witnesses and falsely accused people of arson.

The New South Wales and Queensland governments should hold a joint inquiry into all cases in which Thomas played a role. These cases raise a number of important issues that need to be investigated by the Government so that reforms can be put in place. The Greens would like to hear from the Attorney General about what steps can be taken to prevent corrupt officials from committing further wrongful acts after they leave the police or other parts of the public service.

When an officer is found to have fabricated evidence against one accused person, what action is taken by the Crown to find out whether innocent people may be in prison because of corrupt activities by the same officer? How does the Government plan to compensate the victims of police corruption? We believe that these are most important issues. We are aware that victims of crime can be awarded compensation, and we think there is a very considerable case that the victims of police corruption should achieve justice. We look forward to conducting a dialogue with the Government on these important matters.

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY PENNANT HILLS BRANCH

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.43 p.m.]: Tonight I had the great pleasure of hosting a dinner for many members of the Pennant Hills branch of the Australian Labor Party. I pay tribute to the members of that branch, including Antony Dale, who is in the gallery. I think most of the others have gone home by now. The Pennant Hills branch, like many branches of the Labor Party, is full of people who have worked not only for the Labor Party cause but also for a variety of other good causes over many years. Its members include Jan Dekker, who, this year, became a life member of the Labor Party after 40 or more years of membership.

The secretary and the person who organised tonight's dinner, Pat Strauss, is very much involved with Tranby College and the Aboriginal cause. She is organising its important fundraising dinner to be held this week. She has done what people in the Labor Party are used to doing: selling an enormous number of raffle tickets. Like so many branches of the Labor Party, the Pennant Hills branch goes back a long way. It is not an area in which the Labor Party does terribly well, but that does not stop its members from doing their work.

[Time for debate expired.]

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 9.44 p.m.
_______________

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:19:16 : Update this page