Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 12 November 2003, Corrected Copy)

1

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

That the bills be 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 and ordered to be printed.

The President tabled, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the report entitled "New South Wales Auditor-General's Report—Financial Audits—Volume Four 2003—Total State Sector Accounts", dated November 2003.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 11 November 2003.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled the following papers:

Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Reports for year ended 30 June 2003:

Public Trustee
Zoological Parks Board.

Ordered to be printed.

Petition praying that the House repeal the new gaming machine tax and undertake a review before further tax increases are considered, received from the Hon. Charlie Lynn.

Government Business Notice of Motion No. 1 and Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Debate resumed from 11 November.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.11 a.m.]: Yesterday, before being interrupted for question time, I was speaking to clause 14 (5) (a) of the bill, which allows large agricultural-based corporations, such as Elders and Wesfarmers, to establish shopfronts where veterinarians would have consulting rooms but would be unable to perform surgery. The Australian Veterinary Association [AVA] has indicated that such a situation could spell disaster for many established and professional small practices in rural and regional New South Wales, as the large corporations would be able to undercut and take business away from them. A number of amendments to this clause will be moved at the Committee stage. The Greens are open to further communication from the Government if it has any further information. We have the same concerns as the AVA that large corporations will take business away from small practices in rural and regional New South Wales. This, in turn, will mean that many veterinary practices will be forced to close. It could also mean that there will be no veterinary surgery or hospital in rural and regional communities to treat sick animals or to provide animal management to service them.

Consulting work is the bread and butter of rural and regional veterinarians. It also subsidises a range of other services, such as large animal work, which are less profitable. If rural and regional veterinarians lose this work to large corporations, they will be unable to make the significant contributions they currently make to their local communities. Veterinarians who suffer from decreased income as a result of loss of bread-and-butter work to large corporation consultancy rooms will no longer be able to fund pro bono work, such as free microchip programs, responsible pet owner education programs and the treatment of native wildlife. They will also no longer be able to contribute to animal surveillance and the detection of outbreaks of both exotic and emerging diseases, thereby putting the livestock industry at risk.

The retention of clause 14 (5) (a) in the bill will decrease rather than increase competition, as it will, in effect, replace numerous small businesses in regional and rural New South Wales with a few monopolies. This will add further hardship to rural communities, which are already reeling from the departure of banking services, medical practices and other businesses from their towns. I had intended to move an amendment during the Committee stage to delete clause 14 (5) (a). However, I understand that the Opposition will be moving a similar amendment. In that case, I will withdraw my amendment and support the Opposition's amendment. It is important that we protect small veterinary practices in regional communities. I ask the Minister to address this issue in his reply. We have seen the draining of resources from rural communities. We do not want veterinary practices to go the same way as so many other services in regional areas.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.15 p.m.]: The Veterinary Practice Bill is part of a suite of bills that have been introduced as a result of the national competition policy review and are intended to establish a more coherent framework for professionals offering services in the marketplace. The Australian Veterinary Association [AVA] supports the large majority of the bill, but has raised concerns about some aspects. My office has spoken with the AVA about its concerns. There is almost a religious belief that competition will improve the market. But are we talking about competition at a small level between individuals, or between multinational companies? When we talk about competition between multinationals, a multinational company comes in and soaks up the small businesses and, if the market is lucrative, another multinational company will come along and compete. We must be careful about the extent of competition.

Recently I visited Nelson, a town on New Zealand's South Island. In the past 12 months the town has experienced a property boom and its property values have doubled. There are a few very expensive restaurants on the waterfront, most of which are owned by the same person. That is an example of how, if there is to be effective competition, businesses should not be owned by the one entity. Do regulators such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] consider that effective competition occurs with a lot of small players or that one or two large players will do? I believe that collusive arrangements are far more common in oligopolies. This seems to have escaped the attention of regulators. It is called competition if huge corporations eat up small practitioners but compete with each other. That may be the antithesis of competition. The so-called benefits of competition must be balanced against the need for professionalism.

As Mr Ian Cohen said in his contribution to the second reading debate, if the bread and butter work, which provides most of the money to small practices, is given to the large corporations, small practitioners will not be able to survive. Major veterinary surgery is a minor part of the business of small practices. Their practices will become unviable. The larger practices in country towns, which are the mainstay of veterinary care for our major export industries, will be put at risk. A veterinarian in the city who looks after the pets of relatively wealthy people during restricted hours has an easier job than a veterinarian in a rural area who drives for miles to perform an internal examination of a cow at an inconvenient hour. Rural practices will be rendered non-viable because of the dogma that large corporations should be able to compete with small practices. We need to bear in mind that this competition policy, which is seen as a religion or panacea, will have a detrimental effect on rural communities. I do not believe that the ACCC has got it right. I have written many times to the ACCC about these issues because I believe it is allowing the expansion of large corporations with huge amounts of market power.

For example, clause 14 makes it an offence for a corporation to represent itself as a veterinary practice unless one or more of the veterinary practitioners has a controlling interest. The penalty will range from a $5,000 fine or 12 months imprisonment or both for an individual, to $11,000 for a corporation. That is very welcome because it means the veterinary profession will keep control of practices. However, clause 14 (5) exempts corporations that provide veterinary services but whose principal business is the supply of agricultural goods. That means companies such as Wesfarmers and Elders will be able to open a small shopfront in their establishments and compete with vets in providing basic pet care and specialist products. I am not criticising these companies; they will make a buck if they can. Nor am I suggesting that it is their intention to set up such shopfront services. However, people are familiar with the goods they sell and the services they provide. If one needed to take one's dog to the vet one might be tempted to visit the shopfront for greater convenience. Of course, those companies might then use their bargaining power to sell veterinary products at discount prices and thus shift market share from smaller independent vets.

As I said, it may result in veterinary practices becoming unviable in country areas. Farmers and the Australian Veterinary Association argue that the Veterinary Advisory Committee should be government funded. The New South Wales Farmers Association is concerned that the cost of the committee could be onerous given that it will need to meet frequently to consider documenting veterinary acts that are to be restricted, which is the new method to define what vets may do. Having an identical secretariat for the Veterinary Practitioners Board and the advisory committee does not necessarily provide the level of independence and transparency that the public expects. Amendments will be moved to rectify the concerns I have mentioned in respect of clause 14, and obviously I want those amendments accepted.

I can speak with some experience about the difficulties that professions have experienced with corporations involved in what I believe is ologopolistic behaviour. Mayne Health negotiated—if that is the appropriate word given the relative bargaining power of doctors and corporations—with its general practitioners to collect 55 per cent of their gross Medicare income. When the GST was introduced Mayne Health added that to the cost of the services it was providing. It was then taking 60 per cent of the gross income earned by medical practitioners. It bought practices primarily from GPs who were getting tired of the fact that the Medicare rebate was declining against the consumer price index—it had not risen in real terms. The doctors were getting older and were having to work harder and harder. It was an attractive option to sell their practice and hang around earning a consultancy fee for a couple of years so it did not look as though their practice had been sold to a big corporation.

The big corporation brought in a few young doctors who had to work in corporate medical practices because they did not have the capital to establish their own practices. Of course, the managers then spent their time cutting costs by reducing the secretarial staff numbers and the hours worked. The doctors retained responsibility for notes and quality control if anything went wrong and in return they received 40 per cent of the already diminished Medicare rebate, which as everyone knows has declined to about 50 per cent of what it was when the scheme was introduced. Of course, that is a Federal issue. However, 60 per cent of the money theoretically being paid to doctors by Medicare was going to Mayne Health, for which it was providing a very poor secretarial service. I believe that doctors have already lost control of general practice. The reason they are surviving in specialist practices is that they can act as a cartel. That went on to such an extent with Mayne Health that the doctors rebelled. Initially there was a big rise in Mayne's share price as costs were cut, but the company is selling out of the health sector because many of the doctors kicked up a fuss about the way they were being treated and said that they would no longer work for the corporation. That caused a competitive disadvantage. That scenario is an unsatisfactory outcome for medical control of the medical profession and quality control in medicine generally.

Optometrists work as independent entities in examining eyes and prescribing corrective measures. However, optical equipment manufacturers, such as OPSM, make and dispense optical devices. Of course, a greater amount can be made by making spectacles, retailing frames and so on than by doing the hard yards of working out what prescription is required. Legislation provides that no-one may own an optometrical prescription. A patient who has obtained a prescription can take it anywhere in the world to be filled. However, optometrists have their rooms in facilities also occupied by optical manufacturers and dispensers. Many patients do not realise that they can take a prescription anywhere to be filled. From a legal point of view, the optometrist is a distinct entity from the optical equipment manufacturer and dispenser. Companies ensured that patients leaving optometrists' rooms were approached and told, "Wonderful, come this way and I will show you our fabulous range of frames." Most people do not realise that there is a separation between the two entities.

OPSM was on the board of the Australian Optometrical Association, and I understand that at one stage it even had a majority. The association comprised a group of suppliers who clubbed together to buy frames at lower prices, because a large number are imported and expensive. The members of the board knew which practices were buying what because they were buying as a group and OPSM was able to identify the lucrative practices and expand by targeting practitioners who were making the most money. It was an ideal situation because they knew what their opposition was doing. OPSM had more than 50 per cent of the optometry turnover—not 50 per cent of the practices—in Australia. It has now sold out to an Italian company, Luxo Optical. The Australian Optometrical Association has split and optometrists have formed an independent group in an attempt to fight the tide of corporate control.

Luxo Optical and other optometrical dispensing companies are buying the wholesalers, which means they are becoming vertically integrated. They have control of some optometrists and wholesaling and retailing and they may begin to make their own frames. In fact, the independent optometrists, who are only one professional group in the chain, are having great difficulty competing in the marketplace. Some time ago this issue was referred to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which did not want to take it on. The dogma of competition is the Trojan horse for one company to say that it did not have huge market power as it got control of just above or below 50 per cent—depending on the definition—of the Australian market. What sort of competition is that? Not much. Obviously in this case, if the most lucrative work in terms of total turnover is done by one corporation, it will be a sad day for optometrists. The wider issue of protecting professions and allowing them to be professional by introducing real competition and maintaining standards must be examined. The simple dogma that all competition is good even if ants are competing with elephants must be given the shove. I will support the legislation if that provision—clause 14 (5) (a)—is removed.

It is interesting that the amendment relating to larger corporations competing directly with veterinarians was a late inclusion. That is odd. The success of powerful lobbies with this Government is a worry. We support the regulation of veterinary practice, provided veterinarians are given a fair go. That is what is important in this legislation, and that is what the Democrats support.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.29 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Veterinary Practice Bill, which we believe is very important. We received submissions from the Australian Veterinary Association in which the association said it was not happy with the title of the bill, and suggested it should be entitled simply the Veterinary Bill. As members are aware, this legislation is the result of a competition policy review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986, and amendments are designed to improve consumer access to veterinary services and to ensure that the highest standard of veterinary service is available in New South Wales.

I agree with some of the remarks of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans about the competition policy review. I know there is a lot of concern in other areas, such as pharmacies, newsagents and so on, that services cannot be provided unless they are economically viable. The bill provides for the registration of persons as veterinary practitioners, creates the Veterinary Practitioners Board, regulates the conduct of veterinary practitioners, creates offences that prohibit persons from representing themselves or others to be veterinary practitioners when they are not registered as such or representing a premises as a veterinary hospital if it is not licensed, and repeals the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986.

Crossbench members have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Australian Veterinary Association, particularly Mr Bruce Cartmill, the President of the New South Wales division. Following those discussions, there has obviously been a lot of negotiation between the association and the Government in finalising the bill. From my observation the Government has taken on board the majority of the association's concerns, with the exception of that relating to clause 14 (5) (a), which deals with agricultural supply firms operating veterinary practices. Indeed, the association has continued to write to us regarding that clause, as recently as 11 November. The clause has been mentioned previously, and I foreshadow moving an amendment that I believe will, in the main, satisfy the association's concerns.

The association believes it would be better to simply remove clause 14 (5) (a) from the bill. However, it does not have a strong objection to the strategy I propose by way of the foreshadowed amendment, which has been distributed to members. By way of contrast, the New South Wales Farmers Association is, in the main, happy with the bill. The association supports the retention of clause 14 (5) (a). In its submission the association said:

This Clause states that a firm whose principal business is the supply of goods or materials used in connection with agriculture, can operate as a vet practice, so long as the supply of vet services is at the same premises from which the agricultural goods and services are supplied.

This is an exemption to the general provision in Clause 14 that states a corporation must not represent itself as a vet practice unless one or more vet practitioners has or have the controlling interest in the corporation (ie have the capacity to determine the outcome of business decisions about the financial and operating policies of the practice).

The exemption would allow a rural merchandise firm to employ a vet and advertise its services as such.

The NSW Farmers' Association recommends the retention of Clause 14 (5) (a) for the following reasons:

_ vet practices could be increased in number if rural suppliers take this option, potentially assisting farmers

_ potential to increase vet jobs in rural areas and reduce the current decline and/or movement of graduates into small-animal, city-based practices

_ creates more competition between vet practices, potentially increasing services provided at better rates.

The Christian Democratic Party's policy has been to work as closely as possible with the New South Wales Farmers Association as a peak body and take on board its advice in supporting policies to be introduced in the House. The Christian Democratic Party amendment addresses concerns about agricultural-based corporations setting up veterinary practices. It would prohibit unsatisfactory professional conduct or misconduct. The amendment provides for penalty units upon conviction. It addresses some of the concerns of the Australian Veterinary Association by protecting rural vets from untoward behaviour while maintaining anti-competition policy.

Importantly, the amendment mirrors similar provisions in the Victorian Act. The Chief Veterinarian Officer of the Victorian Department of Primary Industry, Dr Hugh Miller, says that this model has functioned in Victoria without incident. He states that there has been absolutely no untoward effect from removing the ownership restrictions on the practices in that State. Dr Miller is also a member of the Veterinarian Practice Board of Victoria. The amendment has the support of the New South Wales Farmers Association and, I trust, other members of the House. For those reasons we support the bill. We will not support the removal of clause 14 (5) (a), because we believe that our amendment satisfies the concerns that have been raised.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [11.38 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill extends by five years the authorisation under the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983 of certain rice marketing arrangements that would otherwise contravene the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974. This issue was last addressed by the Marketing of Primary Products Amendment (Rice Marketing Board) Act 1998, which approved the same exemption until 31 January 2004. The exemption was originally made to authorise the Rice Marketing Board to maintain an agreement with Ricegrowers' Co-operative Ltd, under which the board appointed the co-operative as its agent and sole buyer of rice produced in New South Wales, ownership of which has been vested in the board. The legislation authorising the Rice Marketing Board was reviewed under the national competition policy in 1995. At that time it was recommended that the ownership of all rice grown in New South Wales continue to be vested in the board while discussions were held at the national level over proposals for a national single desk for rice exports.

Under the provisions of the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983, ownership of the New South Wales rice crop was vested in the board until 31 January 2004. Further, an authorisation under the Trade Practices Act was provided for under the Marketing of Primary Products Amendment (Rice Marketing Board) Act 1998. Since that time, there have been ongoing negotiations between the Commonwealth, the rice industry, and State Governments concerning the establishment of alternative national arrangements. Particular attention was given to examining a means by which the Commonwealth Government might empower the board's single desk export activity and allow deregulation of the domestic market. These tri-partite negotiations were abandoned in early 2003 as a result of a number of difficulties encountered at the Commonwealth level.

As a consequence, the New South Wales Government agreed that vesting should be renewed for a further five years, during which time a further review of the powers of the Rice Marketing Board would be undertaken under competition policy principles, and that recommendations would be made before vesting expires on 31 January 2009. It should be noted that if the Commonwealth Government makes any further serious threats to deduct any tranche payment that is owed to New South Wales under the national competition principles agreement, the Government will have to further consider the length of time for which this vesting arrangement can be sustained.

The bill also updates in clause 6 of schedule 7 to the Act the reference to the date of the current agreement between the Rice Marketing Board and the co-operative. The vesting arrangements do not interfere with the market price for rice, which is offered on world markets at a competitive and unsubsidised price. In fact the Australian rice industry already competes in the face of heavily subsidised producers in all of its key markets, including in Australia, where there is no import duty on rice. Rice is the most supported agricultural commodity in the world, with 80 per cent of the value of gross farm receipts subsidised by governments. The vesting arrangements under consideration allow the co-operative to market its exports in an organised way, and they have led to a highly effective, productive, and competitive rice industry. These arrangements have led to a quite remarkable export success story, and SunRice has developed into the fifth largest rice-food company in the world, with over 900 employees. Amazingly, this has been achieved through a very targeted marketing strategy that has won the company a 20 per cent share of the global medium grain rice market even though it produces only 4 per cent of the world's total rice trade.

In 2002, 85 per cent of Australian rice was exported to 72 countries, ensuring that over 40 million people across the globe consumed Australian rice each day. For the information of the House, SunRice, the marketing arm of the rice industry, is now an $800 million global business, with exports of up to $436 million, wholly owned by Australia's 1,834 rice growers and anchored in regional New South Wales. There are 571 growers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, 281 in the Coleambally Irrigation Area, and 982 in the Murray Valley. The mills are situated in Leeton, Coleambally and Deniliquin and deliveries are made to major storages across the region, including Moulamein, Burraboi, Deniliquin, Blighty, Finley, Hay, Coleambally, Emery, Leeton, Gogeldrie, Benerembah, Griffith, Yenda, Willbriggie, and Murrami. In fact, New South Wales produces 99 per cent of Australia's rice. The rice industry strongly supports the extension of vesting. Because of the drought and its resulting effect on water allocation, the rice industry has faced uncertainty and a reduction in annual production, particularly in the past financial year.

The industry will welcome the certainty of marketing arrangements for the immediate future. It is these arrangements that allowed the industry to sustain much of its income in the face of one of the worst droughts in history, reducing production to below 550,000 tonnes a year from an average of around 1,200,000 tonnes, as the company took innovative measures to supply its markets from alternative sources. The vesting arrangements have also proved to be highly successful in promoting environmental objectives. The rice industry's commitment to research and development has seen the development of sustainability programs that have resulted in marked improvements in yields and water use efficiency.

In fact, growers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area have increased their water efficiency from 5 tonnes produced per megalitre in 1985 to 9 tonnes megalitre in 2000. At the same time the average yield has increased from approximately 5.5 tonnes per hectare to 10 tonnes per hectare—very impressive figures indeed that people who have negative impressions of the rice industry should consider when they look at this industry and the amazing water efficiency performance that has been achieved over the past decade or so.

The sustainability of the industry has allowed it to be innovative with its product range, thus increasing the return to Australian rice growers. These developments have resulted in products that allow returns from between $990 and $7,836 per megalitre consumed. On average, 44 per cent of the retail price of rice was returned to producers, placing it ahead of any other food crop. These gains would simply not have been possible without the existing vesting arrangements.

This five-year extension of vesting for the New South Wales rice industry will clearly have a significant beneficial impact on the economy of the Riverina region and on the milling towns in particular. For example, Leeton, where 412 of SunRice's 820 highly skilled and qualified people work, is a major beneficiary. In fact, rice provides 20 per cent of the job opportunities in the Riverina and, as an industry, has $2.5 billion invested in land, plant and equipment. The leverage of the impact of this vesting decision is therefore even more significant than the premiums gained, and much of it ends up in the townships. Vesting provides an estimated net public benefit of $50 million per annum. Without it up to 4,000 jobs would be lost, and transitional unemployment in the Riverina region would increase by 5 per cent. The continuation of the rice vesting arrangements will ensure that the rice industry continues as an innovative and dynamic export earner for both New South Wales and Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [11.47 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 to facilitate the reconstitution of the Standing Ethics Committee as a Privileges and Ethics Committee with expanded functions.

The Legislative Assembly Standing Ethics Committee is a statutory committee which was first established under amendments to the ICAC Act in 1994.

Its major function is to prepare the Code of Conduct for members of the Legislative Assembly and to draft amendments to that Code.

The Code was first adopted by the Legislative Assembly on 5 May 1998.

The Committee also has a role in advising on matters involving members' ethics and standards and to conduct education on members' ethics.

It currently has no role in relation to matters of privilege, and is expressly prohibited from considering matters involving individual members.

In contrast, the equivalent Legislative Council Committee is established by resolution of the Council.

The Legislative Council Privileges and Ethics Committee has equivalent functions to the Legislative Assembly Standing Ethics Committee relating to members' ethics.

The Council Committee however, has additional functions in two areas: parliamentary privilege and citizens' right of reply.

The proposed amendments to the ICAC Act will repeal the existing provisions relating to the Standing Ethics Committee and allow the Legislative Assembly to constitute by resolution a Privileges and Ethics Committee.

For the information of members, I will make available a copy of the proposed resolution to establish a new committee, which the Minister tabled in the Legislative Assembly when he read his second reading speech. The resolution provides for the new Committee to have equivalent functions to the Legislative Council Committee, with one exception - the citizens' right of reply.

The Committee will not have the citizens' right of reply function as this is currently exercised by the Standing Orders and Procedures Committee. The new Privileges and Ethics Committee can liaise with the Standing Orders and Procedures Committee to determine which Committee would be the most appropriate to deal with this function.

The only additional function conferred upon the new Privileges and Ethics Committee (compared to the previous Standing Ethics Committee) is its role in considering matters involving parliamentary privilege.

This would include the power to examine and deal with contempts of Parliament and to consider issues relating to the control of proceedings and the publication of parliamentary debates and reports.

It would also allow the Committee to deal with any complaints about breaches of privilege by individual members referred to it by a resolution of the House.
The ICAC Act currently provides for the appointment of three community members to the Standing Ethics Committee.

In June 2002 the Legislative Assembly's Standing Ethics Committee recommended that the requirement for permanent community members be removed. The Legislative Council has no requirement for the appointment of community members to its Committee.

Given the expanded privileges role of the new Privileges and Ethics Committee, the Government agrees that the requirement for permanent community members should be removed. Matters affecting the privileges of members should be determined by members alone.

While community representatives will not be permanently appointed to the Committee, the bill provides for community representatives to be co-opted if required to assist in reviewing the Code of Conduct.

This will ensure that broader community input can be obtained in relation to the members' Codes of Conduct.

The ICAC Act currently provides that the Codes of Conduct are to be reviewed by each of the relevant Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council Committees at least once every two years.

The Legislative Assembly's Standing Ethics Committee Report released in June 2002 indicates that experience has shown that a review every two years is impractical. The Report suggests that since NSW has fixed four year parliamentary terms, it would be more appropriate for the Code to be reviewed once every Parliament. The Government supports this sensible proposal.

The bill extends the period for reviewing the Code of Conduct to every four years. This will have the benefit of freeing up the Committee to devote more time to its other important roles, such as educating and advising members about ethical standards.

Members will be aware of the recent ICAC Report on the Regulation of Secondary Employment of Members of the Assembly.

The Report contains a series of comprehensive recommendations relating to regulating secondary employment. The Report also contained a recommendation concerning enforcement and investigation of breaches of the Code of Conduct. The Government will respond to the ICAC's recommendations shortly.

I turn now to the proposed resolution establishing the Committee.

The Committee will consist of seven permanent members, being four Government members, two opposition members and one independent member.

The Committee's functions will be to:

• consider and report on any matters relating to privilege;
• provide advice and education relating to ethical standards; and
• prepare draft amendments to the Code of Conduct.

The Committee will have the power to:

• take evidence and send for papers; and
• obtain information and liaise with other similar committees in Australia.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.47 a.m.]: The Opposition does not support the Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment (Ethics Committee) Bill. I say at the outset that it is an interesting piece of legislation that is impacted by a number of principles. I will be fascinated to hear in the debate the contributions of crossbench members and, indeed, to see how they vote. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Independent Commission against Corruption Act 1988 to replace the Standing Ethics Committee with a Privileges and Ethics Committee with expanded functions. The Independent Commission against Corruption Act currently provides for the appointment of three community members to the Standing Ethics Committee. That provision will not apply with the new committee. The only additional function conferred upon the new Privileges and Ethics Committee is its role in considering matters involving parliamentary privilege. Currently the code of conduct is reviewed at least every two years, and as New South Wales has fixed four-year parliamentary terms, it is proposed that the code be reviewed only every four years. The new committee will consist of seven permanent members, being four Government members, two Opposition members, and one Independent member, and an Opposition member will be deputy chair.

The Opposition was struck by a number of matters in the second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in the other place. First and foremost, while the second reading speech provided a factual account of the purpose of the legislation, much as I have just done, it gave virtually no reason for the proposed change in the composition of the committee other than the justification for the bill that matters affecting the privileges of members should be determined by members alone. That was stated but not justified.

The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that it would be possible for community representatives to be co-opted to the committee but not on a permanent basis. That is indicative of the Government's view on the role of community members. Beyond an explanation that the code of conduct will be reviewed every four years, we have heard little justification for the bill. The Opposition's position, as outlined by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, is that this bill is yet another Carr Government retreat from public accountability. I was fascinated to read the arguments for and against setting up the ethics committee in late 1994. At that time the Independents in the other place strongly supported the concept of community participation in the development of a code of conduct. The then member for Manly, Peter Macdonald, said it was an important element of the bill and that the preparation of a code would entail some external involvement through the establishment of a standing ethics committee. He believed that public confidence would be enhanced through community participation.

The then Coalition Government moved a number of amendments following representations from the Independents. The concept emerged from events that had taken place from 1992 and the strong desire of the Independents to have enhanced public accountability and participation. The Opposition believes that the concept has worked well and that removal of community involvement will weaken public trust in members of Parliament. It will also encourage the conspiracy theories played out in the media from time to time, sadly on a too regular basis, about the actions of members of Parliament. A lack of community involvement in the committee will mean less public scrutiny. That is undesirable because in recent years the very institution of Parliament has been weakened by inappropriate media attacks and comments about and a misunderstanding of the work performed by members of Parliament. The best way to counter that is with the transparency that comes from community involvement in the development of codes of conduct.

The honourable member for Maitland expressed concern about the time it takes to select members of committees. Only recently the Legislative Council's Privileges and Ethics Committee was re-established, more than six months after the State election—so time is not necessarily of great concern to the Government. The honourable member for Maitland also outlined the importance of community representatives in forming a quorum. He said that from time to time meetings had to be cancelled or rescheduled to enable a quorum to be formed. However, that is a genuine problem that can occur at any time with any committee, certainly with the joint committees, and it is important to ensure that all parties are in attendance.

Members of the public should understand their obligations and be available to attend committee meetings wherever possible. They have been granted the right to be members, but with that right comes responsibility. I acknowledge the validity of the point made by the honourable member for Maitland, but it is insufficient for the Opposition to agree to the removal of citizen representation. The bill was originally debated in 1994 and the contributions by Government members make fascinating reading. They are now finally getting their way, because with the passing of this bill the composition of the Standing Ethics Committee of the Legislative Assembly will change. At the time the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries said:

The proposal to vest non-elected members of the Standing Ethics Committee with authority to determine standards of conduct for democratically-elected Members of Parliament, seems to strike at the very heart of the democratic process.

That is the rhetoric we have come to expect from him, particularly in Opposition, given his proclivity to exaggerate. The world has not come to an end; nor has this concept struck at the heart of the democratic process. Indeed, far from it. I believe it has led to greater community confidence and a better understanding of what takes place in the Parliament. I seek now to touch upon one principle that gave rise to the formation of two separate committees: the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, on which I am pleased to serve as Deputy Chair, and the Standing Ethics Committee of the Legislative Assembly. This is interesting, because it requires me to justify the Opposition's position on the bill.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It sure does.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I look forward to doing that and I have no difficulty in doing so. It is worth noting that when the bill was introduced in 1994 the Legislative Council took a different view: it wanted to establish its own committee. In particular, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile took a strong stance and moved a number of amendments. When the bill was returned to the other place the then Leader of the House, the Hon. Garry West, said:

Honourable members would be aware that the Legislative Council, in considering this bill, asserted its rights. It was not prepared to be dictated to as to the manner in which the Standing Ethics Committee should operate. The Legislative Council has indicated that it will establish its own ethics committee, which will not comprise any outside members, as provided for originally in the amendment. The amendment I am moving is clearly at the Legislative Council's invitation.

The Council took a view about the right to exercise its position and determine its committee. Opposition members of the Legislative Assembly have a strong view about the nature of the committee they believe is appropriate for the Legislative Assembly, that is, the current Standing Ethics Committee, which includes community representatives as well as members of the Council. On those grounds the Opposition resists the legislation proposed by the Government. As I said, we have heard little by way of justification for this bill. We certainly did not hear any justification in the Parliamentary Secretary's second reading speech. Last evening the honourable member for Maitland attempted to justify it, but there is no real understanding about an attempt to weaken an element of scrutiny and community involvement in what the Opposition sees as an important committee—a committee that grew out of a difficult period.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I address my question without notice to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Central Coast. Will the Minister guarantee to the thousands of parents, teachers and students on the Central Coast that the Department of Education and Training office is retained at Gosford and not moved to the Hunter? What action has the Minister taken in response to requests for assistance from the Central Coast Parents and Citizens Association, the Central Coast School Principals Council, Gosford City Council, Wyong Shire Council, Central Coast business groups and the Central Coast branch of the Teachers Federation?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question because it gives me the opportunity to make a couple of points to the House about public education, the Government and the Central Coast. As Assistant Treasurer I am proud to say that the New South Wales Government has provided a record capital works budget for the Central Coast, with investment in schools and TAFEs the largest single part of that investment. The Deputy Premier, and Minister for Education and Training is doing an excellent job in ensuring that he devotes resources, not only on the Central Coast but across New South Wales, to front-line teaching, the needs of front-line education resources and the needs of students and teachers. He has embarked on a program of administrative reform in order to maximise resources—the scarce dollars that we have at our disposal—in the area of front-line teaching.

In relation to that restructure, the Minister has shown that he is listening to the views of the Central Coast and, indeed, of the New South Wales community at large. I will continue to argue that the Central Coast needs an administrative structure that reflects the best educational resources that can be mustered for the people of the Central Coast who are loyal supporters of the public education system. I must point out that the only person talking about closing the Central Coast office of the Department of Education and Training is the member for Gosford. I do not think anyone on the Central Coast, or for that matter anyone in Sydney, takes him particularly seriously. He wants my job as Minister for the Central Coast. In fact, he has made a career out of coveting other people's jobs. He wants John Brogden's job, too. He wanted Kerry Chikarovski's job, Peter Collins's job and Barry O'Farrell's job. Indeed, it is a very long list. The Government's record on education on the Central Coast is second to none. I can assure honourable members that as Minister for the Central Coast I am working with the Government and the Minister for Education and Training to ensure that we have the best educational resources possible.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister's definition of "best educational facilities on the Central Coast" mean that the parents, teachers and students of the Central Coast have a guarantee that the Department of Education and Training office will be retained at Gosford?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As the honourable member knows, I am not in a position to give a guarantee about another Minister's portfolio. I have made my answer very clear. I refer to the relevant section of my substantive answer.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: I address my question without notice to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer inform the House of the Government's efforts to help New South Wales food producers target international markets for halal and kosher food?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I can inform the House that the Government is working to help the State's food producers benefit from the international demand for religious foods, such as halal and kosher food. Both halal and kosher foods require strict preparation methods in line with religious customs. However, they both provide market opportunities for New South Wales food companies. The halal food consumer market in the ASEAN region is valued at $261 million and is worth another $267 million in the Middle East. According to Austrade, 60 per cent of the $5.7 billion in food imported to Malaysia is halal. The proximity of New South Wales to more than 400 million Muslims in the Asia-Pacific region provides an ideal opportunity for New South Wales companies involved in halal food production to boost their export income. The Department of State and Regional Development is investigating ways to overcome hurdles to the processing, accreditation, monitoring and certification of halal food producing companies. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be interested in this.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am interested in this but you are not doing it justice.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: This is of great interest to rural and regional New South Wales. Only Country Labor understands the importance of our export trade to country and regional New South Wales. The high level of food processing technology and stringent quality standards in New South Wales leave it in a strong position to lead Australia in building business partnerships with countries lacking capacity to produce large amounts of certified food to meet religious requirements. The department has worked with Australian Business Ltd and the Federal Government to distribute a halal directory, which identifies accredited businesses and products in New South Wales.

The Kosher food market, while smaller than the halal market, is also being considered for its potential as a niche industry for New South Wales food producers. About 84,000 Jewish people live in Australia, with 34,000 of them in New South Wales. Like halal, kosher food rules apply to the food production, storage, transportation, distribution, preparation and final consumption. According to the Department of State and Regional Development, the most commercially viable markets for kosher food exports are the United States of America, Israel, Canada, England, South Africa and New Zealand. I think honourable members will agree that this is a unique opportunity for Australian food companies to get into a value-added, export-oriented industry sector. The Government will continue to work with companies to ensure that they take full advantage of the benefits offered by these markets.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Has the Minister been made aware of concerns of New South Wales councils that the Government's ongoing failure to fund maintenance and upgrades for grain rail branch lines will result in the closure of grain lines, a huge increase in the amount of grain transported on roads rather than rail and a massive increase in road maintenance costs? Furthermore, will he be questioning the Minister for Transport Services on his failure to maintain grain branch lines on behalf of New South Wales councils, which bear the great costs of this mismanagement?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The honourable member knows that the Federal Government has facilitated the problem. The New South Wales Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Egan, provided funds to assist with those branch lines. The problem that grain growers and councils in New South Wales currently face is facilitated because of the fight between the Australian Wheat Board and GrainCorp.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I address my question to the Minister for Local Government, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands). In relation to the latest generation of 3-G mobile phone towers, how many of the 500 towers erected are located on public lands? Will the Minister provide an itemised list of these towers located on public land and the rent public authorities receive as a result? How many towers are located within 300 metres of a school or other area where children regularly congregate, a location prohibited by European guidelines?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: The question is of such detail that no Minister could be expected to be carrying around that information in his head, as the honourable member knows. If the honourable member wants an answer to the question, I suggest that she should put it on notice. Clearly, it is not appropriate for questions without notice.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is extremely detailed, but it is in order. However, the honourable member would be advised in future to put such detailed questions on notice.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As the President has indicated, the question requires a detailed answer. I will take it on notice and provide an answer.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Will the Minister please update the House on efforts to fight noxious weeds in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Australiawide, noxious weeds cost $3.3 billion a year in lost production and control measures. In New South Wales it is estimated that weeds cost $600 million in losses each year. As the House is aware, the Carr Government has taken many steps over the years to help fight noxious weeds while protecting the biodiversity of our native pastures. In October I announced a new $1 million effort to help reduce the threat of serious weeds in an area stretching from south of Sydney to the Victorian border. This initiative is a joint effort involving NSW Agriculture and local resource management groups, and will support several regional projects. In Monaro and Goulburn, we will tackle weed management in native grasses. In Mudgee, southern Monaro, Goulburn and Yass we will manage serrated tussock and Chilean needle grass. Our team of weeds experts will investigate toxicity problems throughout the Southern Tablelands.

In the Warragamba catchment area projects will focus on grazing management for agriculture, biodiversity and water quality. In Braidwood our teams will help address weed-resilient landscapes. In Bombala, the Snowy area, Cooma and Monaro, we will implement voluntary biodiversity conservation schemes. These projects will go a long way to help effectively manage noxious weeds in key areas of the State. Country Labor member for Monaro, Steve Whan, can attest to the difficulties weeds pose in his electorate specifically. He has been an avid supporter of weed management programs and has worked tirelessly to secure funding to help control the impact of noxious weeds. Many of the regional projects I highlighted will deliver a great benefit in his area, and we hope to apply what we learn to other regions of the State in due course.

I am also pleased to inform the House that many of the projects in this initiative have attracted Federal funding totalling more than $500,000 through the Natural Heritage Trust. The State Government is matching this amount through NSW Agriculture funded projects and the department's overall management, infrastructure and delivery of the initiative. This $1 million commitment is on top of the more than $7 million the New South Wales Government spends each year in grants to help control noxious weeds.

As honourable members will recall, earlier in the year I appointed Boorowa mayor, Mr Robert Gledhill, to oversee a review of the broader management and co-ordination of noxious weed control in New South Wales. Mr Gledhill has consulted with rural lands protection boards, shire councils and county councils, inviting them to lodge submissions. Other agencies such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service, State Rail and Forestry NSW have also been encouraged to contribute comments. The period for public submissions closes this week, and I look forward to Mr Gledhill's report by the end of the year. Mr Gledhill's review is a crucial tool in helping to ensure we get the best value from every dollar spent on weeds management. I look forward to sharing findings from Mr Gledhill's report in due course. He runs a very fine council and the people of Boorowa love him.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney General and the Minister for Police, a question without notice. When will the Government reopen the inquest into the case of the model Caroline Byrne and her tragic and mysterious murder at the Gap on 8 June 1995, to bring this tragic case to a close? The case has been stalled by missed opportunity, staff shortages and lack of evidence, and has cost the Byrne family countless grief and the taxpayer millions of dollars. Given that the key suspect, Gordon Wood, who was Rene Rivkin's driver, has given a false alibi, a colourful account of finding her body and has been touring the United States of America, do the police know of his current whereabouts? When will the police urgently question Mr Wood about what Coroner John Abernethy regards as "glaring inconsistencies", "inconsistent testimony" and "bizarre evidence before the earlier inquest"?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Attorney General for an answer and provide the House with an answer in due course.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Did ageing and disability services tell representatives of peak disability service groups that some service providers may have been overpaid when the Government compensated them for increases to the Social and Community Services Award? Did these overpayments amount to thousands of dollars in some cases? How did the department find out about this problem and what estimate has been made of its extent? When will the department be in a position to report on the extent of the problem and inform service providers where they stand? Will the Minister rule out requiring service providers to repay the money, particularly if they were not aware when these funds were paid that they were overpayments and if the funds have already been expended in hiring staff and providing services to clients? If not, how does the Minister expect them to recover these amounts without compromising client services or sacking staff?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: This question follows on from a question the honourable member asked yesterday. As I advised the House yesterday, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care has agreements in place with the organisations it funds. The department advised service providers in July 2003 and again in September that arrangements existing in 2002-03 were extended into this financial year, thus protecting the Government, providers and service users. Providers have already accepted two quarterly payments under the extended contracts. Before issuing new funding agreements the department is ensuring that the funding database used to identify the funding base of each organisation accurately reflects the movements of payments that have been affected. I am repeating what I said yesterday, because it would seem that the Hon. John Ryan still does not understand the issue. I am happy to go through it again, but it is important to explain to the House—

The Hon. John Ryan: Have they been told that they have been overpaid?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: That is exactly what I am answering. As I indicated yesterday, the increases in the Social and Community Services Award in 2001, 2002 and 2003 had a significant impact on the funding base movement of each organisation. It is important to appreciate that the department was required to make numerous changes to funding levels as a result of the refusal of the Commonwealth to meet its share of the cost of the award increases. I am surprised that the Opposition keeps raising this issue. If the Commonwealth had come to the party in an appropriate way, as we requested, rather than rely on the State Government to provide an assistance package—

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I know that the Commonwealth Government does not agree that it has some responsibility to provide funding for a wage increase to the lowest paid people in this country. The Opposition makes all sorts of claims pretending to represent working people in New South Wales. That is a lie because it did not represent the working people who provide services to the most vulnerable and financially disadvantaged people in the State. It did not want to represent them, and neither did the Commonwealth. Having said that, it is entirely appropriate in this context that the department now ensures the transparency and accuracy of payments to funded organisations. All the details will be held on the database. I assure honourable members that the delivery of home and community care services and other services delivered through funds provided by the department will not suffer.

I am advised by the department that it expects only minor levels of overpayments or underpayments to be identified through its work on ensuring the accuracy of its funding database. Where overpayments are identified, the department will deal with these on a case-by-case basis. The organisation affected will have the opportunity to present any issues to the department that it may believe are relevant to the situation before any final determination is made. For an organisation that provides more than $600 million in funding to non-government organisations, it is not unusual that from time to time overpayments or underpayments occur. That occurs in any organisation that has large grants programs. Nonetheless, I can assure honourable members that this process will not affect clients of services.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I direct my question to the Minister for Justice. Will the Minister advise the House what initiatives the Department of Corrective Services is providing for indigenous inmates to re-establish and strengthen their family ties?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: As I have said on a number of occasions, the Government is committed to solving the problem of over-representation of Aboriginal people in correctional facilities. In line with this priority, the Department of Corrective Services has implemented a range of strategies and programs and has committed significant funds to this very important issue. One such initiative the department has implemented is the Inmate Support Program. This program is aimed at assisting and supporting indigenous inmates who are part of the stolen generation to establish and strengthen their family links. One of the problems indigenous inmates face is the loss of identity and disconnection from their family. It is often common for many inmates to lose touch with their relatives and this program, where possible, aims to assist the location and reconnection of inmates to their family.

The Link-Up (NSW) Aboriginal Corporation, which is based in Lawson, has been provided with a start-up grant of $70,000 through this program, in line with Recommendation 52 of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Anecdotal evidence is that the program has been successful and well received by inmates. As a result of the positive reception, I am pleased to fund the program for a further two years. It is important to reiterate and acknowledge that the funding to Link-Up aims at helping indigenous inmates to re-establish and strengthen their family ties. I note that the organisation was the only one to offer the State's indigenous inmates with this form of vital family support.

Central to the success of Link-Up is the appointment of a caseworker who deals directly with indigenous inmates and the department's Indigenous Services Unit. The caseworker helps inmates obtain records, locate files and certificates and provides counselling. The service can even assist inmates to locate family members and assist in arranging reunions. One of the vital aspects of the Link-Up project is its potential to assist indigenous inmates upon their release. Part of this involves support and counselling for as long as it is required. Other scenarios encountered by inmates include the need for searches for family members interstate or internationally. Inmates may request that reunions be held off until their release. In those circumstances the role of the caseworker, depending on gender needs, is to be sensitive to cultural requirements around gender issues, which can at times cause difficulty.

Another likely occurrence, rejection, is also a difficulty faced by many Link-Up (NSW) clients. Rejection is a risk that inmates face. The caseworker's role, together with the department, is to provide on-going regular support where required. Any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander inmate who has been affected by removal or separation from family through past government policies can seek the assistance of Link-Up. This includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander inmates who may have been a State ward, fostered, adopted or institutionalised. Aboriginal staff who work in correctional centres are also eligible.

It is important to highlight the effect this program has had on reoffending by indigenous inmates. Inmates who are able to connect with their family and community, especially within the first three to six months after release, are less likely to re-offend. This program also complements the impressive results at Yetta Dhinnakkal. Of the 210 inmates who have been discharged since it opened, 48 have been living in the community for longer than two years with only 7 per cent reoffending, 122 have been living in the community for longer than one year with only 14 per cent reoffending, and 151 have been living in the community for longer than six months with only 10 per cent reoffending. Since its inception Link-Up has assisted 165 inmates. The Government congratulates Link-Up and the staff of the department's Indigenous Services Unit for this outstanding success. The additional funding the Government will provide should continue the good work that Link-Up has provided and ensure a smoother transition for inmates after their release.

In addition to this commitment, the Government has a number of programs throughout the State that are specifically designed for Aboriginal inmates. They include the Aboriginal Alcohol and Other Drugs programs; the Aboriginal Cultural Link program; the Aboriginal Inmate Mentor program; Aboriginal education and vocational training; the Aboriginal Cultural Centre at Girrawaa; the culture camps for inmates at Karraka; the Aboriginal Pre- and Post-Release program; the Elders Visitors program; and the Yulawirri Women's Post Release project.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: These programs highlight the Government's commitment to the reduction of the indigenous reoffending rate and their over-representation in correctional facilities.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister publicly release the Government's ports growth plan, which is referred to in the terms of reference of the State Development committee inquiry into port infrastructure? If so, when will the plan be released and will it be available online? If not, why not?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As the honourable member should know, because I have been asked questions about this matter in the past, there will be an inquiry about significant components of the port plan. The community will have an opportunity to have input into that process.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Does the Government's ports growth plan actually exist? How can people make submissions to an inquiry about a plan that has not been made public?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Read the Premier's speech to the ALP conference.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have heard what the Treasurer said, and I was going to respond in similar terms. There is a ports growth strategy, and we have announced it publicly. The Opposition has criticised the strategy and indicated it does not support the port of Newcastle being the second major port in New South Wales. When the Leader of the Opposition was in Newcastle he said that he did not support the plan. The community of Newcastle has noted that the Opposition is confused about this matter.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Where is the plan, Michael? Or is it Mick Costa?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member has referred to me as Mick Costa. During a speech she gave last night she quoted me in 1976 supporting a revolution against the capitalist class. She should have gone back to 1966 when I believed in the tooth fairy. I was 10 years old at the time. Today I do not believe in the tooth fairy, but she still does, I gather from the political position she holds. She may want to go back to 1956, the year I was born. I was saying things like "ga ga", which is an appropriate response to questions from the Greens. There is a ports plan, and it has been announced publicly. The Opposition is opposed to it, as are the Greens. Honourable members opposite must be opposed to something. If they are, it must exist.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I direct my question to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Will the Minister give an urgent undertaking to honour the Government's promises to the New South Wales sheep producers eligible for funds under the ovine Johne's disease [OJD] financial aid package that was frozen in late October? Why was that funding stopped without any warning and why has the Government left high and dry producers battling OJD?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have been making statements about this issue. Financial assistance for individual farmers to implement management strategies to control ovine Johne's disease [OJD] has been funded by the State's sheep industry through contributions raised under the Agricultural Livestock (Disease Control Funding) Act 1998. The assistance scheme is administered by the Rural Assistance Authority [RAA]. Currently 561 applications for funding have been approved by the authority with $4.9 million being paid to producers. However, the pool of industry funds collected has fallen well short of demand and a decision to put further payments on hold has been made pending further discussions with the State's sheep industry on mechanisms and options available to meet their OJD financial commitments. The New South Wales Government provided a $4.2 million loan earlier this year as a direct response to calls to provide financial assistance to affected producers in view of the hardship created by the worst drought in 100 years.

It is estimated that the State's sheep industry now has $6.8 million in liabilities under the OJD program, and payments for approved claims have therefore had to be put on hold until funding options have been identified. The RAA has been advised not to approve any further applications for financial assistance. I am seeking advice from Mr Michael Nicholls, Chairman of the OJD Industry Advisory Committee, and Mr Richard Bull, Chairman of the OJD Interim Steering Committee on mechanisms and options available to the State's sheep industry to meet OJD financial assistance commitments. I have asked Mr Nicholls and Mr Bull to provide me with that advice by 14 November.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I direct my question to the Minister for Ageing. What is the Government doing to expand the benefits available under the Seniors Card scheme?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: This important question relates to the support we provide to older people in the community through the Seniors Card scheme. The 2004 Senior Card Members Guide is now available. The scheme has overwhelming community support. At the end of June 2003 the Seniors Card scheme had 880,000 members and a continually growing number of business partners—now in their thousands. In fact, 80 per cent of all eligible people over the age of 60 years hold a Seniors Card and many of them use it every day. The uptake is gratifying for the Government because the New South Wales Seniors Card and the thousands of discounts and benefits that go with it are a major way for us to acknowledge the enormous contributions that seniors make in local communities. Seniors are the backbone of volunteer work, looking after younger members of families, sharing knowledge and experience, being carers and helping in their local communities. A study undertaken by the Centre for Ageing Studies at Flinders University found that the financial value of work done by elderly people living independently equals the cost of government-provided aged care services. That is a different spin on the debate about the cost impact of the ageing of our community.

The New South Wales Seniors Card scheme offers a range of discounts and includes statewide transport concessions. I am pleased to say that they are the most generous in any State in Australia. This year the Government is making it easier for seniors to find concessions in their local region by producing guides for five regions in New South Wales. There will be guides for the Sydney metropolitan area, the Central Coast and the Hunter, and northern, southern and western New South Wales featuring hundreds of discounts for Seniors Card holders in those regions. They will give residents ease of access to local services that offer benefits and discounts to Seniors Card holders. If seniors are visiting other regions in New South Wales the Seniors Card information service can provide them with a free copy of the guide so that they can enjoy discounts and concessions wherever they travel.

The members guide will provide updated information on government concessions such as entry into national parks, museums and zoos. The guide also provides information on discounts on holidays and travel, movies and other entertainment, motor vehicle insurance and personal and professional services. Copies of the 2004 members guide will be made available to Seniors Card holders by the end of November. The Seniors Card scheme demonstrates the influence that seniors have in the commercial world. New businesses are constantly signing up as partners because they realise the economic muscle of seniors and that the seniors market is the fastest growing market in Australia. Seniors should always ask for a Seniors Card discount whenever they shop because it lets businesses know that they will give them their custom if they become a partner in the scheme.

I am also pleased that this year, in conjunction with the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Seniors Card holders will not only receive the members guide but also a seniors discovery pack, which contains a New South Wales State map and a discovery directory. The Seniors Card scheme has opened up well-deserved opportunities and provides significant benefits to seniors throughout New South Wales, and I am confident that it will continue to do so.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister advise the House whether it is a punishable offence to take a photograph on a New South Wales train? If it is, what is the penalty? If not, will the Minister call for a report on an incident that occurred at about 6.00 p.m. last Saturday, 8 November, on a train from Canterbury via Bankstown to Liverpool in which transit officers reportedly threatened a passenger with a fine of $400 when he attempted to photograph graffiti on the window of a carriage door? Can the Minister shed any light on how such an incident might have occurred?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: My understanding, and I will confirm it, is that it is not an offence to take a photograph on a train. However, in light of the current security environment, caution is exercised with regard to the photographing of all sorts of infrastructure.

[Interruption]

I remind members opposite of the Federal Government's anti-terrorism campaign. Everyone remembers the fridge magnets and postcards. That campaign encouraged us to be cautious about people taking photographs of infrastructure. Honourable members opposite should not lead with their chins on these issues. I am not aware of the specific incident, but I am happy to obtain advice in relation to it. In my discussions with groups about graffiti on trains I have been told that many people involved in vandalism take photographs of their so-called artwork, for want of a better description. It indicates a connection to the graffiti. I do not know the details of the incident referred to by the honourable member, but I will obtain advice.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: I direct my question to the Minister for Local Government. Will the Minister confirm that he has ruled out any future boundary changes to Sydney City Council before next year's release of the parliamentary inquiry report on local government amalgamations in New South Wales? Will he also provide a guarantee that the Government will not try once again to wipe out Sydney's inner city councils through forced amalgamations, as it tried to do in 2002?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I cannot prevent any council in the State making a boundary change proposal. That right is enshrined in the Local Government Act, which allows any council or any group of 250 residents to make a submission. If any such submission conforms to the provisions of the Local Government Act, I will refer it to the Boundaries Commission.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I direct my question to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. With the semi-finals of the Rugby World Cup to be played this weekend, will the Treasurer advise the House what impact the event has already had?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Who's going to win?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I really do not know who is going to win. I hope it is Australia—

The Hon. John Ryan: It's not in your portfolio.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It is not in my portfolio. I was a rugby league player rather than a rugby union player, but I am starting to appreciate the finer points of rugby union. It is a very good game, and I am delighted at the crowds it is attracting all around Australia. The Rugby World Cup has had a bumper impact in New South Wales. And in regional areas such as the Illawarra and the Central Coast, sell-out matches have boosted local economies. The Australian Rugby Union's ticket marketing manager, Shane Harman, reports that the World Cup will provide a total of $207 million in combined ticket sales. A total of 1.85 million people are expected to attend the 48 matches being played, with about two million tickets out of the total pool of 2.2 million being sold.

Under the International Rugby Board's official travel program, international visitors are expected to reach 40,000. It is estimated that the same number again will travel unofficially, to use tickets purchased on their behalf by friends or relatives. In other words, about 80,000 international visitors will come to Australia for the Rugby World Cup. About 150,000 interstate and intrastate trips are expected by Australian residents attending matches. One has only to go to Bondi Beach on a Sunday, as I did last Sunday, to be aware of the enormous number of tourists in town.

The Hon. Rick Colless: New Zealanders are always in Bondi.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, I am not talking about New Zealanders. Last Sunday there were an enormous number of young Irish people on Bondi Beach. In fact, I thought there were more Irish people on Bondi Beach than there are in Ireland.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What was the water temperature?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Quite nice. It was warmer than the Irish Sea. The water was a little warmer than it was about three weeks before, when, I can assure you, it was freezing. In New South Wales, ticket sales for the Rugby World Cup are expected to total 860,000. The Australian Rugby Union says that the quarterfinals played last weekend sold 90,000 tickets in Brisbane, valued at $15 million, and 80,000 tickets in Melbourne, also valued at $15 million.
In Sydney, the upcoming semifinals, play-off and final have sold 320,000 tickets, fetching $95 million. Between 30,000 and 35,000 international visitors are expected to attend the final Sydney matches. In Sydney, Telstra Stadium has so far played host to three matches. For the opening game on 10 October, between Australia and Argentina, which I saw, 80,360 spectators crammed into the Homebush site. The Australian Rugby Union estimates that about 90 per cent of tickets have been sold across the World Cup tournament.

But the news gets better as the main Rugby World Cup focus is yet to arrive. The remaining four matches will be played at Telstra Stadium, at Sydney Olympic Park. Semifinal one, between Australia and New Zealand, will be played this Saturday, while semifinal two on Sunday will see the widely fancied French team take on England. Obviously, the Rugby World Cup has been a great success for Sydney, New South Wales and Australia. I certainly hope that the Wallabies are victorious this Saturday against the All Blacks, and that they go on to win the World Cup final against either France or England.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. I refer to the recent annual report of the Child Death Review Team, the fatal assault report and the groundbreaking suicide report, the latter report showing that 26 per cent of children and young people who killed themselves had had contact with the Department of Community Services. I note that children actually in the care of the department are not a detailed group for the purposes of the Child Death Review Team's work. Will the Minister make these children a reportable category, and will she refer to the Child Death Review Team for further inquiry and research the matter of children who die while in the care of the department?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans raises two very important reports, the Child Death Review Team's annual report and the review team's report into children who die from fatal assault and neglect, which I understand were released on 30 October. I think the honourable member has perhaps misunderstood some of the significant changes that occurred with regard to investigated child death reviews prior to the reports being released, and it may be worthwhile bringing the honourable member up to date with those changes.

The Ombudsman will now be responsible for undertaking reviews in relation to the deaths of children in a category known as vulnerable children. I believe that should satisfy the honourable member's inquiry about whether a category of children known to the Department of Community Services should be a specific category in itself. Obviously, children who are known to the department and subsequently die in circumstances that may well not be related to the circumstances under which they became known to the department should not be marked with that association.

Nonetheless, clearly the fact that a child has been reported to the department is an indication of vulnerability and risk. It is therefore an important signifier, but it should not be looked at in isolation because it may well be that the death of a child who had been reported to the department had nothing to do with the original reason for the child becoming known to the department. The child may have died as a result of a car accident, for example. Nonetheless, I can assure the honourable member that the Ombudsman will now be responsible for undertaking reviews of child deaths in respect of children who are in a range of categories of vulnerability, including those who have had siblings reported to the department.

Obviously, if a child death occurs and the child is known to the Department of Community Services, it is absolutely imperative that the department looks at its processes to ensure that if anything can be learnt from such a tragic incident it will do so. The department is closely looking at the way in which it reviews child deaths, and obviously it will do that in conjunction with the Ombudsman. Clearly, it does not make sense that the department should undertake a role of reviewing its actions in relation to a child death if the Ombudsman is also undertaking such a role. The Child Death Review Team will continue to have the broader responsibility of investigating all child deaths in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for her elucidation that the Ombudsman will be responsible for child death reviews. Obviously, it is a category of child death that directly relates to the performance of the department. Will the department nevertheless create a category of children under its care within that statistical framework to enable a direct comparison of children under its care and a benchmark for the department?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: It may assist the honourable member if I read the relevant section from the Community Services Legislation Act 2000. One of the most significant changes is that the Act creates a class of death known as reviewable deaths. The Ombudsman has new review responsibilities in relation to reviewable deaths. Reviewable deaths are those of a child arising in suspicious circumstances; who was in care or receiving a service to enable the child to live independently in the community; in relation to which a child protection report on the child or his or her sibling was made to the Department of Community Services within three years preceding the death; or who was in a detention centre or residential care facility.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Will the Minister advise whether the New South Wales Agricultural Advisory Council on Gene Technology undertook tests or reviewed the results of tests to determine whether escaped plants from site No. 36152 were genetically engineered? Did the two community representatives on the council express alarm at this contamination alert and did they oppose a new exemption order for the current trial? Did the Minister mislead the public by asserting in the media this week that the escaped plants were not genetically engineered when in fact no review has been made by the council to confirm this?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have not misled anyone on this incident. In relation to the Ashbridge property, earlier in the year the department in its normal monitoring program found some canola plants in the wheat crop around the research project. It was part of the research project. The entire situation was handled at the time. The advisory council made it clear to me that it did not believe that the volunteers in the wheat crop were genetically modified. I have received correspondence that tests carried out by Bayer of this material were negative for genetically modified [GM] canola. The council has reviewed the process and assessed what took place on site, and it came to the conclusion that there was very little chance of the plants being GM-based canola.

The incident has been dealt with effectively. The area was sprayed at the time and the site was repaired quickly. The advisory council has requested me to consider extending the exemption order so that the trial can be completed and research results can be obtained to determine, amongst other things, how the non-GM canola that surrounds the GM canola plants and the GM canola plants stood up under the terrible drought. On that basis, the advisory council suggested that I extend the research trial, and I have done so. I have enhanced the monitoring of the site from a regime of 35 days to 14 days for the regulatory authority, which is the department, and Bayer is to report to the regulatory authority in 14 days.

These actions have been taken to ensure that no GM canola can contaminate any other crops anywhere in the district. The matter has been dealt with effectively by the advisory council, the body that has been set up by this Parliament under the Act passed in May this year. The council has carried out an effective review. I remind honourable members opposite that the Australian Wheat Board, New South Wales Farmers and other grains organisations have members on this particular body, and I am sure they would require me to not issue further exemption orders if they felt there was any difficulty with the site.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister's answer, has the Minister seen the results of the tests that were conducted by Bayer and, if so, will he make the results available to the House? Will the Minister be calling for any independent testing, or will all the tests be conducted by Bayer?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As I said, the tests were done by Bayer at the time and it has forwarded to me the statement it made to the advisory council, stating that the results of the tests it conducted on plants indicated that the plants were not GM-based. The advisory council also conducted an analysis. It inquired into the cause of the incident and provided a very cogent explanation for how it occurred—which in due course I could report to the House. I will not be taking the matter further at this stage. I believe the advisory council has conducted a thorough assessment of the matter. I reiterate the point that the very people that The Nationals claim to represent and support—the farming community and its organisations—have made it clear that I should extend exemption orders, and I have done so.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government. What is the latest information on the State Government's local government reform program?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: All members will be aware that the local government reform program is now in full swing. We now have three regional reviews under way: one in the Australian Capital Territory region, one in the Peel Valley and another in the Clarence Valley. These reviews are held in areas in which there are a number of conflicting proposals for boundary changes or amalgamations. We have put in place three expert independent facilitators with experience in local government. After extensive talks with local community groups, councils and individuals, they will come back to me with the best ideas.

At the Local Government Association's annual conference on Monday I announced our intention to conduct a further two regional reviews, one in the Murray region and one in the Macquarie region in the Central West. Today I am able to announce that Chris Vardon, the former Eurobadalla Shire Mayor and former President of the New South Wales Shires Association, will conduct the review of the Macquarie region.

[Interruption]

I understand he stood for preselection for the Liberal Party. The review will examine councils including Bathurst, Evans, Oberon, Lithgow, Mudgee and Rylstone. Mr Vardon is currently completing the Peel review and will start on the Macquarie review shortly. The Government has invested an extra $2 million in these reviews to make sure that communities are consulted.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Couldn't you find anyone competent?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggesting Mr Vardon is not competent? I make it clear that these reviews will be conducted in addition to the community consultation that the Boundaries Commission has to undertake by law. We will not be taking any shortcuts when it comes to listening to the community. Regional reviews allow all the ideas to be put on the table so that we can get the very best for the community. I have asked the facilitators of regional reviews to develop a proposal for change to be referred to the Boundaries Commission for further consideration. That is another clear indication of our commitment to the local government reform program. I again put on record that the local government reform program will improve service delivery for residents and ratepayers. We want to make sure that all communities are fully consulted before any reform is undertaken. The Government is not interested in reform for the sake of reform. We value local government in New South Wales. It makes an important contribution to our community.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is clearly misleading the House now.

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

The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is why we are working with councils and the community to make sure that local government survives. Changes to the Federal Governments Federal Assistance Grants are looming, and local government will end up with less money in real terms. Some councils in New South Wales rely on Federal assistance grants for up to 30 per cent of their income. We want to make sure that local government in New South Wales survives these changes, and that is why we are committed to reforming local government in New South Wales.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Has the National Parks and Wildlife Service put a request to Treasury for funds to prepare the State of the Environment Report for the Alpine Ski Resorts, as required by section 32F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and due in mid-2004? Has that request been approved and, if not why not, and will the Treasurer ensure that this oversight is rectified as soon as possible?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The National Parks and Wildlife Service, of course, is well funded through the annual State budget. It has had very substantial funding increases since I have been Treasurer and, from time to time, I receive requests for supplementary funding from almost all government agencies, and they are always dealt with intelligently as well as prudently.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Did the report of the Walton inquiry into the Valuation of Land Act find that there was a concern by the Government to correct historically low land valuations? To what extent did this push by the Government to correct historically low land valuations result in the systematic increase in the amount of land tax paid by landowners in New South Wales, and thereby increase the Government's land tax revenue?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not know whether that is a good question, but it amazes me because the Hon. Greg Pearce has been in this Chamber for a number of years. He has managed to gather two supporters because he got two votes when he stood for the leadership of his party.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Who were they?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not know who those two were, but I suspect that he only managed to gather two supporters because the rest of his colleagues realised that he had learned nothing in the time he had been here, and that is indicated by the question he has asked today.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The Treasurer was asked a very straightforward question about the Walton report on land tax and he has not uttered a word in response to it. I ask that you direct him to be relevant to the question.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: It is a straightforward response. I am not the Minister responsible for the Valuer General.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind Ministers that answers must be relevant to the questions asked.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: In view of the time, if honourable members have further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

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 ordered to stand as an order of the day.

[The President left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [2.30 p.m.]: Before lunch I said the Opposition opposes the bill. We believe that the committee that is now operating in the lower House is appropriate. Previously I put my strong view about public accountability and openness, as against the principle of the right of each House to choose the form of committee that is appropriate to its needs. That was an important principle when this legislation was originally debated in 1994, but the difference between the situation in 1994 and today is that in 1994 the Legislative Council as a whole expressed the strong view that it did not want a form of committee imposed upon it by the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council expressed a view that it would establish its own committee. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile moved an amendment that, rather than accept the form of committee proposed, the Legislative Council establish its own privileges and ethics committee. That amendment was accepted by the Government.

When the bill was returned to the other place, the Leader of the House there acknowledged the right of this House to choose the form of committee that was appropriate to this House, and the Legislative Assembly accepted the amendment proposed by the Legislative Council. I do not want to see that important principle undermined, nor do I believe that our opposition to this legislation undermines it. Last night my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly voted against this bill. They have a strong view about maintaining the current situation, which involves community representation. That was groundbreaking legislation when it was introduced in 1994, and my colleagues contend that it has served the Legislative Assembly well.

In saying that the Opposition opposes the bill, I am mindful that there is a difference of opinion within the Legislative Assembly. We do not intend by our opposition to impose our will upon the other place. But I strongly express the view that my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly do not want a change in its current ethics committee. For those reasons the Opposition opposes the legislation. I want to make it very clear that the principle that each House has the right to choose the form of committee that is appropriate to its needs is not undermined by our opposition to the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [2.35 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill introduces a range of new firearms and gun crime offences and tough new penalties. It also provides police with the tools they need to crack down on firearms crime. New South Wales has the toughest firearms laws in Australia, with penalties for serious gun offences in the Firearms Act and the Crimes Act of up to 20 years imprisonment, and a range of offences specifically targeted at illegal trafficking. According to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, during the two years to 31 December last year assault "shoot with intent" incidents involving a handgun fell by 26 per cent and assaults with a handgun fell by 36 per cent, and the downward trend between 2001 and 2002 has continued in the first half of 2003.

However, as recent incidents have shown, there is never any room for complacency in illegal gun crime, and there is clearly more work to be done. That is why on 23 September a package of measures was released to improve the comprehensive, co-ordinated approach taken by New South Wales Police to illegal gun availability, detection, apprehension, and prosecution. The initiatives in the package provide for increased detection and enforcement, legislative changes, improved security industry controls, better safe storage, and the need for greater national controls. The Firearms and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Bill implements the legislative changes announced as part of the package. They include changes to the Crimes Act 1900, such as clarifying that a firearm which is inside a motor vehicle which is in a public place is considered to be in a public place for the purposes of the current Crimes Act offence of possessing a loaded firearm in a public place. Recently a court decided that a firearm inside a private vehicle in a public place is not necessarily itself within that public place. This is clearly nonsense, and proposed section 93F amends the Crimes Act to clarify that.

Proposed section 93GA creates a more specific offence in the Crimes Act of firing at a dwelling house or building with disregard for the safety of persons. The maximum penalty for this offence is to be 14 years. This will allow police to more accurately target persons who commit so-called drive-by shootings. It also represents an increase of the current 10-year penalty for the less specific offences of causing danger with a firearm or spear gun, and trespassing with or dangerous use of a firearm or spear gun, which are currently in sections 93G and 93H of the Crimes Act. The bill also amends the Crimes Act. Proposed section 93I introduces a new offence whereby an unlicensed person carrying an unregistered firearm in a public place is liable to a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, as well as a new aggravated carriage offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years. Proposed section 154D provides for the new offence of stealing a firearm, with a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

Schedule 2 amends the Firearms Act by inserting new sections 50AA and 51BA, which make it an offence to illegally purchase or sell a firearm part, with a maximum penalty of five years for non-prohibited firearm parts and 10 years for a pistol or prohibited firearm part. New section 51B increases the time period for establishing the current ongoing trafficking offence from three illegal firearm sales in 30 days to three illegal sales in 12 months. This recognises that the modus operandi of illegal firearm sales is very different from that of prohibited drugs, on which the three sales in 30 days time frame was originally modelled; and it introduces a new offence of ongoing supply for major parts of a firearm in new section 51BB. This section is modelled directly on the current offence of ongoing illegal sale of a whole firearm, with the addition of the extension of the offence period to three sales in 12 months.

Schedule 2 also amends the Firearm Act to clarify the offence regime for forging licences and using a forged licence. A new offence of using a forged firearm licence or permit in an effort to illegally obtain a firearm is introduced in new section 71A. This will attract a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The bill also increases the penalty of forging a firearm licence or permit from $5,500 to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, by deleting the current offence in section 71 (b) of the Firearms Act and making it clear via insertion of a note that the existing offence in section 300 (1) of the Crimes Act applies to forgery of a firearm licence. The penalty for such forgery is a maximum of 10 years.

Schedule 3 amends clause 14 of the Firearms (General) Regulation to provide that licence holders must notify police of the address where their firearm will be stored, and any subsequent change in that address, within seven days of the change. The amendments to section 87 of the Firearms Act and to clause 107 of the Firearms (General) Regulation will enable the Commissioner of Police to more generally delegate the power to sign a certificate of evidence to an authorised registry officer, rather than the current requirement that requires the regulation to be amended each time the commissioner wants to exercise a delegation.

This bill is part of the package of measures to improve the comprehensive, co-ordinated approach taken by NSW Police to illegal gun availability, detection, apprehension, and prosecution. It does not constitute the entire package. In the area of increased detection and enforcement a new 47-member mobile team of Operation Viking police began high-visibility, high-impact raids in the first week of October, targeting criminals and thugs carrying concealed handguns in hot spots. The unit has held operations in Campsie, Bankstown, Rosehill, Fairfield, Cabramatta, Burwood, and City Central local area commands. An additional 20 firearm detector dogs are also to be deployed from the 2004-05 financial year to support searches, high-profile street policing, crime scene investigations, and screening of public places and vehicles.

The Government is seeking stronger sentences for handgun crimes and, to address consistency in sentencing, it will ask the newly formed Sentencing Council to examine sentencing trends for serious firearms offences with a view to implementing standard minimum sentences. The Government is also considering making more serious firearm crimes strictly indictable, so that such crimes will be tried in the District or the Supreme Court and attract higher sentences. It is examining measures to ensure that more cases are dealt with on indictment, and it is ensuring that the Commissioner for Police instructs prosecutors to instigate immediate appeals if firearms criminals receive sentences that the community views as inappropriate.

In addition, a review of the use of firearms in the security industry is approaching finalisation. This review includes an examination of increased safe storage requirements, limiting the calibre and magazine capacity of firearms being purchased by the industry, limiting access to firearms to certain types of security work, and examining whether certain sectors of the industry need to be armed, the ratio of guns held by companies relative to the number of employees, and examining better enforcement of annual training requirements. The Operation Vulcan illegal firearms phone-in campaign has been reactivated, with callers eligible for increased rewards of up to $5,000 for information leading to a conviction. NSW Police is to have an additional five sworn positions provided to the State Crime Command's firearms and regulated industries crime squad to conduct proactive intelligence gathering on gun crime, develop better education for police on gun handling and licensing procedures, and lead co-ordinated force-wide efforts in training and in developing intelligence plans.

The Government is leading the way in the fight against illegal firearms. The Carr Government has provided NSW Police with more resources than ever before to fight gun crime. A total of $2.073 billion was allocated to meet the recurrent and capital expenses of NSW Police in 2003-04. This is the ninth consecutive record police budget. The Firearms and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Bill will provide police with the tools they need to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute illegal gun traffickers and criminals who use guns. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.45 p.m.]: The Greens do not support this bill, which is a fig leaf for the Government's inaction on crime. It is a rewrite of the Firearms Act. There is no evidence to suggest that tougher penalties prevent crime or that they help victims of crime. The Government's priority should be measures to reduce the number of victims. The Government works to con the public that get-tough legislation is a workable solution. Those who commit drive-by shootings are rarely caught. It is easy for this Government to add another zero to a gaol sentence, but its responsibility is to tackle the harder job of preventing handgun crime from claiming another victim. The people of New South Wales need well-researched and well-thought-out policies based on international research and strategies. This bill is policymaking on the run; it is political window dressing.

The bill primarily relates to the reckless use of a gun by an unauthorised person in a public place. We have been there before; it is already an offence under section 7 of the New South Wales Firearms Act 1996 to possess or own firearms without authorisation, and the penalty is a maximum of 14 years imprisonment. The Minister for Justice was not in this place in 1996, but a number of other honourable members were here when the legislation was passed. It is being dished up again with another name, a few more media releases, and different headlines. It is the same story with many of the supposedly new offences that the bill introduces. That is why the bill is simply a rewrite of the Act. There is no need to support the bill. If honourable members want tough penalties—many take that approach to justice—they should be aware that they are already in the legislation.

I urge non-government honourable members to vote against this legislation. If they do, we will go some way to exposing this Government's double standards in managing justice in New South Wales. The Greens are looking for a total handgun ban and a focus on preventing and policing crime. People who take part in drive-by shootings will not be deterred by tough sentences. They are likely to be destructive personalities who are not afraid of taking big risks. The issue is not penalties; it is the reluctance of people in the community to come forward with information or to appear as witnesses. That reluctance stems from complex factors such as mistrust of police, fear of intimidation or reprisals, or fear of repercussions in their community.

No policy work or research has been undertaken on drive-by shootings. A specialised team of skilled investigators should be established and there should be information sharing at a national level. More resources and training should be available for community policing initiatives. The police service should work on new and better practices for procuring information, handling informants, and protecting witnesses. Police policy on these issues must be transparent to secure the co-operation of members of the public. Zero tolerance operations and strategies usually make the community more frightened of the police and can exacerbate an already hostile situation.

But the debate about these proactive policies and sound strategies is drowned out by the continual theatrics from both major parties about law and order—and unfortunately the Premier leads it. If one reads the Daily Telegraph's crime reports one quickly comes to the conclusion that it is a war zone out there. But the battle is not taking place in Sydney's south-western suburbs, the real fight is out the back of the New South Wales Parliament, where in press conferences the Carr Government and the Opposition are waging a bitter war of words. The subject is crime, and both parties are vying to be the toughest cop on the block. Neither side has won; neither has lost. The real losers are the people of south-western Sydney, who are left standing on the sidelines.

Since the most recent series of killings, the battle has reached fever pitch. Premier Carr has called for "border controls"—I wonder where he got that from—to prevent an influx of handguns, and he has suggested that criminals should be deported. Meanwhile, shadow police Minister Peter Debnam has issued a fatwa against "urban terrorists". It might sound like hysteria, but it is very calculated hysteria. Border security, unwanted immigrants, terrorism! This is the linguistic and political territory of Prime Minister John Howard. Mr Howard's electoral success has politicians everywhere taking a leaf out of his book—and unfortunately Premier Carr is one of them. He knows the value of an inflammatory and racist remark. Making references to ethnicity and talking tough on crime are guaranteed to satisfy the talkback radio listeners, for whom both major parties appear to be competing.

These days, however, the Premier's attention seems more focused on pulling these linguistic triggers than on actually tackling the substantial issue of gun violence. A cheap but widely reported remark seems to have more resonance than a genuine attempt to tackle crime and stem the tide of guns