Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 26 October 2004, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 26 October 2004
______

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

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

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bill reported:

NSW OMBUDSMAN

Report

The President announced the receipt, pursuant to the Ombudsman's Act 1974, of the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2004.

The President announced further that it had been authorised that the report be made public.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

The PRESIDENT: At a joint sitting held on 23 October 2004 Frederick John Nile was elected to fill the vacancy in the Legislative Council caused by his resignation.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile took and subscribed the oath of allegiance and signed the roll.

BESLAN TERRORIST ATTACK

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from Mr Georgy D. Toloraya, Consul General of the Russian Federation:

September 20, 2004

^th

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE UPON ROAD SAFETY

Reports

The Hon. Ian West, on behalf of the Chair, tabled the following reports:

Ordered to be printed.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled the following papers:

(a) Report of Riverina Citrus for the year ended 30 April 2004

(b) Report of Murray Valley Wine Grape Industry Development Committee for the year ended 30 June 2004

Ordered to be printed.

PETITIONS

Department of Primary Industries Budget

Petition requesting support for primary producers and opposing Department of Primary Industries budget cuts that may affect key field staff, front-line services and research and development, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Freedom of Religion

Petition praying that the House reject legislative proposals that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion and the employment of persons whose beliefs and lifestyle are consistent with religious doctrine and values, and retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes.

Oath of Allegiance

Petition praying that the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen be retained in the pledge of loyalty by members of the Parliament of New South Wales and by Ministers of the Crown, received from the Hon. David Clarke.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Notices of Motions Nos 1 and 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

TEMPORARY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT: In accordance with standing orders, I nominate Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to act as Temporary Chairman of Committees during the remainder of the present session of Parliament.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.50 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 110 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Department of Education and Training, be called on forthwith.

This is a matter of urgency because of the breathtaking attempts of the Minister for Education and Training to silence Department of Education and Training [DET] staff while at the same time moving to diminish conditions of its workers. It is an urgent motion because this Government recently signalled that it will continue its attack on the working conditions of people employed by the department by placing principals on fixed-term, performance-based contracts and removing their rights to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission.

This matter is urgent because the Government is attempting through its code of conduct to politicise the public service. The code attempts to inseparably link the public interest with the Government's political agenda. Clearly that is unacceptable. This motion is urgent because the Greens believe that the Government should acknowledge and respect the dedication, commitment and professionalism of teachers and other DET staff and any attempts they might make to secure an innovative and progressive future for public education.

The code of conduct will do nothing of the sort. It seeks compliant education workers; people who keep quiet for fear of losing their jobs. To add insult to injury the code was developed following a totally inadequate round of consultation with key groups like the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the Public School Principals Forum. How could the Government bring in such measures without discussing this code with such groups? The matter is urgent because the code contains regressive and dangerous provisions. The Greens believe it should be withdrawn. We want to start again through an inclusive process in full consultation with those who are best able to develop it: our teachers, our principals, our parents and our students. I urge members to support my call for urgency and to take part in debate on this critical issue.

Motion agreed to.

Order of Business

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING CODE OF CONDUCT

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.52 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(a) notes that the Department of Education and Training (the Department) released a code of conduct for all its staff, including TAFE NSW and the Adult Migrant Education Service (AMES), that took effect from 15 June 2004,

(b) notes that this code has been released in a period of public education funding cutbacks and the proposed contracting out of teaching and principals positions,

(c) condemns the Minister for Education and Training for:

(i) acting to politicise the public service in general, and the department's staff in particular, by imposing a code on staff that inseparably links the public interest with the Government's political agenda (noting in particular paragraphs 12.1, 13.2, 23.2, 25.1 and 44.2 of the code),

(ii) developing a code that may potentially intimidate teachers, principals and other departmental staff and discourage them from speaking out in the community about matters of serious concern that impact upon:

(a) the quality of education for New South Wales students, and

(b) conditions for staff, and

(iii) releasing the Code with inadequate consultation or approval from key interest groups such as the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the Public Schools Principals Forum or the Professional Teachers Council New South Wales,

(d) calls on the Government to withdraw the code and institute a process whereby a new code is drafted and approved by members of the teachers', principals', parents and students' communities of New South Wales, including the New South Wales Teachers Federation.

I thank members for agreeing to debate this important motion today. The release of the revised code of conduct by the Department of Education and Training [DET] unexpectedly, and following an inadequate consultation process with key interest groups, is very disappointing. The code is flawed on two major fronts: what it asks of the department's staff in public schools, colleges of technical and further education [TAFE] and Adult Migrant Education Service; and how it was revised and released. I will address each of these matters.

The first relates to what the code asks of DET staff. The code of conduct will politicise staff of the department. In the code, public interest is inseparable from the Government's political interests. The code has as one of its general principles responsibility to the Government of the day. Staff are to implement in an impartial manner the policies and decisions of the Government of the day and staff behaviour should align with the values underlying government or departmental policy. They are the words the Government has put in this code. At a time when the Government is moving to diminish the conditions of workers in the DET, for example through threats to security of tenure and transfer rights, the Government is asking its workers through this code to effectively collude with the Government to stay quiet and toe the line.

At the same time as the Government is closing public schools, cutting funding to TAFE and increasing student fees, staff are being warned off any action that involves publicly expressing their concerns about the impact of such action on the future of public education in New South Wales. One does not have to look too far for examples of the code being put into practice. Just a few weeks ago a committed employee of TAFE and a Public Service Association [PSA] representative who has been with the department for 18 years phoned Alan Jones to discuss the school cleaners' strike. It was this employee's impression that in doing so he had followed the code of conduct, which says that staff who are elected union representatives can make public comments so long as it is clear that those comments represent the union's views and not necessarily those of the department. The code says that staff should clearly acknowledge the capacity in which they are expressing their views.

This employee made it clear to Alan Jones that he was an employee of TAFE but was ringing as a PSA representative. His entire conversation with Alan Jones was in the context of the PSA's reaction to the strike, but later that same day he received a phone call from his manager within DET telling him that he should not make these kinds of comments to the media in the context of the department's code of conduct. This loyal TAFE employee had been ticked off. Effectively, this code and other departmental guidelines for working with the media were being used as a big stick to silence him, and all he was doing was speaking out on a matter, in this case, to do with rights of school cleaners.

These measures—the code and the guidelines—are being used as weapons to threaten this employee to keep his silence on the cleaners' strike, which, at the time, was politically sensitive to the Government and potentially damaging for the department. The TAFE employee has told us that this is not by any means the first time he has been told to keep quiet. It is surprising that this Labor Government does not take a few tips from the Australian Council of Trade Unions national health and safety campaign on bullying. This code can lead to workplace bullying, as this incident displays.

The code states also that when senior staff in the course of their official duties are called on to make public comment they should wherever possible make comment that is supportive of their colleagues and staff and that enhances the image of public education. So there we have it—again, people being pushed to tell a particular line with regard to public comment. The Greens look forward to the day when it is easy for staff of the DET to make positive comments about the state of public education in New South Wales. At the moment they would be struggling to pull it off.

The code states that staff have a duty of care to protect the wellbeing of DET school, TAFE and AMES students and to foster their interests. Ironically, the code effectively stymies staff from speaking out about issues that are of direct concern to the wellbeing of students—like class sizes, forced closures of schools and hikes in TAFE fees. The Minister for Education and Training does not want to stop trying to muzzle his staff. He is obviously concerned also about what injuries students can inflict on the reputation of the Government. I have been told that TAFE students are being denied the right to disseminate and receive information on what are considered political matters, such as campaigns and protests against TAFE funding cuts and fee increases. I have been told that these directions are coming from the Minister, the department and TAFE campus management.

What an extraordinary degree of control is being attempted by this Government. For example, at a meeting of a student association board at a TAFE campus this year a college director is said to have directed that posters advertising a public education forum not be put up. In another disturbing incident the Minister for Education and Training is alleged to have issued instructions to a TAFE director of a western campus on a number of occasions that the director bring into line TAFE staff who have been supporting students to exercise their democratic rights to protest. Obviously the students have been very effective.

The entire situation is an affront to people's right to free speech and involvement in our democratic processes—rights our forebears worked hard for and many have died for, and are enshrined in many international treaties. In this case, this arrogant Government is attempting to turn things around. TAFE students are the voters of tomorrow. They deserve the opportunity to be informed of what is happening in our public sphere and to take part in action to change policies where they see fit, especially as they affect the quality of their education. I move on to the second issue relating to the code of conduct, that is, the process by which the code was revised and released. Both the ICAC and the Premier's Department provide advice on how to develop good codes of conduct, and it makes for very interesting reading in the current context. The ICAC guidelines state:

The code will be most effective if it is integrated into an organisation's culture and its principles embraced by management and staff.

How could staff embrace the code's principles when they have had such a limited role in developing them? The consultation process was inadequate. The ICAC guidelines continue:

A successful code of conduct features staff involvement in all stages of its development and implementation.

Once again, the Government falls down very badly. As the motion states, there was little or no consultation with or approval from key interest groups, such as the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the Public Schools Principals Forum of the Professional Teachers Council of New South Wales. Whilst the Teachers Federation was consulted, many of its proposed for amendments were rejected outright by the DET, despite commitments from DET that there would be further consultation with the federation before the code was released. Such consultation did not occur before the department unilaterally released the code in June this year. Although the commitment was made by DET, it never eventuated. I wonder if the long arm of the Minister was involved in turning that around. Dr Simon Longstaff, Executive Director of the St James Ethics Centre, wrote:

People are more likely to apply the rules that they have had a hand in developing than those which have been handed down. At a fairly basic level it is easy to understand how it is that a degree of ownership of a process can create an acknowledged prima facie obligation.

This is a botched consultation process. As a result, the Teachers Federation is advising members to ignore the code while continuing to behave in the usual professional manner. Clearly, the public school teachers in New South Wales have no other course. The federation is also advising members to refuse to take part in training or briefing sessions on the code, which is another essential ingredient identified by the ICAC in successfully implemented codes. Teachers in our TAFE institutions and public schools have no other course but to ignore the code if they are to continue to do their work in a professional manner. What we see before us is a code that has already failed. Therefore, the Greens ask by way of our motion that the Government withdraw the code and institute a process whereby a new code is drafted and approved by members of the teachers, principals, parents and student communities of New South Wales, which obviously include the New South Wales Teachers Federation.

We are not against a code, but we say the code has to go through an appropriate process of consultation. Further, it should not be used to stifle criticism but, rather, to help promote public education in this State. Only then will DET staff have a fully effective code of conduct that includes appropriate standards of conduct and integrity which are embraced by all and do not leave staff reluctant to speak out about legitimate concerns they have about this State's public education system. It is time the Minister for Education and Training admitted that he is badly wrong on this matter. He must withdraw the code, consult with the stakeholders and undertake an appropriate process.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [3.04 p.m.]: The Government supports paragraph (a) of the motion that has been moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon but will seek to amend the rest of the motion I move:

That the question be amended by omitting paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) and inserting instead:

(b) notes that the Department of Education and Training has set clear guidelines for all staff which are consistent with the rest of the public sector.

The code of conduct referred to in the motion was introduced on 15 June 2004 following extensive consultation with stakeholders, including principal groups, the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales, the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the Public Service Association and other public sector groups. Section 12 of the code was based on wording developed by the Premier's Department and included in the Government's model code of conduct developed in the early 1990s under the former Coalition Government. In no way are staff being asked to undertake party political work for the Government. Part 12.1 of the code relates to responsibility to the government of the day, stating:

Staff are to implement in an impartial manner the policies and decisions of the government of the day that are relevant to their work. Staff are also to participate in the development and implementation of the departmental objectives and initiatives that flow from those policies. Staff behaviour should align with the values underlying government or departmental policy.

The department checked this wording with the ICAC and was advised that such wording was to be expected in all government codes of conduct. In fact, the ICAC commented that the new code is an impressive document—clear, concise, unambiguous and comprehensive. The Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales said:

The final draft code is an effective set of regulations that is balanced and clear.

The department will review the code on a regular basis and welcomes all constructive comment on it. Also, it is simply not the case, as is suggested by the motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon, that there have been funding cutbacks to the public education system. On the contrary, the Education budget now stands at a record $9.7 billion, an increase of $3.7 billion since 1995. The average recurrent funding per public school student is $9,186, an increase of 74.2 per cent since 1994-95. We have more than 50,000 teachers in public schools in New South Wales, with an extra 2,631 teachers employed under this Government, and our teachers are the highest paid in Australia. Further, the Government is spending $462.5 million over four years to deliver smaller class sizes for kindergarten to year 2 classes by employing extra teachers and providing extra classrooms. We have committed a record $1.2 billion over four years to upgrade our schools through the schools improvement package. I urge all members to get behind a world-class education system instead of trying to find ways to criticise. I commend the amendment moved by the Government.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [3.07 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Greens motion.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Typical.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I assure the Hon. Amanda Fazio it is not typical of us on education issues. However, on this occasion we are dealing with the despicable culture of secrecy and cover-up that has characterised this Government during the entirety of its term. Therefore, we can do no other then support the Greens motion. Ms Lee Rhiannon has raised the issue of secrecy. The Opposition wants to place on record our view on the treatment of whistleblowers by the Government. There is the classic case of the Campbelltown nurses. The Government put enormous effort and resources into attempting to have the nurses recognised as being certifiably insane, rather than addressing their concerns. The Government's response to the constant litany of disasters occurring at StateRail is to sack, displace, remove or suspend staff and psychiatric testing is becoming standard procedure to deal with those whistleblowers. In the case of the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre there has been a police investigation.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: I refer to relevance. The motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon relates to the Department of Education and Training, TAFE NSW, the Adult Migrant Education Service and the new arrangements for departmental staff, including school principals. To speak at length, as the honourable member has done, about nursing performance and alleged whistleblowers is going beyond the bounds of the motion. Madam President, I ask you to draw the honourable member back to the issue we are debating. If she wants to indulge in a diatribe about whistleblowers, it would be more appropriate to do so during the adjournment debate.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: To the point of order: The motion specifically refers to codes of conduct, the politicisation of the public service and the potential of the code to intimidate people to prevent them speaking out about matters of serious concern that impact on various education issues. This Government's treatment of whistleblowers is the reason the Coalition supports the motion. We have a right to speak out on this issue. It is ironic that the Hon. Amanda Fazio is seeking to suppress our right to speak out about people's rights being suppressed. Madam President, I ask you to allow me to continue my comments.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is certainly a convention in this House that a degree of latitude is allowed to members with regard to the use by them of general comment in speeches, as opposed to questions or answers during question time. I remind the member, however, that speeches must be relevant to the question before the Chair.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: This Government has a record of saying and doing anything to cover up problems. The rights of ordinary citizens, whether they be teachers or other administrators, are being undermined by this Government's attitude. That attitude is contaminating all of its policies, including those relating to codes of conduct, which we are debating today.

The Coalition believes that ordinary working people are hardest hit by these policies. Teachers attempting to speak out about conditions in schools are being placed in a very difficult position. They feel they have an ethical obligation to speak out but the Minister has implemented legal mechanisms to turn the tables on them and to make them liable to prosecution under a code of conduct. The obvious intention is to suppress information. As I said, these are working people, who are not politically sophisticated and who feel passionately about these issues. They are being attacked and the Government is trampling on their rights. It is making an example of the whistleblowers it has managed to uncover and is publicly humiliating them, and that is just one of its tactics.

I focused particularly on codes of conduct in the Department of Education and Training when I called for papers to be tabled relating to Tamworth West Public School. Documents that the department was aware of were not included in the material provided to the Parliament. We raised that omission and ultimately the documents were provided. However, while trying to understand the department's error I referred to a code of conduct and I discovered that all the codes of conduct that are the subject of this debate were in draft form and they applied to the service providers but not to the department's head office, which was in defiance of the Ombudsman's requirement that all departments devise and implement a code of conduct.

Like the Greens, the Coalition strongly supports the need for codes of conduct, but not those designed to suppress information. They represent a code of silence, not a code of conduct, and that is repugnant. The implementation of good codes of conduct is part of achieving positive cultural change and opening up and improving organisations. It is only through honest discussion that we can have a better work force, services and education system for our children. That is why the Coalition deplores the Government's determination to find ways to demonise and trip up whistleblowers to prevent them coming forward. Whistleblowers often display great courage in publicly revealing information. Without their efforts and courage, corruption or wastefulness would go unchecked. The Coalition supports the people who have the courage to come forward in the public interest and it will continue to do everything it can to assist them. We look forward one day under a Coalition Government to having a far more open environment in which people can speak honestly about problems and in which solutions can be found. That is what the public wants and it will be a hallmark of a Coalition government. The Government's approach will sound its death knell.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.15 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats believe we should encourage openness in discourse everywhere in our society because that is the route to excellence. It is important for the country because it ensures freedom and allows issues to be debated honestly and openly. If that does not start in schools it is a great worry. I have had correspondence with my local school because the children are not allowed to run on the playground's asphalt area. The level of concern about people suing in tort is such that the asphalt put down to protect the grasslands in the 1950s is now deemed too dangerous for play. The norm of not exercising is now being instilled in our children. In the past they would have run spontaneously, but they are now being taught that they cannot. Exercise has become a strange thing and not part of normal life.

If we have a stringent code preventing teachers raising concerns about important issues in education, clearly that lack of openness and the belief that one cannot speak out because one will get into trouble will be internalised by children. It is, in a sense, a step towards a more repressive society and it is dangerous. It worries me that civics are already poorly taught. A friend who is a German Jew left Germany, luckily for him, in the late 1930s. He had heard about how awful the Jews were and asked his mother who they were and why they were bleeding our society and causing so much trouble. She replied that he was one of them. He did not understand that because it was not how he saw himself. He ended up in Australia, where he has made a great contribution to our society. The idea of intolerance and repression being internalised in a society is very dangerous.

I returned to my old school, The King's School, some time ago and I barely recognised the place. It was built in the 1960s and an extraordinary amount has been spent on it; it has magnificent facilities. I note the Howard Government's generosity in that regard. While I stood in the queue to vote at Gladesville Public School the woman in front of me commented, in a somewhat quavering voice, that it did not look as though it had changed much since she attended the school in 1937. That is the level of problem we face in our public schools in New South Wales. The idea that there should not be discussion about the situation in education is frightening. Anything that stops teachers speaking openly about the actions of the Federal and State governments, regardless of their hue, is unsatisfactory. We want more input from teachers about what is happening and more help for our children.

I had an open government bill that has just been killed by the Public Accounts Committee, which has the idea that this Government has sufficient openness already. Never have I heard so much nonsense. Today the health department issued a report on the Royal North Shore Hospital. I do not recall anything about that report. There was an entire investigation or inquiry and the report's conclusion was given to the media before anybody knew what was going on. What sort of openness is that?

I put it to the shadow Cabinet that the New Zealand model of government openness is the best. The Official Information Act in New Zealand stipulates that every government document is a public document unless a special application is made to the Ombudsman to keep it secret, and the only criteria for such an application is national interest. That is not pie in the sky. A sovereign nation has had this law on the books since 1982 and, following a review of the Act in 1987, decided to make no changes to it. That is how successful that law is.

A much more modest open government bill was passed by this House, introduced in the lower House by Clover Moore and sent to the Public Accounts Committee. That committee took a trip around the world and decided that changes in New South Wales were not necessary. Daily we hear calls in this House for papers about school closures. I called for papers regarding the closure of Beacon Hill High School and currently there is a stack of documents piled up in the Clerk's office that I have not had time to read. The mechanisms of the closure of that school were very suspect so I have to find time to go to the Clerk's office and read the documents. All these documents should be public. This type of thing should not be hidden.

These guidelines are quite a worry. Staff will have to implement impartially the decisions and policies of the government relating to their work and their behaviour will have to align with the values underlying government or departmental policy. There is concern that this comprehensive code will restrict the freedom of staff to speak. One wonders whether there will be counselling, as it is called, to discipline a staff member for being outspoken. Whistleblowers in New South Wales have had a hell of a time, so one also wonders whether the code of conduct will be used to beat people over the head. I recently heard of the death of a whistleblower who had said, "If I die in the next few days, believe me, it won't be suicide." His death has apparently no suspicious circumstances, although he was quite young.

Look at the situation of the whistleblowers in Campbelltown. None of them have a job in the health department and none of them are ever likely to. They have paid a considerable price in terms of life skills, career patterns, families and marriages. Anyone who has had any dealing with the whistleblowers group will tell you that. Jean Lennane, who tried to do something about the situation in mental health years ago, has never again darkened the door of any health department, although she was, I believe, the chief executive officer of Callan Park hospital—a fairly senior job.

The Government is very much committed to looking after its own interests against the interests of the public and this code of conduct is far more restrictive than it needs to be. I will support the motion and oppose the Government's amendments, which are designed to nobble it. I would hope that the Opposition, having taken this strong stand, notes my comments about the open government bill and the New Zealand model and will support that model of open government during its term.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.23 p.m.], in reply: I thank all speakers who participated in the debate and I particularly thank the Opposition for indicating that they will support the motion. The Greens do not accept the Government's amendment. It is not surprising that the Government has moved this amendment and I urge members to take note that it clearly changes the original intent of the motion. The original motion calls on the Government to withdraw the code of conduct and condemn the Minister for Education and Training for his actions to politicise the public service. That is why it is very important to get these matters on the record. For example, the code asked that staff implement in an impartial manner the policies and decisions of the government and that staff behaviour align with the values underlying government and departmental policy. There cannot be much clearer wording to show how far this Government will go in an attempt to politicise the public sector.

I am confident that students, families and voters in New South Wales do not want a code of conduct that hobbles teachers, principals and other departmental staff who would speak out about matters of serious and real public concern, such as attacks on the New South Wales public education system. The Greens believe that a strong, well-funded and respected public education system lies at the heart of an equitable and dynamic society. We are on the record as speaking about that many times. We need champions of the system, and these champions are very often the staff of the Department of Education and Training, such as its teachers and TAFE lecturers, who intimately experience, and therefore understand, the real impact of government policies. Surely they must be given a voice, and that voice needs to be a free voice, not a voice that is stifled by the negative motives of the Government.

So again I urge members to support the original motion. I put to members that we need to put on record that this House rejects the code of conduct. As long as the code of conduct in its present form exists it will contribute to bullying and intimidation within our schools and TAFE institutions. These very loaded words that we have quoted from the code of conduct will, if left in place, send a message to senior people in our schools and institutions that they have a right to bring into line teachers who want to take a stand, teachers who believe that the government has made an error and attempt to speak out against it. To stifle that right to speak out is deeply wrong. That is why I argue that if the code of conduct remains in its present form it will create an atmosphere of bullying and intimidation in too many of our public education institutions. I reiterate that the Greens are not against having a code of conduct. What we are saying is that it should be developed in full consultation with all stakeholders and it should be designed to promote the values of public education and promote behaviour that enhances those values. I commend the original motion to the House.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 20

Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Costa
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Egan
Ms Fazio
Ms Griffin

Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Jenkins
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid

Mr Roozendaal
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tingle
Mr Tsang
Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West

Noes, 18

Mr Breen
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Clarke
Mr Cohen
Ms Cusack
Mrs Forsythe
Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay
Ms Hale
Mr Lynn
Mr Oldfield
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce

Ms Rhiannon
Mr Ryan

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Pair

Ms Robertson

Mr Gallacher

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [3.37 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Administrative Decisions Tribunal Amendment Bill 2004.

Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

Architects Act 2003, Surveying Act 2002,

Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986,

Veterinary Practice Act 2003

Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.

Architects Act 2003, Surveying Act 2002,

Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986

Veterinary Practice Act 2003

Architects Act

Surveying Act

Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986

Veterinary Practice Act 2003,

Architects Act

Surveying Act

Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986

Veterinary Practice Act 2003,

Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988.

Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.37 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to make further provision with respect to interlocutory matters and to amend certain Acts to provide direct rights of appeal to the Supreme Court from the Administrative Decisions Tribunal [ADT] instead of to an appeal panel of the tribunal. The Administrative Decisions Tribunal was established to provide a central, cost effective and convenient way for the people of New South Wales to obtain review of administrative decisions and to have certain general complaints resolved.

This bill amends the 1997 Act in a number of ways. First, it provides that any appeal against an interlocutory decision of the tribunal to an ADT appeal panel may proceed only with the leave of the panel. This will promote the finality of interlocutory decisions and will give the tribunal the power to control the number of interlocutory matters that proceed to appeal. The bill also enables the president of the ADT to direct that an interlocutory matter both in the first instance and at the level of the appeal panel can be constituted by a single presidential judicial member. As a result, these matters can proceed more quickly, hopefully at a reduced cost to the ADT. The bill also removes any right to appeal decisions involving architects, surveyors and veterinary surgeons to an ADT appeal panel. Instead, these appeals will go directly to the Supreme Court.

Currently, most professional disciplinary matters appealed in the ADT are then appealed to the Supreme Court. It is hoped that abolishing the intermediate level of appeal will expedite the process of appeal for the applicant and will produce both administrative and financial savings for the ADT. The Coalition sought comment from the New South Wales Law Society, the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, the Australian Veterinary Association and the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, and none of those organisations has expressed any particular concern about the proposal on behalf of its members. The bill also amends the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 to provide for certain decisions in relation to family day care children services to be reviewed by the ADT. At present only the Supreme Court has the power to review such decisions, and granting a power of review to the ADT should facilitate quicker, practical and resource-effective access to the review.

The amendments will allow the ADT to make annual savings and to reduce administrative delays because the tribunal will be able to utilise its resources more effectively and to hear matters more quickly. I note that when introducing this bill the Parliamentary Secretary in the other place highlighted the fact that there would be savings. One must be surprised about the level of savings. I suppose it fits within the context of the Government's current disastrous budgetary situation. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary estimated that annual savings of $168,000 would be achieved if the amendments were passed. No doubt it is laudable to make those savings, but I am concerned that the Government is in such a situation that it needs to amend the Act for that purpose. As I said, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. We expect to see it passed quickly.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.42 p.m.]: The Administrative Decisions Tribunal [ADT] has been responsible for reviewing administrative decisions made by certain New South Wales government agencies. The tribunal has been extremely valuable, particularly in reviewing freedom of information decisions. Indeed, I have received valuable information, as has the public, on freedom of information decisions reviewed by the ADT, and the process is simpler than other mechanisms that are available. The ADT cannot review every decision made by a New South Wales government department or agency; it can review decisions only when the State Parliament has passed an Act giving it the power to do so.

The ADT reviews certain decisions regarding adoption, and community and disability services; it hears complaints about discrimination, vilification, harassment and victimisation referred by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board; it hears certain types of professional misconduct cases—for example, matters referred to it by the Legal Services Commissioner against a solicitor or barrister; it hears retail lease cases; and it hears appeals in certain circumstances either from decisions of its own divisions or from certain external bodies. The tribunal is made up of six divisions, each of which is responsible for a particular area. The divisions are the general division; the community services division, covering adoption and DOCS; the revenue division, covering gaming and racing; the equal opportunity division, which deals with anti-discrimination matters; the retail leases division, which deals with retail leases; and the legal services division, which deals with solicitors and conveyancers. The tribunal reviews decisions in its general division from 113 different pieces of legislation. The people covered are diverse, ranging alphabetically from apiarists and boxers to wrestlers and veterinary surgeons.

The stated aim of this bill is to streamline the interlocutory and appeals processes of the ADT. This will be achieved by the following. First, an appeal panel of the ADT can now be only one presidential judicial member—at present interlocutory matters are dealt with by more than one member; secondly, by allowing appeals regarding architects, surveyors and veterinarians to go directly to the Supreme Court; and, thirdly, by allowing matters relating to family day care services to be reviewed by the tribunal. The Government estimates that the savings from these amendments will be $168,000 a year, which seems extraordinarily modest for a bill passing through this House. I wonder what the cost of drafting the bill and putting it through the House is, given that this bill is designed to save just $168,000. Of course, that is only an estimate. The amendments seem to have the ability to take the workload off the tribunal in areas that this bill affects. However, allowing appeals to be heard by one member, rather than a panel, is good for efficiency, economy and it will save $168, 000. However, it will mean that appellants are in more of a legal lottery as to which member they get. If the panel has three members the chances of both sides getting a fairer result are higher. I am a little concerned and cautious about this, although I will not oppose the bill.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [3.45 p.m.], in reply: I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [3.47 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Act 2004

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.47 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (Uniform Classification) Bill. In a sense, it is more or less a technical bill designed to ensure that new classifications under the Commonwealth Act that relate to these matters, which were agreed by the various State and Territory governments, should be incorporated in legislation. The Commonwealth Classification Amendment Act 2004, which was passed in May 2004, provides for the replacement of existing classifications for films and computer games with new classifications, and the amendments in this bill are consequential on the new classifications under the Commonwealth Act. In March, State, Territory and Commonwealth censorship Ministers agreed to amendments to the classification descriptions in the Commonwealth Act and to consequential amendments to State and Territory enforcement legislation.

The bill, which is to commence at the same time as corresponding Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation—and depending on the various States and Territories passing their legislation—will implement uniform classification categories for films and computer games in New South Wales. The changes relate to the names of classifications only and do not affect the type of material that is permitted within each classification. This is not a wholesale review of the classification system and it does not involve any review of the material that is being dealt with under this system. The type of material permitted within each classification is assessed by the Classification Review Board using the criteria set out in the national classification code and guidelines.

The previous classifications for computer games did not include an R classification or an X classification. The new classifications for films and computer games range through the various categories from G, PG, M, which replaces the previous M for films and M (15+) for computer games, MA 15+, which replaces what was MA for films but MA (15+) for computer games; and R 18+ and X 18+ for films only. As I mentioned earlier, the amendments in the bill are consequential on the new classifications under the Commonwealth Act and have been agreed by the various State, Territory and Commonwealth Ministers. It is sensible to use the well-known and understood classifications for types of films and to enhance community awareness of the scheme. It is sensible to extend the classifications to computer games to enable people to better understand the various classifications. As I said, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.51 p.m.]: The Democrats' general position is that we should have as much freedom in society as is possible without affecting the rights of others. We feel that the attitude to prohibition on viewing consenting sex is an extraordinary feature of our society and is really quite unusual. The fact that so much violence can be seen but so little sex can be seen is nothing short of remarkable. Surely it is a question of whether people are harmed or are consenting, and whether they are enjoying themselves while they are doing what is, after all, a natural function. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (Uniform Classification) Bill will amend the classification description of films and computer games consistent with recent amendments to the Commonwealth Act.

First, the amendments will apply the same classification standards to computer games and films. Second, the bill removes all reference to previous classifications M, MA, R and X, with MA 15+ for both films and computer games, and R 18+ and X 18+ for films only. Inserting the 15+ and 18+ after the rating classification clearly emphasises the already legally enforceable age restrictions that apply to a film. The ratings for M, PG and G will remain merely advisory to help people make informed choices about what they and their families see. My staff spoke to the Office of Film and Literature Classification. It is developing a media campaign to inform people of changes due to come into effect in May next year after legislation is passed by all the States and Territories. However, as far as I am aware this bill will not apply to publications as well.

While I support the bill, it still does not tackle problems surrounding the illegal sale of X-rated films in New South Wales. The sale of films classified X by the Office of Film and Literature Classification is prohibited in New South Wales. The Office of Film and Literature Classification, an organisation under the portfolio of the Commonwealth Attorney-General, classifies film and literature of all jurisdictions in Australia. Under the Commonwealth Act and the powers of the constitution-related provisions of Territory laws, X classification is legal in the Territories. That is why adult film distribution in Australia is based in the Australian Capital Territory. However, the States were given the discretion to accept the X rating. Due to the perception of community values—or, more accurately, successful lobbying by Christian conservatives who dragged the appropriately named Mary Whitehouse over from the United Kingdom in the early 1990s—the States chose not to accept the X classification. That is why X-rated films are illegal in New South Wales.

Section 6 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act prohibits the sale or public exhibition of unclassified RC or X films. A person must not sell or publicly exhibit a film classified RC or X or an unclassified film. Regardless of this, many retailers of restricted or adult literature still sell X-rated films in New South Wales. There are shelf loads of these with all sorts of titles and covers. There are two reasons for this. The maximum penalty for selling X-rated films in New South Wales is comparable to a serious summary offence. Section 6 provides:

According to the Eros Foundation, more than three million adult videos and DVDs are sold in New South Wales, with a turnover of more than $45 million, a year. The profits made from the sale of X-rated films are substantial. Irregular and purely procedural police enforcement of the law rarely results in a conviction of retailers. In an article by Martin Wallace in the Sunday Mail dated 19 September this year the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft estimated the cost of counterfeit movie and pornographic DVDs to be $200 million. The Eros Foundation estimates that 80 per cent of adult videos sold in New South Wales are pirated copies and 75 per cent have not being classified.

All State and Territory legislation mirrors the Commonwealth Act, with the addition of enforcement provisions. In practice, the State enforcement Acts are rarely used, which creates an environment where a black market is thriving. It is a worry when this much money is being made from illegal activity that is unpoliced. Some operators have said that they wonder what day someone from organised crime will say, "You will get your distribution from us." They will not be able to complain because they have been performing an illegal act and will now be threatened by bigger operators. Anecdotal evidence suggests that once police have raided an establishment a fine is levied on the retailer and confiscated films are destroyed. As far as I am aware, only one person has been arrested for relevant breaches of the classification Act since 1995.

In a survey conducted by Latrobe University in 2002 entitled Sex in Australia, 26.5 per cent of adults stated that they watched X-rated films. According to a Roy Morgan poll in 1999, 76.3 per cent of people believed X-rated, non-violent erotic films should be legally available from licensed adult stores. The irony is that persons over the age of 18 in New South Wales are allowed to vote, pay taxes, buy alcohol, get mortgages and even buy a gun, but apparently they are not mature enough or responsible enough to exercise their choice of entertainment. It is an irony that an adult can place a mail order to a distributor based in the Australian Capital Territory for X-rated videos classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification and receive them in the mail to watch in the privacy of their own home, yet "restricted premises" as defined in the New South Wales Act, where people under the age of 18 are prohibited, cannot sell X-rated material to consenting adults. Needless to say, that law is simply not enforced.

More than one million X-rated videos are mail ordered to Australians every year. Perhaps the most ludicrous aspect of the status quo is the distinction between publications and film and video. In every State and Territory, category 2 images—that is, X-rated photos and magazines—are illegal, albeit sold from restricted premises. However, the moving picture version of the same image is presently banned throughout the Commonwealth, except in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Frequently, category 2 images are merely still images from X-rated movies. However, I have received correspondence from constituents who have expressed concern about the sale of similar magazines at service stations, convenience stores and markets. Apparently this is becoming more widespread and shows that the current regime simply is not working.

The status quo in New South Wales is irrational and illogical. I am disappointed that the Commonwealth State and Territory censorship Ministers have failed to reach consensus on legalising the X classification system. I am also disappointed with the Premier's lack of leadership on this issue, which I will refer to later. In 2001-02 the Standing Committee on Social Issues conducted an inquiry into the classification enforcement bill. The committee recommended:

That the Attorney General consider either establishing a licensing scheme similar to that which operates in the ACT to allow controlled premises to sell X-rated material in New South Wales or taking more enforcement action against breaches of the legislation.

Films classified as X meet the stringent criteria of what has been deemed to meet community standards and acceptable conduct by members of the classification board. Even the conservative Howard Government has signed off on the guidelines that help determine the classification of films, publications and consumer games. No-one is saying that X-rated films be sold at service stations and newsagencies. However, some people may want to run scare campaigns along those lines. It is happening already, and it is time for the tiger to bare its teeth, regulate this material, remove it from inappropriate places and put it back on the shelves at adult stores out of the sight of people who do not want to see it.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

_________

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the once again late-running Minister for Transport Services. His on-time running is deplorable. The Leader of the Government needs to implement a question time committee to advise Ministers the time that question time commences. Once again, it is embarrassing for the Government.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Did you have a question or are you just giving us a lecture?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am trying to play for a little bit of time, if the Minister cared to pop in at 4.00 p.m. today or 12 noon tomorrow.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind all members that question time on Tuesday commences at 4.00 p.m. sharp.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES CHILD PLACEMENTS

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Which answer is the truth in regard to the reasons why the Department of Community Services [DOCS] removed and separated seven children from the Paice family at Grafton? Was it because the grandparents were subjecting the children to emotional abuse, as was stated in a letter from DOCS dated 24 August, or was it because the grandparents could not cope, as was stated by the Premier today in the lower House? If it was because of the reasons given by the Premier, why did DOCS threaten the Paices with an apprehended violence order for merely speaking to their children when they met them in the street or at school? Why are these people a danger to their children now? Why is DOCS taking this course? Surely, it would be more appropriate to support this family having regard to the fact that it has given them the goal of a stable family environment?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: The question is an argument from start to finish. It is full of argument, which is clearly contrary to the standing orders. The whole question should be ruled out of order. The question cannot be partly in order and partly out of order. If the question is out of order, it is out of order.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: To the point of order: My question was clearly asking the Minister—

The Hon. Michael Egan: It contained argument.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question clearly asked the Minister to explain the two variant reasons given by her department in regard to an important decision it has made. I add for the Minister's benefit that the Paice family is waiting for an answer. So if you want to rule it out of order, so be it.

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: I am happy to answer the question.

The Hon. Michael Egan: The Hon. John Ryan should ask a question that is in accordance with the standing orders.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The question asked by the Hon. John Ryan was disorderly in three ways. It contravenes standing order 65 (1) (b) as it contains argument; it contravenes standing order 65 (1) (c) as it contains inferences; and it contravenes standing order 65 (2) (a) as it asks for an expression of an opinion. The Hon. John Ryan has been a member for sufficient time to know how to frame a question.

The Hon. John Ryan: Madam President, I would not normally question your ruling but I did not make any inference at all. I challenge you to tell me in what way I made an inference. I simply pointed out that the Premier said one thing and the Department of Community Services said another. There was no inference.

The PRESIDENT: Inferences were made against members of the public service.

The Hon. John Ryan: Cut it out. You have got to be kidding!

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question was clearly out of order. However, the Minister for Community Services has indicated that she would like to answer the question. The Hon. John Ryan can rephrase the question next time he gets the call.

The Hon. John Ryan: You are going to deny an answer when the parents are in the gallery? You are going to stop the Minister from giving an answer?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. John Ryan to order.

The Hon. John Ryan: You will stop them from getting an answer? Let that be remembered, Minister, if that is the way you want to treat people. What an absolute disgrace. You are a disgrace.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. John Ryan has been a member of Parliament for a lengthy period and he knows that questions must be asked in a particular way. His question transgresses standing orders in at least three ways.

The Hon. John Ryan: Which bit of it?

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. John Ryan knows perfectly well that the question is out of order. Under standing orders I am allowed to ask members to rephrase their questions and invite them to ask their question again when they next receive the call. When the Hon. John Ryan gets the call again he can ask the question in the proper form.

NATIONAL LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Would the Minister update the House on the roll-out of the national livestock identification system [NLIS] in New South Wales and, in particular, the efforts to help producers secure NLIS tags at the best possible price?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As members are well aware, the national livestock identification system [NLIS] is a critical management system that, once fully implemented, will help protect the integrity and marketability of our $4 billion beef and dairy industries. The majority of the industry understands the benefits and is getting on with the job of making NLIS a reality in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government is here to help. The number of New South Wales livestock producers registered on the national database now tops 5,000. The Department of Primary Industries has also held more than 250 public meetings and field days about NLIS, reaching over 13,500 people in the industry. Meat and Livestock Australia held five training and information workshops for saleyards in September. These sessions reached nearly 270 agents and saleyard managers.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. John Ryan to order for the second time.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Hon. John Ryan should calm down. He can ask his question again in a minute. He does not have to carry on. There are many people interested in this information. Thirteen of the State's 57 saleyards already have some form of scanning equipment in place. Since the start of NLIS in July, livestock producers in this State have ordered more than 300,000 NLIS tags to assist with life-long traceability of cattle. In fact, New South Wales now has more than 1.3 million tags registered on the NLIS database. I can today announce that our producers will soon be able to access tags at more competitive prices, following a joint tender process between New South Wales and Victoria. This week my Victorian counterpart and I will sign a letter of agreement that will see our departments team up on a bulk ordering system for NLIS devices. The combined demand for tags in New South Wales and Victoria could reach 6 million devices per year.

By partnering on a bulk-buying scheme and leveraging the experience and know-how of the Victorians we can help deliver a ready supply of tags for both States at a significant reduction on current retail prices. This is a win for farmers and it justifies the Government's approach on this issue. The tender process will be open to all tag manufacturers approved under the NLIS. Tender documents will be released later this week and details will be circulated to prospective tenderers in Australia and overseas. Advertisements will also be placed in metropolitan newspapers in both States starting this week. The Victorian Department of Primary Industries will manage the tender, evaluation and selection process, with input from New South Wales. A steering committee and an evaluation committee will be established to assist with the process. This partnership is yet another example of how the State Government is working to help industry to implement this important system.

The need for NLIS was again highlighted this week when Japan announced it would ease its ban on United States beef following a 10-month suspension of trading due to a single case of BSE in America. The two countries agreed to lift the ban on product from animals under 20 months of age, but still it could be months before American producers see the benefits because Japan and the United States have yet to agree on how to verify exactly where and when animals were born. This example is at the very core of why we need NLIS, and why we need it sooner rather than later. Although it will not prevent the cause of disease, the NLIS could save us millions of dollars in the event of an outbreak by helping us to respond more quickly and efficiently. Not having the NLIS could also jeopardise our valuable export markets, which are increasingly calling for fast, accurate trace-back systems. Frankly, not having this management system could cost our industries dearly should an exotic disease ever strike. The joint tender between New South Wales and Victoria is yet one more incentive for industry to ensure that we have complete compliance when NLIS becomes fully operational in New South Wales in 2006.

RAILCORP STAFF BREATH TESTING POLICY

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question to the Minister for Transport Services. Did RailCorp's Group General Manager, Corporate Human Resources, write to the acting manager of the Drug Investigative Unit on 14 October 2004 advising RailCorp's policy is that employees must not be routinely arrested when they are required to attend a police station for a breath test? Can the Minister outline the circumstances that led to such a letter being sent and what are the ramifications for RailCorp if officers have wrongly arrested someone in direct contradiction of RailCorp policy?

The Hon. John Ryan: He will get advice.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Of course I will get advice on this matter. It is obviously a detailed matter referring to specific correspondence between middle management within RailCorp. I certainly do not have the detail and I admit that. I will take appropriate advice. Again, this question should be on the notice paper rather than asked during question time.

DIVISION OF ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES DNA TESTING

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I direct my question to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that the average wait for the results of DNA testing is 180 days? Can the Minister inform the House how many DNA samples are awaiting testing by the Division of Analytical Laboratories and whether further delays in the testing of these samples can be expected? Can the Minister indicate whether the average delay for alleged criminal offenders waiting for hearings in local courts is now nearly six months, more than twice the waiting period five years ago?

The Hon. Rick Colless: Perhaps he will have an answer. He is the only one of the mob opposite who is across his portfolio.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the honourable member for the interjection. I might be across my portfolio, but I am certainly not across any other Minister's portfolio. I will refer the question to the Minister.

CENTRAL COAST CANNABIS TREATMENT CLINIC

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I direct my question to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Central Coast. Can the Minister inform the House what measures the Government is taking to help cannabis users on the Central Coast to quit the drug?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Earlier this month the Central Coast Cannabis Treatment Clinic commenced operations at Wyong Hospital. The clinic is the second to open in New South Wales and is part of a $2.4 million New South Wales Government program. Reflecting the Central Coast's unique geography, the clinic operates somewhat differently from the first centre. Our first clinic at Parramatta operates from a central location in Phillip Street. The Central Coast Cannabis Treatment Clinic utilises six health centres across the region to ensure that services are accessible to everyone from Wyee to Woy Woy. The clinic is part of a record investment in health on the Central Coast, with $113 million spent to rebuild Gosford Hospital and more than $80 million spent to upgrade Wyong Hospital, together with new accident and emergency facilities, a new mental health facility, new operating theatres and administration facilities for the new Northern Sydney-Central Coast Health Service in Gosford.

Cannabis has serious health consequences, particularly for young people. Young people who have experimented with the drug, their parents and heavy users who want to rid themselves of their addiction will welcome this initiative. The Central Coast clinic is expected to service three distinct groups: heavy cannabis users in the 16 to 45 age group, who are generally reluctant to approach drug and alcohol services; parents of young cannabis users looking for information and advice, who can attend counselling sessions; and current clients of the Central Coast Mental Health Service whose case manager or psychiatrist has identified cannabis use as a problem. Two full-time and one part-time counsellor who are all experienced clinicians staff the clinic. In addition, there will be support from the medical staff of the Alcohol and Other Drug Service, and treatment outcomes will be evaluated through a research project that is being conducted in collaboration with the University of Newcastle. It is estimated that at least 300 clients will be seen in the first year and that 24 parent groups will be conducted.

Cannabis users see themselves and their problems as being very different from those addicted to heroin and other opiates. They are reluctant to seek help from conventional drug dependence organisations and facilities. Therefore, placing these clinics at health centres on the coast will remove some of those barriers and may encourage more people to seek help for their dependence. Early results from the Parramatta clinic have been encouraging: 101 young people under 25 years have been referred to the program, which provides information sessions for young people and their families, brief assessment and intervention programs, individual and group counselling services and individual case management, and half of these people have entered long-term case management; and 76 people over the age of 25 have entered the clinic's program to treat their cannabis use and, of them, 97 per cent have either achieved and maintained abstinence from cannabis or significantly reduced their cannabis use.

The 1999 New South Wales Drug Summit recognised the health risks associated with cannabis use and recommended that legislation remain in place to deter its widespread use and sale. Recent scientific studies reported in the British Medical Journal and conducted in Australia, Sweden, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom have continued to build upon evidence that cannabis use may be linked to depression, schizophrenia and psychosis. This initiative, coupled with our youth anti-cannabis campaign and the school intervention program Marijuana Matters, are providing useful information and treatment options for young people. Cannabis is much more dangerous than many people once assumed.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Tell that to the Greens.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I do. This service is a positive response providing health resources for Central Coast residents. The first parent group will be held at Erina Health Centre next week.

ELECTRICITY BLACKOUTS MONITORING

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I direct my question to the Minister for Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Energy and Utilities. Has the Minister considered having a web site to monitor the number of blackouts in New South Wales similar to that for trains running on time? If so, is he willing to establish one, and if not, why not? Is he also willing to have a network regulator independent of TransGrid with full access to electricity flow data so that non-network solutions to demand can be considered in an environment in which there is not a conflict of interest?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am not sure whether the honourable member wants a network regulator to regulate the electricity network or the web site network, but I will pass the question to the Minister.

LOCUST CONTROL

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industries. What resources have been used by the Department of Primary Industries to treat plague locusts on State Forests land? Is the Minister aware of concerns that the failure to control locusts properly in State forests has made treating locusts more expensive and more difficult for farmers and councils? What immediate action will the Minister take to control locusts on government-owned land and to avoid possible legal action being launched by farmers and councils against his department?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Forests NSW is closely monitoring locust hatchings on State Forests land in conjunction with local rural land protection boards [RLPBs], locust control centres and neighbouring landholders. Forests NSW staff have received specialist training to assist them in identifying hatchings and are fully aware of the need to report any hatchings to the RLPBs. Locust hatchings were detected in the Back Yamma State Forest last autumn and as a result the forest has been closely monitored by the Forests NSW field staff during the locust emergency.

New egg beds were found in Back Yamma State Forest and reported to the rural lands protection board [RLPB]. To ensure effectiveness, spraying in Back Yamma was delayed until the locusts began to band in the middle of last week. Spraying commenced on Thursday and is continuing this week. Forests NSW staff carry out locust spraying of the State forest using chemicals purchased by Forests NSW. Forests NSW will continue to closely monitor locust activity on State forests. Two new sightings in Goonoo State Forest, near Dubbo, have been reported to the RLPB today.

The Local Government Association of New South Wales and Shires Association of New South Wales recently sent out media releases seeking reimbursement from the Government for the costs of locust control. As with private landholders, public land managers are required to report the presence of plague locusts and to control locusts on their land. The locust control fund is provided by rural lands protection board landholder levies. The Local Government Association of New South Wales and the Shires Association of New South Wales do not pay into this fund and, therefore, are responsible for the costs of locust control on land managed by councils.

The honourable member raised this question in relation to Forests NSW. Last week I wrote to all Ministers who have considerable landholdings in New South Wales asking them to have their properties checked in western New South Wales. I have not received a reply from New South Wales Parks at this stage, but all the landholders have been asked to check in the areas where there is considerable activity.

CROWN LAND ENCLOSURE PERMIT RENTALS

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Will the Minister update the House on negotiations with New South Wales farmers on reforms to the pricing of enclosure permit rentals on Crown land?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for her question and for her continued interest in this important subject. As members would be aware, the Government is reforming the way we manage Crown land. This reform is based on the principle that the public deserves a fair return on the use of its land.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Flog it off.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Hon Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans for his interjection. This reform has included changes in the way we charge rent for enclosure permits. For members of the House unfamiliar with this issue, enclosure permits allow farmers to fence in public Crown roads that either adjoin or are located within their properties. Many of these enclosure permits were delineated when portion numbers were originally allocated back in the 1840s and 1850s to allow access to all portions in the State. However, many portions are now amalgamated into one farm and these roads end up being entirely unnecessary. Often they are farmed in the middle of somebody's wheat paddock or they could have a big gully through them and in no way have the potential to ever be a road as was originally intended back when horses were our mode of transport.

Following strong representations from the New South Wales Farmers Association and Country Labor, I placed a moratorium on the enclosure permit accounts that were sent out a couple of months ago. I am pleased to report to the House that the New South Wales Government has negotiated with New South Wales farmers on the reforms to the pricing of enclosure permit rentals. These reforms are aimed at achieving an appropriate return on assets while encouraging the closure and purchase of redundant enclosed roads by streamlining the purchase process and reducing the closure fees. I have agreed to a reduced set of annual rental fees for the next three years for all enclosure permit account holders. For the next three years those with combined enclosure permits will pay: for under one hectare $100 a year, for between one and five hectares $150 a year, for between five and 20 hectares $200 a year, and for over 20 hectares $350 a year.

Bearing in mind that rentals in the past were paid individually—in other words, people with three enclosure permits would pay between $50 and $70 each for them—they are now going to be combined for each farm, so there will be only one rental fee. Therefore, if three enclosure permits add up to one hectare the rental fee will be $100 a year. Some people with enclosure permits may not have an increase, they might have a decrease, and that is because of the way we are going to streamline the charges. During this three-year period enclosure permit holders will be encouraged to contact the Department of Lands to see if their roads can be closed and purchased. This program of rationalisation of a roads network comprising 650,000 hectares will be of great benefit to rural and regional New South Wales. I can assure the House that any proposal to close and purchase a Crown road will be closely examined. This will ensure that significant natural resource or habitat areas are appropriately protected through the provision of covenants.

Public access and access corridors will also be retained. As a result of concerns raised by Country Labor and New South Wales farmers there will also be a reduction in costs associated with the road closing and purchase process. These cost reductions, together with cutting red tape, will help landholders wanting to buy an enclosed road. This process will rationalise the extensive system of road reserve throughout the State, many of which will never be needed or suitable for road access. A detailed letter will be sent to enclosure permit holders over the next two weeks detailing the new reforms and the processes available to purchase enclosed roads. The system will be fair, transparent and equitable for all enclosure permit holders. It recognises the special case of enclosure permits whilst moving towards a more cost-effective system of managing public lands throughout the State.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: In bringing forward these reforms, in discussions with the New South Wales farmers we will be reducing the cost of transferring these roads to the farmers from what in the past has been about $4,500 total cost for each of the roads, roads which in some cases are worth only $200, $300 or even $1,000. Therefore, in the past many of the farmers have not availed themselves of the system. We will reduce that cost and the red tape so that the cost is around $1,750—certainly less than $2,000. It will be less than half the cost farmers have had to expend in the past. Hopefully, this new and simpler system will encourage farmers to avail themselves of this new method over the next few years. To a large degree they are using the land now, often with crops on them, and there is no way in the world that the vast majority of these roads are of any benefit to the public. If they have some environmental factors involved, then we will not sell them or, alternatively, we will put a caveat on them.

This is another example of the Government's commitment to the reform of Crown land management in New South Wales. It leads on from the extensive reforms already under way in perpetual lease conversions and management. Already we have about 2,000 applications for the conversion of perpetual leases of the 11,500 in the State. That has been widely accepted by members of the rural community. It is part of an ongoing reform of Crown land management and represents one of the most significant reforms to Crown lands since the introduction of the Crown Land Consolidation Act in 1913, which I helped administer when I first joined the Department of Lands.

INDIGENOUS FISHERS CONSULTATION

Mr IAN COHEN: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries why currently no indigenous fishers are represented on any of the seven fisheries management committees in New South Wales? Is it also true that there has not been any indigenous representation on the lobster fishery management committee for the past five years? Will the Minister concede that the Government's current approach to managing New South Wales fisheries places indigenous people at a disadvantage, and that a different approach is necessary to include and ensure effective consultation with indigenous fishers in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The New South Wales Government is committed to clarifying the traditional and cultural fishing rights of indigenous people and to promoting the involvement of indigenous people in the commercial seafood sector. The Government is seeking to involve indigenous communities in the management of fisheries resources and to develop business opportunities for indigenous communities in commercial fishing, ecotourism and aquaculture. Reflecting this commitment, the Government allocated $1.6 million for an indigenous fisheries strategy in December 2002. The strategy also addressed a number of issues such as indigenous interests in fishing management and marine park planning, providing cultural awareness training for departmental staff, encouraging the involvement of Aboriginal people in aquaculture and community consultation processes and business development, and providing awareness of the need for indigenous access to fisheries resources for traditional and cultural activities.

Implementation of the initial phase of the indigenous fisheries strategy was completed in June 2004. The Department of Primary Industries is co-ordinating a review of the strategy prior to advising me of options for continuing negotiations with the indigenous community on indigenous fishing issues. Recently, along with Linda Burney, a member of the lower House, I met with indigenous fishers at Narooma, on the South Coast, to work through a whole range of issues in relation to the indigenous fisheries strategy. Later in the year I will visit up north, around Taree and Kempsey, to discuss the same sorts of issues.

The department has a strong indigenous fisheries unit. Fortunately, with the integration of the four departments we now have a number of indigenous members and we are working on ways to achieve better collaboration between them. The Government is committed to the indigenous fisheries strategy. Next year I will introduce a number of changes relevant to the strategy. As to the role of individuals on these committees, I will seek the relevant answer. Suffice it to say that a unit advises us of all the issues—individual or general—right across the board.

PROSTITUTION

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney General. Is the Attorney aware of the United Kingdom Home Office Report of July 2004 entitled "Paying the Price", which at paragraph 9.19 states:

Even more worryingly, a United Nations Save the Children Report (1999) found that Victoria and NSW were the two worst States for the abuse of children through prostitution. The trafficking of East Asian women for the purposes of prostitution was also found to be a growing problem.

Have the Attorney's investigations revealed that these statements are a true reflection of the position in New South Wales and a damning indictment of New South Wales prostitution and brothel laws?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will obtain an answer from the Attorney General.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES CHILD PLACEMENTS

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Will the Minister advise the House of action taken by the Department of Community Services regarding a family of seven children in the Clarence area?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I note the banter across the Chamber, and at the outset of my answer I state that this issue deserves some gravity. On many occasions I have made my position clear: I do not regard question time as the appropriate forum to discuss sensitive issues of child protection. The Department of Community Service is involved in cases that deal with complex, sensitive issues and, of most concern, children and young people. I believe that those children and young people deserve to have their dignity and privacy respected. I note that the grandparents of the children in question are in the gallery and that the Coalition has chosen to bring this matter into the public domain, both by conducting a media conference and by asking questions in this House and in the other place. Therefore it is incumbent on me to provide some information to the House, and I will do so.

The case to which the honourable member refers concerns a family of seven children under the parental responsibility of the Minister, namely me, and whom the Department of Community Services placed with the grandparents. I am advised that problems were identified early in the placement and became increasingly evident over time. I am advised that the Department of Community Services has attempted to work with the carers over a lengthy period of time and has practically supported the placements since October 2002. The carers have received a carers allowance and establishment costs and, in addition, the department has purchased a computer for the home and assisted with a rental car for outings.

I am advised by the department that, as more serious concerns emerged in relation to the safety and welfare of the children in the placement, the department initiated formal mediation prior to taking action to remove the children. The Opposition would have it that the Department of Community Services has failed to explain the reasons that led to the removal of the children. I am advised that this is not the case. On 24 August 2004 the department wrote to the grandparents outlining the reasons for the children's removal from their care. I am advised also that as recently as 22 October staff attempted to meet with the grandparents to explain the department's actions. I have no doubt that the grandparents, who are sitting in the gallery, feel genuinely aggrieved by the department's handling of this case, but the Department of Community Services has a responsibility to investigate concerns and to act when it believes that children are at risk. Just today the annual report of the Ombudsman was tabled and it criticised the department for not acting exactly as it has in this particular case.

The Hon. John Ryan sought to criticise the Premier for responding in the other place. The Premier made it very clear that he did not believe—and I agree with him—that it was appropriate to go into the details outlined in the department's letter to the grandparents of the reasons for the removal of the children. He did not believe it was appropriate because he respected the privacy and the dignity of the children and young people whom we are now dragging through the public domain. I do not believe it is appropriate. The Hon. John Ryan has contacted my office about this case and there have been ongoing discussions. He could have continued but he chose not to. This is desperate action by the Opposition.

TOBACCO SMOKING

Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Given that research accepted and quoted by the Government estimates that approximately 70 people die in New South Wales every year from exposure to cigarette smoking in the workplace, why is the Minister permitting WorkCover to adopt a softly, softly approach to enforcing the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Smoke-free Environment Act? WorkCover was notified of 23 breaches in 2003, including breaches by the Narrabeen Sands Hotel, the Empire Hotel and the Moama Bowling Club, yet it has failed to enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Smoke-free Environment Act. Why?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That is a very interesting question. Legislation to protect people from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke came into effect on 6 September 2000 and is not administered by WorkCover but by NSW Health. The Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 prohibits smoking in enclosed public places, with the exception of certain premises such as hotels, nightclubs and registered clubs that have been exempt under the Act. If workplaces have areas where smoking is permitted, occupational health and safety legislation requires employers to access and control health risks arising from the exposure of staff and other people present in the workplace to environmental tobacco smoke. In other words, environmental tobacco smoke in the context of workplace law is one of many possible workplace hazards that employers are obliged to assess and control.

WorkCover has been responding to complaints about tobacco smoke in workplaces for a number of years and has developed extensive experience in assisting employers and employees to develop smoke-free workplaces, as well as responding to instances where employers fail to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. In 2001-02 WorkCover issued 18 improvement notices for exposure to environmental tobacco smoke across a range of industries, and 40 improvement notices were issued in 2002-03. Around 100 letters of advice were distributed and 40 improvement notices were issued in the 2003-04 period.

WorkCover also provides advice and assistance in the form of published material, such as its Passive Smoking Policy and Control Guide, which was developed in consultation with NSW Health and the Cancer Council. Honourable members would be aware that WorkCover has also been represented on a joint working group convened by the Hon. Frank Sartor, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), which aims to develop practical solutions for progressively removing risks of environmental tobacco smoke from all licensed premises. Other representatives included NSW Health, the Department of Gaming and Racing, the Labor Council of New South Wales, ClubsNSW and the Australian Hotels Association. The joint working group concluded its deliberations on 2 June 2004 and presented its report to Minister Sartor. The Government will respond to the joint working group's report in the near future.

In the meantime WorkCover will continue to provide assistance and, where necessary, take action to encourage the adoption of smoke-free workplaces. Honourable members will be aware that the Premier announced on 12 October that from 1 July 2007 smoking will be banned in enclosed spaces within pubs, clubs and other licensed premises. The ban will be progressively phased in, with most pubs and clubs restricting smoking to a single room by July 2005, and further restrictions coming into effect over the following years. The ban will benefit patrons and workers alike, and comes after extensive consultation along the lines I have already detailed.

The Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 prohibits smoking in enclosed public places with the exception of certain places I have already mentioned. It is these exemptions that will be lifted following the Premier's recent announcement. Currently, if workplaces have areas where smoking is permitted, occupational health and safety legislation requires employers to assess and control health risks arising from the exposure of staff and other people present in the workplace to environmental tobacco smoke. WorkCover has been responding to complaints. It also provides assistance and advice in the form of a range of published guidance material. In the lead-up to the introduction of the ban, WorkCover will continue to provide assistance and, where necessary, take action to encourage the adoption of smoke-free policies in all New South Wales workplaces.

MURRUMBIDGEE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE CLOSURE

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does the Minister plan to implement any of the six recommendations that came out of the upper House inquiry into the Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture? Does he recognise that he made the wrong decision in closing the full-time residential courses at the college last year? Is the Minister now aware of the uniqueness and importance of agricultural education in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The answer to the first question is, I will consider it; the answer to the second is, no; and the answer to the third is, of course.

MEDICAL RESEARCH

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer inform the House about some recent developments involving medical research in New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Earlier this month Sydney researcher Associate Professor Leah Williams was awarded a $1 million Pfizer Australia fellowship grant to assist her breakthrough research into mental disorders. Professor Williams works at the University of Sydney and the brain dynamics centre at Sydney's Westmead Hospital, where she is helping to unlock the mysteries of mental illness. Professor Williams' research focuses on neural disconnections or missing links present in complex brain disorders. I am told that the human brain contains 100 billion neurons that connect and interact as part of normal brain activity. Neurons firing at 40 times per second and in phase are thought to be a mechanism that the brain uses to collate different sources of information. According to Professor Williams, mental disorders can arise when some of these connections fail to work.

Professor Williams's ongoing research is linking key innovations she and her colleagues have developed in neuroscience. I am proud to say that the New South Wales Government has been a strong supporter of the Westmead Millennium Institute for Medical Research, of which the brain dynamics centre is a member, providing $6.9 million between 2003 and 2006. In other positive New South Wales medical news, Sydney company Medical Monitors Ltd was recently named as a finalist in a prestigious international award for its system which allows patients to monitor their own blood pressure at home. The BPfone takes patients' blood pressure readings and transmits their data to a central computer system via telephone—much like a fax but without the need for cables or modems. This new technology delivers great benefits for people living in rural and regional New South Wales.

To date, the BPfone system has been used by more than 300 medical clinics around Australia, with Medical Monitors collecting blood pressure data on more than 10,000 patients. Recently, Medical Monitors has contracted with the prestigious John Hopkins University in Baltimore to provide a monitoring service for a specialist research project. It has established a monitoring program in the United Kingdom, and is also exploring opportunities in Italy. I congratulate our local medical researchers on their recent successes, and I wish them all the best for the future.

FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES LICENCES

The Hon. JON JENKINS: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services, representing the Minister for Roads. In February this year I asked the Minister for information and statistics regarding the registration of four-wheel drive vehicles. After nine months the Minister has chosen to release the information to the Daily Telegraph instead. Why did the Minister refuse, for nine months, to supply the information to a member of this House and then release it to the media? Will the Minister provide the other information I requested: how the classification of four-wheel drive vehicles is determined, the accident rate by vehicle category on sealed and unsealed roads, and pedestrian accidents by vehicle category? Will the Minister provide that information to the House before the expiry of nine months?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Clearly, that is a question for the Minister for Roads.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You're representing him.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will get advice from the Minister for Roads and come back to the House. However, as someone who drives a four-wheel drive vehicle, I inform the House that I was fairly disturbed to read that article this morning, which picks on people who drive four-wheel drive vehicles. I know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has a four-wheel drive vehicle as well. There is a role for four-wheel drive vehicles. Clearly, some of the debate on this topic is misguided. There needs to be a sensible public policy on the matter, and I am sure the Minister for Roads will work with the community to develop that.

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER SOFTWARE SUPPLIERS

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question is directed to the Minister for Commerce. Has the Minister investigated whether his department's recent tender to establish a panel of suppliers to provide open source or Linux software to the State Government will have the effect of creating two vendor panels, one for proprietary software and one for open source software in his department? How will these panels be managed and who will determine which contracts are to be provided to each panel of suppliers?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I think the honourable member may be a little confused about the difference between open source and proprietary software. Open source software allows access to, and sharing of, a software source code. It is widely used in both the private and public sectors. In New South Wales it has been particularly used in the provision of Internet services by departments that have requirements to intensively use the Internet. When open source software has been adopted by governments or individual government agencies it is usually for privacy, security or cost reasons. Taxpayers rightly expect the Government to get the best value from its information and communications technology expenditure.

The Government wants to ensure that there are potential cost benefits. When its use is appropriate New South Wales government agencies are free to consider the use of open source software. One potential benefit of open source software is that it has been found to encourage the development of local information technology organisations, particularly small and medium-size enterprises providing software support and other services. The New South Wales Government's open source project aims to share information on open source software with a view to explaining its potential use within the New South Wales Government, both externally and to relevant officers and agencies within government. An agency reference group supports the project and provides communications mechanisms to facilitate discussion on the use of open source software applications and operating environments, and the sharing of information between agencies.

A template for comparing the costs of various software solutions has been developed to assist agencies to assess open source software options, and it is currently under evaluation by agencies. A web site is being established at www.opensource.nsw.gov.au to provide information on open source technologies and their application in government. The web site will act as a central repository for government agencies wishing to know more about open source software. Currently, several case studies are being written to document trials or the implementation of open source software in various agencies, and they should be available later in 2004.

On 29 September the Department of Commerce released the request for tender that the honourable member originally asked about to open source for Linux Enterprise Software Services. A number of government agencies are now using or considering open source software and have requested access to better support services in their open source solutions. Agencies seeking open source software and services will be able to go straight to a list of suppliers and select the one that best meets their needs. That is essentially the answer to the honourable member's question. This means agencies will not have to spend time and money calling for their own tenders and evaluating bids, which they did previously, as the only government panel available for software was the proprietorial software panel.

The request for tenders focuses on Linux, as this has been the most popular and well supported open source operating system on the market today. Many proprietary products along with open source applications are now compatible with the Linux operating system. Requests for tenders close on 28 October and a new two-year panel contract is expected to be in place by the end of December. While the number of suppliers to be selected is flexible, it is anticipated that the contract will comprise a panel of about 10 vendors that are able to provide agencies with Linux support services and training. I emphasise that the New South Wales Government is not interested in entering a political debate about open source software versus proprietary software or in joining a particular faction in that debate. We want the best value for taxpayers' dollars, whether it is open source software or proprietary software.

MOUNT PANORAMA REDEVELOPMENT

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State development. Will the Treasurer inform the House about improvements to the Mount Panorama car racing circuit at Bathurst?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: In 1938 the Mount Panorama circuit at Bathurst was a dusty country track. Now, thanks in part to a very generous—some would say an overly generous—New South Wales Treasurer, it is one of the top three motor racing circuits in the Southern Hemisphere, following a $10 million contribution from the New South Wales Government towards its upgrade. I understand in recent times the Commonwealth Government has also come to the party. The Premier officially opened the new look Mount Panorama just a few days before this year's successful Bathurst 1000 race held on the October long weekend.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: A rev head who cannot drive!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: He has never claimed to be a petrol head. Mount Panorama is the only permanent public road racing circuit in Australia. It holds immense appeal to Australians. A mate of mine was telling me on the weekend that he had been for a spin on it.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Who had been for a spin?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: A mate of mine.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It is fantastic that you can do that.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: As the Leader of the Opposition says, it is fantastic. It holds immense appeal to Australian motor sport fans and racing car drivers alike. Major improvements have been achieved by the Government, the Australian V8 supercar organisation, the International Marketing Group and Bathurst Regional Council. The Mount Panorama upgrade includes new spectator mounds, built using soil taken from the pit area. The mounds allow for better race viewing at crucial points in the circuit. A new electricity substation was built to power the new pit compound. Communications linking the complex feature the latest fibre optic cabling.

There are now corporate suites and outside viewing areas. The rooftop can accommodate even more corporate viewers as well as house the video screens for big races. Families have not been overlooked in the development. Four hundred new campsites have been created for them in Pit Paddock. Special access for car transporter trucks has been provided behind the pits. The redevelopment had a major impact on the building industry in Bathurst, with at least 140 people working on site during construction. The revamped Mount Panorama will see the gross regional product of the Central West increase by up to $20 million, with at least 300 direct and flow-on jobs created in the region. Even for someone who does not have a great interest personally in motor racing, I think it is great that Mount Panorama has been upgraded.

GAMING MACHINE VENUES AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINES REMOVAL

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that Victoria has banned all ATMs [automatic teller machines] from all gaming venues in that State? Is the Minister aware that the Age conducted a survey this year when 96 per cent of those surveyed, being persons diagnosed as problem gamblers, believed that the removal of ATMs from gaming venues would help curb their losses? What, if any, measures have been taken in New South Wales to remove ATMs from gaming machine venues?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will certainly convey the honourable member's question to the Minister for Gaming and Racing and get a reply as soon as possible.

WORLD EXPO 2005

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Why has the New South Wales Government declined to join other Australian State governments in participating in World Expo 2005 at Nagoya, Japan? Does the decision not to participate put at risk the growth of the States business and trade relationships with Japan?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, it does not. I think it is silly for Australian States to be pretending in some way or other to be nation states. While people in Australia might know the difference between Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, I assure honourable members that people overseas do not. Australia should be selling itself as Australia, not as a provincial outpost of the Empire vying with other outposts, tripping over one another for attention, when all they are really doing is providing trips for provincial members of Parliament to go to places around where these expositions are held.

I have stated on numerous occasions that we conduct our international activities as a State mainly through Invest Australia and Austrade. This is a very sensible arrangement. I will give honourable members an example of the confusion that arises in the minds of people overseas when one refers to one's State of origin in Australia. In 1995, just after Labor had come to office, the Premier and I we were doing a road show in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. I went on to Europe. While the Premier and I were in Boston we negotiated with State Street about its establishment of an operation here in Sydney. State Street is one of the world's biggest financial organisations. We were successful. Travelling with us were members of the New South Wales parliamentary media.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Was Jim there?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Yes, he was—as a journalist. After our successful meeting with State Street a press conference was conducted on the footpath outside its offices. While the cameras were whirring and the press conference was being conducted, a passer-by, a Bostonian, with, one assumes, his girlfriend, said to one of the television reporters—I think it was Paul Mullins— "Who is the big shot?" Paul Mullins replied, "The Premier of New South Wales." The Bostonian nudged his girlfriend and said, "Did you hear that, it's the Prince of South Wales."

PRISONER VOTING ENTITLEMENTS

The Hon. IAN WEST: I ask the Minister for Justice to enlighten the House on prisoner voting entitlements for the recent Federal election, including access to election material.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am delighted to set the record straight on these issues. I am advised that the Australian Electoral Commission distributed posters about voting rights and postal voting applications in each correctional facility. Honourable members will be aware that under the Commonwealth Electoral Act persons have been entitled to vote if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than five years. In August that right of prisoners was removed. Then the Commonwealth recognised it made a mistake and amended its law to reinstate the rights for Federal prisoners to vote, provided they had not been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of three years or more. That is a more generous voting entitlement than that which exists in this State, which is limited to one year.

The Commonwealth partially reversed its original decision. During the campaign for the State election, issues arose about the distribution of material. When I first became Minister last year I consulted with groups about this matter and indicated that the commissioner would ensure that for all future elections authorised material, including how-to-vote cards, would be made available to inmates. That was greeted with some level of satisfaction by those concerned. Prior to the recent Federal election a group tried to distribute a dodger entitled the Australian Prisoners Election Newspaper. This same group has been agitating for other provocative material to be distributed in correctional facilities in New South Wales. The commissioner took the view, quite rightly, that this material would not be distributed in correctional centres across New South Wales. He was not the only commissioner who declined to do so. The Victorian commissioner also had the good sense not to permit the distribution of this material.

If members had read the material, they would have understood why this newspaper was not election material, apart from the fact it was littered with advertisements for the Socialist Alliance, the Australian Democrats and the Greens. This material, which it is claimed is election material, included an advertisement on the front page that showed every kind of voter in the prison system in a cage with a ballot box and a prisoner officer with a key contemplating whom he would let out of the cage to vote. That was the first provocative piece. On page three there was the fear of the mythical goddess of justice dropping the scales and holding moneybags, suggesting that the justice system is corrupt. This is the so-called election material that the group wanted to distribute. Then there was a question and answer section at the back, and guess who were the participants?

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Lee Rhiannon and Arthur Chesterfield-Evans?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Close. It was the Greens and the Socialist Alliance. It is probably the same group but with two different forms of answers. I want to share with the House some of the questions that were posed and the answers that were given. One of the questions was: Why are prisoners forced into programs that are said to be voluntary? The Socialist Alliance said that they should not be. The Greens said:

Often the governments and institutions, including prisons, make claims about voluntary programs to cover policies that are just another form of punitive control. Mutual obligation programs and social security is another example.

This is the election material that these people wanted to distribute. Other positions being advocated were award wages for prisoners. That is a policy of the Greens: You get sentenced to prison and we will pay you an award. [Time expired.]

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Another position was to provide for prisoner legal centres funded by the government in each State. There was a competition to name the newsletter. Apparently there were going to be future editions. The names being advocated in this trashy journal were: Just Us, Barred, Inside Voice, Inside Time, The Clink Link, Citizens Inside and The Key. No wonder the commissioner declined to distribute the material. All was revealed on 1 October when a letter was received from the Greens New South Wales, under the hand of Mr Ash, making a complaint in relation to this particular issue. Following that complaint a summons was issued in the Supreme Court by a person whose name I often see in relation to such matters but I can never remember, no matter how many times I see it and even though it is in front of me at the moment. The individual claimed, amongst other things, that the commissioner should be forced to distribute this material for election day.

The Australian Democrats joined in on the act claiming people were being denied their rights to be able to properly participate in elections. Voting had taken place in most of the centres, resulting in the summons being discontinued the very next day—I might add at great cost to the taxpayers of New South Wales who had been preparing to fight the case. No-one in the New South Wales Government would deny prisoners their right to vote in accordance with the law. But let us not delude ourselves by suggesting that the prison authorities should be responsible for distributing trashy material such as this under the guise of its being some form of legitimate political discourse.

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

RAILCORP STAFF BREATH TESTING POLICY

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: During question time I was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition about the RailCorp group general manager, human resources. RailCorp staff who return a positive breath test at work, that is, a reading of 0.02 or above, undergo a further evidentiary test. This test is generally administered at a police station. Having a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed concentration level is an offence under the Rail Safety Act 2002. I am advised by RailCorp that the group general manager, human resources, did write to the acting manager of drug investigation to confirm RailCorp's practice that we do not routinely arrest staff who have returned a positive blood alcohol reading. Under the procedures staff are very clear that if they return a positive reading at a site test they are required to accompany the authorised officer to a police station for an evidentiary breath analysis. To date RailCorp staff have been co-operative and there has been no need to invoke the powers of arrest available to authorised officers under the Rail Safety (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Regulation 2003. RailCorp is unaware of any incident of wrongful arrest.

DEFERRED ANSWERS

The following answers to questions without notice were received by the Clerk during the adjournment of the House:

SOUTHERN REGION AMBULANCE HELICOPTER SERVICE

On 16 September the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding the southern region ambulance helicopter service. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

An aviation and safety audit of helicopter operators around NSW is being conducted to ensure compliance with aviation, maintenance and engineering regulations and operational aspects of the Funding and Performance Agreements. The audit will also review a range of other matters such as operational policies and provide advice on specifications and requirements of future agreements and contracts.

As a result of early advice from the audit, the Southern Region Rescue Helicopter Service advised that their Chief Pilot had suspended flight operations in the short term for LifeSaver 1 and LifeSaver 3. Helicopter operations during this period were shared amongst the other helicopter operators contracted to the Ambulance Service and contingency arrangements were in place to ensure continuous service delivery. For a further period of approximately one week operations were limited while training and crewing issues identified in the safety audit were addressed. Both helicopters have returned to normal operations.

RESCUE HELICOPTER GROUNDINGS

On 16 September Ms Sylvia Hale asked the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding rescue helicopter groundings. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

There is only one rescue helicopter based at Westmead and that is CareFlight 1. On 14 September 2004, the helicopter operator advised that CareFlight 1 had to go off line for three days for routine maintenance. The NSW Air Ambulance Service relocated CareFlight 2 from Orange to Sydney and Westpac 2, which has winching capability, from Newcastle to Sydney while this maintenance was carried out. On 17 September CareFlight 1 returned to operations.

In regard to the question raised concerning the LifeSaver 3 service, I am advised that their issues have been resolved.

BRINGELLY DEVELOPMENT

On 16 September the Hon. Charlie Lynn asked the Minister for Transport Services, representing the Minister for Roads, a question without notice regarding the Bringelly development. The Minister for Roads provided the following response:

I refer you to my colleague the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources.

BROTHELS PLANNING GUIDELINES

On 23 September the Hon. David Clarke asked the Minister for Transport Services, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, a question without notice regarding planning guidelines for brothels. The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning provided the following response:

The main purpose of the Sex Services Planning Advisory Panel was to provide advice to local councils on appropriate planning controls and policies on the location and operation of sex service premises in their areas. The Panel is preparing Planning Guidelines which address this issue.

The Guidelines will provide a strong resource document to councils so that they can make informed decisions about the location and control of sex service premises in their own areas. The issue of home occupations and home businesses are also addressed in the Guidelines as are the full range of sex service premises.

Statistics are not available on how many legal, illegal or unauthorised sex service premises there are in NSW.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

HAWKESBURY REGION SEWERAGE SYSTEMS

In 1997, sixteen areas were identified by the NSW Environment Protection Authority as having the highest priority for receiving improved wastewater services under Sydney Water's Priority Sewerage program.

In December 2001, the Government announced an extension of this important Program to an additional twenty unsewered village areas within Sydney Water's area of operations.

The villages of Freeman's Reach, Glossodia, Wilberforce and Galston are included in this second stage of the priority Sewerage Program.

Sydney Water advises that it is continuing with initial scoping investigations for servicing these villages. Preliminary discussions have been undertaken with Hawkesbury City Council, and technical studies have been initiated to identify and assess the appropriate infrastructure options for servicing this second stage of the Priority Sewerage Program.

Community consultation, environmental impact assessment and technical investigations will be undertaken to identify the preferred servicing options. Consultation will include information on the most appropriate infrastructure options and the likely implications for individual property owners.

A formal environmental impact assessment process will be undertaken and will involve key documents being publicly exhibited for comment. Once planning approvals have been received, detailed design work will be undertaken in consultation with the local community.

UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE LEGISLATION

R v King

GREEN GULLY APPEAL

On 22 September the Hon. Jon Jenkins asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice regarding the Green Gully appeal. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

The Green Gully Appeal is an initiative of the independent Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife which works closely with the Department of Environment and Conservation in fostering the protection of Australia's native plants, animals and cultural heritage.

The main aim of the Green Gully Appeal was to raise funds to buy a property in the Macleay Gorges on the mid-north coast for addition to the reserve system. While the property is a stronghold of the endangered brush-tailed rock wallaby, it also contains other significant natural and cultural heritage values.

The department and I strongly support the foundation's initiative and the commitment to encourage volunteers to assist the department with its responsibilities.

The support offered by individual volunteers and organisations is greatly appreciated. Offers of voluntary assistance are channelled into manageable and worthwhile conservation projects. The department works with volunteer groups in more than 27 parks and reserves and various off-park wildlife survey projects that are referred to in the department's annual reports and on its web site.

In addition voluntary landholder conservation programs, including Wildlife Refuges and Voluntary Conservation Agreements, are also available under the department's Conservation Partners program.

There is also a strong co-operative working relationship between the department and organisations such as the Four Wheel Drive NSW and ACT Inc. and the Conservation Volunteers Australia and with wildlife groups such as ORRCA and the NSW Wildlife Information and Rescue Service Inc. These all involve voluntary conservation projects.

In particular, the department has entered into discussions with the Four Wheel Drive NSW and ACT Inc. for the group to become involved in activities such as assisting with wildlife and pest management projects, including wild dog control, weed control, track and trail maintenance, rubbish removal, facility upgrades and regulatory support.

On the Central Coast plans are well advanced with the group for the establishment of a pilot program to train volunteers in ground baiting for wild dogs and foxes. It is expected the program will commence towards the end of 2004.

WARDS PROJECT EXPENDITURE

On 21 September the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans asked the Minister for Community Services a question without notice regarding expenditure on the Wards project. The Minister provided the following response:

1. The Department of Community Services (DOCS) and the Department of Juvenile Justice are co-supervising a Senior Project Officer to finalise the Memorandum of Understanding regarding service provision to children and young people under the parental responsibility of the Minister who are clients of the Department of Juvenile Justice.

In the financial year 2003-2004 expenditure on the project consisted of salary for the project officer. DOCS and the Department of Juvenile Justice jointly fund the position and the cost to DOCS for 2003-04 was approximately $24,864.

2. The primary cost of the project is the salary costs for the project officer. Other costs for administration are absorbed in the general operating costs of the Department of Community Services.

3. In 1998 the Department of Community Services and the Department of Juvenile Justice jointly funded the "Wards Project". The project was renamed the Department of Community Services-Department of Juvenile Justice Project in 2001. The total expenditure to date is approximately $137,579. This represents half a salary.

4. I am advised that no external consultant has been employed on this project.

5. See answer to question 4.

6. This project has developed a draft Memorandum of Understanding that is expected to be finalised shortly. The Memorandum of Understanding aims to improve outcomes for clients by providing consistency in practice across New South Wales and by outlining a collaborative approach to meeting client needs through joint case planning and service delivery.

The Memorandum of Understanding between DOCS and the Department of Juvenile Justice forms only one part of service initiatives that aim to benefit those children and young people who are under the parental responsibility of the Minister and are clients of the Department of Juvenile Justice.

It is important to view collaborative work between DOCS and the Department of Juvenile Justice against the whole context of initiatives being undertaken to improve services in Out-of-Home Care.

In this regard DOCS is involved in a comprehensive program to improve the life chances of children and young people who come into care.

A major budget enhancement for DOCS was announced by the Government in December 2002. As part of the $1.2 billion budget boost to DOCS, more than $600 million in new funding was flagged for Out-of-Home Care including:

• funding for 150 caseworkers in Out-of-Home Care to provide specialist casework services to high needs children and young people, improve carer recruitment, assessment, training and support as well as general casework support;
• a better range of placement services including intensive or professional foster carer and residential placements;
• more support to Aboriginal providers of Out-of-Home Care.

Other complementary initiatives to improve outcomes in Out-of-Home Care include a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care and work with the Department of Health to ensure access to appropriate services for children and young people in Out-of-Home Care who have special needs.

MEDIA CRIME REPORTING

On 21 September the Hon. John Tingle asked the Minister for Emergency Services a question without notice regarding media crime reporting. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

POLICE OFFICERS DRUG TESTING

On 21 September Ms Lee Rhiannon asked the Minister for Justice a question without notice concerning police drug testing. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

I am advised that incidents where persons have been killed or seriously injured as a consequence of police action are fully investigated by a Critical Incident Investigative Team. The investigation includes mandatory drug and alcohol testing of police officers directly involved in such incidents. I am further advised that any police officer that tests positive to a prohibited drug is liable for dismissal and possible criminal proceedings.

An amnesty, which includes counselling and rehabilitation programs, is currently available to officers who voluntarily seek assistance for a drug or alcohol problem. This amnesty is not available to officers who are found to have been using drugs or alcohol through mandatory, random or targeted tests.

Questions without notice concluded.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Membership

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

That Noreen Hay be appointed to serve on the Legislation Review Committee in place of Marianne Frances Saliba, discharged.

JOHN. Aquilina

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION) BILL

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.07 p.m.]: X-rated films are controversial. Sadly, when someone tries to inject a sensible, objective point of view into the debate he is in danger of being labelled as a deviate and a pervert. There is almost a prohibition on speaking about any matters sexual, which says little about the maturity of our nation and our Parliament. It is like the Marxist attack mechanism of critical theory where political opponents use personal, outrageous, vicious, hateful and unending criticisms to destroy an opponent by criticising everything about the opposing person or political party with no requirement to offer a positive alternative.

Conservatives have adopted a strategy to tarnish people who stand up and speak out and those who have liberal values towards sexuality are depicted as perverts. Sadly, the Christian Democrats are a textbook example of how critical theory is applied in this political debate. Unlike certain members of this House I believe in the right of people to exercise informed choices. I do not ridicule them or giggle like a schoolchild when matters of sexuality are debated in Parliament. The Premier came out courageously against the banning of the French art house film Baise-moi. He was quoted in the Australian of 13 May 2002 as saying that he did not like the idea of adults being told what they can see and read. The Premier claims to be a civil libertarian. He may talk the talk, but can he walk the walk? He has displayed no leadership on this issue.

On 12 May 2004 I wrote to the Attorney General about the recommendations made in the Standing Committee on Social Issues report entitled "Safety Net?: Final Report of the Inquiry into Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill 2001". Recommendation No. 5 related to the status of X-rated film sales in New South Wales. The Australian Capital Territory regulatory system permits the sale of X-rated material on restricted premises. Retailers are licensed and must comply with stringent conditions. Failure to do so would incur a hefty fine and even suspension of a licence. I received a reply dated 13 August 2004 stating that the Standing Committee of Attorneys General had noted the recommendation and that the Government was considering all relevant issues. The Government later responded to the committee's recommendation by stating that no action would be taken until all of the censorship Ministers in the Commonwealth, States and Territories agreed on changes to national classification codes or guidelines.

It is clear that we must regulate the sale of adult films in New South Wales. History has proved that complete prohibition fails, and that is obvious if one visits any adult shop in and around the city. Neither the Australian Democrats nor any decent person would accept that sexual violence, bestiality or sex with children is normal and that viewing images of such activity is appropriate entertainment. They are bad practices and should be treated as such. Those films do not meet the X-rated classification and are rated RC, or refused classification, which bans them and makes them illegal for sale and private possession in Australia. However, films which have been reviewed by the Office of Film and Literature Classification and which meet the X-rated classification should be available for purchase in restricted premises by consenting adults. To maintain the status quo and to fail to regulate the sale of adult films in New South Wales would only help the black marketeers who are selling material that is not accepted by the decent majority of society. In other words, banning non-violent erotica causes the law to be widely flouted. Because the law is not enforced, other far less savoury videos are treated in the same way.

Although this bill allows for a uniform classification system, that is not much use if it does not lead to some improvement in what happens in New South Wales shops. The Brisbane Sunday Mail of 19 September suggested that the profits from pirate DVDs help to fund global terror. The article states:

pornographic

Obviously a licensing system for non-violent erotica videos—commonly known as X-rated videos—using the licensing fees to fund an enforcement program dealing with the more toxic forms of education would be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately this Government refuses to take that step.

The Hon. Peter Breen has foreshadowed amendments that will allow X-rated videos to be sold at restricted premises or adult shops, and those amendments should be supported. I am extremely disappointed that the Government cannot see its way clear to support them nor to send them to a committee so the issues can be discussed. The Government is making fine statements about Baise-moi but it is not willing to do what is necessary in New South Wales. It has been suggested that the amendments are beyond the scope of the bill. However, they bring the bill closer to the Federal model, so that is a spurious argument. The Breen amendments do not go so far as to set up a funding mechanism for X-rated videos, but the Government could easily introduce amendments to mirror those in the ACT legislation, and it should do so. This bill goes halfway, but it does not allow for the sale of these videos, and that is disappointing. To correct the classification system but not to allow certain classifications to be sold is silly. I support the Breen amendments and I will support the bill, but I believe it should go further.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.16 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party on the Classifications (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill 2004. The purpose of this bill is to amend the 1995 Act to implement uniform classification categories for films and computer games. At a Commonwealth level, classifications for films and computer games were merged in May this year to provide a uniform classification system for these two types of media. This bill is designed to reflect that change at a State level. The bill is generally commendable. However, I refute the Australian Democrats' allegations about the Christian Democratic Party; in fact, the party has spoken out about liberalisation of censorship laws on behalf of the vast majority of Australians.

Before the Commonwealth Act was amended to make the classifications between films and computer games uniform, each type of media had a different classification. Now we have a new classification for films and computer games. For example, films and computer games that were G-rated will continue to attract that classification; PG-rated and G (8+)-rated films and computer games will be PG-rated; M-rated and M (15+) rated films and computer games will be M-rated; the MA-rated and MA (15+) rated films and computer games will be MA 15+ rated; the R-rated films will be R 18+ rated; and X-rated films will be rated X 18+. The restricted classification means the material is banned.

Apart from introducing a classification system applicable to films and computer games, another notable feature of the legislation is that it clarifies the age of the intended audience for the films and computer games. Therefore, it is entirely clear that R-rated films are to be viewed only by persons over the age of 18 years and X-rated films should not to be made acceptable to the community at large. The only down side to the new classification system is perhaps the lack of consistency within the system. On a commonsense level, recommended ages have been provided for half of the categories—that is, MA 15+, R 18+, X 18+. Why was that approach not applied to the PG and M categories? If consistency and uniformity were the guiding principles in this process why were they not applied to the merged classification system? Apart from that concern, the bill is generally commendable and the Christian Democratic Party supports it.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [5.19 p.m.]: I support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to enforce the mechanism agreed between the Standing Committee of Attorneys General as to the classification censorship regime that is to apply across-the-board between films and video and computer games. Previously they were the subject of separate classifications and the bill will now seek to rely on the G classification for both films and computer games; the previous PG classification will continue as PG but apply to both computer games and films; the previous M classification will continue as M and will apply to both computer games and video games; MA(15+), which previously applied to computer games, will now be aligned with the classification for films, which was previously MA; R 18+ will apply to films in the R-rated category; and X 18+ will apply to films in the X-rated category.

The category RC, standing for "refused classification"—of course, that wording is not actually seen on videos and DVDs—means that the censor decided that the material on the film was outside the guidelines and therefore not classified. What happens in practice is that most of the material rated RC is produced overseas. For example, I understand that something like 10,000 X-rated videos were produced around the world in the past 12 months. Of those 10,000 about 600 are classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification and the rest of them simply go into shops without any classification at all: jackets are published without any classification or category numbers on them.

What the amendments do is notable, that is they make the classification regime consistent between the States and the Commonwealth. This area of film classification is one of the few areas on which the Commonwealth and the States have genuine agreement. I commend to the House the publication Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2003, which is the guide approved by the Howard Government and is now the model for classification around the country. I direct members in particular to the X classification, or what is now known as the X 18+ classification. The guidelines state:

That is a very restrictive definition as to what constitutes an X 18+ category. The type of material that the classification allows is not what I would describe as demeaning, harmful, or in any way a fetish. Nothing like that is allowed under the X 18+ classification. So far as children are concerned, even an adult dressed up as a child, for example, is not permitted, and any kind of homosexual relationship that could give the impression that it involves children is not permitted. It is a restricted category.

For the benefit of members, I actually bought one of these films on the weekend. Members will see that the film is classified X 18+: the cover says that it is restricted to adults 18 years and over. It is illegal to sell this film in New South Wales but it is not illegal to buy it. Even though it has been classified by the censor and has a classification number on the back of it, to sell that material in New South Wales attracts a maximum penalty of, I think, $11,000, or 12 months gaol. Despite the fact that this material is what is called X-rated, it would not generally be regarded as offensive in the community.

The Hon. John Ryan: That is a matter of some opinion.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: It is an opinion that I express in the light of what else supposedly happens under that category. I also purchased other material on the weekend—the Hon. John Ryan is having a conniption—from a shop in Darlinghurst Road and I seek leave to table the material, given that it is freely available to anyone who walks into what is called an adult bookshop or an adult shop. It is material that is, in my opinion, beyond the pale, and well beyond the X classification pale; it is material that would be refused classification by the censor. It is readily available within one kilometre of Parliament House. Every adult shop, every sex shop, every second-hand bookshop stocks this material, and it is highly illegal.

What producers of these films also do is produce their own covers—mostly pirated—which have classifications on them to appear as if they were approved by the censor. When I asked the people in these shops that sell this material why they sell it, how do they get it and how do they explain the fact that they are breaking the law, the answers that I got on the weekend were that, firstly, the material is classified, effectively, because it has got an X on it, and secondly, because they are citizens of the Commonwealth they believe they can sell it. That kind of logic is so flawed that it defies belief. I would like to see someone run that argument in a court but, unfortunately, nobody ever prosecutes for the selling of this material; the opportunity to raise that spurious argument is not afforded to any of these shop proprietors. This material is obscene beyond description and I seek leave to table it.

Leave not granted.

Notwithstanding the objection, the titles can be read into Hansard, which I propose doing because I think it is important that members know what kind of material is available. I am not talking about small quantities of material; 3 million of these videos are sold in New South Wales every year. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans read from an article in the Sunday Mail, which suggests that $200 million from those 3 million videos is going into organised crime each year, and that is a scandal. It is a scandal that the State Government would allow this kind of open breach of the law without taking any steps at all to enforce the law. The existing law is adequate to deal with any breach whether or not my amendments—which seek to legalise X-rated videos—are allowed or debated in committee. The existing law is enforceable, if only someone would take some action. I ask that leave be granted to table the material. I note the dissent of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, but I think it is important that we know what is available and I urge you to allow it to be tabled.

Leave not granted.

Other material that has also been classified X includes these two titles, one of which is called Candida Royalle's. These can be obtained by mail order from Canberra or from a shop in George Street—

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: What do they cost?

The Hon. PETER BREEN: They are somewhere between $20 and $50 if they are relatively new. Bear in mind that 10,000 of these are made every year. The Minister can buy one of these.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Did you pay for them?

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I did, as a matter of interest.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: On your Logistical Support Allocation?

The Hon. PETER BREEN: That is a difficult question. I have not had the opportunity to classify it yet, but I will certainly have to think about it.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Did you know you were breaking the law when you purchased them?

The Hon. PETER BREEN: That is an interesting point. It is not against the law to purchase them; it is only against the law to sell them.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: In New South Wales.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: In New South Wales. If you want to purchase them in New South Wales, you do it by mail order from Canberra or one of the Territories, or you just go to George Street or to Darlinghurst Road, where they are freely available over the counter. People selling this material take the risk of a possible 12-month gaol term, because it is a booming industry and they want to be in on it. Apart from those two titles, which are legal—

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What is the title of the second one?

The Hon. PETER BREEN: The first one is called Candida Royalle's: Stud Hunters: A Hard Man is Good to Find and the second one is called Candida Royalle's II: One size fits all. These are interesting titles, but not nearly as interesting as others that are highly illegal, such as the one that depicts a young girl. It is called Double Filled Cream Teens and the front cover portrays a child as a sex object. It is highly offensive and highly illegal.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is child pornography.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: It is not child pornography because the girl is not prepubescent. However, it is contrary to the film classification laws, which say, "nor does it permit persons 18 years or over to be portrayed as minors". This girl may be 19 or 20, but the video cover illegally portrays her as a minor.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: That makes it child pornography.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My understanding of child pornography is that the subject has to be prepubescent. If the child is post-pubertal, it is not child pornography. However, I will be guided by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who obviously knows more about these things than I do. The other video I highlight is called Junior College! Hardcore Schoolgirls, which is what Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile would call child pornography. It is freely available in George Street and in Darlinghurst Road. It is highly offensive. It is beyond the pale that we can buy this stuff over the counter, without any restrictions, in New South Wales. The next video, which is equally offensive and relates to a child, is called Schoolgirls Holiday. Portraying children in this way is highly offensive and I do not understand why the Government insists on ignoring the problem and not policing it.

Indeed, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans said that in the last 12 months there was only one prosecution, which may be true. However, I do not know of any prosecutions. There are four shops in one block in George Street and they are all called adult bookshops. They should be called illegal adult video shops because all this material is highly illegal. In my opinion, even more offensive than using teenagers to gratify presumably older people is material that uses pain for sexual gratification. I find the video entitled Pain appalling. It depicts a woman and a man chained up with people in masks tattooing them. Obviously, it is some kind of weird sexual thing that I know nothing about—nor do I have any wish to. I only know that it is highly illegal and, in my judgment, highly offensive. It is appalling that people can buy this stuff in George Street and Darlinghurst Road. Another video suggests some kind of sexual gratification in asphyxiating somebody. I think that is called a snuff movie.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: A snuff movie is where they kill someone.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: This video tells you how to do it by simply smothering them, and it even shows where to put the hands and what passages to block. Somehow this is supposed to lead to sexual gratification. This highly offensive and highly illegal material is available in George Street. The rest of the videos are too awful, particularly as some of it involves using faeces to gain some sort of sexual gratification.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: You had better table it.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Tabling restricts it to only members, who can look at it at their leisure or pleasure. This material is freely available. It is offensive. It is freely available because the existing law is not policed. X-rated videos should be part of New South Wales law and be included in the bill. It is already law in the Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth. Under Commonwealth law it is legal for people to buy and sell the material. It is also legal in the Territories. My foreshadowed amendments will allow the Commonwealth provisions to be extended to New South Wales.

The X-rated videos to which I have referred can be sold legally in sex shops or adult shops. They cannot be sold in these so-called adult bookshops in George Street and other places such as supermarkets, video shops, service stations and milk bars, which is where people buy the other material because it is not policed and because the X-rated material is regarded as being in the same category. I will show honourable members a video that has an X-rated label on it. Again, it is a video depicting teenagers. Whoever published the cover has even put on the new label X 18+. This material is being portrayed as if it were legal and could be bought in the Australian Capital Territory, but people need only go to George Street to purchase it. Shop proprietors are misleading customers into thinking they are buying something that is legal. It is not legal and would never be classified under the classification laws.

On the weekend I looked at these stores, which have rows and rows of X 18+ material. It is illegal. People think it is legal because it came from Canberra and because whoever published the jacket on the videos and DVDs put on the classification X 18+. My amendments would require every video jacket to have the classification number from the Office of Film and Literature Classification, which would stop piracy and the illegal sale of the material. People would not be allowed to buy a video or a DVD that did not have the classification number on it. That is a sensible amendment and I do not understand why the Government will not go down this track. The Standing Committee on Social Issues inquired into this matter in 2002 and made certain recommendations.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It legalised X-rated videos in New South Wales.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: That is right. In 2002 the Standing Committee on Social Issues recommended that consideration be given to that, but nothing further has happened. The draft guidelines were to be considered after the committee published its report, but nothing has happened. I merely suggest that this highly illegal multimillion-dollar operation is going on in New South Wales and it is being allowed to continue because of the unsatisfactory existing law. I do not seek radical change. Laws in line with the Commonwealth model would stop this illegal activity of under-the-counter operations. I commend the bill to the House. However, I suggest that it does not go far enough. I urge honourable members to vote for my amendments during the Committee stage.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.38 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendments contained in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (Uniform Classification) Bill, which bring the New South Wales classification Act further into line with the Federal classification Act. However, like Mr Peter Breen, we feel that the bill does not go far enough. X-rated films are still legal in New South Wales. The Government's refusal to regulate this part of the industry is playing out in various undesirable, and even dangerous, ways. We should not draw the line in debating whether or not the public understands properly the distinction between the M and MA rating. To bring New South Wales into line with the Federal classification laws we should adopt the Federal classification of X ratings for adults of non-violent, erotica material. Indeed, it is extraordinary that the Government has not moved in that direction already. This bill was the perfect opportunity to clean up this problem and to tackle the problem of child pornography. There are various loopholes in the law. This loophole needs to be closed, yet for some reason the Government has failed to act.

Since its introduction, the New South Wales Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act has not adequately regulated the adult end of the industry because technically X-rated material is still illegal in New South Wales. Our laws are inconsistent: It is legal to buy and possess X-rated material in New South Wales but, as other speakers have pointed out, it is not illegal to sell X-rated material in New South Wales. The reality is that X-rated material is being sold. Every year millions of X-rated videos are sold in New South Wales. Yet this market is virtually unregulated, and we have the power to do something about it. We have this bill before the House, and the Government will still not respond.

The Government's failure to regulate the classification of X-rated material and to properly regulate the adult industry has resulted in the proliferation of pirated materials, and has seen organised crime enter the adult industry. The ease of pirating films on DVD has allowed criminal elements to infiltrate the industry and undermine the work of producers of legitimate adult erotica. The adult industry in New South Wales would be more in line with Federal standards if the X rating were adopted. Other speakers have made reference to an article in the Sunday Mail of 19 September this year, and I also want to comment on it. I am repeating what other speakers have said because it is extraordinary that the Government is not responding. There are many reasons why the Government should be strengthening the bill before the House.

It has been suggested that there are links with terrorism. It has been suggested that DVDs can be produced in such quantities that their sales can be linked to organised crime and terrorism. Then there is the child pornography angle. This bill needs to be tightened up but the Government is not responding. The Premier speaks out about terrorism at every opportunity. We have more laws than the police in this State would ever need, and we have reports of how terrorism is being funded. This bill is the perfect vehicle to tackle this unregulated market but the Government is sitting on its hands.

The article in the Sunday Mail states that sales of counterfeit movies and pornographic DVDs have been estimated at $200 million a year in Australia by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft. There is another figure to ponder: A United Nations report stated that one kilogram of counterfeit DVDs was worth more than the same weight of marijuana. The Government's failure to properly regulate the classification of X-rated material has also resulted in the proliferation of violence, vulgar and exploitative material that is now being widely sold in restricted locations. Mr Peter Breen reported on that in his contribution, and I congratulate him on his speech. I hope that it will be a wake-up call for the Government. The best thing the Government can do is hold back on this bill until it sorts out the problem, which is a problem of its own making.

At the moment, many of these highly undesirable, dangerous materials are being sold in unrestricted locations such as service stations, convenience stores and weekend markets throughout New South Wales where even children can walk up and browse the material in some places. Many producers place an X on the cover of their materials, yet those films have not been reviewed and could contain anything. Again, Mr Breen has showed us examples of that. I have heard the anecdotal stories. Tonight I was shown videos that had been doctored in this way. These same materials could be sitting on a shelf at the local 7-Eleven store. By not having an X rating in New South Wales we are promoting the growth of organised crime, which is funding its activities from the sale of unclassified material.

We have a simple solution in this bill. The need for an X rating for non-violent adult erotica has its place in our society. People choose to use this material. I know that it upsets some members but there is a clear need to clean up our classification system with regard to this material. The New South Wales Government's standards are more sexually conservative than the Prime Minister's standards on what is acceptable. Again, members on the Government benches should think soberly about this fact. In 1999 John Howard's Government reviewed the classification laws and defined the kind of non-violent erotica that it deems acceptable and it gave it the X rating classification. But again the New South Wales Government is silent.

I understand that the Attorneys General accept the classifications when they review the Federal classification laws each year, yet one wonders whether the New South Wales Attorney General, Mr Debus, is permanently out to lunch on some of these matters. Why is he not doing something? Maybe he will do his usual and throw up his hands and talk about the problems he has in Cabinet. Seriously, we need some action. The Greens support the bill. We will be pleased to support Mr Breen's amendments because we support the expansion of these moves to include the introduction of an X classification in New South Wales to regulate the adult erotica industry. If conservative members who express concern about pornography and erotica fail to support Mr Breen's amendments they will be encouraging some of the worst aspects of this industry while it remains unregulated.

The Greens support the requirement for all adult materials sold in New South Wales to display a unique classification number from the Office of Film and Literature Classification to assure consumers that they are buying a film that contains non-violent erotica content and does not contain degrading or tasteless material. Consumers have a right to know what they are buying. At the moment they cannot always be clear on what is in the video they are purchasing. Finally, if an X classification is introduced in New South Wales the Greens support the restriction of the sale of X-rated materials to age-restricted premises so that children are not regularly exposed to this material in service stations and convenience stores, as can currently happen because of the way this material is handled in our community. If the Government accepts the need for uniformity, as it is telling us it is with this bill, it needs to finish the job. I urge the Government to get hold of its sanity and do the right thing. The way the Government has let this industry flourish is shocking.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.47 p.m.], in reply: It is important to recognise that the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (Uniform Classification) Bill simply adopts common classifications that have been agreed to by the censorship Ministers in the States, Territories and the Commonwealth. The type of material that is permitted within each classification is assessed by the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board using criteria set out in the national classification code and guidelines. A number of comments were made by speakers about the X classification. The bill recognises the X classification but does not change the position in relation to the capacity to sell material that has the X classification.

At this point if the current position is overturned by allowing that kind of material to be sold legally from restricted publication areas, the Government is of the view that that is a major policy change that would need to be debated, and there would need to be more sensible consideration than has taken place so far, particularly in this debate. The Hon. Peter Breen made reference in his contribution to the Standing Committee on Social Issues report that examined the lack of enforcement of the sale of sexually explicit material in New South Wales in its inquiry into the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill 2001. In the final report relating to on-line matters, dated 6 June 2002, at recommendation 5, the committee recommended that the Attorney General consider either establishing a licensing scheme, similar to that which operates in the Australian Capital Territory, allowing controlled premises to sell X-rated material in New South Wales or taking more enforcement action against breaches of the legislation.

The Government response to this recommendation, tabled on 10 December 2002, was to place the matter before the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for its consideration of the development of a uniform response. The matter is still before the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in their capacity as censorship Ministers to, hopefully, adopt a uniform approach. The object of this bill is to avoid confusion and to create consistency between the States, Territories and the Commonwealth. That is the short purpose of the bill. For that reason, I ask the House to support it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Suspension of Standing Orders

The Hon. PETER BREEN [5.50 p.m.]: I move:

The House divided.

Ayes, 6

Mr Breen
Mr Cohen
Ms Hale
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Tingle

Noes, 26

Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cusack
Ms Fazio
Mrs Forsythe
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay

Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Jenkins
Mr Lynn
Mr Macdonald
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Mr Oldfield
Ms Parker

Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Mr Roozendaal
Mr Ryan
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Tellers,
Mr Harwin
Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion for the suspension of standing orders negatived.

Bill read a third time.

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.59 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.59 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the bill. I feel that I am able to speak on this bill with some knowledge, having been a partner in a national law firm for 17 years. I am very aware of the limitations on professionals and professional bodies and firms because of the problems and different rules in the numerous jurisdictions in which they operate. Importantly, the bill is all about protecting consumer interests. It does so through requiring that professionals have proper insurance, implement risk management strategies and have in place proper disciplinary and complaints procedures. It has been of great encouragement to professionals and members of the community that New South Wales led the way with the Professional Standards Act in 1994. There are now seven schemes approved under that Act, and they cover accountants, solicitors, engineers, surveyors and valuers. I understand the Professional Standards Council is currently considering a draft scheme for barristers.

Professional firms have had difficulty obtaining proper insurance at a reasonable cost, particularly during the insurance crisis a couple of years ago. It is not the case that professionals do not want to have appropriate insurance in place, but that was a difficult period for a number of organisations. The Commonwealth organised ministerial meetings, which have now led to all Australian jurisdictions agreeing to a package of negligence reforms that will minimise claims by imposing professional standards and requiring risk management strategies, compulsory insurance cover, professional education and appropriate complaints and disciplinary mechanisms in return for limited liability. Limited liability is the other side of the scheme.

The Professional Standards Amendment Bill amends the Professional Standards Act in a number of ways. The definition of "occupational association" is amended to include associations that comprise members of more than one related occupational group. The bill clarifies existing provisions to limit the liability of partners, officers, employees and associates that arise in connection with the liability of the member of an occupational association. The bill extends coverage of the Act to liability arising from negligence of legal practitioners acting for clients in personal injury claims, which is currently excluded from the Act. The bill also allows an occupational liability limitation scheme to calculate liability caps by use of a formula so that the different variables can be taken into account. That obviously relates to different fee levels and so on.

The bill clarifies that the minimum cap on liability provided for by a scheme must now not be below the minimum amount set out in the Act. That makes sense in terms of the requirements for protection of the public. The bill allows members of a scheme to rely on business assets alone as opposed to business assets and an insurance policy to establish their ability to satisfy a claim. The bill also enhances the ability of an occupational liability scheme to set different caps on liability for different situations and enhances the ability of a scheme to set different insurance standards for members. This recognises that different activities and services attract different levels of risk. The Opposition consulted the New South Wales Law Society and the Professional Standards Council, both indicating their support for the bill, which I am also pleased to support.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.04 p.m.]: The bill will make a number of commonsense amendments to the Professional Standards Act to broaden the coverage of liability in cases of negligence involving legal practitioners while at the same time limiting minimum liability levels to $500,000. The Greens welcome the extended coverage to include a more diverse range of professional groups. This will better reflect the operational nature of large firms with multiple categories of employees, as well as occupational associations. The introduction in this bill of a $500,000 minimum level liability for any claim is welcome and represents a formalisation of the minimum liability already imposed for most professions and categories of insurance covered by the Professional Standards Council. For these reasons the Greens support the bill.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [6.05 p.m.]: I was pleased to note in the second reading speech in this place and the other House, and in the Attorney General's speech in reply to debate in the other place, a reference to New South Wales being the leading jurisdiction in Australia in professional standards legislation. I also note that professional standards legislation commenced in 1994. I place on record that so often in this Chamber we hear from the Government that all wisdom commenced in New South Wales only in 1995. So often it tries to rewrite history and ignore the achievements of the Coalition. This legislation was a significant achievement of the previous Coalition Government and in term of such legislation set the standard for the rest of Australia. When we talk of New South Wales as a leading jurisdiction, the fact is that this State has been the pacesetter. The Opposition welcomes the legislation and the movement towards a national approach being taken to professional standards. As my colleague the Hon. Greg Pearce said, professional people take a close interest in professional standards. Professional indemnity and the cost of insurance are matters that few people in the professions can ignore. They represent a huge burden within their practices. I acknowledge this bill as a way forward and join with my colleague the Hon. Greg Pearce in welcoming its introduction.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [6.07 p.m.], in reply: I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

The Hon. Peter Primrose tabled a report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 14 of 2004", dated 26 October 2004.

Ordered to be printed.

THREATENED SPECIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [6.09 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Urban and coastal development

• First, it zones land that will protect around 70 percent of the area for conservation. This area is predominantly threatened species habitat, containing 16 species of threatened animals, two species of threatened plants and two endangered ecological communities.

• Second, the LEP zones the rest of the area as being suitable for job-creating development, subject, of course, to the normal environmental assessment process contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Agriculture and natural resource management

• Access funding to manage native vegetation and biodiversity, including $30 million being made available by the NSW Government for biodiversity incentives to help farmers conserve threatened species, in addition to another $400 million provided by the State and federal governments.
• And be free to undertake activities in accordance with a PVP without the need for a separate threatened species licence. Under this bill, this would be possible once the Minister for the Environment has given "biodiversity certification" to the native vegetation reform package as a whole. Those applying for development consents under the Native Vegetation Act will also obtain similar benefits.

• The Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the regulations under that Act.
• Statewide standards and targets for natural resource management issues adopted by the Government under the Natural Resources Commission Act 2003.
• Catchment action plans under the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003.
• Protocols and guidelines adopted or made under the regulations of the Native Vegetation Act 2003, the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 and the Natural Resources Commission Act 2003.

Scientific Committee and listing of threatened species

Better recovery and threat abatement

• Action to secure or repair habitat through the land-use planning system or the reformed natural resource management system.

• Additions to the reserve network or private conservation agreements.

In short, this bill will increase the effectiveness of threatened species recovery and conservation through a more realistic process of planning and by integration with mainstream planning and natural resources decision-making processes.

Other provisions

Amendments to the Fisheries Management Act

Conclusion

The Hon. DON HARWIN [6.10 p.m.]: The Threatened Species Legislation Amendment Bill resembles an exposure draft. The Government and the Greens have foreshadowed many amendments, but none has been officially shown to the Opposition. The final legislation may bear little resemblance to the bill as it presently stands, and that is a problem. I asked the Clerks whether any amendments were available and I was told they could not provide any. Of course, the Opposition put its cards on the table by moving amendments in the other place. People know our concerns, but the Government's position is a moveable feast. Important stakeholders in regional New South Wales must realise that even the good aspects of the bill—there are some that should be acknowledged and I will do so later—are potentially being traded away by the Government in consultation with the Greens. This second reading debate is being conducted almost in a vacuum because we do not know what the final form of the bill will be, and that is particularly unsatisfactory.

This bill represents an admission by the Government that its Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, which was passed during its first months in power, is long overdue for reform. That legislation has been the subject of criticism from all sides and it has proved inadequate in managing species and their habitats in the context of the community's need for more land. The Act has failed to co-ordinate satisfactory outcomes for both development and conservation. In his second reading speech in another place the Minister said:

The major lesson of the past decade is that too often a threatened species decision involves the winner taking all—only one side of a dispute usually wins.

He then conceded:

The current Act no longer provides the best mechanism to resolve this kind of dispute in which one side or the other prevails—either the development has to be substantially reconfigured or the threatened species has to be sacrificed to social or economic needs.

That is quite an admission. Major factors in these unbalanced results have been a piecemeal, case-by-case approach that has ignored the context of the broader geographical area and a failure to consider threatened species issues until the latter stages of the development assessment processes. The key provisions seek to address these flaws by amending the legislation such that consideration of threatened species issues can be undertaken on a regional or catchment basis rather than at the micro level, and earlier rather than later during the planning process. The legislation aims to replace the single area focus approach with a more co-ordinated, big picture approach by integrating threatened species conservation with New South Wales natural resource management and land use planning systems consistent with the Native Vegetation Act, the Catchment Management Authorities Act and the Natural Resources Commission Act.

The legislation provides for biodiversity certification for 10 years of environmental planning instruments and the native vegetation reform package by the Minister for the Environment. During the period of certification third party appeals and further assessment will be precluded so long as development applications are in accordance with the approved plan. That is very welcome. The consequence of this more contextualised approach is that land users who have had a property vegetation plan approved by their local catchment management authority, which in turn has had its plan approved by the Minister, will not require threatened species licensees to carry out routine agricultural management activities. Nor will they be required to prepare a species impact statement to be granted permission to clear native vegetation. Should the catchment management authority fail in its job of protecting threatened species, the bill allows for the Minister to withdraw biodiversity certification. The bill is not only an attempt to rectify the shortcomings in the legislation with regard to the development planning and consent process. The provisions in the Act dealing with threatened species recovery plans and threat abatement strategies are also underperforming. These failures are dealt with by the amendments outlined in the bill. Of the 900 threatened species identified, recovery plans have been approved in relation to only 60. That demonstrates the overwhelming amount of work confronting the Scientific Committee.

The bill requires the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife to prepare a threatened species priorities action statement designed to identify priorities in the development of recovery and threat abatement plans. In the context of this requirement, the Natural Resources Commission and the Minister for the Environment will be able to recommend investigations into threatened species in specific regions of the State. Concurrent with this statement of action priorities, the bill introduces new categories of critically endangered species and ecological communities. Identifying priorities and categorising species and habitats on the basis of the threat level they face will ensure that conservation and management of threatened species is more effective.

Despite many positive elements the bill is not entirely satisfactory, and the Opposition has key reservations about the manner in which it is to be implemented. Its passage through the other place and the fact that it has been introduced in this place under the shadow of such a large number of Government amendments indicates that consideration has been inadequate and rushed. The Opposition moved a series of amendments in the other place. The first five were designed to obtain a second opinion from the Biological Diversity Advisory Council about the determinations of the Scientific Committee. Further amendments related to the biodiversity certification of catchment action plans. A number of consequential amendments were then moved, including one concerning the Fisheries Management Act. Another amendment proposed a five-year review, which is important, and other amendments dealt with fisheries. I am sure my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will want to expand on the amendments, so I will not deal with them in detail. In fact, I am reluctant to speak for long about the amendments because of the comments I made earlier and the fact that there is likely to be some movement. We understand that when the second reading debate concludes it is likely the matter will be adjourned, so the Committee stage may be some way off yet.

As I will be commenting extensively on each of the Opposition's amendments in Committee I think it is appropriate that I not elaborate on them at this stage. I would indicate that a number of my colleagues will be supporting me in this debate because the Opposition has a keen interest in the Threatened Species Legislation Amendment Bill. As I noted earlier there are certainly some strong arguments for the bill but it needs work, and I hope that at the end of the day the result will be an improvement. Certainly at this early stage we see some positive provisions in the bill; we can only trust that the Government will not butcher it in Committee.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [6.20 p.m.]: It is fair to say that since its introduction in 1995 the Threatened Species Conservation Act has been spectacular. But it has been spectacular not for its achievements, but, rather, for its failure to protect species that the Scientific Committee continues to place on various endangered lists. The only spectacular performance for which this Act can be said to be responsible for is that there are now 928 species listed under the various endangered categories, up from 730 species listed in 1998. The key performance indicator of the Act should be the number of species that have recovered from their endangered status. Some 59 final recovery plans have been prepared for endangered species and 13 for vulnerable species—that is, 72 recovery plans for a total of 928 species listed. Of that 928 species, 77 are presumed extinct, for which recovery plans will not be prepared—which leaves 851 recovery plans to be completed. And if one subtracts the 72 that have been finalised, there are still 779 recovery plans to be completed.

All this has occurred in just nine years, since the gazettal of the Threatened Species Conservation Act, and is a result of the unfettered power of the Scientific Committee to continue to add only new species to the lists without accountability and, in many cases, without proper scientific rigour. I have been concerned about this matter since the legislation was introduced in 1995, long before I was elected to this place in 2000. Many species on the lists are clearly not endangered, and it is extremely difficult to remove species from the lists once they have been placed on them. The best-known example of this is a species of red grass bothriochloa biloba, which was listed as the Act came into effect in January 1996. It was finally delisted in April 2004 following numerous submissions to the Scientific Committee. This example is comprehensive proof that the science used at the time of the listing was deficient.

Much more scientific rigour is bestowed on the process to reject a final determination than is used for listing purposes at the first instance. Only eight determinations for removal have been made in the nine years since the introduction of the Act, and no determinations have been rejected as a result of a successful recovery plan. The Nationals have long been concerned about the impact of this Act on the security of farmers and their ability to farm their land. People in the extreme environmental organisations and city-centric members of the Australian Labor Party [ALP] know nothing except the concrete jungles of inner-city suburbs, and they need to understand that the agricultural and mining industries create the wealth upon which our society relies and survives.

The vast majority of farmers have long been recognised as dedicated and genuine conservationists who care for their environment, their soils, their vegetation resources and native animals. They differ from armchair commentator conservationists because they know that natural resources must be managed and maintained to keep them in good working order. They know that soil needs proper fertiliser to maintain fertility levels and production, they know that forests rely on animals to keep down fuel levels for fire mitigation, and they know that fire mitigation conserves threatened species. Farmers do all this while performing the most important function in our society: producing the three fundamentals upon which we depend on for survival—food, fibre and building materials. This important function must be allowed to continue unfettered by restrictive and ineffective legislation, which is failing species that are being put under pressure by everincreasing human population.

Farmers have a sense of responsibility to look after their natural resources and they do so willingly. But they do not respond positively to threatened prosecution or to being considered guilty until they have proved their own innocence—which is a requirement of the Threatened Species Conservation Act. The bill will amend the Threatened Species Conservation Act to, according to the propaganda promoted by the Minister, enable the Minister to provide biodiversity certification in order to supposedly streamline the activities of the productive sectors of our society. It also introduces the additional categories of "critically endangered species" and "critically endangered ecological communities". The impact of that, in light of the burden of 928 species listed at present, can mean only that some species will be moved up the list with little or no chance of a recovery plan being prepared for them, let alone a recovery plan being successfully implemented.

The bill attempts to interpret agricultural activities, but misses the point completely, and farmers will be further confused about what they can and cannot do without the threat of prosecution under this Act. This will be further exacerbated by increased emphasis on regulation for just about everything and removing the opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the issues that regulations will attempt to address. I will speak more about that later.

Items [1] to [15] of schedule 1 amend the introductory notes and main body of the Act and the definitions provided in it to allow for changes to the Biological Diversity Advisory Council, the Social and Economic Advisory Council and the Department of Environment and Conservation. Item [16] provides for a listing of nationally threatened species and ecological communities. Item [17] inserts a new division 2, which provides for the new classifications of "critically endangered species" and "critically endangered ecological communities". It also changes the definitions of other classifications other than that for species presumed extinct, which remains unchanged from that referred to in the parent Act.

The listings for both species and ecological communities now include the classifications of "critically endangered", "endangered species" and "vulnerable species", which all relate to the degree of risk of extinction sometime in the future. "Critically endangered" means an extremely high risk of extension in the immediate future, "endangered" means a very high risk of extension in the near future and "vulnerable" means a high risk of extinction in the medium-term future. There is a serious inconsistency in the bill with regard to the listing of populations as there is only one population classification: "endangered populations", which relates to a high risk of extinction in the near future. Is this an unfathomable oversight or is there some scientific reason that populations cannot be critically endangered or vulnerable? The subjective terms "extremely high", "very high" and "high risk", and "immediate", "near future" and "medium-term future" are not defined in the bill and are only partly clarified by the meaningless bureaucratic statement "As determined with criteria prescribed by the regulations". All that will succeed in doing is remove the capacity of this Parliament to properly scrutinise the legislation.

There is much less scrutiny of the gazettal of regulations than the gazettal of an Act of Parliament, and this bill has been deliberately prepared to remove the key components of the legislation, that is, the degree of risk and the time frame in which it may operate, from being subject to debate in this Parliament. The definition of a key threatening process is also amended, giving power back to the regulations to determine whether a process or activity is a key threatening process. Item [23] of schedule 1 allows the Natural Resources Commission [NRC] to initiate a listing, which is of some concern, as I do not want catchment management authorities to be lobbied by environmentalists to put pressure on the NRC to initiate a listing That is not the role of the NRC. Those with environmental interests have plenty of opportunity to put their requests to the Scientific Committee without taking up the time of community-based organisations and representatives loaded up with the huge responsibilities already.

Item [26] removes the requirement for the Scientific Committee to consider nominations as soon as possible and allows the Scientific Committee to set its own priorities for consideration of nominations. It does allow the Minister and the NRC to have input into the priority-setting process, but the advice of the Minister or the NRC is not binding on the Scientific Committee and, as such, this clause will prove to be a toothless tiger. The need for this clause does raise the question of how many nominations are currently before the committee. In addition to the 928 listings, do they also have so many nominations that they cannot handle them all? The reasons given for a preliminary determination being made suggest that one reason is "to refer to the criteria prescribed by the regulations". I have already expressed my concern about the extensive use of this phrase in the bill.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Eric Roozendaal) left the chair at 6.31 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [8.15 p.m.]: The Scientific Committee will be required to give notice to the Minister of the proposed final determination and two months in which to respond. That is hardly long enough. The Minister would need to confer and consult with affected parties. Two months would be long enough if no changes were made to the preliminary determination. However, if significant changes are to be made to the preliminary determination, two months is not sufficient as the amended preliminary determination should be published, and submissions called for, as allowed for under the original preliminary determination. If the Minister is unable to respond within two months, the Scientific Committee will make the final determination anyway, so this clause is really another toothless tiger.

If the Minister does refer back to the Scientific Committee, the committee is not bound by the Minister's reference so it can still go ahead and make the final determination, with reasons for the final determination to include that reference again "to the criteria prescribed by the regulations". The inclusion of this clause is irrelevant and is a toothless tiger that will in no way curb the ridiculous power of the Scientific Committee. Item [33], relating to new section 23 (6), and item [34], relating to new section 23 (4), allows for the complete mismanagement of the Scientific Committee and the Minister in that the final determination can still be made. If the committee and the Minister fail to properly discharge their responsibilities, the determination should not proceed.

Item [34] provides that the Minister can only refer a matter back to the Scientific Committee on scientific grounds rather than on social and economic grounds. Item [37] provides for a legal challenge to the validity of the final determination but only within three months of publication in the gazette. This is a problem because there is no legislative time requirement on the public advertisement of the final determination other than to be as soon as practicable. The time is too short for a proper legal challenge to be mounted. In fact, many rural communities may not even be aware of the final determination being made until well after the three months have passed.

Item [39] reinstates in section 25 the need for a two-year review of the lists following the removal by item [22] of this requirement from section 17 of the Act. It allows the NRC and the Minister to give the Scientific Committee advice on the priorities within the lists. It further allows for the NRC and the Minister to give directions to the Scientific Committee to identify potentially threatened species populations and communities but the same option was not granted to either the Minister or the NRC in item [33] with respect to the refusal to make the final determination or to direct the Scientific Committee to remove a species population or community from the lists.

Item [47] removes the requirement to publish in the press a notice outlining the determination by the Scientific Committee to make a minor change to the listing within the schedules. Although this amendment to the Act seems to be somewhat innocuous in the first instance, one must wonder why the architects of the bill want it removed. The information is still to be sent to the director-general and the Minister, published in the gazette and put on the Internet site of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Therefore, it would seem far more logical to also publish the change in statewide and local newspapers. Items [50] to [53] insert the "critically endangered" classification into the heading of part 3, the introductory note to part 3, and sections 37, 38, 40, 41, 43 and 47.

This is confusing and contradictory to clause 17 of the bill as it causes the Act to read "endangered or critically endangered species, populations or ecological community", which on my interpretation means "endangered or critically endangered species, endangered or critically endangered populations, or endangered or critically endangered ecological communities". The contradiction and confusion exist as there is no clause in the bill or section in the Act that allows for or constitutes the classification of "critically endangered populations" as I outlined earlier.

Is this a simple but incompetent oversight by the Minister and his architects of the bill? Were these two clauses of the bill composed by different authors, and did they read each other's work? Does the right hand know what the left hand is up to? I think not! To my mind, all these clauses should read "endangered population, endangered or critically endangered species or ecological community" to remove the confusion and contradiction. The same issue applies to many instances in further clauses of the bill, and they should also be amended to read, "endangered population, endangered or critically endangered species or ecological community".

Items [55] and [58] remove the need for the director-general to prepare recovery plans. Now he may prepare recovery plans, which has a significantly different meaning to "is required to and must". That signifies the failure of the whole Act as there are now so many species listed that the Government has conceded that we will never recover them all and it is simply unable to put the financial resources into the preparation and implementation of recovery plans. As I said in my opening comments, this is an indication that the Act is a spectacular failure in its objective of trying to conserve and protect threatened species.

[Quorum formed.]

Item [57] also relates to this issue; there is now no requirement for the director-general to prepare recovery plans as soon as practicable after the listing. We will end up with an extensive list of species, populations and ecological communities with no hope of recovery and no action from the director-general or the Minister. So much for the performance indicators in the Act! Get a species listed, prepare a recovery plan, save the species, remove it from the list—that is how the Act should work. But it simply will not happen. The list will continue to grow and no species will be saved. This problem outlines the inherent problems with both the bill and the Act. There are too many species being listed and not enough thought and resources going into the recovery mechanisms.

Item [60] removes the requirement for recovery plans to be prepared within a certain time frame after the listing is first inserted into schedule 1 or schedule 2. Again, this is an admission by the Government that the Act is a spectacular failure, and that there are many more additions to the schedules than there is capacity for the Government to fund the recovery plan process. Items [61] and [63] remove the legislative description of how priorities for the preparation of recovery plans and threat abatement plans should be considered and replaces that process with an extraordinarily bureaucratic process called a "priority action statement", which must go through a complicated procedure involving the Scientific Committee, the NRC, the Biological Diversity Advisory Committee, the Social and Economic Advisory Committee, other government agencies and a public consultation phase. And it sets the performance indicators.

The scientific officers within the department should have the skills to make those decisions, and the removal of section 58 allows for that, by taking into account the likelihood of extinction, the likelihood of recovery and whether the species were keystone indicators. That approach makes sense and this is the type of work that professionally trained biologically competent ecologists should be able to do on their ear. The proposed bureaucratic process opens the door for more influence by third parties and will not contribute to the overall efficiency and timeliness of the process of setting priorities. Item [65] of schedule 1 removes section 113A, which provides for exceptions to licensing requirements for routine agricultural activities, and provides that proof of such activities is a defence to a prosecution under the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

Item [7] of schedule 3 replaces section 113A with a more highly bureaucratic regulatory process by inserting a new section 118G into the National Parks and Wildlife Act. This amendment effectively removes the concept of routine agricultural activities being exempt from the licensing requirements of the Threatened Species Conservation Act and makes all agricultural activity open to prosecution, to which the farmer then has to mount his own defence by proving the activity was a routine agricultural management activity. The farmer is guilty until he can prove his innocence. That is a problem The Nationals have repeatedly pointed out with this legislation, and with the native vegetation legislation that was introduced by the Government, that it is a fundamental tenet of our legal system that a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty. If the same farmer were charged with murder, he would be innocent of that crime until the prosecution can prove he is guilty.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is common justice.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: That is common justice, as my colleague points out. If the prosecution cannot prove guilt, the accused goes free. Under this legislation the farmer is guilty until he proves his innocence. Under this Act, if he cannot prove his innocence, he is prosecuted. That is fundamentally wrong and not within the spirit of our legal system.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is the reverse onus of proof.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: It is absolutely the reverse onus of proof. This measure is applicable to freehold agricultural land. A farmer holds the title to this land for the purpose of producing agricultural commodities. The Act should be worded to provide for the prosecution to prove that an activity is not an agricultural activity. Section 118G (2) has been lifted directly from the Native Vegetation Act as the definition of routine agricultural management activities [RAMAs], and while there is some logic to having a consistent definition of such activities across various legislative instruments, the inherent flaws with RAMAs will mean that many legitimate farm activities will not be a defence to prosecution, much less exempt from the need to license the activity.

As an example, let us consider the installation of electric fencing systems, low-cost fencing systems for intensive livestock management programs, where a fence may consist of a single electric wire with steel posts up to 40 metres apart. Many traditionalist graziers would certainly consider such a fence to be a temporary fence and therefore it would not be classified as a routine agricultural management activity. However, graziers who are embracing the developing management practices of holistic management and time-control grazing would consider such a fence to be a permanent fence. Has the Government decided on a definition of permanent fence?

The construction, operation and maintenance of bores is listed as a RAMA, but the same does not apply to wells. One may say that wells are not used today to the same extent as they were some years ago. That may be true, but it is also well known that many wells on properties throughout all parts of New South Wales still provide a valuable source of water for the farm, but they are no longer regarded as a routine agricultural management activity.

Airstrips in the Western Division are listed as a RAMA but not in the rest of the State. Why? I hope somebody on the Government side of the House can explain to me why airstrips in the central and eastern divisions of the State, and the maintenance of those airstrips, are not regarded as routine agricultural management activity but in the Western Division they are. The inconsistency is there. Why? I cannot fathom it. I remember quizzing the Minister about the very same issue when we debated the Native Vegetation Act, and I could not get an answer from the Minister, from the bureaucrats or from anybody. Again I ask why are management and maintenance of an airstrip in the Western Division considered to be routine agricultural management activities but east of Dubbo they are not? Airstrips are just as important in the central and eastern divisions as they are in the Western Division. Why the inconsistency?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Good question.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: It is a very good question. I turn now to the construction, operation and maintenance of soil conservation works, of irrigation canals, of land planing for irrigation and the installation of private on-farm pipelines. They are not considered to be routine agricultural management activities, yet they are all activities that are routinely carried out on farms all over New South Wales on a day-to-day basis. The removal and control of weeds and pests that are classified under the various schedules to the Noxious Weeds Act and the Rural Lands Protection Act are listed as routine agricultural management activities, but the management of weeds and pests of crops and pastures which are not listed is not considered to be a RAMA.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Tony Catanzariti would know, many weeds and pests that farmers have to control on a day-to-day basis are not listed in various legislation. But when we want to control them they are no longer considered as routine agricultural management activities. Why? It is a fact of life that weeds and pests are things farmers have to manage on a day-to-day basis? The way this Act is worded we will not be allowed to continue to do that because it is not listed as a routine agricultural management activity.

Harvesting of planted native vegetation is allowable if the native vegetation was planted for commercial purposes. That is fine, but harvesting should be allowed for any planted native vegetation except for those plantings funded by public funds through Landcare programs and other land rehabilitation programs. If I planted 1,000 trees on my property because I want to plant them, I should have the right to harvest those trees for fencing and shed-building materials, but unless they are listed as being planted for commercial purposes—in other words, if I want to harvest them and sell them—I am not allowed to. I have no problem with plantings through Landcare programs, where public funds have been put into it, but when I want to plant trees for future years on the farm and they are not necessary for any commercial gain, it is a management activity and should be allowed to be harvested as a routine agricultural management activity.

Another section refers to risk management and imminent risk management. I believe the word "imminent" should be removed as only allowing an activity to be classified as a routine agricultural management activity if it provides for an imminent risk. Anybody who knows anything about risk management knows we do not manage risks just because they are imminent. Let us look at what happened in the Domain at the back of Parliament House. Was the risk of a branch falling off a Moreton Bay fig tree an imminent risk? Did they hear it creak and about to fall? Was it a potential risk? Something might happen 10, 15, 30, 50, 100 years down the track.

Mr Ian Cohen: More space to make money.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I think Mr Ian Cohen has got to the nub of the problem. The definition of "imminent" means it will happen in the next few seconds, the next 10 minutes, the next day. It means it will happen shortly. My argument is that if we are going to subscribe to that definition, we are failing the people of New South Wales because risk management is about removing a risk before it becomes an imminent risk.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You would not be able to work against drought or floods.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: That is probably right, but it is even more critical than that. Good risk management is about removing or reducing a risk before it becomes an imminent risk. Obviously, some serious WorkCover and occupational health and safety issues are raised by the term "risk management". As if the restrictions arising out of these amendments are not serious enough, new section 220ZFA (5) (a) says that the regulations may further limit the activities referred to in new section 220ZFA (1) and may also exclude any land that the bureaucrats see fit to exclude. Item [66], which inserts new section 114, exempts the director-general from making a stop work order for a clearing program so long as the clearing is authorised by an approved property vegetation plan. But—and this is the sting in the tail, as often occurs in this legislation—it is conditional on approval being granted while biodiversity certification is in force. It is this conditional approval that is of concern to the rural communities. The approval of the property vegetation plan under the Native Vegetation Act should be the pinnacle of the approval process for farmers attempting to get on with the business of producing agricultural products from their land.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If you get it right once—

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: You get it right once and there is no challenge. New section 114 should be amended to remove that condition relating to biodiversity certification. Item [67], which inserts new part 7, divisions 4 and 5, attempts to bring together the concept of biodiversity certification. Unfortunately, it brings it together in a highly bureaucratic and, I believe, flawed process. I refer to division 4 of the bill. It is logical to roll all the processes from the various pieces of natural resource legislation into one and to have a single approval under the legislation mentioned in this division. However, I am concerned that it will, in effect, embrace regulations under the Native Vegetation Act, standards and targets under the Natural Resources Commission Act and catchment action plans under the Catchment Management Authorities Act. I am concerned that the various guidelines and protocols made under all three Acts will become part of the Threatened Species Conservation Act.

As these regulations, guidelines and protocols are not part of their parent legislation, it would be dangerous to incorporate them as part of this legislation. It is simply incomprehensible that a regulation can be made, for example, under the Native Vegetation Act without proper parliamentary scrutiny. However, that regulation automatically becomes part of the Threatened Species Conservation Act without any scrutiny at all. It does not make sense. If the Government were serious about making the approval process easier for the beleaguered farmers of this State it would have constructed this new division so that approval of a property vegetation plan would exempt the farmer from prosecution under this Act so long as the farmer was not operating outside the provisions of the plan. If the farmer sticks to the plan he can go ahead and do his job. Instead, the new division has been constructed so that a farmer may still be prosecuted while operating within his property vegetation plan. This so-called biodiversity certification is only a defence to a prosecution. The farmer must prove his innocence, rather than the prosecution prove his guilt. Section 27 (1) of the Native Vegetation Act states:

(1) Native vegetation must not be cleared except in accordance with:

(a) a development consent granted in accordance with this Act, or

(b) a property vegetation plan.

This, of course, means that the property vegetation plan was designed as the pinnacle of approval for land clearing and development consent is not required if an approved plan is in place and the plan is being adhered to. In that case the farmer should be protected from prosecution. Further, section 27 (2) of the Native Vegetation Act 2003 states:

In determining whether to approve a draft plan, the Minister is to have regard to any relevant provisions of catchment action plans of catchment management authorities and to the matters required by the regulations.

This section has the capacity, with some minor amendments, to provide the same degree of co-operation between the various pieces of legislation that are attempted in division 4 of the bill, without the ridiculous bureaucratic approach that is embedded within the division. A far better way to deal with this would be to place more emphasis on the property vegetation plan and amend section 27 (2) of the Native Vegetation Act to read:

In determining whether to approve a draft plan, the Minister is to have regard to:

(a) statewide standards and targets for natural resource management issues recommended under the Natural Resources Commission Act 2003,

(b) catchment action plans under the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003, and

(c) protocols and guidelines adopted or made under the regulations under the Natural Resources Commission Act 2003 and the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003.

Section 28 of the Native Vegetation Act would also need to be amended to ensure that all provisions of the Threatened Species Conservation Act are included in the property vegetation plan [PVP]. The mechanism to allow this to occur is to have the Minister for the Environment concur with the threatened species components of the PVP developer software, which is being hailed as the pinnacle of the planning process with respect to natural resource management planning. This concurrence would enable the PVP to be signed off by both Ministers and would then allow the farmer to continue his program unfettered by any further bureaucratic processes so long as he is abiding by the conditions of his PVP. That is all the farmers of New South Wales are asking for. If those amendments were included in the Native Vegetation Act, new division 4 could be deleted from the bill. The Coalition will move a series of amendments at the Committee stage that will provide the Chamber with the opportunity to allow that simplified and more practical process to become a reality for the farmers of New South Wales.

I refer to new division 5. Despite my concerns about new division 4, I am much more comfortable with new division 5 and the application of biodiversity certification in relation to environmental planning instruments. I have some concerns about new division 5, particularly in relation to the conditional certification, the ill-defined period of the certification and the fact that the certification can be revoked after the development is completed. The conditional certification can lead to the Minister not certifying a certain component of the proposed development, which may ultimately lead to the whole project becoming non-viable for the developer. If this conditional certification was to become a reality through the revocation of a specific component after the certification was originally granted, the whole project could become non-viable after it had commenced, with the developer undoubtedly left holding the financial loss.

The period of certification is at the Minister's discretion or 10 years, but it is unclear whether that is designed to cover the period of the development occurring or whether it includes the post-development management of the whole area. If the certification is revoked after the development is completed, what is the status of the area? Is it to be returned to its pre-development status? Can the developer or owners be prosecuted for failing to comply with the Act? New listing further complicates the issue, and the fact that that can occur during post development and that the certification can be revoked indicates that a lack of certainty for developers has been embedded in the legislation. Proposed section 126M provides for a voluntary action required by a condition. That statement is contradictory because an action that is required is not voluntary; in fact, it is tantamount to holding a gun to the developer's head.

The final proposed section in division 5 allows for the accreditation of persons to prepare threatened species assessments and surveys, but it does not expand on the qualifications required. What are the qualifications and experience required? Will those undertaking the work be required to have tertiary qualifications in the biological sciences? That is not spelt out. The bill does not contain a division 6, but the Opposition will move to include one to provide for biodiversity certification of catchment action plans. The amendment will add considerable weight to the removal of division 4 and place those provisions under the auspices of the property plans within the Native Vegetation Act. I look forward to moving that amendment and I trust that the Committee will support it.

Item [70] removes the description, provisions and functions of the Biological Diversity Advisory Council [BDAC]. Item [71] inserts new sections to provide for the new BDAC and the Social and Economic Advisory Council. The changes to the composition of the BDAC are worrying because there is no longer a reference to local government and industry representatives. The Minister has absolute power to appoint council members. Although the Opposition applauds the inclusion of social and economic assessments, the method of determining the membership of both councils leaves much to be desired. The legislation gives the Minister absolute power to stack the councils with single-issue nominees hiding behind a facade of scientific or economic expertise. I would prefer that the councils comprise community members as well as scientific and economic experts. Representatives of the rural sector, local government, the building industry, Aboriginal communities, the mining industry, the forestry industry and the environmental, scientific and economic sectors would give the councils a far more balanced composition, rather than allow the Minister to stack them with his old mates.

Schedule 2 makes consequential amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1994. The nomination and listing provisions of the legislation will be amended to provide greater consistency with the procedures included in the Threatened Species Conservation Act. In particular, the schedules of the Act will be amended by the Fisheries Scientific Committee rather than by the Minister, as is presently the case. Although the Opposition does not oppose the Fisheries Scientific Committee being able to make a listing of new species, populations, ecological community or threatening processes, it does have concerns that the committee's power will go unchecked. Before making a final decision, the committee must give the Minister notice in writing of the proposed determination. The Minister then has two months in which to decide whether to refer the proposed final determination for consideration under new section 220M of the Act.

That is exactly the same issue that I raised in respect of schedule 1. The Opposition believes that two months is insufficient time for the Minister to consult with the affected industry stakeholders and communities. The Opposition is also concerned that the Minister will have only one opportunity to refer a matter back to the committee before having to accept its decision. The power of the Fisheries Scientific Committee appears to be too great. That is the same concern I raised about the Scientific Committee under the Threatened Species Conservation Act. Given recent recommendations and decisions of the Fisheries Scientific Committee, the Opposition has reservations about whether it will take into account the social and economic implications a threatened species listing might have on local communities. For example, in August last year the future of recreational fishing in New South Wales was jeopardised following a committee recommendation to list as a key threatening process hook-and-line fishing in areas important for the survival of threatened species.

That recommendation could have severely restricted the use of fishing rods in New South Wales waters. I know that the Hon. Henry Tsang enjoys fishing and I would hate to think that his fishing activities could be restricted by such a silly recommendation. The Opposition is concerned that the committee will continue to make recommendations that could have a serious impact on all recreational and commercial anglers in the State and on the economic benefits associated with tourism that those anglers contribute to coastal communities. Although the Opposition supports the preservation of threatened species, it also supports the rights of anglers to wet a line. The continuation of our commercial fishing industry and the long-term viability of coastal communities depends on these industries. It is imperative that the Government take into account not only the scientific grounds but also the social and economic grounds when making a threatened species listing. If it does not, our fishing industries in coastal communities will be under threat.

I will refer to schedule 3 only briefly because I have mentioned those provisions previously. The schedule amends the other threatened species legislation, notably, section 118G of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, sections 27 and 28 of the Native Vegetation Act and the Natural Resources Commission Act. The Opposition supports the amendment of the Threatened Species Conservation Act in principle, but it has concerns about the way in which the Government has approached the issue. It is concerned that the New South Wales Farmers Association has provided the Government with a series of recommendations, but they have been severely watered down. I understand that the Government will move those amendments in Committee. The Opposition will also move a series of amendments designed to address the concerns I have expressed. I look forward to debating those amendments during the Committee stage.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [8.58 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. Rick Colless for his contribution. He has touched on many of the Christian Democratic Party's concerns. I thank him particularly for raising the concerns of our farmers. I intended to speak on that matter, but the honourable member has canvassed it so well that there is no need for me to do so. The Threatened Species Legislation Amendment Bill amends the threatened species legislation with a view to making further provision for the conservation of threatened species and to better integrating that legislation with natural resource management and land use planning laws and processes. The better integration of natural resource management and land use planning laws raises a range of issues. The Christian Democratic Party is keen to toughen the laws from the point of view of threatened species and wants to ensure that at the same time landholders, farmers, community groups, government agencies and the like, particularly those who develop land, can more effectively contribute to protecting the State's biodiversity.

The Government has done much and said much. In addition, I make mention of what Mr Ian Cohen has said over the years to ensure that we protect the State's biodiversity. There are many who have to share the land on which we live and work, on which we play, engage in sport, conduct commerce and business and, of course, building and rural developments. Many of the biodiversity issues that we face also concern creatures in the seas and rivers where we swim or fish. The current Act no longer provides the best mechanism to resolve the kinds of disputes in which we can imagine these conflicts. Therefore, we need the Threatened Species Legislation Amendment Bill.

On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I will point out the most salient issues in the bill. However, I do not believe that the bill should be supported in its entirety. Judging from what has been said previously, we will look very closely at the amendments that come from both the Government and the Opposition over the next day or two.

Mr Ian Cohen: We have lots of amendments.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I can imagine. As Mr Ian Cohen said, the Greens will have lots of amendments. I imagine that we will deal with them one at a time over a long period. We are looking at threatened species. Currently, a person is required to submit a threatened species impact statement. I shall give a broad-brush outline of what this bill is trying to achieve. A person is required to submit a threatened species impact statement after he has lodged a development application with his local council involving what might be called a back-end approach. This bill seeks to implement a front-end approach to a threatened species assessment. Thus, the status of threatened species will be factored into the development of local environmental plans [LEPs]. Local environmental plans set up frameworks for the land use structure for a local government area, setting up land use zones and detailed controls on development.

The LEPs establish what types of development may be permitted on a particular parcel of land with or without the consent of the council. On a theoretical basis it may be said that this approach is commendable because when a person wishes to build in an area there is clear information as to the status of threatened species in that area. I have sought advice from a number of organisations involved with threatened species. I discovered that there are at least 800 land-based threatened species and 400 water-based threatened species. Transparency is important if a person is wishing to develop land. Ordinary people—farmers, sportspersons, builders and the like—cannot be expected to know all the threatened species.

If land is appropriately rezoned to reflect the presence of threatened species it is likely to be easier for councils to deal with development applications. However, on a practical level, there are a number of concerns with this approach. Some concerns stem from apparent local resources at the local council level. At present, local councils are generally under-resourced and in many instances may not have the expertise or the willpower to effectively analyse a threatened species situation in an area. In a commentary on the involvement of local government in the implementation of the Threatened Species Conservation Act, which was published recently in the Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy, an ecologist had the following to say on the resource base for local government:

That is a concern that many people would have about unreasonable impediment to development. It is also foreseeable that councils may implement a one-size-fits-all approach, given their lack of resources. It is envisaged that in some cases tailored measures will need to be created and implemented for the specific areas governed by the environmental planning instruments [EPIs]. For example, the broad headed snake, I believe, generally hides under rocks and is difficult to detect at the best of times. It is foreseeable that an assessment for threatened species under an environmental planning instrument may neglect to detect the presence of such a threatened species because of lack of resources, time or expertise. Development may go ahead in such areas, potentially leading to the extinction of such a species. Councils must have the necessary staff to accurately undertake assessment of threatened species in an area.

It is envisaged that new section 126N, providing for the accreditation of persons to prepare threatened species assessment and surveys, will set up a pool of prospective experts to undertake and prepare surveys and assessment for use in connection with biodiversity certification of EPIs. Again, funding for local councils to access these experts demands attention. In the aforementioned journal, on page 147, the author states:

The author has mentioned some worthy points relevant to us. The Local Government Act has a number of purposes, including "to require councils, councillors and council employees to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development in carrying out their responsibilities". However, I believe that for the sake of clarity and emphasis, as suggested by this author, councils and council employees ought to be made aware that environmental responsibilities are part of their core business. Otherwise, if greater responsibility is placed on local councils in the identification and assessment of threatened species in their areas, legislation governing local councils ought to provide for a mandatory requirement that knowledgeable and experienced staff be appointed to oversee or be involved in the threatened species assessment process.

I note that the Government has pledged $700,000 to councils on the North Coast to assist with biodiversity certification. Minister Debus, the Minister for the Environment, and Minister Knowles, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources, are working out funding for other areas across the State. It is not enough for them to be just working on this funding; we ought to know what it is. Though $700,000 seems a worthy amount for the North Coast councils, it may not be enough. Even if the amount is enough for supporting the certification process, is there any guarantee that the money will be used for the suggested purpose and utilised effectively? In addition, what sorts of educational programs will be spearheaded in this area to address the heightened responsibility placed on local councils regarding assessments of threatened species? These questions ought to be answered before this bill is brought before the House in its final state. I believe that many of these issues need to be dealt with in the next stage of this bill.

The Minister may give biodiversity certification to an environmental planning instrument. An EPI includes a State Government environmental planning policy, a regional environment plan or a local environmental plan. The effect of biodiversity certification is to provide that any development or activity for which the development consent is required under the provision of a biodiversity certified EPI is, for the purposes of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, taken to be a development or activity that is not likely to be significantly affecting any threatened species population or ecological community or its habitat.

Thus, the Minister's certification is of great consequence, both to developers and, more important, to threatened species. The bill does not require the Minister to confer with any committee knowledgeable in scientific matters. Although the bill requires the Minister to consider a number of factors with respect to certification, that consideration is subjective. The bill does not delineate any objective test for biodiversity certification. Given that fact, and because of the immense power afforded the Minister in this context, I hesitate to commend this aspect of the bill. Quite often Government members do not have expertise in the portfolios they have been appointed to administer as Ministers.

Moreover, given the discretion of biodiversity certification and the fact that the exercise of discretion may not lead to the certification of an EPI, two systems will be at play in New South Wales—EPIs certified by the Minister and those not certified by the Minister. The latter category may not fulfil the Minister's certification standards, or financial or political reasons may exist for exercising existing controls for threatened species legislation. Under the current modus operandi farmers wishing to clear native vegetation from their property must abide by two approval systems. This is a vexed issue for many people on the land, who, for various other reasons, are doing it tough. First, approval is required under the Native Vegetation Act, and we have heard much about that in recent years. Second, if the clearing of native vegetation has the potential to affect threatened species, a licence is required under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The bill seeks to eliminate the two systems and amalgamate them into one process.

Under the bill farmers seeking to clear native vegetation that does not pose any harm to threatened species authorised by a property vegetation plan will not need a licence for this purpose under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Instead, there will be a native vegetation reform package, which may be certified by the Minister. This package will comprise the Native Vegetation Act 2003; statewide standards and targets for natural resource management issues recommended under the Natural Resources Commission Act 2003, catchment action plans under the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003, and protocols and guidelines adopted or made according to the regulations under the abovementioned legislation.

Once certification has occurred through this jungle of various Acts, clearing of native vegetation authorised by a property vegetation plan that has been approved by the local catchment authority will not need to be separately licensed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act in cases where threatened species may be affected. If honourable members think that is a tangled approach, they are right. How can farmers be expected to comply with the requirements for clearing vegetation? The local catchment management authority will become responsible for the day-to-day administration of threatened species laws as they apply to farmers. All land within the operation of a catchment authority will have the benefit of the Minister's biodiversity certification. Thus, if native vegetation is cleared in an area that has the benefit of biodiversity certification, the fact that the land has such a benefit is a defence to a prosecution under the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

The bill provides that the Biological Diversity Advisory Council, which is responsible to the State's biodiversity protection strategy, will comprise members with expertise in biological diversity, biological science and/or environmental science. There is insufficient grassroots input, as it were, from ordinary persons, particularly stakeholders, who might be landholders, farmers or people interested in development of areas. At the same time the bill establishes the Social and Economic Advisory Council, which will assess the likely social and economic impacts of actions to be taken under the Act following the listing of threatened species, populations, ecological communities or key threatening processes. Again, the membership of this council will comprise only experts. Stakeholders should be included in the membership of both councils because they, too, are often expert in the management of their own land. Although I accept the necessity for scientific information, the representative views of those affected by the decisions made by the councils should play an integral part in the process. Therefore, the Government should broaden the composition of council membership.

[Interruption]

I note the interjection of the Hon. Rick Colless that those who work with the land know and understand the land and that as real stakeholders they are able to provide advisory councils with important information. The bill extends from six months to two years the time in which the Scientific Committee must make a determination on the status of a nominated species. It is human nature that if the time frame of a goal is extended, the person charged with achieving the goal will accomplish it within the extended time frame. Extending the time for such a determination to two years may delay the listing of a threatened species, and that may result in the extinction of a species.

The bill omits the requirement that the Scientific Committee must, as soon as practicable, publish notice of the determination in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the State or other relevant newspapers. I fail to see why people affected by the determination, such as farmers, should not be informed of the nature of the determination. The bill also compromises the independence of the Scientific Committee.

Currently, the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife is required to prepare a recovery plan within three years for endangered species and within five years for vulnerable species listed in the schedules to the Act. The bill abolishes the mandatory preparation of recovery plans by stating that the director-general "may prepare" recovery plans. Thus, recovery planning for threatened species is no longer mandatory and there is no process in place to ensure that all listed species, populations and communities are saved from extinction. The Christian Democratic Party believes that the wording "may prepare recovery programs" is not strong enough; it should be mandatory in order to avoid the extinction of species. Moreover, the bill no longer requires the director-general to establish priorities for recovery plans in consultation with the Scientific Committee. Such priorities will now be determined in accordance with those for recovery established by the relevant priorities action statement. It seems that such a statement would have an overarching application. It could be envisaged that certain species may require a more tailored recovery plan and that certain scientific information may be necessary to tailor a recovery plan suitable for such species.

Currently, the director-general may prepare threat abatement plans for key threatening processes, but these plans must be prepared within specific time limits. The bill eliminates those time limits. The director-general therefore has complete discretion as to whether he or she wants to prepare a threat abatement plan. The preparation of threat abatement plans is integral to the preservation of threatened species. The bill provides that species, populations and ecological communities are to be prescribed by the regulations. In addition, the regulations may prescribe criteria for the determination of matters relating to key threatening processes. A key threatening process is a process that adversely affects threatened species, populations or ecological communities or could cause species, populations or ecological communities that are not threatened to become threatened.

When a matter is dealt with by way of regulation rather than by amendment to an Act, more often than not the content of the regulation will go unchecked and the substance of the regulation unnoticed. It is imperative that the definition of matters relating to "key threatening processes" is dealt with by way of amendments to the Act to heighten accountability and transparency. The Government should look at changing the definition in the amendments it proposes to move in Committee. The Legislation Review Committee, in paragraph 70 of its response to the bill, pointed out:

The Government must listen to the Legislation Review Committee as it points out the defect in this particular bill. The bill introduces amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act to provide that a person is not to be convicted of an offence for harming protected fauna other than threatened species, endangered populations or endangered ecological communities if the person proves that a defence applies to the activity. Such activity includes routine agricultural management activities, but only to the extent that the activity is reasonably necessary for the purposes of the agricultural activities carried out on the land concerned. One can imagine the many exemptions that could be brought up under this provision.

Finally, the bill provides that the director-general may appoint any person to be an authorised officer. Authorised officers are responsible for determining such things as whether there has been compliance with or contravention of the national parks legislation. As pointed out by the Legislation Review Committee, there is a void in the definition of the qualifications requisite to the position of authorised officer, and they ought to be addressed by the Government, especially having regard to the functions and powers given to these officers. In general, the Christian Democratic Party supports this bill, but we believe it has come to the House in a very hurried manner. Many issues must be sorted out, and I am sure that other speakers will indicate some of the issues they believe the House must deal with.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [9.22 p.m.]: This is an extremely difficult bill for me to vote on. Let me say at the outset that I am now and always have been a conservationist. However, rather than believe in pantheistic ideology, I see the role of humans as one of engagement and as caretakers and managers, rather than one of abject subservience. Indeed, like many other scientists, I am convinced that should we fail to actively manage the threats to our environment we will lose many of our endangered species. It is common knowledge that many of our species continue towards extinction. This is despite the National Parks and Wildlife Service owning and managing nearly half the coastline. What is it that the National Parks and Wildlife Service does not understand? Its management practices are simply not working. It continues to espouse habitat loss as the single threat. On the coastline, this is obviously a demonstrable falsehood.

Anyone who has walked through the bush after an intense crowning bushfire will tell you that the single greatest threat to both our native wildlife and native flora is fire. It simply kills everything in its path. The second greatest threat to native animals are the carnivorous feral animals that infest our bushland areas. Based on both science and on simple anecdotal evidence, we know that even minimal baiting and trapping programs have a dramatic effect on the number of native animals present. Just recently I witnessed the extremes of both sides of the argument.

In the first example I saw the abject greed of developers, although they do not see their want as greed. In this instance they want to develop a small piece of beachfront land into a tavern, 40 units and associated shops. When a town meeting was called almost the whole adult population turned out to oppose the development, and I hold in my office 700 signatures requesting a stop to the development. This would be far and away the overwhelming majority of the population of the local area. Yet the council and the developers continue regardless and oblivious to the desires of the community. It is not that they are evil; rather, they are just driven by a blind ideology that development is good and profitable for the community, and overrides the community desire to keep the last bit of beachfront open space as exactly that—open beachfront space.

Ironically, at almost the same time I was faced with the other extreme. As many honourable members will have seen on the news, we have had some serious fires on the North Coast recently. In fact, I, along with many others in our street, came as close to losing my home as is possible. For years I have harangued the local National Parks and Wildlife Service and the council to carry out proper fuel reduction burning and fire trail maintenance. But just as the blind, unreasoning developer ideologue wishes to destroy the last bit of open space, the blind unreasoning pantheistic ideologues ignore all commonsense and basic science. Apart from the danger to life and property caused by the mismanagement of the national park estate, there is the toll on our native wildlife. Instead of carrying out low-intensity mosaic fuel load reductions in winter, the local nature reserve was allowed to build up very high fuel loads. This habitat is one of the northern most reaches for several endangered species in New South Wales.

Like many conservationists, after a fire we picked up a few pillow slips and a pair of gloves and wandered around the bush looking for injured animals. Unfortunately, those that we found were dead: quolls, possums, swamp wallabies, koalas and a few goannas. Instead of being protected, they were left to fend for themselves on their own devices. Now, certainly, a large proportion of them are dead and the genetic biodiversity is lost forever. Thankfully, not all the reserve was burnt and some of the habitat is left. Let us hope that some of the land-based animals managed to outrun the fire and find respite because most of the arboreal animals did not. So in this bill we have this clash of ideologies: unbridled development on one hand and blind unreasoning pantheism on the other. Before I go much further I shall separate the farming and agricultural side of the debate. I am reasonably satisfied that under the property vegetation plan arrangements and the catchment management authority legislation people will still have to satisfy a thorough set of environmentally sensitive standards. However, they will only have to do this once under the new legislation, rather than twice under the legislation as it currently stands.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's not right. You've been conned.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: I particularly like the offset trading scheme, which will encourage the agricultural sector to create and maintain the essential wildlife corridors between the existing islands of bushland, whether it be private or national park. I shall now turn to the other part of the legislation, which relates to developer-based activities. Under the current system, as each development application is received it must be accompanied by the relevant threatened species assessment and abatement studies. In effect, what this legislation tends to do is to make threatened species in the habitat the first consideration in all development applications.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You're reading the briefing note, not the legislation.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: I acknowledge what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is saying but I am now speaking about development applications, not agricultural activities. The existing legislation will still remain and will always be a fallback position for both the local council and the developer. However, this legislation intends to entice councils into a much broader ranging and in-depth assessment of their whole environment and threatened species contained therein. So rather than have a hodgepodge of development applications and associated threatened species plans, this legislation will try to integrate region-wide threatened species and abatement plans. So the question I must decide is: Does this legislation strike a balance that protects the environment from the greed of developers on one hand and the blind unreasoning ideology of extreme ego fundamentalism on the other?

I will be listening for pragmatic science-based solutions wherever possible and for a negotiated compromise when that is impossible. I will be listening intently to the Minister's speech in reply with regard to the Scientific Committee's power and how it will interact with the Minister. I would find it hard to support this legislation if the Minister could override the Scientific Committee with no recourse. I will be particularly interested to hear about any offset trading scheme that encourages developers and the community to engage in projects that enhance the environment. I acknowledge what some have said about local community input—again, I emphasise this to the Minister—into the Scientific Committee. Even the doyen of environmental conservation, Dr David Suzuki, said that if we want to understand the local environment we must talk to the people who live in it and take their advice. I will be listening in particular to debate regarding the farming community. I will be listening intently to debate as I decide whether to support this legislation.

Mr IAN COHEN [9.29 p.m.]: Madam Acting President—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: One is only Madam Acting President if the President is overseas.

Mr IAN COHEN: I thank the honourable member for clarifying the situation. I certainly do not mean to be insulting to the Deputy-President.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are forgiven. Buy her a coffee to make amends.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: No, a glass of wine.

Mr IAN COHEN: It seems we are getting to the comedy part of the night: when the Greens get up to speak!

[Interruption.]

I am pleased that I bring a certain light-heartedness to the debate after such erudite speakers. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes shed significant light on the issue. I only hope that he practices what he preaches.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: I do not hunt, I do not shoot and I do not fish.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Hon. Rick Colless made an excellent contribution.

Mr IAN COHEN: I am talking about practising and preaching. I feel as if I am a round peg in a square hole trying to make points when minds are made up on such issues. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to what I would regard as a very constructive dissertation by the Hon. Rick Colless. He obviously has a good knowledge of the issues and is an able representative of his constituency, the farming community. I acknowledge his considerable scientific expertise, which he gained in his previous profession as a soil agronomist. His contribution was worth listening to. I am pleased the Minister is now in the Chamber; he was not present earlier. Once again we have this sort of legislation being introduced at the end of the year, or somewhat late in the year. It is almost a tradition in the House. It is almost like the running of the bulls. Every year the Government puts forward environmental legislation late in the year.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: October is not late.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We are still in October.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It is better than last year.

Mr IAN COHEN: Yes, it is better than last year. It depends on when the Government decides to pull up stumps and adjourn for the Christmas holidays. It depends when the Government decides to finish. The legislation has come before the House late and my office is still communicating with the Government, and vice versa, about amendments at the last moment, so one gets the feeling of a rush job yet again. The lack of substance is made up for by the rush at the end of the year—once again. I am now in my tenth year as a member of this Parliament. I remember the threatened species legislation of 1995. I seem to recall that it went through with a number of other pieces of environmental legislation. At the time the Greens and the Government shared a sense of optimism, working in concert to create a better environment and to protect threatened and endangered species.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: There were no Greens here in 1995.

Mr IAN COHEN: I was here in 1995. I remember the first threatened species legislation that was introduced by the first Carr Government in 1995, or it might have been 1996. Regardless, it is obvious that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not have the same feeling of intense joy that is felt by the Greens with the passing of the threatened species legislation. I can understand, therefore, why the legislation has passed out of the collective memory of members of The Nationals. Nevertheless, I regarded it as significant legislation, and this bill shows that in 10 years the policies of this Labor Government in this regard have radically turned around.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are still giving Labor your preferences.

Mr IAN COHEN: In response to the interjection of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition relating to preferences I have to say that The Nationals give us very little choice. Given that the most eloquent outburst in this House from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition each day is "God save the Queen", it is obvious that we have a long way to go before we can agree on many issues.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: She is not a threatened species.

Mr IAN COHEN: I do not know whether I agree with that. It is refreshing to be able to engage in some light-hearted banter. Despite all the rhetoric, despite the suggestion that the Carr Labor Government is some sort of green Labor Government with a green Premier—and some members have touched on the bill's anomalies and shortcomings—I want to call the bill for what it is: a massive and direct assault on threatened species protection in New South Wales. It will place the entire protection of threatened species throughout urban and rural New South Wales at the discretion of a single politician. It will exempt developments from the most basic threatened species surveys. It will remove the right of the community to take legal action to protect threatened species. It will politicise the threatened species listing process and undermine the recovery planning process. It will implement an effective social and economic veto of threatened species conservation.

The bill will give plenty of joy to all those who have been destroying threatened species. It will remove what little protection the Threatened Species Conservation Act provided so that vested interests can get on with their job of sending threatened species to extinction. Attempts by this Government to dress up the bill as a win for conservation are disgraceful. Even The Nationals, if they were introducing a bill with such a blatant anti-conservation agenda, would have the honesty to admit that was its purpose. But not this Government. It thinks it can introduce a bill that facilitates the widespread destruction of threatened species habitat and sell it as a win for conservation. Well, the buck stops here. This bill is a sham, an outrage and a great danger for conservation in this State. The real motivation for the bill was made abundantly clear in the draft discussion paper released by the Government on this issue. It states, "The aim of these reforms is to deliver programs and requirements that seem reasonable to farmers, developers and the community." What a noble and lofty aim and what an inspired vision for the future of threatened species, the environment and the very life systems we rely on for survival. It continues, " … to deliver programs … that seem reasonable to farmers [and] developers"—

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: And the community.

Mr IAN COHEN: I am quoting from the Carr Government's own material. In delivering outcomes for farmers and developers, the New South Wales Government has disfranchised the community and completely ignored the urgent scientific imperative for stronger environmental protection. This bill is a body blow for threatened species conservation in New South Wales. Long may we rue the day it was introduced in this House. The Minister's second reading speech is the usual tired old spin. It is a vacuous procession of anecdotes, half-truths and lies. Since the New South Wales Government no longer even bothers to consider the facts, I will take the liberty of introducing them into this debate. First, the Minister implies that the current Threatened Species Conservation Act has failed because it has been conducted orchid by orchid, and golden bell frog by golden bell frog. However, it is largely the implementation of the Act by this Government—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Blackbutt by blackbutt.

Mr IAN COHEN: Yes, I would agree, blackbutt by blackbutt. We have been asking for adequate protection in the Brigalow area for years. Whether it be a drought or an election, there is always a reason why the Carr Government cannot move on such an important threatened area, which demands immediate and adequate conservation.
I know that the Hon. Rick Colless agrees with me. He may have a different interpretation of what conservation should be, but the fact is the Government has not moved. It puts it to the end of the line because it is out there out west and does not really matter. That leaves the agricultural and timber communities in a state of insecurity. As well, the Government has not followed through with the conservation strategies it promised a long time ago.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why do you give them your preferences?

Mr IAN COHEN: As I have said a number of times, the party the Deputy Leader of the Opposition represents has a long way to go.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Read that book.

Mr IAN COHEN: I need to do more than just read a book. We need a comparative balance. There is a growing tendency by the Greens New South Wales to look very seriously at the exhaustion option at the next election. It is largely the implementation of the Threatened Species Conservation Act by the Government, rather than the Act itself, that has resulted in this outcome. The Government has failed to apply the key provision for identification of critical habitat under the Act. Will the Hon. Rick Colless and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition do a mini-leapfrog—hardly an endangered amphibian—over this Government, which has betrayed us so many times on conservation issues? Just a tiny hop and they might find some degree of accord with the Greens New South Wales. No, they still say, "God Save the Queen" and give environmental awareness the boot.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! There is too much interjection.

Mr IAN COHEN: Only two areas of critical habitat have ever been identified under the Threatened Species Conservation Act over the last nine years. What an absolute joke! Furthermore, the Government has failed miserably on recovery and threat abatement planning with only a small subset of threatened species having completed recovery plans. As the level of threatened species has been raised, I refer to a chart provided by the New South Wales Scientific Committee. I will move away from the rhetoric, of which I am guilty sometimes, and refer to the chart. It is reasonable to say that Australia has the highest rate of mammalian species extinction in the world—993—with 19 aquatic species and 202 species listed as endangered in the last four years. We have lost 26 mammal species, 12 bird species and 37 plant, reptile and invertebrate species in the last 100 years. According to the list, there are 11 endangered amphibians species and 14 vulnerable amphibian species. Also on the endangered species list are reptiles 17, birds 29, mammals 16, marine mammals 2, invertebrates 14, plants 333 and fungi 5—a total of 427 endangered species, according to the New South Wales Scientific Committee.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Their science is not always right.

Mr IAN COHEN: How much could it be out? How wrong is it? Are we talking about a total of 427 endangered species, maybe only 350, or perhaps 550? The fact is that the New South Wales Scientific Committee is prepared to list that 427 endangered species, 395 vulnerable species, 77 species presumed extinct and 29 endangered populations. We are talking about an extremely high level of species extinction in New South Wales.

The Hon. Rick Colless: If the science is right.

Mr IAN COHEN: If the science is wrong we may be a little off course. On what basis does the Hon. Rick Colless make his presumption? I have no objection to the claim by the Hon. Rick Colless that we should get the science right. But I am saying they are the figures published by the New South Wales Scientific Committee. I will be interested to see whether the Hon. Rick Colless provides information that diverges radically from those figures. Australia is an advanced western nation supposedly with adequate environmental protection procedures in place, yet we are still dealing with the highest rate of endangered mammalian species in the world. That is an indictment of this Government and all governments acting within the Australian constituency at present.

The Minister declares that the debate has been reduced to a black and white decision: either the shopping centre or the orchid. The facts suggest that the shopping centre rather than the orchid has been the winner. The North Coast Environmental Council recently conducted a review of the administration by the Department of the Environment and Conservation of the Threatened Species Conservation Act on the North Coast. The results showed that of the 185 applications to "harm or pick" threatened species submitted since 1996 only one was refused. When one takes into account the length of time the threatened species legislation has been in force in New South Wales, one realises that is a poor record.

The review concluded that across a whole range of provisions the administration by the Department of the Environment and Conservation of the Threatened Species Conservation Act was weak, inadequate and detrimental to threatened species conservation. In short, the operation of the Threatened Species Conservation Act over the last nine years has been sabotaged and derailed by the New South Wales Government. The Act has failed because the Government wanted it to fail. However, neither the big vested interests nor their ardent advocates in the New South Wales Government were taking any chances. They would not be content until the Threatened Species Conservation Act was made completely and wholly subservient to their political will. No pesky threatened species surveys and assessments and no interference from the dreaded community, hence the introduction of this bill.

This bill does nothing to address the weaknesses of the current Threatened Species Conservation Act in regard to protecting threatened species. It just makes it weaker. If the Government spin were even remotely valid it would have improved the best aspects of the current Act and implemented strong new measures to address the weaknesses of that Act. Instead, it has undermined or negated the best aspects of the current Act and introduced new measures that completely subjugate threatened species conservation to a political whim. The bill is nothing short of an elaborate fraud on a grand scale. It is like John Howard speaking on Tasmanian forests. It matches precisely with the true nature of this Government's other much-vaunted environment reforms. For example, the Minister blithely declares in his second reading speech that "we have ended broadscale land clearing". Unfortunately for him the facts, again, prove otherwise. The truth is that the New South Wales Government is known to have already issued permits to clear tens of thousands of hectares this year alone.

The Hunter Economic Zone [HZE] is another case in point. The Minister promotes it as the model on which the new biodiversity certification system will be based—a model that will deliver a win-win for conservationists and development. However, a closer inspection reveals yet another hoax. The Minister lauded the Hunter Economic Zone as an illustration of how well the new system of bio-certification of environmental planning and instruments will work. The Minister's use of this example is inappropriate. We may well be looking at an example of a Minister having shot himself in the foot. The 3,200 hectare HEZ site in the Cessnock area of the Hunter Valley is the perfect example of a biological hotspot that the amendments should be protecting. Instead, we can see how the Carr Labor Government is determined to allow development to proceed on this site, despite the Government's own departmental advice suggesting one-third of the 28 threatened species present on the site will be worse off under the rezoning.

After using this example of how the new threatened species conservation amendments will work, we can now call the Premier, who so likes to be called the green Premier, the brown Premier. It is a frightening example of how the Government will allow developers to have their way at the expense of the environment. What hope does our remaining precious bush land have when our now brown Premier is opening the door to a world in which extinction of 33 per cent of our threatened species has just become a lot closer? We can rightfully call them the new Ministers of Extinction. What possessed the Minister to use the example of Hunter Economic Zone [HEZ] and show how blatantly this legislation will destroy threatened species and send them closer to extinction?

During his second reading speech in the lower House the Minister had the audacity to simply repeat the developers' marketing rhetoric that 70 per cent of the HEZ has been set aside for conservation. That is supposed to be an example of an environmental trade-off—a trade-off that would allow development to proceed in certified areas without threatened species surveys. The reality is that most of the so-called trade-off land is either an existing national park or is land that can be sold for private rural properties. There can be no guarantee that land sold for private rural properties can provide long-term protection for species that are close to extinction. The reality is that there is no trade-off that comes anywhere near compensating for the massive impact this industrial estate will have on threatened species. The only place in the Hunter Valley that has more threatened species than the unique HEZ site is the Barrington Tops Wilderness area, yet the Minster still wants to allow open-slather industrial development with few checks and balances.

Of the 28 threatened species acknowledged by the Government as occurring in the industrial area of the HEZ site, nine are reported by the Department of Environment and Conservation as being worse off under the HEZ site rezoning. The species worse off under the HEZ rezoning for which our Premier and environment Minister are planning to remove any further protection are: the swift parrot; acacia bynoeana, a wattle, rutidosis heterogama, a herb; Callistemon linearifolius; Grevillea parviflora; the green-thighed frog; the brown tree creeper; the black-chinned honeyeater; and the now famous grey crowned babbler that we likened to the Treasurer in an earlier debate. Several are endangered on an Australia-wide scale. In addition to the koala and the yellow bellied glider, this site contains the incredibly endangered regent honeyeater, a bird that experts believe is literally on the edge of extinction. The bird has been observed in the exact area in which Bob Carr says no more threatened species surveys are necessary. What about the nationally endangered swift parrot? The multi-State recovery team charged with trying to prevent the remaining 2,000 birds from becoming extinct has said that the HEZ site is the most important spotted gum site in Australia for this species. They protect the wetter areas but not the drier swift parrot habitat.

What about woodland birds such as the brown tree creeper and black-chinned honeyeater, which have disappeared from almost all areas east of the Dividing Range because of their sensitivity to clearing and disturbance? These birds are found in a last stronghold in the woodlands of the HEZ in the Hunter Valley. However, according to the Government they are worth nothing because, despite his own department's concerns, our Minister for the Environment is willing to allow the clearing and development of their last habitat east of the Dividing Range with no further threatened species surveys or protection.

What about the green-thighed frog? The only known sighting of this threatened species in the Hunter Valley is at the HEZ industrial site. Bob Carr and Bob Debus are about to remove the little protection it has left. What about the two species of eucalypts that are so new that they have not been named? They may well turn out to be extremely rare and found in no other location in Australia. However, the Government is proposing that these totally new species will have no further protection in the huge 900 hectares of industrial land no matter how rare or threatened they might be. Why is the Minister proposing to release such important and critical areas for development without ongoing threatened species surveys? Are we entitled to ask whether the Minister is exercising very poor judgment? If in the future a Minister is incompetent or exercises poor judgment in regard to areas that are to be set aside for development without any protection for threatened species—as the Minister has indicated will happen with HEZ—there will be nothing the community can do about it. These amendments do not allow any third party appeal against the Minister's decision. New South Wales can expect to find one-third of its threatened species slipping closer to extinction and the Premier and his environment Minister will be remembered as the new Ministers of Extinction.

Any developer, planning consultant or community concerned about the environment knows that each subsequent eight-part test or species impact statement [SIS] paid for by the developer adds to the cumulative body of knowledge collected over time for a local area and provides a credible platform of data on which development and conservation decisions can be made. These new amendments shamefully destroy that system of accumulated knowledge and replace it with the most brief and tokenistic of surveys that have no set period of review. To add insult to injury, local councils will pay for these surveys not, as is the case now, the developers. Releasing developers from the responsibility of funding environmental studies adds a layer of corporate welfare to this sorry tale of environmental betrayal.

The Government has stopped governing for the whole community and has succumbed to the campaigns of industry and development. The rationale and yardstick of developers is profit and a return to their shareholders. However, the rationale of this Government must be broader than the profit motive. Of course developers will complain when threatened species restrict their activities and any Government would expect no less. However, this Government should not sacrifice the health of the environment and the community for the profit motive. Decisions about which species need protection and which do not should be made on a scientific basis, not on the basis of profit, which is precisely what this proposed Social and Economic Advisory Council will do. It is clear from the Minister's second reading speech that this legislation is designed to enable development to proceed almost unhindered. In return the Government will ostensibly protect areas that are not wanted or even available for development in the first place.

I will now deal with the specifics of this bill. The fundamental provision of the legislation is the replacement of site-specific threatened species assessments with a biodiversity certification process. In rural areas that biodiversity certification will apply to the native vegetation reform package and in urban areas to environmental planning instruments. Biodiversity certification is nothing less than a very broad discretion vested in the Minister for the Environment to approve the destruction of threatened species and their habitat over large areas.

Currently for each site on which clearing or development is proposed there is an objective test of environmental impact. It must be determined whether the clearing will significantly affect threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats. The legislation replaces that subjective test on a site-by-site basis with a broad subjective discretion across large areas of land. In relation to the native vegetation reform package, there are no criteria that the Minister must consider in granting certification. It is a completely unfettered discretion to approve the destruction of threatened species and their habitats. Furthermore, that approval will apply to the entire State outside urban areas and will extend indefinitely. There is no end to the approval and no systemic review of the impact on threatened species.

In relation to environmental planning instruments there is a small set of inadequate, subjective criteria to which the Minister must have regard when using his or her discretion to approve the destruction of threatened species and their habitats. The Minister must be satisfied that an environmental planning instrument seeks to promote the conservation of threatened species. That could mean anything the Minister choses it to mean; it is pure discretion. Then there is a series of factors the Minister is to consider. There is no requirement to protect threatened species habitat, no minimum levels of information, and no real recovery of threatened species or genuine threat abatement. The approval may apply to an area as large as an entire local government region. The period of the approval is at the Minister's discretion and there is no systematic review process. Therefore, biodiversity certification enables the destruction of threatened species to be approved indefinitely at the whim of a Minister across the length and breadth of regional New South Wales.

In urban areas the whim of the Minister will determine the fate of entire local government areas for as long as the Minister sees fit. It is an extravagantly and outrageously wide power that is clearly designed to promote and facilitate the destruction of threatened species. If biodiversity certification were genuinely intended to be used for environmental good, then it would be subject to a rigorous and objective test of environmental impact. It would be constrained to a meaningful time period and would be subject to a systematic review of its impacts on an annual or biannual basis.

Regarding site-specific surveys and landscape planning, one of the Government's stated reasons for introducing biodiversity certification is to change the emphasis from individual species conservation to landscape conservation. The Government claims to have implemented this by replacing site-specific assessments of environmental impact with strategic planning in the form of biodiversity certification. Once biodiversity certification has been granted to an area, any proposed clearing or development in that area will no longer be subject to site-specific assessments or the requirement to conduct a test of significance or develop a species impact statement. There will be no requirement to conduct even the most basic threatened species survey.

Therefore, this bill effectively seeks to trade off some of the core provisions of the current Threatened Species Conservation Act with regard to site-specific assessments and surveys in return for new provisions on so-called strategic planning. However, no amount of strategic planning or regional survey can obviate the need for site-specific fauna and flora and surveys. Site-specific assessment is essential because of the cryptic nature of many threatened species, the paucity of existing biological data in even the most apparently well-surveyed areas and the very large areas of education that are at issue.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Ian Cohen.

REGISTERED CLUBS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

CHILD PROTECTION OFFENDERS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.01 p.m.]: I move:

CLOTHING OUTWORKERS

The Hon. IAN WEST [10.01 p.m.]: Tonight I would like to address a myth that keeps being dredged up by the would-be economists: productivity. It is a favourite of Conservatives when talking about reasons why trade unions should be attacked in the name of unfettered employer prerogative. The reality is that productivity is a simplistic and flawed measure. When applied to the work force, or labour, productivity simply means the output per unit of labour. However, given the continual and ongoing changes in the nature of work through such things as technology and work hours through flexible or unchecked work arrangements, even more flawed is the attempt to measure national or global productivity. As a measure it becomes meaningless; in some cases, inhuman. Furthermore, work pressures expect employees to perform more work per hour, which has little effect on productivity measures.

One area that makes a joke of productivity is clothing trade outworkers. They are probably the most productive workers in Australia; they are also probably the most exploited. Outworkers are clearly not paid a fair return for their productivity outputs. The following case studies give some indication. The Nguyen family has four children aged three to 18 years of age, who all help with the production of clothes at home. They average 35 hours a week of work between them, assisting their parents who average 98 hours a week each. The family estimates its total weekly income to be between $500 and $700 per week. The Nguyens feel they cannot say anything about their conditions as they have no documentation and are told they will get into trouble if they tell anyone.

A second case is the case of May, a recent migrant and Australian citizen, who works in a sweatshop from 6.30 a.m. until 11.00 p.m. six or seven days a week. She is paid at $7 per hour—not a piecework rate—from which she has to pay her own tax. She does not get any leave or overtime. May's story is only too familiar to the estimated 100,000 clothing outworkers in New South Wales. The award rate is $13.40 per hour, but most are paid as low as $2 per hour, the average being $5 per hour, from which they have to pay tax, pay for their sewing equipment and the costs of picking up and delivering orders, in addition to the health costs associated with prolonged working conditions, repetitive strain injury, failing eyesight and respiratory conditions. An estimated 73 per cent of outworkers have one or more chronic injuries.

This disgraceful situation continues despite some spirited efforts over the years from trade unions, activist bodies, governments and responsible employers in the industry. In fact, the situation is set to get worse as the national tariff in the clothing industry is set to drop from 25 per cent to 17.5 per cent in January 2005. That means wages and conditions will be forced down in an attempt to compete with even cheaper imports, as has been the case since tariff cuts first started to kill off the clothing manufacturing industry in Australia. This is an industry based largely on illegal exploitation of the most powerless, and effective legislative coverage has been difficult to achieve. Codes of practice for the industry are helpful but implementing and policing them is a real challenge.

In New South Wales migrant mothers work more than 15 hours a day seven days a week as clothing outworkers to feed and clothe their children—many of whom help with the work in what is, effectively, child labour—all for slave wages. Thanks to Barry Tubner and Igor Nossar of the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union—two champions of this issue for many years—the plight of outworkers has been publicised. They have worked well over the years with Fairwear, Asian Women at Work, APHEDA, the New South Wales Labor Council, the Government Initiative and Behind the Label, amongst many others.

It is pleasing to see that the Hon. Reba Meagher, MP, Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce, has announced the consideration period for the mandatory code of practice outlined in the New South Wales Industrial Relations (Ethical Clothing Trades) Act. This will be known as the Ethical Clothing Trades Extended Responsibility Scheme. The scheme will ensure that ethical clothing retailers must not be undercut and penalised for operating legally. It will also help outworkers to achieve their lawful entitlements under the relevant industrial awards. [Time expired.]

DEATH OF MR STEVEN LILA SORU

DEATH OF MR KOBE CHARLIE

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [10.06 p.m.]: Tonight I mourn the tragic deaths of two young Papua New Guinean boys whom I have come to know during my involvement with the Kokoda Track Foundation. Steven Lila Soru was one of 30 students from villages across the Kokoda Track sponsored by the Kokoda Track Foundation to study at Sogeri National High School, Ioawari Secondary School and Popondetta Provincial High School as a boarding student. He was 17 years of age and came from Alola Village, which is about five hours trekking time, for us anyway, from Kokoda up into the Owen Stanley Ranges. He was a grade 9 student. On the night of 22 July Steven was in his dormitory around 5.00 a.m. when he was taken ill. He rushed to the doorway of the dormitory to be sick. He lost his balance and fell onto rocks beneath the stair landing. He was seriously injured and was carried back to his bed by his fellow students.

The next morning they realised Steven was seriously injured and reported to the Deputy Principal, Mr Avosa Kave, who arranged urgent transport of Steven to the Port Moresby General Hospital, which is about 20 kilometres away. The fall had impacted Steven's head into his body, broke his neck in two places and twisted his spinal cord. He was paralysed from the neck down. Steven's mother, Mrs Fagaisa Lila Soru, and his brothers and sisters were called to his bedside and remained with him until he passed away two days later. The tragedy of Steven's death is that it was a preventable accident. The school had recently performed some maintenance on the landing of the stairs and the stairway but had not installed a simple handrail. If it had, Steven would be alive today. I have visited Ioawari High School on a number of occasions in my role as Chairman of the Kokoda Track Foundation to discuss their needs and to see what help we might be able to provide.

Their needs are great but the state of the dormitory accommodation for boarding students is an area that needs urgent attention. In fact, the conditions are so bad that they would be condemned anywhere in Australia. Notwithstanding the conditions, the spirit and the morale of the teachers and students were noteworthy. They realise that the key to their individual and collective future is education and they feel privileged that at least they have an opportunity to learn. I have discussed the needs of these schools with Mr Bede Long and Mr John Sim of Lions International in Sydney. They have been instrumental in establishing our New South Wales Parliamentary Lions Club and have agreed to enlist the support of Lions International to plan and co-ordinate a building refurbishment program in these schools. I hope that Steven's death was not in vain and that it will act as a reminder of the assistance we can and must provide to our brothers in Papua New Guinea.

A week after Steven died we suffered another tragic loss when one of my recent guides, Kobe Charlie, also of Alola village, was murdered south of his village on the Kokoda Track at Eora Creek. The Kokoda Track is used by people from the Highlands, who travel via Popondetta and Kokoda to trek across the Owen Stanley Ranges to Port Moresby and vice-versa. The local people suspect it was one of these groups of about five people who were sighted in the area at the time. Kobe had also recently accompanied an awareness patrol from the newly formed Kokoda Track Authority across the track. Their purpose was to discuss the outcomes of a workshop that the Kokoda Track Foundation had conducted amongst clan leaders and landowners in Efogi village as part of the process of developing a strategic plan for the area.

The aim of the Kokoda Track Foundation is to have the Kokoda Track proclaimed as a national memorial park, with a view to establishing a self-sustaining eco-trekking industry for the Koiari and Orokaiva people who live along the track. The process is being led by Kelvin Templeton, former chief executive officer of the Sydney Swans and now with Templeton Galt, and facilitated by Dr Stephen Wearing of the University of Technology, Sydney, and Mr Paul Chatterton of the World Wide Fund for Nature in Madang. All are providing their services on a voluntary basis and I commend them for that. The Kokoda Track Special Purpose Authority has been established by the Papua New Guinea Department of Provincial and Local Government Affairs and comprises representatives of the landowners along the track, provincial governments from Central and Oro Province, the Papua New Guinea National Cultural Commission, the Papua New Guinea Tourism Authority and stakeholder representatives, representing tour operators, the RSL and Rotary.

It is a unique organisation in Papua New Guinea, as it has its own income stream, independent of government and aid agencies. During the workshop in Efogi they developed their own slogan, which was "working together for good tourism". According to Paul Chatterton of the World Wide Fund for Nature, this is the best ecotourism model being developed in Papua New Guinea because it has brought different clans, landowner groups, local level government authorities and provincial governments together to work for common goals with shared benefits. Steven Soru and Kobe Charlie were to have been part of this exciting future for the Koiari and Orokaiva people along the Kokoda Track, but they have been tragically taken from us. I would like to think that their deaths will not have been in vain and I will be looking at ways to commemorate their memory, which I feel will be in the form of a scholarship of some kind in their names.

I live in hope that one day soon we will engage our brothers in Papua New Guinea in a sincere, empathetic way. I look forward to the time when we acknowledge that we are brothers and remove the barriers that currently exist for Papua New Guinean citizens to work and live in Australia. I look forward to the welcome mat being extended to young Papua New Guinea people to come here as backpackers on temporary visas to do seasonal work. As one prominent PNG Minister told me recently, we currently treat them as lepers! This attitude has to change and it will only happen when we remove the barriers and extend a genuine hand to help them. In the meantime, the untimely deaths of two young people with so much potential and so much to offer will not be in vain. It will in fact act as a reminder that we have much to do, and we will do it in their memory. [Time expired.]

DEATH OF MR JIM LEES, QPM, A FORMER COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [10.11 p.m.]: Former New South Wales Commissioner of Police, Jim Lees, QPM, will be remembered as not only a great policeman but as an outstandingly good man, husband, father, grandfather and Christian role model to his family, the community and the New South Wales police force. However, first and foremost, he will always be remembered as God's man. Jim Lees' life was marked by integrity, a sense of justice and a commitment to the welfare of others. His family will always remember his keen sense of humour, his graciousness, his ability to give his best and his unfailing love for his first and only love—his wife, Norma. Jim Lees was a man who loved and served Christ and prayed constantly for the welfare of others, even up until the day before he died at 84 years of age.

More than 800 people packed Wesley Church in Pitt Street, Sydney, to remember the life and legacy of Jim Lees, who served as New South Wales Commissioner of Police from 1979 to 1981. Among the many family and friends who mourned his loss and gave thanks were New South Wales Commissioner of Police, Ken Moroney, and former police commissioners Cec Abbott, John Avery and Tony Lauer, former New South Wales Ministers of Police, members of Hornsby Baptist Church and friends from several Wesley Mission congregations where Mr and Mrs Lees had worshipped over many years. Commissioner Moroney described Mr Lees as an astute administrator and police educator, who was an inspirational leader for arguably one of the largest police forces in the world. He said that Jim Lees was an example for us to follow. He said:

On a personal level, I will miss Jim's endearing friendship, good grace and gentlemanly manner. I shall also miss the occasional phone call of encouragement and support.

Jim Lees was born in Hornsby in 1919 and attended Hurlstone Agricultural High School. He wanted to be a farmer but soon discovered that he was unsuited for life on the land and was accepted as a cadet officer in the New South Wales Police Force, aged 17. Due to his outstanding ability and performance, he was made a constable within six months and soon rose through the ranks of the Police Force. In 1976 he was made Assistant Commissioner of Police and in October 1979 he was appointed Commissioner of Police. In addition to 12 New South Wales police commendations, he received the Queen's Police Medal in 1976, Queen's Jubilee Medal in 1977, the National Medal in 1977 and was named Australian Father of the Year in 1981. His commissionership was characterised by integrity as he judiciously and vigorously weeded out police corruption. Former New South Wales Commissioner of Police John Avery called him "the light at the beginning of the tunnel".

Alongside Jim has been his wife, Norma. The couple met during their youth and were married in October 1944. They built a large family home in Sydney's northern suburbs, began a family, and threw themselves into church and community life. Speaking on behalf of the Lees children Sue and John, brother Peter Lees described his dad as "always full of life". He said:

He was quite a character. Dad was always thinking of others before himself. Dad was always on duty and no matter what rank he reached he was proud to be an everyday cop.

Mr Lees taught Sunday school, was a choirmaster and conductor at his church, and established the Police Christian Fellowship. Grand-daughter Amy Lees described her grandfather as a person who "clothed himself with compassion and kindness, gentleness and patience". She said:

Pa set an example of what it means to follow Jesus. He was an awesome man of God. Pa as a child of God has now come face to face with his creator and his saviour.

It was during the late 1970s that Mr Lees and I first met in my role as Superintendent of Wesley Mission. I visited him at home and in hospital and our last occasion together was the privilege of presiding at his funeral. Over the years we became close friends and he shared much with me. However, he never said a word about the issues that he was facing concerning corruption within the force, but I prayed with him that he might have wisdom and discernment. He was a great churchman. Over the years he ministered to many children through Sunday schools. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word. However, Jim was more than great. He was a good man, and that is rare. It is much easier to find a great man than to find a good man. He was an outstandingly good man. For 84 years God has blessed us with a very remarkable man. The Gospel is that in times of suffering we have the companionship of God to help us; in times of uncertainty and doubt we have His truth to guide us; in times of fear we have His courage to embolden us; and in times of death we have the resurrection of Jesus that brings us hope. We salute a great Christian man and thank God for his life and influence in his chosen profession within the New South Wales Police Force, upon reaching the highest rank in the State, for all that he did for our State and country, and for our friendship.

PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [10.16 p.m.]: Tonight I wish to inform the House of further developments in the upgrade of the Pacific Highway. This week the New South Wales Government announced $55 million in funding for a Pacific Highway planning project. This project involves maps detailing the broad study areas for the planning project being released and the study corridors to be investigated running from south to north. People who travel the Pacific Highway on a regular basis—as I usually do between Sydney and Ballina, but I sometimes travel further north—will acknowledge that these areas require considerable work to improve the quality of the highway.

The State corridors are from the F3 to Raymond Terrace, which is 12 kilometres; Failford Road to Tritons Road north of Nabiac, 3.3 kilometres; Herons Creek to Stills Road north of Kew, 3.3 kilometres; the Oxley Highway to Kempsey, 39 kilometres; Woolgoolga to Ballina, 173 kilometres; and Tintenbar to Ewingsdale north of Ballina, 17 kilometres. From Woolgoolga to Ballina the study corridors to be investigated are Woolgoolga to Wells Crossing, 27.8 kilometres; Wells Crossing to Harwood, 69.4 kilometres; Harwood to the Iluka turnoff, 8.8 kilometres; the Iluka turnoff to Woodburn, 35.2 kilometres; and Woodburn to Ballina, 32.3 kilometres.

The final route for these upgrade areas will depend on a range of factors, including potential impacts on properties, agricultural land, businesses and the environment, as well as access to the highway from neighbouring towns and villages, and value for money. Following preliminary community consultation and investigations within each of the identified study areas, the Roads and Traffic Authority will develop route options for each highway section, which will be placed on display for public comment. The preferred route and concept designs will be identified and then prepared for the whole Pacific Highway by mid 2006.

We hear a lot of complaints about the condition of the Pacific Highway and the fact that it is not a dual carriageway from Sydney to the Queensland border. However, we must bear in mind a number of factors for this. One is that the project would cost a total of $2.2 billion. It is a New South Wales-Commonwealth upgrade program; therefore, it depends on funding being made available from the Commonwealth, as well as the funding commitments given by the New South Wales Government. It also depends on a whole range of other issues concerning the local environment. We are not simply talking about the preferred options for local communities; we are also talking about options that will do the least damage to the environment in general. Consideration must also be given to whether an option involves areas of national parks or other protected woodland areas and whether it will have an impact on fauna and flora.

For example, there has been a lot of concern about the length of time it has taken to develop the Bulahdelah bypass option. The original route for that bypass was found to be unsuitable because a young boy in Bulladelah found a rare underground orchid, which meant that the proposed route had to be changed. But as a result the local community is happier with the turnoffs that are being provided on the bypass for the township of Bulahdelah. The Pacific Highway upgrades are exciting developments for the people of New South Wales. We should remember that the Pacific Highway from north of Hexham to the Queensland border is almost 700 kilometres. The road serves as a key interstate corridor for the carriage of passengers as freight, and serves a region with a population of more than 500,000. This population more than doubles in peak tourist seasons, and is projected to increase to about 800,000 within 20 years.

Most honourable members will be pleased about the planning project. It is costing $5 million to upgrade the Pacific Highway to a dual carriageway between the F3 and Raymond Terrace—what is called the missing link. In that area drivers have to drop their speed from 110 kilometres an hour on the freeway to 80 kilometres an hour, and pass through a roundabout. Depending on which way they are travelling, they will either use an industrial back road through Maitland or cross the Hexham bridge and travel through the Port Stephens area. This missing link will be important. Between 29,000 and 46,000 vehicles a day travel the existing connection, and this improvement will greatly enhance road safety in that region.

MARK LATHAM FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [10.21 p.m.]: It is well understood that I support Australia's existing constitutional arrangements, and especially the existing Australian flag. I raise these matters because it is worth noting that the destruction of Mark Latham's bid for the Lodge means that Latham's plans for a republic and a new flag went down the drain, along with his quest for the position of Prime Minister. Mark Latham even announced that if he were elected Prime Minister he would fly the flag of the Eureka Stockade over Parliament House in celebration of the 150th anniversary of Australia's only armed rebellion. And what a very short rebellion it was—all of 20 minutes!

We can romanticise the Eureka Stockade and acknowledge reforms that arguably took place as a consequence of that short uprising, but the flag has become a symbol embraced by militants and is not worthy to take the place of our national flag for a moment, let alone a day. Such intentions tell us much about Mark Latham—his rebelliousness, his aggressiveness, his disdain for rules and in many respects the society in which he was born. I remember him talking of "them and us" and saying that he would "teach his children to hate". It was as if he was trying to paint himself as some socialist, working-class revolutionary, a man of the future, when in fact such facets of personality are linked to men of the past.

Has it occurred to Mr Latham that he enjoys a privileged position because of the very social order he opposes? When asked what Labor stands for, Mark Latham said, "I believe the answer is straightforward: we are anti-establishment." Have Mark and his anti-establishment mates been on the happy weed? He is out of touch with modern Australia, his mind is in a bygone era, and he briskly climbed up the ladder of opportunity offered by the establishment he is so against. Mr Latham's unfulfilled desires to desert the mortgage belt of the western suburbs, courtesy of taxpayers, will at least for a while allow Australians to focus on pertinent issues without the distraction of threats to our flag and constitution.

While Latham's time has come and gone, and Labor argues over the rotting carcass that just a few weeks ago was its misdirected campaign, it is worth noting a few of the matters from which sensible Australian voters have saved the whole population. Mark set public education against private education. He set Protestant schools against Catholic schools. He set every Australian under 75 needing a hospital bed against the country's octogenarians. Listening to Mark, one could not help but get the idea that he was setting Sydney's western suburbs against the rest. Mark even set himself and Labor against Tasmanian timber workers. Of course, such a blunder would not have been made by a person with a little more experience and a lot less desperation.

Esteemed writer Michael Duffy wrote a book comparing Latham and Abbott. The book described the two parliamentarians as "the two finest politicians of their generation". Latham has fallen short of that description. Indeed, as a political watcher, even I was disappointed because it became obvious that Mark was not as good a performer as I had thought. I liked little of what Mark Latham said during the election campaign, although I was greatly interested when he described himself as a nationalist. Clearly, Mark is also a socialist, but nobody seemed to twig to the connection of those two ideologies. Throughout the campaign Mark Latham appeared to be obsessed by Christmas as a target date. The troops were to be home by Christmas. Yet there was no explanation of who, after Christmas, would protect Australian aid workers and others rebuilding Iraq. I refer to this little gem from his first speech as Leader of the Opposition:

Like all the other details that escaped Mark's attention, the vast majority of those children are non-Christian, so the concept of Christmas and Santa are just as irrelevant to them as most of what Mark had to offer proved irrelevant to the rest of us.

SOLOMON ISLANDS LOGGING

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.26 p.m.]: Delta Timber Enterprises, a Malaysian logging company, is currently logging in the Vavanga and Iriri villages on Kolombangara Island in the Western Province of the Solomon Islands. This is an illegal logging operation. It does not have the permission of the landowners and does not adhere to the forestry laws and procedures of the Solomon Islands. According to these laws, trustees of the land cannot make any decision without the signed consent of the local landowners. What is happening in reality is that loggers are bribing persons claiming to be representatives of the landowners who are acting without the knowledge or consent of the local villagers. Furthermore, the logs from these operations are being transported to a large ship anchored off the coast. This practice eliminates the need for wharf facilities, and allows for direct export from the village, thus bypassing all the agencies of the Solomon Islands Government—a no-win situation for the local landowners and the Solomon Islands Government, which is just emerging from a period of bankruptcy.

In April this year the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, or RAMSI, visited the villages and logging was suspended pending a court case. But logging is now continuing at a ferocious rate and by the time the court case is heard it is likely that loggers will have moved on to another island and begun illegal operations there. Logging in rural areas of the Solomon Islands involves more than just the removal of logs. Present logging threatens the community's drinking water—which is literally being turned into mud—food supplies, building materials and future income possibilities, not to mention the immediate environmental consequences of soil compaction, severe erosion and reef destruction, on top of the loss of many ecosystems.

Any compensation that villagers might receive would probably amount to only about $1 per adult member of the community. The ferocious resumption of these logging practices has caused great unease within the local community, and youths in particular are feeling the desperation of the situation. A young member of the community is currently in gaol after being charged with damaging equipment that was illegally placed on his land and that he believed day in and day out was damaging his land, his future and his village.

The Greens believe it is the responsibility of the Australian Government to work with the Solomon Islands to ensure that logging does not continue. We must work together to stop that illegal logging, which is ripping apart the local environment and the very fabric of society in the Solomon Islands. I thank Paul and Donnella Bryce from the non-government aid agency Appropriate Technology for Community and Environment Inc. for supplying me with this information. I congratulate them on working with the people of the Solomon Islands on many ecological and sustainable projects. They have conducted that work with great integrity over a period of many years.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10.31 p.m. until Wednesday 26 October 2004 at 11.00 a.m.
_______________

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:20:04 : Update this page