The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

Second reading to stand as an order of the day.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That on Thursday 26 June 2003 Government Business take precedence over General Business.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That the resolution of the House of 21 May 2003 appointing Standing Committees on Law and Justice, Social Issues and State Development, be amended by:

(1) omitting paragraph 15 "Electronic participation in meetings",

(2) inserting after paragraph 24 "Reports" a new paragraph 25 "Members' opinions to be reflected":

25. Members' opinions to be reflected

(1) The report of a committee is, as far as practicable, to reflect a unanimity of opinion within a committee.

(2) It is the responsibility of a committee Chair and all members of a committee to seek to achieve unanimity of opinion.

(3) Where unanimity is not practicable, a committee's report should be prepared so as to reflect the views of all members of the committee.

(4) Where unanimity is not practicable, any member may append to the report a brief statement of dissent, provided that:

(a) the member has sought to have their opinions included in the report agreed to by the committee,

(b) the statement of dissent is relevant to the committee's report and the terms of reference of the inquiry,

(c) the statement does not contain any matter which would unreasonably adversely affect or injure a person, or unreasonably invade a person's privacy,

(d) the statement of dissent is signed by the member or members making it,

(e) the statement of dissent is no more than 1,000 words in length.

(3) renumbering the existing paragraphs accordingly.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

1. That, in accordance with the provisions of section 210 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice be designated as the Legislative Council Committee to supervise the exercise of the functions of the Motor Accidents Authority and Motor Accidents Council under the Act.

2. That the terms of reference of the Committee in relation to these functions be:

(a) to monitor and review the exercise by the Authority and Council of their functions,

(b) to report to the House, with such comments as it thinks fit, on any matter appertaining to the Authority or Council or connected with the exercise of their functions to which, in the opinion of the Committee, the attention of the House should be directed,

(c) to examine each annual or other report of the Authority and Council and report to the House on any matter appearing in, or arising out of, any such report,

(d) to examine trends and changes in motor accidents compensation, and report to the House any changes that the Committee thinks desirable to the functions and procedures of the Authority or Council,

(e) to inquire into any question in connection with the Committee's functions which is referred to it by the House, and report to the House on that question.

3. That the committee report to the House in relation to the exercise of its functions under this resolution at least once each year.

4. That nothing in this resolution authorises the committee to investigate a particular compensation claim under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 25 June 2003.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald tabled the following paper:

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999—Report of the Parole Board for the year ended 31 December 2002

Ordered to be printed.

Petition praying that cyanide heap leaching mining be banned, received from Ms Rhiannon.

Petition supporting a uniform age of consent of 18 for both boys and girls and increased criminal penalties for sexual predators, opposing legislative retrospectivity, and praying that these issues be dealt with separately, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Petition praying that the House reject legislative proposals that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion, and retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from Reverend the Hon. Dr. Gordon Moyes.

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 withdrawn by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

Private Members' Business item No. 23 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

Government Business Notices of Motion Nos 3 to 8 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 37 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the publication of privileged documents in relation to the Millennium trains, be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 37 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.12 a.m.]: I move:

That this House orders the publication without restricted access of all privileged documents relating to the Millennium trains lodged with the Clerk on Tuesday 27 May 2003 and Friday 6 June 2003, in accordance with the resolution of the House of Wednesday 7 May 2003.

The motion calls for the tabling of all documents produced by the Government in relation to the Millennium trains and subject to the so-called claims of privilege by various government departments in compliance with an earlier resolution of the House. The motion is necessary because the manner in which the Government has responded to this order for the tabling of papers represents an absolute abuse of the process that the House has previously followed in relation to the tabling of papers. It appears to be the Government's intention not only to continue to hide sensitive documents but also to cause expense, delay and inconvenience to the House and to the public by abusing the process that is usually adopted in relation to resolutions requiring the tabling of papers.

The right of the House to call for the tabling of papers is quite clear. I do not intend to traverse the entire history of this matter, but it was notorious because the House had to drag the Treasurer, kicking and screaming, to the highest court in the land to establish its inherent powers and rights. Most honourable members would be aware of the history of Egan v Willis in the Supreme Court. The then Government took that case to the High Court, whose decision affirmed the power and right of the House to call for documents. However, the Government was not to be outdone by simply having the law declared. It sought do get around the law by relying on claims of privilege. A further case, Egan v Chadwick and Ors, ensued in the Court of Appeal, in which the Treasurer sought to rely on claims of privilege to prevent the production of documents in accordance with the order of the House. I will not repeat that lengthy court history, but for the edification of newer members of the House I refer to a paper by Mr John Evans, the Clerk of the Parliaments, that he presented at the Thirtieth Conference of Presiding Officers and Clerks in July 1999. In that paper Mr Evans gave an overview of the final court case, the Court of Appeal decision in Egan v Chadwick and Ors. Paragraph 3.1 stated:

The Court of Appeal ordered that the proceedings be dismissed and the plaintiff—

that is, the Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Egan—

pay the defendant's costs. All three members of the court (Spigelman CJ, Priestley JA and Meagher JA) found that the Legislative Council's power to call for documents extends to compel the Executive to produce documents in respect of which a claim of legal professional privilege or public interest immunity is made. Spigelman CJ and Meagher JA decided that the power does not extend to a call for documents the production of which is inconsistent with responsible government, such as documents which reveal Cabinet deliberations. Priestley JA dissented on this point, holding that no legal right of absolute secrecy is given to any group of people in government as part of a truly representative democracy.

Mr Evans concluded:

It is clear from the judgments in the Egan cases that the NSW Legislative Council has achieved a significant victory for representative democracy, by enforcing the accountability of the Executive to the Parliament through the revelation of the workings of Government (except Cabinet deliberations), in spite of so-called claims of privilege and immunity. In the proper exercise of the Council's legislative review and accountability functions, this may even involve access to and disclosure of information which may harm the public interest.

That is the nub of it: The House has the power to call for papers. The Government cannot rely on claims of legal professional privilege or public interest immunity. Obviously the House does not have the power to call for Cabinet papers or the results of Cabinet deliberations. The reason for that, as Mr Evans pointed out, is that this House has a very important role in representative democracy of enforcing accountability of the Executive. Mr Evans further stated:

In some cases access to documentation and disclosure of documentation may harm the public interest.

I assure the House that is not the case with the papers relating to the Millennium trains. Honourable members do not need me to reiterate at length the controversy over the so-called mil-lemon trains—$114 million over budget, three years late, record defects, and record technical non-compliance. The public seriously questions whether the trains are safe and reliable. It is quite important to remind members of the House, particularly some of the newer members, that our role is not just to be part of Executive Government or part of an Opposition going through the motions. We have a much more important role, which in this case is challenged by the Government's abuse of the process, which I will outline further.

I will quote from the Court of Appeal decision in Egan v Chadwick and Ors. In paragraph 24 of his judgment, Chief Justice Spigelman quotes a judgment of the High Court in Horn v Barber in 1920, in which Justice Isaacs described responsible government as "the keystone of our political system". Chief Justice Spigelman referred to a passage that he thought was particularly pertinent. I will quote at length from that judgment as I think it is important to remind honourable members of this case. Justice Spigelman's judgment cited Justice Isaacs' judgment as follows:

When a man becomes a Member of Parliament, he undertakes high public duties. Those duties are inseparable from the position: he cannot retain the honour and divest himself of the duty. One of the duties is that of watching on behalf of the general community the conduct of the executive, of criticising it, and, if necessary, of calling it to account in the constitutional way by censure from his place in Parliament—censure which, if sufficiently supported, means removal from Office. That is the whole essence of responsible government which is the keystone of our political system and is the main constitutional safeguard the community possesses.

Referring to the Houses of Parliament, Justice Priestley said this in paragraph 17 of his judgment:

Their task also includes that of questioning and criticising government on behalf of the people.

He went on to refer to a report of a parliamentary committee that was cited with the approval of the majority of the High Court in Egan v Willis. The committee said:

… to secure accountability of government activity is the very essence of responsible government.

Also cited with approval was the observation from that great thinker and conservative, John Stuart Mill, that the task of the Legislature was "to watch and control the Government: to throw the light of publicity on its acts". There is bipartisan acceptance of that fundamental principle and of the role of governments. Justice Priestley also drew attention in his judgment to a statement made in 1994 by Senator Gareth Evans, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Whatever honourable members might have to say about Gareth Evans, he has always been acknowledged as a fine constitutional lawyer. Senator Evans was quoted by Justice Priestley as saying:

In the particular context that we are talking about here—a tussle about whether or not some document or some information should be revealed—the claim that an executive government may make of public interest immunity … is, I acknowledge, ultimately one for the House of Parliament to determine.

So Gareth Evans was supporting his earlier statement as Leader of the Opposition that the Parliament had the power to call for the production of documents. All honourable members know full well the extent of the power of this House in that regard and the limitation on the right of the Government to claim privilege. I could take honourable members through a number of questions and speeches, but I will refer to only one or two speeches of interest that were made during the course of the three cases to which I referred. On 19 November 1998—after the earlier cases—the Hon. John Hannaford asked the Treasurer to table all documents. The Treasurer's response was:

However, the High Court did not rule upon privileged documents. After a quick thumbing through, the judgment seems to confirm the views of the Court of Appeal that there is a category of documents known as privileged documents, which the High Court has not ruled on.

The Treasurer then proceeded with his appeal to the Court of Appeal to establish that category of privileged documents. As I have already explained, after the decision of the Court of Appeal in Egan v Chadwick and Ors it was apparent that matters that are the subject of claims for so-called legal professional privilege, or matters that are the subject of so-called claims for public immunity privilege, are not matters on which the Government is entitled to rely for privilege as a result of these cases. The Treasurer was certainly aware of that. In debate on 31 August 2000 when the Opposition was seeking access to documents from Sydney Water, the Treasurer made it plain that he knew that all the documents, which had hitherto been subject to these so-called claims for privilege, would be made public. I again quote from the Treasurer's statement about these documents on 31 August 2000, when he said:

They will become public documents and access will not be restricted to members of Parliament only.

He said the documents would be "available to all and sundry". He then said that the documents would be "accessible to all and sundry". He also said that some documents had "some sort of privilege from being available to all and sundry". As far as the Treasurer is concerned, the people he serves, who are referred to as "all and sundry", should not have access to important papers that relate to the Executive dealing with the assets of the public, the trust of the public, and, in the case of the Millennium trains, the convenience and safety of the public.

All too often in this House we have seen that arrogance and secrecy from this Government. That has manifested itself in the way the Government responded to the order to table documents relating to the Millennium trains. The Government complied, in a way, with the order of this House. On 27 May the Premier's Department sent a list that seemed to relate to 31 boxes of non-privileged documents and 99 boxes of privileged documents. Those 99 boxes contain documents that are the subject of spurious claims for legal professional privilege and for public interest immunity, which the court confirmed are not available—and which the Treasurer and the Government know are not available—to prevent their production.

Just to rub it in, the Government actually found a few additional boxes. On 6 June it sent two more boxes, one of which was supposed to contain privileged documents and one of which was not. At the end of the day we had 100 boxes of documents that the Government was keeping secret by abusing the process of this House and by abusing and ignoring the law that applies to it. Only 32 boxes of documents actually complied with the letter and spirit of the law. Three-quarters, or 132, of those boxes were subject to these so-called claims for privilege.

The Government did not misunderstand the law and it did not make a mistake. It did not erroneously think it was claiming privilege for Cabinet documents because it knew that that was the law. There is no doubt about that. The Government did not produce any Cabinet papers. It understands that Cabinet papers are the only documents for which it can claim privilege. It did that by not producing them. But the Government knows that we have taken a responsible attitude to the production of documents.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: We have been soft.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: We have been very soft; we have allowed a process to occur that has enabled the Government to produce documents and make a claim of privilege. Such documents are released not to the public but to honourable members. We have also instituted a process whereby honourable members may challenge claims of privilege and a retired judge or senior counsel can then rule whether the claim should be upheld. That process is designed to ensure that members behave responsibly and that documents with some legitimate ongoing legal consequence or commercial relevance are dealt with sensitively. It is a good process that I am usually happy to follow.

However, the process has been massively abused in this case. The Government has produced papers in order to cause delay, to incur enormous costs and to ensure that information cannot be viewed easily by the public. Imagine the cost and delay involved in having Sir Laurence Street or some other eminent lawyer examine 100 boxes filled with reams of documents that will ultimately be found not to be Cabinet documents, which are legitimately subject to privilege. All the Government's claims of privilege apply to those areas where the court has ruled that the Government is not able to make such claims. All claims are essentially for public immunity and commercial in confidence and perhaps for legal professional privilege. However, no privilege claims have been made with regard to the legitimate area of Cabinet in confidence. This exercise is nothing more than an abuse of the processes of the House. The Government is attempting to hide information and to con the public. It is absolutely the last straw.

At some point the House must stand up to the Government. We could adopt another process: We could spend days, weeks or even years challenging the privilege claims, expending hundreds of thousands of dollars—whatever it costs—on having the documents reviewed and then slowly leaking them. But what is the point of that? If any of the privilege claims were legitimate I would not have a problem. However, the Government is abusing the responsible process that the House put in place in good faith. The Government is attempting to con the public and to delay the production of 30 boxes of relevant documents by making spurious privilege claims about 100 boxes of documents. I return to the Court of Appeal decision in Egan v Chadwick and Ors and a comment by Chief Justice Spigelman that is pertinent to this attempt by the Government to bombard us with information and subvert the usual process of the House. At paragraph 51 of his judgment the Chief Justice refers to the Treasurer's submissions and states:

… put at their highest, in substance [they] require the Court to accede to a 'class claim' for Cabinet documents as a restriction on the power of the Legislative Council of a character which the Courts have rejected in the case of litigation before courts.

So the do-you-over approach is rejected by the courts in legal proceedings when privilege is considered. I have examined some of the documents that have been produced and that are subject to spurious claims of privilege—charts, reports of testing and specifications—and many of them appear to be similar, if not the same. Yet only some departments have claimed privilege. The only conclusion one can draw is that they are trying to be difficult and to abuse the process of the House. I certainly want to avoid the unnecessary cost of returning repeatedly to this issue to dispute and to seek opinions on documents that are not Cabinet documents—which are the only documents that may be legitimately classified as privileged.

I also have some problems with the management of this process. For security reasons the documents are held in a room to which the Clerk and his staff allow honourable members access. In order to comply with the terms of the resolution of the House, a register has been established that honourable members must sign in order to view the documents. The trouble is that this will allow the Treasurer and the Government to bully and intimidate honourable members of the House. I draw honourable members' attention to what I consider to be the Treasurer's absolutely scandalous and wrongful use of the register that the Clerk maintained quite properly with regard to other documents. On 6 April 2000 in answer to a question from the Hon. Ian Macdonald the Treasurer said:

The way in which many members of the House are treating the call for papers has simply become a joke. Since May last year the Premier's Department took over the role of co-ordinating the process of preparing documents for tabling. I am advised that since May last year the cost of preparing those documents for tabling has exceeded $400,000. One might say it is money well spent …

Thank you, Treasurer; it is money well spent. That is why we are here. The Treasurer went on to name those members of the House who had perused the documents in question.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: And he got it wrong.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, he did. How did the Treasurer get those names? He obviously snuck into the room, checked the register and wrote down the names of those who had signed it. That sort of bullying and intimidation of members is outrageous and scandalous. I am sure that the Treasurer will do the same thing in relation to these documents. The case for gross mismanagement and waste with regard to the Millennium trains is overwhelming: we have cost overruns of $114 million, the trains are three years late, there is a lack of planning and passengers have been inconvenienced. We will probably be stuck with the trains because the process has been so mismanaged that the opportunity to commission new trains has probably been lost.

The Millennium trains also have safety and reliability problems. The principal concerns about the trains have been made public. Do not forget that the Auditor-General has already reported on many of the commercial in confidence issues involving the trains. The Auditor-General made the interesting comment that there is effectively no market for these trains—the New South Wales Treasury and the State Rail Authority are the only buyers. There is no commercial in confidence involved in this matter because no-one else in the world wants them or would buy them. There is no possibility of selling them to anyone else so there is nothing to hide or keep secret. We must rely on the word of the Minister for Transport Services in this matter. He is also known as the "Minister for records": record delays, record overruns, record defects, record non-compliance, record breakdowns and no answers.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Record arrogance!

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Interjections are disorderly at all times. I ask members to cease interjecting.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yesterday Ms Sylvia Hale asked the Minister for Transport Services a sensible question, but she got no answer—she got arrogance. The Minister said he is committed to transparency, but he does not answer questions—he just shows arrogance. He has a record of mismanagement. We are supposed to rely on this Minister to fix problems, but he did not even understand that the Opposition's promise of $120 million on urgent rail maintenance was funded. I refer to the Minister's experience with the $3 billion-plus deficit with WorkCover and his involvement with the $61 million waste on the information technology contract in relation to Sydney Water. The Minister paid out the former Commissioner of Police, Mr Ryan, $450,000 when he did not have to pay him anything. He paid $355,000 to sack the head of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. We cannot rely on this Minister. He has been sent to negotiate with EDI Rail, but his type of negotiation is thuggery, intimidation and standover. EDI has already done you blokes over well and truly. You have been done over and your brand of thuggery will get you nowhere, mate. I bet you that we end up with the last 60 trains as well because you have been done over—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Hon. Greg Pearce is reminded that he must address his comments through the Chair.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: We want the trains fixed and we want to have confidence in their safety and reliability. We are stuck with them as a result of this Government's incompetence and mismanagement. This matter is of great public importance and demonstrates serious mismanagement over seven years. The reliability of these trains is a matter of public safety and confidence. The Government knows the rules of this House, but it has abused the process in relation to the production of documents. The Government has locked up 100 boxes of documents that it knows are not capable of being the subject of claims of privilege. It has outrageously abused the processes of this House. The Government is taking the alternative course—at great expense, it is trying to delay and inconvenience a process that was set in train in good faith in this House. Under that process, the Government is provided the opportunity to claim privilege when documents should be kept confidential. In this case there are 130-plus boxes of documents, three-quarters of which have been subject to spurious claims of privilege. I ask the House to support my motion.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [11.42 a.m.]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.43 a.m.]: I oppose the motion for adjournment. The Government has known about the Opposition's intention to bring on this debate since last week. If the Government is not prepared to debate Millennium trains now it will never be. The Opposition is charged and ready to debate this issue. We expected the Minister for Transport Services to appear in the Chamber before question time to put his case. The Government is attempting to delay the debate until after lunch so it can systematically pick off members of the crossbench and put pressure on them. Macca will act in his old role and twist arms to ensure that this matter does not see the light of day when we are due to debate it again. The Opposition is fundamentally opposed to the adjournment motion.

Question—That this debate be adjourned—put.

The House divided.

Mr Burke Mr Catanzariti Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Egan Ms Fazio

Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield

Ms Robertson Ms Tebbutt Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Mr Gay

Ms Hale Mr Jones Mr Lynn Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Ms Burnswoods

Miss Gardiner

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion for adjournment negatived.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [11.52 a.m.]: I have no objection in principle to the proposal put forward by the Opposition. That might surprise honourable members opposite. If the Hon. Greg Pearce had asked me, he could have avoided whipping himself into a frenzy about this Opposition proposal. I repeat: I have no objection in principle to the motion. I believe all relevant documents should be made public in the interests of transparency. In fact, CityRail has a web site that provides the public with updated material regarding the Millennium train. Because of all the uninformed comment that Opposition members have been making about the Millennium train, it is appropriate that that material be made public. For instance, the Leader of the Opposition made the outrageous claim, based on a selected reading of some documentation, that the existing Millennium train somehow would bring the whole of metropolitan rail operations to a halt. That was absolute nonsense.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: You took the trains out of service.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This was after the event. Clearly, the Opposition has a strategy to selectively release material and to cause as much public mischief and confusion as it can. I cannot blame Opposition members for that. They have just been humiliated in an election. The public overwhelmingly rejected them, and they are shell-shocked. They are creating public mischief and confusion in an attempt to justify their poor performance at the election. Alleged cover-up after alleged cover-up is part of their mantra. The fact is that no cover-up is responsible for their election loss; their incompetence and inability to produce policy of any substance lost them the election. They can go on and on as much as they like and make any excuse they like, but the fact is that the public overwhelmingly rejected them—and with good reason.

If the motion is any indication of how Coalition members would govern, is it any wonder the public rejected them? Some of the material in the boxes is in fact commercial-in-confidence material. I would have thought the Hon. Greg Pearce, having operated in the lower traffic courts, would understand the nature of relationships between companies and their clients, and the need to keep some material commercial in confidence. I would have thought he would have dealt with such clients. But, quite obviously, the legal firm that he worked with did not allow him to deal with those clients. If he takes such a blasé attitude to commercial in confidence material and documentation that is sensitive to corporations, no wonder he is here and not in the corporate world providing advice to the financial sector.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What's your excuse?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: My excuse is that I can make a difference. But he cannot. The Hon. Pearce has demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of the law—although he prides himself as being the pre-eminent representative of the law in this place. What a joke! He has no idea. Anyone who does not understand the nature and sensitivity of financial information to companies that are making tender bids for a government contract really is kidding himself if he pretends in this place that he understand the law. There is no way in the world that any company will be forthright in its dealing with government if what is proposed in the motion is carried. As I have said, we have no objection to the bulk of this material being released.

In fact, as Hon. Greg Pearce said, most of the material has been released. He said they were the same documents. On face value, that implies that the material has already been released. So there is no real argument raised by the motion. It is about public mischief, and the Opposition running a defensive strategy. It is almost therapy for the Coalition. They lost the election in such an overwhelming manner that they went backwards, so they must now attempt to create the myth that somehow, if the public had known about the Millennium train, Coalition members would now be sitting on the Government side of the House. What absolute nonsense! They were rejected because they had no policies. They still do not have any policies. All they are good at is creating public mischief.

Let me say that it is not the number of boxes that count; it is the type of material in them. From memory, on five occasions the Hon. Greg Pearce has spoken in this Chamber about "the boxes". Somehow, the boxes have become the issue, rather than the type of document within the boxes. Let us move away from talk about the boxes, and whether there are 100 or 130 of them. The fact is that what is inside the boxes counts. And inside the boxes is sensitive commercial material. The Liberal Party once purported to represent the private sector and big business, and laid claim to having some understanding of the way business operated. Clearly, its members have degenerated to the point they do not have even a rudimentary understanding of the way business operates. If they did, they would not be seeking through this motion to attempt to expose very important and sensitive documents relating to companies that were not successful in the tender process. Those companies do not want that material exposed, and I do not blame them for not wanting it exposed. They want to be able to make a bid for a government contract on the basis that the material that they provide and that the government requests because of probity issues is provided in a manner that does not expose them commercially to their competitors.

The motion of the Hon. Greg Pearce seeks to undermine the confidence of the private sector in the whole-of-government bidding process. As I have said, we are happy to make the document public. But why not accept the proposition of the independent arbitrator taking the commercially sensitive documents and making a judgement about them? Much of the material from competing companies that proposed tender arrangements with the Government puts them in a commercially sensitive position. We do not want to undermine the fundamental principle. I would have thought that the Hon. Greg Pearce must have done some contract law at some point, and therefore must understand commercial reality and that in our system people need to be able to sit down and work through commercial arrangements without—

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister explain why the 12 June speed restriction notice of the Rail Infrastructure Corporation indicates that the forecast date for the lifting of speed restrictions on the Menangle Bridge is 30 June? Does this mean that the Rail Infrastructure Corporation has every confidence that all the safety issues surrounding the bridge will be completely addressed by the end of the month, which would justify the lifting of the 20-kilometre per hour speed restriction?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member should know, and if he does not I will enlighten him, that the Rail Infrastructure Corporation is making regular assessments of the bridge and will make those judgements on the basis of those assessments. He should not presume, just because he has a document, and I accept that he has the document—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I'm showing you now.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have not seen the document. But, given the track record of the Opposition, I would not be surprised if it is wrong, or not updated or it refers to a specific duration and another document would be issued at another time. If the Opposition has specific concerns about the speed notices I will refer them to the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. We announced a regime of regular inspections, and that is continuing.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I direct my question to the Minister for Local Government. Is he aware that Premier Carr told the Goulburn Post on 19 March, just three days before the State election, that Labor had no plans to change its policy of no forced amalgamations, and further that Labor had no plans for wholesale rationalisation of councils? Will the Minister explain why he is now in direct conflict with the statements of his Premier through his initiation of major boundary change proposals and through the Government's strong indication that it will force councils into reform if they do not proceed voluntarily?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The State Government is committed to structural reform for councils. We stand by the Premier's statement in the Goulburn Post, if the honourable member has correctly reported it, that there are no forced amalgamations and there will not be any forced amalgamations. Surely to goodness the Opposition would not want to impede any reform in local government. Every council in this State has acknowledged that it can do better and provide better for its ratepayers. They are coming forward with reform proposals of their own. We have asked them to consider reform. I am encouraged, as honourable members opposite should be, by the propositions coming from councils to realign their boundaries to enable them to provide better services for their ratepayers. The Government's policy of no forced amalgamations continues.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister's statements, would he be prepared to support a bill that echoed the Premier's promise to the Goulburn Post of no forced amalgamations?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: It is not necessary. As I said, the Government's policy is no forced amalgamations. The honourable member is underestimating the goodwill that councils have to perform for their ratepayers. I acknowledge that changes have taken place in the past few weeks at Yarrowlumla Shire Council. By the end of this week it will have three proposals, which I have guaranteed I will refer immediately to the Boundaries Commission.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice. Does New South Wales have a highly effective and highly skilled ambulance rescue service? Has the Health and Research Employees Association of New South Wales expressed concern over suggestions that the ambulance rescue service will be shut down? Is there any substance to the rumours that the New South Wales Government intends to abolish the ambulance rescue service? What assurance will the Minister give that the Government will continue to support the State's highly effective and highly skilled ambulance rescue service, especially in the Sydney metropolitan area?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Obviously, the matters raised by the honourable member are very important. I will refer them to the Minister for Health and ask him to reply promptly.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Will the Minister update the House on the status of the freshwater fish-stocking program?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Rather than the mirth displayed by the members opposite, I would think they should be concerned about the important fish industry in New South Wales. Many thousands of people are involved in this industry, and it is about time that those opposite took a bit more notice of it.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Because the previous Minister was sincere. He actually meant what he said, unlike you. You just waffle on. Give your answer without looking at the notes.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not have to look at the notes.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Eddie Obeid used to be able to; he was speaking from the heart.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Bring back Eddie.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: What an absolutely disgraceful comment! During the past year the State has seen one of the worst droughts on record, as probably even the Hon. Duncan Gay has realised by now.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What does fish have to do with the drought?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Though our native freshwater fish, such as golden perch, evolved in harsh conditions, nevertheless, droughts can have a short-term impact on fish stocks. With many of our waterways at their lowest levels in years and some streams completely dry, one could be excused for thinking that it was a bad year for our freshwater fish stocking program. Although the drought affected stocking in a small number of areas, I am pleased to advise the House that the Carr Government has again stocked a record number of freshwater fish into our waterways over the past year.

Some 7.9 million trout, salmon and native fish fry and fingerlings were released across the State during the 2002-03 stocking season. This is great news for our freshwater anglers who can expect a better chance of catching fish in the local dam or stream. More than 2.9 million native freshwater fish, including Australian bass, Murray cod, trout cod, golden perch and silver perch were stocked. This includes over 600,000 native fish stocked under the recreational licence funded dollar-for-dollar stocking program. More than 70 stocking organisations, including angling clubs and local councils, raised funds to release fish under this community program. It is an outstanding success.

This State's trout fishery, which contributes approximately $70 million to the economy and creates up to 700 jobs in the Snowy Mountains area alone, has benefited from the release of more than 4.9 million rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout and Atlantic salmon. Some of the largest stockings were at Burrinjuck Dam near Yass, Wyangala Dam near Cowra, and Lake Jindabyne and Lake Eucumbene in the Snowy Mountains. Recently I had the pleasure of releasing some of the ex-Atlantic salmon brood fish into Lake Jindabyne in company with the Premier. We had a very good and productive afternoon. The Government has spent over $1 million on fish stocking in the past year and anglers have also made a $300,000 contribution through recreational fishing licences. This new stocking record would not have been set without the help of angling clubs, acclimatisation societies and community groups. I thank all the people involved in those groups.

The New South Wales Government is committed to an ongoing fish stocking program and is examining efforts to improve the manner in which fish are stocked through the development of new management strategies. Anglers and the broader community will play a key role in this process, with a draft strategy to be released for consultation later this year. I will welcome the obviously very intelligent contributions of members of the Opposition on this important issue—if they ever get around to doing that.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Special Minister of State. Has the Salvation Army's social program secretary, Gerard Byrne, complained that there have been no referrals from the Kings Cross injecting room to the Salvation Army's bridge drug rehabilitation program? Does the successful Salvation Army bridge drug rehabilitation program have a vacancy rate of more than 20 per cent and is it available to handle referrals from the Kings Cross injecting room? Will the Minister investigate this situation and report to the House to confirm that there is no prejudice against the Salvation Army? What programs are the Kings Cross injecting room clients referred to for drug rehabilitation? How many of them are finally enrolled? How many of them complete the program? How many clients become drug-free?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will begin my answer by dealing with the last part of the question. The Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile would be aware, as would most honourable members of this House, that the report of the independent evaluators of the medically supervised injecting room trial will be released in the next few weeks. I expect that honourable members will be debating the report soon. Many of the answers to the questions asked by the honourable member in the last part of his question will be dealt with in that report. I think that the brief for the evaluation dealt specifically with those issues and all of the evidence and discussion of issues that he seeks in the last part of his question will be addressed in that evaluation report.

I believe it is not appropriate for me to seek to second-guess the results of the independent valuation, or indeed intervene in the evaluation process to try to ascertain preliminary figures for Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. However, if the honourable member is prepared to be patient, those figures will be in the public arena fairly shortly. As for the rest of the question, of course I am aware of some concerns—I will not put it as high as criticism—expressed publicly by senior officers of the Salvation Army in recent days, including some comments made by Gerard Byrne whom I know quite well and with whom I had a beneficial involvement during the implementation of the Drug Summit initiatives. His organisation, both the non-government organisations [NGO] that the Salvation Army has as part of its broader network and the army itself, have played a big role in providing services for the Drug Summit rollout program.

I acknowledge that they have done a fantastic job, not only with respect to the Drug Summit issues but also throughout their long and esteemed history in Australia, which has to be recognised whenever they are spoken of in a welfare connection. The second person who has made some remarks, although I have not seen the details of them, is Major Watters. He also has had a long involvement in supporting the New South Wales Government's approach to the bulk of the Drug Summit issues. Again, although he tends to represent the Commonwealth in these matters, I am able to say on behalf of the New South Wales Government that there has been a fruitful relationship with Major Watters in regard to the establishment of treatment facilities, diversion programs and other matters on which we have a great deal of common ground. Regrettably, for better or for worse there has been disagreement about the utility of the medically supervised injecting room trial since its outset, so it is not surprising, given a fair level of public knowledge that the evaluation report will be released shortly, that some anticipatory research and review has been going on. People are welcome to do that as part of an important public debate.

However, from the outset of the trial, the Government has encouraged the referral of injecting centre clients for treatment and other services as one of the critical measures of the program. The Government provided additional funding for local treatment and support services to ensure adequate access to a variety of services. That is over and above the additional funding provided to the Drug Summit budget for more drug treatment places and case management for people receiving treatment for drug addiction. The interim independent evaluation report shows to date that 1,850 referrals were made from the centre for treatment, health care and related social services. It is important to qualify that this is a reasonably broad band and includes services that may not be directly related to drug treatment facilities.

Specific assessments about which services people are referred to are the responsibility of the staff of the centre. I have asked the medical director and have been advised that indeed referrals have been made to the Salvation Army services. She either has attempted to or actually has corrected the public record over the past 24 hours in that regard. The Government supports the work done by organisations such as the Salvation Army.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask a supplementary question. Has the Salvation Army been rejected because it has an abstinence-based drug rehabilitation program, as has been reported?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I assure Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Salvation Army that this Government has supported the Salvation Army's programs, including its abstinence-based programs. The Government has always said that a one size fits all approach does not necessarily work in dealing with drug abuse and that some people, particularly addicts and people who are drug addicted at the extreme end of chaotic behaviour, would find it very difficult to embrace an abstinence program—in fact, for some it would be impossible because that would be putting the bar a bit too high.

Other programs of detoxification, including pharmacotherapy and other therapies that are supported by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile are sometimes needed for a range of addicts. The Government supports a mix of programs—as the honourable member would know from the Drug Summit rollout program—including abstinence-based programs, such as the one conducted by the Salvation Army, other pharmacotherapy programs and a range of programs based on various methods. The Government supports the work done by organisations such as the Salvation Army in helping people into drug rehabilitation.

The Government does not take a view on the superiority of one organisation's program over another, although given the fair degree of taxpayer investment, we do take a close interest in which programs achieve the best results on behalf of the community for addressing drug abuse problems. In respect to discrimination against the Salvation Army, I am able to categorically rule out that at any time the Government has sought to discriminate against the Salvation Army. I am advised by the medical director that there is no discrimination against the Salvation Army's service.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice. Within the last month was there a major security incident at the Goulburn High Risk Management Unit, the so-called Supermax, that involved at least two security doors leading to cells being left unlocked during the night, not being not detected during routine security inspections carried out during the night? Was the Minister informed of this major breach in security? Has the matter been investigated? What was the outcome of the inquiry?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: If the honourable member thinks that security at the High Risk Management Unit at Goulburn is lacking, I invite him to spend a month there. He can go in there with the other inmates and experience it—live.
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister prepared to elucidate his answer by giving details in relation to this security incident? Was the Minister aware of it? Has he been informed? Was it investigated?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will give the honourable member a real life experience of security at the high-risk management unit. I invite him to take it up for a whole month.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Rural Affairs. What is the Government's reaction to today's announcement by the Federal Government on Telstra?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Federal Government will sell Telstra—that much is clear. Today's announcement is a bribe for National Party members of Parliament to sell out their electorates. And make no mistake: they will fall into line with John Howard and Peter Costello. Country Labor is on the record as opposing any further sell-off of Telstra, and we continue to oppose it because we know it spells the death-knell for telecommunications services in country Australia. The sell-off means cuts to phone services, cuts to mobile services and cuts to Internet services. As a farmer and a resident of country New South Wales, I know how hard it is to get decent service from Telstra. If the National Party folds, as it will today, it will be impossible to get service from Telstra in the future. Simply put, a one-off cash injection is not enough. We need a Federal Government committed to providing adequate services to country New South Wales.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Jack McEwen would not have folded.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is correct; Jack McEwen would never have folded, not for a measly couple of hundred million dollars. What we have is a Federal Government that ignores areas with a population of less than half a million. The National Party gave an undertaking that the Federal Government would not sell Telstra until the Australian people said it could. The families of country New South Wales deserve to know where the National Party stands on this matter.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: They need a decent service out there.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Will the Hon. Melinda Pavey support the full sale of Telstra? Will the National Party support the full sale of Telstra, or not? If the Nationals cannot stick up for country families on this issue, we cannot expect them to support them on any issue. The latest Newspoll had the National Party attracting a measly 3 per cent of the vote. If they allow Telstra to be sold they can expect that figure to plummet even further. I can give this guarantee: Country Labor will never support the sale of Telstra.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You won't have the opportunity.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Is the Hon. Rick Colless happy to sell off Telstra? The National Party is happy to have the opportunity to sell-off Telstra. The sale will mean a reduction in services, and that is bad for country business, country jobs and country families. A fully privatised Telstra would not have a universal service obligation. The level of service we will get if and when Telstra is sold is the level that we will be stuck with. It will never improve. A private company is only interested in the bottom line. Make no mistake: country services will be the first to go.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is it true that workers compensation insurance had not been paid for workers employed at a North Bondi building site where a brick wall collapsed on 16 June? In that incident a worker was killed because a three-metre free-standing wall, which was not notched into another wall as per good building practice, collapsed. When will charges be laid? Does this incident demonstrate the need for industrial manslaughter legislation despite the Minister's claim that New South Wales already has the toughest laws for industrial deaths and accidents?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member asked the question and gave the answer.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am reminded of her comment yesterday on the Westminster system: that one is innocent until proven guilty.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That interjection raises an important point. As the question implied, an investigation is under way. I will ascertain from WorkCover the extent of the information that I can make available to Ms Lee Rhiannon and the House in the meantime. However, I urge her to be cautious in respect to this matter. As she is fully aware, the criminal onus of proof can be interfered with by public comment, so I urge her to not politicise this matter until all issues are fully and properly investigated by the relevant authority. She raised the political point suggesting that we would need what she describes as industrial manslaughter legislation. In fact, New South Wales has the toughest legislation covering death in workplaces in the country. We probably have the toughest occupational health and safety legislation in the world.

I am on the public record as saying that on a number of occasions, and it remains true. However, I point out a contradiction in her question—with her intellectual background I am sure she would enjoy a contradiction now and then. She asked me what is happening with the investigation, whether it has concluded. She may be a bit ahead of me, I am not sure, but she assumed that the investigation would not be successful and asked whether we needed industrial manslaughter laws. I ask the honourable member to be cautious in her public comments on this matter. I expect to be able to provide information to the House very shortly.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in the context of his comment that New South Wales has the toughest legislation in the world? Does that mean that people are being prosecuted? The figures I have seen indicate that no prosecutions have been made. How can the Minister make that statement?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member is, of course, correct. Currently the number of successful prosecutions under the provisions of the Crimes Act is zero. That emphasises the point I am making, that eventually these matters may have the onus of criminal proof attached to them. To interfere in a public sense in this debate is unhelpful to the hardworking public servants and investigators of the WorkCover Authority who at the moment are reviewing that incident.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister outline why data loggers on trains—which, despite his Government's election promise that they would be operating by the end of May—are still not operational on the CityRail network?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I made a public statement about this. They must have been asleep.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Have you ever thought about going on a vegetarian diet?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I would end up looking like the Leader of the Opposition. I am advised that as of yesterday all CityRail electric trains in revenue service had data loggers installed and are collecting data that would be used in the event of an accident or incident. I made a public announcement about that. On 11 June the State Rail Authority advised me that 95 per cent of the electric suburban fleet had data loggers operational by 31 May. I inform the House that I directed State Rail to ensure that data loggers were operational on all suburban electric trains in service by Monday 16 June. I am advised that on the weekend of 14 and 15 June work was undertaken to ensure that it was achieved.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: On overtime rates.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I instructed State Rail to use whatever resources were required, and that would have involved overtime—I make no apology for that—to ensure that data loggers were collecting data that could be used in the event of an incident or accident.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is addressed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Central Coast. Will the Minister inform the House of any significant job-creating investments on the Central Coast?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am pleased to inform the House that today Kellogg (Australia) has announced plans to expand and improve its plant at Charmhaven. This follows Kellogg's decision to relocate its Queensland-based manufacturing plant to the Central Coast. The move by Kellogg to the Central Coast will provide more than 100 new jobs on the Central Coast and an investment of more than $10 million to improve Charmhaven facilities. In addition to those 100 new jobs the coast will benefit from the many other jobs that will be created through the generation of business for local businesses and suppliers.

This major corporation, which is relocating from Queensland to New South Wales, is taking advantage of this State's sensible and stable economic management and co-operative industrial relations climate. The New South Wales Government, which has been investing in the Central Coast, is putting services where people live. Earlier this year we assisted Woolworths, one of Australia's top companies, in locating its new distribution centre at Warnervale, which will result in a $100 million investment and the creation of 600 quality jobs in Wyong shire. I am sure my colleague the Leader of the Opposition will agree that that is great news for the Central Coast.

Today's announcement by Kellogg follows the 500 jobs that the Carr Government brought to Gosford. However, I am not sure how the honourable member for Gosford will react to this news. After all, the honourable member described the Government's relocation of WorkCover to Gosford as "an impossible dream". Worse, last night he issued a statement to the effect that he hoped the WorkCover Authority would sink. He actually dreams and hopes that there will be a loss of 500 jobs from the centre of his electorate. They are certainly not the hopes of this Government. We will continue to create jobs on the Central Cost and attract investment to the region, despite the wishful thinking of the honourable member for Gosford.

I welcome Kellogg's manufacturing expansion and those 100 new jobs for the Central Coast. I thank Kellogg and congratulate it on its decision. It will be welcome on the Central Coast, where it will find a willing and educated work force. Following yesterday's great budget, today's announcement shows that companies like Kellogg have confidence in doing business in New South Wales. I am sure all honourable members would wish Kellogg well in its excellent move.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I ask the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, whether he can inform the House why all sections of the newly amended Threatened Species Conservation Act have not been enabled. For example, why has the section dealing with the listing of vulnerable ecological communities not been enabled? Have bureaucrats and the New South Wales Farmers Association lobbied against it? Does this failure to enable the section dealing with vulnerable ecological communities not give farmers an opportunity to clear a lot more land, including coolabah and poplar box woodlands on the northern floodplains? Will the Minister ensure that this situation is rectified immediately?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the honourable member's question to the Minister for the Environment, obtain an answer and provide it to the honourable member in due course.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. To date, how many expressions of interest has he received from local councils regarding potential amalgamations or boundary changes? Of those proposals, how many involve complete dissolution of neighbouring councils, similar to his proposal to forcibly reform Yarrowlumla council out of existence? How does the Yarrowlumla proposal and any others like it fit in with his Government's supposed commitment to no forced amalgamations?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As I said earlier, at this stage I have before me only three proposals, all of which are from the Yarrowlumla area. No other proposals are before me. There are indications that councils are talking with neighbouring councils and that they have passed resolutions to examine this issue. But, so far as I am aware, no proposals have reached my office other than the three to which I referred earlier.

The Hon. TONY BURKE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship. Will the Minister outline the impact on the New South Wales community of the Howard Government's Terrorism Insurance Act?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: In the wake of September 11, financial institutions and commercial property owners in Australia were faced with the withdrawal of terrorism cover from the insurance market. Such groups made representations to the Federal Government fearing substantial losses and an impending collapse of essential public infrastructure, such as power stations. The Treasurer began to receive vigorous representations from bodies such as the Property Council of Australia soon after September 11. Only recently the New South Wales Government called on its Federal counterpart to come to the aid of religious groups by extending its terrorism insurance to cover places of worship.

[Interruption]

The honourable member might want to reinvent federalism. The last time I looked at the Constitution I was of the opinion that insurance was a Federal responsibility. In light of events in Bali, events on September 11, and the war in Iraq, many places of worship could no longer obtain or afford insurance unless they looked overseas. The Lakemba Mosque, which is possibly this nation's largest mosque, could not get insurance in Australia. The Parramatta Synagogue was forced to accept 10 times the usual excess in the case of an attack. Mr Herman Eisenberg, President of the Great Synagogue in Sydney, reported that insurance premiums had increased by a staggering 800 per cent.

Three times between November 2002 and February 2003 the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister calling on him to widen his proposed coverage of the terrorism insurance scheme to include places of religious worship. On 13 February this year the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier and advised him that the Treasurer was developing regulations to support the operation of the Act and that the matter would be considered in the context of those regulations. We were told that draft regulations would be prepared in March this year, but that did not happen. In April 2003 the Council of Australian Governments discussed the issue and agreed that urgent action was required in consultation with the States and Territories. At a recent meeting of the Ministerial Council for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in Melbourne, State and Territory multicultural Ministers were united in passing the following resolution:

That the Federal Government come to the aid of religious groups by extending its terrorism insurance to cover centres of worship.

The response that we received to that request came from a spokesman for the Treasurer on the AM program on Friday 13 June. The transcript of that program states:

... a spokesman for the Treasurer responded by claiming that terrorism insurance cover has been brought into being on a temporary basis to cover the market failure to cover commercial property and hasn't been extended because there hasn't been any demonstrated market failure in relation to places of worship.

The Federal Government continued to vacillate on the matter. After relentless pressure from this Government and other State governments, the Federal Minister issued a press release that indicated he would include coverage in his bill for a place of worship provided it was already commercially insured. However, that did not address the entirety of the problem. A letter to the Premier from the Jewish Board of Deputies dated 17 June 2003 states:

The Act is in every way a direct result of the efforts of the Premier and for that we are most grateful [but] the statute will mean only a fourfold increase [in premiums] instead of an eightfold increase [in premiums].

The Great Synagogue has been forced to take out insurance with Lloyds of London, as no local insurer will cover it. It is currently paying a premium of $250,000. The Roscoe Street Synagogue cannot obtain contents or building insurance that will exempt it from terrorist attack or vandalism. Why is the Howard Government not willing to address seriously the issue of insurance premiums that are spiralling out of control and only slow down the inevitable blow-out, thus buying itself time? Why has it taken the Federal Government this long to address the issue? People who are able to generate income through commercial buildings are able to get cover, but that cover is not being extended to places directly affected by the threat of terrorism, such as religious centres and places of worship.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Government review the number of teaching positions in New South Wales hospitals, given the surgical backlog in the public hospital system?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member has asked an excellent question, which I will refer to my colleague the Minister for Health and obtain an answer as soon as practicable.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Did he tell radio 2UE this morning that the New South Wales Government may push for a national register system for companion animals as part of the five-year review of the Companion Animals Act? At the time that the Act was implemented was there at least one national animal register system operating commercially in Australia?

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: What is it, Charlie?

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: If this applied to the Hon. Ian Macdonald, he would be regarded as a pit bull terrier and required to wear a muzzle outside this place. Was the New South Wales register set up in such a way that it is not compatible with commercially operated national registers—which would make it difficult to implement a national register system based on the New South Wales register?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I said this morning that the Government will be looking to review the Companion Animals Act to counter the problem that came to light recently when a dog crossed the border from Queensland and attacked a horse in New South Wales. We want national legislation to deal with dangerous dogs, as the legislative arrangements in other States are inadequate. New South Wales has the toughest legislation of this type in Australia.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. What is the Government doing to improve children's services throughout New South Wales?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Many parents rely on children's services to provide care and development opportunities for their children, and I am pleased to be able to inform the House of further improvements to children's services in New South Wales. Last week I announced an allocation of nearly $3 million to child care services under the Child Safety and Continuity of Service Initiative Program. The Government's latest funding boost for high-need children's services brings the total spent in this area to $6.75 million in the 2002-03 financial year. This funding boost is in addition to the $3 million for safety improvements announced in March and the $756,000 recurrent funding made available earlier this year to reduce the fee burdens on low income families. About 70 per cent of both these funding allocations went to rural and regional New South Wales.

The Government is committed to making sure that a flexible and widely accessible system of quality child care can accommodate as many children, parents and families as possible. The New South Wales Government has invested significant funding in children's services. Since 1995 we have allocated an additional $50 million in funding support. The Government is supporting children and families by providing funding to preschools, long day care centres, occasional and vacation care, supported playgroups and toy libraries. The new money will be administered through the Department of Community Services to help construct new facilities for high-need services that cannot stay where they are, either because the present facilities are inappropriate or because a lease is running out. These funds cover 42 centres across the State, with more than 35 per cent of the funding allocated to five large-scale building works in Cessnock, Nimbin, Helensburgh, Condobolin and Wyong.

Cessnock, for example, was identified as a high-need community in the New South Wales Government's community solutions and community renewal initiatives. It will receive $500,000 for a new multipurpose children's service centre to house a preschool and provide long day care, vacation care and out-of-school-hours care. The centre will also offer parenting programs, family support groups and an early intervention project for children who have been exposed to domestic violence. Other projects to be funded through this package include the construction of a new facility to replace the current home of the Padstow Childcare Centre. At present the centre is run out of a building owned by the Padstow Baptist Church that will soon be redeveloped. Without this funding this vital service would be forced to close.

Some $150,000 will be spent extending and modifying the Helensburgh Community Preschool building so that it can offer an extra eight places to children aged between nought and two years. Some $200,000 will go on updating and upgrading 10 child care centres and preschools in northern Sydney to ensure that they can continue to provide good-quality services to children and their families. More than $265,000 will be spent on upgrading 25 child care centres and preschools in south-eastern Sydney to ensure that the facilities are safe and comfortable for the children who use them. The Government will contribute $80,000 to the costs of urgently needed child care facilities for the Wyong Northlakes Preschool and Children's Centre, which was completely destroyed by fire in September last year. Some $200,000 will be spent on a new multipurpose children's centre at Condobolin to house family day care, mobile child care and out-of-school-hours care services.

A healthy system of good-quality, responsive children's services is an essential part of our commitment to delivering on the department's prevention and early intervention objectives. A key tenet of our strategy is making sure that a flexible and widely accessible system of quality child care can accommodate as many children, parents and families as possible not only in metropolitan areas but throughout the State. I trust that services, families and children across New South Wales will experience very real benefits from this additional funding.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Premier. What action is the New South Wales Government taking to promote and support Reserve Forces Day on Sunday 6 July, which will involve an inspection in College Street to be followed by a city march in which a large number of New South Wales Army, Navy and Air Force reserve units will participate together with reserve units from the United States of America, United Kingdom, New Zealand and other countries?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I undertake to provide an answer from the Premier to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the House as soon as practicable.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services, and Minister for the Hunter.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Didn't you get enough last time?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: We have tried to come up with a question that the Minister can answer competently. Can the Minister confirm whether CityRail is seeking to address the highly disturbing practice of using emergency signal flags to make the dead man's brake inoperable? Does shortening the flag end or the grip end of the poles reduce the safety benefit of the flags?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Hon. Greg Pearce knows that this matter is currently before the McInerney inquiry and thus it is completely inappropriate for me to comment on it. However, as I have said publicly, this matter first came to light during the Coalition's term in office. The Leader of the Opposition should not shake his head: this is a serious issue. The Hon. Greg Pearce should be cautious about making allegations in view of recent press reports. I do not intend to canvass issues that are before the McInerney inquiry, and I suggest that the Hon. Greg Pearce also take that approach—it is a sensible one. Given his constant referrals to his legal qualifications, I should have thought he would understand that. I should not have to remind him. The fact of the matter is that there are some issues in relation to Tangara trains. I have advised the public that we are in the process of introducing vigilance controls with regard to outer suburban Tangaras in order to overcome the problems that have been identified. I do not intend to say anything more about this issue. I strongly advise the Hon. Greg Pearce to do the same and to await the findings of the McInerney inquiry.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister inform the House how the Government is working with Aboriginal communities to reduce the damage caused by drugs?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Peter Primrose for his question, particularly as this is Drug Action Week. As I reported to the House yesterday, parents can play a crucial role in influencing drug-taking behaviour. Therefore, it is important that we give parents all the necessary information and advice. That is why the Carr Government is working in partnership with indigenous communities across New South Wales to tackle drug- and alcohol-related issues in Aboriginal families. Drug education resources in regional centres are being developed to meet the needs of local Aboriginal communities. I am pleased to inform honourable members that the first of these resources, Koori Family Matters, is now available. This booklet was produced for the Illawarra/south-east region and its development was guided by indigenous services in that area. It is an easy-to-use guide designed to help parents answer questions that they may face when talking about drugs with their children.

The booklet contains information about the risks of drug use and suggests ways of dealing with difficult situations, such as what to do if one's child is using drugs. Honourable members will appreciate that the booklet is based on the original Family Matters guide, which was produced with the assistance of drug and alcohol specialists who work with families and young people. Koori Family Matters is tailored to include regional Aboriginal expressions, local Aboriginal artwork—as honourable members can see from its cover—and referral to regional services, especially those targeting local indigenous families. Koori Family Matters was launched yesterday as part of Drug Action Week, and is being distributed throughout the Illawarra and on the South Coast by Aboriginal support networks.

I also draw the attention of the House to another project involving Brewarrina's indigenous young people. Young people in that town have developed an innovative campaign that raises awareness about the dangers of cannabis use. Honourable members may recall that earlier this year the Government began the first in a series of initiatives to address cannabis use by young people. Thought-provoking images and messages about the potential problems associated with cannabis were displayed in cinemas, shopping centres and high schools across New South Wales. Brewarrina's young people have used the Government's anti-cannabis campaign as a guide to develop their own campaign. They have used local ideas and language to develop these powerful anti-cannabis images that reflect the concerns of Brewarrina's indigenous community. The message also encourages young people to discuss the health and social impact of cannabis use.

The young people involved in Brewarrina's youth cannabis campaign have been today awarded with certificates of commendation for their efforts. I take this opportunity to commend the young people involved: Rossy Orcher, Chris Frail, Matthew Dwyer, Les Trapman, Stacey Gordon and Tiffany Winters. I also commend the photographers, Amy Gordon and Bianca Peters and, in particular, Penny Johnson, who co-ordinated and mentored the young people throughout the project. These initiatives form a small but important part of the Carr Government's comprehensive drug policy to help reduce the damage caused by drugs in indigenous communities. It is a $230 million plan of action for drug prevention, education, treatment and law enforcement.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister confirm that at a press conference on 12 May he announced Professor Parry's inquiry into public transport and said that privatisation of public transport "had not worked" in Victoria, and that the Parry inquiry was "not about privatisation"? Will the Minister confirm that on 28 May in question time in this House he said he would consider private sector funding? Has the Minister done a backflip? Is the Minister playing vaudeville? Will the Minister guarantee that public transport will remain in public hands?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This question displays the complete and utter ignorance of the honourable member—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: Madam President, I draw your attention to the sessional order in relation to questions without notice that states that answers need to be relevant to the question asked and that members should not debate the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: To the point of order: The point of order does not stand. The honourable member has asked me a question that displays ignorance in relation to a matter. "Ignorance" is a legitimate word to describe a person who has no knowledge about a matter.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: To the point of order: It is now almost standard procedure that members who ask questions are met with a diatribe of abuse and no hope of an answer. I ask you to take that into consideration when you give your ruling.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have reminded members previously that the sessional order relating to rules for questions states that in answering a question a member must not debate the question. I have interpreted that to mean the actual question asked, not the issue that the Minister is addressing. I ask the Minister not to debate the actual question asked.
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Clearly, the honourable member has a lack of understanding that almost borders on ignorance of the issue. The fact is that one can have private sector involvement and not have privatisation of a service. That is so fundamental that I am surprised the honourable member asked the question.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Because Labor fudges and will not use the word "privatisation".

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Unfortunately, the Greens do not understand and do not comprehend the fact that we live in a mixed economy. Perhaps they lament the passing of the Soviet state and other models, apart from Korea and Cuba I suppose, of that discredited system. They should consider taking a tour of those places to see how people live. They should not come into a House that supports the principles of a mixed economy and the democratic political principles that support that economy, and make completely irrelevant and ignorant comments about public transport and the involvement of the private sector. The fact is we already have private operators in our system of public transport. Obviously, the honourable member has never been to Western Sydney, although she purports to represent workers. But if she had, she would realise that our buses in the public transport system are run by private operators. It is an absolute absurdity to make some linkage between public ownership of existing assets and private sector involvement in the provision of services.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Like Telstra.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Today the National Party stands condemned on its decision in that regard—not because I do not necessarily support it, but because it has publicly stated that it would not support the Telstra proposal. The hypocrisy is not about the actual ownership of telecommunications. The National Party has said one thing at State level and yet another thing at the Federal level, but that has been canvassed already. I am talking about the ignorance of a member of the Greens. We can have private sector involvement in the provision of public transport services without having privatisation. If the honourable member does not understand that, I suggest she do her homework in order to understand the issues.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his thoughts on the future of public transport in this State? Is the Minister willing to rule out privatisation of any publicly owned transport system in the State?

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: That is a hypothetical question: it assumes that the Minister thinks.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: People might not agree with what I say, but nobody has accused me of not thinking. I clearly said that the proposals being canvassed through the Parry process will not lead to privatisation. We do not support privatisation. We already provide, through the private sector, public transport services. There is a difference between the provision of public transport services through private operators—as currently exists with buses, for example, in Western Sydney—and a proposal to sell, for instance, the State Rail Authority to the private sector. We are not canvassing those options.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: What are you going to do about Newcastle?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member went to Newcastle last week and shot off her mouth, as usual, without having the relevant—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: It embarrassed you.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I was not embarrassed. In fact, the honourable member gave me an opportunity once again to expose to the public, particularly the community in Newcastle, the wedge politics that are always played by the Greens. They always go to the extreme position and set up the straw person and then argue against the straw person. They set it all up and say "The Government is going to privatise this and that, and we are opposed to it." The problem is, there was no proposition to privatise anything. The member was once again shooting off her mouth, playing wedge politics. The way she engages in such politics is a disgrace. It is all about the wedge, to create division and concern in the hope of building up that 1.5 per cent that the Greens need to get their next loony into the upper House. I will continue to expose the honourable member for what she is: a political fraud who uses wedge politics for personal gain.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. How many applications has the Rural Assistance Authority received to date for State-based drought relief measures, including applications for special conservation scheme loans? What is the average processing time for these applications? What measure is the authority taking to ensure that farmers receive all relevant information and are kept up to date with the progress of their applications?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question on this special conservation scheme. When this matter was raised with me in the House by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I replied:

I will take whatever specific examples he has regarding delays and do my best to solve these specific problems.

This was in relation to comments that the honourable member made maybe a month or so ago in relation to special conservation loans. Again I repeat the offer that if honourable members have examples of delays, they should let me know and I will deal with them appropriately. However, they must realise that, in relation to special conservation zones, a number of prudential requirements that are important to the securitisation of those loans are not applicable to any other drought issue across the raft of government programs. This one requires a detailed look at the property. I have reduced the time by reducing the amount of backup material required by what was formerly the Department of Land and Water Conservation, now the Department of Natural Resources.

But securitisation issues are important, banks have to be consulted, and it takes longer for these loans to be rolled out than it does for other forms of relief dealt with by the Rural Assistance Authority. In recent months we have employed an additional 17 staff, mainly to deal with applications, and we have removed the requirement for a technical report for applications under $20,000. From 12 June the authority has been conducting a preliminary assessment of all applications immediately following the receipt of a fully completed application. As a result, each application either will be refused or approved, subject to three major conditions: one, consent by existing mortgagees; two, satisfactory title searches; and three, satisfactory technical reports for applications over $20,000 only. Regarding other forms of assistance, as at 19 June the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority had issued more than 10,530 certificates enabling farmers to apply for Commonwealth exceptional circumstances assistance.

In relation to the program itself, from last year alone we will end up spending around $29 million, and we have budgeted for another substantial amount for the next six months. We expect that about $40 million will be taken out in these loans. That program has certain prudential requirements, which I have outlined, that make it much more difficult to process those applications as quickly as applications for other forms of assistance. The new measures adopted from mid-June will assist the program to deal with applications a little bit quicker.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I suggest that if honourable members have further questions, they place them on notice.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Yesterday the Hon. John Ryan asked me a question about group homes. As part of the continuing program of group home reform to which I referred yesterday, the department has also been reviewing the cost effectiveness of the current configuration of its group homes. This process has identified that a number of group homes house only two or three clients, resulting in the inequitable distribution of accommodation resources; are physically unsuitable and do not meet the needs of the residents—for example, two-storey houses and houses on steep blocks; and could better meet the needs of residents if there were a different mix of individuals. While scoping of a Group Home Consolidation Program focusing on these homes is under way, implementation has yet to commence. Implementation will involve engagement and discussion with affected residents, families, and guardians prior to any relocation.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On 22 May Ms Lee Rhiannon asked me, in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice concerning handgun control. I have received the following answer from the Minister for Police:

NSW Police has advised me:

The National Handgun Control Agreement will reduce the number of handguns in the community by banning target shooters from accessing:

handguns with a calibre over.38" calibre;
semi-automatic handguns with a barrel length of less than 120mm; and

revolvers and single shot handguns with a barrel length of less than 100mm.

Some target shooters participating in specially accredited sporting events may retain access to handguns up to.45” calibre—these accredited events have yet to be agreed nationally.

Any models of handgun which are held by target shooters and do not meet these criteria will be subject to the handgun buyback.

In addition, firearm collectors who cannot meet the criteria for retaining handguns manufactured after 1946 will be subject to the buyback.

A national list of handgun models and prices to be used during the buyback is currently being completed. I understand this list will include thousands of different types of guns that may be subject to the buyback.

Questions without notice concluded.

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That these bills be now read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages, and the second readings of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

Bills read a first time.

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

[The President left the chair at 1.05 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The Hon. Tony Kelly tabled the following papers:

(1) Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Report of the Wild Dog Destruction Board for the year ended 31 December 2002.

(2) State Owned Corporations Act 1989—Report of Sydney Water Corporation for the six months ended 31 December 2002.

Ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members Business item No. 37 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers concerning access to privileged documents in relation to the Millennium trains, be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:

That Private Members Business item No. 37 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Transport Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Forests)) [2.33 p.m.]: As I said earlier, I have no objection in principle to the motion, because the information should be made public. My only concern relates to documents that reflect the tender processes of companies and their financial viability. If the honourable member were prepared to allow the independent arbitrator to examine and assess those matters, we would support the motion. However, the Government is concerned to ensure that we fairly treat companies that submit tenders and provide information on a bona fides basis. The Hon. Greg Pearce knows what is in the boxes. I have not had looked in them, nor do I intend to. My aim is to ensure that we protect companies that provide information through the tender process.

I understand from EDI that the boxes contain information and financial records relating to its parent company which should not be made public by anyone other than EDI. We have no major concerns with the remainder of the documents; they fall within the ambit of the established rules, which have been applied correctly. We do not want to obstruct any argument for additional public disclosure. I suggest that the Hon. Greg Pearce agree to the independent arbitrator examining these documents to ensure that the financial or competitive position of companies that have acted properly in the tender process are not disadvantaged.

Since I have been the Minister for Transport Services I have made public every document that I have asked for and received on the performance of the Millennium train. We have established a web site that anyone can access to determine the performance of the train. I have no problem if it is a genuine case of providing information about the train, but it seems that this is an exercise in grandstanding and political muckraking rather than examining the train independently. We have brought in an independent external expert, who currently oversees rolling stock procurement in Victoria, to assess the performance of State Rail in relation to its contract. The review will provide a technical assessment of the conduct of State Rail's project management of current technical problems, and identify any gaps and/or necessary improvements in project skills to complete delivery and enhance the reliability of the Millennium train rolling stock. I have made a commitment that the report, which is expected by 11 July, will be made public.

As honourable members would be aware, in conjunction with State Rail I went to the workshop at Cardiff to see the management of the Millennium train project. We discussed the correction of problems identified with the rolling stock following their return after withdrawal from service. I am advised that problems associated with the trains subsequent to their withdrawal do not relate to the four original problems. The subsequent problems have been corrected and have not recurred.

We have instituted a significant regime change to the current train testing arrangements. For those who are not aware, we are now testing the trains over 400 kilometres of track across the metropolitan system, as opposed to the previous 50 kilometres. Contractually, tests are proposed for test set 17, which was to be in the order of 2,000 to 3,000 kilometres. As a result of discussions, that test of the entire train to ensure that it operates has been increased to between 4,000 and 5,000 kilometres.

At that meeting EDI management informed me that the new problems it has encountered with the Millennium train are primarily a result of traction systems, operating systems, and auxiliary power systems. The problems relate to components that are not manufactured in Australia but sourced overseas. It is appropriate to emphasise that the work force in Cardiff is doing a first-rate job. It has constructed the outer shell and constructed the train. Their workmanship cannot be faulted. The problem is the integration of the components sourced from overseas. I have given EDI until August to develop solutions to the problems. We will then have further discussions to see what is happening.

In addition, over the period when the trains are in operation, an EDI technician will be on every train that is in service for revenue. That is to make sure that the public is not inconvenienced as part of the process of ironing out the teething problems with these trains. There are also some issues with the communication system and although they are not significant, the services of a full-time technician have been secured to work through them as a result of discussions I have held. EDI will provide weekly progress reports to the management of the State Rail Authority [SRA], particularly in relation to the air-conditioning problem. The problem will not affect passengers at the moment, but it is certainly our intention to correct the problems before summer, when there are likely to be issues associated with higher temperatures.

Today during question time I was asked about the additional cost of testing Millennium trains. The fact is that the State does not have to bear any additional cost. The only cost the State will bear is what is included as part of the rollout in any event, or alternatively is brought forward as a result of the new testing regime which required the additional training of crews, which would have been necessary in any event.

Information on the Millennium trains is available on the Internet. I have not accessed the site today, but yesterday I noticed material on the site, in full public exposure, relating to a number of incidents that occurred on the weekend. The SRA web site also has the full Auditor-General's report. I make the point that the Auditor-General examined the bulk of the documentation that is the subject of this motion. His assessment was made public, firstly and unfortunately by the Opposition as part of a grandstanding campaign, but subsequently by the Auditor-General himself. I do not have the Auditor-General's words in front of me—my staff have his statement—but I believe that honourable members will be very pleased with his observation, which from memory was that, within the circumstances, the Millennium trains represented reasonable value to the taxpayer. That statement was made in the context of all the required changes and all the documents we are now debating.

My understanding is that the Auditor-General had access to the bulk of that information, examined it, and made the assessment that the Millennium trains represent reasonable value. Because of that, I have no difficulty with the information being made public, but I strongly suggest that we do not put this Chamber in the position of supporting a proposition that exposes to commercial disadvantage companies that have tendered for government projects in good faith. That is the essence of my concern relating to this motion. It is sensible to have an independent arbiter examine the documents. I make the point that the significance lies not in the number of boxes but in the type of documents that honourable members are interested in. I invite honourable members to examine the documents but also to make sure that any matters that are made public do not jeopardise the commercial position of companies that have a bona fide involvement in the tendering process.

A great deal has been said about the performance of the Millennium trains. As I said before lunch, I understand that the Opposition has to explain its election defeat. Cover-up seems to be its mantra, but the public does not buy that, as evidenced by subsequent opinion polls. The real issue is whether the Hon. Greg Pearce will continue his campaign to challenge the Hon. Michael Gallacher for the leadership of the upper House. Clearly there must be some reason for all the grandstanding that is taking place. The fact is that the Hon. Greg Pearce is running the Millennium trains campaign, not the shadow Minister for Transport Services.

I am used to that, but politics should not be part of the decision to be made about these documents. The sole criterion that should apply is whether these documents should be published as a matter of public interest. Another factor to consider is whether publication will jeopardise the commercial and competitive position of bona fide tenderers, and the consequences of jeopardy if there is unrestricted publication of the documents.

I strongly suggest to the Opposition that it should consider those factors. If, after examining the documents, the independent arbiter agrees to their unrestricted publication, I would have absolutely no problem in recommending to my officers that we support the resolution. In the interests of making my position abundantly clear, I reiterate that the documents are available for inspection to any member of the upper House. There is nothing to stop any member of this Chamber examining the documents. It is not the case that members are being denied the opportunity of inspecting the documents, and it is not the case that members are being prevented from commenting on the documents. The issue, and the basis of my concern, is whether these documents should receive public exposure.

I acknowledge that transparency is important, but it is equally important to ensure that transparency is linked to the protection of the public interest and is not being used by the Opposition to score political points while breaching the confidentiality of commercial obligations or agreements entered into by tenderers. I suggest that an independent legal arbiter be appointed by the House to determine whether the documents should attract protection to fairly preserve the intellectual property and commercial-in-confidence rights of tenderers. The independent arbiter should report to Parliament at the earliest possible date. The process should be kept simple so that the Parliament is not burdened with an accusation that the process is expensive. [Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.45 p.m.]: As honourable members know, prior to the election there were a number of debates on this issue. The Hon. Greg Pearce has outlined the various court cases that were pursued to try to resolve the conflict. A number of honourable members, including me, played a major role in trying to work out a formula to resolve the dilemma about the publication of documents. A formula was agreed upon, and it has been the basis for motions that have been moved to allow documents to be tabled. The wording is as follows:

Where any member of the House, by communication in writing to the Clerk, disputes the validity of a claim of privilege in relation to a particular document—

(a) the Clerk is authorised to release the disputed documents to an independent legal arbiter for evaluation and report within five days as to the validity of the claim;

(b) the independent legal arbiter is to be appointed by the President and must be a Queen's Counsel, a Senior Counsel, or a retired Supreme Court Judge;

(c) the report of the independent legal arbiter is to be lodged with the Clerk of the House and

(i) made available only to members of the Legislative Council, and

(ii) not published without an order of the House.

That was the formula, but the motion moved by the Hon. Greg Pearce seeks to circumvent that process and provide immediately for the publication, without restriction, of all privileged documents that were lodged with the Clerk on Tuesday 27 May 2003 and Friday 6 June 2003.

The original motion set out the correct procedure and ensured that access to lodged documents would be restricted to two categories. The main arguments advanced by the Hon. Greg Pearce seems to be that such a large quantity of documents attract privilege—indeed, dozens of boxes of them—that the principle of privilege attaching to documents has become a joke. One would normally expect a small pile of documents attracting privilege that could be easily assessed by an independent legal arbiter. I am sure honourable members would not want an independent arbiter such as Sir Laurence Street to spend days going through 30, 40 or 50 boxes of documents. There is a practical problem associated with resolving this issue that is related to the manner in which the Government has supplied the documents in two categories.

However the point I make is that there is no doubt that the proper procedure should be retained without reverting to the law of the jungle. There must be some way through this conflict to arrive at a solution that is just and fair for all concerned. I note that the Hon. Greg Pearce quoted opinions of the Clerk and others to support the view that documents may be released, even if their release damages the public interest. But the whole point is that this House has absolute power, and it must exercise that power in a responsible manner.

It could be said that the House has absolute power, but it has to act responsibly. How should the House exercise its absolute power? I am sure no member of this House would want to do anything that would damage the public interest; our purpose is to do things in the public interest, not against it. If the documents are released will they damage, for example, a tender procedure? That power is an important part of the operation of a government, one which I am sure would be administered even more strongly by the Coalition than by the Government because of its various philosophical positions and strong emphasis on supporting free and private enterprise. The Coalition would not want anything done that would in some way embarrass companies and damage their future potential. We do not want companies to think that any material included in their tender documents would be made available to their competitors or to the public. Companies would see the publication of their documents by the upper House as irresponsible. The upper House has the power to do that, but should it do so?

In view of the large amount of material labelled as privileged, I suggest that we should follow the correct procedure. However, there should be an interim step: the Minister should give an assurance of another evaluation of the documents by the Government before an independent arbiter comes in. The Government should reassess and relabel the documents so that the independent arbiter would have to examine only a small quantity of legitimate documents that it is claimed are privileged. This has happened before. The Government could give an assurance, without the need for a motion, that it will follow correct procedure. However, in the interim the Government should urgently re-evaluate the privileged documents. The Government should separate the documents into accessible, public documents and those it considers to be privileged.

I hope that only a small quantity of documents will be claimed as privileged. They should be clearly identified as to whether they are tender documents or documents relating to government action. According to the procedures of the House, it would seem that we would be required to vote against the motion moved by the Hon. Greg Pearce. He will then need to communicate in writing to the Clerk, without the need for a motion—any member of the House can do that. I would support the Hon. Greg Pearce in doing that. In the interim, whatever time is needed, the Government should re-evaluate the tabled documents.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.52 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats believe that documents relevant to a contract entered into by the Government ought to be publicly available when the contract is signed. This is about our money and our trains. The Government's dealings with the successful tenderer should be public. The documents involved in the tendering process should also be public so that the process is seen as honourable. I was involved in a case in which the disability sector was tendering in the Hunter region. The public service carried out an exemplary evaluation process and the departmental memo had scrawled on it, "Number 4 is more innovative. Go with that one." That matter was referred to ICAC, which decided that the departmental selection process is only a guide to the Minister and that the Minister can do whatever he or she likes. That was quite unacceptable, especially as it took some time for the details to be made available following a freedom of information application. It is outrageous that the Government produces huge volumes of material that it considers to be privileged. Clearly, members do not have time to go through voluminous documents. In effect, that process obstructs members from getting to the truth. The Government is either obstructing members or it regards much material to be protected in its culture of secrecy—that is also cause for considerable concern.

In late 2001 I held a seminar on open government and invited people from the European Commission, Western Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand to speak. People can access the proceedings of that seminar on the Democrats web site if they follow the links. At that seminar the New Zealand representative mentioned their Official Information Act, under which documents can be kept privileged only by application to the Ombudsman. It is assumed that all information held by government departments should be available to the people. If the New Zealand Government wants documents to be kept secret, it has to say that it is necessary in the national interest. The arbiter of that decision is the Ombudsman, with any appeal going to the Supreme Court. When that radical legislation was passed in the mid 1980s the Ombudsman was, needless to say, deluged with huge amounts of public service applications for information to be kept secret. Unsure what to do, he knocked them all back. A couple of cases were taken to the Supreme Court, which the Ombudsman won. He now says that he gets very few applications, and they are quite meritorious. New Zealand has not suffered, as the doomsayers predicted—in fact, its Government works a great deal better for that clearing model.

In New South Wales we go about with a begging bowl, and every time we find something suspicious we debate it in this House. That is a huge waste of everyone's time. In my speech on my model of open government bill I said that the information included in successful tenders should be made public. The private enterprise response was that it generally did not mind, as long as the rules were stated in advance. That was the principal concern. Private enterprise was concerned that unsuccessful tenderers would have their information made publicly available, because their tender may contain information that they may use in another tender. In some ways I am inclined to think that if everyone knows what is going on the environment would be far more competitive. As such, it would be very much in the public interest. However, I take the point made by private enterprise on that matter. Generally, private enterprise was not concerned about the tenders. Often private enterprise negotiates much better than the public sector—indeed, the Government has far more to hide than the private sector. People do not know how much they are being ripped off by the Government.

My open government bill passed through this House and was introduced by Clover Moore in the lower House. It was referred to the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that committee will go to New Zealand to study its legislation, and perhaps some ramifications will flow to New South Wales. The whole ethos of the Government is secrecy. The Government is rather excited about this commercial in-confidence because it means that it can make deals and its members can act like big businessmen. This is almost like something out of Nikolai Gogol's Government Inspector. The Government has abused the process of having only members look at documents; it is a source of great concern. The Government is suddenly taking things frightfully seriously and backing off, but I think that it is just posturing. We have to establish the principle that public documents should be public. Therefore, this motion should be supported.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA (Minister for Police) [2.59 p.m.], by leave: All honourable members who contributed to debate on this motion acted maturely in an attempt to resolve this matter, to maintain transparency and public openness and, at the same time, to protect commercial interests. I thank Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Opposition members for co-operating in this manner. The Government is drafting some form of words to give the sorts of assurances that are being sought. The departments that are involved—not the Government—will go through those boxes to reduce the number of privileged documents. The documents that should remain under privilege are those that relate to tender arrangements or confidential contracts. As I said earlier, I do not have any issue in relation to the remaining documents. I cannot say that people have been overly zealous as I have not seen the documents and I do not know what is in the boxes. In an attempt to resolve this matter, I am happy to give an assurance that all those documents will be reassessed.

The Hon MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [3.01 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Greg Pearce. I support the statements he made relating to safety, security and community confidence in the provision by this Government of significant services such as the Millennium train. Of course, the Government has a different view on this issue. I congratulate the Minister for Transport Services on recognising the need for a further reassessment of these privileged documents. I have had a look at the considerable amount of material that is in those boxes. The Government has given us a clear undertaking that it will re-examine those documents and that, in itself, will make the job of this Chamber much easier. If we were sure that the community was confident about this system and about the maintenance of these trains we would have achieved one of our important goals.

When the Minister contributed to debate on this motion earlier today he had a lot to say about the business community's perception of the Opposition's position in relation to this issue. The Minister, who made a fairly broad-brush statement, failed to recognise the changing focus and emphasis of the business community in its dealings with the Government and, to use the Minister's words, its understanding of the level of accountability and transparency relating to this process. The business community, through the private-public partnership to which the Minister referred earlier, will enter into the tendering process and supply services and goods that were previously supplied by the Government. When the business community enters into that tendering process the first thing it wants to establish is whether the specifications spelled out in the tender are achievable. It wants to be able to offer to the Government specifications that meet those tender requirements.

The business community requires a timely decision by the Government and by government departments in the main. This is about lifting the level of professionalism in the business community when it enters into an agreement with a government department to provide services to the New South Wales public. The business community wants to be sure that it can achieve its goals. It wants to know that it will be able to provide services efficiently and that it will maintain an ongoing relationship with the Government in order to achieve that end. At the end of the day, the Government wants the product for which it has paid or which it requested during the tendering process. This responsibility does not fall on the person who is buying or supplying the goods; it falls on the Government, which sets the parameters in the tender process and determines what services should be delivered.

Earlier in debate the Hon. Greg Pearce referred to achieving levels of accountability and scrutiny that had never been seen before. We require certainty from the Government. The community, the Parliament and the business community want certainty in their dealings with the Government. In the remaining 3½ years that this Government is in office, we will continue to scrutinise government infrastructure as expectations increase in both the public and private sector. Ministers can no longer get away with the shonky deals and substandard management that this Minister has got away with in the past. He was fairly relaxed at the Labor Council because there was not a lot of scrutiny, he did not have to deal with the public, he could occasionally issue a press statement and his picture was published in Workers Online.

The Minister was able to do some of these things in the police portfolio, but his purse strings are much bigger in the transport portfolio, and the level of scrutiny and accountability is far greater. The Minister should not be offended when reasonable questions are asked of him during debate in this Chamber. Opposition members, on behalf of the community, ask questions relating to transport and the travelling public of this State. When people board a Millennium or Tangara train they want some certainty that they will be able to disembark from that train. They want safety and quality of service. As someone who has travelled on public transport for many years I am aware that employers do not take too kindly to the daily excuse that trains were late yet again. Members of the public are looking for quality services. They want trains that are clean, that run on time and that meet community expectations.

Earlier the Minister said that Opposition members were using scaremongering tactics to frighten the travelling public. We are not trying to frighten the public; we are trying to ensure transparency in this process. It is part of our duties as members in this Chamber to ensure that the community has confidence in the services that are provided. If the Millennium train is falling to pieces we should be able to ask the Minister questions about it. All honourable members want to ensure that quality products are provided to the community by this Government—for example, buildings, rail services and other infrastructure. We want an increased level of transparency from this Minister. The Minister should not be so offended when we question him in the future.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Reasonable questions.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: These questions are reasonable. The Government knew for six months that there were problems with the Millennium trains but it did not act until the Opposition called for the trains to be taken off the tracks.

The Hon. Michael Costa: No, you didn't.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Minister knows it is true.

The Hon. Michael Costa: That is not right; we took them off.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Minister is correct: He withdrew the Millennium trains from service about three hours after I spoke at Central railway station and called for those trains to be taken off the tracks.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Were you talking to yourself at Central?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: No, the platform was packed. The State Rail Authority thought it would make a huge profit that day but people were there only to hear the Opposition call for the Millennium trains to be removed from service in the best interests of the community and travelling public. The Minister's problem—it has become apparent with the release of the Auditor-General's recent report—is that the issues raised by the Opposition in April that warranted the trains' removal from service were only the tip of the iceberg. The Government was aware of many other problems with the trains but the Minister did not come clean about that until the Auditor-General's report was released. Honourable members may recall that in the previous sitting week the Minister was asked whether a Millennium train had been used on a revenue service in a metropolitan area.

The Hon. Michael Costa: It wasn't a revenue service.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: That is correct.

The Hon. Michael Costa: It was testing; normal testing.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: But the testing went haywire with the release of the Auditor-General's report, which detailed a new series of concerns about the Millennium trains. The Minister gave us the impression during the previous sitting week that this matter was being finalised. However, the Auditor-General's report tipped everything on its head and revealed a raft of new problems with the Millennium trains. Be that as it may, the Opposition is prepared to work with the community, and hopefully with the Government, to resolve these issues. The Minister made some accommodation this afternoon and said that he will go through the remaining boxes—there are about 100—and remove those documents that would not be subject to privilege in normal circumstances. That will give crossbench members—who I believe are extremely interested in the progress of this debate—an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the relevant documents.

I thank honourable members for allowing me to speak to this motion this afternoon. I would like to think we are slowly reaching the conclusion of this matter. In his earlier contribution the Minister emphasised the negative aspects of this debate. I am pleased that he has now seen sense and returned after the lunch break to say that he is prepared to work with Opposition and crossbench members to achieve transparency in regard to the Millennium trains. We have not had transparency before now but I would like to think that it will be achieved by the time this matter is concluded. The Hon. Greg Pearce put considerable thought into his contribution.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Michael, tell us about some of your famous train trips.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As a long-time commuter to Sydney from the Central Coast, I am an experienced train traveller. I look forward to the time when the Government meets its 1998 commitment to remove some bends from the Central Coast to Sydney rail link and to increase the speed of that service. The Minister commented yesterday about my recent train travel experiences overseas, where many good things are happening with regard to rail services. In many countries standard class train passengers are served food and drink. Such facilities would be great on the daily services that originate on the Central Coast and the South Coast, which can take up to two hours to reach Sydney—if they are running on time and there are no delays! A future Coalition government will examine with great interest the timeliness, cleanliness and overall quality of rail services overseas. I will not burden the Chamber further this afternoon. We can see some light at the end of the tunnel and we appear to be on track to resolve this matter once and for all. I thank the Hon. Greg Pearce for moving this motion. I thank the Minister for capitulating and recognising that the Government must lift its game.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.16 p.m.], by leave: I move:

That the motion be amended by the addition of the following paragraphs:

(2) That before any documents are released for publication, the relevant departments and authorities are to reassess their claim of privilege on the documents and provide to the Clerk of the House, within 14 days of the passing of this resolution:

(a) a list of those documents which should not, in the public interest, be released for publication,

(b) reasons in support of the claim of privilege.

(3) Any documents identified under paragraph 2 (a) may not be published without a further order of the House under the terms of the original order of the House.

This amendment formalises the proposal that I foreshadowed in my earlier contribution. I commend it to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.18 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Government for taking this matter seriously and for attempting to address honourable members' concerns about various departments' abuse of the process established by the House. Those departments sought to ignore the law and to abuse the rights and privileges of this place. The Minister for Transport Services should appreciate that this is an extraordinary situation. The confidence of the business community is being tested not because Parliament is asserting its rights but because the State Rail Authority, the Rail Infrastructure Corporation and the State Government have mismanaged this issue. One cannot have delays of three years, a $114 million cost blow-out, hundreds of defects, technical non-compliance and the failure of the Government's management and planning processes and expect that the business community will be happy to undertake business and work with the Government in that environment.

To reiterate a couple of points made by the Leader of the Opposition: the commercial community wants a tender process and an environment to deal with the Government, in which the Government and government entities produce accurate and achievable tenders. In this case the report of the Auditor-General on the Millennium train showed that the Government did not understand its own infrastructure limitations. One of the issues raised was the unachievable tender specifications in relation to the power issue.

The business community expects timely decision making. Again the Auditor-General exposed the fact that the Government took 17 months to make a decision on the tender and then did not effectively manage the dispute process which arose during the construction phase. The private sector also wants to know that the costs of tendering will be reasonable. In this case the delay, erroneous specifications and the mismanagement that occurred in the early period obviously incurred great costs for the tenderers and militated against a successful outcome. Most important, of course, is that the business community and the public generally expects that there will be efficient management and control during the construction and delivery phase.

The business community also wants a guarantee that the process will not be interfered with by the unions: that is a great concern. Again the report of the Auditor-General disclosed that the Labor Council sought to interfere in the contract for the Millennium trains by trying to remove one of the fundamental parts of the contract, that is, the maintenance section. Perhaps the Minister will debate that matter with me on another occasion. When running infrastructure projects the Government has to ensure that there is certainty both in the Government's plans and in the personnel involved. The report of the Auditor-General also disclosed that the Carr Government's 1996 restructure of State Rail, and the frequent personnel changes that occurred afterwards, contributed to the mismanagement of the project.

The business community needs to know that there will not be continual knee-jerk and arbitrary interference in what is happening. I am interested to know whether the recent interventions of the Minister—particularly his decision to take the trains out of service and the like—will result in the problems being resolved and the trains coming back into service in an economical, timely and efficient manner. Most importantly, the business community does not want an environment of secrecy in which mistakes are covered up. It does not want a government in the lead-up to an election entering into a secret deal—as this Government did in November of last year. That deal was uncovered by the Auditor-General, and it no doubt will be the subject of much of the material produced.

Finally, the business community wants an economic environment that is conducive to good government and growth. Whilst this is not the occasion to comment on the budget, the failure of the Government to address payroll tax, workers compensation, stamp duty imposts and the like in Australia's highest taxed State, and its failure to deal with unfair dismissal laws, are impediments to growth and business opportunities in this State. I am aware of, and support, the concerns expressed about the impact of disclosing financial details of tenderers and corporations. Obviously I am happy that the Government is prepared to disclose the documents that ought to be disclosed. The only documents that should remain privileged are those that are lawfully privileged. It is a matter for the various departments and their lawyers, in the period envisaged in the amendments, to make a genuine reappraisal of the documents and to release those that are not subject to proper claims of privilege.

The departments ought to take a sensible approach to the very bulky detailed specifications and planning results, tables et cetera, that they have disclosed. Such documents are not really germane to the matters about which the public has expressed an interest. The public is interested in documents that reflect what happened in the management process and in dealings between the Government and other parties. This is an exceptional occasion. In the past, from what I have seen, the process of tabling documents has generally worked reasonably well. However, in this case, there has been the combination of a mismanaged project, to which I have already referred, and a secret deal in the lead-up to the election, and we now have a response that, in my view—given the production of voluminous documents that are the subject of spurious claims of privilege—is clearly an abuse of the processes of this House. It should not happen again.

I hope that the process that is now being adopted will ensure that lessons are learnt in terms of the procurement of infrastructure. I hope that the Government stops trying to con the public about such things and learns its lesson to ensure we do not have another mil-lemon—that we have a Millennium train that has been fixed and that will do the right thing for the people of New South Wales. I commend the amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and thank him for his assistance in this matter. I commend the amended motion to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

Second reading to stand as an order of the day.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On 21 May the Hon. Malcolm Jones asked me, in my capacity as Minister representing the Attorney General, a question without notice regarding the use of closed-circuit television facilities in child sexual assault processing. The following response was provided by the Attorney General:

Neither the New South Wales Bureau of Crimes Statistics and Research nor the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions retain data on the number of cases that employ closed-circuit television facilities to ease the trauma for children involved as witnesses in those cases. The Evidence (Children) Act 1997 provides that children giving evidence in sexual assault matters have a right to use closed-circuit television [CCTV] facilities to give evidence if they choose to do so. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions advises that available facilities are being utilised by those children who wish to give evidence via CCTV and this is occurring in the majority of cases. There are currently 66 closed-circuit television units servicing 100 courtrooms throughout the State. The CCTVs are kept in good repair and are regularly maintained every six weeks by contractors. There are also two portable systems that can be used to supplement existing systems in courts where permanent facilities are currently unavailable

The Attorney Generals Department is planning to undertake a detailed study of a capability of existing systems to comply with the requirements of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 and the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998. In March 2003, the Government commenced a pilot project in Sydney West to trial a specialist child sexual assault jurisdiction. A key feature of the pilot is the use of upgraded technology both within existing courtrooms and at a dedicated child-friendly remote witness facility at Parramatta. State-of-the-art technology has been installed in courts at Parramatta, including dual 42-inch plasma screens to allow for split screen capabilities and document cameras for high quality transmission of exhibits. Work to install similar equipment at courts in Penrith and Campbelltown is currently underway. A purpose built offsite remote witness facility at Parramatta will be capable of servicing courts at Parramatta, Penrith and Campbelltown once upgraded technology has been installed at those complexes.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [3.30 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the criminal law and procedure of New South Wales. The amendments are designed to improve the administration of the criminal justice system, and include: evidence in bail proceedings; child sexual assault proceedings; investigation powers; sentencing options and related procedure; criminal procedure, including appeals and sentencing procedure; and criminal proceedings affecting the mentally ill and cognitively impaired. Many of the amendments are self-explanatory and do not require further explanation. There are, however, some matters that are more complex and require more detailed explanation as to their intended effect. I will now deal with these matters.

Schedule 1 to the bill amends section 32 of the Bail Act to clarify that, in respect of evidence under that section, the court is not bound by the principles or rules of law governing the admission of evidence. This amendment does not affect the general power of a court to control the conduct of proceedings. Parties to the bail proceedings may tender evidence to assist the court in making a reasoned determination based on all available evidence that is trustworthy and credible. This resolves an apparent inconsistency with section 4 of the Evidence Act 1995, which broadly states that the Evidence Act applies in bail proceedings. This amendment clarifies that, for the purposes of section 32 of the Bail Act, the Evidence Act does not apply, unless, of course, the court directs.

The bill makes several important amendments to further protect children in New South Wales. Items [6] and [10] of schedule 6 amend the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to give effect to an election commitment. The amendments provide that a person convicted of a sexual offence against a child under 16 years of age, or sexual assault against any person, cannot be sentenced to imprisonment to be served by way of periodic detention. Appellate courts have consistently held that these offences are extremely serious, especially when they relate to children, and that such offences should normally merit full-time custodial sentences.

Periodic detention has been held by the courts to be a salutary punishment involving the continuous obligation of complying with an order week in and week out over a lengthy period of time. By its very nature, however, periodic detention has a strong element of leniency already built into it and it is outwardly less severe in its denunciation of the crime than full-time imprisonment. Periodic detention is an inappropriate punishment for these categories of offences, especially where child victims are involved. The amendment also provides that a person convicted of an offence relating to sexual intercourse committed against a person of any age cannot be sentenced to periodic detention.

Schedules 8 and 10 of the bill make certain important amendments to reform criminal proceedings in child sexual assault matters. These amendments have been advanced ahead of more comprehensive proposals for reforms in the area of child sexual assault in order to facilitate the smooth operation of the Pilot Child Sexual Assault Specialist Jurisdiction that the Government established in Western Sydney earlier this year. These reforms arise primarily from recommendations contained in the November 2002 report of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice on child sexual assault prosecutions. They are also consistent with practical experience gained since the commencement of the Pilot Child Sexual Assault Jurisdiction.

The first of these amendments exempts child complainants in sexual assault proceedings from giving evidence in committal hearings. Under the amendments made by items [1] and [2] of schedule 8, child complainants in sexual assault proceedings will be completely exempted from being subject to a direction by the court to attend to give oral evidence at committal. A "child complainant" will include a child who was under 16 years of age when the alleged offence was committed, and is under 18 years of age at the time the committal hearing proceeds. Giving evidence at committal hearings can be more distressing for children than giving evidence at trial as counsel may not be as restrained at committal where a jury is not present. This amendment will reduce the number of times a child is subject to cross-examination over the course of a sexual assault prosecution, thereby reducing the re-traumatisation associated with multiple court appearances.

Items [1] to [3] of schedule 10 relate to children giving evidence by way of audio-video prerecording. Section 11 of the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 provides that a recording of a child's initial investigative interview with the police may be admitted as that child's evidence in chief. A disturbing practice has emerged, however, whereby the child complainant is observed via closed-circuit television, watching their own prerecorded interview by all parties present in the courtroom. This practice is not required by the Evidence (Children) Act 1997, nor is it consistent with the objects and purposes of the Act. Requiring the child to be observed while watching a recording of their initial disclosure to police may be unnecessarily stressful to the complainant. Further, the jury and the parties in the courtroom may misinterpret the behaviour displayed by the child while watching the recording. Arguably this also distracts the jury from the most important evidence being given on the prerecorded tape. Accordingly, items [1] to [3] of schedule 10 amend the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 to provide that the child is not to be viewed by the court while such a recording is being played.

Where the audio quality of a prerecorded police tape is unclear, the prosecution may have to dispense with the tape as evidence and instead require the child to give evidence in chief. This may have a detrimental effect on the child and is inconsistent with the objectives of the Act. As there has been confusion regarding the use of transcripts in this context, item [4] of schedule 10 clarifies that a court may exercise its discretion to permit a transcript, or an edited version of that transcript, of the pre-recorded complaint to police, to be supplied to the jury to assist the jury in understanding that recording. This amendment is consistent with established practice with respect to other recorded evidence, such as police electronic recording of interviews with suspects.

Schedules 2 and 15 correct inconsistent penalties in child protection offences. Section 6 of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 sets out the offence of a prohibited person applying for, undertaking or remaining in child-related employment. Section 11G of the Summary Offences Act 1988 sets out a similar offence of loitering by convicted child sexual offenders near premises frequented by children. Despite their similarity, the penalties are not consistent. Schedules 2 and 15 correct this anomaly by providing for the same maximum penalty, namely two years imprisonment and/or 100 penalty units, for both offences.

Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Crimes Act. Items [4] and [5] of schedule 3 amend the Crimes Act 1900 to provide that the Governor or the Attorney General may refuse to deal with a petition to the Governor for a review of a conviction or sentence of the exercise of the Governor's pardoning power if the convicted person has not exercised a right of appeal or has withdrawn an appeal or allowed it to lapse. Similar provisions are inserted in relation to applications to the Supreme Court by items [6] and [7] of that schedule.

Schedule 4 of the bill amends the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 in two main respects. Items [1] and [2] of schedule 4 amend the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 so that police can exclude an interview friend of a suspect present under sections 54 or 55 if they believe on reasonable grounds that the interview friend may be a co-offender or involved in some other way in the commission of the alleged offence. Under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Act 2002, police were given the power to exclude an interview friend on these grounds in relation to section 10 of the Act. However, due to an omission, the powers were not amended in respect of sections 54 and 55. This amendment corrects that omission.

Items [3] to [6] of schedule 4 relate to the operation of the CrimTrac database. CrimTrac will enable the matching, on a national basis, of DNA profiles taken from crime scenes, suspects, known criminals, volunteers, missing persons and unidentified bodies. These amendments are necessary in order for New South Wales to participate in the national DNA database scheme by way of CrimTrac and are intended to facilitate the interjurisdictional exchange of DNA information under the Act. These amendments will allow New South Wales to disclose DNA database information to CrimTrac, which CrimTrac can then match against information received from other jurisdictions. If there is a match, CrimTrac will alert New South Wales and the other jurisdiction that there has been a match. New South Wales and the other jurisdiction are then able to negotiate directly whether to exchange information. These amendments will enable CrimTrac to function as an intermediary in the interjurisdictional exchange of DNA database information.

Schedule 5 amends the definition of "sentence" in the Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001, which is to commence on 7 July 2003, to ensure that appeals under that Act may be made in relation to non-association and place restriction orders under section 17A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in the same way as they can presently be made under the provisions of the Justices Act 1902, which is to be replaced by the 2001 Act.

Schedule 6 makes several amendments to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Item [1] of schedule 6 amends that Act to provide that a court cannot partially suspend a sentence. Section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 empowers a court to suspend a sentence and, during the term of the suspension, impose a good behaviour bond. The nature of the suspended sentence is that the sentence does not come into force unless the offender breaches the terms of a good behaviour bond, and the bond is revoked by the court. In Regina v Gamgee, 2001, NSWCCA 251, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that upon strict construction of section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 suspension of part of a term of imprisonment is permitted, such suspension being allowed to commence at a future date.

When a sentencing judge determines that a sentence is to be suspended then the whole sentence should be suspended. To order that an offender go into custody to serve a sentence after an initial period of suspension of the sentence can cause considerable hardship to the offender. It also causes difficulties for the Department of Corrective Services in administering the sentence. Items [2] to [5] of schedule 6 amend the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in relation to sentence construction so that under section 59 of the Act a court may review all concurrent and consecutive sentences that are in excess of the sentence the subject of the appeal. The object of section 59 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 is to enable an appellate court, when quashing or varying a sentence of imprisonment, to also vary the date of any consecutive sentence, being a sentence that is to commence at the expiration of the sentence—or non-parole period—of the sentence quashed or varied.

The power exists in order to ameliorate any injustice that may be occasioned to the successful appellant, so that they are not serving a term of imprisonment that was intended to run concurrently or partially concurrently with a sentence that has been subsequently quashed on appeal. This amendment is intended to overcome the difficulty that arose in the case of Regina v O'Donohe, Nos 1 and 2, 2001, NSWCCA 495. As currently drafted, the Act distinguishes between a consecutive and concurrent sentence, and as the court rightly noted, it cannot be said that the meaning of consecutive sentence can be extended to include concurrent sentence. Item [3] of schedule 7 amends section 7 (1A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to provide the Court of Criminal Appeal with the power to quash or vary sentences passed at trial not only in relation to matters where there is a single indictment, but also in relation to a number of other matters.

Schedule 8 makes several amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act. Items [3] to [7] of schedule 8 improve the efficiency of the court, and items [8] and [9] correct an inconsistency. Schedule 9 amends the Drug Court Act 1998 to allow the Drug Court to deal with a breach of a section 12 bond under the sentencing provisions of that Act. The options currently available to any court, including the Drug Court, when sentencing an offender for breach of bonds under section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 are limited to periodic detention, home detention or full-time imprisonment only. These amendments give the Drug Court the discretion to deal with breach of section 12 bond matters with the same range of sentencing options that are available for all other matters referred to the Drug Court under section 6 of the Drug Court Act. This will mean that the Drug Court no longer has to send these persons back to the original sentencing court because of its limited sentencing options. This has resulted in significant delays and, because the ballot system is clogging up, many people who would otherwise be suitable have been denied entry to the program. That is an oversight that should be rectified.

Finally, I turn to reform of criminal proceedings affecting people who are mentally ill or have an intellectual disability. Schedule 12 amends section 24 of Mental Health Act 1990, to clarify that a police officer may arrest a person and take the person to a hospital to be assessed for mental illness or mental disorder where the person appears to have attempted serious harm not only to themselves, but to another person. Items [1] to [5] of schedule 13 amend sections 31 and 33 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 to clarify that in all bail proceedings in the Local Court, when a person appears before the court in relation to charges that may be triable summarily and who appears to be mentally ill, the court may order that the person be taken to a hospital for assessment. If, at the hospital, the person is not found to be mentally ill under the Mental Health Act 1990, the person is immediately brought back before the court and a bail determination is then made. If, however, the person is assessed to be mentally ill under the Mental Health Act, the person may be released into the care of the hospital, and unless the person is brought before a magistrate again within six months of the first appearance, then the charge is taken to be dismissed.

The amendment clarifies that authorised officers who preside over out-of-hours bail courts, such as the weekend bail court at Parramatta Local Court, may make such orders. This important provision will ensure that, at an early stage of contact with the criminal justice system, persons who are mentally ill and should instead be subject to care and treatment under the Mental Health Act are diverted into the health care system. Items [6] and [7] of schedule 13 amend section 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 confirming court discretion, so that after a finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness and pending the court's final orders in relation to the person the court is empowered to order a person's detention or release on such terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate.

This amendment expressly overrides the case of Regina v Stephens, 1999, NSWSC 811, where Justice Levine held that the use of the word "detain" meant that the court must order the detention of the person in some form of secure custody, that is, either a gaol or a hospital. Hospital or detention in custody is usually inappropriate where the person has an intellectual disability, or has recovered from his or her mental illness at the time he or she appears before the court, and who presents no danger to the community. This amendment will give the court an alternative to ordering detention in a hospital or in custody, allowing a court to make orders, for example, in the same terms as bail conditions the person may have complied with for the duration of the trial. In conclusion, the bill contains a number of changes that are necessary for the continuing development of an efficient and equitable criminal justice system in New South Wales. This bill represents the Government's ongoing commitment to the review and improvement of the administration of justice in this State. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. John Ryan.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [3.48 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill has been developed as a measured response to ongoing activities of drug traffickers in this State. It establishes a trial of a new power for police to stop vehicles to employ a drug detection dog. The power requires the issue of a Supreme Court warrant and is issued on the basis of information suggesting the area in question is used or will be used for drug trafficking. The trial will be conducted in certain border areas of southern New South Wales. For several years now, NSW Police operations in southern New South Wales have identified that large quantities of cannabis are being smuggled over the border from Victoria and South Australia into New South Wales.

NSW Police has detected persons driving to these States with large amounts of cash and returning with large amounts of drugs. NSW Police has seized cannabis, heroin and amphetamine as well as cash and firearms during these operations. These are not small-time dealers; persons have been caught with as much as 24 kilograms of cannabis, which I am told has a street value of approximately $500,000. Of course, police currently have a range of powers to stop and search vehicles for drugs. Under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, a police officer may stop and search a vehicle if he or she has a reasonable suspicion that drugs are in the vehicle. The Police Powers (Vehicles) Act 1998 permits a search to be conducted when there is a reasonable suspicion that a vehicle or class of vehicle to which the vehicle belongs is reasonably suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of an indictable offence.

Both these Acts still require a reasonable suspicion to attach to the vehicle before it may lawfully be stopped. This is an appropriate safeguard in our society that recognises that there must be a check on the use of powers by police. Police should not be able to stop and search vehicles completely at random. However, the requirement for reasonable suspicion to attach to the vehicle being searched can prevent police from using generic intelligence about patterns of criminal activity.

Police in southern New South Wales have been running their operations against drug traffickers for some years. During this time they have built up a picture of how the traffickers operate: what routes they use, what vehicles they prefer, the time of day they travel. This kind of generic intelligence will not usually meet the requirement that reasonable suspicion must attach to a vehicle to be stopped and searched. This bill carefully balances the need to retain a check on police powers while giving police the chance to show the value of the generic intelligence they gain by studying the modus operandi of drug traffickers.

The bill therefore maintains the requirement for reasonable suspicion. This provides for the essential process of judicial review of police intelligence material. It prevents there being a random power to stop and search. However the bill requires that the reasonable suspicion must attach not to a particular vehicle but to the geographical area. This means that when police can make a case to a Supreme Court judge that drug dealers are trafficking large quantities of drugs regularly in a given area, a warrant may be issued to permit police to stop any vehicle in that area. If police cannot make out a case, the Supreme Court will refuse to issue the warrant. The bill therefore adopts the approach taken in the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001, which permits drug detection dogs to be used under warrant in public places where there is reasonable suspicion that the persons in a public place may include persons committing drug offences. While there is a reasonable suspicion, it does not attach to a specific person in the public area.

I will now outline the major features of the bill. Clause 3 defines the area in which the trial will occur. It is in an area of 100 kilometres along the New South Wales border with Victoria and South Australia, and at three other designated points at Hay, Naranderra and the Birdcage, which is a truck stop on the Sturt Highway. The trial will be conducted in a radius of 20 kilometres around each of these three points.

The dimensions of the trial areas have been determined in consultation with operational police. They give the police flexibility to site checkpoints in a variety of areas to keep the drug traffickers guessing. The three areas at Hay, Naranderra and the Birdcage have been especially requested by police as they are natural choke points where main roads converge. They also offer hard standing off the side of the road and have strong lighting. These features promote safety for all concerned, particularly in night operations. The depth of the border zone and the 20 kilometre radius around each of the three choke points will reduce the capacity of drug traffickers to bypass these points.

Clauses 5 and 6 provide how a warrant application is to be made. Police must first get approval from the Commissioner of Police or a Deputy Commissioner of Police to apply to the Supreme Court. Police must submit to the commissioner or deputy a proposal showing the area to be affected, the information police have about drug movements in that area, a plan for the operation, including personnel required and a description of consultation with the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA]. RTA consultation will be important to minimise traffic disruption and promote road safety during searches. The commissioner or deputy may approve the application only if he or she is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to suspect that any part or all of the search area is being, or is to be, used on a regular basis for or in connection with the supply of indictable quantities of prohibited drugs or prohibited plants.

This test permits police to adduce information relating to drug dealing in the past or in the future. For instance, police could use a telecommunications interception stating that a quantity of drugs is to be moved in the future but not stating precisely the vehicle or time. The term "regular" is not defined in the bill. It has its ordinary meaning and case law will build up over time indicating what type of frequency of drug trafficking must be shown. The term "in connection with the supply of drugs" broadens the test beyond evidence of actual drug seizures. It would permit, for instance, police to adduce evidence of persons who had been picked up carrying large amounts of cash to Victoria or South Australia for the purpose of buying drugs.

The term "indictable quantities of prohibited drugs or plants" refers to the existing system established under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 for classifying different weights of drugs. The weight of a drug that constitutes an indictable quantity varies with the type of drug. For instance, an indictable quantity of cannabis leaf is one kilogram whereas an indictable quantity of heroin is five grams. These amounts are not small. One kilogram of cannabis leaf constitutes 500 to 1,000 street deals, which is worth about $20,000. Five grams of heroin is about 25 street deals, which is worth about $1,500. These amounts are too much for a person to have for personal use. This is reflected in section 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, which states that if a person has above a certain quantity of drugs in his or her possession, he or she is deemed to have those drugs with the intention of supplying them to others—that is, the person is deemed to be a drug trafficker. An indictable quantity of drugs is above this quantity.

Under the current law, a person with an indictable quantity of a drug is deemed to have that drug to sell to others. This is a further safeguard under the bill. Police will not be able to adduce evidence of minor seizures of drugs possessed for personal use. This legislation is specifically aimed at detecting the trafficking of indictable quantities of prohibited drugs, not offences of minor possession. Clause 5 also provides that the approval of the commissioner or deputy commissioner to apply for a warrant lasts a maximum of 72 hours. The role of the commissioner or deputy commissioner in this process may not be delegated. Clause 6 provides the procedure for applying to the Supreme Court once the approval of the commissioner or a deputy is gained. The application is to include the area to be subject to the warrant; the information on the basis of which the warrant is sought; a plan of the operation, including the number of officers and dogs to be used; the authorisation given by the commissioner or deputy commissioner; and the proposed expiry date for the warrant.

Clause 7 provides that a warrant permits searches to be carried out in a maximum of three one kilometre square areas. Police will be able to choose where these three search areas are. The limit of three one kilometre search areas gives police the scope to establish multiple checkpoints simultaneously or move them to maintain the element of surprise, but balances this against the need to have traffic moving freely. I note that police can establish multiple checkpoints simultaneously within each of the one kilometre square zones. This permits police to set, for instance, a checkpoint on a main road and simultaneously on a nearby side road, to stop drug traffickers bypassing the checkpoint on the main road. Clause 8 provides that the Supreme Court judge who issues the warrant must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect any part or all of the search area is being, or is to be, used on a regular basis for or in connection with the supply of indictable quantities of prohibited drugs or prohibited plants.

Clauses 9, 10 and 11 set out the way the warrants operate and what powers are conferred. A police officer may establish checkpoints and stop vehicles at them. All checkpoints must have signage. When a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint, police are first to provide evidence they are police if they are not in uniform, give their names and places of duty, give the reason for the vehicle being stopped, and inform the passengers that it may be an offence not to comply with police directions.

Once that is done, police are initially to use a drug detection dog to check the vehicle. This is a fast and non-intrusive way of checking the vehicle for drugs. Police are required to keep the dogs under control and to take all reasonable measures to prevent a dog from touching a person. Clause 11 makes it clear that when drug detection dogs check a vehicle they will generally remain outside the vehicle, except in relation to commercial vehicles. Clause 11 states also that dogs are not permitted in the passenger area of a vehicle unless the officer is permitted to search it. This means that the officer must have formed a reasonable suspicion about the vehicle. This would occur for instance if the dog made a positive detection or if the police officer saw something suspicious about the vehicle.

If a dog is permitted inside the passenger area by reason of there being a reasonable suspicion, the dog may not enter the passenger compartment until all passengers have exited. Clause 11 states also that dogs are permitted in the non-passenger areas of commercial or public passenger vehicles to perform a detection. This is a new power of entry that the bill gives police. It means that, for instance, a police officer could direct that the driver of a heavy goods vehicle or a tourist coach open the hold of the vehicle to permit the dog to enter. No reasonable suspicion would be required for this. This acknowledges that such vehicles are used to transport large quantities of drugs. I am advised by police that drug detection dogs will be able to detect drugs in the sealed boot of a car without having to go inside the boot, but might not detect drugs stored in the hold of a heavy goods vehicle if they are not able to enter the hold.

It is not the Government's intention that drug detection dogs should enter ordinary cars that happen to be used for a commercial purpose unless there is a reasonable suspicion. The dogs are sensitive enough to be able to detect drugs in the sealed boot of a car. The power of entry created here is to apply to larger vehicles that are used for commercial purposes, such as coaches and trucks. Clause 11 notes also that these provisions do not override any existing search powers that police have. So if, for instance, a police officer looks through the window of a stopped car and sees something that creates in his or her mind a reasonable suspicion, a search may be carried out under existing law. Clause 12 requires that police provide a notice to persons who are subject to the powers under the Act. This will note that the person has been stopped under the Act, and provide the date, time, location and the name of the officer in question.

Clause 13 requires functions under the Act to be carried out as speedily as possible and with respect for the privacy of persons subject to the powers, and that police ask persons to co-operate with the use of the powers. Clause 14 stipulates that a warrant has effect for a maximum of 72 hours from the time it commences. Warrants cannot be extended, but fresh applications can be made. Clause 16 establishes offences relating to drug detection warrants. A person must not without reasonable excuse obstruct or hinder a person executing or assisting in the execution of a drug detection warrant. Nor must a person without reasonable excuse fail or refuse to stop a vehicle when directed to do so or fail to comply with any other direction given. The maximum penalty is 10 penalty units, which is the same as for random breath testing station offences.

As this bill is introduced to conduct a trial of these new powers, it also contains various provisions to assist with an objective assessment of the trial. Clause 17 requires that comprehensive records of each warrant operation be kept, including the number of officers and dogs, the number of vehicles stopped and the number searched, the number of persons searched, the reason for each search, and the number and nature of all things seized. A summary of this information is to be included in the NSW Police annual report. Clause 18 makes clear that the bill does not create any new search powers but that it does create a new power of entry.

As I have said, the new powers that the bill creates relate to the power to stop vehicles to permit the use of a drug detection dog, and the power to permit a dog to enter the non-passenger compartments of commercial and public passenger vehicles. However, for a police officer to search a person or vehicle, the search must be lawful under existing legislation: that is, reasonable suspicion must apply to that specific person or that specific vehicle. Clause 22 requires the Ombudsman to monitor the first nine months of the trial and report to the Minister for Police and the Attorney General at the end of the first 12 months of the trial. The Ombudsman's report will be tabled in Parliament. The review period is shorter than normal but the Government wishes to get a clear idea of the results and conduct of the trial as soon as possible. Clause 23 states that the Act expires 18 months after its commencement. This gives the Government six months to consider the Ombudsman's report and the results of the trial. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, and Minister for the Central Coast) [4.06 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill introduces a number of further reforms to the Workers Compensation legislation. The bill can be summarised as follows. Schedules 1 and 2 to the bill make miscellaneous amendments to the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, including encouraging employers to notify injuries on time by providing financial incentives through the claims excess, to make miscellaneous amendments to the structure and procedure of the Workers Compensation Commission to improve the administration of the commission, and other minor amendments. Schedule 3 makes various minor amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 to provide consistency within the legislative scheme. Schedule 4 amends the Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942 to ensure that the current ability of the Dust Diseases Board to recover money from negligent third parties to reimburse the Dust Diseases Board is effective.

I will now outline the more significant amendments in more detail. Schedule 1 to the bill makes various miscellaneous amendments to the Workers Compensation Act 1987, including an amendment to the time limit to initiate court proceedings. It is proposed that the Act be amended to ensure that the limitation period for the commencement of court proceedings for work injury damages does not run when an applicant is unable to serve a pre-filing statement because of the procedural requirements contained in the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The amendment will benefit workers by ensuring they are not disadvantaged by procedural delays beyond their control. The bill also amends the provisions allowing companies who become self-insurers to purchase their tail liabilities. The amendment will simply clarify the power of the WorkCover Authority to determine the amount of the payment as a fair and reasonable amount.

Schedule 2 to the bill makes various amendments to the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The Government recognises that sometimes a financial incentive is needed to encourage businesses to adopt improved practices. As part of the single notification scheme the Government is providing financial incentives to employers who notify injuries early. Employers who notify within the specified time frames may pay a lower, or no, excess for that claim. Conversely, employers who do not notify within the specified time frame may be required to pay a higher excess for that claim.

This new system of notification will help speed up injury treatment and management for an injured worker. Making sure treatment and support are available for an injured worker as soon as possible after an injury is a key factor in achieving a good return to health and work. This change means less red tape for employers. Instead of having to make two notifications for many injuries or incidents they will now need only to make one notification—either to WorkCover or their insurer.

Having less red tape for employers and allowing them to concentrate on growing their businesses instead of having to duplicate paperwork is in line with this Government's policy. The simplification of the notification process will promote higher compliance and more reliable, accurate and timely information on injuries, illnesses and incidents. WorkCover-authorised officers have various powers under this Act, including entry and inspection powers, and power to apply for search warrants and to obtain information, documents and evidence.

Provisions that confer powers on authorised officers to enter and inspect premises and to obtain information, documents and evidence will be rationalised for consistency. The self-incrimination provisions will also be modified to provide guidance on the appropriate time for officers to give a self-incrimination warning. This modification is also made to parallel self-incrimination provisions in the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. This proposal will assist the inspectorate in enforcing workers compensation and occupational health and safety and this will benefit the whole community.

Several minor amendments to the administration and operation of the Workers Compensation Commission are also proposed: for example, authorising the president of the commission to delegate functions to a deputy-president in cases of conflict of interest or apprehended bias, and clarifying the position of the registrar. Schedule 3 makes amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. The Act will be amended to clarify that a breach of the duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 do not confer a civil right of action upon employees. This is already the case for duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Enforcement of the Act and regulation is by prosecution by WorkCover, and the Act provides that an employer cannot be sued for damages for breaching this statutory duty.

This proposal simply extends the protection to duties arising out of the regulation. The amendment does not affect the ability of employees to sue for damages at common law. Minor amendments will also be made to the terminology in the Act relating to the notification of accidents as part of the single notification scheme. These amendments will provide the legislative framework to enable the scheme to commence on 1 September this year. The amendments also provide for consistency within the Act and make the provisions easier to understand. Schedule 4 makes amendments to the Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Act 1942. In 1998 this Act was amended to include provisions to allow the Dust Diseases Board to recover damages paid to workers where a negligent third party, such as an asbestos manufacturer, is liable. The bill contains proposals to strengthen these provisions and to ensure that they are operational.

Finally, schedule 5 makes a consequential amendment to the Workers Compensation (Bush Fire, Emergency and Rescue Workers) Act 1987. The bill ensures that bushfire and emergency service volunteers will continue to be covered by the same commutation provisions as workers covered by the Workers Compensation Act 1987. In conclusion, the amendments in the bill will improve the operation of the Workers Compensation Commission, provide employers with financial incentives to notify insurers early of an injury, strengthen the dust diseases legislation, and improve the operation and viability of the WorkCover scheme. This will benefit New South Wales workers, employers and the whole community. These proposals merit the support of honourable members, and I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [4.15 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Carr Government established the Child Death Review Team in 1996 when, with bipartisan support, part 7A of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 was passed. It was a first for Australia and the first team of its kind established outside the United States of America. Since then, the team has released five annual reports and two special reports entitled "Fatal assault of children and young people" and "Suicide and risk-taking deaths of children and young people". These reports have been extremely valuable in guiding policy development and practice in New South Wales.

I place on record our appreciation of those who have contributed to the team's achievements. They include the team's inaugural convenor, Dr Kim Oates, who is the chief executive officer of Westmead Children's Hospital; the current convenor, Gillian Calvert, who is the New South Wales Commissioner for Children and Young People; the deputy convenor, Dr Judy Cashmore; and the team members and staff over the past five years who have all contributed to the team's success. I seek leave to incorporate a list of their names in Hansard.

Leave granted.
_____

Ms Sandie Bredemeyer
Ms Gillian Calvert
Dr Ian Cameron
Dr Judy Cashmore
Dr Michael Fairley
Ms Anne Farah-Hill
Dr John Feneley
Ms Helen Freeland
Dr Jonathon Gillis
Ms Anne Maree Gleeson
Ms Pam Greer
Dr Ferry Grunseit
Mr Phillip Hart
Supt John Heslop
Assoc Prof John Hilton
Mr James Hirshman
Prof Judith Irwin
Ms Melva Kennedy
Ms Helen Kerr-Roubicek
Dr David Lillystone
Dr Dianne Little
Ms Katrhrina Lo
Mr Peter Mathews
Dr Andrew McDonald
Sr Margaret McGovern
Dr Elisabeth Murphy
Mr Graham O'Rourke
Prof Kim Oates
Ms Carol Peltola
Ms Alice Silva
Ms Toni Single
Prof Graham Vimpani
Mr Stephen Wilson

_____

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Under the existing legislation, the Act was to be reviewed within five years of its assent. Accordingly, the "Report of the Review of Legislation Governing the NSW Child Death Review Team" was tabled in Parliament on 4 June 2002. The report was widely distributed and was received by relevant interest groups without comment or criticism. In preparing the report, the co-chairs of the review, Dr John Yu, AC, and the Commissioner for Children and Young People, held targeted consultations with key individuals and organisations using a short discussion paper. The consultations demonstrated strong support for the work of the team. In particular, the continuance of the child death register and the team's research functions were endorsed during the consultation process.

There was a clear view that New South Wales was leading Australia in research into preventable child deaths and that the team, as the sole body able to access the full range of information about deaths, made a valuable contribution to public policy. The report identified, for example, the death of toddlers in driveways as an issue that had emerged in public debate because of the work of the Child Death Review Team. Initially the team was co-located with the Child Protection Council. With the establishment of the Commission for Children and Young People in June 1999 the commissioner became the team's convenor. The commission provides research, policy, secretariat, community education, and administrative support to the team. More recently, the Community Services Legislation Amendment Act 2002 gave the Ombudsman responsibility for a key function formerly held by the team: reviewing the deaths of children due to abuse, neglect or deaths that occurred in suspicious circumstances.

These review functions sit more appropriately in a watchdog body like the Ombudsman's office, with its monitoring and investigation powers and its existing function of oversighting the child protection system than in a research team that considers all children. The Government is now introducing legislation to implement the findings of the "Report of the Review of Legislation Governing the NSW Child Death Review Team" by Dr Yu and the Commission for Children and Young People. The main effect of the bill is to insert revised provisions into the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 and to remove provisions relating to the team that is currently constituted by the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 and the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993, with the Ombudsman's support.

The Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 is a logical place for the provisions to sit because the commission provides support to the team and because of the compatibility between the functions of the commission and the team, particularly the commission's broad role of research into issues affecting children. With the transfer to the Ombudsman of the function of reviewing child abuse deaths there is no synergy between the team's remaining functions and its current location in the care and protection legislation.

The bill also sets out the objects, functions and procedures of the child death review team as recommended by the report of the review. The team's functions remain to maintain a register of all child deaths in New South Wales, to undertake research into child deaths and to make recommendations aimed at preventing or reducing child deaths. The consultations undertaken as part of the review supported the team's having a research focus encompassing all types of child deaths. This does not involve giving any new functions to the team or expanding its role as the team already has these functions. The bill ensures that the team will not duplicate the work of the Ombudsman by prohibiting the team from undertaking detailed reviews of deaths that are "reviewable" under part 6 of the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 unless the reviewable death is incidental to the research sample or population.

For example, the team is required to analyse data from the register of all child deaths and therefore may identify trends and patterns of deaths of children from motor vehicle accidents. Some of these children may be in the care of the Department of Community Services and thus are reviewable deaths. The fact that they are reviewable deaths is incidental to the team's purpose in researching those deaths and to exclude them would distort the analysis of motor vehicle accidents. In these circumstances the bill permits the team to include those reviewable deaths from motor vehicle accidents. Under subsections (2) (b) and (3) of new section 45N the team can also conduct research about reviewable deaths when the Minister has approved the research after seeking and considering the Ombudsman's advice.

The bill provides for the Minister to approve research projects undertaken by the team upon receipt of a research proposal from the team. In most research settings a higher authority generally approves research proposals, whether that is the funder, the chief executive officer of the agency or a university committee. The Minister fulfils that function in relation to the team and the provision is continued in the existing Act. The bill extends the team's access to records about child deaths to private health agencies and practitioners, to non-government schools and to people or agencies providing services such as family support, child care, education, residential out-of-home care, disability services or foster care. The professionals, practitioners and non-government representatives consulted during the review supported this. Their reasons for doing so include that there is a strong public interest in obtaining a more complete picture of why children die, the total number of requests would not be great so it is not an onerous provision, and the records are required for the purpose of promoting systemic change not investigating individual deaths or people's responsibility for them.

This proposal would not require non-government organisations to maintain any particular records. If they possessed any records and the team requested a copy, the organisation would be obliged to provide a copy. Since these requests will be limited to records about children who have died and who are the subject of a particular research project, this type of request would be made only rarely to any one organisation. While it will not be an offence to fail to comply with the duty, the convenor would have the capacity to draw to Parliament's attention failures by agencies to comply. The records are an important information source to help us understand the circumstances of children's deaths, and this preventative role justifies the team's gaining access to them. The information gathered by the team will be subject to stringent confidentiality safeguards and will not be able to be revealed to a court or released under the Freedom of Information Act 1989. The bill extends these provisions to individuals engaged by the convenor to take part in research projects and to members of joint research projects.

The bill also sets out the circumstances in which this confidentiality provision does not apply. These circumstances include research to be conducted to help prevent or reduce the deaths of children in New South Wales; reporting possible criminal matters to the police; reporting to the Department of Community Services that a child may be at risk of harm; and reporting information to the State Coroner and Ombudsman that supports his or her functions. This power is limited to the convenor and must be reported annually to Parliament. Privacy NSW raised no objection to these proposals. The bill also provides for an exemption to the Minister following receipt of the draft report so that I can seek the advice of other relevant Ministers and heads of government agencies about a draft team report. The report of the review argued that this would help test that the recommendations in a report are appropriate and likely to obtain the results they aim to achieve without jeopardising the much-valued independence of the team. While there is an obligation on the team to consider the Minister's comments, there is no requirement for it to accept or change anything in those reports.

The bill changes the team's composition in light of the team's broader research agenda and the transfer of reviews of child abuse deaths to the Ombudsman. Membership of the team requires expertise in health care, child development, research methodology and child protection. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care is included on the team as a child with a disability can be more vulnerable to the risk of death. The bill also provides that two of the team's standing members must be Aboriginal, continuing the provision in the existing legislation. As the team will now be involved in conducting research into a broader range of child deaths, the bill provides for the team's convenor to appoint special advisors depending on the skills required for a particular project. These individuals will have their terms limited to the particular project and must comply with the confidentiality provisions.

The report of the review found that the current legislation sets unrealistic deadlines for the gathering of and reporting on annual data about child deaths. As a result the data may be incomplete, and the report of the review recommended that reporting times be made more realistic. The bill therefore allows for an extra six months between the reporting period and the tabling of an annual report. With the agreement of the Ombudsman, this bill also replicates these arrangements for his child and disability death review functions and makes consequential amendments to the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993. The bill provides for another review of the legislation after five years. It is important to assess whether the changes made because of the legislative review and the Community Services Legislation Amendment Act 2002 achieve their aims and to check that the legislation accommodates new developments that may occur. The bill also provides for this review to coincide with a review of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998.

Only one subclause of one recommendation in the report of the review is not implemented by this bill. That is the proposal that the team should, as an additional accountability measure, report to Parliament and give reasons if it has not undertaken a research project in any three-year period. Since the team is required to report annually on all its activities and the Minister is required to approve research projects, I believe the process is already accountable and transparent and that this additional reporting requirement is unnecessary. Finally, the bill deals with minor miscellaneous matters regarding the operational provisions. These were all recommended in the report of the review and were supported during the consultations. In summary, this bill implements the recommendations of the "Report of the Review of Legislation Governing the NSW Child Death Review Team". It continues the proud record of New South Wales of once again leading Australia in this area of research and will contribute to the valuable work many of us are undertaking to try to reduce the number of children and young people who die in this State. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [4.30 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to the transfer of staff from one council to another where local councils are constituted or amalgamated, or where local council boundaries are altered. Currently, proclamations that alter the boundaries, or reconstitute or amalgamate local government areas, contain provisions to ensure that employees' conditions and entitlements are protected. However, there is no provision under the Local Government Act in its present form to ensure that employees' security of employment is not bargained away during the negotiation of the transfer of assets after boundary alteration or amalgamation or constitution. This places local government employees in a significantly more precarious position than other public sector employees.

Under the old Local Government Act 1919 provision was made for the transfer of employees where a new local council area was constituted or the boundaries of a local council area were altered. The old Act provided that council staff were to be transferred from the old council to the new, and that their terms of employment were to be maintained. Further, such employees were not to have their services terminated within three years of such a transfer, on the ground of redundancy arising from such a constitution or boundary alteration. The award or industrial agreement governing the employment of such employees was to remain in force until a new one was made. Accrued leave and long service leave and superannuation entitlements were preserved. This bill reintroduces some of those provisions into the Local Government Act 1993. Rather than the Minister for Local Government directing the allocation of resources, including employees, following a boundary alteration, amalgamation or constitution of local government areas, the Local Government Act will ensure this is done as a matter of course.

These employment protection amendments will apply only to non-senior staff of a council. The amendments will ensure that where an organisational restructure occurs within a council due to constitution, amalgamation or boundary alteration, lateral transfer provisions will be used to protect the existing employment conditions of staff. This will mean that councils must notify staff vacancies internally and select candidates from within, where an adequately trained pool of staff exists. Transferred staff will be preferred candidates for positions where they are suitably qualified to fill the position. The bill also prohibits forced redundancies within three years of the proclamation of a council restructure due to amalgamation, boundary alteration or constitution of a council. The bill also prevents councils from shedding staff in anticipation of such a restructure by ensuring that forced redundancies cannot be imposed on staff during the period a formal proposal for structural reform has been received and is under consideration.

The bill provides for the preservation of employment conditions, as if the transferred employee were continuing with the same employer. The bill preserves all leave and superannuation entitlements. These amendments reflect the Government's commitment to rural communities, where the local council is often the major employer in the area. Ensuring employment protection, particularly by prohibiting forced redundancies within three years of a restructure, will help ensure that the bush does not suffer additional job losses, which is especially important in this time of economic hardship fuelled by the current drought. A provision also exists to ensure that inappropriate determinations of the terms and conditions of employment of any staff that are made during the period a formal proposal for structural reform has been received and is under consideration are not binding on a new council, unless approved by the Minister.

The Minister may refuse to approve a council's determination only if the Minister is satisfied that the council's determination would result in an unjustifiable increase or decrease in the obligations of the new council in relation to transferred staff members. This will prevent councils from renegotiating inappropriate employment conditions for their staff in an attempt to influence the outcome of a proposal to restructure the council by way of amalgamation, boundary alteration or constitution. It will also ensure that a council that is to take on staff transferred from another council would not have to meet the cost of unexpected employment conditions. It is not intended to apply to new determinations of employment conditions where those changes are made in good faith, and a regulation making power exists to exempt routine determinations.

The bill also introduces important new measures to promote greater transparency and accountability in local government. These measures deal with the issue of preventing inappropriate "golden parachute" payments to councils' senior staff, including general managers. Termination payments will require ministerial approval before they can be made. This will ensure that a council cannot make unreasonable termination payments by way of redundancy or ex-gratia payment to senior staff. This provision will apply at all times—not only is cases of council restructure. A regulation making power has been inserted to allow the exemption of certain types of termination payments that satisfy industry standards—for example, the payment of untaken recreation leave. This ensures that non-controversial payments are not caught by this provision and avoids unnecessary administrative process. The Government is committed to ensuring a fair and transparent legislative framework to govern the employment conditions of staff in the local government sector is New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless.

Debate resumed from 24 June.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [4.36 p.m.]: The Gaming Machines Amendment (Shutdown Periods) Bill will amend the Gaming Machines Act 2001 to make further provision with respect to the requirement to shut down gaming machines in hotels and registered clubs for certain periods. A previous speaker asked: how many people are problem gamblers and what is a problem gambler? It is generally accepted in relation to this bill that 3 per cent of the population are problem gamblers. We support the bill and commend the Government for a number of issues. However, we want to raise other issues. There are serious outcomes for that 3 per cent of the population, including their loss of house, job and life.

In the early 1980s I undertook to develop some full-time dedicated gambling counsellors. It was the first time that had been done in Australia. I established a gambling counselling service, funded by the Wesley Mission. After some time its worth was quite obvious. To this end, the then Premier, Barrie Unsworth, rang me at Wesley Mission and indicated that some of his research showed that gambling would rise out of all proportion to previous rises and that would bring with it a significant number of persons suffering from gambling addiction. I appreciated the tip-off by Premier Unsworth and set aside several people to work in the field of counselling services. Today, every weekday 150 people across the State see a counsellor about gambling problems. Nine out of 10 problem gamblers seek help because of their problems after playing poker machines.

The background and age of a problem gambler is of a Sydney-based Anglo-Australian male of 39 years, although counsellors report people as young as 16 and as old as 78 having sought support. This was the result of a survey by the University of Sydney's gambling research unit. The number of people receiving counselling from services financed by the Casino Community Benefit Fund [CCBF], which commissioned the study, has more than quadrupled since 1996—the year in which the fund was set up and poker machines were introduced into New South Wales hotels. In a one-week period late last year, 717 gamblers received face-to-face counselling—5 per cent more than in the same survey a year earlier. A further 45 were counselled on the telephone or via the Internet. One of every five people seeking counselling also need financial counselling for the situations they have got themselves into.

I refer to an excellent article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 October 2002. Geesche Jacobsen wrote that gamblers with large debts may be committing up to 20 per cent of white-collar crime—often against their employers—to continue gambling, win back what they have lost, or pay for living expenses. I commend her for the excellent articles she has written over a period of time. This is where the Government is to be commended for the action that it is undertaking. While drug addicts mostly commit crimes against property—such as break and enter, purse snatching and so on—researchers have found that problem gamblers turned to fraud and financial theft to feed their habit. But unlike in cases involving drug addicts, judges did not consider gambling problems to be a mitigating factor in any of the criminal cases examined by Penny Crofts, a law lecturer at the University of Technology, Sydney. Her study of nearly 2,800 District Court and Local Court cases in New South Wales from 1995 to 1999 found that nearly one in five of those convicted of larceny or cheque fraud had gambling problems.

However, the research—the first to analyse cases for evidence that the crimes were linked to gambling—is believed to underestimate the extent of the problem. Overall, nearly 4 per cent of crimes, or 100 crimes, were found to be directly related to gambling. The gamblers, aged 17 to 71, had stolen, and largely gambled away, about $4.2 million from employers, shops and individuals. One 54-year-old woman, for example, had lost more than $425,000 taken from her employer over 10 years. Often it was easy for the gamblers to cash false cheques, falsify their employers' books or access the bank accounts of others, and the study warns that many companies had poor auditing and internal security arrangements. One man forged his employer's accounts after he and his family were threatened by loan sharks. Another robbed a TAB so he could place a bet on a trifecta. Almost two-thirds of offenders with gambling problems received gaol sentences ranging from three months to six years, but few were ordered to undergo counselling or treatment for their addiction.

My interest in this issue goes back a long way. I made certain submissions to the Sir Laurence Street inquiry and put forward recommendations that were included in his report and later adopted by the Government. One of those recommendations was the development of the Casino Community Benefit Fund. Until this past year, when I became a member of Parliament, I had spent the whole of my time as a trustee of the fund. The purpose of the CCBF is to advise the Minister on matters of education, research, community projects that might be funded, gambling counselling services, encourage accreditation and professional development of counsellors, and provide funding under very extensive scrutiny to several hundred New South Wales community organisations. As part of gaining background to this function, it was important that I should attend various National Association of Gambling Services [NAGS] conferences.

When considering the Gaming Machines Amendment (Shutdown Periods) Bill it is worthwhile asking: Is the Government helping or hindering those with gambling problems? In a sense the Government is hindering compulsive gamblers. On the one hand, the Government relies on a budget, as was announced by the Treasurer only recently, that is based very largely on gambling-related income. On the other hand, the Government is seeking to help resolve gambling problems. I congratulate the Minister for Gaming and Racing, the Hon. Grant McBride, on the initiatives that he has shown in the major plan for gaming reform. As part of that plan, it was announced that gaming operations in clubs and hotels would be required to close down for six hours each day.

Under the Gaming Machines Act 2001 the Government allowed a phasing-in period for one year, from 2 April 2002 to 30 April 2003, during which time clubs and hotels were required to turn off their gaming machines for only three hours each day. From 1 May 2003 the general shutdown period was increased to a full six hours, from 4.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. Clubs and hotels are permitted to apply to have the mandatory shutdown period on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays reduced to only three hours, subject to the agreement of the local consent authority. It is further proposed that the legislation be amended to provide that clubs and hotels may apply to the Liquor Administration Board for exemption, on hardship grounds, from the general increase of the current three-hour shutdown period.

I congratulate the Government on some of the major initiatives it has undertaken in recent times. These include freezing the number of poker machines in clubs from March 2000 and in hotels from April 2001, along with a statewide cap of 104,000 poker machines. They also include the requirement that venues undergo a social impact assessment before new machines can be installed; that hotels and clubs with gaming machines be prohibited from being established in shopping centres—a very welcome relief from what was attempted in Liverpool, Fairfield and other areas; a primary purpose test established for hotels, to prohibit hotels being conducted solely as gaming dens; and the development of consumer information, including Play Smart brochures, most of which I have read and, as a trustee, was responsible for approving. These provide accurate information on the chances of gamblers winning in all kinds of gambling outlets. The initiatives include also funding for the G-line problem gambling helpline, which I saw from its inception through to just recently, the allocation of more than $56 million for gambling counselling services, and so on.

Specific statutory measures include 24-hour gaming in pubs and clubs now being banned. I congratulate the Government on its move in that respect. They include also poker machine signs and advertising now being banned; a prize limit of $1,000 on poker machine promotions; venues being required to implement counselling and self-exclusion programs for patrons; a requirement for gambling warning notices to be displayed in venues; cash cheque restrictions of $400 per person per day; poker machine prizes of more than $1,000 required to be paid by cheque; automatic teller machines and EFTPOS machines not to be located in gaming areas of hotels and clubs; gambling inducements—such as free or cheap alcohol, free credits and so on—being banned; all gaming staff being required to be trained in the responsible conduct of gambling; and enabling disciplinary action to be taken where a venue allows activities likely to lead to gambling abuse.

I think one of the final steps in this series of initiatives undertaken by the Government is the shutdown period. The question ought to be asked: Will the shutdown actually work? I have consulted a number of counsellors who say that the overwhelming weight of opinion is that just three hours of shutdown would be beneficial and that expanding the period to six hours may not produce perceptible benefits. I took the opportunity of speaking to the counsellors employed by Wesley Mission. They said they approved of the proposed system of exemption applications providing for the three-hour shutdown to remain immune. The Liquor Administration Board should become more active in policing any avenues so exempted. When exemptions are granted, follow-up review should be undertaken to ensure that all obligations are being met. There are concerns among counsellors that the Liquor Administration Board is not doing all it ought in these capacities.

There are different types of problem gambling, including obvious opportunities such as racing, Lotto, Keno, poker machines and the like. I understand that the Minister and the Government intend to ensure that any applicant seeking an exemption should fully comply with all harm minimisation measures contained in the current legislation. Poker machine shutdown is different from other forms of gambling. We do not suggest that Randwick, for example, should hold only two meetings a year or that New South Wales Lotteries should reduce the number of Lotto draws each week. The industry and the Government have accepted their responsibility to problem gamblers with a six-hour shutdown. Ultimately we will see whether it is effective.

Experienced councillors, however, say that poker machines are mesmerising. People do not get up from their machines even for a toilet break unless they are absolutely desperate, and then heaven help a stranger who sits down at their machine. Lack of windows and clocks mean that the mesmerism continues hour after hour. A close friend of mine, a regular taxi driver, told me that he was hired to wait at the Sydney casino, which has no shutdown, for a client who was inside playing the pokies. My friend was told to wait until the client returned, no matter how long that was. My friend ate and slept in his cab for the next 23 hours until that problem gambler came out and paid him for his time.

The bill contains some good measures. Cheques of more than $400 cannot be cashed and the cashing of third party cheques in clubs and pubs is prohibited unless an exemption applies. These provisions are already in force. However, it is unquestionable that poker machines are mesmerising. I regret that people find life so empty that they must fill it with the thrill of poker machines, racing, dogs, trots, Keno, Lotto, the pools and so on. But I accept the realities of gambling addiction. I have done all I can to help gamblers, their spouses and children, their employers and others. A compulsory shutdown will not solve the problem, but it will limit the mesmerising effect of the poker machine and break the continuation of that spell of compulsive gambling. We appreciate what the Government has done in this regard and support the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.52 p.m.]: The Greens supported the Gaming Machines Bill 2001 because it offered a shutdown period with regard to all poker machines in clubs and hotels, obviously giving the community some respite from gambling. The shutdown is an attempt to counter the addictive qualities of pokies by forcing people to spend time away from machines, away from the repetitive cycle of pumping money into them. People on the front line who deal with the tragedy caused by problem gambling and gambling in general have widely acclaimed the shutdown period. Initially, the Government proposed a six-hour shutdown. But after behind-the-scenes pressure from the clubs and hotels, which are major donors and supporters of the Labor Party, the shutdown period was halved for the first two years of the new regime.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Not any more.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I note the interjection from my colleague, but I do not understand that comment given the tens of thousands of dollars—huge amounts of money—that continue to flow from the gaming industry to the Labor Party. Although the shutdown was hobbled from the outset, it has shown its effectiveness. The Australian Financial Review recently reported that last year the State's clubs, pubs and casinos spent $550 million on poker machines, but this year they will spend $440 million, a drop of 20 per cent. Thanks to the shutdown, the excessive, unsustainable poker machine boom might slowly come to an end. But to ensure that this happens the shutdown needs to have real teeth.

Unfortunately, now that the six-hour shutdown is finally here the Government has stepped in to water down the legislation yet again. The bill opens up huge loopholes for clubs and hotels to exploit. First, it retains the unnecessary and illogical exemption that allows a three-hour shutdown on weekends and public holidays. Why should the shutdown be shorter on weekends? Is gambling less of a social and community problem on weekends? Do gamblers lose less money on weekends? We know that is not the case. Clubs and hotels make more money on weekends, and that is how the Government is delivering yet again to the gaming industry. More profit means more tax revenue. By allowing the shorter shutdown on weekends the Government has prioritised its financial concerns and the profits of its donors—hotels and clubs.

The community is coming a very poor second. The Government is prepared to allow the gambling problem to fester openly on weekends for the sake of a few extra tax dollars. Moreover, the bill appears to give discretionary power to the Minister to decide which clubs and hotels will enjoy this exemption. The Liquor Administration Board must "take into consideration such guidelines as may be approved by the Minister". What are these guidelines? How can we approve the amendment if we do not know what the guidelines are? Will the Minister enlighten us? These guidelines may widen the loophole or allow the Minister to favour certain clubs. If the Liquor Administration Board must follow these ministerial guidelines, we cannot be sure that the board will be politically independent.

The second loophole is the new limited shutdown, which can be granted on hardship grounds. I really have to hand it to them: hardship grounds for clubs! This loophole allows a club or hotel to enjoy a three-hour shutdown on any day of the week, not just Saturday or Sunday. It is getting pretty good for them now. This is a major setback for the six-our shutdown provision. Again, approval will be given in accordance with ministerial guidelines. We do not know how many clubs and hotels will qualify. The other criterion for the exemption is that "the financial viability of the hotel or club is seriously threatened". But what does this mean in practice? If three additional hours of poker machine playing will make the difference between a club's success or failure, then that club is either much too dependent on gaming revenue or else it is likely to go broke anyway. Have the great wizards in this Government taken that view into consideration? The Greens fear that clubs and pubs will exploit this provision to squeeze more money out of problem gamblers.

The third loophole is a variation to the shutdown period for early openers. This provision was debated when the original bill was introduced in 2001. The Greens and several other crossbenchers expressed concern that the provision effectively nullified the shutdown altogether. It was a matter of considerable concern then, and that concern has been proved justified. At any time of any day some clubs will have pokies operating, and addicted gamblers need simply shop around the clubs and hotels feed their addiction. We know that will happen and the Government is allowing it to happen. The Greens are opposed to all three loopholes. However, simply opposing the bill will not close the loopholes. Some of them would remain, in an amended form, in the Gaming Machine Act 2001, which passed because of the very clear common interests of the Coalition and the Government.

Moreover, there may be genuine cases of hotels and pubs in financial hardship, or clubs that have longstanding commitments to early opening for one reason or another. The Greens will move an amendment to allow this exemption to come into force for a limited time, but only for a limited time. That is quite crucial. The amendment will provide an opportunity for any hotel or club facing financial hardship—and we certainly acknowledge there would be some—an opportunity to solve its problems. It will also allow time to consider the case put by "early openers". Our amendment will impose a sunset clause on the loopholes.

Three years after the bill is assented to, the six-hour shutdown will become universal. We were told that the Government wanted a six-hour shutdown, and all we are doing is providing a way for the Government to gradually get back to it. It is very reasonable and achievable option. The Greens believe also that the six-hour shutdown is only the first step. Gambling continues to grow and spread, and further countermeasures are necessary. The second Greens amendment proposes the phasing in of an eight-hour shutdown, covering the hours from 4 a.m. to noon.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Have you thought about prohibition?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection from the Labor backbencher. The Greens proposal is in no way related to prohibition. The comments made by the member reflect either a misunderstanding of the proposition that the Greens are putting forward or an attempt at scurrilousness. The Greens are not saying that there should be no gambling at all; clearly gambling is part of the society. The point is that the actions of this the Labor Government are, on an analysis of worldwide statistics, putting this State way out in front of any other state in the world so far as gambling is concerned. The Labor Government is doing that to get money for its party and money to run the State. That is totally wrong and I am surprised that the member made such a comment.

The Greens second amendment proposes the phasing in of an eight-hour shutdown covering the hours from 4.00 a.m. to noon. The extension of the shutdown will take place three years after the bill's assent and at the same time as the shutdown becomes universal. Two years after that, a 10-hour shutdown will be introduced from 2.00 a.m. to noon. The Greens do not believe that these amendments constitute a financial threat to clubs and hotels. The industry makes an enormous profit from poker machines.

In the year to 30 June 2002, gaming machines at registered clubs turned over $30 billion and made nearly $3 billion in profit for clubs. The Government collected $402 million in tax from club poker machines. In the same period hotels turned over $12 billion from gaming machines and made a profit of $1.3 billion. It is obscene that such a level of profit is made from people's suffering. The Government collected $318.4 million in tax from hotel pokies. When considering this bill, members should also take note of the Labor Party's close relationship with clubs and hotels. In the three years to 30 June 2001, the New South Wales Labor Party and the Australian Labor Party [ALP] National Secretariat took $137,450 in donations from gaming companies. How is it possible to run a Government when such a lot of money is pocketed and this type of legislation is brought into the House? Strong language is needed to describe how bad that is.

The rate of donations from gaming companies is increasing. In 2001-02 the figure was $86,900—twice as high as in any other single year. In the same period, clubs and hotels gave $515,911 to the New South Wales Labor Party. In 2001-02 that figure rose to more than $1 million, which is almost 10 times more than the previous year's figure, and suddenly we have this legislation before the House. Is the Government going to tell us that that is a coincidence? In 2001-02, the Registered Clubs Association of New South Wales gave the ALP what could only be described as a very persuasive $159,550. Are Labor backbenchers really happy with this legislation? Certainly many Labor members tell the Greens how stressed they are that these days Labor relies more on corporate donations than it does on union donations.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Where do you get your money from?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: We certainly do not get our money from corporate donations. We get our money from hard work and from fundraising. The Hon. Amanda Fazio has a real problem with this and she cannot cope. Can we trust the Government to hand out the exemptions to the shutdown in a cautious and responsible manner? The shutdown is one of the few weapons that this Parliament has been offered to combat the inexorable spread of gambling in our society. The figures on gambling problems are huge and they are rising rapidly. Can we trust the Government to police the shutdown effectively? The shutdown is one of the few means by which this Parliament can offer direct help to problem gamblers. The Greens amendments will ensure that this tool is used effectively and that we make a start on reining back this Government's addiction to pokies. But it also gives clubs and hotels a breathing space before the shutdown takes full effect.

I emphasise that the Greens acknowledge that clubs and hotels will have to get their house in order because clearly dependency on gambling revenue has grown. The Greens amendments will give clubs and hotels time to adjust so that in the future they will be able to conduct their operations as they previously did—that is, without being dependent on poker machine revenue. I would like the Greens amendments to receive cross-party support. However, I am not very hopeful of that happening because, as I have indicated, the Labor Party is on a drip-feed from the gaming industry. While I understand that the Liberal Party does not benefit from the gambling dollar to the same degree as the Labor Party does, it nevertheless also receives substantial donations from the gaming industry and clubs. In the past the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have voted together to ensure that gaming legislation passes. A stark example of that was what happened when this bill was before the Legislative Assembly.

Only one member spoke against the bill in the Legislative Assembly, and that was the honourable member for Bligh, Ms Clover Moore. I fully support the comments she made on the bill in the lower House and I congratulate her on the stand she took. She called for a division, and the result of the division was that only one member was against the bill. What a tragic situation it is in this State when only one member of the Legislative Assembly takes a stand against such legislation. Approximately 90 members were in favour of clubs, hotels and their profits. It is a very sad day when only one member supports families, communities and problem gamblers.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You have an interesting attitude to democracy.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection made by the Labor backbencher. It is democracy, but it is democracy that has been greatly weakened because of the influence of donations from the corporate sector to political parties. That is unhealthy, and in the end it is undemocratic. I hope that members of the two major political parties will consider their priorities and try to find a way to free themselves so that they are in a position to support the Greens amendments.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.09 p.m.]: I join in this debate only to seek clarification. I remind the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries that on 12 June last year the former Minister for Gaming and Racing committed the Government to providing an exemption to the shutdown periods for clubs on Anzac Day, particularly for ex-services clubs. A letter I received from the Secretary of the Bowraville and District Ex-Services Club Ltd states:

Here at Bowra Ex Services, Anzac Day 2003 brought to the fore just how silly this proposed shut down period is, we closed at 9pm, Anzac Eve, because staff are required back here by 4am for cash balances etc and to have the doors open by 5am for the traditional run and milk, or coffee or tea.

We don't permit beer or other alcohol sales until after the actual Dawn Service.

This year we had in excess of one hundred persons back at the Club by 6-15am for the traditional Anzac Breakfast, the cost of which is under-written by this Club.

In years past, we could permit poker machine play, and this fed some shillings back into the coffers to off set the breakfast cost.

This year however, this was not the case, and it did indeed cause some angst with some of the old "diggers" that a tradition that have followed in this Club for thirty or forty years or so was suddenly denied them.

I can assure you, none of those... [old diggers] are problem gamblers, it has just been tradition to... dabble away to while away the time between the Dawn Service, the Flag Raising at 8am and the Cemetery Service at 9am.

Our machines as stated earlier had been shut-down from 9pm the previous evening, and had they been turned on at 6am this would equate to a nine hour shut-down.

I believe there is a case to be made on that. I am interested to know why the commitment that was given last year by the previous Minister for Gaming and Racing does not appear to be provided for in this bill.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [5.10 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their very intelligent contributions to this debate.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Not all of them were intelligent.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Give me a second. I take issue with the points raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon. It pains me that people can take a negative attitude about working people having a flutter at the races or on the pokies at their club.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: It is more than a flutter.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: But people can make those decisions. I am advised that surveys indicate that 98 per cent of people who gamble in this State do so responsibly, and that only 2 per cent of gamblers are problem gamblers. Responsible gamblers work out how much they can afford each week, and that is what they spend on gambling. If they win a bit, they might spend some of their winnings, but essentially they stick to their budget. My parents did just that, and many of my friends from my very strong working class background still do it; they like the occasional gamble. Gambling is part and parcel of their lifestyle; they do not regard it as something foreign or alien. Retired workers go to their local club regularly—they certainly go to the large clubs in Port Macquarie and along the mid North Coast. They may have breakfast at the club and play the pokies for a while, but the great majority of them stick within their budgets. After leaving the club they might go and do a little bit of fishing. Essentially they have made a decision about how they can gamble responsibly. People have the right to choose their lifestyle.

I acknowledge that we have to look after, and provide programs for, the 2 per cent—the problem gamblers. But we cannot regulate the lives of responsible people because of the actions of the irresponsible few. About six or seven times a year I go to Randwick races with some very good wharfie friends of mine. On each occasion we set ourselves a little budget. I do not know much about betting, and generally I am told just to pick a few horses. I look at the list of horses—they all look the same to me—and I look at the list of jockeys, and if I see the colours red and black I will bet on the horse carrying those colours regardless of its form or price. I have a few other favourite colours as well. When I attended school I liked green, because that was the colour of my school house. I may bet on a horse whose jockey is wearing green; but red and black are usually my picks. That is the way I gamble. Generally our group wins and after the meeting we go out to dinner and spend all our winnings.

There is not much wrong with that lifestyle. That is the way the vast majority of gamblers operate. It pains me to listen to people who time and again put down the vast majority of Australians who like to have a flutter. According to surveys, 95 per cent of people in New South Wales like to have a flutter. Let us be a little realistic. In the working-class suburbs of Sydney people like to go to the club and have a bit of a gamble. I do not see much wrong with that. I agree that people who become addicted to gambling and become too compulsive so far as gambling is concerned are a problem—and, yes, we have to implement programs to look after and support them. But overall the vast majority of people like that lifestyle; they like to play a game of chance at their club and have a little flutter on the horses. I cannot see much wrong with that.

In response to a comment by the Hon. John Tingle I advise that there is provision in the bill for exemption from the shutdown on public holidays, including on Anzac Day. The most important feature of the bill is that it preserves the Government's commitment to harm minimisation, as it provides for the six-hour shutdown of gaming machines in all clubs and pubs. The bill also acknowledges the valuable contribution to local communities, particularly in regional and rural areas, of such organisations. The provision for exemption on hardship grounds, as outlined in the guidelines, ensures that no community suffers the closure of its local pub or club as a result of the six-hour shutdown. The amendments allow the exemption to the six-hour shutdown period to be applied sensibly to clubs that can demonstrate hardship. The exemptions that are to be given to the six-hour shutdown will still require clubs and hotels to shut down their gaming machines for three hours each day. That three-hour circuit-breaker has long been described by gambling counsellors as important to those with a gambling problem.

Further, the Liquor Administration Board will be able to approve the reduced three-hour shutdown only in situations that comply with specific guidelines. I note the comments of the Hon. Melinda Pavey, who made a very good contribution in general terms. She said that the Opposition had only just received the guidelines and that it was unfortunate the guidelines had come through at the last minute. I am advised that the guidelines were tabled by the Minister for Gaming and Racing in the other place on 27 May, some four weeks ago. I am further advised that the Minister formally referred a copy of the guidelines to the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing on 6 June, more than two weeks ago. It is clear that the guidelines have not been released at the last moment, as claimed.

The guidelines have been forwarded to community and industry representatives for comment and input. As the Government promised the shadow Minister a month ago, the Minister is currently reviewing submissions received from the stakeholders on the draft guidelines with a view to incorporating appropriate amendments. I seek leave to table, for the information of members, the draft guidelines that the Minister tabled in another place on 27 May 2003. The document is entitled "Draft Limited Shutdown Period Guidelines (Hardship)". Further, I seek leave to table, also for the information of honourable members, the draft terms of reference for the Minister's harm minimisation review. The document is entitled "Key Government Policies". I inform honourable members that the Minister's office recently provided the draft terms of reference to the shadow Minister.

Leave granted.

Documents tabled.

The Minister has informed me that he will consult further with the shadow Minister to ensure that he is kept up to date about the final form of both the harm minimisation review terms of reference and the exemption guidelines. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.19 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 4:

[2] Section 39 (3)

Insert after section 39 (2):

(3) This section ceases to have effect on the third anniversary of the date of assent to the Gaming Machines Amendment (Shutdown Periods) Act 2003.

[3] Section 39A

Insert after section 39:

39A Application of extended shutdown periods

(1) On and from the third anniversary of the date of assent to the Gaming Machines Amendment (Shutdown Periods) Act 2003, a hotelier or registered club must ensure that each approved gaming machine that is kept in the hotel or club is not operated for the purposes of gambling for the period of 8 hours between 4 am and noon on each day of the week.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units.

(2) On and from the fifth anniversary of the date of assent to the Gaming Machines Amendment (Shutdown Periods) Act 2003, a hotelier or registered club must ensure that each approved gaming machine that is kept in the hotel or club is not operated for the purposes of gambling for the period of 10 hours between 2 am and noon on each day of the week.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units.

Because amendments were made in the lower House, there is a second print of the bill, so I have given the Clerk a new version of my amendments, sheet C-O26A, which takes account of the changes. The changes are only mechanical pursuant to the line numbers on page 3 of the bill having been altered. They do not affect the substance or wording of my amendments.

Amendment No. 1 will extend the general shutdown period of gaming machines. Section 39 of the Act brings into force a six-hour shutdown period. Proposed new section 39 (3) will end that six-hour shutdown period three years from the date of the bill's assent, at which time section 39 will be replaced by proposed new section 39A. Honourable members would be aware that, from the third anniversary of the bill's assent, 39A (1) will increase that shutdown period to eight hours. Two years after that, section 39A (2) will increase the shutdown period to ten hours. The Greens believe that the six-hour shutdown period should be seen only as a starting point.

If we want to return problem gamblers to their families and friends and effectively curb the scourge of gambling, a longer shutdown period is the only option. I said in the second reading debate that the limited six-hour shutdown period is already doing some good and that a longer shutdown period would produce even greater benefits. The phased introduction of this shutdown period will give clubs and pubs some time to prepare. Many of these organisations, which are extremely profitable, should be able to accept a longer shutdown period.

If the Minister is correct, some pubs and clubs rely so heavily on poker machine revenue that a few extra hours of playing time will make a difference between profit and loss. The Greens hope that the three-year grace period we are offering will help those businesses to find some other source of revenue besides gambling. At the moment the community is paying too high a price for their profits. I hope all honourable members agree that gambling is not an appropriate source of excess profits, particularly when it comes from the pockets of hard-pressed addicted gamblers. If honourable members agree with that sentiment, I trust they will support this amendment. The Minister said that people were only having a bit of a flutter, and he brought up his working-class credentials and talked about his wharfie mates.

We can all refer to our working-class credentials. My uncles, who were wharfies, often visited clubs. One of my uncles is not a gambler but the other one, who has since died, was a gambler for a short time. My uncle who is still alive and who goes to a number of clubs tells heart-breaking stories about people who spend their days gambling in those clubs. So there is a hardship side to this whole debate. It is not just a question of people having a little flutter; gambling is causing people many difficulties. This Labor Government should do the right thing, and this amendment gives it an opportunity to do so.

The Hon IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [5.24 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment. This bill will keep in place the minimum three-hour shutdown period for gaming machines, which is seen by many gambling counsellors as an important circuit breaker for problem gamblers who may lose track of the time and money spent in a gambling session. The extension of the three-hour shutdown period to a six-hour shutdown period is reasonable for the majority of clubs and hotels. Those venues that can satisfy the Liquor Administration Board that they have complied with the requirements of the guidelines will be able to obtain an exemption from the six-hour shutdown, but they will still be required to shut down their gaming machines for the minimum three-hour period.

The provisions in the bill are firm but fair. They recognise the importance of clubs and hotels to their local communities, but they still provide important consumer protection measures. Extending the shutdown period even further to eight or ten hours a day would see many clubs and hotels flounder. The expanded shutdown period will not only have enormous financial effects on large clubs; it will impact adversely on many medium and small clubs that are only just managing to stay afloat at present.

The Minister for Gaming and Racing said in another place that a comprehensive review of harm minimisation measures is to be undertaken over the next 12 months. That review will involve all key stakeholders: community, industry, the social welfare sector, unions, and others. It is vital that credible research and reviews of policy measures are undertaken. It is anticipated that recommendations will be developed for consideration by the Government to ensure the best possible combination of harm minimisation measures to tackle the issue of problem gambling. Before rushing in to extend the current six-hour shutdown to an even longer period, it would be sensible to complete the review of harm minimisation measures to ensure that all current strategies are achieving what they set out to achieve and, if they are not, to consider alternative strategies. The Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [5.26 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes Greens amendment No. 1. There is no real evidence to suggest that closing down a club or a pub for six or eight hours will solve the problems that are being experienced by 2 per cent of the population. There are other ways to change the laws to try to solve some of those problems. Shutting down clubs or pubs for eight hours will not solve the problems. Shutting down a club in a country community for eight hours will have an enormous impact on that community. Many people play golf on Saturday morning. A husband might not want to join his wife in at game of golf; he might choose to while away the hours by playing the poker machines. However, that does not mean he is a chronic or problem gambler.

We must look at the wider community experience and accept that people who enjoy a flutter of some kind are not all chronic gamblers. The BetSafe group—the consultants employed to address wider social issues other than problem gambling—informed the Opposition that there are other ways of addressing this problem. The solution is not simply to shut down poker machines. If poker machines are shut down, chronic gamblers could go to the TAB or to a number of other gambling venues. As a community, we must be vigilant and try to improve the lives of those with chronic gambling problems. The Opposition does not support this measure.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.27 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports Greens amendment No. 1. It could be argued that this amendment is symbolic, but it is important to indicate our views in relation to the gambling epidemic. The Premier, who has used the term "gambling epidemic", expressed deep concern about these gambling problems. That is why the Government placed an emphasis on harm minimisation measures, and that is why a freeze was placed on the number of poker machines in clubs and pubs. The Government also introduced provisions to shut down poker machines.

The amendment moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon is logical. In 2001 the Government introduced a three-hour shutdown period. In 2003 that shutdown period will be increased to six hours, which is a doubling of that period. Honourable members said earlier that this amendment would take effect immediately, whereas Ms Lee Rhiannon's proposal to increase the shutdown period to eight hours will not take effect until 2006. Clubs and hotels will have plenty of time to adjust to those changes. It is then proposed to change the shutdown period to ten hours in 2008. However, we all know that, after the next election in 2007, a new government will have the power to introduce new legislation and abolish shutdown periods. So we will again be able to express our views at that time.

The Government will be able to review this measure as we get nearer to that target. This proposal might have the effect of shaking up clubs and hotels that are so dependent on gambling revenue. I said in the second reading debate that we should separate hotels and clubs and develop two different strategies for them. The strategy for hotels should be tougher than that for clubs. Clubs are community organisations but hotel poker machine profits go to individual hotel owners. As hotels and clubs are linked legislatively, tougher gambling controls affect both industries and cause resistance from the club movement. I strongly urge the Government—we will help—to develop two separate strategies. That will not make the Government popular with hotels, but it should never have allowed poker machines to be installed in hotels; that was a major policy error. This amendment simply seeks to establish targets for the future and I urge the Committee to support it.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.30 p.m.]: I support the Greens amendment, which calls for a staged reduction in the operation of poker machines. I criticised the Government during the second reading debate and pointed out that enforcing a shut-down period is not the most subtle way of addressing problem gambling. There are many other ways of countering that problem but they are beyond the leave of the bill, which refers only to shutdown times. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Greens have responded in kind. To offer a simplistic response such as "I know lots of people who enjoy a little flutter on the pokies" is like asking "What's wrong with having a smoke and a beer?" when thousands of articles detail the harmful health effects of smoking. Hours appear to be the Government's only currency in this area, and this amendment deals in that currency.

We cannot expect establishments with poker machines to relinquish their gambling revenue without a fight. Gambling machines have doubled the value of hotels. I have heard publicans say "I'm making so much money from the poker machines that it would not matter if I didn't sell another beer!" That is the extent of the effect of poker machines on the hotel industry. They are obviously also the mainstay of clubs that are suffering financial hardship—particularly bowling clubs with dwindling memberships. The amendment proposes a staged reduction in the number of hours—it uses the Government's terms—that people may use gambling machines, and I urge the Committee to support it. Parliament must confront the problem of gambling before it does more harm in our society.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [5.32 p.m.]: I support the Greens amendment. Irrespective of the Minister's comments, gambling can be a highly addictive, dangerous and unrelenting disease that drags people into the gutter. I believe the Greens' proposal has a great deal of merit. I am in favour of phasing out poker machines altogether over 10 or 20 years. Poker machines are a blight on our society and, although the adjustment would be substantial, I believe their phasing out would benefit us all in the long run.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Mr Cohen Ms Hale Mr Jones Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Dr Wong Tellers, Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Rhiannon

Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Costa Ms Cusack Mr Egan

Mrs Forsythe Ms Griffin Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Ms Robertson Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.41 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [7]. Insert after line 11:

(4) The Board’s approval of a hotel or registered club having the limited shutdown period may be given only if the hotelier or club has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Board, that the local community is not likely to suffer any social or economic detriment as a result of the hotel or club having the limited shutdown period.

(5) In making any determination for the purposes of subsection (4), the Board must take into consideration the statistics in relation to gambling for the local government area in which the hotel or registered club is situated as well as any input from gambling control groups operating in that area.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (4), the local community, in relation to a hotel or registered club, includes, in addition to those persons who actually use the services and facilities of the hotel or club, the people who live in the local government area in which the hotel or club is situated or in any adjoining local government area.

As I said in the second reading speech, people in Sydney's most disadvantaged areas spend nearly $2,000 per year on poker machines—more than twice the State average according to government gaming statistics that can be purchased for between $550 and $1,100. The Productivity Commission found that problem gamblers are often non-English speakers, low income earners, unemployed and single—that is, the vulnerable in our community. Under my proposed subsection (4), the board must not grant an exemption unless the applicant can demonstrate that there will be no detriment to the community if they are exempt.

The Government has assured me that the guidelines will be in place after an appropriate consultation process to determine the grounds on which an applicant can apply for an exemption, and that negative community effects will be given due consideration. However, it is simply not good enough for the Government to say that the guidelines will be fine and that we should pass this legislation now. The guidelines need to be included in the legislation. Under my proposed subsection (5) the board must take into consideration statistical data in relation to gambling in the relevant local government area. The essence of this amendment is that people who seek to promote gaming must prove that it is not harmful. If a club or pub is causing some harm to the local community by having gaming machines, it should not be able to claim economic hardship merely because it loses money because of the lack of revenue it receives from gaming. That is reversing the onus of proof. The community should not have to prove that gambling is harmful: the gambling industry should have to prove that it is not harming the community.

Everybody knows that the effect of gambling is to take money from poorer people and give it to the richer people who own the gambling machines. Thus, the first principle that should be taken into account is the likely economic hardship. Those who have the gaming machines have the resources to do the research. I do not want to come back to the tobacco example, but initially that industry did not conduct research, and when it eventually did, it suppressed it and spent a fortune on nitpicking intellectuals to find holes in everybody else's research. The whole research process was repeated over 25 years. In relation to gambling, there are no mechanisms in place to do the research. Again with tobacco, adequately funded bodies spent a fortune doing medical research that they should not have had to do. But, given the amount of its turnover, the gambling industry does minimal research and provides minimal funding for it.

Research conducted by an industry is, of course, always somewhat suspect. Effectively the industry says that we have to prove that it is being hurt and has hardship, and the community is not even assessed. It is also appalling that the Government charges people to purchase gambling statistics produced by the department with taxpayers' money. Those statistics are vital in any assessment of the effect of gambling, and it is a disgrace that they are not free. My amendment will provide that the board has to take into account the effect of the limited shutdown on society as well as on clubs. This is an extremely important amendment and I commend it to the Committee.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [5.46 p.m.]: This amendment specifies details that would be more appropriately dealt with under the guidelines. I am advised that the Minister for Gaming and Racing is currently consulting with community and industry representatives about the details of the guidelines. I am happy to refer the suggestions proposed in the amendment to him for consideration for inclusion in the guidelines. It is not appropriate to include this level of detail in the legislation—the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans makes this mistake over and again—as the amendment could end up conflicting with details in the guidelines that are agreed to by community and industry representatives. The Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [5.46 p.m.]: For similar reasons, the Opposition does not support the amendment.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Mr Cohen Reverend Dr Moyes

Reverend Nile Ms Rhiannon Dr Wong

Tellers, Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Hale

Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Ms Griffin

Mr Jones Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Ms Robertson Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.54 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1. Insert after line 26:

[10] Section 41A

Insert after section 41:

41A Revocation of approvals for limited shutdown periods

(1) Sections 40, 40A and 41 cease to have effect on the third anniversary of the date of assent to the Gaming Machines Amendment (Shutdown Periods) Act 2003 (the relevant date).

(2) Any approval given by the Board under section 40, 40A or 41 and in force immediately before the relevant date is revoked on that date.

This could be called the "protect the six-hour shutdown" amendment because it has the simple intent of eventually removing all exemptions to the six-hour shutdown. I urge even honourable members who did not support my previous amendment to consider Greens amendment No. 2 closely because it goes the distance to which the major parties say they have committed. If they support a six-hour shutdown they should support this amendment. Without the safeguard provided by my amendment, this State is likely to head down the road towards a three-hour shutdown. In my contribution to the second reading debate I gave graphic figures to demonstrate that the gambling industry is a big donor to the Labor Party. Therefore, the tax system already heads the Labor Government down a road that is quite disastrous.

Two years ago the Government offered the clubs a loophole to reduce the shutdown period to three hours on the weekend. The bill proposes a further loophole to allow clubs to reduce the shutdown period during the week as well. What is more, the clubs can vary the hours of the shutdown. Many honourable members would recall the 2001 debate on the shutdown period. If some clubs can operate during the shutdown, really there is no shutdown. Problem gamblers will always be able to find a place to gamble. If the bill plays out as expected, it is unacceptable. Make no mistake: the six-hour shutdown provision is being watered down. That is one of the key intents of this bill.

The Government's argument is that some clubs need to reduce the shutdown period because it causes financial hardship. My recollection is that the Minister, when he first put forward this concept, said that financial hardship was the whole basis of his argument. He said, "We have really got to do something." Crying poor was his theme. I repeat the point I made in speaking to my earlier amendment: What future is there for clubs that rely so heavily on poker machine revenue that a few extra hours of playing time makes the difference between profit and loss? Clearly, those clubs are not in a healthy financial situation and could go to the wall at any time. If they are that dependent on extra playing time, they have a problem. My amendment gives those clubs three years grace to get their house in order and to find some source of revenue other than from gambling. Hopefully, that will be more socially responsible than gambling. There is a good chance it would be because gambling is right up there as one of the most irresponsible means of raising revenue.

My amendment is fair to clubs; it gives them three years to adapt. But it gives priority to the needs of addicted gamblers, their families, friends and society generally. It is balanced. It gives clubs time to get their house in order, and it gets us back on the track towards having our society work as it should, and we would be exercising the duty of care that should be our starting point. Honourable members who put the interests of healthy communities and gambling-free families before the wealth of clubs filled with poker machines will surely support this amendment. I look forward to the debate and seeing the voting patterns.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [5.58 p.m.]: The Government opposes Greens amendment No. 2. The amendment would place in jeopardy the jobs of workers in some clubs and hotels. Those most at risk would be small country operations. The amendment moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon would remove an important safeguard for jobs. The honourable member just said that some small clubs may go to the wall. It must be borne in mind that many businesses are marginal. If their revenue is reduced by the imposition of measures such as the one proposed in the honourable member's amendment, many small clubs could hit the wall. I am sure the liquor industry union would not be too happy with a series of club closures. The Government's legislation, which is well crafted and well balanced, seeks to ensure that country operations, in particular small country operations, may survive without the imposition of what could otherwise be a harsh economic penalty for them.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [5.59 p.m.]: The Opposition will not support the Greens amendment, for many of the reasons outlined by the Minister. The board will be able to examine cases from certain clubs showing that the six-hour shutdown period is detrimental to their businesses not just because people will not be able to put money in the poker machines but if they do not go to the club they do not drink and they do not eat. The impact will extend wider than just not being able to put money into a poker machine for a six-hour shutdown period. The board will have stringent guidelines to adhere to. It will only be in genuine cases that clubs will be given permission to operate a three-hour shutdown period rather than the six-hour shutdown period. It is a commonsense solution to ensure the viability of smaller clubs in country areas. The Opposition does not support the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.00 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendment. It is a reasonable amendment that provides for what will happen in 2006, which certainly gives clubs that say they are experiencing hardship the opportunity to make adjustments so that they are not so dependent on poker machines. Perhaps such clubs should consider other fundraising methods. We support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [6.01 p.m.], by leave: I move Unity party amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [10]. Insert after line 34:

(4) An approval by the Board under this Division ceases to have effect 3 years from the date on which it took effect (unless it is sooner revoked by the Board).

(5) The Board must, in its annual report under the Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985, include a statement outlining the reasons for each approval given by the Board under this Division during the financial year to which the report relates.

No. 2 Page 5, schedule 1 [12], lines 15 to 18. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) The amendment made by the Gaming Machines Amendment (Shutdown Periods) Act 2003 to section 42 extends to an approval given by the Board under Division 2 of Part 4 before the commencement of that amendment.

The effective date for exemption is three years after which time the club should be able to survive. If it does not the board should reassess whether it should allow exemptions to continue. It is normal practice for any government institution to provide an annual report to highlight exemptions given by the board. The two amendments are simple and benign and should be acceptable to the Government.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [6.02 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendments, which will revoke any approvals for a reduced shutdown period after three years. If there are valid reasons now to allow some clubs and hotels to exercise a three-hour shutdown period, it is likely that the same circumstances will prevail in several years. There is no obvious reason to change the current arrangements. The Minister for Gaming and Racing has indicated that over the next 12 months all gambling harm minimisation measures will be reviewed. The continuation of the six-hour shutdown arrangements is likely to be considered as part of that review.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [6.03 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendments for the reasons outlined by the Minister.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.03 p.m.]: For the same reasons that we supported the Green's amendment, we support these amendments. Again, they refer to what will happen in 2006. The amendments are not at all extreme, and we support them.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [6.07 p.m.]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

I am pleased to introduce the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill and the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill. These bills are the New South Wales component of the nationally consistent scheme to regulate research involving excess human embryos and to prohibit human cloning agreed to at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 5 April 2002.

New South Wales does not have a legislative framework governing this morally and ethically complex field of scientific endeavour. These bills create one. This is important because medical technology is bringing us closer to techniques and discoveries that were previously in the realm of science fiction. These bills draw the line at what is acceptable scientific practice and what is not.

Most honourable members would be aware of the Premier's strong commitment to ensuring that research which may lead to the discovery of treatment and cures for diseases and other degenerative illnesses such as diabetes, Alzheimer's, cystic fibrosis, spinal cord injuries, burns and certain cancers can continue in this State.

The Premier has also stated that, wherever possible, governments have the responsibility to act to alleviate human suffering and to preserve human dignity. To this end, New South Wales has taken a leadership role among the States to ensure that important medical research can be carried out within an appropriate and considered framework of regulation.

The Government's commitment to the nationally consistent scheme for the regulation of research involving human embryos and the prohibition of human cloning, agreed to at the COAG meeting on 5 April 2002, has been informed by close analysis of the central ethical, social, legal and moral issues that are relevant to this matter.

The Government consulted key stakeholders in the scientific community to properly canvass the challenging issues associated with this rapidly developing area of science. In March 2002 the Premier met with leading New South Wales scientists, many of whom were conducting research in fields other than stem cell science. He found that their conviction in the potential of embryonic stem cell research, the need to keep all research pathways open, and their concern and commitment to helping the community was compelling.

Equally compelling was the view that a nationally consistent regime had the potential to foster the sharing of ideas and generate research collaborations, and possibly hasten the day when new therapies and cures would be available to combat life-threatening diseases.

Many parents and families in New South Wales support our commitment to introduce this legislation. They also believe in the potential of this research to bring significant health benefits to their loved ones. The regulatory framework agreed to at the COAG meeting, and to be implemented in New South Wales by these bills, balances the need to enable potentially life-saving research with the oversight and sanctions necessary to address concerns in our community. That is why the New South Wales Government agreed to the scheme.

The Commonwealth Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, which provide the framework for the national scheme, were assented to on 19 December 2002. The New South Wales Government and other States and Territories were involved in extensive consultation on the Commonwealth bills, providing input into the examination of issues affecting the development and implementation of a national scheme and how this can best be facilitated.

A key concern in this process was to ensure that the resulting legislation maintained fidelity to the principles agreed to at the COAG meeting. These principles were that human cloning and other unacceptable practices associated with the use of assisted reproductive technologies [ART] must be prohibited, but research using early stage excess ART embryos, which would otherwise be discarded, must be allowed to continue within a rigorous regulatory framework. Currently in New South Wales, ART is conducted under a self-regulatory framework through the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee and the National Health and Medical Research Council ethical guidelines.

The two New South Wales bills being introduced today will add a legislative dimension to this scheme. They will also ensure national consistency in accordance with the COAG principles. The bills are consistent with the Commonwealth legislation. Notably, the New South Wales bills mirror the split format of the Commonwealth legislation.

The Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill applies the Commonwealth embryo research laws as laws of this State, and implements a scheme that is to be administered, enforced and monitored by the Commonwealth. This means that the Commonwealth Research Act is treated as an Act of this State and any amendments made to that Act automatically become law in New South Wales. Specifically, this means that the National Health and Medical Research Council Licensing Committee established under the Commonwealth Act has powers and functions in New South Wales law and will be the only body issuing licences for the use of excess ART embryos in New South Wales.

Once the research bill comes into operation it will be an offence under New South Wales law to use an excess ART embryo if the use is not authorised by a licence or if the use is not an exempt use. The legislation also provides that until 5 April 2005, or unless the COAG agrees to an earlier date, only embryos created prior to 5 April 2002, and deemed excess, will be available for research purposes. The only activities to be allowed without a licence in relation to excess embryos are storage, removal from storage, or transport of an excess embryo; observation of an excess embryo; allowing the excess embryo to succumb; and certain diagnostic investigations using embryos not suitable for implantation. The types of research to be allowed by the legislation include derivation of embryonic stem cells and associated research activities, and research designed to increase the possibility of creating a viable pregnancy for an infertile woman. Offences, including breach of a licence, will attract penalties of up to five years imprisonment.

The New South Wales Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill does not apply the Commonwealth Cloning Act in the manner of the New South Wales Research Bill, because it contains a large number of serious criminal offences that require detailed articulation as laws of this State. Instead, it enacts its own offences that mirror the offences in the Commonwealth Act, thereby adopting in this State a uniform Australian approach to the prohibition of human cloning and certain other practices associated with reproductive technologies.

The New South Wales Government, like most members of our community, is strongly opposed to human cloning. Accordingly, the bill makes human cloning an offence and provides a maximum prison term of 15 years for any person who creates a human embryo clone.

Serious penalties are also imposed for a number of other activities that are considered scientifically or ethically unacceptable. They include intentionally creating a chimeric and/or hybrid embryo. By way of explanation, this includes activities such as introducing a cell from an animal into a human embryo or combining a human egg and animal sperm, or vice versa. Other activities include developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days, and intentionally altering the genome of a human cell so that the alteration is heritable. These offences incur a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.

Together, the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill and the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill provide a clear message of the Government's commitment to enacting a rigorous legislative framework. Further, this legislation remains faithful to our strong commitment to medical research and to ensuring that its potential benefit to all members of our community can be realised.

Law makes sense of social complexity; it communicates what is unacceptable behaviour and what is not; it gives us certainty. This legislation does precisely that. It ensures that the community's interests and values are being wisely safeguarded and fairly served through the provisions in these bills.

In summary, it is necessary to introduce New South Wales complementary legislation to prohibit unacceptable activities such as human cloning; to respond to community concerns that we regulate scientific research, and the use of excess ART human embryos; to maximise our chances of finding cures and therapies for diseases by allowing potentially life-saving research involving excess human embryos which would otherwise be discarded to continue; and to ensure a nationally consistent approach to these important matters, as agreed in April last year.

It is important to emphasise that although the Commonwealth legislation covers the greater part of research activities in Australia, New South Wales legislation is required to cover constitutional gaps, provide uniform regulation, and avoid uncertainty about the application of the regulatory scheme. The proposed legislation provides a balance.

It protects community standards, acknowledges the ethical dimension of this debate, and allows innovations that preserve human dignity. It also keeps open an important research pathway to therapies and cures for debilitating and life-threatening diseases and conditions such as diabetes, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. In my view New South Wales has a clear and compelling obligation to support the national scheme to regulate research involving embryos and prohibit human cloning. To do otherwise would be counter to the political, economic, social and scientific interests of this State. I commend the bills to the House.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [6.07 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition to the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill and the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill. The more I read about human cloning and research involving human embryos, the more I become involved in it. It is probably one of the most complex matters we will debate in this place. I have read extensively and thought long and hard about the issues surrounding it. In that reading I looked very closely at the Federal discussion, and I concur with my Federal colleague Danna Vale, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, who said in relation to stem cell research:

I acknowledge such research to be one of the new thresholds of our generation that holds tremendous promise for curing those diseases that still challenge humankind.

This research will impact on so many families and so many people. It offers hope for so many. We must grapple with the issues and balance carefully the needs of some with scientific research to ensure that we provide the right checks and balances.

The purpose of the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill is to address the New South Wales component of the national regulatory scheme established to permit the use of excess human embryos for research purposes that have been created as a result of assisted reproductive technologies [ART] on or prior to 5 April 2002 where those embryos would otherwise be discarded, subject to licensing committee approval. That date is significant. People need to keep in mind that that is a benchmark date. As I mentioned, these bills are the New South Wales component that will go toward the creation of a nationally consistent scheme to regulate research involving excess human embryos and to prohibit human cloning. That was agreed to at the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] meeting on 5 April 2002.

New South Wales does not have a legislative framework governing this morally and ethically complex field of scientific endeavour. These bills create that, and that is their primary purpose. This is important because medical technology is bringing us closer to techniques and discoveries that were previously in the realm of science fiction. It is exciting that we are able to deliver amazing scientific results. I might add that New South Wales is at the forefront of scientific discovery. These bills draw the line at what is acceptable scientific practice and what is not. A key concern in the process has been to ensure that the resulting legislation maintains fidelity with the principles agreed to at the COAG meeting. These principles are that human cloning and other unacceptable practices associated with the use of assisted reproductive technologies must be prohibited, but research using early stage excess ART embryos, which would otherwise be discarded, must be allowed to continue within a rigorous regulatory framework.

Currently in New South Wales ART is conducted under a self-regulatory framework through the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee and the National Health and Medical Research Council ethical guidelines. The two New South Wales bills will add a legislative dimension to this scheme. As I stated earlier, they will also ensure national consistency. Notably, the New South Wales bills mirror the split format of the Commonwealth legislation. I will deal with the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill step by step. Cloning is the production of a cell or organism with an exact same replica of the nuclear genome as another cell or organism. As far as I am aware, there is general agreement that such practices should be banned. I have not heard any argument to suggest otherwise, and I am sure that honourable members will agree with that. From that basis, the arguments in this debate have tended to be made based on a person's thoughts with regard to the use of human embryos. I know that this is an issue that we all personally grapple with when we are talking about life.

Excess assisted reproductive technologies created on or after 6 April 2002 are subject to a three-year moratorium on their use. The Minister is required to review the Act within two years of implementation and table a report within one year of the review, enabling the consideration of future scientific breakthroughs and changes in community attitudes to move forward and be reflected in legislation. Often in this debate it is forgotten that there is no opposition to the concept of stem cell research as a method of medical and scientific advancement and understanding. So there is no opposition to stem cell research that I have read about or heard about. There is no disagreement about human cloning and our complete refusal to adopt that. Our concerns as a community are whether we support the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. Embryos are destroyed in the process of accessing the stem cells.

I suggest that it is also imperative to note that no-one approaches this debate purely on a scientific level. I do not have the scientific expertise to do that, and I guess most honourable members do not. We have to examine the whole concept. Why would anyone fight to prohibit medical research in scientific terms? It is the moral issue that clouds this debate and that clouds our ability to make black-and-white decisions. The Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill prohibits the removal of an embryo from a woman's body purely for the intention of collecting a viable human embryo. Further, it prohibits the creation of human embryos outside of the body of a woman for any purpose aside from achieving pregnancy in a particular female. In essence, the bill prohibits the creation of embryos for the purpose of research; rather, it allows the use of embryos for that purpose if they are not used for the purpose for which they were created.

It is clear by this stance that the bill would not allow scientists and medical researchers carte blanche access to embryos for research—a common fear of those against the development of embryonic stem cell research. It is my understanding that adult stem cells do not have the ability that all embryonic stem cells have to differentiate into any tissue of the body. There are benefits to be gained from adult stem cells but they are not as broad as embryonic stem cells. I know that there have been some successful examples: in fact, one of the first examples concerns a person from my local area. I am aware of the gentleman, who is living a more healthy life now than was the case before.

However, there is a broader application for embryonic stem cells at this point. Embryonic stem cells offer the potential for advancement of knowledge in areas that adult stem cells do not. For example, embryonic stem cell research may allow an increase in understanding with regard to cell division and differentiation which could assist scientists in the research and advancement of knowledge in areas such as birth defects, cancer and ageing. It may not be possible to undertake such research using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells do not have the same ability as embryonic stem cells to differentiate into any tissue in the body. Further, they are not present in the body in large numbers and they do not replicate indefinitely. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no objection to the use of adult stem cells in relation to stem cell research. The use of adult stem cells for this purpose allows the consent of the donor and no ill effect on their ongoing health.

The central moral question in this debate and the basis of people's hesitation is: Where does life begin? That is what we are grappling with. Are embryos human at a certain point? If so, what point is that? It is significant that we think of a human as a body and soul, a body and mind. At what point is an embryo a human, simply not yet a foetus? Human embryos that have been cultivated but not used for IVF treatment are destroyed after a certain period, which differs from State to State. I find it inconsistent and difficult to accept that we should not allow surplus embryos to be used for research, but that they will be destroyed after a particular period, regardless. So it is the embryos that will be destroyed after a certain period that we are talking about. The substance of this bill has been developed and has been informed by close analysis of the central ethical, social, legal and moral issues that are relevant to this matter. I am aware that the Government consulted key stakeholders in the scientific community to properly canvass the challenging issues associated with this rapidly developing area of science.

I have an absolutely profound belief in the potential of embryonic stem cell research and the need to keep all research pathways open. The stakeholders' concern and commitment to helping the community is compelling. Over time, we have all seen people with degenerative diseases who could be aided greatly by this fantastic scientific discovery. People with diabetes, heart conditions, or back injuries could benefit. Equally compelling was the view that a nationally consistent regime had the potential to foster the sharing of ideas and to generate research collaborations, and possibly hasten the day when new therapies and cures would be available to combat life-threatening diseases.

Many of us know people who could have been helped by this scientific research. My father, who died of a degenerative disease, and my mother, who died of cancer, may have been aided had this technology been available. This technology may help a child in the future. As a partner in a skin cancer medical practice, I see many people for whom this scientific discovery could make a huge impact. Do we then say, "Hang on, we don't want that kind of progress"? No, I do not say that, but we have a responsibility to put the checks and balances in place so that this research does not get out of control. We need to balance ethical, social and moral issues and keep some control over the review process. We also need to ensure that there is not a national trading of research or cross-border trading of stem cells. This bill ensures that that will not occur.

Many parents and families in New South Wales support the commitment to introduce this legislation. They believe in the potential of this research to bring significant health benefits to their loved ones. The regulatory framework that was agreed to at the Council of Australian Governments meeting, and which will be implemented in New South Wales by these bills, balances the need to enable potentially life-saving research with the oversight and significant sanctions necessary to address concerns in our community. I am comforted by that framework. The bill confronts a difficult moral decision for us to make and it fundamentally centres on when we believe human life to have commenced. I do not believe this bill takes away human life; I believe it works towards the advancement of human life and towards a greater understanding of some things we may face during the course of life. These bills promote an alleviation of human suffering. I support these bills and urge other honourable members to do the same.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [6.23 p.m.]: The Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill and the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill are very important bills. At a later stage I will ask that they be voted on seriatim. The bills are the New South Wales component of the nationally consistent scheme to regulate research involving excess human embryos and to prohibit human cloning, as agreed to at the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] meeting on 5 April 2002. Medical technology is making new discoveries and bringing us closer to techniques that were previously unknown. The bills draw the line on what is good scientific practice and what is unethical and bad science. That is important, because we are discussing research that may lead to the discovery of treatment and cures, as the Hon. Robyn Parker said, for degenerative illnesses such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and cystic fibrosis as well as for spinal cord injuries, burns and certain cancers.

Obviously, New South Wales also desires to be part of a nationally consistent scheme for the regulation of research involving human embryos and the prohibition of human cloning, as agreed to at the COAG meeting on 5 April. Many ethical, social, legal and moral issues are relevant to this debate. The Commonwealth Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, which provide the framework for the national scheme, were assented to on 19 December 2002. The legislation maintained fidelity to the principles agreed to at the COAG meeting. The principles were that human cloning and other unacceptable practices associated with the use of assisted reproductive technologies, which I will refer to as ART, must be prohibited. Research using early-stage excess ART embryos, which would otherwise be discarded, must be allowed to continue within a regulatory framework.

Currently in New South Wales ART is conducted under a self-regulatory framework through the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee and National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] ethical guidelines. The Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill applies the Commonwealth embryo research laws as laws of this State and implements a scheme that is to be administered, enforced and monitored by the Commonwealth. That means that the Commonwealth's research Act is treated as an Act of this State, and any amendments made to the Act automatically become law in New South Wales. Specifically, this means that the NHMRC licensing committee, established under the Commonwealth Act, has powers and functions in New South Wales law and it will be the only body issuing licences for the use of excess ART embryos in New South Wales. The legislation provides that until 5 April 2005, or unless the COAG agrees to an earlier date, only embryos created prior to 5 April 2002 and deemed excess will be available for research purposes.

Without a licence, the only activities permitted with regard to excess embryos are their storage, removal from storage, or transportation; their observation; allowing them to succumb; and the use of those not suitable for implantation in certain diagnostic investigations. The types of research to be allowed by the legislation include derivation of embryonic stem cells and associated research activities, and research designed to increase the possibilities of creating a viable pregnancy for an infertile woman. Offences, including breach of a licence, will attract penalties of up to five years imprisonment.

The Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill enacts its own offences that mirror the offences of the Commonwealth Act, thereby adopting in this State the uniform Australian approach to the prohibition of human cloning and certain other practices associated with reproductive technologies. Serious penalties are also imposed for a number of other activities that are considered scientifically or ethically unacceptable, including intentionally creating a chimeric and/or hybrid embryo. By way of explanation, that includes activities such as introducing a cell from an animal into a human embryo, or combining a human egg and animal sperm, or vice versa. Other activities include developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days and intentionally altering the genome of a human cell, so that the alteration is heritable. These offences incur a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.

It is necessary to introduce New South Wales complementary legislation to prohibit unacceptable activities such as human cloning; to respond to community concerns that we regulate scientific research, and the use of excess ART human embryos; to maximise our chances of finding cures and therapies for diseases by allowing potential life-saving research involving excess human embryos that would otherwise be discarded to continue; and to ensure a nationally consistent approach across the Commonwealth.

The cloning of Dolly in 1997 opened up the cloning debate. Since then we have moved on to the stem cell debate. Most people are mystified by the claims and the confusing terminology. But we do not need a biological degree to understand all the terms. The fundamental ethical issues are easy enough to understand. Why then are we having this debate? Regenerative medicine is an exciting new field of medicine in which different techniques are used to repair damaged organs and tissues. Stem cell therapy is one avenue of regenerative medicine. Stem cell therapy has enormous potential for good. The ethical issue is not whether or not to use stem cells, but from where we get the stem cells. The destruction of embryos for stem cell research is ethically unacceptable.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Kayee Griffin) left the chair at 6.31 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [8.00 p.m.]: I congratulate all those honourable members who are present in the House and who will have to wrestle with ethical and moral issues of considerable importance long after the mud wrestling at Telstra Stadium, which is currently screening on television, will have been forgotten. Earlier I said that the destruction of embryos for stem cell research is ethically unacceptable. What are stem cells? Normally, a skin cell remains as a skin cell all its life, a nerve cell remains as a nerve cell until it dies, and so on. Stem cells, however, can change into many types of cells—heart cells, nerve cells, muscle cells, skin cells and the like. They are called stem cells because they are the stem or trunk, from which the branches, or different cell types, can proceed. Because of this capacity they may prove useful for the treatment of some medical conditions as they can be trained in different directions.

Where do stem cells come from? Adult stem cells can be taken from living humans—children or adults—without harming them. They can be taken from elbows, from up people's noses or from many other parts of the body. These stem cells are called adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells come from embryos. The embryo is destroyed and its stem cells are extracted. Adult stem cells, despite their name, can be taken from children or adults, without harming them, or from umbilical cord blood after the birth of a child. What are the benefits of stem cell treatment? As I said earlier, stem cell research may benefit many conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and the like. New cells may be able to replace damaged tissue. But it must be remembered that such benefits may be a long way off as these are complex diseases and the cures are never simple.

We need to be optimistic but also realistic. People have spoken a lot of tripe about how stem cell research can cure paraplegics, quadriplegics, or people bound to wheelchairs. That will not happen. Incidentally, world research has established that the only stem cells that have helped patients so far are adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research has not helped a single patient; it has a zero success rate. How do we get stem cells from embryos? They come from the destruction of surplus in-vitro fertilization [IVF] embryos or by creating—for example, cloning—embryos. How are stem cells obtained from surplus IVF embryos? Scientists thaw the frozen embryos and divide or separate the early stage embryo—usually about five to seven days after fertilization—into its component parts. Obviously, that kills the embryos.

The stem cells are placed in cultures where they can multiply. They grow into colonies, or clusters, of cells. They are then programmed to become the desired specified cell—for example, a heart cell—which can develop into tissue. How are stem cells obtained from the cloning of embryos? Another option is to create new embryos via nuclear somatic transfer, as in the cloning of Dolly the sheep; that is, human embryos would be deliberately created for the sole purpose of extracting their stem cells. This is often called therapeutic cloning—a terrible misnomer as it is not therapeutic for the embryo. Some scientists and biotechnology businessmen say that human cloning could create a continuous supply of stem cells. They are basically proposing the creation of embryo farms for the treatment of patients.

What about adult stem cells? The stem cell research that has worked most successfully is adult stem cell therapy. We have known about adult stem cells for about 30 years. We can access adult stem cells in many parts of our bodies—the brain, bone marrow, skin, fat, the nose and many other locations. Australian researchers in Melbourne have found a technique that may help in getting adult stem cells from the human brain. That could mean a cure for people suffering from Parkinson's disease and other neurological conditions. The success of using these cells to treat patients has been impressive. This research does not destroy embryos and does not need cloning and, what is more, it has been very successful.

A recent article in the magazine New Scientist described one type of adult stem cell as "the ultimate stem cell". One might ask: Which cells should doctors use? The media gives us the impression that there is no alternative to embryonic stem cell research. But that is a deception that is propagated by those with a personal interest in destructive embryonic stem cell research, mainly for commercial purposes. No-one has a right to destroy embryos to do this research. We should push ahead with successful and ethical adult stem cell research, which involves no destruction of embryos. Even better, it works. What is the link between embryonic stem cell research and cloning? Embryonic stem cell research is the threshold of cloning. IVF embryos can be used for research but probably not for therapy. If an embryonic stem cell were injected into patients, it would be rejected by their immune system.

To overcome this problem, scientists suggest making clones of their patients to extract the stem cells. These could be injected into the patient without risk of immune rejection, as they have the same genetic code as the patient's cells. But if the clone were allowed to keep developing in a womb, a baby would be born. Some scientists claim that making a clone to extract stem cells, so-called therapeutic cloning, is acceptable, while making a clone to grow as a complete baby, reproductive cloning, is bad. I believe that they are both unethical. Because I am a minister of religion people might ask me: Is this a clash between religion and science? No. This debate is about good science versus bad science. Good science is ethical science. Ethical science also has all the successes. Only adult stem cells have the runs on the board. Adult stem cell research has made amazing progress. Although it will be years before it can be used as standard therapy, it has already produced very promising results.

I will give some examples of reports that have appeared in leading scientific journals. In Dusseldorf in July 2001 German doctors reported that a patient's own bone marrow adult stem cells had been used to regenerate tissue damaged by a heart attack, improving his heart function. In the United States of America doctors took adult stem cells from the brain of a patient with Parkinson's disease and re-implanted them, resulting in an 83 per cent improvement in the patient. Washington Medical Center treated 26 patients with rapidly deteriorating multiple sclerosis—20 patients stabilised and six improved. Israeli doctors inserted adult blood stem cells into a paraplegic woman's spinal cord. She regained bladder control and the ability to wiggle her toes and move her legs.

Children's immune systems that had been destroyed by cancer were restored using umbilical cord blood—these also were adult stem cells. Surgeons in Taiwan restored vision to a patient with severe eye damage using stem cells from the patient's eyes. In the United States adult stem cells have been used to treat sickle cell anaemia, and adult pancreatic islet cells proved beneficial to 15 patients with insulin-dependent diabetes. In the United Kingdom a three-year-old boy was recently cured of a fatal disease through the use of stem cells extracted from his sister's placenta. These cases may be examined on the web site of the Australasian Bioethics Information Service at www.australasianbioethics.org.

Public debate highlights the importance and scope of human dignity but the fundamentals of this debate are set by what constitutes competent ethical science that respects human rights. Why are some scientists pushing embryonic stem cell research if the use of adult stem cells is both helpful and ethical? It used to be said that embryonic stem cells are more effective than adult stem cells because embryonic stem cells are easier to identify, isolate and harvest; there are more of them; they grow more quickly and easily in the laboratory than adult stem cells; and they can be manipulated more easily. Yet all these arguments have proved false. The first two claims are misleading: Harvesting is a non-problem. Scientists have been extracting some types of human adult stem cells for almost a decade—think of bone marrow transplants, for example. But human embryonic stem cells were not isolated successfully until 1998. Several biotechnology companies have now developed proprietary methods to make adult cell isolation and extraction even easier. They have developed worldwide patents that ensure their ownership of those methods.

Scientists have discovered stem cells in virtually every major organ of the adult body, including the brain. Last year researchers identified conditions that would allow adult stem cells to multiply in a culture by a billion-fold in a few weeks. The key argument for using stem cells from embryos is that they are more "plastic"—that is, they are easier to change into other types of cells. While this claim has some basis, the technology is improving so rapidly that it is hard to substantiate. The United States National Institute of Health report has noted:

… the field of stem-cell biology is advancing at an incredible pace with new discoveries being reported in the scientific literature on a weekly basis.

Researchers may have already superseded the advantage of using embryo stem cells. While adult stem cells may never be as "plastic" as embryo stem cells, they will almost certainly be plastic enough. Dennis Steindler, a professor of neuroscience and neurosurgery at the University of Tennessee in Memphis, said:

These adult tissues don't appear to be as restricted in their fate as we thought they were.

He continued:

In some ways they may not have the same potential as embryonic cells, but once we figure out their molecular genetics, we should be able to coax them into becoming almost anything we want them to be.

The real question is: Why should we not use embryonic stem cells for cures and research? There are several reasons. First, I believe it is unethical. The process of obtaining them destroys a human embryo and the destruction of human life cannot be justified, even if the aim is to save another human life. It is the moral equivalent of harvesting organs from a person who is dying but is not yet dead. It is worth noting that the European Parliament, the United States Congress, the German and French parliaments and many other governments have banned the destruction of human embryos. That is why I am calling on the New South Wales Parliament to do the same. Second, embryonic stem cells can cause cancer. Embryonic stem cells are versatile but they are also likely to become malignant. Their potential for causing cancer is a real concern for researchers around the world. The editor of the journal Stem Cells made the following startling admission last year:

I continue to think that clinical application is a long way off. Prior to clinical use of embryonic and foetal stem cells, it will be necessary to thoroughly investigate the malignant potential of embryonic stem cells.

Adult stem cells seem to be more stable than embryonic stem cells and are not as prone to producing tumours. Third, it is unnecessary to use embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are proving to be a viable alternative. For example, umbilical cord blood and placenta blood are both rich in stem cells. Scientists have found stem cells in adults in virtually every major organ, including the brain. As I have pointed out, they have already been successfully used in treatment while embryonic stem cells still offer only theoretical potential for good. The following point is worth emphasising. While many actual benefits have been obtained from adult stem cells in recent years, we have as yet no demonstrated benefit to human patients from any embryonic stem cells.

Fourth, the benefits of embryonic stem cells are a long way off. Most scientists admit that all potential benefits of embryonic stem cells are still distant. Sir Gustav Nossal and other experts have observed that no real breakthroughs are expected for many years. Moreover, they say that it is sure to be an expensive and difficult endeavour. In the meantime, many adult stem cell breakthroughs have already taken place. Unfortunately, the scientists who are pushing for embryonic stem cell treatment make it sound as though the benefits will happen tomorrow, giving many sick people false hope.

Fifth, the use of adult stem cells seems to overcome the problem of immune rejection, which is still a big problem when using embryonic stem cells. Our bodies quickly recognise and try to kill off foreign tissues implanted in them. By using cells from one's own body one avoids the compatibility problem. There is something holistic and natural about using adult stem cells. In some experiments in which embryonic stem cells were used as therapies the patients' conditions actually worsened. Sixth, embryonic stem cell research is driven not by a hope for cures but by a lust for profit. Many of the cell lines are in the hands of private companies that have patented their developments. The amount of vested financial interests in this area is staggering. Big biotechnology has the same profit-driven agenda as other industries that are viewed skeptically by the media, such as big tobacco and big oil.

What about reproductive cloning? Almost everyone agrees that reproductive cloning should be banned. But if we allow cloning for research, unscrupulous people will inevitably push for the cloning of an embryo to produce a child. It is claimed that that has already been done in the United States and the Middle East. A few American couples have made public requests to clone dead children—they demand this as their "reproductive right". What unscrupulous scientists have not achieved may be achieved by unscrupulous lawyers. Now is the time to stop reproductive cloning dead in its tracks otherwise we may become used to the idea and allow it later. My point is: Does an embryo deserve the same respect as a person? Research on embryos is research on embryonic persons. It denies the dignity of the human embryo.

The human embryo is a distinct, living human being and is entitled to the same rights as any other human being. Human life begins at conception—or fertilisation. Therefore, the human embryo, regardless of how it is created, should not be treated as a means to an end. It is entitled to respect and dignity. Once embryonic development commences, a separate and distinct human being exists. As such, the embryo should not be used in a purely instrumental fashion. Any technology or "therapeutic" procedure which involves the destruction of a human embryo should be banned.

Earlier I heard someone in the House say, "Won't embryos be destroyed anyway? Why not do something useful with them?" Those who argue that the frozen embryos will be destroyed anyway miss the point. Couples had the embryos created for implantation and to bring about new life. The existence of surplus embryos is a real concern; it has become a scientific embarrassment and a legal mess created by the in-vitro fertilisation [IVF] industry. But we should not add to the mess by experimenting on the embryos that are left over. We need to find a humane solution to the ethical dilemma of surplus IVF embryos. Some, including the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, have proposed adopting out the embryos, which is being done on a small scale in the United States of America. But whatever decision we make, it must treat them with dignity and not as a quarry for body parts.

Fifty years ago a Nazi doctor established a collection of murdered children's brains, preserved in formaldehyde. He wrote scientific papers based on his studies of the brains and became a distinguished public figure. When this scandal came to light, Austrians were aghast and the body parts were taken from him and buried in a dignified public ceremony attended by thousands of people. No-one argued that because these children were dead anyway—they had been dead for 60 or 70 years—the doctor should be allowed to continue his research to push forward the frontiers of science. Maybe we can learn a lesson from that in our controversy over surplus IVF embryos. A mistake has been made, and the way to correct it is not to destroy the embryos but to treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve.

There are seven key ideas about stem cell research: good science is ethical science; there are two types of stem cells—adult stem cells taken from an adult body and embryonic stem cells obtained by killing an embryo; the use of adult stem cells is very successful and ethical; destroying embryos for research is unethical; destroying embryos for research is not necessary to obtain cures; embryonic stem cell research will inevitably lead to cloning human beings; and destructive embryonic stem cell research must be banned. I will move four amendments in Committee. My first amendment relates to a circular definition of "human embryo". The Commonwealth legislation provides the following definition:

"Human embryo" means a live embryo that has a human genome or an altered human genome and that has been developing for less than eight weeks since the appearance of two pro-nuclei or the initiation of development by other means.

The problem here is circularity: "human embryo means a live embryo". It is logically unacceptable to define a term by using the same term. That leaves open the question as to what is an embryo that is formed by other means. In the broad range of possibilities for experimenting with somatic cells and germ cells and their constituent parts, when could a court conclude that as a matter of law involving severe penalties, what had been formed was no longer just cells but had become an embryo? The definition gives no clarity as to what essentially a human embryo is, or what conditions are required before one must conclude as a matter of law that an embryo exists. This would create legal uncertainty for scientists. More importantly, it would make the prohibitions in relation to human embryos initiated by other means unenforceable because of the uncertainty as to whether experimentation had resulted in an embryo being formed. This would seem to be contrary to the intention of the Commonwealth law. What is needed is an additional definition of "embryo" to complement the existing definition of "human embryo".

A new discovery problem is that stem cells can be used reproductively, and the Commonwealth embryonic stem cell legislation is silent about any requirement to inform couples of possible reproductive uses or to tell them that they may object to their embryonic stem cells being used to produce offspring. My amendments Nos 2 and 3 deal with that. Since the Commonwealth Act was passed last December there has been a major scientific breakthrough. The Germline Development Group, the School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, has discovered that embryonic stem cells can be cultured to produce eggs. Their discovery has been published in a major peer- reviewed scientific journal. The publication details are: Hubner K, Fuhrmann G, Christenson LK, Kehler J, Reinbold R, De La Fuente R, Wood J, Strauss III JF, Boiani M, Scholer HR. "Derivation of Oocytes from Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells" "Science" 2003 May 1, which states:

At the time that the Commonwealth legislation was passed, it was assumed that cultured embryonic stem cells are generally considered pluripotent rather than totipotent in the sense that all cells of the human body can develop from them. It was thought impossible to develop germ cells, that is sperm or eggs, from human embryonic stem cells. Thus it was thought that embryonic stem cells had no reproductive use.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): The member seems to be speaking in detail to amendments he will move in Committee.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I will summarise them.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I wish to ensure that the member will not make the same speech in Committee.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: No, I will not make the same speech. I just mention that there have been new discoveries since the Commonwealth legislation was passed. In relation to my amendment No. 4, the Commonwealth legislation allows the destruction pre April 2002 of the so-called spare embryos. There is no morally relevant distinction between spare and specially created embryos.

In conclusion, we call upon the New South Wales Parliament to join the European Parliament, the United States of America Congress, the parliaments of Germany and France, and many other institutions to ban the destruction of human embryos. I acknowledge the help of Dr Amin Abboud of the Stem Cell Research Centre, Chatswood, in writing this speech. The question is: Do we kill the embryos or simply allow them to die a natural death? Like a terminally ill patient, at some point the life support systems are turned off and the patient is allowed to die with dignity. The patient is not put to death but, rather, allowed to die a natural death. That is the moral decision. In Committee I will move the amendments I referred to. Pursuant to Standing Order 106 I request that the questions on the two bills be put seriatim.

The Hon. TONY BURKE [8.28 p.m.]: I want to deal with three issues in relation to these bills. First, I will explain why I oppose destructive research on embryos. Second, I will explain why, in the absence of information that I am still seeking, I currently lean towards supporting the second reading of both bills. Finally, I will point out how this legislation could be improved.

In explaining why I oppose destructive research on embryos, it is important to note one thing about the rhetoric that has surrounded this debate. It is fair to say that that rhetoric does not have a lot to do with the bills. Honourable members and members of the public who have been following this debate frequently refer to it as the stem cell debate. The Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill does not mention stem cell research into embryos, but it refers to an entitlement to create new destructive research on embryos. It could be for stem cell purposes or a variety of other purposes, but stem cell is not a criterion of the research, though the rhetoric surrounding the debate would imply that it is.

Secondly, a separate debate has accompanied the debate on the bills. That separate debate at some point has been helpful, and at other points has not been helpful. It is the debate on the comparison between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. The argument has a limitation. It is in the point of argument that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to show. Because the research is so new, in part that perspective can be understood. I accept that as a limitation on the argument. But one must ask the question: When there are two possible paths to go down, why would scientific research companies passionately support one path rather than the other? I have to say that I am absolutely astonished that in this debate multinational drug companies have been presented as all noble, as if they are the nobility of multinational corporations. I find that extraordinary. It is as though anyone with a sense of social justice owes a great debt to multinational drug companies, and how dare we presume they might act out of anything other than the best of motives.

The reality is that for multinational drug companies there is a really big difference between going down the adult stem cell path and going down the embryonic stem cell path. Go down the adult stem cell path and find cures, and those cures are treatments. Go down the embryonic stem cell path and find cures, and those cures are products. Consider which end result is more profitable, the treatment or a product, and I think the argument becomes clear. Add to that the arguments raised by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes concerning the number of lobbyists in this debate—we did not see much of them in the State debate, but they were certainly in Canberra last year—who also hold positions as directors of companies that will own the products should their lobbying be successful. In that context, I wonder whether the science presented is being presented without a conflict of interest. I wonder whether the science that is presented is presented purely with patients' interests at heart.

Taking all of that into account, I find it absolutely extraordinary that a whole lot of people—any of whom would regard themselves as being from the Left—suddenly see nobility in the same companies that have carried out other drug tests in Third World nations and in the least ethical ways and now want to take research down the embryonic stem cell path. It is interesting that Christopher Reeve is held out as an example of someone who could benefit from embryonic stem cell research. If the cures come from going down that path, I wonder how many people without his income would be able to afford them. Adult stem cell research resulting in cures that involve only a treatment do not present this problem.

There are two issues that must be confronted by those who oppose destructive research on embryos. I respect the fact that many people do not accept that those issues must be confronted, but I do. The first of those issues is getting over the hurdle that we believe we are dealing with a stage of human life deserving of full human dignity. I have no trouble reaching that conclusion, but I respect the fact that some people do not. The second issue is that, in talking about what is referred to as surplus embryos, one has to come to the conclusion that there is a distinction between killing and letting die. I have never had any trouble distinguishing between allowing an adult to die by ceasing treatment or by the giving of a lethal injection. I think the quantitative difference is clear. But some do not get over both those hurdles.

The irony of the first concept—that we are not dealing with a human life fully deserving of dignity, which some argue—is that we are debating that concept at the same time as we are debating human cloning. At what stage of life can we say we can get a clone of the adult? It is at precisely this stage. This is the stage of life where we are able to say: This is how you could create a clone of an adult. Yet in the same breath some would argue that the clone you have just created does not have any of the dignity that one might attribute to it later on in life. I find those arguments odd. I find them difficult. I certainly do not share the view of those who would so argue.

Taking all that into account, I must say that both bills are inadequate in many ways. I certainly do not hold the New South Wales Minister responsible for that. The provisions of these bills genuinely mirror some of the problems that arose at the Federal level last year. Both bills are inadequate in the protections they offer. I find it interesting that the debate conducted in the lower House was conducted as though its members, with a few exceptions, were in the Federal Parliament. They argued as though the passage of these bills would allow embryonic stem cell research to take place. Many voted no on the basis of a belief that if this legislation were defeated, that sort of research could not take place.

I find myself in a situation where at each stage of the debate I have to ask the question: Which way can I use my vote to better protect human life, to better protect the dignity of life at this incredibly early stage? One cannot properly consider that question without taking into account the current law in New South Wales. In large part, the other House did not take that into account. None of us as citizens or members of Parliament in New South Wales have anything to be proud of regarding the current state of New South Wales law on this issue because, for all the problems that exist with these bills, the status quo is actually worse. The status quo in New South Wales offers no protection whatsoever for human embryos.

Section 20 of the Crimes Act defines when a child is deemed to be alive. It defines that as being at the first breath. That is no different from the position in our common law system, on which the leading authority now is a decision in the case of Hutty, in which once again first breath was regarded as significant when considering at what point one accords rights. That is a concept that I reject outright. But that is the state of the law in New South Wales right now. So no matter how small are the protections offered by the bills before this House, I cannot regard them as being other than a pathetically small improvement on the status quo.

When I have put to people that even though I am quite passionately opposed to destructive research on embryos I currently cannot vote against these bills at their second reading, the first argument offered to me is that I should not regulate something I oppose. I accept that argument. The only problem is that to vote against the bills will not just prevent regulation; it will allow everything to be completely legal. This debate is in a very different category from, for example, abortion or prostitution debates, in which people say that the law currently exists and we would be better off regulating it. In the instant debate the current law does not prohibit anything. It does not purport to prohibit anything; it does not pretend to prohibit anything. The law makes an affirmative statement that no dignity at all is accorded to life at this early stage.

One argument that has been offered to me is that life at this stage is so small. Under New South Wales law there is more protection for the unfertilised egg of an endangered species than there is for a human embryo. There is more protection in the laws of this State for a grain of sand at Cronulla Beach than there is for a human embryo. The law does not hesitate to protect things because they are little. But at the moment, for reasons that I have never fully understood, the law in New South Wales differs from the laws in Victoria and previously in South Australia, and provides absolutely no protection for life at the embryonic stage.

I listened to the debate with interest, but when I ask myself which way I should vote to better protect embryos, at this stage I certainly cannot point to a single argument that convinces me, if the legislation is carried, that embryos will be less protected than they are now. That is not because there is currently very little protection for them at present but because there is absolutely no protection for them. But even those who are deeply disappointed with the position that went through the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] and then the Commonwealth Parliament have the opportunity to consider how to improve the legislation. I can assure the House that, no matter what limitations I perceive there to be on my options for voting on the second reading, given the current state of the law in New South Wales I intend to support any amendment that makes the legislation stronger and provides greater protection for human embryos.

I will draw the attention of the House to measures in the legislation that may arise in Committee—some of which, I hope, will be referred to by the Minister in reply. In his second reading speech in the other House the Minister said that the human embryo hybrid argument can be reversed. I think we are all horrified that we have to debate this. I am sure it does not make any of us feel well when we consider some of the cross-species issues involved, but it is something we have to deal with, so I will. Clause 4 (1) of the human cloning bill defines a chimeric embryo as a human embryo into which a cell, or any component part of a cell, of an animal has been introduced. Clause 15 of the bill makes it an offence to create a chimeric or hybrid embryo.

However, it is not an offence to create such an embryo in the reverse: it remains completely legal to introduce human bits into an animal embryo. The research that was carried out on hybrids was not carried out on chimeric embryos. Clause 4 (1) (b) provides for some of these things to be dealt with by regulation. That may be the Minister's intention, but I would be grateful for his response on this in Committee.

The Christian Democratic Party intends to move a number of amendments that deal with the cloning legislation, one of which clarifies the definition of an embryo. Some people may say that we do not need to define an embryo, because obviously we know what an embryo is. The reason for supporting the amendment comes from an argument by Christopher Reeve when he made one of his keynote addresses in Sydney. He said we should not be concerned about this because we are not talking about embryos but unfertilised eggs.

That argument is true, because fertilisation does not occur in cloning, in which there is not the introduction of sperm but the removal of one cell and its replacement by the nucleus of another cell to create the clone. Because there has been no fertilisation, the argument, which is gradually becoming part of the public debate, is that there is no embryo. We cannot have only a circular definition of "embryo" that says an embryo is an embryo, which is what we have at the moment, and then define it down. What if we never get to defining what constitutes an embryo? Is it possible to have an embryo that is not created by fertilisation? That is what the whole cloning debate is about. Unless we decide that, we leave it to the courts to make the decision. That statement came not from someone trying to find the most bizarre dastardly plot, but from one of the leading proponents of this agenda.

I look forward to discussing in Committee the first amendment of the Christian Democratic Party, which seeks to define "embryo". The second and third amendments are more technical, and I will not take the time of the House now because Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes discussed them. The fourth amendment creates an opportunity that many of us want: the opportunity to vote on whether destructive research on embryos should be allowed. I respect that some people believe that voting against the second reading of the research bill would result in embryo research being stopped. I do not believe that for one minute. Given the current state of the law in New South Wales, I cannot find any legal argument to that effect.

I understand absolutely the writing on the wall and how that vote will go. Notwithstanding that, I am very grateful that, given the vagaries of the bill and the current state of the law in New South Wales, the amendment will give us the opportunity in Committee to unequivocally put on the record our position on destructive research on embryos. As I said earlier, the licence conditions in the research legislation are silent about stem cell research. They refer only to any form of research that may be carried out on embryos. The human cloning legislation is a clause-by-clause mirror of the Federal legislation, and the research bill incorporates the Federal Parliament's legislation.

Clause 5 of the research bill provides that the Commonwealth embryo laws apply in this State. Paul McLeay, the honourable member for Heathcote in the other House, drew attention to the huge hole in the Commonwealth embryo laws. To some extent the Minister responded, but my concerns have not been allayed. When the legislation was being drafted, many people supported COAG only because of the argument that embryos would be destroyed anyway. That argument does not convince me. The concern was that the cloning legislation imposed a ban, but that the ban was ineffective. Once again, the blame for this lies with the Federal Parliament.

Clause 9 makes it an offence to create a human embryo for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman. One of the limitations is that the defendant has absolutely no evidentiary burden, which would make it almost impossible to achieve a prosecution. The Federal Parliament recognised that such a prohibition would not, alone, be enough to stop research companies from deliberately creating human embryos for the purpose of destruction, so it decided on a moratorium, which was not a bad idea. It decided that any embryos created subsequent to 5 April 2002 could not be used for research. The moratorium was to prevent IVF clinics from deliberately creating surplus embryos. The problem is that the moratorium finishes on 5 April 2005, or earlier if COAG so decides. The Hon. Peter Breen will move an amendment that goes to this very issue and solves the problem. I refer to the Minister's reply in the other House, in which he defended the current situation on the following basis:

The point of the moratorium was to ensure, in the absence of an appropriate legislative regime and without COAG being able to put protocols in place, that excess ART embryos could not be deliberately created for research purposes.

I have to say that that statement pretty effectively acknowledges that the prohibition in the cloning bill does not go far enough. There is an acknowledgement that the moratorium is required as an added level of protection. The statement that the moratorium had to apply "in the absence of an appropriate legislative regime" points to the fact that our only chance to put a legislative regime in place is if the issue comes back to the Parliament. The Council of Australian Governments does not have the capacity to put an appropriate legislative regime in place. It cannot do that. While COAG may be an expression of the executive power of the Commonwealth at the different levels of government, it is not an expression of the legislative power. The legislative power resides in the parliaments.

The only way to provide that type of protection is by ensuring that when the moratorium is lifted, it should not be lifted by a group of Ministers or Premiers sitting around a table because of the acknowledgement that better legislative safeguards are needed. The only way to put those safeguards in place is to bring the issues back to the parliaments, if the moratorium is to be lifted. If it is the case that the Parliament sees fit to review the issue, it will guarantee that new safeguards can be put in place. If anyone in this Chamber is in the same position as many members of the Federal Parliament who were of the opinion that the justification for supporting the legislation was on the basis that the embryos would be destroyed anyway, I point out that one can logically hold that position only by supporting the amendment that has been foreshadowed by the Hon. Peter Breen. Without that amendment, the justification argument may be able to be used until 5 April 2005 or until the next meeting of COAG, but it will have absolutely no currency after that.

It gives me no joy to be placed in the position of supporting the bills at the second reading stage. I do so only on the basis that the legislation before us is in the shadow of a complete absence of any restrictions whatsoever. I would love to say that I commend the bills to the House, but it would be too hard to go that far. However, I look forward to the Committee stage and hope that we can move towards a position at which the level of dignity that properly ought to be accorded can come that bit closer to being represented in the law of New South Wales.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [8.52 p.m.]: The science that is the subject of the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill and the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill is very complex. I feel somewhat inadequately prepared to add anything of a scientific contribution to this debate that has not already been addressed. I am happy to support the bill that prohibits human cloning. The basis for my opinion is that it interferes with the reproduction process with an intention to breed super improved human beings. This is not man's work. When man tried to meddle with the development of a super race the results were physical and moral failure. The realisation of cloning animals started some time ago and was brought to prominence with Dolly the sheep. While it worked and proved that life can be engineered, Dolly was not healthy and died prematurely. As far as I am concerned, whether cloning should be continued with animals is open to debate. However, as far as human cloning is concerned—absolutely not! I support this bill's prohibition.

The cognate bill, the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill, relates to human embryos or, more precisely, stem cell technology. I was privileged to sit in on a meeting that was addressed by Dr Michael Walsh of the Edmund Rice Centre. Dr Walsh is an ethics adviser and his address attempted to elucidate the ethical issues shrouding this subject. The types of stem cells that may be used in research are either embryonic or adult stem cells. Adult stem cells appear to hold opportunities for research. Embryonic stem cells certainly hold out great hope for researchers to come up with treatment and panaceas for a whole range of ailments and diseases. The promised results will be the relief of human suffering and the relief of dreadful illness. I find this extremely exciting. It overwhelms my opposition to any aspects of this bill. To in any way deny sufferers of chronic pain this vital research becomes another moral problem in itself. This is a very important opportunity for medical science to advance human understanding, and it must not be missed. New South Wales must play its part. Our research institutes are ready and able to proceed, if they are not doing so already.

Embryonic stem cells and their acquisition create a dilemma. I have problems with similar issues, such as abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment. These issues fall into the same category of man taking human life. Research into embryonic stem cells also falls into this category. The bill limits embryonic stem cells to only those embryos that are required under the IVF program, and only embryos and stem cells that are surplus to requirements of that program. Therefore, the reasons for the existence of the embryos from which the embryonic stem cells are extracted are the results of the IVF program and are not an issue created by this bill alone. The embryos that will be used for research are excess to requirements and will be destroyed if they are not utilised. In my opinion, the bill sidesteps any dilemma about their usage. Any moral dilemma about usage essentially rests with the IVF program. I must say that the IVF program has provided unquantifiable happiness and pleasure to many thousands of families. It is hugely successful. The moral dilemmas virtually stare at each other, but such is life! I support the bills.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [8.57 p.m.]: The science involved in debate on this topic brings into focus some of the most complex ethical and moral dilemmas that we have to face at this time. It is true that science and the law seldom develop at the same pace. The law usually follows behind, as a matter of necessity. Ethical considerations are accompanied by legal issues, and social issues also heavily define the nature of legal issues that the legislation needs to address. We cannot expect the legislation to tell us what are acceptable social, moral or scientific practices, and what are not. Legislation becomes a guide to social order, but it is our duty to apply a set of values, ethics and moral principles to the requirement for legislation and to make laws accordingly. But laws must be developed to keep pace with scientific innovation in a way that is progressive, not regressive, and in a way that will not hamper the progress of science for the benefit it can offer individuals and the community as a whole.

Equally, we cannot make laws that simply address the commercial concerns of biotechnology companies that stand to gain from developments. The Premier's utilitarian philosophical approach appears to be driving the agenda. Ordinary citizens, like many of us, are unfamiliar with the technology and need reassurance that what is occurring in scientific laboratories is not being driven entirely by a desire to be first at any cost, or by peer pressure within the scientific community. Reassurance needs to be given in a way that is sensitive to the myriad ethical concerns that abound in this very necessary field of scientific endeavour, but within the ethical boundaries that we can all find acceptable.

It is also true that when we are tasked with this complex initiative we need to make careful and well-informed decisions that are based on sound information and careful authoritative research in order to be able to apply our own moral categories and value judgments. There needs to be a decision about which philosophical approach is being taken. This is not simply about outcomes. For example, in the Sydney Morning Herald the Premier is quoted as having taken a utilitarian approach which essentially sees the legislation as a means of outcomes. Those who take the approach that the sanctity of life is paramount must engage in a debate about when life is supposed to begin. Those at the forefront of the debate tell us that stem cells from bone marrow have long been recognised as capable of developing into blood and immune cells.

Scientists have recently reported that under certain conditions the same stem cell could develop into cells that have many of the characteristic neurons, known as adult stem cell plasticity. It is possible that research may provide more information, but we know that scientific research always produces more questions than it answers. We need first to have a grasp of the science involved and then to understand the implications and ramifications of that science. We must first seek to understand what it can do and what it cannot do; we must be well informed before we can leap to conclusions based on emotional, ill-informed, fanatical dogma. There are many dilemmas to which I do not know the answer. I am sure that many honourable members would share my concern on this issue, whether they wholeheartedly support the bills or are alarmed by the speed of scientific research and how it has impinged the sphere of the sanctity of life, or potential life.

Some would argue that the House should pass these bills because they would advance scientific research by allowing the no-longer-needed, unwanted or surplus embryos to be used for research. Sooner or later those embryos will be disposed of in any event. Some would argue that it would be better to have some kind of legislation rather than no legislation. Others would argue that this State must pass legislation consistent with the recently passed Commonwealth legislation. I note that many members of the lower House wholeheartedly supported the bills. Some argued that research on embryos or stem cells would one day provide treatment for many diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, the repair of damaged heart muscles, or even a cure for cancer. Indeed, all those claims could well be true one day. It is interesting that at present the only success with stem cell treatment comes from adult stem cells in the treatment of blood diseases, such as leukaemia, and in bone marrow transplants. As Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes correctly pointed out, at present, apart from causing undesirable effects on an organ, a stem cell in a human body can behave like a cancerous cell.

I now seek the indulgence of the House to give some scientific background to these issues. Although we are dealing with two bills, we are obviously dealing with human cloning on one hand and embryo research or stem cell research on the other. The moral and ethical implications are enormous. However, perhaps it would be easier for honourable members to debate the issue once they have some understanding of the scientific background to the issues. Presently Australian people would not support human cloning or human cloning experiments. Therefore, the research has not received any significant support from Federal or State legislators. Embryology is the science of the embryo. I make it clear that I am not an expert, but my information would most likely be correct. Embryology deals with the study of the human embryo during the first eight weeks of development. The embryo starts to develop at fertilisation, and fertilisation involves the fusion of two germ cells, the sperm and egg, to form a zygote. Fertilisation essentially stores the 46 chromosomes in body cells, bringing the male and female genomes together. The zygote, or fertilised egg, then starts to multiply into 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 cells, to become a morula—which means it resembles a mulberry. A cavity then forms within the morula, and it becomes a blastocyst. The blastocyst has an outer layer that later becomes part of the placenta. It has a lump of cells inside, called the inner cell mass.

The stem cells come from the inner cell mass. It is important to understand that once the inner mass is removed from the embryo, the embryo can continue to duplicate, but it does not develop into a foetus. Therefore, at least in theory, from an ethical point of view, experimenting on an embryo that can develop into a human being is markedly different from experimenting with stem cells, which will never develop into a human being. According to embryology studies, by day seven the embryo separates into two layers called the octoderm and mesoderm. By day 17 primitive nervous tissues start to form, and by the third week the heart is formed and begins to beat and the blood system starts to function. By weeks seven and eight limbs have formed, the head is immensely enlarged and the embryo is now unquestionably human in appearance. During IVF treatment the female patient produces excessive fertilised eggs by hormonal stimulation. The minimum number of follicles needed to develop to maturity for an ordinary IVF treatment is four or five. The eggs are then fertilised in the laboratory with the sperm of the female patient's partner.

The embryos are cultured in the laboratory for between two and six days. Several embryos are then placed on the woman's uterus where, hopefully, they will implant, develop and result in a live birth. Leftover embryos are frozen, or cryopreserved, for use in future cycles if need be. Therefore, it is possible that following a successful pregnancy many embryos remain suspended in liquid nitrogen; they are no longer wanted by their owners. Although it is possible that those embryos could be given to other couples, in practice, due to emotional, psychological and legal issues, that is rarely done. Different States and countries have different laws regarding the rationale beyond certain periods that embryos can be disposed of, or no longer deemed suitable for IVF treatment. The usual rule is between 5 and 10 years. However, in Victoria it is 5 years, in Queensland it is 10 years and according to the National Institute of Health in the United States of America it is 10 years.

Professor Gavin Kovacs, Medical Director of Melbourne's Monash IVF team, said that in Victoria 95 per cent of couples preferred that the embryos be discarded when they reached the five year limit. That is the limit of the time in which they can be kept frozen in storage. Professor Kovacs said, "We have many couples who have finished IVF families." One of my concerns about these bills is that there is no moratorium on how long the embryos have been in storage before they can be used for scientific purposes. Even when one is buying a car, one is given a cooling-off period. Yet these embryos can be used at any time so long as they were produced before 2002. What if the couple change their mind about the embryos? Therefore, according to the proposed legislation embryos can be used for teaching purposes—that is, for training of future specialists in that field.

Embryos can also be used for stem cell research, the production of stem cells and the production of millions of stem cell lines. The inner cell mass of a week-old embryo can be taken from that embryo and grown in a nutrient dish. At present at least 62 stem cell lines are being used in research institutes in the United States of America. Those embryos can be used in embryonic stem cell research. Under this bill, embryos will be able to be used up to 14 days after their development, and no other criteria are needed. Given that stem cells are usually collected on day seven, that provision in the bill will encourage scientists to experiment with human embryos. I am indebted to the Minister's advisers and to experts from the Department of Health for establishing that research on human embryos, which will be ethical, will be carried out under strict guidelines. That research could include a study to improve the successful rate of in-vitro fertilisation programs that are carried out without any strict guidelines.

What happens to the half embryos that are grown by scientists? Do we allow scientists to take heart and brain tissue from those embryos and experiment with it? If that were to occur it would no longer be an embryo. At present scientists can conduct any experiments on human embryos. I am concerned that this bill will mirror Federal legislation. The Government has not given any thought to creating better legislation. A careful analysis of this complex issue has taken place in the United States. In my view, the response to that analysis was preferable to the response that has been received to both local and Federal legislation. The United States identified the need for stem cell research but, at the same time, it discouraged the destruction of embryos in the name of science, which often is based on dubious arguments. Many researchers can already experiment on embryos other than human embryos. I refer to a fact sheet issued by the White House, dated 8 August 2001, which states:

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cells lines already exist. I have—

that is, the President—

concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cells lines where the life and death decision has already been made. This allows us to explore the promise and potential stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

I said earlier that stem cells are collected on day seven, so there is some rationale behind the White House stand. By allowing the lesser of two evils to develop we might discourage and prohibit scientists from experimenting on human embryos. We do not have to decide only whether or not to support legislation on stem cell research per se butalso whether we should continue to allow scientific experimentation on human embryos. If we do not support this legislation no legislative provisions will be in place. In my view the Government must govern. It is the duty of the Government to produce workable legislation that might allow the destruction of a finite number of unused or defective embryos to create stem cell lines for scientists. Perhaps that is the lesser of the two evils. At the same time, this Government must produce legislation to prohibit the continuing use by scientists of human embryos for experimentation.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.16 p.m.]: I am sure all honourable members are aware—this legislation is a significant example—that the end does not always justify the means. As we debate this significant ethical legislation, we must be mindful of the fact that the goal we all share of improved medical research and improved health outcomes for the population should not be reduced in any way by the safeguards that are put in place. I have taken a close interest in medical research for many years. For a number of years I have made myself available for medical research—I am on the twins register. Honourable members might recall that last year I spoke strongly in support of the Hunter Medical Research Institute. I do all that because I am the beneficiary of good medical research. It is hard not to look at this legislation from anything other than a personal perspective.

I suspect that all honourable members agree on the importance of the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill. We are to deal with this legislation seriatim as some honourable members have strong concerns about ethical issues in the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill. I am satisfied that I will be able to support both bills. As I said earlier, I am alive today because of medical research. Fifty-one years ago I was born nine weeks premature—at the stage of 31 weeks. At that stage the survival rate of premature babies was not that great. The prognosis for my twin sister and I was 24 hours, which stretched to a few days and then to a week. My parents were told that, if we survived three months, our life expectancy would be good. The rest is history.

When I was six months old world research started to link the birth of premature babies with eye defects and blindness in young people. I have worn glasses since I was three years old, but I consider myself lucky. Many other premature babies that were born before me, in my era or after me, are blind today. There are some famous examples of such people in this State. As I understand it, the Dean of Law at Sydney University, who was a premature baby, was blinded at birth. As I said earlier, that link between premature births and the giving of oxygen to maintain life was made when I was six months old. My sister and I, who were lucky, became part of that ongoing research into the link between the giving of oxygen and blindness amongst premature babies.

I have considered the benefits that my twin and I derived, as babies born nine weeks premature, from being kept alive by medical advancements—even though we were the smallest babies born in the hospital at that time. My perspective is intensely personal. We must bring objectivity to our consideration of legislation in this place but occasionally subjectivity also plays a part. The ends do not always justify the means, and I have considered carefully how we can put in place appropriate safeguards while not restricting medical research. I listened tonight to honourable members express concern about the adequacy of the existing safeguards. Notwithstanding their caution, I think the principles enshrined in this legislation—which are intensely significant ethically, socially, legally and morally—are such that I can give it my support. When I was born I benefited from good medical research. If I had been born 10 years earlier I might not have survived; if I had been born 10 years later my eyesight might not have been damaged. As it was, I was lucky that good medical practice enabled me to live. I come to this legislation from an intensely personal perspective. Notwithstanding the moral issues and ethical concerns that some honourable members have raised, I am satisfied that the legislation is in the broadest best interests of the community and I will certainly support it.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [9.21 p.m.]: Very few issues to come before this Parliament would be more important than those raised by these two bills. While they are being debated cognately, fortunately there will be a separate vote taken in respect of each. At the outset, I place on record that I will vote in favour of the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill and I will vote against the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill. In respect of the first of the bills—that dealing with human cloning—I will be brief. In substance, its purpose is very clear: it prohibits human cloning by making it an offence to intentionally create a human embryo or to intentionally place a human embryo clone in the body of a human or an animal. I hope that this bill will pass with the overwhelming support and endorsement of members of this House. Dr Leon Kass, the head of American President George Bush's council to monitor stem cell research, summarised the issue in this way:

… the present danger posed by human cloning is, paradoxically, also a golden opportunity.

In a truly unprecedented way, we can strike a blow for the human control of the technological project, for wisdom, for prudence, for human dignity.

The prospect of human cloning, so repulsive to contemplate, is the occasion for deciding whether we shall be slaves of unregulated innovation and ultimately its artefacts, or whether we shall remain free human beings who guide our powers towards the enhancement of human dignity.

The humanity of the human future is now in our hands.

Clearly, the humanity of the human future is now in our hands as far as New South Wales is concerned. I hope that, regardless of party affiliations, members will vote for the bill and the cause of a humane society that it seeks to uphold.

The Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill is of a very different character. It does not protect and sanctify human life; rather it destroys it. It does not uplift the dignity of our society; it degrades it. I oppose it because of its concepts and its detail. Scientifically it is flawed and ethically it is an affront to every principle that safeguards human life. In essence, the bill will allow the destruction of thousands of human embryos that were created prior to 5 April 2002 and were deemed to be excess for the purpose of medical experimentation. I point out that research using stem cells taken from adults is already legal. It is research that is ethically sound and medically and scientifically productive. Unlike research involving stem cells extracted from human embryos, it does not involve the destruction of the human donor.

I support research into stem cells taken from adults—it is research that offers great hope to mankind. There is a wide and justified expectation that it will alleviate—indeed, it is already alleviating—human suffering in many different ways. It is anticipated that it will provide cures for many of the physical disabilities, illnesses and afflictions suffered by humanity. Medical research to date points very clearly to the conclusion that adult stem cells hold the key to replacing ailing or destroyed tissue and to treating and curing Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, strokes, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and even blindness. The evidence suggests that adult stem cells are, in effect, a built-in repair kit for repairing and regenerating parts of the human body.

However, one thing stands out very clearly in this matter; that is, all the world-wide research to date has shown that the breakthroughs in medical research that have occurred have come almost exclusively from research using adult stem cells. No-one has been effectively treated by stem cell therapy involving stem cells extracted from human embryos. New Scientist magazine of 23 January 2002 makes it clear that the adult stem cell rather than the embryonic stem cell is the ultimate stem cell. It is clear that adult stem cells have the ability to grow and to divide into all the numerous types of cells and tissues found in the human body. However, when we turn to stem cells extracted from human embryos it is a very different picture.

Any positive scientific results from the use of embryonic stem cells have been very patchy and limited at best. Most scientists would agree that any major benefits are a long way off—if, indeed, there are to be any. A major problem with embryonic stem cells is that there is a predisposition for such cells to become malignant. For instance, human trials of embryonic stem cells on sufferers of Parkinson's disease resulted in cancerous growths. This danger has not been encountered with adult stem cells. Resources available for medical research are not infinite. Therefore, those resources we do have must be used to maximum benefit: they must be used in a way that will get the best results. The scientific community generally agrees that the most positive results will come from research with adult stem cells rather than embryonic stem cells. Accordingly, that is where research resources should be directed: to adult stem cell research.

Having surveyed—admittedly in a brief manner—the scientific reasoning behind a preference by most medical authorities for research with adult stem cells rather than with those extracted from the human embryo, I turn to the ethical issues involved in this matter. After all, ethical considerations should guide any enlightened society. I oppose this bill because it involves the taking of human life. That is because the destruction of stem cells from human embryos—or, to put it in a slightly different way, the destruction of stem cells from embryonic humans—will always involve the killing of those embryonic humans. And let us be very clear, human embryos are human lives. Science is very clear on that matter. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilised ovum a new individual life has begun.

All the textbooks on human embryology agree on this point. Just a few among the many include Clinical Embryology by Brooks and Ziefman published in 1998, Human Embryology by Hamilton Mossman, Mosby's Medical, Nursing and Allied Health Dictionary 2002, Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary and Sweeney's Basic Concepts in Embryology. There are many other authorities I could name on this point. So there is no question that human life is present in human embryos—of course it is. The scientific community all agree on this matter. The real question is: How should society treat that human life? The question for the members of this Parliament is: How will we treat that human life? It is the very clear responsibility of this Parliament to protect human life, not to destroy it.

Human life deserves the full protection of the law at every stage of its existence, and in every condition that it is found. The inherent wrong in destroying human life cannot be outweighed by any material advantage. Very clearly, a noble end does not justify an immoral means, and it never will. If it were otherwise, then the argument could be used to endanger the very young, the very disabled, the very old or any other sector of humanity that could be marginalised in our society. We could, for example, justify withholding expensive medication from the elderly on the basis of providing it to the very young, rationalising that they have the majority of their life ahead of them.

The argument will be used by some to justify this legislation that only embryos in existence as at 5 April 2002 will be destroyed and that they would be wasted in any event. This argument is a fallacy; it is not true. At present those embryos are still alive. It is not true that all excess in-vitro fertilisation [IVF] embryos are going to be discarded and destroyed, regardless of this bill. They might, for example, be preserved for future pregnancies or donated to other couples. For instance, the New England Medical Journal of 5 July 2001 recorded the results of a survey that showed that 59 per cent of parents who initially planned to discard their embryos after three years, later changed their minds. Those embryos targeted for destruction through this legislation are alive until they are destroyed. They have not been destroyed yet, and they may never be destroyed in the future.

In any event, just because a human life is, as they say, going to die soon anyway is no excuse for killing it by taking body parts of stem cells. Frozen embryos created through IVF procedures in Australia have been paid for through Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. They were created for the sole purpose of providing children to childless couples. They were not created for the purpose of a group of scientists and drug companies to conduct scientific testing. Our tax dollars were not meant for that purpose.

In conclusion, the issues arising from this bill are very clear and unambiguous. From a scientific point of view all medical progress has been achieved with adult stem cells and very little, if any, progress has been made with embryonic stem cells. The negative side effects associated with embryonic stem cells, such as cancer and bodily rejection, do not arise with adult stem cells. Let us use resources where they will more readily count. From an ethical point of view, the use of adult stem cells does not include the destruction of life. On the other hand, the use of embryonic stem cells will always result in the death of the embryo. The path we should take is very clear: We should reject this bill and, by doing so, take a stand for morality and decency and the upholding of human ethics in the legislation we endorse.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [9.34 p.m.]: The Greens are pleased to support the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill, which bans the practice of human cloning. The bill will bring New South Wales legislation into line with national legislation. It adopts what the Greens believe is the only just and ethical position on this issue. The Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill presents a far more complex dilemma. Medical science involving human reproduction—and in this case human embryonic cells—is always an emotionally charged issue. Many members of the community, myself included, regularly grapple with the ethics of modern medicine. The Greens appreciate and respect that this is an emotionally charged issue that provokes a diversity and, at times, a polarity of views.

The research itself is at the cutting edge of medical endeavour. Scientists have yet to fully understand how embryonic stem cells specialise to become any one of the 200 different cell types in the human body. But the potential benefit of this research is astonishing—complete recovery of spinal cord injuries, a cure for children who would otherwise spend their entire lives grappling with diabetes, and possible cures for a whole range of degenerative diseases. The bill deals with research involving existing embryos, and only those deemed excess to assisted reproductive procedures. These are embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. Adult stem cells, while suitable for some applications, do not offer the same scientific properties as embryonic cells. For those reasons the Greens support this bill.

But human life is not a marketable commodity, and it is vital that this bill does not allow private companies to trade in human tissues and embryonic cells for financial profit. These bills do not adequately address the question of intellectual property rights arising from stem cell research. In the absence of any provisions to the contrary, it would appear that the companies that develop stem cell lines and therapies arising from this type of research will be able to patent the knowledge, potentially earning a great deal of money. This could lead to market restrictions on access to the benefits of research through high prices, or public subsidies to reduce the cost and expand access, for example through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. For that reason the Greens want a much tighter regulation of the biomedical industry as medical research in this area proceeds.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [9.37 p.m.]: There is little that I can add to what has already been said about the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill and the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill except to say that it surprises me that there is not more opposition both to human cloning and research involving human embryos. I remain mystified that genetically modified, Frankenstein-food horrifies us, while growing parts for Frankenstein is somehow good research. Of course, the main argument in support of the research bill is that the reach of the legislation is limited to excess human embryos that existed prior to 5 April 2002. This is a spurious argument, in my opinion, and one that will be put to rest come 5 April 2005 when the research companies, one can be sure, will be embarking on a whole new adventure in creating human embryos.

Human embryos are a rich source of stem cells, runs the argument. The in-vitro fertilisation [IVF] program has created a wealth of excess human embryos, so why not allow medical research rather than waste the resource? The argument is compelling except for the ethical and moral problem of harvesting human body parts. To my mind, the risks are greater than the benefits at this stage of our knowledge, and the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill is premature. Intention is critical to this debate, as it was in debate on the voluntary euthanasia legislation in this Parliament not so long ago. The intention in palliative care is to relieve suffering, and the treatment must stop if the patient begins to respond. Similarly, the IVF embryo is frozen for the purpose of implantation in the mother's womb at a later date. The frozen embryo will not survive indefinitely, but so long as the intention to implant the embryo remains then we are not crossing any ethical or moral divide.

To begin research on the embryo, however, is the first step that leads, in my opinion, to creating body parts—Frankenstein parts. I am also concerned about destroying the integrity of the human embryo in the name of medical research. While it is true that a woman's body destroys vast numbers of human embryos, this process of natural selection is to be distinguished from that artificial situation that exists in a medical laboratory. The genetic imprint of human life appears at the moment the male and female cell unite to form a new organism. Manipulation of the genes in the laboratory can begin from that first moment. Despite the safeguards in the bill, scientists will want to grow their own contrived embryos, circumventing the process of natural selection and sustaining forms of life that nature would otherwise reject.

I also make the observation that there is something quite dishonest about the way the Federal and State governments have sold this bill to the people of New South Wales. It has always been the stated objective at both levels of government—as has appeared in the second reading speeches in both the Federal and State parliaments—that the Research Involving Human Embryos Bill would apply only to the existing stock of excess human embryos generated through the IVF program. An examination of clause 6 of the bill, however, will reveal that the Commonwealth laws are modified in a particular way, but not in the most important way, namely, the question of the sunset clause in section 46.

As the Hon. Tony Burke pointed out, section 46 of the Federal legislation provides that as at 5 April 2005 it is a whole new ballgame: the Act ceases to have effect. Presumably, the same principle will apply in New South Wales. This sunset clause means that from 5 April 2005 the Commonwealth law will no longer apply. I, for one, did not see that revelation in any of the material promoting the benefits of the Federal legislation. After 5 April 2005—the date of the sunset clause—we will be back to square one, the status quo, which means that research involving human embryos will be completely unregulated. As the Hon. Tony Burke pointed out, the status quo means that human embryos in New South Wales have absolutely no protection.

Honourable members who support the bill only to the extent that it allows research on existing excess embryos should support the amendment that I have foreshadowed and circulated. It seeks to insert in the legislation a proviso that the coming into effect of the sunset clause in the Federal legislation will not necessarily mean the end of the legislation in New South Wales. In other words, the New South Wales legislation should continue to operate until the issue comes back to this Parliament for debate. It should not be automatic that come 5 April 2005 researchers, multinational organisations and people with vested interests can create excess embryos without any restriction, without any requirements under this legislation or under the Federal legislation. As the Hon. Tony Burke put it, very eloquently, the common law offers no protection at all, and the existing situation is to be condemned by this Parliament. Although some will promote the bill on the basis that it will serve useful purposes in medical research, that premise ought to be tested in this Parliament at the appropriate time.

It is my view that there is not sufficient evidence at this stage to indicate that research involving human embryos will create any positive benefits at all. If the evidence on that issue improves, then this Parliament ought to be the place where that is debated. It should not be left to some multinational organisation with vested interests to create excess embryos and conduct research that is completely unregulated. On that basis, I ask for the support of honourable members for my amendment. I will canvass that issue further in Committee.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [9.43 p.m.]: This is one of the most interesting debates in which I have been involved as a member of this House, in terms of the scientific, moral and ethical issues associated with it. It is my view that research must continue into techniques and methodologies to improve our quality of life. Of course, the issue that honourable members are debating tonight has particular applicability to those who have severe medical and degenerative conditions, some of which have been spoken about at length tonight. I refer to conditions such as spinal cord injuries, cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, heart disease, and some forms of cancers, to name but a few.

Governments, of course, have a responsibility to provide the framework for this research to proceed. It is my view that the major challenge in the use of embryonic stem cells in research lies not in the scientific and technical aspects. As the Hon. Robyn Parker pointed out in her contribution, it is beyond most members of this House to fully understand those aspects. The real challenge lies in the ethical and moral issues regarding the use of human embryos in research and the possible enormous medical benefits that might be gained from such research.

The use of human embryos in research contemplates of course the use of embryos surplus to the needs for which they were fertilised. The important issue here is that human embryos must not be produced, created, fertilised and, dare I use the term, bred for the purpose of embryonic stem cell research. To do so, I believe, would be completely and totally unethical and immoral. I personally do not have a problem with the use of excess embryos for research, but I am absolutely opposed to a production-line type creation of embryos for use in stem cell technology. As many other honourable members have stated, the use of embryos for this purpose is the use of human life for a purpose for which it was not designed.

It is my understanding that the same medical advantages can be achieved by using stem cells originating from the amniotic fluid following the birth of a child. Amniotic stem cells, of course, are not fertilised embryos. They are not human life. They must be the preferred option for stem cell research. The use of amniotic stem cells will not raise ethical and moral issues that the use of embryonic stem cells has already raised. For this reason, I will support—but with the reservations that I have outlined regarding the use of embryonic stem cells—the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill. The Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill will prevent the production of human embryos for purposes other than creating pregnancy in a woman. I support this bill because it supports the position that most honourable members of this place would take on the moral and ethical issues surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells for this purpose.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.47 p.m.]: I wish to speak only briefly on the two bills before the House, and in doing so I acknowledge the excellent speech given by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. However, I want to make a number of brief points. Obviously, I will support the amendments foreshadowed by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. Those amendments will be discussed in Committee, assuming the bills pass the second reading stage. I have listened to the debate. Some confusion is created because a number of honourable members have concluded their speeches by simply saying, "I support the bill." That is not very helpful when we are debating two bills. I assume they mean they will support both bills. But the question remains: Do they actually support both bills, or are they supporting the bill dealing with cloning? I refresh the memories of honourable members by stating that the bill that, I assume, has unanimous support is the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill. As far as I can gather, the lower House of this Parliament and both Houses of the Federal Parliament passed that bill unanimously.

The agreement to prohibit human cloning is unanimous. The controversial bill, as highlighted by the Hon. Peter Breen, is the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill. During the debate it would be helpful if honourable members kept the two bills completely separate. I hope that all honourable members will agree to passing the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill, which will prohibit human cloning and other unacceptable practices, and then focus on the less positive value of the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill. Honourable members know that debate in the House of Representatives and the Senate was serious and lengthy. The Federal bill was designed differently from ours, and it had to be split into two. Despite Federal parliamentarians having a conscience vote, the bill dealing with research involving human embryos was passed by a majority in both Houses.

However, just because it was passed in the Federal Parliament does not mean that it should automatically be passed by the House of review in New South Wales. The present and future impact of the legislation seems to pose many unanswered questions. Through the Christian Democratic Party I have been concerned about some of these issues. Some honourable members may recall that in 2000 I gave notice of a bill to prohibit human cloning. The bill was drafted and was ready to be introduced because we understood, correctly, that no law in this State prohibited human cloning. I am pleased to note that as a result of an in-principle agreement reached on 5 April 2002 by the Council of Australia Governments [COAG] to prohibit human cloning and regulate research involving human embryos, the Commonwealth, Victorian and Queensland governments have passed appropriate legislation. We are now debating mirror legislation and I assume that the other States and Territories will soon do likewise.

The Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill has measures that mirror the offences in the Commonwealth Act. I do not think any honourable members have a problem with that. The Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill is controversial. I know that the Prime Minister, John Howard, was criticised for agreeing to support it. Even though he did not agree with it, I understand from his speeches that he was trying to reach a consensus between the State and Federal governments. He believed it was better to have agreement on some legislation rather than to have no legislation. I do not question whether he opposed the bill when he voted on it, but he tried to take into account the need for a unified approach in Australia. If the Commonwealth had insisted on further restrictions, the States may not have supported the human embryo research legislation. Even though the Federal Parliament passed the compromise legislation, it contained some weaknesses.

I urge honourable members to pay serious attention to the research bill. If it is not defeated, it should be amended as proposed by the Christian Democratic Party and other honourable members who have foreshadowed moving amendments to remove whatever doubts or weaknesses the bill may contain. Human embryo research has attracted a lot of publicity as a result of the Premier sponsoring the visit of Christopher Reeve—Superman. The publicity confused the public in its understanding of the two different types of stem cells: embryonic and adult. I have collected a number of reports on medical advances using stem cells, all of which refer to adult stem cells. Sadly, the media will often headline stem cell success and omit the word adult, which leads many members of the public to believe that that success was the result of embryonic stem cell research when it was not.

The community is confused about where the success lays. I can assure honourable members that the success lays in adult stem cell research. I will not take up the time of the House because the great variety of successful treatments has been referred to already. Even though people talk as if there were embryonic stem cell success stories, we cannot find any. People hope that there may be a miracle around the corner if the research goes ahead. Many honourable members have said that surplus embryos created for use in the IVF program will be destroyed. Perhaps IVF experimentation should have been more regulated to restrict the creation of the 70,000 embryos we now have.

My understanding is that those embryos will deteriorate, rather than be destroyed. That argument may split hairs, but an embryo deteriorating is the same as a human being dying. The embryos will die. I make the distinction that an embryo that is used for various scientific experiments in a laboratory is killed. It does not help to say that it will be destroyed. Embryos are frozen, at some point the freezing process is stopped, and then they will deteriorate and die. It is a natural death, which happens to all human beings. We accept that as part of the cycle of life. I believe that honourable members will support the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill, but I urge them to give serious consideration to the Research Involving Human Embryos (New South Wales) Bill before we vote on it.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [10.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [10.00 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to an important activity that took place recently on the mid North Coast that will help to shape the future of country and coastal New South Wales—the National Party Conference at Forster-Tuncurry on 13, 14 and 15 June. The annual conference is an important part of the party's make-up and character. It helps to determine our future: where we go for the next 12 months and beyond. Most of us in this Chamber know that we would not be here but for the dedicated people who make up our political organisations—good, decent people who believe that their contribution to the party that represents their beliefs will ultimately make a better community, society, New South Wales, and Australia.

The National Party Conference is important to the people of country and coastal New South Wales because we are the party that gives a platform to our delegates that come from these areas. More than 100 delegates travelled from all parts of New South Wales—from Albury, Broken Hill, Coonamble, Tweed Heads and beyond. The conference was addressed by our new State leader, Andrew Stoner, who is a member of the Legislative Assembly, and we were graced with the presence of John Anderson, who is the party's Federal leader and member for Gwydir, and Mark Vaile, who is the Federal Minister for Trade and a Federal representative of a nearby electorate.

Motions passed included support to upgrade the Pacific Highway to a dual carriageway, drought assistance access, beef grading, workers compensation, and a demand for magistrates to better reflect community expectations. The conference was an important occasion on which to recognise the dedication of many long-serving members. Party stalwart and historian Paul Davey received his life membership award in recognition of his dedicated service to the party over at least the past three decades. He served his apprenticeship with the likes of former Federal National Party Minister Peter Nixon, George Souris and John Anderson, and he served for several years as the General Secretary of the New South Wales division of the party. Life membership nominations were made for Gaye White, who has a tremendous record of commitment and generosity to the party, and for the wonderful Helen Dickie, our current Federal president and the immediate past chairman of the New South Wales National Party.

I also wish to record the hospitality shown to us by the people of Forster-Tuncurry. As delegates, supporters and members of Parliament from across New South Wales descended on the community, the treatment they received in local cafes, restaurants shops and motels was excellent. It is a great community, it was great to be there, and they certainly put on some excellent weather for us—not that we got to see much of it from inside the conference hall. I was particularly impressed with the graciousness of the Mayor of the Great Lakes Council, John Chadban, who hosted welcoming drinks at the council chambers on the eve of the conference. The mayor ran as Independent, along with another local mayor from the Great Lakes region against the sitting National Party member for Myall Lakes in the other place.

I think the conference gave Mayor Chadban an opportunity to see first hand the commitment and dedication of grassroots membership and the support that a party is able to provide—something that so-called Independents do not have. He was able to see the type of party that represents all facets of life in regional New South Wales and what we have achieved as a team. The annual dinner dance was another memorable occasion. We shared the dance floor with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade, and the National Party's State leader.

The National Party is a very grassroots political party. Its members mix with everybody and do not stand on ceremony. That is part of the reason for its success. Next June the National Party family will meet again, this time in Dubbo, to debate and discuss the issues that are relevant to our communities. I look forward to catching up with all the delegates and to another great conference in Dubbo that will set the policy platform for our great political party.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [10.04 p.m.]: I am pleased to have this opportunity to announce the completion of the Indochinese Elderly Hostel, but the journey has been arduous and there have been moments when even the completion of the project was in doubt. However, the ongoing support of the State Government and the Federal Government, generous donors and benefactors, workers, advisers, architects, and builders has made it possible for me to deliver the good news of a happy outcome. The hostel project is the brainchild of the Indo-China Chinese Association—a non-profit charitable group that was established under the presidency of Mr Van Thao Cheung and other prominent community members. The association focuses on providing support for the Australian Indochinese community, which includes persons of Laos, Vietnamese and Cambodian descent.

Elderly members were facing considerable difficulties in securing affordable accommodation owing to a lack of finance, access to public resources, and communication difficulties. In response, the association decided to establish the project in 1992. Later a development application was submitted. With project specifications and public and government funding confirmed, a suitable piece of land was purchased in 1994. Bonnyrigg was the location and it was chosen for its strong ethnic networks that maximise cultural and community support—a crucial consideration for establishing any elderly community. Economic constraints, the recession, and subsequent falls in fundraising resulted in slow progress. The entire project, including government funding, was called into question. I am relieved to say that abandonment of the project did not eventuate.

I thank the State Government, the Federal Government, the New South Wales Department of Housing and the New South Wales Department of Health and Ageing for recognising the merits of the project, despite the obstacles. Within the past two years the project has been formally incorporated. A trust fund with 31 trustees has been established. A new committee also has been installed and is headed by Mr Oai Trieu as the committee chairperson. I was pleased to have been given the opportunity to contribute in the capacity of fundraising chairperson. With all the components back in place, the building of the roomy and thoughtfully designed 31-room facility was completed in one year under the supervision of Mr Anthony Appizappia. Notwithstanding a lack of some furnishings and some minor fixtures, the association expects the hostel to commence accepting tenants in eight weeks.

From the very first president of the parents association through to contributing advisers, including the Hon. Henry Tsang, the successful completion of this hostel is testament to the valuable counsel of the people involved. Of the successive committee leaders, members, workers and benefactors—who are too numerous to list—I particularly congratulate Mr Harry Tang, who is chairman of the management committee, Kek Tai, Pinky Leung, and Mr and Mrs Ngai of ABC Tissue Products, whose enthusiasm, energy and support have contributed enormously to translating ideas into reality. I reiterate that the current outcome and future gains would not have been possible without the assistance—financial and otherwise—of State and Federal government departments.

This project is surely a testament to the power of faith and persistence when many people unite under a common and worthy cause. I believe it also sets an important example of co-operation for communities faced with similar difficulties. I implore them not to abandon their efforts.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: You should recognise Fairfield council's contribution.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: The Hon. Henry Tsang has reminded me that I should recognise Fairfield City Council, which contributed support and advice in this matter through its management.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [10.08 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the work of New South Wales Aboriginal health education officers, who work within the area health services and in Aboriginal controlled community medical services. They are generally recruited from their own communities and they run preventive and clinical support health programs. Their work is mostly related to proven need. For example, they screen for diabetes and cardiovascular disease, the incidences of which are extremely high within Aboriginal communities in New South Wales. They work with obstetric services and Aboriginal mothers to ensure that obstetric services are delivered in an equitable way to Aboriginal women and that their babies are born healthy. Low birth weight and high perinatal mortality remain problems for Aboriginal people in New South Wales, despite perceptions that that is not the case.

The officers also run exercise programs, including line dancing, healthy food and anti-smoking programs. They act as conduits and advocates for mainstream services in an attempt to ensure that services for Aboriginal people are equitable. Early research is indicating that although Aboriginal people are admitted to hospital more often and for longer periods than the rest of the community, they appear to actually receive less treatment and, despite their higher mortality rates, most definitely have less access to tertiary care. Many other programs that are considered appropriate by individual communities are run by Aboriginal health education officers. These workers live and work with their own families and friends and with other families in the same communities.

They often work in white bureaucracies that have had considerable difficulty operating in the field of real community-based care. It took some years to "get permission" for a drug and alcohol Aboriginal health education officer in one of this State's country towns to work with Aboriginal men at the riverbank because of the requirement that Aboriginal men should attend at the office of the health education officer. Yet every couple of years that worker has to defend this practice to a new round of bureaucracy, despite his ability to contact men who have no formal contact with the health system. That not only poses a risk to the program but also represents an incredible waste of time.

The work of these officers is often thankless and heartbreaking. They are real politicians as they tread the thin ice within their own communities as well as the thin ice between and within the local area health services to get the best possible results for their people. They are definitely unsung heroes, and they deserve the recognition of this House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.11 p.m.]: This evening I inform the House about some of the market access issues relating to genetically modified [GM] food crops. This is a timely subject considering that Parliament has only recently passed legislation to enact a three-year moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops. The National Party strongly supports that moratorium and the continuation of carefully monitored and controlled trials on GM food crops under the moratorium. In recent weeks the Commonwealth Office of the Gene Technology Regulator [OGTR] has announced the deferral of a final decision on applications for the commercial release of canola crops by Monsanto and Bayer. The statement released by the OGTR on 13 June details the reasons for delaying the final decision, stating that the implementation of moratoria for GM crops in New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria as the prime reason. Other reasons include procedural matters and details about the impact of herbicide use on GM crops.

This is important because one of the key factors in implementing a moratorium in New South Wales is to examine market issues. It is also important because, on several occasions, through media releases and in various reported media statements, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries claimed that the National Party—and de facto the Coalition—was putting the New South Wales moratorium in jeopardy by delaying consideration of the moratorium legislation in the lower House. Somehow the Minister had the thought that the OGTR would make a final decision on the Bayer and Monsanto decisions before Parliament had a chance to vote on the moratorium legislation. I was always confident that would not be the case, and, frankly, a simple telephone call to the OGTR or to the Federal Minister's office would have allayed the Minister's concerns and prevented the need for a great deal of scaremongering by the Minister around country areas. Or, perhaps, that is what he wanted to do!

In the same week as the OGTR announced the deferral of the final decision on the Monsanto and Bayer applications, the Federal Government's agency Biotechnology Australia released the findings of a three-year survey into attitudes about GM foods and GM food crops. The survey found that there has been a slight rise in public concern about GM food crops over the past 12 months, even though the concerns are less than they were two years ago. The findings of the survey are interesting. It found that 54 per cent of people believed the risks were higher than the benefits; 27 per cent believed the benefits of GM food outweighed the risks; and 19 per cent remain uncertain about the GM issue. One thing is clear—knowledge and awareness of GM food crops is on the rise. Hopefully the trials conducted under the moratorium that will shortly be enacted in New South Wales will allow consumer acceptance of GM food to be fully tested.

Market access is a major hurdle for GM producers. Consumers and food manufacturers need to be more informed before their long-term attitudes to GM change. A three-year moratorium will allow the necessary research and public market access testing to take place. It will give time for farmers to work out issues relating to crop contamination and the transport of GM material, and it will provide an opportunity for a full evaluation of the risks and benefits associated with GM food and GM food crops. While certain parts of the moratorium are not nearly as good as I would like, I am pleased that there is enough scope under the moratorium for continued testing and trialling; although I wish contamination were better addressed.

We are not shutting the door on GM in New South Wales. That was never the intention of the National Party or the Coalition. We are simply saying, "Not not ever, just not now." Interestingly, a major conference on biotechnology and GM issues is currently being held in Sacramento in the United States of America. The three-day Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology features agriculture industry delegates from 100 countries. There may be room for GM crops to provide significant benefits, but in the short term it is opportune that we operate a moratorium until such time as market access and other issues are fully determined, including whether the rest of the world wants the product, which is not the case at present.

Mr IAN COHEN [10.15 p.m.]: The reallocation of portfolios following the recent State election and the resultant transfer of responsibility for regional parks from the Minister for Environment to the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation once again highlights the anomaly that is Berowra Valley Regional Park [BVRP]. BVRP, approximately 20 kilometres north-west of Sydney, is far too ecologically and historically valuable to be classified and managed as a regional park. It has recognised national, regional, and local conservation and heritage significance. It supports more than 500 vascular flora species within 18 separate floral communities, at least 10 of which are rare and/or threatened; more than 230 species of vertebrate fauna; more than 18 identified vegetation communities, including three endangered ecological communities described under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; and one threatened species of native fauna. It also contains a number of significant sites from Aboriginal and European history.

The park contains at least 24 known Aboriginal heritage sites, including artwork, rock engravings, artefacts and habitation sites. Berowra Creek is also thought to be the natural boundary between the lands of the Kuring-gai people in the east and the Dharuk people in the west; it formed a point of contact between at least three groups of Aboriginal people for the purposes of marriage, trade and ceremony. The park also contains a single-lane bridge, which was the original link between orchard growers to the west of Galston Gorge to the main northern railway line in the late 1880s, the remains of a quarry that was used in the 1880s to provide ballast for the construction of the northern railway in 1886, and traces of a zigzag railway which joined the quarry to the main railway line. All other regional parks in New South Wales have been formed from previously cleared and grossly modified land and provide for intensive picnic, bike, and horse use. On the other hand, BVRP has high biodiversity and consists of 3,830 hectares of largely unmodified natural bushland. For those reasons alone it should not be a regional park, it should be a national park.

BVRP is also much larger that many other national parks in the Sydney area such as Cattai, which is a mere 335 hectares, Sydney Harbour at 393 hectares, Botany Bay at 458 hectares, Lane Cove at 600 hectares, Wyrrabalong at 620 hectares, and Scheyville at 920 hectares. So why is Berowra Valley a regional park? The only explanation put forward at the time for the park's classification was that it would be managed by a trust, made up of four members from the local government authority, two community representatives, and one staff member from the National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS]. More importantly, this unique management structure was based on the assertion that most of the finance and other resources essential for the management of the park's finances and operation would be provided by Hornsby shire council [HSC]. However, examinations of the trust's annual report for 2001-02 and associated financial statements for the three years to 30 June 2002 have revealed that the trust's finances have not benefited one single cent from HSC's contribution to the park.

The report and statements show that the trust had an income of $541,947.99 over the three-year period, derived from ministerial grants, NPWS grants, a Sydney Water grant and lease payments. The documents also show that the trust spent $370,870.42, of which $215,781.10 was spent on bush care projects in the park and $69,334.13 was spent on track and entrance maintenance and construction. Therefore the report and statements show that in essence the trust is solely funded by the Government, and has been since its inception. The documents show also that all of HSC's documented expenditure on the park was recouped from the trust account. So, the major argument for HSC's active involvement in the management of the park—that it makes major contributions in money and kind towards the cost of managing the park—is clearly not supported by the evidence. Therefore, there is no financial advantage for the State Government, in Berowra Valley remaining classified as a regional park. In fact, it appears quite the opposite.

I understand that HSC has made an ambit claim to get the NPWS to extend the Minister's grant for BVRP to $400,000 per annum, even though the trust has consistently spent far less! If the truth be known, HSC could be using BVRP as a cash cow to fund other activities in the shire. For example, HSC is apparently mistakenly attributing its Statement of Joint Intent Agreement commitment to clean up Berowra Creek, using its catchment remediation rate levy funds, as expenditure on BVRP rather than on necessary expenditure around the park to meet its prior commitments.

In light of that, I urge the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation to use this opportunity to correct what was a monumental mistake and to reclassify BVRP as a national park. There is no doubt that that move would be welcomed within the community. National park status for Berowra Valley is supported by the local United Residents Action Group of Berowra, the Association for Berowra Creek, Galston Areas Residents Association, Pennant Hills Red Gum Bushland Committee, and the Hornsby Conservation Society. It is also supported by larger statewide groups such as the National Parks Association of New South Wales and the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales. I certainly would recommend that the area be declared a national park.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.20 p.m.]: Tonight I refer to Stringybark Ridge, which is located in Berowra Valley Regional Park [BVRP]. Hornsby council's leisure strategic plan prioritises the development of the sports field and amenities at Stringybark Ridge—an area that was the subject of a consultation process involving Pam Allan. At that time land was reserved as a regional park. Stringybark Ridge comprises a rare shale and sandstone transition forest ecological community—a type of remnant vegetation that is listed as endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The use of that area as a sports field has been extremely damaging to the environment. Many people believe that such usage is environmentally and socially irresponsible.

The local community overwhelmingly opposes this sports field development proposal. In 1998, in response to a council letterbox drop informing residents of its intention to develop a sports field on that site, 374 residents signed a petition opposing council's plan and council received approximately 100 letters from residents who were against the proposal. During the exhibition of council's leisure strategic plan, however, not one letter was submitted in support of the establishment of a sports field on that site. The idea was considered and rejected by Berowra Valley Regional Park Trust after consultation with council staff, the public, stakeholders and sports clubs. Five of the current nine councillors voted against retaining Stringybark Ridge for the development of a sports field.

Hornsby council's leisure and recreation study also shows that the local planning area where the sports field is proposed is already one of the best-served areas in the shire on a facilities per capita basis, and that other vacant sites are available. It is clear that at present the proposed sports field is neither wanted nor needed. It is also clear that Hornsby council does not have a mandate to continue pushing for this proposal, yet it appears intent on negotiating a change to the management and structure of Berowra Valley Regional Park, which could provide for it. I understand that, on 15 May, Mayor Muirhead phoned the Minister for the Environment to request an extension of time for council to make its submission to the draft plan of management for the park in order to gain more time to rally sports community submissions in support of the Stringybark Ridge sports field development.

It would seem that some elements of the council and its staff have been actively encouraging sports groups to lobby for access to Springybark Ridge. For example, a letter supporting the proposal was sent to Pennant Hills residents on 13 August 1998. On 8 April the Manager, Parks and Landscapes, wrote to BVRP Trust recommending that the plan of management be amended to allow the potential for Stringybark Ridge to be used for active recreation to be explored. On 10 April he wrote to sports clubs representatives, urging them to make submissions to BVRP Trust on the draft plan of management for Berowra Valley Regional Park advocating the use of Stringybark Ridge for active sport.

Similarly, on 1 July 2002, the former Executive Manager, Environment, sent a memorandum to BVRP Trust supporting the recreational use of Stringybark Ridge, after the trust had passed a resolution against sports field development. I understand that the former Executive Manager, Environment, verbally recommended at a council meeting that the sports council should be privy to the content of the draft plan of management before it went on public exhibition. The consultant employed by council to prepare its leisure strategic plan has also admitted to failing to consult with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the owners of the land at Stringybark Ridge, BVRP Trust, the managers of the land and community stakeholders other than sporting clubs. It would seem that council has not been impartial in relation to this issue.

If Hornsby council has taken such a stand, it is not managing the BVRP in the way it would have been managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It would be good if the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation and the Minister for the Environment rectified this situation and established a national park. The future of Berowra Valley Regional Park should not be subjected to the vagaries of council; rather, it should be protected in perpetuity as a national park. A number of residents are keen on that idea. Reclassifying Berowra Valley as a national park would not only clarify the irreconcilable conflict of interests imposed on Hornsby council; it would also remove the doubt that exists about the quite separate responsibilities of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Hornsby council towards the distinct lands under their respective control within and outside Berowra Valley Regional Park.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.25 p.m.]: Tonight I bring to the attention of honourable members two important matters. The first matter concerns what I believe to be an issue that is similar to issues that I have raised in the past about companies taking offshore important work that should be done by workers in this country. I am sure that all honourable members are aware that jobs at two printing plants in New South Wales and Victoria have been placed at risk as the result of a decision by a major Australian firm—that is, the Commonwealth Bank. In what I believe to be one of the greatest ironies in the last few years, the Commonwealth Bank decided to print its credit cards offshore.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Who used to do it?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Two hundred families at Ingleburn in New South Wales and at Highett in Victoria relied on work from the Leigh Marden printing company. The Commonwealth Bank, by taking this decision, has shown total disdain and disregard for the Australian community. It is worthwhile reflecting that this decision was made at the same time as record profits occurred. This miserly cost-cutting decision was made when the Commonwealth Bank returned a half-yearly profit of $1.2 billion. Recently, that same Commonwealth Bank paid out $33 million to a departing executive.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: Shame!

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: As the Hon. Henry Tsang said, "Shame." I know that Opposition members who obviously support the ruling class in this country—big banks and private enterprise—regard those figures as wonderful. Earlier, when I referred to the bank's profits, Opposition members smiled and chortled, as they know that their friends, associates and colleagues in the Liberal Party are getting their dues.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Is this the bank set up by Chifley?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: The Commonwealth Bank, which was once the people's bank, was established by Chifley.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Which your Government sold.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: The Hon. Don Harwin is now attempting to defend his mates and their decision to throw 200 families from Ingleburn and from Highett, Victoria, onto the scrap heap by taking credit card printing facilities overseas. Well might they smile! The decision by the Commonwealth Bank was outrageous as it returned a half-yearly profit of $1.2 billion and it also recently paid out $33 million to a departing executive.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: This is ridiculous.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: It is ridiculous and shameful. The Commonwealth Bank's actions have been devastating for local business. It is only appropriate that the Commonwealth Bank reconsider its actions. I am sure even Opposition members would share the view that it is appropriate for those printing jobs to be done only in Australia, given the amazing profits that the Commonwealth Bank keeps making. I call on the bank to reverse its outrageous decision and to support local industry, local jobs and local communities.

I wish to raise a second matter. I know it is not appropriate to canvas the State budget but it is appropriate to canvas the Federal budget and some of the mean-spirited actions of the Federal Howard Government. Are honourable members aware of the action proposed by the Federal Liberal-National Party Coalition in relation to Medicare? I notice that Opposition members are no longer smiling. Only bulk-billing for concession cardholders is to be funded by reducing funds to hospitals by over $900 million. It will cost more to visit a doctor and fewer doctors will be bulk billing. For Australians with an income over $32,000, bulk billing will effectively end. In relation to essential medicines, the Coalition Government's latest budget will increase patients' co-payments for medicine by 30 per cent. Contrast that with the views of the Federal Labor Opposition, which has a plan for Medicare. I look forward to coming into this Chamber at a later date and outlining that plan in great detail.

Motion agreed to.