Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 9 December 2004, Corrected Copy)

9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1

1

1
1LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 9 December 2004
1

______

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 9.45 a.m.

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

Mr Ian Cohen, as Chairman, tabled report No. 22, entitled "Hunter Economic Zone and Tomalpin woodlands", dated December 2004, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, submissions and correspondence.

Report ordered to be printed.

Mr IAN COHEN [9.47 a.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Ian Cohen.

Petition requesting a guarantee that the quality of services offered by the Post-School Options and Adult Training, Learning and Support programs will not be reduced through funding cuts or restructuring, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.

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

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [9.52 a.m.]: I wish to inform the House that on 8 December 2004 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 resolved to adopt the following terms of reference:

1. That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 inquire into, and report on the operations and outcomes of all personal injury compensation legislation (including but not limited to claims by persons injured in motor accidents, transport accidents, accidents in the workplace, at public events, in public places and in commercial premises but not including claims by victims injured as a result of criminal acts) approved by the Parliament of New South Wales from 1999, with particular reference to:

(a) the impact on employment in rural and regional communities,

(b) the impact on community events and activities, and community groups,

(c) the impact on insurance premium levels and the availability of cost-effective insurance,

(d) the level and availability of compulsory third party motor accident premiums required to fund claims cost if changes had not been implemented in 1999; and the impact on the WorkCover scheme if changes had not been implemented in 2001, and

(e) any other issue that the Committee considers to be of relevance to the inquiry.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.54 a.m.]: I wish to inform the House that on 8 December 2004 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 resolved to adopt the following terms of reference:

1. That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 inquire into and report on the operation of Mona Vale Hospital, and in particular:

(a) the closure of the intensive care unit and the reasons behind its transfer to another hospital,

(b) the level of funding given to Mona Vale Hospital compared to other hospitals in the area,

(c) the level of community consultation in relation to changes proposed by NSW Health to the hospital, and

(d) the reasons why the hospital has not been made the general hospital for the Northern Beaches area.

2. That the committee report by 31 March 2005.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [9.57 a.m.]: I move Government amendment

No. 1 Page 2. Insert after line 6:

3 Objects of Act

The objects of this Act are:

(a) to encourage the development of Redfern-Waterloo into an active, vibrant and sustainable community, and

(b) to promote, support and respect the Aboriginal community in Redfern-Waterloo having regard to the importance of the area to the Aboriginal people, and

(c) to promote the orderly development of Redfern-Waterloo taking into consideration principles of social, economic, ecological and other sustainable development, and

(d) to enable the establishment of public areas in Redfern-Waterloo, and

(e) to promote greater social cohesion and community safety in Redfern-Waterloo.

This amendment inserts a new clause outlining the objects of the Act. Extensive public comment and community consultation has occurred since the bill was first introduced. Following that consultation the Government has identified a need to make clear the objects of the bill, including encouraging an active, vibrant and sustainable community in Redfern-Waterloo; promoting and supporting the indigenous community; recognising the symbolism of parts of Redfern to the Aboriginal community in New South Wales; taking into consideration principles of socio-economic, ecological and other sustainable development; and promoting social cohesion and improving community safety.

These objects make it clear that the bill is designed to improve public amenity, quality of life and safety in Redfern-Waterloo. I draw particular attention to object (b), which relates to the Aboriginal community. There is no doubt that parts of Redfern, notably the Block development, have a unique status for many indigenous people in the community, not just in Sydney but elsewhere in New South Wales. Some wild and inaccurate claims have been made about attempting to remove this community. These claims are nonsense. The Redfern Aboriginal community is an important part of the social makeup of Redfern-Waterloo. The proposed objects of the Act make that clear. I commend the amendment to the House.
The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.00 a.m.]: The Opposition welcomes and supports Government amendment No. 1 in relation to the objects of the bill. As I outlined in my contribution to the second reading of the bill, RED watch raised the issue of having objects in the legislation in a lengthy meeting I had with them last Friday. It was also something that I was able to pass on as a concern in my meeting with Dr Gellatly and Dr Ramsey. The Opposition's view is that the Act would be improved by having objects, and we are pleased that Government has done that. Having objects in legislation assists courts should litigation ever arise from an action of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, and in knowing what the Authority is about and what it is designed to achieve. This is a win for the community who have been concerned about this. The Opposition is pleased to support it and we are glad the Government has taken it up.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.01 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports this amendment and is pleased that paragraphs (b) and (c) have been included. The object of paragraph (b) is to promote, support and respect the Aboriginal community in Redfern-Waterloo having regard to the importance of the area to the Aboriginal people. The object of paragraph (c) is to promote greater social cohesion and community safety in Redfern-Waterloo and that has been a major concern for many years.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.04 a.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 2. Insert after line 6:

3 Objects of Act

The objects of this Act are, in relation to the Redfern-Waterloo area:

(a) to protect the indigenous culture of the area, recognising the importance of the area to the Aboriginal people, and

(b) to create employment opportunities and an economic environment that provides employment for local residents, and

(c) to provide adequate affordable housing that meets the diverse family, cultural and disability needs of the local community, and

(d) to enhance and strengthen the existing communities of the area (including the Aboriginal, ethnic, public housing, low income and student communities), and

(e) to protect and enhance the heritage values of the area, and

(f) to promote social justice and enhance community well-being.

The Greens applaud the introduction of objects into the bill. It is extraordinary that objects were not included in the first place and, if necessary, the Greens will support the Government's amendment. However, we believe that the Government's amendment is far weaker than the objects proposed in our amendment. What is supposed to distinguish this bill from, say, legislation applying to the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, is its broader social compass and that it establishes the making of a plan and that type of thing. Indeed, this social objective was so important that in the third sentence of the Minister's second reading speech he said that Redfern-Waterloo is home to particularly disadvantaged communities with high numbers of unemployed people, low-income families and public housing tenants.

The first object in the Greens amendment is to protect the indigenous culture of the area. The second object is to create employment opportunity. It is not enough just to say it would be a nice thing: we must recognise that it is in the creation of those employment opportunities that hopes for the area lie. We believe it is absolutely essential to include an objective that is directed towards the creation of employment opportunity. The third object relates to the lack of adequate affordable public housing in the area. The Greens acknowledge that the public housing in the area needs to be upgraded but it is the retention of affordable public housing that is absolutely essential. We believe it is so important and so distinctive a feature of the area to date, that it is essential to have the provision of future adequate affordable housing that meets the diverse family, cultural and disability needs of the local community.

Not including these objects in the bill would be an indicator that they will not be at the forefront of the considerations of the new Redfern-Waterloo Authority. In paragraph (f) of our amendment the Greens seek to protect and enhance the heritage values of the area. We also have a significant objective and one that is not included in the Government amendment No. 1, that is, to promote social justice and to enhance community wellbeing. The issues at the heart of the problems at Redfern are the absence of employment opportunities, the unsuitability of much of the housing provided there and the need to promote social justice in the area. It is because these issues are so important that they should be spelt out and explicitly stated in the objects at the very start of the bill. I commend Greens amendment No. 1.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.05 a.m.]: I congratulate the Government on putting forward some objectives, although perhaps I should not congratulate it for doing what it should have done before. The idea that the Government introduced a bill of this magnitude without objectives suggests that it was whipping ahead to grab the power without really thinking about what it was going to do with it.

The Hon. Don Harwin: I am sure it knew exactly what it was going to do with it.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Yes, it probably knew exactly what it was going to do with it. Had it won the Council of the City of Sydney election it would have used that vehicle. The Government's objectives are less specific than the Greens but they do pay service to sustainability and look at the position of the Aboriginal community, which is extremely important. They suggest orderly development in public areas and social cohesion and community safety, however, they do not look at affordable housing. Affordable housing is an important issue in this area because cities of the world that have become hubs are very much driven by a world market in relation to land prices. City workers who do more menial and less well-paid jobs have to live miles from the city, and that makes it immensely difficult to get labour for the city centre.

Developers want a more homogenous society from a financial point of view and the image of public housing now is that because there is so little of it, it has become welfare housing associated with welfare problems. Developers who want to maintain prices would prefer to pay a levy for community housing rather than provide it. This amendment will require real affirmative action and some courage to stand against developers who may be in private-public partnership or other relationship with the Government or some other profit maximising endeavour. Therefore, if the Government wants affordable housing it should have included it in the objectives of the legislation. I believe it is socially necessary to have affordable housing near the city centre for workers, even taking the most utilitarian view of the function of housing. I am disappointed that it has not been included in the objectives and I believe that the Greens amendment should be supported.

The Greens amendment is stronger on job creation. The Government is neglectful as it is letting government contracts that do not meet Aboriginal participation in the building industry standards and that has been addressed by the Greens. The Greens have less generic material than the Government but the legislation would be improved by including those objectives. The Government is at least doing the right thing, so I support its amendment and I support the elements of the Greens amendment as well.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [10.08 a.m.]: The Government has moved a similar amendment to insert objects into the bill. The Government agrees with the Greens and the Opposition that it is of value to outline the bill's principal roles in this way. In preparing the Government's amendment to the bill to insert new objects into the Act, it conducted ongoing consultation with the Redfern-Waterloo residents and peak bodies. Following that consultation the Government identified objects, including encouraging an active, vibrant and sustainable community in Redfern-Waterloo; promoting and supporting the indigenous community; recognising the symbolism of parts of Redfern to the Aboriginal community of New South Wales; taking into consideration the principles of social, economic, ecological and other sustainable development; and promoting social cohesion and improving community safety.

These objects make it clear that the bill is designed to improve public amenity, quality of life and safety in Waterloo. The Greens amendment proposes some important objects. However, it is much more narrowly focused than the Government's proposal and does not capture the full range of the authority's responsibilities. For example, the Greens amendment does not include community safety; the Government's does. The Government believes improving community safety is an important object of the bill, and therefore we cannot support the Greens amendment to the extent that it differs from our own. The Government opposes that amendment.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.10 a.m.]: I will briefly put on record why the Opposition is happy with the Government's objects of the legislation, as opposed to the Greens amendment. Essentially, there are four concepts in the Greens amendment that are not in the Government's amendment. They are, of course, social justice, heritage, affordable housing, and employment opportunities. I am sure the view of the Minister would be that social justice would be encapsulated in the five Government objects moved here, but if I could be permitted a small self-indulgence, I personally have no problems with social justice as a concept in our legislation. What I greatly regret is the way social justice has been appropriated in terms of the public lexicon by a number of people and twisted into a concept that was never intended.

The Liberal Party has always strongly supported social justice. In fact, Sir Robert Menzies frequently talked about social justice in his speeches. In a book that our former colleague the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith edited, I wrote a chapter on the Liberal conception of social justice. A Liberal conception of how social justice is achieved is very different from how some these days would regard it. That, perhaps, is why it is falling out of favour. In terms of heritage, I believe other Government amendments certainly cover heritage. As to affordable housing, I certainly believe in the Government's espoused objects of a sustainable community, supporting the Aboriginal community, socially sustainable development, and social cohesion. All of those objects, in my view, encapsulate the need to provide adequate affordable housing.

I am somewhat intrigued about how the Greens amendment supports the creation of employment opportunities. I think the Liberal Party and The Nationals would be a little sceptical as to how an authority like this could create employment opportunities. We see a greater need for market-driven solutions. We query how effective such an authority could be in creating employment opportunities. But perhaps we might hear more about that from Ms Sylvia Hale.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.13 a.m.]: I move:

That the Government amendment be amended by adding:

(g) to create employment opportunities and an economic environment that provides employment for local residents, and

(h) to provide adequate affordable housing that meets the diverse family, cultural and disability needs of the local community, and

(i) to protect and enhance the heritage values of the area, and

(j) to promote social justice and enhance community well-being.

The new paragraphs I seek to insert in the Government's amendment are in fact paragraphs (b), (c), (e) and (f) of the Greens amendment. I moved the amendment because all honourable members who have contributed to this debate have noted that these are admirable objectives. If they are so, they should be incorporated in the legislation.

In terms of employment opportunities, obviously there will be much activity by government departments in the Redfern-Waterloo area. For example, if the Department of Housing observes its responsibilities, it would be seeking to ensure appropriate provision is made for employment of indigenous people on any works that it undertakes. The Minister in the other place, in his second reading speech, made great play of the prospects of improving employment. He talked about a technology park and the establishment of some sort of cancer institute. Of course, there is always room for scepticism that that type of employment would generate jobs for people who do not live in the Redfern-Waterloo area but come into the area, use their skills and then leave the area. Of course, if this object is inserted in the Act, it will spell out clearly that anything the authority does has to bear this object in mind. Whilst the Opposition has an amendment that goes to the preservation of heritage in the area, we should pay regard to the fact that tis is a unique area that contains so many items of real importance. An article in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald suggests that Redfern courthouse could well be disposed of. Goodness knows what fate would befall it under Minister Sartor! I think it is important to stress the primacy of its consideration in any redevelopment of the area.

As to the provision of social justice, as the Hon. Don Harwin said, this is an objective to which most people subscribe, though exactly how it is interpreted at different times varies enormously. At least its insertion in the bill would be an important step forward. I will be most interested in how honourable members vote on these issues. I will be interested in whether the Government votes against an amendment that provides for the provision of adequate affordable housing, the protection and enhancement of heritage values, the promotion of social justice, and the creation of employment opportunities. I commend the Greens amendment to the Government amendment.

Question—That the amendment of Government amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

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

Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Costa Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Mr Jenkins

Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Pearce Mr Roozendaal

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

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment of Government amendment No. 1 negatived.

Government amendment No. 1 agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: Greens amendment No. 1 lapses.

Clause 3 to 10 agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.26 a.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 2 to 8 in globo:

No. 2 Page 4, clause 11. Insert after line 7:

(1) The Minister is to appoint an advisory committee to be called the Community Advisory Council.

(2) The Community Advisory Council is to consist of such persons as the Minister considers represent the community of the Redfern-Waterloo area.

(3) The Minister is to publicly call for nominations to the Community Advisory Council and is to consider any such nominations.

(4) The Community Advisory Council has the following functions:

(a) to provide advice to the Minister in relation to the preparation of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan and any amendments to, replacement of or review of that Plan,

(b) to provide advice to the Minister in relation to the implementation of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan.

(5) A member of the Community Advisory Council holds office, subject to the regulations, for such term, not exceeding 2 years, as is specified in the relevant instrument of appointment and is, if otherwise qualified, eligible for re-appointment.

No. 3 Page 4, clause 11 (1), line 8. Insert "other" after "such".

No. 4 Page 4, clause 11 (2), line 11. Insert "appointed under subsection (1)" after "advisory committee".

No. 5 Page 4, clause 11 (3), line 13. Insert "appointed under subsection (1)" after "advisory committee".

No. 6 Page 4, clause 11 (4), line 16. Omit "this section". Insert instead "subsection (1)".

No. 7 Page 4, clause 11 (5), line 17. Omit "committee member". Insert instead "member of an advisory committee appointed under subsection (1)".

No. 8 Page 4, clause 11 (9), lines 29 and 30. Omit "this section". Insert instead "subsection (1)".
The amendments will enable the appointment of an advisory committee to be called the Community Advisory Council. Currently the Minister may appoint advisory committees, although there is no obligation on him to do so. He also has the power to change the composition of those committees, to dismiss them or to do with them what he will. The Greens amendments will prevent the Minister from dissolving the advisory committee whenever he feels like it. It is essential that the many verbal commitments to take into account the views of the Redfern-Waterloo community be translated into deeds. The Community Advisory Council would consist of such persons as the Minister considers represent the communities of Redfern and Waterloo.

The amendments outline the mechanisms that would require the Minister to call for public nominations and to consider those nominations. The Community Advisory Council would provide advice to the Minister on the preparation of the plan, which exists yet supposedly does not exist. More importantly, it would provide advice on implementation of the plan. Subject to the regulations a member of the Community Advisory Council would hold office for two years, although that person would be eligible for reappointment. The amendments incorporate into the bill the mechanics to guarantee community representation on the Community Advisory Council appointed by the Minister. They will also advise the Minister on the implementation of the plan. It is one thing to have a plan, but it is another thing to ignore its recommendations entirely. This is a very important set of amendments. I commend them to the Committee.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [10.29 a.m.]: The bill provides that the Minister may create a number of advisory committees to advise the Minister and the authority on particular areas of operation within the Redfern-Waterloo area. The Minister has indicated that he intends to create a number of advisory committees. Public nominations will be called for membership of at least three advisory committees. These committees will consist of a number of community representatives and representatives of various relevant government agencies. It is the intention to also consult with the existing community advisory committee in the Redfern-Waterloo area. The committee structure should be sufficiently flexible to allow for the formation of additional committees as required. How various committees interact would be resolved informally to maximise the opportunity for public input to the Redfern-Waterloo Plan and the authority.

The Greens amendments attempt to reduce flexibility in the committee system by legislating for a single committee and giving that committee de facto precedence over any others that may be formed. This diminishes the importance of the other committees, including those covering human services or employment, to mere adjuncts of the master committee which the Greens propose. The Government intends to establish a number of advisory committees to include substantial public representation. The Government cannot support this proposal to legislate for certain committees and grant them status over others. The Government opposes these amendments. As has already been noted, amendments Nos. 3 to 8 are consequential upon a determination of amendment No. 2.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.31 a.m.]: In our meetings with the Dr Gellatly and Dr Ramsey at the Premier's Department, on behalf of the Government they made it quite explicit that there would be a community advisory council. In the last couple of weeks there has been a lot of comment about how well Independents represent their electorates and what they can get from the government of the day. Basically Redfern-Waterloo shows for all time how little Independents are able to achieve for their electorates. I note that after the next election, Redfern and Waterloo and the whole operational area of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority will be in the electorates of Heffron and Marrickville.

The Opposition is not about micromanaging advisory committees. We believe that there should be a degree of flexibility about the number of advisory committees that will be needed to deal with problems as complex as those associated with Redfern and Waterloo. I remind the Government that at the next election, Redfern and Waterloo will be wholly in electorates that currently are represented by Labor members.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.32 a.m.]: Clause 11 of the bill sets out in detail the formation of the committees. If the Greens amendments are adopted, that will create an imbalance in the legislation. We will be focusing on just one committee when we know that there will be at least three committees. To maintain a balance in the legislation, there should not be an overemphasis on one particular committee. To ensure representation of the Aboriginal community, I foreshadow that the Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1 deals with the issue of membership of those committees. I believe it will deal with this issue adequately.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.33 a.m.]: We have been informed that it is the Minister's intention to institute such a committee. If that is his intention, there should be no problem with the Greens amendments. On the question of balance, I point out that obviously there will be committees dealing with either area, irrespective of whether one area is Redfern or the other is Waterloo. One hopes that there will be committees dealing with heritage and other committees dealing with housing—a whole variety of committees. The amendments are designed to put in place an overarching committee that keeps in view the vision or the plans for the area as a whole. The amendments are designed to create a committee that brings together the work of all the individual committees and provides advice to the Minister on what the committees are recommending and on how the recommendations of the other committees should be implemented.

It is not a question of the committee proposed by the Greens making the others irrelevant or less important. The committee envisaged by these amendments would have a co-ordinating role in bringing together the work of the other committees. The Hon. Don Harwin has said that the Opposition is not about micromanaging the area. I believe what the Opposition is on about is washing its hands of the area. I think that has been indicated by its response to this bill as a whole. The Opposition is thoroughly aware, I am sure, of the appalling precedents that are being established in much of this bill, yet it has chosen to make a very token effort at amending some of the legislation. The Opposition has not gone anywhere near removing the most offensive elements of the bill.

The Greens are trying to empower the community to make sure that there is genuine participation in the manner in which the authority is run and to ensure that there is at least one committee that the Minister will not be able to dismiss, change, alter or curtail as he sees fit. The essential problem of the bill is the way in which so much power is delivered into the hands of the Minister without any appropriate checks or balances. The establishment of one community advisory council would at least provide a voice for the community instead of having the voice of the community stifled, which I believe is the Government's intention.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.36 a.m.]: Ms Sylvia Hale has made a number of remarks about the Opposition's position on this bill. I think it is important to respond to them on the record immediately. First of all, in terms of the substantive issue, which is of course what we should be speaking to instead of listening to some members dishing out abuse of the Opposition, there was a very long second reading debate and members went right through the problems associated with Redfern and Waterloo. Anyone who suggests that the creation of a community advisory committee along the lines suggested by the Greens will be an adequate means of oversighting the work of the authority, is completely stark raving off the track, suffice it to say. That is just not the way to deal with supervision. There are complex problems associated with the area and to suggest that members right now know the solution to those problems and that right now we know the way to set up a means of accountability to deal with problems that inevitably will arise in the course of the operation of the authority is simply wrong.

I think the authority needs to be given some flexibility. I am very comfortable with the position that the Opposition is taking in relation to the advisory committees. I remind Ms Sylvia Hale that it is often the case that undertakings are given on Government legislation in this Chamber. They are placed on the record, and that is the way in which accountability is clearly invoked. The Minister has stated in Committee and on the record an undertaking that has been given by the Minister in the other place, and the Minister in the other place walks away from that commitment at his own peril.

The final point I make in response to the comments made by Ms Sylvia Hale and in response to Mr Turnbull from REDwatch is that in 14 days all papers in relation to the Redfern-Waterloo Authority will be available for members to examine. Contrary to the impression that might be given in Mr Turnbull's email or might have been gathered from Ms Sylvia Hale's comments, those papers will be available only because yesterday the Opposition gave the Greens a guarantee that it would support the order. It was only at that point that the Chamber was able to deal with the matter formally.

If the Greens think for one minute that those papers would have been produced without the support of the Opposition or that accountability of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority will be maintained through the production of documents by the public sector relating to the authority without the support of the Opposition, they are simply wrong and they ought to remember that. More than anything else it is the call for papers and the production of papers that enables members of Parliament to know what the Government is really up to, and that will keep the Government accountable. It will also ensure that the undertakings given by the Minister will be carried through, and carried through in an appropriate manner.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

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

Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Ms Cusack Mr Della Bosca Mr Egan Mrs Forsythe

Mr Jenkins Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Mrs Pavey

Mr Roozendaal Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.46 a.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party Amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 4, clause 11. Insert after line 14:

(4) The Minister is to ensure that there are at least 2 representatives of the Aboriginal community of the Redfern-Waterloo area appointed as members of each advisory committee that has functions involving social, human services or employment issues that affect that community.

I am very pleased to move the amendment and have been advised by the Minister that the Government will accept that it is a revision of my original amendment on sheet C-066, with which I will not proceed. My revised amendment picks up the main points of my list of amendments. In addition, the Minister's letter that I read onto Hansard last night covered the other points. I am pleased that there will be at least two, maybe more, Aboriginal representatives on the advisory committees. That is a very positive move.

I assume that the Committee will agree to my amendment as it enables Aboriginal representatives to play a major role in decision making and not hear second hand of any decision that affects them. The Aboriginal representatives will be at the heart of any decisions made by the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. In earlier debate about the community committee Ms Sylvia Hale said that there was to be a super committee, one main committee, to which all other committees would report. My view is that the authority is the body to whom the committees report—that is its role. My amendment is in line with that concept.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [10.48 a.m.]: The Government supports the amendment for the reasons given by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.50 a.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment:

Page 5. Insert after line 15:

14 Appointment of Parliamentary Committee

(1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this section and the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a committee of the Legislative Council is to be designated by resolution of the Legislative Council as the designated committee for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The resolution of the Legislative Council is to specify the terms of reference of the committee so designated which are to relate to the supervision of the exercise of the functions of the Authority under this Act.

This amendment would appoint a parliamentary committee, designated by resolution of the Legislative Council, to oversee the Redfern-Waterloo Authority to ensure that its actions are consistent with the terms of the Act under which it operates and with good social policy. This amendment is about whether Parliament and its committees will scrutinise the Government's actions through this unusual authority, which has absolute power. It is a matter of accountability and examining the authority in an ongoing and systematic fashion via a committee of the Parliament. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [10.51 a.m.]: The Government opposes the Australian Democrats amendment. The bill provides that the authority will administer the functions of the Act. The authority shall conduct its functions according to the objects of the Act and for the benefit of the residents of Redfern and Waterloo. This amendment would have the effect of replacing the authority with a parliamentary committee that would, in the words of the amendment, conduct a "supervision of the exercise of the functions of the Authority." The authority is responsible to the Minister and the Minister is responsible to Parliament. There is no need for such an amendment as the authority is already accountable to Parliament via the Minister.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.52 a.m.]: I am not sure why the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans feels the need to move this amendment when general purpose standing committees Nos 2 or 4, through self-reference, could examine virtually any matter that needed to be considered with regard to the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. I am confused as to why the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has moved the amendment in this form. If he is suggesting that there should be an oversight committee along the lines of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption or the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission, I am not sure that I agree with that approach. The Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission, the Electoral Commissioner and the State Electoral Commission are very different beasts from the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, which is envisaged in this bill. Most of those oversight committees look specifically at the activities of watchdogs that are almost semi-autonomous—we hope they are fully autonomous—that play a specific role in the public sector.

As I have carriage of this bill on behalf of the Opposition, I can confirm that if any members of the community or any members of this Chamber have specific concerns about any aspect of the operation of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority we will vigorously support them, so long as we regard their case as having some merit. We certainly give an undertaking that the matter will be referred to the relevant general purpose standing committee—probably No. 2 or No. 4. I am not sure that this amendment is necessary and I invite the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans to explain why this model is needed in the Act. I do not think it is.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.54 a.m.]: The answer is that I believe this model was created when the Government did not win the election for the City of Sydney council. The Government amalgamated South Sydney and Sydney councils and if it had won the subsequent election—as it intended—it could have done as it pleased in Redfern and Waterloo because it would have controlled local government. However, the Government lost the election so it has created an authority that effectively supplants local government. Whenever an area appears to need more development than other areas the Government simply supplants local government and creates an authority with pretty draconian powers. This authority was created quickly—to the point that there were no objects in the bill.

I then canvassed the notion of, instead of passing the bill, referring it to the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which was conducting an inquiry into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo. The Government did not reveal its plans for Redfern and Waterloo to the committee, which I believe constituted contempt of the committee. The Government and senior public servants told the hearings that nothing was set in stone only a few days before the leak to the Sydney Morning Herald revealed the advanced state of the Government's plans for the area. In fact, it was almost a contempt of Parliament.

I asked Parliament, and the Opposition in particular, to strengthen the position of committees in supervising the Government—and indeed to strengthen the whole concept of parliamentary accountability. My understanding is that the Opposition was not minded to refer the entire bill to a committee to examine its content and consider the structure of the authority. That was my preferred course. Therefore, I consulted about the idea that a parliamentary committee could have oversight of this extremely powerful authority in a systematic and ongoing matter.
The Hon. Don Harwin said that this authority is different from ICAC and various other autonomous bodies, but it will have the power to influence many people's lives in an area that is not unique, unlike the Olympic site or the Sydney Harbour foreshore. Redfern and Waterloo cover a large area and constitute a significant part of the City of Sydney—it is effectively half the local council area that the Government restructured only recently. The implication is that the Government believes local government is not the avenue through which to pursue any sort of land development. Such projects should instead be forwarded to a small subcommittee of the central executive—which is what this authority is.

Given the Opposition's desire to ensure accountability to Parliament rather than merely sit back and watch bills pass through this place that give all power to Ministers and the executive—which is what has been happening—I had hoped for the Opposition's support of this amendment. I believe this to be a good middle-of-the-road option that will not delay the passage of the bill by sending it to a committee for consideration. It would provide ongoing parliamentary input and alleviate sniping about individual buildings for the next decade or so, as residents become upset and estimates committees come and go while the bulldozers stay one step ahead of the process. I ask the Hon. Don Harwin to revise his position and support my amendment.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.58 a.m.]: We will not support referring the bill to a parliamentary committee. As several Opposition members have said in this place, there are serious problems in Redfern and Waterloo that the Government must deal with now. We have certainly put on the record all our concerns about the model that will be adopted through this bill. I encourage the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans to reflect upon the composition of the oversight committees which he suggests would be a better model, and the composition of the general purpose standing committees, particularly Nos 2 and 4. The Opposition's proposition—and the fact the we have a call for papers in place—without the amendment of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, would be far more effective than setting up an oversight committee on which Government members would have the majority.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.00 a.m.]: If this House sets up a committee it does not therefore follow that the Government would have the numbers on that committee; quite the contrary.

The Hon. Don Harwin: It will if it is put in legislation, like all the other oversight committees such as the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission and the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans has the call.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My understanding is that the implication is that the council would set the committee, and the Government would not be able to do that. But perhaps I am wrong. In regard to the idea that the Opposition has simply put its concerns on the record, we are not writing legislation for historians to pick through in 50 years; we are trying to influence what happens.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Get into the real world.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: That is what I am asking you to do, mate, get into the real world. The Opposition is simply putting its concerns on the record! Whoop-de-do, mate! It is not a matter of just putting things on the record; it is a matter of actually trying to influence what happens.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [11.01 p.m.]: I am not sure how to follow an act like that, but I find myself pretty much in tune with what the Hon. Don Harwin has said, for one reason. If we did set up such an oversight committee, given the structure of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and its extremely autonomous nature, does the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans really believe that such a committee, finding some flaw in the way the authority was functioning, would have any sanctions available to it to do anything about it? I do not think it would.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.02 a.m.], by leave: I move Australian Democrats amendment Nos 1 and 2:

No. 1 Page 6, clause 14 (1). Insert after line 21:

(f) to consider, nurture, promote, develop and respect the unique status and iconic nationwide symbolism of the Redfern-Waterloo area, for Aboriginal people, in all the activities on which the Authority embarks,
No. 2 Page 6, clause 14 (1) (f), lines 22 and 23. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(f) to do any other thing for the improvement and community well-being of the operational area in consultation with local government, business, the local indigenous community and the non-government sector.

Dealing with amendment No. 1, it is important to not only respect the people of the first nation, our first settlers, but to also acknowledge the importance of this place in their lives. Redfern and Waterloo will always be a place for Aboriginal people from all over this country to gather to meet family and to rediscover their family. Redfern and Waterloo could be of great national pride to us if they become positive, vibrant and unique places to witness and be part of the original inhabitants' life and culture. In the words of Michael Gravener from "The Settlement":

I believe that if we at Redfern-Waterloo get it right, its positive influence will spread to all people, especially Aboriginal people, and help in allowing them rightful and just place in our society.

Amendment No. 1 will embed in the legislation an encouragement of iconic national symbolism for the Aboriginal people. I am hopeful that Redfern and Waterloo can achieve a type of regeneration similar to that which occurred with the Maori culture in New Zealand. Amendment No. 2 demands a better consultative mechanism. This amendment will strengthen the previous poor consultation with residents. I commend both amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [11.04 a.m.]: Australian Democrats amendment No 1 would require the authority to consider the iconic nature of Redfern-Waterloo to the indigenous community in every aspect of its function. The objects of the bill include promoting, respecting and supporting the Aboriginal community in Redfern-Waterloo having regard to the importance of the area to the Aboriginal people. However, to require the authority to consider the iconic nature of Redfern-Waterloo in every action is impracticable. Many actions of the authority would be minor in nature and it would be impossible to approach them with due consideration of the iconic nature of Redfern-Waterloo. While the Government supports the sentiment, it cannot support an amendment that would be impossible to carry out. The amendment is opposed.

Amendment No. 2 would remove the requirement that the authority take action for the sustainable improvement of the area. Instead, the authority would be required to consult with several local governments, the business community, the indigenous community and the non-government sector before taking any actions. The business community and non-government sector are not clearly defined and would be open to legal challenge should this amendment proceed. In addition, while it is intended that there shall be extensive consultation on many aspects of the operations of the authority, it is impracticable to require those groups, and only those groups, to be consulted as one of the core functions of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority with respect to all of its actions. The Government therefore also opposes this amendment.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.06 a.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 9:

No. 9 Page 7, clause 15 (3), lines 4-6. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) In carrying out any of its functions, the Authority is to apply the principles of social, economic, environmental and other sustainable development.

This amendment amends clause 15 (3). Obviously the present wording of the clause obliges the authority merely to take into consideration such principles, but in effect it means the authority can ignore them. The Greens amendment puts an obligation upon the authority to act in accordance with the principles set out.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.08 a.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 7, clause 15 (3), lines 4 and 5. Omit "take into consideration, where relevant,". Insert instead "consider the".

This amendment strengthens the obligation of the Government. The words "take into consideration, where relevant" effectively mean that the Government can say things are irrelevant but this amendment forces it to consider the issues and slightly strengthens the wording.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [11.09 a.m.]: In relation to Greens amendment No. 9, the Government supports the application of principles of social, economic, environmental and sustainable development. In fact, clause 15 (3) of the bill states:

In carrying out any of its functions, the Authority is to take into consideration, where relevant, principles of social, economic, ecological and other sustainable development.

This amendment essentially removes "where relevant" and requires these principles to be applied on all occasions, whether relevant or not. This would mean that to every action taken by every employee of the authority, no matter how inconsequential, these principles would have to apply or it would be left open to legal challenge. The principles of social, economic, environmental and sustainable development are a core part of the bill. They are essential considerations. But applying them to every action of the authority, no matter how small, cannot be accepted. The Government opposes that amendment.

The Government also opposes the final Australian Democrats amendment. Essentially, this amendment would remove the "where relevant" clause and require that the principles of social, economic, ecological and sustainable development be applied on all occasions, whether relevant or not, as was the case with the Greens amendment. As I said earlier, this would mean that every action of every employee of the authority would have to apply those principles. Therefore my comments are equally relevant and important regarding both amendments.

Greens amendment No. 9 negatived.

Australian Democrats amendment No. 3 negatived.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.10 a.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 10 and 11 in globo:

No. 10 Page 7, clause 16, lines 8 and 9. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 11 Page 7, clause 16, line 11. Insert "within the operational area" after "private land".

Clause 16 (1) of the bill provides:

The Authority is not limited to exercising its functions on or in relation to land within the operational area.

Greens amendmen11.10t No. 10 seeks to delete subclause (1). The effect of the amendment is to limit the authority's activities to the area described in the bill. It would limit the authority's opportunities to expand its borders. If this subclause is not deleted, it is not unreasonable to expect that there may well be a creep as the authority seeks to expand the extent of its empire. Obviously, at stake here are critical areas not only within Alexandria itself but also in other areas leading to the airport. Greens amendment No. 11 inserts the words "within the operational area" at the end of the first sentence in subclause (2), so that that sentence would read:

The Authority may exercise its functions on or in relation to public or private land within the operational area.

Unless that specification is included, the authority will have enormous power to act not only in relation to public land but also in relation to private land. Currently, the subclause would hand extraordinary powers to the authority, and in effect to the Minister. It is important that there be some constraints. It is logical to limit the authority's exercise of its functions in relation to public or private land to the area within its borders. I commend Greens amendments Nos 10 and 11 to the Committee.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [11.13 a.m.]: The Government opposes Greens amendment No. 10. The authority's power to operate outside its area is largely intended to allow the provision of public amenities that benefit Redfern and Waterloo but may be physically located just outside its borders. For example, the authority may wish to design a traffic plan to reduce the number of heavy vehicles passing through Redfern-Waterloo on their way to the airport. This traffic plan would necessarily cover areas outside the immediate boundaries of the authority. As another example, a community centre or a park that benefits Waterloo residents might be physically located across the road, in Alexandria. Any extension of the role that is unrelated to achieving the benefits for Redfern-Waterloo would probably be ultra vires. The bill also provides that certain developer contributions from the old Carlton and United Breweries site be used to improve Redfern-Waterloo. These Greens amendments would prevent that money from being spent on Redfern-Waterloo. Greens amendment No. 11 is consequential on Greens amendment No. 10 and is also opposed.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.14 a.m.]: When attempting to justify the provisions of the bill, the Minister always seeks to bring up the most benign of examples and suggests that of course there are no ulterior motives and that there is no possibility of such powers being exercised inappropriately. I ask honourable members to bear in mind that City Road is just outside the authority's area, as is Victoria Park, South Dowling Street and Botany Road. Under the provisions now contained in the bill the authority could exercise its powers, for example, to make determinations as to the future of major thoroughfares, or to determine to sell off public land in other local government areas, or it could authorise the demolition or alteration of heritage buildings outside the boundaries of the authority.

Members of the House would be extraordinarily naïve to think that the Government would never contemplate the authority doing any such thing. I cannot, for the life of me, see why the Opposition or crossbench members would care to give the Government cart blanche in the exercise of the authority's powers in this regard, particularly given that the areas we could be talking about—supposedly areas immediately impinging upon the borders of the authority—are of such critical importance to Sydney's development. An extraordinarily bad precedent would be established by giving these powers to the authority. It is in everybody's interests—as the Opposition should well know—to seek to curb the overriding authority that will be handed to the Minister.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 25 agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.18 a.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 12 to 18 in globo:

No. 12 Page 12, clause 26 (2), line 15. Omit "may". Insert instead "must".

No. 13 Page 12, clause 26. Insert after line 30:

(3) The Minister is:

(a) to publicly exhibit the draft Redfern-Waterloo Plan for a period of at least 21 days, and

(b) to seek public comment on the draft Redfern-Waterloo Plan during the period of public exhibition, and

(c) to take into consideration any submissions made during the period of the exhibition and during the period of 7 days (or such longer period as the Minister may determine) from the end of that exhibition period.

No. 14 Page 12, clause 26. Insert after line 35:

(6) The Minister is to ensure, as far as is practicable, that:

(a) no aspect of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan is implemented unless the Plan contains the strategic vision for the sustainable improvement of the operational area, and

(b) the Redfern-Waterloo Plan is prepared within the period of 2 years after the date of assent to this Act and that by the end of that 2-year period the Plan addresses all of the matters referred to in subsection (2) (a)-(j).

No, 15 Page 13, clause 26 (7), lines 5-11. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(7) The Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 may make an environmental planning instrument for the purposes of subsection (6) in accordance with that Act.

(8) Despite any provision of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Minister administering that Act is:

(a) to publicly exhibit for a period of at least 28 days any draft regional environmental plan, or draft State environmental planning policy, to be made for the purposes of subsection (6) that deals solely with land in the operational area, and
(b) to seek public comment on the draft regional environmental plan or draft State environmental planning policy during the period of public exhibition, and

(c) to take into consideration any submissions made during the period of the exhibition and during the period of 7 days (or such longer period as the Minister may determine) from the end of that exhibition period.

No. 16 Page 13, clause 26 (8), line 12. Omit "may". Insert instead "must".

No. 17 Page 13, clause 26. Insert after line 18:

(9) Sections 40 (Notice of statutory rules to be tabled) and 41 (Disallowance of statutory rules) of the Interpretation Act 1987 apply to the Redfern-Waterloo Plan in the same way as those sections apply to a statutory rule.

No. 18 Page 13. Insert after line 20:

27 Social and community plan for operational area

The Minister is to ensure that:

(a) a community or social plan is prepared for the operational area generally in accordance with the requirements for such plans applying to local councils under the Local Government Act 1993, and

(b) the community or social plan is publicly exhibited with the draft Redfern-Waterloo Plan, and

(c) the community or social plan is reviewed and, if necessary, amended before it is publicly exhibited with any amendment or replacement of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan.

I ask that questions be put in relation to each amendment seriatim. The substance of Greens amendment No. 12 is in clause 26 as it currently stands. Clause 26 provides:

The Redfern-Waterloo Plan may make provision for or with respect to the following matters …

Our amendments seek to replace the word "may" with the word "must", obliging the authority to make provision in any plan for the creation of employment opportunities, urban design, human services, and renewal and regeneration of public land and assets, to use just a few examples.

Greens amendment No. 12 seeks to make it obligatory for the plan to make provision for the very matters that are covered in clause 26 (2) (a) to (i). Greens amendment No. 13 requires the Minister to exhibit publicly the draft Redfern-Waterloo Plan for a period of at least 21 days, to seek public comment and to take into consideration any submissions made during the period of exhibition, and for a period of seven days from the end of that exhibition. The amendment introduces into the plan the same provisions that relate to the preparation of any regional environmental plan or local environmental plan to ensure proper public scrutiny and the opportunity for public comment. Greens amendment No. 14 introduces a new clause that requires the vision to be released before the plan can be implemented, and for the full contents of the plan to be available publicly within two years.

Although the bill authorises the preparation of a plan, no time limit has been set for the finalisation of the plan. Two years after the event at Minto local residents are still waiting for the master plan to be presented and adopted. Rather than bits of the plan being dribbled out a little at a time so that the whole is never available at any one time, Greens amendment No. 14 would require the plan to be prepared at least for public discussion, scrutiny and comment within a two-year period. Given the enormous powers the bill delivers into the hands of the Minister, it is not unreasonable to stipulate a two-year time limit on the preparation of the plans. If the plan is not in place, the Minister will have almost unchecked authority.

Greens amendment No. 15 requires that all planning instruments used to implement the Redfern-Waterloo Plan must conform to standard public consultation mechanisms. This somewhat lengthy amendment requires the plan to be exhibited publicly for a period of at least 28 days, that public comment on the draft be sought and that consideration be given to any submissions made during the period of exhibition. Amendments Nos 15 and 16 provide the mechanics for the introduction of the time frame for the plan and the way in which it is to be dealt with. Greens amendment No. 17 requires the plan to be tabled in the same way that all other regulations are tabled, thus allowing the Parliament to disallow them if necessary. The plan will be subject to sections 40 and 41 of the Interpretation Act. Given that we are being asked to accept the bona fides of everyone's intentions and in view of the power being given to the authority and the Minister, at the very least the plan should be tabled and subject to oversight by the Parliament and, if necessary, disallowed.
Greens amendment No. 18 inserts a new clause to provide for a social and community plan for the operational area. Local councils are required to provide social and community plans. It appears that the authority is usurping much of the power of the City of Sydney Council. The obligations placed on the council should be placed also on the authority because its activities, whether it is the demolition or redevelopment of buildings or the sale of public assets, obviously will have a huge impact upon communities living in the area. It is absolutely essential to ensure that any of the activities carried out by the authority are in accord with the community or the social plan. The way in which the authority controls the use of the physical environment—buildings, streets and open space—must be in accord with the social objectives set out in the community plan. The Greens urge the Committee to adopt amendment No. 18.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [11.28 a.m.]: The Redfern-Waterloo Plan is designed to be a flexible document that changes over time to emphasise the changing needs of the area. For example, it may be that the plan is produced in a number of stages, or the plan may cover strategic vision for land use. It may be in addition to a human services plan. If Greens amendment No. 12 were carried, the Redfern-Waterloo Plan would be required to cover every potential aspect of operations from day one. If it did not, the plan would be open to legal challenge. This would tie down the authority in constant legal disputes over the breadth of the plan, and that would prevent the authority from setting priorities or adapting to the changing needs of the Redfern-Waterloo residents. Therefore the Government opposes Greens amendment No. 12.

The Government opposes also Greens amendment No. 13 because the bill currently states that the Redfern-Waterloo Plan is to be made public. When the plan is reviewed, due consideration must be given to public submissions that may be made from time to time. It should be perfectly clear that the Government intends that the plan will be public. The plan will succeed only if it has the broad support of the Redfern-Waterloo community; there will be no value in keeping the plan in any way secret. However, the plan is designed to be a flexible document that changes over time to meet the changing needs of the area. For example, the plan will be produced in a number of stages, as I have said. The amendment will reduce the flexibility of the plan by requiring advertising periods for every minor change of the plan, thereby slowing down the process of delivering improvements in Redfern-Waterloo.

The Government opposes Greens amendment No. 14. As previously stated, the Government supports the application of the principles of social, economic and environmentally sustainable development. In fact, the bill currently states that when the authority carries out its functions, it is to take into consideration, whenever relevant, the principles of social, economic, ecological and environmentally sustainable development. The amendment essentially requires that these principles should be applied on all occasions, whether the principles are relevant or not. This would mean that every action taken in the plan, no matter how inconsequential, would have to apply these principles or be open to legal challenge. The principles of social, economic and environmentally sustainable development are a core part of the bill. They are essential considerations, but applying them to every action of the authority, no matter how small, cannot be accepted.

The amendment also requires that the plan be prepared within two years. Honourable members should be assured that the plan will be introduced as soon as possible. Mandating a certain time frame for the plan could have the effect of curtailing public consultation and leaving some residents unable to express their views, all because of an arbitrary time frame that has been determined by this Parliament long before the plan is actually commenced. The Government therefore also opposes that amendment.

The Government opposes also Greens amendment No. 15, which would remove the Government's power to make an environmental planning instrument by gazettal. This will significantly delay the introduction of any such planning instruments and slow down the process of delivering sustainable improvements to public services and amenities in the Redfern-Waterloo area.

The Government cannot support Greens amendment No. 16, which relates to clause 26 (8). It provides that the authority must, at the request of the Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources do certain things. The Redfern-Waterloo Authority is under the direction of the Minister responsible for Redfern-Waterloo, not the Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. The amendment creates two lines of direction for Redfern-Waterloo Authority employees who carry out functions of the authority within the operational area. It is illogical to set up an inherent conflict. For that reason, the Government opposes the amendment.

Greens amendment No. 17 will allow the Parliament to disallow the Redfern-Waterloo Plan as it would be a statutory rule. The effect of this amendment would be that no plan or amendment to the plan would have any finality or force until the Parliament determined that it would not reject the plan. The Redfern-Waterloo Plan is designed to be amended over time to meet the changing needs of the Redfern-Waterloo community. If this amendment were carried, every amendment to the plan, no matter how minor, would be left in a state of uncertainty in the face of possible parliamentary disallowance. The Redfern-Waterloo Plan would become unworkable as a result of this amendment. The Government urges that this amendment be rejected also.

Greens amendment No. 18 inserts a requirement for a social and community plan to be prepared in conjunction with other requirements of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. This unnecessary provision also duplicates some of the roles of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan. Many of the social service issues that the amendment refers to will be dealt with by the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project in the Premier's Department, and not by the authority. The amendment will oblige the authority to carry out a process in an area in which it has only partial involvement. The Government opposes all the amendments.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.33 a.m.]: I will deal with a couple of Greens amendments and I will invite the Minister to comment on a few matters. With regard to amendment No. 17, I am completely unsympathetic to the Minister's generic comments about disallowance, although they are predictable comments for a Minister. However, in my view it is inappropriate for the Minister to suggest that public sector agencies should be excluded from the operation of section 40 and section 41 of the Interpretation Act. In this specific instance, I regard as fair the Minister's comments on the difficulty of a document of the nature of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan being subject to disallowance. I cannot imagine that this plan will be in a form that would allow it to be disallowed in the same way as regulations may be disallowed; that is just inconceivable in terms of the complexity of matters that will be dealt with in relation to Redfern-Waterloo.

I refer now to Greens amendment No. 18. Tempting as it is to think that this bill renders the Council of the City of Sydney a doughnut council—which the Minister at the table deprecates so regularly—of course, the bill does not do that. The Minister should not look so quizzical; he might send the wrong message. The obligations that the Council of the City of Sydney will have in terms of its community plan under the Local Government Act will remain. The authority will have responsibility for State significant developments. Ongoing social welfare obligations will remain for the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, which was the case before the authority was proposed. I believe that amendment No. 18 is redundant.

Greens amendment No. 13 is very significant. I point out to the Minister that throughout his entire response to the comments made by Ms Sylvia Hale in support of her amendment, I heard him give no undertaking at all about public consultation. I heard him make some remarks about how making the plan inflexible might make it difficult to undertake public consultation, but I heard him give no guarantees or undertakings to the Committee about what would happen if the Committee left the plan flexible—that is, what public consultation would be undertaken, or what exhibition drafts would be allowed by the authority.

I would have thought that if the Committee were to give the Government and the new authority flexibility to address the complex social problems and other difficult infrastructure planning that will need to be undertaken in the operational area, we could at least have had an undertaking given in this Chamber about how the authority will approach such significant issues. I invite the Minister to address the Committee in more detail on that matter because the issues are significant and they are relevant to whether Greens amendment No. 13 should be passed by the Committee.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [11.37 a.m.]: As I have said, the bill currently states that the Redfern-Waterloo Plan is to be made public. That is stated in clause 26 (3). I also said that the plan would be reviewed, and as it is reviewed, due consideration will be given to any public submissions that are made from time to time. Under clause 26 (4), public submissions will be invited and considered.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.38 a.m.]: The Hon. Don Harwin has made the point that in fact the authority will be dealing merely with State significant developments. I think that is all the more reason for it to have in place a social plan. The nature of any development deemed to be State significant means that the social requirements of an area can be easily overlooked, ignored or treated as second-best considerations. That is all the more reason for the authority to have a social plan. If the Council of the City of Sydney also has a social plan it is important that the two be synchronised to the greatest possible extent. It would be ludicrous if the city council were using its resources to pursue one objective that the authority chose to ignore, or to which its actions were directly counter. In response to the Minister's assurance that the plan will be reviewed and made public, if that is the case there is no conceivable argument to require that plan to be publicly exhibited for at least 21 days.
What is wrong with the bill containing a mechanism that sets out the public's rights to exhibiting and commenting on the plan? Otherwise, everything is left to the grace, favour and good intentions of the Minister. From experience everyone knows that good intentions are not sufficient and cannot be relied upon. I urge the Opposition and the crossbenchers to support the Greens amendments, in particular amendments Nos 13 and 18.

Greens amendment No. 12 negatived.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 13 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

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

Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Miss Gardiner Mr Jenkins

Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Mr Roozendaal Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendment No. 13 negatived.

Greens amendment No. 14 negatived.

Greens amendment No. 15 negatived.

Greens amendment No. 16 negatived.

Greens amendment No. 17 negatived.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 18 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

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

Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Miss Gardiner Mr Jenkins

Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Mr Roozendaal Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendment No. 18 negatived.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [11.52 a.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Pages 13 and 14, clause 28, line 32 on page 13 to line 4 on page 14. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

28 Heritage matters

(1) The provisions of the Heritage Act 1977 do not apply to the carrying out of development in the operational area that is State significant development.

(2) However, an item or part of an item listed on the State Heritage Register is not to be altered or demolished unless:

(a) the Minister has consulted the Heritage Council of New South Wales about the matter and has taken into consideration any advice duly provided by the Council, and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary for the sustainable improvement of the operational area.

(3) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the procedures for consulting the Heritage Council of New South Wales and for the provision of advice by that Council.

This amendment relates to heritage matters and aims to ensure a formal role for the Heritage Council of New South Wales in relation to heritage-listed items on State significant sites. The amendment follows consultation with the Heritage Council and others. The bill currently provides that the Heritage Act 1977 not apply to the development of certain State significant sites provided the Minister determines that this development is essential to the overall strategic vision for the area. Concerns have been raised that a future Minister may choose to make decisions about heritage items so affected without considering the views of the Heritage Council beforehand. This amendment goes some way to addressing this concern. The amendment provides that no item or part of an item listed on the State Heritage Register can be demolished unless the Minister has consulted with the Heritage Council first and given due consideration to its advice. In addition, the Minister must be satisfied that the demolition is necessary for the sustainable improvement of the operational area. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.53 a.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 19:

No. 19 Page 13, clause 28 (1), lines 33-37. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) The provisions of the Heritage Act 1977 do not apply to development to the extent to which the development affects the platforms and buildings forming Redfern Station if the development:

(a) is within the operational area and is State significant development, and

(b) is identified in the Redfern-Waterloo Plan as development that may be carried out despite any prohibition or restriction under that Act.

The effect of this amendment is to limit the overriding of the Heritage Act 1977 to only those buildings that form part of Redfern station. When the Greens were briefed about the bill before its introduction we were told that Redfern station was the key issue. The Minister did not want preservation of the toilets at the station to stand in the way of redeveloping the site. In this amendment the Greens are giving the Minister what he wants and saying that the Heritage Act should prevail elsewhere but not in relation to Redfern station. That is the Minister's sole rationale for attempting to exclude the workings of the Heritage Act from the authority, and this amendment will give him what he seeks.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [11.55 a.m.]: Government amendment No. 2 requires the Heritage Council to be consulted and its views given due consideration before the demolition of any items listed on the State Heritage Register. The Minister must also be satisfied in developing a State significant site that is essential to the strategic vision of the area. The Redfern-Waterloo Plan will not be achieved if the Heritage Act were to apply. For example, the Redfern and Waterloo communities have discussed the need for a town centre and the Redfern railway station has been identified as an appropriate location for such a centre. The railway station needs to be redeveloped to meet the requirements of the disability discrimination Act. These improvements cannot be carried out without affecting heritage-listed buildings, notably a heritage toilet on the site.

The Government is required to consult the Heritage Council and consider its advice before proceeding. The Government believes this strikes the right balance between protecting heritage structures and ensuring the social, economic and structural improvement of Redfern and Waterloo. Greens amendment No. 19 would limit the exemption from the Heritage Act to Redfern railway station alone. This could significantly reduce the opportunities for adaptive reuse of other heritage sites in the area, and thereby reduce the amount of funding available to improve the lives and wellbeing of Redfern and Waterloo residents. The Government strongly opposes Greens amendment No. 19.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.56 a.m.]: I want to clarify something with regard to Greens amendment No. 19. There appear to be three options on the circulated document C-047D.

The CHAIRMAN: On circulated sheet C-047D the options that appear under Greens amendment No. 19 are voting instructions for the Greens to follow. The first option applies to clause 27, to which the Committee has already agreed.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: That is what I am checking. The Greens appear to have missed that one. Turning to Government amendment No. 2, as I said during the second reading debate, I raised heritage issues with the Premier's Department. We are pleased that the Government is introducing amendments on heritage matters. I was disappointed that in responding to Greens amendment No. 19 the Minister did not specify areas other than Redfern railway station where it will be necessary to override the Heritage Act. Nevertheless, now that Government amendment No. 2 has been moved, I think we can proceed with some degree of confidence that important heritage items in the Redfern and Waterloo areas will receive proper consideration from the new authority.

Government amendment No. 2 agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: As Government amendment No. 2 has been agreed to, Greens amendment No. 19 lapses.

Clause 28 as amended agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [12.01 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 20:

No. 20 Page 14, clause 29, lines 6-11. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) This section applies to development that is State significant development and that is carried out on land within the operational area.

This amendment inserts a new clause 29 (1) in relation to development contributions for affordable housing. The upshot of the amendment is to limit the transfer of affordable housing levies to land within the authority area and not to cherry pick sites outside the boundaries of the authority such as the Carlton United Brewery site. I think money needs to be expended on the Redfern-Waterloo area and on the provision of affordable housing. I have absolutely no problem with the Government allocating money to that from its budget. However, I think it is grossly unfair and fundamentally wrong that the levies that will be raised in one area, in this instance Chippendale, will not be expended in that area. The levies are allowed to be raised because they serve a definite purpose in the area from which they are extracted.
The Carlton United Brewery site on Broadway will experience a great influx of people, which will place additional pressures on public amenities and resources. I believe the levies should be expended by the Council of the City of Sydney within its own area rather than transferred to the area of the authority. The Government should not be allowed to escape the burden of its responsibility of providing adequate funding for affordable housing. However, that funding should be provided by the State budget through the Department of Housing rather than extracted from the city of Sydney area that is the Carlton United Brewery site. I commend Greens amendment No. 20 to the Committee.

Pursuant to sessional orders consideration interrupted, progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I acknowledge the presence in the President's gallery of Mr Zhang Ruifu, Vice-Chairman of the Hunan Provincial Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister provide an assurance to the House that all RailCorp employees in operational safety critical roles have undergone health assessments and checks for colour blindness? How many RailCorp employees have failed a health assessment or have been found to be colour blind? What quality assurance procedures are in place to ensure that safety critical workers are not able to circumvent tests for colour blindness? What duties are safety critical workers who are found to be unfit or colour blind now undertaking? What is the cost to taxpayers of the salaries for those workers who are no longer able to undertake the tasks for which they were originally employed?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am glad that the honourable member has asked this question because it indicates a change of attitude in the Opposition in relation to medical standards and health-related issues. Earlier in the year, the Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, said that the Government was acting maniacally in relation to medical standards and we should drop our procedures in light of the Waterfall accident. If this question indicates that the Opposition is taking the issue of health standards more seriously, it has been very useful.

The Hon. Michael Egan: It is a welcome change.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is a welcome change if it is doing that but the Opposition has taken a whole year to get to this stage. In relation to medical standards, as I have said on a number of occasions, new national medical standards were introduced in July 2004 for all rail operators. Those new medical standards are more rigorous than the previous standards that applied in RailCorp and there are also more rigorous tests for colour blindness. I do not have details of the number of people who have passed or failed the tests, but I am happy to ask RailCorp to provide that information. Certainly, the question of medical standards is an important issue and it is very pleasing that the Opposition has finally accepted the Government's rationale in introducing tougher medical standards.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister update the House on the Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment Program?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for her question and her ongoing interest in the important initiatives in relation to drug diversion. Last week, the Attorney-General and I launched the Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment [MERIT] program at Sydney's Downing Centre courts. Honourable members would be aware that the MERIT program offers the option of drug treatment to adult defendants who are eligible for bail and are before the courts. Since the commencement of the MERIT program four years ago as a trial in Lismore, it has been successful in getting offenders into treatment for the first time. The program has now been expanded across all 17 of the previous area health services and is available at 52 local courts that service approximately 65 per cent of the State's local court population.

MERITs results are very promising with nearly 4,000 people over the past four years formally accepted into the program and attempting to turn their lives away from drug crime and toward rehabilitation. Equally encouraging is that more than 60 per cent of these defendants successfully completed program requirements. Re-offending data also indicates that the people who complete MERIT have a significantly lower likelihood of re-offending, leading to safer communities within New South Wales through reduced drug-related crime. MERIT is a prime example of how criminal justice intervention programs can be successful in directing offenders into treatment to address their drug use and associated criminal behaviour. By encouraging defendants to tackle their drug problems, we are also reducing the motivation behind their criminal activity.

MERIT relies on a comprehensive range of health and welfare services including detoxification, treatment and rehabilitation. Participants are closely case-managed and the magistrate receives regular reports on their progress. MERIT, like other initiatives of the Government such as the Adult Drug Court and Youth Drug and Alcohol Court, is a great example of how the police and courts can work in close partnership with health services in reaching individuals—individuals who might not otherwise have received treatment for their underlying problems. Since the Drug Summit in 1999, we have developed broad-ranging recommendations on how best to tackle the drug problem. This Government has committed an additional $230 million over four years for a drug program budget.

More than $56 million has been allocated in 2004-05 to expand drug prevention, education, treatment and law enforcement—including $32.6 million for expanded drug treatment and health care. With regard to diversion programs, the Government has allocated $41 million over the next four years. Under the current diversion initiative of the National Illicit Drugs Strategy, the Commonwealth Government has also provided New South Wales with more than $60 million to 2006-07, and I commend them on that contribution. More than $100 million is being spent in New South Wales on drug diversion initiatives such as: MERIT; the Adult Drug Court; the Youth Drug and Alcohol Court; the Cannabis Cautioning Scheme; youth justice conferencing and cautions for minor drug users under the Young Offenders Act; rural and regional counsellors for young offenders, and training for police and health professionals.

These programs provide a comprehensive range of options to divert people from the criminal justice system into treatment. The programs can be used at different stages in the criminal justice system. Importantly, they not only deal with an offender's crime, they also aim to stop further criminal behaviour by addressing the root cause of the problem: the offender's illicit drug use. I commend the MERIT program and look forward to updating the House on its future progress.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I direct my question to the Minister for the calicivirus—sorry, the Minister for Primary Industries. Following the Minister's claims to have successfully secured an agreement to improve an automatic declaration process for exceptional circumstances drought assistance at last week's Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting, will he now apply the same principles of an automatic or semi-automatic exceptional circumstances declaration system to New South Wales drought assistance so that it can be triggered automatically when rural lands protection boards enter a 1-in-10-to-15 year drought?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Madam President—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What's up, Doc?

The Hon. John Ryan: You wascally wabbit! What's with the carrot?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Thanks for it, Dunc!

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You don't know where he's had it!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It's a beautiful carrot. I was somewhat amused by the use of a particular prop last night, and am again amused by the use of this carrot prop this morning. I must say that the way The Nationals have been disappearing in the Western Division and in the west generally in recent months, they have probably been eating calicivirus-infected carrots, resulting in a cross-species transfer that is wiping out The Nationals. We will have to watch carefully what The Nationals are eating, but especially carrots. I thank the honourable member for his carrot. Carrots are good for you; they are good for the eyesight and keep you fit and healthy. It is good to know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is supporting our major rural industries by purchasing carrots.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: He found it in a bin!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Being responsible for food safety in this State, I probably should have done a little bit of checking before I munched on this carrot! In relation to the actual question, yes, New South Wales was successful at the Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting last Friday in getting a decent resolution carried in relation to the automatic rollover of exceptional circumstances funding for income support. It was a great resolution to get through. Honourable members must bear in mind that here we are dealing with two different things.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So there is one law for the Federal Minister and a different law for you!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Just hold on a second! The system that the rural lands protection boards assist us in administering deals with 1-in-10-year drought circumstances, and that is a far lower test than that for the delivery of funding under exceptional circumstances, that is, a 1-in-20-year or 1-in-25-year drought. That is a far more onerous situation than a 1-in-10-year drought. That is basically the reason that this system is applied to national funding; it is a 1-in-20-year to 1-in-25-year climate and pasture growth and water availability test, which is much more onerous than the test that relates to an advance for a 1-in-10-year drought.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's just too hard, isn't it?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No. The honourable member basically is chasing rabbits with this one! The fact is that they are completely different applications. I hope I have explained that sufficiently for the honourable member.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, you haven't.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: One is a 1-in-10-year event, and that is a State matter, and that is far more regular than a 1-in-20-year to a 1-in-25-year event, which is often regarded as a 1-in-100-year event anyway. So that the criteria that one would establish under the climate model are far more easily determined for an event in 1-in-20-year event or 1-in-25-year event than it is to determine for a 1-in-10-year event. So they are completely different systems. I hope the honourable member will reflect upon that when he leaves the Chamber. I am happy to share this carrot with anyone prepared to eat it! I do not note any interest shown by the Hon. Tony Catanzariti.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He's not that silly!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Community Services, as the representative in this House of the Minister for Education and Training, a question without notice. First, is the Minister aware that the proposed syllabus prepared by the New South Wales Board of Studies for the Studies of Religion course is drafted in such a way so as to deny, to a great extent, the Christian heritage of this country? For example, the old unit-1 course had a foundation study looking at the religious heritage of Australia from 1788 to 1901, which highlighted the predominance of Australia's Christian heritage whereas the current draft syllabus omits this foundation study completely. Second, is the Minister aware that 70 per cent of Australians align themselves with the Christian faith? Is the Minister also aware that the representation of and emphasis on Australia being multi-faith in the draft syllabus negates the predominance of Christianity in present Australia and the fact that Australia, as a nation, has a solid Christian heritage?

The Hon. Michael Egan: The question is out of order.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Are you taking a point of order?
The Hon. Michael Egan: No. It's Christmas!

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Despite the interjections, I will refer the question to the Minister in the other place and I undertake to obtain a response for the honourable member.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Can the Minister inform the House of developments in forestry research on the New South Wales North Coast?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: In fact I have just announced that the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries will invest heavily in important forestry research on the North Coast next year. Excuse me, but a bit of carrot is caught in my throat!

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It's got him, Dunc!

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Not the calicivirus?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No. It only affects The Nationals. Forests NSW will commit an extra $700,000 to genetic research to improve the growth, quality and pest resistance of hardwood plantations. The funding will be used to construct four specialised buildings at the Forestry Centre of Excellence, in Grafton, to house this cutting-edge research. The buildings will be atmosphere-controlled to allow the commercial-scale production of hardwood trees. They will be fitted with technology that allows the automatic fertilisation of tens of thousands of plants at one time. They will also be designed to capture and recycle rainwater for irrigation.

The advanced buildings will give some of our top forestry scientists a chance to study the genetics of hardwood trees and therefore help to improve the strength and durability of the timber. As with all of our scientific endeavours, the key is to make the research targeted, focused and practical for industry to adopt. This research project will certainly meet all those criteria. The results will be directly applied to the forestry industry, to help improve the growth and quality of plantation wood and increase pest resistance. Better hardwood tree material will generate solid returns to the industry, providing more security for the 4,630 jobs that depend directly on the industry in New South Wales. It will also make the industry much more environmentally sustainable. Importantly, this research project will boost the profile of New South Wales as a world leader in the use of genetics to improve forestry productivity. It will also help our reputation as a leader in hardwood propagation research.

We will be in a better position to compete with Brazil and South Africa, which are currently pioneering the propagation of eucalyptus. I should remind honourable members that this Grafton project is part of the State Government's Towards 2020 reinvestment plan to reinvigorate our key primary industries research centres. This $700,000 project is just the start of many research initiatives at the Forestry Centre of Excellence, which I announced in September. In fact, the Government plans to spend another $1 million over the next two years to expand existing nursery facilities, upgrade infrastructure and establish trials in both hardwood and softwood plantations. Nearly 500 hectares have been set aside at the site to establish these plantations and boost the specialised forestry research focus at the site.

I acknowledge the centre's previous long history in agricultural and fisheries research, which is an absolute tribute to the talent and hard work of the scientists and their support staff at the site. The new role of Grafton as a Centre of Excellence in forestry research will build on previous successes in forestry research statewide. For example, I inform honourable members that in the past our research has produced a 55 per cent increase in the volume of wood produced from our propagation facilities, compared to routine seedling planting stock. We have focused on research in two major species, spotted gum and blackbutt, for which we have the world's largest breeding program. Each of these is highly valued in Australian milling industry. They are in short supply in other parts of the world.

[Interruption]

Development of the $700,000 research project at Grafton is due to start in early 2005. I will update members as it progresses. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects. I would have thought that the ridicule copped by The Nationals from every sector of political life in this Chamber over its fantastic performance in Dubbo would have resulted in his taking a powder and going to Crookwell to look after his sheep.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Transport Services. In view of the proposal by the State Transit Authority to dispose of the former Tempe Tram and Bus Depot, will the Minister guarantee that the historic Tempe tram shed, the largest and most intact tramway facility in New South Wales, will be retained? Will he guarantee that it will continue to be used as a bus and truck museum and that the heritage values of the war memorial and federation offices on the site will be kept in any redevelopment of the site?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: There are proposals for the site that were mentioned. I am advised that the State Transit Authority is looking for other sites for the heritage train museum. That will be a matter for discussion between the State Transit Authority and the trustees of that organisation. We will use every endeavour to ensure that war memorials or anything that is war related remains. They are important items and they would be factored into any development proposal.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister guarantee that the collection at the Tempe Bus and Truck Museum will not be moved from its present location until a suitable site has been secured for its rehousing?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I refer to my previous answer.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. How many reports did the Department of Community Services [DOCS] Helpline and Kempsey community service centre receive about the three-year-old boy known as baby Smith who died tragically from suspicious injuries in Kempsey on 26 October this year? When did DOCS receive its first report about this child? What category were these reports given? Was the boy sighted by caseworkers following these initial reports? Did the joint investigation review team make recommendations to the Children's Court about the ongoing care of this child and, if so, what was this advice?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The honourable member has asked a question about a very sad and tragic case, of which I am aware. I offer my since condolences to all of those who have been affected by the tragic death of this child. I can advise the House that the child was the subject of a child protection report in June, which was referred on the same day to the joint investigative response team—a child protection team comprising DOCS officers and police. That team investigated the matter, and expert medical advice was sought in both Port Macquarie and Sydney. DOCS staff met with the family and, as a result, undertakings were made to the Children's Court regarding the care of this child. Given that the matter is subject to a police and coronial investigation I am unable, at this time, to make any further comment. Of course, this matter will be subject also to a review by the Ombudsman in his capacity of reviewing child deaths in New South Wales.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Disability Services. What practical measures are being taken by the Government to assist organisations offering to create work or training opportunities for people with intellectual or physical disabilities?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I have no doubt that this is a very important question, but my colleague the Minister for Rural Affairs will do an admirable job of responding.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order. During questions without notice it is traditional for Government members to ask questions of Ministers of which they have prior notice.

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

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Obviously, there is no prior notice.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. TONY KELLY: This is about—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Madam President, point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I was perfectly aware the member was seeking the call on a point of order. He had no cause to shout.

The Hon. Don Harwin: I apologise for shouting, but you have advised the House constantly of the need to speak up so that you can hear what we are saying. My point of order is that a question was asked by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, which was read fluently. Then the Minister for Community Services answered the question. We now appear to have a second Minister attempting to answer the question. That is not allowed for within the standing orders. Occasionally the Leader of the Government takes a question, as Leader of the Government, on behalf of another Minister, but always as the first Minister to answer the question, not as the second. The idea that the Leader of the House can provide a second answer is not envisaged under the standing orders. You should rule this answer out of order.

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: To the point of order: When the question was asked of me I responded. But I did indicate that I was referring the question to the Minister for Rural Affairs.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Further to the point of order: The Minister dams herself and the Leader of the House with her own words. She responded to the question. She answered it. Asked. Answered. We do not need a second answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Melinda Pavey to order.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: The Hon. Don Harwin is right. The Minister said she responded to the question. But responding to a question and answering a question are two different things. The question has not yet been answered, and the Minister for Rural Affairs is entitled to answer it.

The Hon. John Ryan: To the point of order: The question asked by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal clearly concerned the Adult Learning and Training Scheme, which is well within the Minister's portfolio. It is something with which she has been dealing for some time—hacking, slashing and cutting. The only Minister capable of answering a question about that matter is the Minister for Disability Services. If she has to hand it to the Minister for Rural Affairs to give an answer then we have a Minister for Disability Services who has nothing to say about her portfolio.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: To the point of order: It is disappointing that the Opposition has chosen to take a point of order on such an important matter. I was going to talk about the Sunnyfield Association, a group that has been looking after people with disabilities for 50 years. It is so disappointing.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister for Disability Services referred the question to the Minister for Rural Affairs to answer. The Minister for Rural Affairs may answer the question.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Time has expired for an answer.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice. Is it a fact that deputy police commissioner David Madden and metropolitan regional commander Bob Waites are being investigated by WorkCover officials about their responsibility for providing a safe workplace for police as a result of the Redfern riot? What progress has taken place in this investigation? What action has the New South Wales Government taken to ensure that New South Wales police officers are equipped with the necessary riot equipment for all future eventualities?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question and for his interest in this very important matter. Members will recall that I discussed this issue in the House on 16 November 2004. At that time I advised the House that WorkCover was conducting an independent investigation into the systems of work employed by NSW Police at the time of the so-called Redfern riot. I also advised that this investigation was continuing, and this is indeed still the case. The investigation is focusing on the systems of work in place at the time of the incident.

As with most WorkCover investigations, it has conducted a systemic investigation and interviews with various levels of management and police service members who were involved in the incident. As part of the investigation process, a number of senior officers of the NSW Police have been interviewed. Contrary to the hysterics of public statements made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in the Legislative Assembly, I am advised that WorkCover is not actively considering any prosecutorial action against an individual police officer.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice. Given the extensive history of detainee substance abuse at Kariong, why has the Department of Corrective Services decided not to employ a drug and alcohol counsellor at the centre? Why has the department decided instead to place two welfare officers at the centre? Does one of the welfare officers who has been placed at the centre live in Strathfield? Was this officer removed from his position at the Metropolitan Remand Centre two years ago due to a severe sleep apnoea that led to his being assessed as a security risk? Has this officer, who lives at Strathfield, been working at head office ever since his removal from the remand centre? Is the Department of Corrective Services using Kariong as a dumping ground for displaced officers?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Department of Corrective Services is well oversighted by some 14 different agencies that look at every nook and cranny of what we do and can investigate any issues relating to misconduct or lack of professionalism on behalf of any officer. I completely and utterly reject the imputation against the credibility of individual members of staff, which is inherent in the honourable member's question. I should also point out that the Hon. Catherine Cusack does not do herself any credit by using this forum as a place for defaming individuals in the way that she does based on spurious assertions that, all too often in question time, I have found to be tinged with information of that sort in her question.

The Hon. John Ryan: Have you got a D and A worker there, or not, Minister?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Just hold your horses. Ever since the Department of Corrective Services has been involved in Kariong, the Ombudsman has been involved in inquiries and examining the way in which the programs have been rolled out.

[Interruption]

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Any inmate or any detainee who has any complaint about any of the issues is welcome to approach the Ombudsman in relation to those issues.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: How would they be aware of this?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: In due course, the Hon. Catherine Cusack will find out more about what will happen with the Department of Corrective Services, but I can tell the Hon. Catherine Cusack that of all people, she is in no position to criticise.

[Interruption]

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Melinda, you know you are one of my favourites, you do, and it ill behoves you to interrupt. You have all that talent that oozes out of you and one day we will see you as the leader, but you should be a little bit more circumspect in your interjections because they often do not assist in clarifying any of the particular issues. I should point out that the staffing structure at Kariong includes a welfare officer, an alcohol and other drugs counsellor, a psychologist, and justice health staff. The part of the question that relates to the absence of drug and alcohol assistance at Kariong is incorrect.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: A welfare officer has been placed in there?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I have already listed the staff—two administration staff members, a welfare officer, and an alcohol and other drugs counsellor. In response to the specific defamatory allegations against officers made by the honourable member, I will examine those issues but no doubt I will find that, in common with many of the allegations raised by the Opposition, the allegations will have no substance.
[Interruption]

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Look, Catherine, you are the last person who should rant about Kariong. The Hon. Catherine Cusack's involvement in Kariong has produced two Ombudsman's reports which were damning about all the advice she gave to Virginia Chadwick and the taxpayer is still waiting to get value out of the salary that she was paid when she was Virginia Chadwick's adviser.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. John Ryan to order for the first time. To further educate members with regard to an earlier ruling, I advise that the House of Representatives Practice states that a Minister:

… may also transfer a question to another Minister and it is not in order to question the reason for doing so.

Odgers's Australian Senate Practice states:

It is the right and responsibility of ministers in this chamber to decide who will answer questions and in whose area of responsibility at particular question lies.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Minister, what practical measures are being taken by the Government to assist organisations involved in creating work and training opportunities for people with intellectual and physical disabilities to find suitable space to accommodate their important work?

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: Madam President, you have given many rulings in this House that Ministers may be asked questions about matters concerning their portfolios. This is not a matter that falls within any of the portfolios of the Hon. Tony Kelly. It is a portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Disability Services.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I do not believe that the Opposition would do this to the Sunnyfield Association.

The Hon. John Ryan: I beg your pardon, I have not finished.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Madam President—

The PRESIDENT: Has the Hon. John Ryan finished his point of order?

The Hon. John Ryan: No, I have not. I am waiting for the Minister to sit down. The question is entirely within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Disability Services. This question is entirely about disability services. It may well have been appropriate for the Minister for Disabilities Services to be asked the question and refer it to Minister Kelly, but on this occasion the question was asked of him. It is not in his portfolio responsibilities. He should not be seeking to answer it.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: To the point of order: The question was directed to the Minister for Lands, and it said:

Minister, what practical measures are being taken by the Government to assist organisations involved in creating work and training opportunities for people with intellectual and physical disabilities to find suitable space to accommodate their important work?

I emphasise the word "space", which refers to land. As the Minister for Lands, I handed over some land to assist people with disabilities. All the Opposition has tried to do is stop the Government asking a question and answering a question about these important people in our community. That is absolutely disgraceful.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Last week I had the privilege of handing over a block of land to an organisation called the Sunnyfield Association. The Sunnyfield Association is dedicated to the care and vocational training of people with disabilities in New South Wales. It will use the land to expand its Gateway project—a living skills and training centre for people with disabilities. The Department of Lands conducted an extensive search to ensure it found the best site for Sunnyfield. Originally the Sunnyfield Association's intention was to build on a site close to its existing premises at Allambie Heights. However, the site was found to be environmentally unsuitable. The department identified a site close to the Spastic Centre and the Department of Education and Training Crown reserve lands in Allambie Heights.

I will tell the House about the fine work of the Sunnyfield Association, which was established more than 50 years ago. The Sunnyfield Association has a very proud history of working with people with disabilities. The association has gone from strength to strength and is now recognised as a national leader in its important work. People with disabilities face unique challenges. It is our duty to do what we can to support the career goals they set for themselves. The Sunnyfield Association does not have a one-size-fits-all approach, and that is the key reason for its success. One aspect of the Sunnyfield Association's mission is particularly important.

The Sunnyfield Association gives people with disabilities an opportunity to do rewarding work. Work not only helps one pay the bills, but also gives one a sense of purpose and self-esteem. All people have the right to work and gain that self-esteem. Work is vital to the social and economic inclusion of people with disabilities. The New South Wales Government welcomes all initiatives that promote vocational skills for people with disabilities. I had the pleasure of taking a tour of the Sunnyfield Association workshops, where I saw everyone hard at work, doing tasks such as refitting Qantas passenger headsets.

When honourable members next fly, they might spare a thought for the Sunnyfield Association, whose members refit the headsets that go back onto Qantas planes. Despite the problems I have had, on behalf of the House I congratulate the Sunnyfield Association on its important work. I am sure all honourable members join with me in those congratulations. I also commend the association's clients and families. Caring and guiding people with disabilities, allowing them to reach their unique potential, is a worthy pursuit. Treating people with dignity and integrity is the Australian way. That is why the Government supports the work of organisations such as the Sunnyfield Association.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Local Government, representing the Minister for Energy and Utilities. In view of reports that the State faces a period of electricity shortages and a levy on excessive consumption, has the Minister considered the effect on overall power consumption of the large number of internal lights left burning for 24 hours a day in office blocks in the Sydney central business district and other business districts? If those lights are burning in empty offices overnight and at weekends do they represent a significant and wasteful consumption of electricity? Will the Minister consider an audit to see what proportion of lights are left burning unnecessarily with a view to a campaign to encourage managements to try to conserve electricity?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will pass on that important question to the Minister and ensure that I obtain a speedy response.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Is the Minister aware that at Birdwood, on the State's mid North Coast, the fire tanker has been out of service for almost 12 months? Is the Minister further aware that rushed repairs are now being conducted on the tanker to ensure its delivery this weekend to conveniently coincide with the opening of the nearby Wauchope brigade headquarters by Mr Uniform himself, Commissioner Phil Koperberg?

The Hon. Peter Primrose: That question contains an epithet and is therefore out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question contained an epithet and I rule it out of order. The member might wish to rephrase her question in the eight seconds remaining to her.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Could the Minister answer the question?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am aware that about two months ago I opened that—

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: The Minister cannot answer a question that is ruled out of order.
The Hon. John Ryan: To the point of order: The member rephrased her question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister may answer the rephrased question.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Rural Fire Service is committed to providing its volunteers with safe and effective firefighting tankers and equipment. The category nine tanker built for Hastings Council by a regional bodybuilder does not meet the Rural Fire Service's stringent safety standards. Until the tanker meets those standards no volunteer firefighter will be allowed to set foot in it. The Opposition, particularly the shadow Minister, has criticised the Rural Fire Service. The Opposition may criticise the service for caution, but the service has a major obligation to protect volunteers. Modifications to the Birdwood tanker are under way and it is expected that that brigade will be able to use the vehicle shortly.

In the meantime, the brigade has been supplied with a replacement category nine tanker to ensure that it is able to protect the local community during the fire season. Yet again, the Opposition has created alarm in its attempt to discredit the very stringent safety measures introduced by the Rural Fire Service to protect its volunteers. Apart from damaging the reputation of the service and its volunteers, the Opposition's comments are out of touch. Measures are currently under way to resolve the situation.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I ask a supplementary question. Minister, why did it take so long for the replacement tanker to arrive? Was it because Mr Koperberg will be at Wauchope next weekend?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I assume the only relevant part of that question is why it took so long. It took a long time because the tanker had to be brought up to standard. I am not an engineer.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. What is the Government's response to the first report by the Ombudsman into reviewable deaths, handed down today?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Today the Ombudsman handed down his first report on reviewable deaths, a function he was given by the Government to examine the deaths of children from abuse or neglect, or in suspicious circumstances. I thank the Ombudsman and his office for their work in preparing this important report. The death of a child is a tragedy. For many children domestic violence, parental drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness and neglect are the story of their lives, and the report makes for very sad reading. I make it very clear that I accept all the recommendations that relate to my agencies, and action is already under way in respect of many of the recommendations as part of the Government's five-year plan to strengthen child protection services.

The Government is employing more caseworkers, strengthening family support services, improving risk assessment processes and increasing training for staff. The Department of Community Services [DOCS] has established an internal unit to review child deaths and oversee any systemic reforms that may be required. The Ombudsman's recommendations reaffirm the work that the department is doing to continue to improve its practices and procedures. However, no child protection system, no matter how strong it is, can replace a loving, effective parent or carer when it comes to keeping children safe. DOCS can only ever be a safety net, and we are strengthening that safety net. Child protection is a shared responsibility.

The Government is committed to building a stronger child protection system through its five-year plan and its implementation is a responsibility that the department and all its staff take very seriously. The Government has provided extra resources to enable departmental officers to respond to more cases and to deliver services to children and families in need. The additional $1.2 billion to reform DOCS child protection and out-of-home care systems is making a considerable difference, and it is worth reflecting on some prominent aspects of the reform package. We are committed to providing $150 million in new funding for early intervention programs and, as I announced last month, some of this funding will be directed towards child and family centres that will offer disadvantaged families a one-stop shop through which to access a range of services.

The emphasis of our early intervention approach is on dealing with child protection issues when they first emerge and before they take hold. We have quarantined to be early intervention caseworkers 350 of the additional 875 caseworkers being recruited. Some 875 caseworkers equate roughly to 20,000 more families receiving assistance each year. About 300 new caseworkers will be on the ground by the end of this financial year. The majority of these caseworkers will work in the child protection and early intervention areas. Caseworkers are undergoing more extensive training and new caseworkers are required to have a university degree. To ensure that we learn lessons from these tragic cases, the department is improving its capacity to review its actions and make systemic changes. To achieve this, the Complaints Assessment and Review Branch has been established. It has a specific child death review function and also investigates allegations against employees, including foster carers.

The DOCS reform program is on track. In 2004 more children and families were helped than in 2003 and in 2005 still more children and families will be helped. This is the product of a sustained reform process. It is a long process. Reform of this magnitude cannot happen overnight but real progress is being made. The Government and the department accept the Ombudsman's recommendations. We are committed to doing better, learning from mistakes and discharging our duty to protect children and young people in the best way we can.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services, representing the Minister for Roads, the Hon. Carl Scully. I refer the Minister to the report in this morning's edition of the Daily Telegraph about a road incident involving Ms Scarlett Wong and the New South Wales right-wing Liberal crusader the Hon. David Clarke, who has been accused of racist road rage. In view of this incident, which involved a right-wing member coming from the Left, will the Minister consider changing the traffic rules of the State in order to accommodate the driving skills of the Hon. David Clarke?

The Hon. John Ryan: The Hon. Dr Peter Wong has attacked another honourable member of the House in his question. Under the standing orders of this place, he can refer to other honourable members only by substantive motion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Dr Peter Wong that questions must not contain imputations against other members of the Chamber. The question is out of order.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth. Does the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care propose to fund a full-time nurse position at the Sir Eric Woodward Memorial School at St Ives from 2005 or has the department adopted a policy of having a nurse attend on an on-call basis only? Given that many children at the school require ongoing nursing care, is the Government satisfied that the teachers and teachers' aides at the school have the knowledge and the skills needed to support the children in the absence of a nurse?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Patricia Forsythe for her question. I do not have any detailed information that enables me to respond comprehensively so I will take the question on notice and provide a response to the honourable member as soon as possible.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Minister inform the House about some of the Government's business activities and achievements highlighted in the Department of State and Regional Development 2003-04 annual report?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I would love to provide the House with those details, and I thank the Hon. Christine Robertson for her question. As honourable members will be aware, the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development is the Government's business development agency and is responsible for helping grow the State's existing businesses while attracting new investment. The department's 2003-04 annual report highlights significant achievements for the year. The Government has helped to facilitate 144 investment projects across New South Wales, which generated more than $1.26 billion in investment and the creation and retention of almost 6,000 jobs—5,908, to be precise. This included 127 projects, worth $876 million of investment, in regional New South Wales; the creation and retention of 3,715 jobs in regional New South Wales; finance sector investment of $12 million, creating 300 jobs; and seven information and communication technology projects, worth almost $52 million and creating almost 900 jobs.
The Department of State and Regional Development also helped 125 New South Wales companies to secure more than $40 million of new business linked to the Beijing 2008 Olympics Business Program. Companies involved with the department's trade program in 2003-04 are projecting almost $60 million in sales as a result of their participation in the trade mission. The department's program to promote exports assisted almost 700 clients to achieve sales of $15.3 million. Another priority area is technology and innovation promotion. Biotechnology received strong support from the New South Wales Government during 2003-04, culminating in a trade mission to Bio2004, which was led by the Premier, and the signing of the Australia-New Zealand Biotech Alliance by the Australian States, the Commonwealth and New Zealand. The department also provided assistance to 24 New South Wales biotechnology companies under the High Growth BioBusiness Program, and further supported 56 companies under the Non Research Establishment Costs Program.

I am pleased to advise that in 2004, for the second year running, Sydney was voted the world's best city in the highly respected Conde Nast Traveler Magazine Readers Choice Award. Sydney beat Florence, San Francisco, Cape Town and Rome, which made the top five. I commend the work of the Department of State and Regional Development and look forward to its work in securing further investment for New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Does the Government retain responsibility for children in out-of-home care? If so, does the department have a database of all foster carers? What help or supervision does the department give to foster families? Is this help or supervision regular or systematic and what system is used? Are kinship carers and foster families who do not receive payments monitored in the same way? If not, what ongoing monitoring is there of such children?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: As the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is aware, there have been significant changes and improvements to the regulation of out-of-home care through the proclamation of the various provisions of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act that relate to out-of-home care. In particular, the role of the Children's Guardian has now been operationalised. Providers of out-of-home care are required to be accredited and the Children's Guardian also undertakes reviews of children in out-of-home care.

As to foster carers, the situation in New South Wales is that some foster carers will be overseen by the Department of Community Services but a range of very good non-government organisations also take responsibility for foster carers. The department contracts with those organisations with regard to children in care. The department pays an allowance for children who are in court-ordered care and a non-parental care allowance is also made available on the basis of a means test to some people who care for a child. Kinship care is an area facing significant change.

It is certainly the case that if a child is placed with a kinship carer via a court order the child will come under the purview of the department and be subject to the usual requirements that apply to a child in foster care. However, some children are in kinship care either with the knowledge and involvement of the department, but not necessarily as a result of a court order or, in many circumstances, without the knowledge and involvement of the department. As I have indicated on previous occasions, our priority to date has been to proclaim those sections of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act that relate to court-ordered care, but there is currently a proposal out for consultation with regard to how we proceed with the voluntary care aspects of that legislation.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that recreational anglers are required to purchase both New South Wales and Victorian fishing licences to fish in the New South Wales waters of Lake Hume? What action will the Minister take to work with the Victorian Government to facilitate a single reciprocal licence for New South Wales anglers?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am pleased the Hon. Don Harwin has asked this question: I think it is the first question he has asked me.

The Hon. Don Harwin: That is not true.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There might only be one other, but I am pleased he has asked this question because six months ago, in company with the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Bob Cameron, I announced in a blaze of publicity on the banks of Lake Hume that, in fact, Lake Hume would be the entire responsibility of the fisheries section of the Department of Agriculture in Victoria. In exchange, Lake Mulwala will be administered by New South Wales. The honourable member will find that arrangement was signed off this year.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister ban the importation and sale of Victorian coriander that has been sprayed with the chemical Success, which is quite properly banned in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will take that question on notice.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Madam President, I regret to inform the House that you have just heard the last question and answer for 2004. During the year there have been many balls bowled but no wickets taken. If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

The PRESIDENT: I would like to say a few words about Mr George Moutsos, Attendant, Chamber Services. Mr George Moutsos was born in Imbros, Turkey, on 20 March 1938. He migrated to Australia in 1965. George met his wife, Dukina, in Sydney and they married in 1969. Before coming to Parliament House, George was employed by the Holiday Inn, Menzies Sydney Hotel for almost 13 years. He was very well commended for his exemplary professional approach to guests, colleagues and management.

On 16 November 1987 George commenced work in the Parliamentary Food and Beverage Services as a dining room attendant and, on occasions, a waiter in the President's Dining Room. He was a very conscientious and hard-working member of the catering staff. On 28 September 1990 George transferred to the Legislative Council as a staff member of the Parliamentary Attendants. His former manager found him to be courteous and eager to seek work and learn the fundamentals of the Legislative Council. On 25 January 2001 George was permanently appointed to the position of Attendant, Chamber Services, and has carried and retained the confidence and respect of all members of the Legislative Council and members of staff during the past 14 years.

After 17 years with Parliament House, George will be missed by all members of the Legislative Council and staff for his gracious demeanour, professionalism and friendship. We all wish George, Dukina, his son, daughter and 17-month-old grandson a long and happy retirement—and good fishing and wine-making.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN, by leave: Madam President, on behalf of the Government and on my own behalf, I join with you in congratulating George on his well-earned retirement. He has been a feature of this Parliament both in the Chamber and in the dining room for a long, long time. He has been here longer than most honourable members of the House, and he has certainly been a first-class member of the parliamentary staff. We will all miss him and we certainly wish him well for a long and happy retirement. We not only wish him good fishing, but we hope that he continues to make a lot of good wine.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER, by leave: It is with pleasure, and indeed with a touch of sadness, that I say farewell to George in a professional sense. I would like to think that, like a number of staff who have assisted us over the years, George will come back as a visitor and be welcomed. It is correct to say that he is part of the team that makes the Legislative Council the Chamber that it is. He will be missed. I personally will miss his friendship and his humour. I wish George all the very best for the years ahead.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY, by leave: I join with other honourable members in wishing George the best. He came here in 1987, a year ahead of me. He is a great guy. As much as anything else, he has a soothing influence on honourable members around this place. He is always happy and never lets anything get on top of him. Even when his son put wide wheels on his beloved Volkswagen he did not demur. George, I wish you all the very best.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE, by leave: I join other honourable members in thanking George for his 17 years service in this Parliament, his friendship, his loyalty, his good humour, his good manners and the assistance he has given me and other honourable members of this House. Thank you, George.

Mr IAN COHEN, by leave: On behalf of the Greens I thank George for his goodwill and his open and friendly attitude on every day that I have been in this House, which is some years now. On behalf of the Greens I wish him well in his retirement. He has been a very friendly ray of support, both in his presence in the House and in the parliamentary precincts. When things have been getting a bit rabid around the edges George has been very steady, and that has been most appreciated.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS, by leave: George and I both share a common heritage and on occasions when we have had visitors to Parliament House they have always been impressed by the fact that we are such a multicultural nation and that we employ a person of George's calibre in the Parliament. I also want to commend you, Madam President, on your very generous declaration of the place where George was born as Imbros. That, of course, is the Greek name for that particular island. The Turks now call it something else, but I am pleased you have acknowledged it on the record of the New South Wales Parliament.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled the following papers:

(1) Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985—Report of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the year ended 30 June 2004.

(2) Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Report of the Protective Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 2004.

(3) Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999—Report of the Serious Offenders Review Council for the year ended 31 December 2003.

(4) Law Reform Commission Act 1967—Report No. 105 of the Law Reform Commission entitled "Time limits on loans payable on demand", dated October 2004.

Ordered to be printed.

The President announced the receipt, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act 1974, of a special report entitled "Improving Outcomes for Children at Risk of Harm—A Case Study: A report arising from an investigation into the Department of Community Services and NSW Police following the death of a child", dated December 2004.

The President announced the receipt, pursuant to the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 and the Ombudsman Act 1974, of a report entitled "Reviewable Deaths Annual Report 2003-2004", dated November 2004.

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

The Hon. John Della Bosca tabled the following paper:

Drug Misuse and Trafficking 1985—Report on the review of part 2A of the Act.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA, by leave: I wish to make a statement about the report. As the statement is lengthy, and in view of the hour, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

__________

I present to the House the "Review of Part 2A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985", pursuant to section 36B (3) of the Act.

The review was undertaken by the Responsible Authorities for the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre Trial— the Director General of NSW Health and the Commissioner of Police— in accordance with section 36B of Part 2A of the Act.
The review relates to the first 18 months of the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre Trial from 1 May 2001 to 31 October 2002.

The report of the review makes six (6) recommendations for amending Part 2A of the Act.

The Government does not propose to implement the recommendations at this time.

Some of the recommendations would only apply in the event that there was a change of licensee or if injecting centres were established in other areas.

As Honourable Members are aware, the Government supports a trial of one medically supervised injecting centre located at Kings Cross.

There is only one trial and that is at Kings Cross. The legislation passed by this Parliament allows for only one trial.

One recommendation of the review relates to access to the Centre by young people aged 16 or 17 years.

The Government has always been strong on this point.

The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre is not a place for young people.

The evidence suggests that the Centre caters for entrenched and long term injecting drug users. Young people are by definition not in this category.

The Government believes that it is more appropriate for young people to be assessed, case managed and otherwise assisted to deal with their drug problem in facilities and circumstances other than the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre.

That is why, since the Drug Summit, the Government has bolstered a range of services for at risk young people in the Kings Cross area.

I can advise that the Minister for Youth will be announcing new services for at risk young people aged 12-25 years in the Kings Cross area in the new year.

The remaining recommendations of the review are of a technical nature and seek to change the operation of the Act.

The Government is of the view that the legislation is currently working well.

The Government receives regular reports from the Responsible Authorities for the Trial— the Director General of NSW Health and the Commissioner of Police— and is satisfied that the Act is sufficiently robust to ensure that the Trial is strictly regulated and tightly controlled.

The Government will continue to closely monitor the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre Trial.

______

[The President left the chair at 1.10 p.m. The House resumed at 2.00 p.m.]

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [2.00 p.m.]: Clause 29 currently provides that an affordable housing contribution from the former Carlton and United Breweries site be used for affordable housing in Redfern-Waterloo. This amendment would prevent this funding from being spent on affordable housing in Redfern-Waterloo, an area that contains several poorer communities in need of affordable housing. The Government intends to ensure affordable housing is available in Redfern-Waterloo, and it needs affordable housing levies. This section of the bill will deliver some of the necessary funding for the Redfern-Waterloo area. Accordingly, the Government opposes the amendment.

Greens amendment No. 20 negatived.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [2.02 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 3 to 8, in globo:

No. 3 Page 14, clause 29. Insert after line 31:

(4) If a Minister is not the consent authority for the carrying out of any development to which this section applies, the Minister may, by written notice to the consent authority, act in the place of the consent authority for the purposes of imposing a condition of consent referred to in subsection (2). Any consent that is granted for the development is, by force of this subsection, subject to that condition.
No. 4 Page 14, clause 29. Insert after line 35:

(5) Nothing in this section affects any other contributions that may be required to be made under section 30 or under Division 6 of Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

No. 5 Pages 14 and 15, clause 30, line 36 on page 14 to line 15 on page 15. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

30 Development contributions (other than for affordable housing)

(1) This section applies to development that is State significant development and that is carried out on land within the operational area.

(2) The consent authority may impose, as a condition of development consent in relation to development to which this section applies, a requirement that the applicant pay a levy of the percentage, authorised by a contributions plan referred to in section 31 (1), of the proposed cost of carrying out the development.

(3) Money required to be paid by a condition imposed under this section is to be applied towards the provision, extension or augmentation of public amenities or public services in or in the vicinity of the operational area (or towards recouping the cost of their provision, extension or augmentation). The application of the money is subject to any relevant provisions of the contributions plan referred to in section 31 (1).

(4) A condition imposed under this section is not invalid by reason only that there is no connection between the development the subject of the development consent and the object of expenditure of any money required to be paid by the condition.

(5) A condition under this section that is of a kind allowed by, and determined in accordance with, a contributions plan referred to in section 31 (1) may not be disallowed or amended by the Land and Environment Court on appeal.

(6) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to levies under this section, including:

(a) the means by which the proposed cost of carrying out development is to be estimated or determined, and

(b) the maximum percentage of a levy.

(7) For the purposes of this section, a reference to public amenities or public services includes a reference to open space and the Redfern Railway Station, but does not include a reference to water supply or sewerage services.

(8) This section does not affect the operation of Division 6 of Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. However:

(a) the consent authority cannot impose as a condition of the same development consent a condition under this section as well as a condition under section 94 or any other provision of that Division, and

(b) a contributions plan referred to in section 31 (1) may replace a contributions plan under that Division for the purposes of any condition imposed under section 94 or any other provision of that Division, and

(c) section 31 extends to any money resulting from a condition imposed under section 94 or any other provision of that Division.

No. 6 Page 15, clause 31 (1), line 19. Insert "in relation to development within the operational area" after "sections 29 and 30".

No. 7 Page 15, clause 31. Insert after line 19:

(2) The Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 may prepare and approve a contributions plan, in accordance with Division 6 of Part 4 of that Act, for the purposes of section 29 in relation to State significant development carried out on land referred to in section 29 (1) (b) (being land that was the former Carlton United Brewery site).

(3) The Minister is to consult the Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 before approving a contributions plan for the purposes of section 30.

No. 8 Page 15, clause 31. Insert after line 21:

(3) The payment into the Fund of money resulting from a contribution referred to in section 29 or 30 does not affect the obligation of the Authority under this Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to apply the money within a reasonable time towards the purpose for which the contribution was required.
Government amendments Nos 3 and 4 provide for an affordable housing contribution. They provide that the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning may require the imposition of an affordable housing levy on the redevelopment of the former Carlton and United Breweries site even if all other consent powers are delegated. This would permit delegation of consent powers for this site to Sydney city council while ensuring that an affordable housing levy may be imposed and that the proceeds of such a levy are to benefit Redfern-Waterloo. All honourable members would agree that the provision of affordable housing at Redfern-Waterloo is essential. We cannot afford to have this contribution frittered away on other projects in areas of lower need. These amendments secure this levy, even with the delegation of consent powers, to the benefit of the Redfern-Waterloo area.

Government amendment No. 4 makes clear that this clause relates only to affordable housing levies on the Carlton United Breweries site and not to clause 94 or clause 61 levies. Government amendment No. 5 follows extensive consultation with representatives of the property industry and others regarding the use of various levies to benefit the Redfern-Waterloo area. New clause 30 (1) states that the section applies only to State significant sites within the operational area, and not to the Carlton and United Breweries site. Subclause (2) states that the consent authority may impose a development levy authorised by a contributions plan. The contributions plan would be determined by the consent authority in consultation. Subclause (3) requires that that levy be spent on improving public amenities or public services in Redfern-Waterloo.

Subclauses (4) and (5) permit funds raised to be used for improvements to public amenities or public services anywhere within the operational area of Redfern and Waterloo, Eveleigh or Darlington. This allows funds to be spent in high-need areas even if the developments in that immediate location do not generate enough in the way of levies to fund them. Subclause (6) states that the consent authority may set a maximum percentage of levy by regulation and may also determine the means of estimating the levy. This allows some surety for developers who may have long lead times for their projects and need to calculate their return on investment. Subclause (7) confirms that the definition of "public amenity" includes public open space and the Redfern railway station, but does not include water and sewerage services. The purpose of this clause is to make clear the possible areas on which the developer levy may be spent and to specifically rule out diversion of those funds to other named government services.

The purpose of clause 7 is to make clear the possible areas on which the developer levy may be spent, and it specifically rules out diversion of these funds to other named government services. Clause 8 is an administrative clause that ensures the levy cannot be levied twice and that the contributions plan replaces any previous contributions plans so that all money gathered via these levies is considered part of the levy, and therefore paid to the Redfern-Waterloo Authority fund. These amendments will be a major funding measure for the benefit of Redfern-Waterloo residents. They provide also a degree of surety for the property industry, which may wish to invest in the redevelopment of certain sites in the area. The amendments have the support of industry, and the return would provide a major income stream to improve public services, public facilities, public open space and Redfern railway station.

Amendments Nos 6 and 7 provide that the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning will approve the contributions plan for the Carlton and United Brewery site, and that the Minister for Redfern-Waterloo will approve contributions plans for sites within the operational area, but only after consultation with the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. Amendments Nos 6 and 7 ensure that the planning Minister plays a major role in the approval of developer contributions. Amendment No. 8 provides that development contributions from State significant sites, including the Carlton and United Brewery site, are spent for the benefit of Redfern-Waterloo residents within a reasonable timeframe. Concerns have been raised that action on improving public amenity should be taken swiftly. We cannot afford continued long delays in improving services and facilities in Redfern and Waterloo. This amendment will ensure that the money will flow directly to better services as swiftly as possible. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [2.11 p.m.]: As I stated at some length in my contribution to the second reading debate, the Opposition supports these amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.11 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support these amendments, which will greatly help to improve the legislation.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 29 as amended agreed to.
Clause 30 as amended agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.12 p.m.]: I am pleased to move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 15. Insert after line 21:

32 Matters affecting the Aboriginal Housing Company and "the Block"

(1) The Minister or a nominee of the Minister is to consult with the Aboriginal Housing Company and other relevant representatives of the Aboriginal community on issues and strategies affecting, or the long-term strategic vision for, the Block (and its immediate area).

(2) In this section:

Aboriginal Housing Company means the Aboriginal Housing Company (ACN 001 154 481) incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth.

the Block means the area of land bounded by Eveleigh, Caroline, Louis and Vine Streets, Redfern.

This amendment is the result of discussions with Minister Sartor about the role of the Aboriginal Housing Company. The amendment should be considered in conjunction with Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1 and the letter from the Minister that I read into Hansard last night, which dealt with a number of matters relating to the Aboriginal Housing Company. I am sure all honourable members are following the current debate about Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities moving from reconciliation to shared responsibility and mutual obligation. This amendment will ensure those principles are adhered to in the relationship between the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and the Aboriginal Housing Company. As the Aboriginal Housing Company is the legal owner of the Block the authority automatically would have to negotiate with the company, but it is important to have that fact spelt out in the legislation so that it is not left in limbo. If my amendment is unsuccessful, the legislation will have no reference to the Aboriginal Housing Company.

The Aboriginal Housing Company has represented Aboriginal people in the Block and it has a vision for the Block, which it has developed over many years with the co-operation of the Premier's Department. Government architects have done a great deal of work designing new housing for the Block. I hope that my amendment will enable that work to be picked up and carried on by the authority. The authority must consult with the Aboriginal Housing Company as a partner with a shared obligation rather than continue to communicate in the paternalistic way that white communities tend to talk to Aboriginal people. I remind honourable members that for more than 30 years the Aboriginal Housing Company has operated in the Block. It has survived attacks by big business, developers, local white residents, different tiers of government, and organised crime and drug dealers. Even radical elements of the Aboriginal community have tried to undermine and destroy it. The motivation for such attacks are simple: the Block is prime real estate worth more than $30 million. In spite of all that, the Aboriginal Housing Company remains in business and is in the process of successfully improving its operations. The assurances I have received from the Government suggest that the Government intends to support the amendment.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [2.16 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment for the reasons put forward by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 32 to 35 agreed to.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [2.17 p.m.] by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 9 and 10 in globo:

No. 9 Page 17. Insert after line 1:

36 Annual report to include certain matters

The annual report of the Authority required to be prepared under the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984 is to include a report as to the outcomes achieved by the Authority during the reporting period.

No. 10 Page 29, schedule 3. Insert after line 11:

3.3 Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 No 152

Schedule 2 Statutory bodies

Insert in alphabetical order:

Redfern-Waterloo Authority

These amendments provide that there shall be an annual report from the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, and that the report shall include outcomes achieved by that authority within the reporting period. Government amendment No. 10 is consequential upon Government amendment No. 9. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.18 p.m.]: I move:

That Government amendment No. 9 be amended by inserting after the words "reporting period" the words "in relation to the social, economic and environmental objectives of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan."

It is ludicrous that the Government's amendment requires the authority's annual report to state such things as, "We had 10 meetings, the last of which was a lovely Christmas party." Full stop. To be meaningful and useful to the community the report should stipulate whether the authority is meeting the objectives for which it was set up. Such a report would enable people to assess the functions of the authority. The Government should not reject an amendment along those lines unless it is determined not to accept any Greens amendments on principle. If so, the Government is not concerned about genuine principles but is merely being obstructionist.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [2.21 p.m.]: I take umbrage at the suggestion that I would automatically reject any of the Greens amendments. However, I do reject this amendment, but not for the reason given by Ms Sylvia Hale. Government departments produce hundreds of annual reports and the Parliament does not stipulate what should be included in those reports. Government departments produce very good and valuable annual reports and it would be inappropriate and inconsistent to require them to include the sort of detail referred to in the amendment.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.22 p.m.]: The Minister has said that hundreds of reports are produced each year, but this is an extraordinary bill. It relates to a plan that has not yet been produced or made public and gives the Minister enormous power not merely with respect to the authority but over other areas. Indeed, in many ways it overrides the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Heritage Act. Because the Minister has so much power, at the very least the project should have some accountability and transparency. It is eminently reasonable to require the authority to produce an annual report that benchmarks its achievements or policies against its objectives, given the broad powers already given to the Minister by this bill. I advise that I do not intend to move Greens amendment No. 21, as circulated, because if Government amendment No. 9 is agreed to, Greens amendment No. 21 will become redundant.

Amendment of Government amendment No. 9 negatived.

Government amendment No. 9 agreed to.

Government amendment No. 10 agreed to.

Clause 36 agreed to.

Clauses 37 to 44 agreed to.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [2.25 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 21, clause 45 (3), lines 25-28. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) A regulation is not to be made under this section if it would result in an overall increase to the operational area of more than 5 per cent of the area specified in schedule 1 on the date of assent to this Act.

The Legislation Review Committee has referred clause 45 to the Parliament. Previously, I indicated that I had a meeting with the Deputy Lord Mayor and Councillor Mallard of the Council of the City of Sydney, who expressed concern about clause 45. The honourable member for Bligh made extensive comment about clause 45 in the other place, and the Planning Institute of Australia is worried about the open-indeed nature of the clause. It is of interest also to residents. I believe the concerns of the residents of Redfern and Waterloo and members of REDwatch are legitimate. The authority should focus on Redfern and Waterloo and not on a large number of other areas.

Earlier I remarked that some cynics suggest that the bill will render the council of the City of Sydney a doughnut council and, more seriously, that its jurisdiction would subsequently be included, by regulation, in the operational area outlined in schedule 1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the council would support my amendment. In the second reading debate I said that I was unhappy about the bill incorporating a Henry VIII clause that will effectively allow the Government to increase the operational area, by regulation, without any safeguards. I have moved this amendment to ensure that the matter will not be left open-ended and the Henry VIII clause will deal only with unforeseen matters, which is the purpose of such clauses. I believe the amendment will allay the concerns of the Legislation Review Committee, community members and the Council of the City of Sydney.

In addressing those concerns, we are tightening our focus on the authority for Redfern and Waterloo. The authority will not be able to expand its empire willy-nilly. Some people may think that the clause was not necessary, but I believe that it provides a safeguard that is desirable. There is still a capacity to bring proposals to expand the operational area before the Parliament in the form of a disallowance motion, as the expansion has to be done by regulation. Obviously the Opposition will be closely scrutinising all expansions to make sure that they are based on matters that the expression "unforeseen circumstances" implies, and that the Parliament is not being basically treated with contempt by the Minister on behalf of the new authority.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [2.30 p.m.]: While the Government would appreciate a larger percentage in the event of unforeseen circumstances, we appreciate the sentiments of the Opposition. We have had extensive consultation with the Opposition and we agree with the sentiments that have been expressed. There is no intention to have wholesale expansion. As pointed out by the Hon. Don Harwin, there is additional power in the Parliament to reject regulations, and that is the second aspect of the safeguard. The Government will support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 49 agreed to.

Schedule 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and report adopted.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [2.32 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The House divided.

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

Ms Griffin Mr Jenkins Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Mr Roozendaal Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The Hon. Kayee Griffin, as Chairman, tabled report No. 53/01, entitled "Report on the First General Meeting with the Valuer General", dated December 2004, together with transcript of proceedings and minutes.

Report ordered to be printed.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I inform the House that today the Standing Committee on Social Issues received the following reference from the Minister for Education and Training:

1. That the Social Issues Committee undertake an inquiry into the recruitment and training of teachers, with specific regard to the following terms of reference:

(a) the best means of attracting quality teachers to New South Wales public schools and meeting the needs of school communities,

(b) the effectiveness and efficiency of current means of recruiting teachers to New South Wales public schools, including:

(i) recent graduates,

(ii) career change teachers,

(c) differences and similarities between primary and secondary school recruitment needs,

(d) existing initiatives and programs of the Department of Education and Training, including:

(i) Teach NSW,

(ii) scholarships for undergraduates,
(iii) accelerated training courses,

(e) the role of the NSW Institute of Teachers and its accreditation and endorsement requirements,

(f) the role, distribution and effectiveness of university pre-service teacher education, and

(g) any other matter arising from these terms of reference.

2. That the committee report by 30 November 2005.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [2.42 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

This Bill amends the Local Government Act 1993 and provides a regulatory framework within which local government can benefit from public-private partnerships.

The Local Government Act 1993 is the core Act for the regulation of local council and county council functions.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are emerging as potentially attractive and flexible means for local government to create infrastructure and deliver services.

For the purposes of this Bill, a PPP is defined as any contracted relationship between a council and the private sector in which a council has an equity interest, shareholding or ongoing obligation or liability.

Normal transactions such as:

sale of community land classified as operational,

councils acting as trustees for donations or bequests

and tendering

will not be affected by these new provisions.

A number of councils already have experience in negotiating public private partnerships.

Unfortunately, not all those experiences have, been positive.

As members will be aware, Liverpool City Council, between 1996 and 2003, entered into various commercial arrangements with the private sector to develop infrastructure on land owned by the Council.

The Liverpool City Council Public Inquiry found that the cost to Council of the failed redevelopment proposals—ultimately to be borne by ratepayers is at least $22 million.

The Commissioner of the Public Inquiry, Professor Maurice Daly, found that councils lacked the in house expertise required to successfully negotiate PPP arrangements.

This in turn may impact significantly on the ability of councils, throughout the state to make decisions about entering into such arrangements for the benefit of their communities.

Professor Daly also made a series of recommendations about managing local government participation in PPPs.

This bill gives effect to those recommendations.

Providing a regulatory framework with conditions before councils sign binding contracts, has the advantage of allowing flexibility for the financing/provision of council infrastructure and services.

At the same time, councils will be required to ensure that the public interest is protected and that any contracts entered into have had risk properly factored into them.

The bill proposes an external review process for projects that are worth more than $50 million, or 25% of council revenue which has not been designated for another purpose.
This review committee's function is to ensure that a council has undertaken appropriate probity and due diligence checks before signing binding contracts.

The process will also consider: the financial viability of the project the council's capacity to enter into such a deal the views of appropriate and independent experts.

For all PPP projects, regardless of size, councils will be required to undertake a risk assessment and forward that assessment to the Department of Local Government for review.

Those projects determined to be high risk will be called-in for assessment by the Project Review Committee in the same way as a project that meets the size/significance threshold.

Under this framework, councils are not being asked to do any more than is prudent and in their own best interests.

Ratepayers and residents cannot afford another Oasis project.

All councils considering PPPs will now be obliged to test the market by seeking expressions of interest for proposals involving them in equity relationships or commercial arrangements with private companies involving council assets or ongoing obligations.

In this way, their communities can be assured that they are getting the best value for money outcome. Certain minimum process and management elements for PPPs will also be required of councils.

To assist councils, guidelines will published by the Director General of the Department of Local Government under the new s.400C of the Local Government Act.

It is anticipated that these will be available early in 2005. The guidelines will, as recommended by Professor Daly, provide for appropriate governance and administrative arrangements for PPPs that include reporting to councils and local communities

Public access to information about the PPP project that is not confidential will be on the same basis as the public has to other council information. In this way, the public accountability of councils involved in PPPs will not be unduly diluted.

The Project Review Committee will have a core membership drawn from the Departments of Local Government, Infrastructure, Planning R Natural Resources, Treasury, Cabinet Office and the Premier's Department.

Depending on the nature of the project proposal and the particular assessment stage, relevant expertise drawn from other agencies or from independent experts from the private sector will be co-opted to the Committee.

A positive assessment from the Committee will be required at three stages for any proposal to advance—initial risk analysis and costing, project plan and contract development.

A council that signs a contract without satisfying the Committee that the (s.400C) Guidelines have been fully complied with, will be in breach of the Local Government Act 1993.

The remedial measures already available under sections 672 (action in the Land & Environment Court) and 435 (surcharging) as well as the investigative and public inquiry powers (ss.430 and 740) will apply.

This message will be reinforced in the Guidelines referred to above.

PPP projects may take the form of a number of different legal entities.

Indeed, as this particular market matures and grows, it is likely that arrangements not even thought of now will become commonplace.

The Act, under s.358, currently provides only for Ministerial approval where a council seeks to form or participate in the formation of a corporation or acquire a controlling interest in a corporation.

This bill seeks to extend this current requirement to other entities and relationships that councils may enter into with a purely commercial rationale.

In seeking such an approval, either from the Project Review Committee or from the Minister, as determined by the nature of the project proposal, it is appropriate that councils, as guardians of public trust and funds, should demonstrate that there is a clear public benefit to be gained from the proposed arrangement.

Another matter that goes to issues of transparency and public accountability is the potential use of financial entities or project vehicles, to circumvent tendering requirements under the Local Government Act, either wilfully or by mistake.

These circumstances arise in only a small number of cases - but their effect on public confidence can be significant. It is important that local government retains the confidence and trust of their communities in this regard.

To this end, this bill gives effect to Professor Daly's recommendation that the tendering provisions of the Act, section 55, be strengthened.

This means that that the community can be assured that councils obtain the best value for money by engaging in market processes and that similar transparency and accountability provisions apply to council/commercial entities as apply to councils.
This means two things:

First, that in selecting project partners for PPPs, councils undertake an expressions of interest process.

Second, once the assessment and contract process of a PPP is complete and approved, Councils and their PPP partners must adhere to the matters specified in the contract. That is, approved projects must not be varied or amended without approval from the Project Review Committee and the Minister.

This means that those works or activities that will be conducted by the public-private entity or the council would not need to re tender for the works/activities to the new project vehicle. However, works or activities outside of the PPP project contract are still required to be put out for tender.

Clearly, councils should not use project vehicles created for a specific outcome as a convenient mechanism for other, non-related projects or needs.

The bill seeks to ensure that this situation does not occur by making it clear that in such situations the tendering provisions of the Act (s.55) apply where councils are involved in some form of partnership with the private sector.

In this way, council obligations in regard to transparency and accountability will continue to apply and the integrity of PPP project vehicles will be upheld.

The bill proposes that this framework apply from 28 June 2004. On that day Parliament was advised that the Government intended to accept the recommendations of the Liverpool City Council Public Inquiry and would legislate to give effect to those recommendations with regard to the management of Public-Private Partnerships.

Councils were informed of by means of a Department of Local Government Circular to Councils on 21 July 2004.

Were the proposed regulatory framework not to apply retrospectively, it is possible that a number of councils, under perceived pressure from potential commercial partners, may fast track projects to specifically avoid its requirements.

Such a headlong rush would not serve the public interest, as it is likely that corners would be cut and attention to detail minimised rather than maximised. It is preferable that councils take a considered approach to the negotiation of PPPs.

The condition that most favours that approach is the certainty that projects in development will need to meet the standards required under the revised framework. Anything else invites precipitous actions, hasty judgments and, potentially, poor or less than optimal outcomes for communities.

In closing, the bill provides for a framework that is no more onerous for councils than they should themselves undertake from the perspectives of prudence, transparency and best practice management of public resources.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.43 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Local Government Amendment (Public-Private Partnerships) Bill. The bill seeks to amend the principal Act, the Local Government Act 1993, in five main ways. The bill institutes new requirements for the participation by councils in public-private partnerships. The requirements will be set out in guidelines from the director-general and set out in the legislation to assist councils in areas that need to be addressed. The guidelines will include the requirement for independent assessment of project feasibility—both financial and market, where appropriate—due diligence and risk assessment, appropriate governance, and administrative and project management arrangements. The bill establishes a local government project review committee for the purposes of ensuring local councils entering into public-private partnership projects comply with the guidelines. Any public-private partnership of more than $50 million or 25 per cent of council's annual revenue will be subject to an external review by the project review committee.

The bill provides a call-in power to refer projects to the project review committee to be used if the project does not meet the threshold but is considered to be of high risk. The bill requires a council to invite tenders before it enters into a contract to form a public-private partnership. The Opposition supports that objective and hopes that it will better protect local communities from inappropriate and possibly costly decisions of local councils in relation to the formation of public-private partnerships and the undertaking of such projects. The bill provides that contracts involving entities that are formed by councils will be subject to the same tendering requirements that apply to contracts entered into by councils.

Finally, the bill prohibits a council from forming an entity unless it has the Minister's consent—as is the present case for corporations that are formed by councils—and must demonstrate that the formation of that entity is in the public interest. The Minister's second reading speech states that the bill implements the recommendations of Professor Maurice Daly in his report on the outcome of the Liverpool City Council public inquiry into failed development projects that the council entered into with private developers between 1996 and 2003. Honourable members know that project as the Oasis development.
During the course of his inquiry, Professor Daly found that many local councils lacked the in-house expertise required to successfully negotiate public-private partnership arrangements. He made a number of recommendations to assist councils in that process while protecting community interests from inappropriate projects under such arrangements. Having praised Professor Daly for his work, I must say that as the person appointed to inquire into the local councils in my area and now in the Tweed he would need to do a better job in the Tweed than he did in my area. He did not listen, he did not get it right in my area.

The professor did what he perceived the Minister wanted him to do in the Goulburn area; and if that is why he was sent to the Tweed, I would be pretty disappointed. In the Oasis case, Professor Daly's final report found that the former mayor of the sacked Liverpool council, the general manager and some councillors had engaged in culpable negligence or misconduct and that the activities of the council's joint venture partner, Macquarie Bank, had been opportunistic and predatory. Despite Professor Daly's findings, any local council pursuing a development as ambitious as the Oasis complex was likely to encounter difficulties. The inquiry found that the council had lost control over the land at the heart of the development, Woodward Park, under the deal done with the Bulldogs rugby league football club and the Macquarie Bank.

A number of important lessons have come out of the Oasis project and have formed the basis of the bill. The Opposition certainly hopes that tighter controls over public-private partnerships result from the bill to ensure that local councils are on a professional footing from the outset. Professor Daly, in his examination of the Oasis development, found that probity issues, such as transparency, accountability and due process, were poorly managed—if at all. Yet these are fundamental for all in public office because they are working with community assets.

The Opposition does not oppose the bill because it is greatly needed. However, I draw honourable members' attention to issues in the bill considered by the Legislation Review Committee. The first issue considered by the committee relates to the retrospectivity of proposed section 400N. Under this proposed section, the requirements set out in proposed part 6 will apply retrospectively from 28 June 2004 to any public-private partnership that a council may have resolved to form on or after that date. The Minister's second reading speech states that 2 June 2004 was the day on which the Government advised Parliament that it intended to accept the recommendations of the Liverpool City Council public inquiry and would legislate to give effect to those recommendations relating to public-private partnerships. The speech also states:

Were the proposed legislative framework not to apply retrospectively, it is possible that a number of councils, under perceived pressure from potential commercial partners, may fast-track projects to specifically avoid their requirements. Such a headlong rush would not serve the public interest...

The committee notes that it will always be concerned to identify where a retrospective legislation has an adverse affect on any person. The committee will also be concerned to identify legislation that is taken to apply from the date on which the Government announced its intention in a particular area. The Opposition shares that concern and also the view of the Legislation Review Committee that where such retrospectivity has an adverse effect on any person, this trespasses on that person's right to rely on the law.

Another concern highlighted by the Legislation Review Committee and shared by the Opposition relates to proposed section 400I (4). This proposed section provides that there is no review of a decision by the review committee as to whether a council has complied with the PPP guidelines in relation to a project. The Opposition shares the committee's view that a review of administrative decisions, especially an external review of administrative decisions, is important in ensuring the appropriate exercise of executive power. This allows a person aggrieved by a decision to seek a review of that decision by an independent authority with the power to determine whether the decision was made properly. The Opposition is seeking an assurance from the Minister that such safeguards are in place. The Opposition does not oppose what is, in the main, a practical and much-needed piece of legislation.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [2.53 p.m.]: The purpose of the Local Government Amendment (Public-Private Partnerships) Bill is to amend the Local Government Act 1993 to provide a regulatory framework for councils entering into public-private partnerships. On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I commend the bill to the House. The bill seeks to regulate and facilitate the increasing phenomenon of councils entering into contractual arrangements with the private sector in order to provide infrastructure, facilities or services. Public-private partnerships, which are commonly known as PPPs, are arrangements between government and private companies for the provision of services and/or finances by the private sector to public entities. These arrangements are pursued for various reasons, including the potential level of finance that may be secured by public agencies that would otherwise not be available.
The bill addresses the fact that not all councils have appropriate regulatory structures in place to ensure that ratepayers get the best value for money outcome from community assets—although I suggest that every council should have such structures. It also addresses the fact that not all councils have established adequate structures to safeguard the public interest. This bill purportedly gives effect to the recommendations of the public inquiry into Liverpool City Council, which found that the council had lost more than $22 million on the Oasis project. It was envisaged that the Oasis project would include a 35,000-seat football stadium, an indoor basketball stadium, ice rink, water park, apartment complex and leagues club. The project began as a joint venture between Liverpool City Council and Canterbury Leagues Club. The Bulldogs pulled out of the $900 million Woodward Park development last year but Liverpool City Council was able to enter into contractual arrangements with Macquarie Bank for a revamped version of the original plan.

The inquiry, headed by Professor Daly, found that Liverpool City Council had committed to the construction of the Oasis complex without a business plan, without seeing the financial modelling prepared by Macquarie Bank and without fully appreciating the risks involved in delivering the project. Professor Daly also found that the council had not undertaken any analyses of the possible social, economic, environmental and community amenity impacts of the project and had made no move to market-test the proposal. When I first read Professor Daly's findings I could not believe a council would not analyse the risks and community amenity impacts. In the 27 years that I have led Wesley Mission I have built many buildings with the support of public donations and contributions. These have amounted to more than $800 million in developments over the years and more than 400 buildings. In all that time Wesley Mission has never embarked upon a project without first analysing the risks involved, conducting financial modelling, drawing up business plans and the like. At present I am responsible for the completion of another $100 million worth of developments, which had thorough financial modelling and full risk analysis.

The amendment of the Local Government Act 1993 is the best method of instituting a regulatory scheme for local councils. This is because the Local Government Act 1993 is the core Act for the regulation of local and county council functions. The bill will require a council to invite tenders before it enters into a contract to form a PPP. Entities formed by councils will be subject to the same tendering requirements that apply to contracts entered into by councils. This is a must in all areas of council activity. The bill defines an "entity" as any partnership, trust, corporation, joint venture, syndicate or other body, whether or not incorporated. The bill provides that a council must not form an entity except with the Minister's consent. This is the case at present for corporations that are formed by councils.

The requirement to invite tenders is an important initiative. Tenders should always be called for. Much of the scandal in areas of the club industry in recent days would have been avoided if tenders had to be invited for all major financial endeavours by clubs or councils. Inviting tenders allows all those entities capable of providing a required service to submit proposals as to why their services ought to be engaged. This means that there will be a pool of potential parties from which to choose, and invariably proper use of this tender process will lead to the best candidate for a public-private partnership. The bill allows the Director-General of the Department of Local Government to issue guidelines requiring councils to follow specified procedures and processes in relation to all PPPs.

Guidelines will include requirements for the independent assessment of project feasibility—financial and market, where appropriate—due diligence and risk assessment, appropriate governance, administrative and project management of arrangements, as well as an expressions of interest process leading to the selection of preferred parties. It is important that risk analysis and assessment is undertaken of any PPP proposal to be submitted to the Department of Local Government because sometimes what might seem to be an excellent idea or proposal may entail such a high degree of risk that it does not warrant implementation. This is especially the case where the public purse is involved. It makes common sense for such assessments to be required.

Where a project is a "significant project", that is, a project with an estimated cost of more than $50 million, or if it has a high risk, it will be referred to the project review committee. The bill establishes a Local Government Project Review Committee for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements set out in the guidelines are complied with by councils in relation to projects carried out under PPPs. In all of the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts for which I have been responsible in building new buildings—now more than 400 in the last 27 years—we have always submitted the proposal to an external project review committee.

The committee will be chaired by the director-general, who may appoint persons with special expertise as members, including persons from the private sector. Other members will include the secretary of the Treasury, the directors-general of the Premier's Department, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources and the Cabinet Office. It suffices to note that any member of this committee who has a conflict of interest arising from a direct or indirect pecuniary interest must inform the committee of that conflict of interest. Where a project is subject to review by the committee, a council may not enter into contracts unless the committee is satisfied that the proposal meets the conditions specified in the PPP guidelines.

The committee will not address the nature or merit of the proposal, but rather whether the council has undertaken the appropriate analysis and market assessment in developing the proposal and ensuring that an appropriate management structure is in place for the conduct of the project. The bill will require councils to include in their annual reports a statement of all PPPs to which they have been a party during the year concerned. That is important for public transparency and accountability. In his second reading speech the Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra and Minister for Small Business stated that:

The bill provides for a framework that is no more onerous for councils than they should themselves undertake from the perspective of prudence, transparency and best practice management of public resources.

I agree with that statement entirely. Without a doubt, the high office undertaken by municipal and shire councillors warrants a regulatory framework that does its utmost to ensure that public funds are used in the most effective and efficient way possible. This bill goes some way towards ensuring that this is the case. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.03 p.m.]: This bill has been prompted by the Oasis development fiasco between Liverpool City Council, the Canterbury rugby league club and Macquarie Bank. Professor Maurice Daly was asked to conduct a public inquiry into Liverpool council. The terms of reference drew Professor Daly to examine the structure of private-public partnerships [PPP] entered into by the council with Macquarie Bank. Professor Daly was critical of the Macquarie Bank, saying that a revamp of the original plan was at best opportunistic and at worst predatory. There was also mention of the fact that the PPP was never put out to public tender. Professor Daly found that the council was out of its depth in going into a PPP with Macquarie Bank, which had greater knowledge and bargaining power. It was also described by Daly as "naïve and inept".

At the end of the whole sorry exercise Liverpool council had lost $22 million of ratepayers' money. Professor Daly devoted an entire volume of his report, including 11 pages of recommendations, to councils and PPPs. In this House on numerous occasions I have expressed my objections to PPPs, and that opposition has not changed. Some years ago the Macquarie Infrastructure Group was involved in the motorway in Melbourne. I became aware of it quite independently when my stockbroker said to me, "We will try to get some of these bonds. This is absolutely the best deal you could ever get. It is government guaranteed and it will have very good returns." I looked at the prospectus from the Macquarie Infrastructure Group, which had a number of projects all over the world when it had bought existing motorways and made a large amount of money.

The prospectus stated some of the risks. Indeed, the Vasco de Gama Bridge in Lisbon, Portugal is owned by the group and its contract guarantees it a certain return even if the tolls do not give that return. The Portuguese Government, which was having difficulty paying the group, had entered into a deal that was not very good for it and the taxpayers were coughing up when there was reluctance to pay on time, and that was seen as a risk. The tone of the document, to be honest, was that the scheme would be easy to repeat because people are very naïve. Certainly, that appears to have been the case in Liverpool and in many other instances.

On 20 October in my contribution to the budget debate I spoke about PPPs or private finance initiatives [PFIs], as they are called in Great Britain. I referred to the analysis in the British Medical Journal of the effect of PFIs on the British National Health Service and the fact that the general conclusion was that there was no advantage in them. They had not delivered better health infrastructure for less money. In short, to put not too fine a point on it, the area health services in Britain had been outmanoeuvred and, if not ripped off, had at least gained no benefit from PFIs. The simple fact is that if a government wants to build something and it has access to capital at as low a rate as is available in the world capital market, there is nothing to be gained in terms of interest payments by a PPP.

The State Government and the Federal Government have a dogmatic objection to borrowing for bonds in their own right because they say that they are not taking a risk. In practice, if the PFI or PPP does not make an adequate profit it simply declares bankruptcy and disappears. If the PFI or PPP makes a huge or super normal profit due to extremely favourable contract negotiations it naturally pockets the difference and sends it off to the shareholders. This no-win situation for government is created by the absurd dogma that one must not borrow money. There is nothing wrong with borrowing money or incurring debt, as was reported recently on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, provided there is an asset backing for that debt.

It is certainly true that incurring debt for consumption without asset backing is irresponsible. It is also true that there is a finite risk if interest rates go crazy, and it is certainly true that people who have a large debt are frightened of the high interest rates of some years ago. On the other hand, one is betting on the world economy. Everyone is in the same position but the problem is not solved by negotiating contracts in which the Government carries the risk and the PPP takes the profit. Local councils are increasingly taking the lead in getting into bed with private developers for the construction of infrastructure projects. Getting private companies to put up the cash for larger projects is quite often the only way infrastructure can be financed by local councils, because, as we know, the Government has passed off a great deal of its responsibilities to local councils. They have pegged rate rises to the consumer price index—

The Hon. Tony Kelly: They have never been pegged to the CPI. That is not true.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Well, it is pegged.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: It is pegged, but not to the CPI.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: It is certainly not pegged to their costs, or to the extra tasks they must undertake, or in any way commensurate with their responsibilities.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: That is not true.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Borrowing money is often not an option, and the Government has not looked at their projects and provided such money, or even guaranteed the borrowings of such money—which it might be better for the Government to do than embracing these types of arrangements. The result is a selling off of council assets, usually land, or giving it away to developers with some other sort of interest, so that the developers invest and make all the money to be made on the deal. I was involved in trying to stop a PPP taking over Ryde swimming pool on a very long lease. We managed to prevent the council from selling off a corner of it for a Meriton unit block development. The fact is that that has resulted in the price of having a swim at the pool going up immensely.

There really is no excuse for the State Government to embrace PPPs as it has, because the State has the capacity to borrow at very competitive rates, whereas poorer councils cannot. However, local and State governments are inevitably headed in the same direction, so that there will soon be no assets left to sell, and the whole strategy will come badly unstuck. The bill is a paternalistic bill to save local councils from themselves. The only problem is that the State Government's record with PPPs does not inspire much more confidence in any advice it might give. It is worrying that, quietly or even silently, the Government is going ahead with the proposal for the Mater hospital in Newcastle, redefining and minimising some aspects of its function so that the Government can then say that with the new PPP it is getting the same service for less money. Effectively, the Government is interfering in the management of that hospital in order to achieve that goal.

Another shining example is the M2 motorway. Aspects of that contract specifying that the Government will not construct any competitive roadway has stopped completion of the tunnel from Epping to Carlingford, which would have made that a much more useful loop to connect part of south-western Sydney to Chatswood. Everyone says, "Well, nobody goes that route anyway." Of course they do not, because at the moment transport is almost impossible. So, to say that a route is not used by cars—because it is almost impossible to use that route—is no way of assessing what should be done regarding rail projects.

Again, the north-west sector infrastructure is not being built, even though it is badly needed, and it should be constructed as soon as possible. Either the Government is too frightened to borrow—which, as I have already said, is extreme folly—or else it is scared of putting in anything that could allow action by the M2 motorway owners claiming that the Government was putting in competitive infrastructure that was detracting from the profits of those owners. As I said earlier, past experiences with the Macquarie Bank and the big infrastructure groups show that it is almost like taking candy from a baby because, should the Government find a good negotiator, needless to say when the next contract comes up he or she will once again be on the opposite side of the table. So we will always have the experienced dealing with the inexperienced. If the Government wants something it should simply borrow to build it, as it used to do, leaving the taxpayers with an asset that appreciates as it becomes more necessary in a bigger and more valuable city.
The airport rail link, which was supposed to cost taxpayers nothing, has now cost about $700 million. I have been told that the large amount of water leaking into that tunnel currently is being pumped out by the private owners. Presumably those owners will not continue in the long term to lose money in pumping out the tunnel. The fact that the tunnel has construction problems again will result in the cost being picked up by the taxpayer. Somebody asked, "If you want to go from A to B, which is the quickest way?" The answer is, "The way you do not get lost." If you want to build something, the question might be asked, "What is the best quote you can get?" Obviously, the best price would depend on whether it works when it is finished. If you get it cheaper, and it does not work, in the longer term you have paid more.

So the idea that public works cannot be undertaken as cheaply as the private sector can do them may well be the least of the problems. If there are difficulties in the management or fixing of infrastructure problems, surely someone with the appropriate expertise can be found to do that. This absurd idea that the Government must not borrow, must not have debt and must not have assets is nothing more than convenient humbug from those in the American economic establishment who would like to make a profit from any dollar spent on what are properly public sector undertakings. It has also been pointed out to me that the cost of financing the return to those organising all this finance is a not inconsiderable overhead in the process of PPPs.

We have tollways round the city going the same way; we have a cross-city tunnel, costing billions, when a better outcome would have been reached by a light rail system. Again, the lobbying for certain projects over other projects is a quite pernicious effect of this PPP concept. In Perth some progress is being made where light rail is being reintroduced to the transport network. There is concern that the report into Liverpool Council identified dubious practices adopted by Macquarie Bank in relation to the Oasis development. As everyone knows, the Macquarie Bank is one of the State Government's major partners in PPP investment. An article in the Age of 15 March this year entitled "Macquarie's enemies" gave quite a detailed analysis of PPPs and indeed of the Macquarie Bank. It is interesting that New South Wales was cited quite considerably in that article. I do not believe there was any such detailed account in any of Sydney's papers. That is a worry.

The Macquarie Bank, through the Macquarie Infrastructure Group, has been involved in numerous road projects, including as a 71 per cent partner in the M1 through the Airport Motorway Group; as a 50 per cent partner in the M4; and as a 50 per cent partner in the M5 toll roads. The Government is using PPPs to build schools.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind the honourable member that the bill deals with public-private partnerships within local government.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The whole direction of this Government regarding PPPs is fundamentally wrong. That the worst excesses of the even more naïve local councils might be looked at by the relatively naïve State Government does not solve the problem at all. The failure of this strategy of pretending to get PPPs will become evident with the trains at a standstill, the electricity grid collapsing, and so on. The bill represents some progress to avoid a fiasco such as there was with the Oasis development, but it is a fundamentally wrong strategy for the State as a whole.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.16 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Greens on this bill. The Greens welcome moves to provide better guidance to councils undertaking large projects and partnerships with the private sector. Public-private partnerships—or PPPs as they are often called—have the potential to deliver massive profits to financiers, banks and developers and leave councils and ratepayers lumbered with the risks. Indeed, sheeting the risks home to the public sector has become a defining characteristic of PPPs as secret contracts and commercial in confidence clauses impose penalties where councils and governments reimburse the private partners when projected profits do not eventuate. PPPs have become win-win partnerships for the private sector.

Against this backdrop, this bill will establish a framework for councils entering partnerships, and help reduce the risks of ratepayers being left with the burden of a costly mistake. As Minister David Campbell said in his second reading speech, and as I am sure honourable members of this House are well aware, New South Wales has had more than its fair share of PPP infrastructure projects that have turned out to be spectacular failures, costing the community and taxpayers millions of dollars. The city to airport rail link was one such project. Within six months of opening the company had failed. Poor co-ordination and a lack of financial and legal expertise within government for the development of these contracts has also been blamed for partnership deals that are clearly not in the public interest. Those deals may involve the Government paying substantial indemnities to private partners if, for example, public transport competes with operators on a so-called level playing field.
With Sydney's six existing toll roads, and two more either under construction or in the advanced stages of planning—the cross-city tunnel and the M2 to Gore Hill missing link—there are clear warning signs and lessons from the airport rail link disaster. A vast network of motorways, tolls and road tunnels will be the lasting legacy of the Government. Bob Carr will be remembered as the man who turned Sydney into Los Angeles. While there has been a passenger exodus from our crumbling train system, PPPs have delivered to New South Wales the M5 East and tunnel, the M4, the cross-city tunnel, the Lane Cove Tunnel, and the Eastern Distributor.

Despite unprecedented community resistance all these tunnels and motorways have proceeded, but they have been characterised by dubious or non-existent health studies, repeated breaches of RTA guidelines and EPA standards, and a total lack of transparency. Then there is the debacle of the Oasis project entered into by Liverpool Council. The Oasis project, which has been well documented, has cost the ratepayers of Liverpool $22 million. It is now clear that there were conflicts of interest, and that the proposal was weighted heavily in favour of the developers. As Professor Daly noted in his report, the Macquarie Bank, in particular, was predatory in its approach. Liverpool Council members never should have entered into such a misguided, grandiose project. One can only hope that the bill will prevent other councils from making silly mistakes.

The provisions requiring councils to undertake risk assessment and feasibility studies for large projects worth more than $50 million are based on sound business principles. Any prudent and responsible organisation spending in excess of $50 million should assess such important factors as the ability to pay, whether the project is necessary, the administrative arrangements required to ensure the success of the project, and the social and environmental impacts of the project. PPPs are a way of privatising both the cost and the ownership of public facilities, such as road and rail infrastructure, hospitals, schools and universities. This represents a philosophical departure from traditional methods of funding public infrastructure. Overseas borrowing in Australia in the late nineteenth century allowed for both great economic development and a social structure that helped to produce a modern and egalitarian society.

Public schools, the Commonwealth Bank, the ABC and National Rail provided services to Australians irrespective of their personal wealth. The overriding objective was the provision of high-quality public services, not the maximum possible profit to private shareholders. However, over the past decades new ideas about financing economic and social infrastructure have arisen, driven partly by ideology and partly by necessity. Thus over the past two decades government enterprises have been sold off and new infrastructure projects built with private capital and, more often than not, operated by private companies. Proponents of the PPP approach argue that it is the most effective way for government to meet the huge costs of massive infrastructure development. With both Labor and the Coalition obsessed with small government and budget surpluses, governments increasingly are reluctant to fund essential public works.

As a result we have seen a wholesale decline in public infrastructure investment by government. The consequence has been a stampede by the private sector to projects offering the biggest profit margins with a corresponding flight of equal proportions from areas that offer less profitable returns. A decline in the less profitable parts of the rail network has resulted in a steep fall in services. Privatisation of the airlines, telecommunications and the banking sector has resulted in a corresponding decline in services to the bush and to the public in general. New industry has developed around PPPs, which is pushing policy initiatives in the direction of areas that offer the biggest profit to the private sector. Tunnels, roads and freeways have been the big winners. Railways, schools and hospitals have been the losers.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind Ms Sylvia Hale that the bill deals with public-private partnerships relating to local government.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: One of the major undertakings of local government is the provision of child care services. But we have seen universities, aged care and child care caught in the middle, with services and facilities improving in some niche areas where profits are good, while other areas that are unable to provide sufficient profits have suffered. Big urban universities have prospered while small regional ones are in crisis. The child care sector has been reshaped significantly with a sharp increase in child care fees, a dramatic fall in community-run or council-run services with a corresponding increase in for-profit services and a failure by private enterprise to provide facilities in those localities where there is insufficient profit, but nevertheless a crying need. PPPs are attractive for the private sector because they guarantee long-term profits with very little or no risk.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the public partners who usually are left to shoulder the costly burden of failed projects. The process of privatising the public sector across Australia has been radical and far ranging. It is a process that is increasingly unpopular with the electorate, which is something that councils should bear in mind. However, I subscribe to the views expressed by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, who noted that councils are in an extraordinarily difficult position because increasingly they are required to shoulder costs imposed by the Federal and, particularly, State governments, but they are not given the resources to meet those costs.

Research conducted at the Swinburne University of Technology should be of significance to councillors and the government sector in general. In November 2001 in a survey of 1,000 randomly chosen Australians a range of questions were asked with the focus on people's attitudes to the various roles that both public and private sectors should undertake. The question of whether people believed there is a role for profits in the delivery of public services received an unambiguous reply: 88 per cent of those surveyed felt that public services should not be run on a profit-making basis, 65 per cent of whom believed this strongly.

Contracting out might be popular in the Productivity and Competition Commission, but for the vast majority of Australians it is firmly out of favour. As the author of the survey noted, the last 10 years in public administration have been tumultuous, with almost all areas being affected by management reforms, downsizing and contracting out. This was meant to lead to better services that were more customer focused. But only 36 per cent of those surveyed thought that services had improved, while almost 40 per cent felt that they had declined. Adding weight to the latter view is the fact that the group most likely to believe that services had declined were those aged over 50 who had experience of such services.

The report argues that three broad conclusions emerge. First, there is a strong view that private sector firms should not be allowed to provide public services. Second, there is a mixed view about whether, and on what basis, non-government groups should be involved in the delivery of public services. Third, the reforms of the last decade have not won the support of those they were purported to help most—those who consumed them. Some public services are more important than others, for example, policing and illegal functions, and then there are those that might be considered to be essential because all citizens require access to them to live a decent life. Historically many of these have been provided through utilities run along commercial lines, but with a balanced charter that includes important social and environmental constraints on their operation.

When questioned about what role the private sector should play in delivering such services the answers were unambiguous. Despite 20 years of promotion by both major political parties at all levels of government, privatisation enjoys very little public support. Thankfully it appears that a view is developing both within the bureaucracy and the public consciousness that PPPs must be better managed to serve the public good, not the private good at the expense of the public good. The Greens are opposed to the philosophy of privatisation of public assets and to the public sector carrying risks for the private corporations carting away the profits. But we recognise that while PPPs are here they need to be managed as effectively as possible. Therefore the Greens support the bill.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [3.28 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The bill provides a regulatory framework within which local government can benefit from public-private partnerships. In doing so the bill requires councils to follow appropriate processes with regard to prudence, transparency and best practice management of public resources. It does not impose any more onerous a framework than councils reasonably should impose on themselves.

The Government acknowledges that the regulation of public-private partnerships in the public interest is an emerging area of policy, particularly in the local government sector. The legislation represents the first step in developing a legislative framework to provide a clear set of guidelines for councils to follow when entering into these sorts of arrangements. The Government is committed to continued consultation with the local government sector on this important issue. The bill contains provisions for the drafting of guidelines to assist councils in following appropriate processes when entering into public-private partnerships. Yesterday the director-general of the Department of Local Government convened a workshop with a number of private and public sector representatives who have expertise in public-private partnerships.

I have received some preliminary feedback that the workshop was very productive and I look forward to a more detailed report in the near future. The Government is also committed to further consultation with local government through the peak bodies the Local Government and Shires Associations and the Local Government Managers Association. I look forward to working closely with all stakeholders to implement the legislation and to address any issues that may arise from it. Ongoing consultation and discussion with councils, business and the community will ensure that local government in New South Wales has the best possible legislative framework for managing this new area.

I make the comment that the Macquarie Bank was mentioned a few times in relation to Liverpool. My understanding is that it is working closely with the council out there to solve some of the problems alluded to. A number of members referred to the Legislation Review Committee noting that the retrospectivity provisions in the bill may duly trespass on individual rights and liberties. The department issued a circular to all councils on 21 July indicating the Government's acceptance of the recommendations from the Liverpool inquiry and foreshadowing that the proposed legislation would have effect from 28 June.

Since that time a number of councils have inquired of, or met with, the department to clarify the status of projects. To the department's knowledge, no project has been derailed or seriously affected by the retrospective application of prudential requirements foreshadowed in the bill. The bill does not require councils to do any more than would be dictated by normal prudential considerations, regardless of the new regulatory framework and its retrospective application. On this basis it is highly unlikely that any project proposal that has been subjected to an appropriate level of scrutiny by council would be prevented from advancing to contract stage by the retrospective application of the bill's provisions. At worst, there may be some delay associated with the implementation of the new arrangements.

Also, the Legislation Review Committee noted the bill's provisions for non-reviewable decisions, which were also mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his contribution. The Project Review Committee decision bears no relationship to any concept of merit with regard to a project proposal. It simply functions to ensure that entities involving local councils that undertake a significant project by processes to ensure transparency, accountability and the appropriate management of public assets and funds. Should proponents fail to comply with an aspect of the guidelines at any point during the assessment, they would be informed and would be given the opportunity to adjust the proposal or to undertake any remedial action necessary to comply. As long as this does not involve a significant change to the original proposal, the Project Review Committee process would continue.

A significant revamp of the project proposal may be treated as a new project and would then be resubmitted to the Project Review Committee without any reference to its previous incarnation. This structure provides for a de facto mechanism for review of decisions made by the committee. The requirement for compliance with mandatory guidelines with no avenue for review of decisions has many precedents in the Local Government Act 1993 and in other New South Wales legislation. At a State Government level section 22L of the Public Authorities (Financial Arrangements) Act 1987 states that the authorities may enter into or carry out a joint venture without the approval of the Treasurer, with no provision for appeal of the decision. The provisions in this bill are also consistent with the processes required of New South Wales statutory authorities or agencies when they seek to enter into public-private partnerships of significant size. In these cases the project is reviewed by the Budget Review Committee and may not go ahead without that approval. The focus of any councilproponents should be in getting the processes right, not in trying to circumvent it or applying resources to appealing. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Government Business Order of the Day No. 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [3.35 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Della Bosca: 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 Government is pleased to introduce the Juvenile Offenders Legislation Amendment Bill 2004.

This Bill amends the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to allow better management of young offenders, and where appropriate, their transfer to a juvenile correctional centre.

The Bill reflects recognition by the Government that some older detainees are better suited to the environment of the Department of Corrective Services, either due to the seriousness of their offence or because of their behaviour.

The Bill also reflects the significant changes in the profile of juvenile offenders over the past 10 years. That profile is of more sophisticated, more hardened and violent individuals, with criminal records including gang rape, aggravated assault and murder.

The proposals in the Bill reflect the Government's ongoing commitment to the rehabilitation of young offenders by ensuring that well behaved offenders, who have committed less serious offences, are not tainted by association with older, more sophisticated offenders.

Further, it is the Government's view that those older, more serious offenders are best managed in the secure disciplined environment of Corrective Services. That is the reason for the recent decision to transfer the administration of the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre to the Department of Corrective Services.

The detainees located at Kariong are the worst behaved in the juvenile justice system. They are there either due to the severity of their offending, or due to a history of disruption or violence in the juvenile justice system. A significant number is aged over the age of eighteen.

They belong in the adult system—however, because they offended as juveniles the Government has taken steps to introduce particular arrangements for them.

The proposals outlined in the Bill will facilitate the smooth functioning of the new Kariong—which will be known as a "Juvenile Correctional Centre".

Kariong Juvenile Correctional Centre will be a specialist facility for offenders in the sixteen to twenty one years category. The Centre will accept transfers from the Department of Juvenile Justice of those older detainees who no longer fit into the juvenile system.

These individuals have either—

previously been in the adult prison system

been charged with a serious children's indictable offence

or are detainees whose behaviour is such that the Director General of the Department of Juvenile Justice is satisfied that it warrants their transfer to the adult prison system.

The Department of Corrective Services already has specialist expertise in dealing with offenders in the eighteen to twenty one year age group—it operates the John Morony Correctional Centre specifically for such offenders.

The Kariong centre will be staffed by 38 uniformed Department of Corrective Services officers who have a wealth of experience in the custodial management of difficult offenders, violent and dangerous young offenders.

The Department of Corrective Services will institute a strict discipline system of privileges and sanctions. Officers will have the disciplinary and use of force powers of their counterparts in the adult system.

If an inmate threatens staff or other inmates with violence, or poses a threat to the security of the correctional centre, they may be placed in segregation. A new segregation unit will be built for this purpose.

A strict system of a hierarchy of sanctions and privileges has been instituted that requires inmates to behave appropriately, comply with directions and undertake necessary education and programs to earn privileges. Should inmates act up they will lose the privileges they have earned.

Those offenders whose behaviour is modified to the point where they are no longer required to be held in a juvenile correctional centre may be transferred back to the Department of Juvenile Justice. An interdepartmental committee will be established to facilitate such transfers.

Honourable members will recall that the previous Minister for Juvenile Justice, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, brought forward legislation in 2001 that amended s19 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987.

The amendment at that time, set out in the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment Bill, provided that Courts had to find that "special circumstances" existed if a court sought to order an offender to serve their time in a detention centre beyond the age of 18. These are young people convicted of a serious children's indictable offence—offences such as homicide, aggravated sexual assault, violent robbery and serious drug offences.
That bill also provided that any person sentenced under section 19 was not eligible to serve a term of imprisonment in a detention centre beyond their twenty-first birthday, unless their date of release was within six months of them attaining that age.

That Act became law on 25 January 2002.

The amendments outlined in the current bill further amend s 19. In particular, the section will be amended to provide for new sentencing arrangements that will provide that young people subject to s 19 orders will be required to serve their order as a "juvenile offender", in contrast to the current situation of serving a s 19 order in "a detention centre".

This allows for such a sentence to be served in either a juvenile justice centre, or a juvenile correctional centre. To reflect the primary role of the Department of Juvenile Justice in managing young offenders, all young offenders sentenced by Courts to orders pursuant to section 19 orders will be sent in the first instance to the Department of Juvenile Justice.

A revised section 28 Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 will allow the Director General of Department of Juvenile Justice, in consultation with the Commissioner for the Department of Corrective Service to administratively transfer appropriate young offenders to a "juvenile correctional centre".

Various safeguards are built into the Bill—

The Department of Corrective Services will implement the same standards as those applied to other juvenile custodial facilities, the Australasian Standards for Juvenile Custodial Facilities, with only slight variations.

Juvenile inmates under the age of eighteen cannot be moved from a juvenile correctional centre to the mainstream prison system without the recommendation of the Serious Offenders Review Council. When hearing such an application, the Review Council is required to co-opt a person who is either a current or former Children's Magistrate, or who is a legal practitioner of at least 7 years standing with experience as an advocate on behalf of children.

Such inmates are permitted to be present at any hearing conducted, and to be legally represented.

Placement is one of the most complex issues in corrections—and it should and will be decided by experienced professionals on a case by case basis. Placing 18 year old offenders with older adult inmates may not always be the best option for their safety and security, education and rehabilitation.

However, I can assure all Honourable members, if an inmate continues to be violent, dangerous and a threat to the security of Kariong then they will find themselves in an adult prison.

In relation to those over the age of eighteen years (which is the usual age that offenders serving sentences of imprisonment enter the adult system) the Commissioner for Corrective Services can move such juvenile inmates to the general prison population in the following circumstances; if the detainee's behaviour warrants it; if the detainee wants to be transferred; if it is in the interests of the inmate to be transferred, or if it is reasonable in all the circumstances.

A further amendment contained in the Bill is to be made to s 28BA of the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 to correct an anomaly between detainees on remand and those serving sentences.

Currently, adult aged detainees (those over the age of eighteen) who are serving a sentence as a juvenile and commit an offence in a juvenile justice centre and who are sent to the adult prison system to serve their sentence, are required to serve the balance of any juvenile order in the adult system.

However, those on remand in the juvenile system are not dealt with in the same way. The Bill provides that all detainees—whether on remand, or serving a sentence, will have to remain in the adult system to complete their custody.

The bill will further protect the integrity of our system of juvenile detention centres. This is a system focused on dealing with younger offenders, who are more amenable to the rehabilitative programs it has to offer.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [3.35 p.m.]: Through the Minister's second reading speech, the Government presents this bill as enabling legislation formalising the transfer of Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre from Juvenile Justice to the Corrective Services system. This is a gross understatement of the reach and effect of the bill. It is also claimed that the bill will make it easier to transfer adults to the prison system. This, too, misrepresents the bill. I should like to place on record that two weeks ago I sought a departmental briefing on the bill, a courtesy normally extended to shadow Ministers by the Government in order to assist informed debate in the Parliament. However, the briefing was not granted. The Minister's continued misuse of her power and position to block information does nothing to engender the Opposition's confidence in this bill.

The bigger problem for the Government, and indeed for all of us, is that this important bill, which transforms the juvenile justice framework, is not carefully considered legislation to advance the interests of justice, employees and the rehabilitation of young offenders. The bill was rammed through the Legislative Assembly and rushed into this place in a single day as part of a media strategy to save the skin of the discredited Minister for Juvenile Justice, the Hon. Diane Beamer. Minister Beamer, her staff and Cabinet have no idea of the full implications of this legislation, which is being rammed through the Parliament.
The Minister's mishandling of Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre has become such an embarrassment to the Carr Government that something had to give. It was clear that Minister Beamer had bungled and was not up to the job of fixing the problems. Either the Minister had to go or Kariong had to go. When faced with this choice the Carr Labor Government, in the greatest traditions of the Labor Right, opted for political payback. So it was that at 10.00 a.m. on 3 November, the very day and hour that Legislative Council General Purpose Committee No. 3 was due to take evidence from Kariong staff, the Minister announced the transfer of the facility to Corrective Services and effectively sacked all the staff at the centre.

The Minister said that it was a tough decision. I concede that it was tough for the staff, but from the Minister's perspective it was a cowardly and dishonourable escape from her responsibilities. There was no discussion of the impact on other juvenile justice centres, and no analysis of what would happen to detainees under the age of 18 at Kariong, who were effectively transferred en masse to the prison system. There was no advice as to how this would work. The Minister failed to admit that, as of today, she is still technically responsible for Kariong detainees. Indeed, she has misled many people to believe that the Hon. John Hatzistergos now has this responsibility. All that we heard from her on that day was: "Tough! Tough! Tough!"

The Government's tactics reminded me of a story I read in Fia Cummings book Mates, which charts the rise of a number of members of the New South Wales Labor Right, including the Premier, Bob Carr, and Leo McLeay. It is essential reading for anyone to understand the mentality of this Government. The story concerns Leo McLeay as a new, young Labor organiser, whose salary included a wage and a car. Now there was a pecking order—

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: This is very interesting but we still do not know whether the Hon. Catherine Cusack is supporting or opposing the bill. We do not know what her position is. Now she is ranting about Leo McLeay, who had nothing to do with Kariong or juvenile detainees. She can use this interesting story for other social occasions, but not in debate on this bill.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: To the point of order: The Minister will need to be patient and listen to my contribution in order to ascertain the Opposition's position. I will not respond to his interjections on the matter.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! That is not speaking to the point of order.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I am speaking about the mentality underpinning the bill and the decision to transfer Kariong. I am simply using an analogy, a device frequently used by members when speaking on legislation such as this, and I should be allowed to continue. I have only given one sentence of the analogy.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I uphold the point of order on the ground of relevance. The Hon. Catherine Cusack should confine her remarks to the bill. She would be drawing a long bow to comment about a retired member of the Federal Parliament.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I think the point of order adequately illustrates the point I was trying to make about the mentality of this Government, whose strong view is that if it does not like listening to something it will squash it. In the case of Leo McLeay, there was a car that he could not have and which did not belong to him, so he drove it into a pillar and wrecked it. It is the mentality of Robert Ray—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The member will resume her seat. She might not be happy with my ruling on the point of order, but she will not canvass it. She may continue if she confines her remarks to the bill. If she has further information to give about the bill, the House is more than willing to hear it, but I have ruled on the point of order and she will not refer again to the matters I have directed her not to refer to.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The mentality that underpins the Government's management of Kariong is the mentality of Robert Ray, who said, "Kill one, educate 1,000." The mentality that underpins this bill and the Kariong fiasco is the ethics of Graham Richardson, whose biography bears the title Whatever It Takes.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Hon. Catherine Cusack will resume her seat. The member continues to flout my ruling. I ask her to please confine her comments to the bill.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Madam Deputy-President, can I clarify that you are forbidding me from speaking about the mentality that underpins this legislation and an analysis of that mentality, which is instrumental to our approach to this bill and the remarks that I will make in relation to the Opposition's position on the bill?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Hon. John Hatzistergos took a point of order in relation to comments the member was making in her contribution to this bill. I upheld the point of order and gave my reasons for doing so. By the Hon. Catherine Cusack continuing to refer to matters that were the subject of the point of order, she is flouting my ruling. As I have said, if the Hon. Catherine Cusack wants to make a contribution about Kariong, which is the subject of the bill, she may proceed.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: In relation to, effectively, the sacking of all of the staff at Kariong, I can only comment that such an action is typical of Labor Party bullying and thuggery. When the Minister for Juvenile Justice, the Hon. Diane Beamer, said that she had made a tough decision by sacking all the staff at Kariong—and thereby dealt with all the whistleblowers—I could not help but think of what a person, whose name I cannot mention, did to a motor vehicle.

What have the Kariong staff endured over the past two years? The Dalton report shows that at the time of Mr Dalton's visits, the majority of the detainees at Kariong—15 out of 28 offenders—were adults. Three of the offenders were over the age of 20 years. Staff have endured humiliation and insults by detainees whose deeds have gone unpunished. I have heard of one worker being grabbed by detainees and having cake smeared through her hair. The manager refused her request that the boys responsible of the attack be punished. I heard that another staff member whose nose was broken by a detainee was forced to apologise to the detainee. That matter has been vigorously denied by the Minister but in fact it is true, according to the staff member whose nose was broken and two witnesses to the event.

Casuals without training have been used in key strategic positions, including in control towers. In the event of an incident in the centre the control tower becomes the command post. One woman has spoken to me of how a casual with barely three months work experience was forced to man the tower. She cried and refused until another officer was sent to show her what to do. It was this use of casuals in the towers that permitted a pensioner group that was in search of a café to proceed through all five electronic gates and enter the inner compound of Kariong. Again, the Minister misled the public about the incident, claiming that the pensioners never entered areas that are accessed by detainees. In fact the pensioners went into the administration building, which is inside the inner compound. If Minister Beamer understood anything about Kariong, she would have understood that.

The staff wanted a hole in the gymnasium wall fixed so that the facility could be used. Because of budget constraints the hole was not fixed. Members can imagine how astonished the staff were when suddenly flat screen televisions were issued to every detainee at a cost of $1,000 each. That issue was not part of any reward or punishment regime; the television sets were just handed out. Adult detainees who wanted to go to gaol were told that they could not do so unless they committed a further offence, such as assaulting a worker. This outrageous situation was documented in an April 2004 discussion paper by the Ombudsman. The detainees were quite open about what was going on, but there was no response to this from the Minister, either through her department or in a signed submission that she made to the Ombudsman.

While staff were being bashed and stabbed, one detainee who was arrested by police for assault was sent to prison but incredibly was returned to Kariong, where he made threats against the same worker he had assaulted. As I have said, Minister Beamer effectively sacked all Kariong staff on 3 November. Permanent staff have a right to apply for a limited number of positions at the Frank Baxter Juvenile Justice Centre, but most of the Kariong staff were casuals. Approximately 60 jobless former staff members and their families are facing a bleak Christmas. The department is seeking to block some of the severance entitlements of long-term casuals. I have received many painful telephone calls from people in tears who face a bleak Christmas and an even bleaker future. Because former permanent staff members of Kariong are able to apply for jobs at the Baxter centre, a large number of casuals have been displaced and are also experiencing anguish. At least 100 workers and their families have had their lives utterly ruined by the Minister's incompetence and her shameless retribution against loyal employees. Those employees include whistleblowers, who believed that the situation was so bad that someone was about to be killed at Kariong.

The brainless, erratic behaviour of this Government was foretold by a person whose name I cannot mention but who deliberately smashed up a car that he was not entitled to—because it was a bloody-minded thing to do and because he could. It is a chilling and dangerous mentality. It is the same spirit that was exhibited in the middle of November when the Minister for Justice, the Hon. John Hatzistergos, decided to put on a nice big spectacle to show off how tough he is. He invited the media to Kariong to put on hard hats and to film heavy equipment destroying the swimming pool.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: I did not. I did not invite the media.

The Hon. Don Harwin: To the point of order: The Minister was given the courtesy of having his second reading speech incorporated but he nevertheless has felt the need to hurl abuse across the table, just as he periodically does in question time. He should know better than to regard his comments as a point of order; they were an intervention in the debate. He knows that he will make his reply later in the afternoon, and he should wait until then, unless he has a legitimate point of order.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I advise the Minister that his comments were more debating points than a point of order. Therefore I do not choose to uphold the point of order.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: On what advice was destruction of the swimming pool carried out? Presumably, it was done on the advice of a press secretary. No doubt the Government considered that stunt to be an act of genius and a brilliant use of its power, but as the Central Coast Express Advocateeditorialised:

We know that there are some tough nuts at Kariong, but does it take a sledgehammer to crack them? It is undeniable that a tougher regime of discipline was needed to restore order at the troubled centre. No more barbecues? Fine, it is not a holiday camp anyway. Daily musters and hygiene checks? Fine, it will reinforce daily discipline and routines. Work assignments? Again, fine, because it will stop the inmates from being totally idle. Tough new visitor checks? Great, because it will stop the drugs and other contraband from getting into the centre. Overalls without pockets? Clever, because it makes it harder to hide drugs. But inmates are also to be rewarded for good behaviour. With summer coming up, the prospect of earning a swim in a nice cool pool would seem to me to be a great inducement for good behaviour.

The impression we are left with is that this Government neglected Kariong, ignored pleas for help from staff, defended the management and the regime, did nothing to ensure that the recommendations of the Ombudsman and of the 2002 Dalton report were implemented—which incidentally included the pocketless overalls—and stood by while staff were bashed and while daily routines and programs fell to bits. The Government did nothing. It did not react at all. But now it has suddenly taken a wild correction to the right and it is guilty of erratic and dangerous policy driving, to say the least. The bill is not considered policy. It is the centrepiece of the Minister's strategy for taking Kariong out of the media.

The Government has undertaken an incredibly pigheaded defence of the management at Kariong. Minister Beamer has defended the management as being professional and effective. She has refused at all times to blame management, so what was the explanation for the cause of these problems? First we were told that there were no problems and it was all in the imagination of the Opposition. It was as if we had Queen Canute sitting on her throne, denying that the tide was coming in. Then it was a problem of reporting; later it was a problem of overtime; and then it was a problem of detainees being too difficult.

Finally, the Government, still backing its management, decided to blame the buildings. For dramatic effect the Minister announced that Kariong could close altogether. The public was, understandably, struck with disbelief. Instead of fixing Kariong, the Minister was going to close it. The Opposition highlighted the effect that closure would have on the rest of the detention centre system if Kariong detainees flowed back into less-secure facilities. I know that upset the Minister, but it was the truthful consequence of her knee-jerk announcement that she was considering closing the facility. However, the juvenile justice system needs Kariong. The blaming of the buildings has been elevated to an art form of dishonesty and deceit.

For example, on a number of occasions the Minister for Juvenile Justice and the Minister for Justice have said that Kariong was built and opened by former Liberal Minister Virginia Chadwick and have made much of the fact that I was employed on Mrs Chadwick's staff at the time. According to the Government I was responsible for the swimming pool and for choosing slippery tiles in the bathroom. That statement, along with almost every other statement by the Government, is completely false.

[Interruption]
The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: Over a series of weeks the Minister for Justice has hurled personal abuse across the Chamber at the Hon. Catherine Cusack on the very issue to which she has refrained from replying. The Hon. Catherine Cusack is now replying to all the personal abuse that the Minister has thrown across the Chamber in a disorderly fashion. The Minister does not have the courtesy to listen to the explanation. His conduct is quite disorderly and his interjections are offensive and disorderly. I suggest that you call him to order.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: To the point of order: I do not regard my description of the Hon. Catherine Cusack as a senior policy adviser to the Hon. Virginia Chadwick as an offensive description. If she feels it is offensive to describe her in those terms, I am happy to withdraw. But I have been provoked by her remarks in this speech and I ask you to take that into account in your ruling.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! There has been a degree of name calling and slanging by both the Minister and the member with the call by way of interjection and improper speaking. I suggest that debate will proceed more smoothly if members cease interjecting and if members with the call are slightly more temperate in their comments so as not to provoke other members. I uphold the point of order. Interjections are disorderly at all times. I ask all members to be mindful of the time that is consumed by interjections and responses to interjections and points of order that result from interjections.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Virginia Chadwick had been Minister for School Education for more than a year when Kariong was opened by the then Minister for Justice, Terry Griffiths. I may have been on Mrs Chadwick's staff at the time, but I am far from certain. In any event, the only juvenile justice issues Mrs Chadwick dealt with at the time related to schools in detention centres, and I must say she did an amazingly good job in that regard. I will share with the House some of the history of Kariong, because it ought be on the public record. And the reasons for its existence ought not be forgotten, as they have a direct bearing on this bill.

When the Greiner Government was elected in 1988, the detention centre system was in a total mess. Only a few of the centres had fences, the staff were extremely badly paid, and no qualifications for staff or staff training were required. Honourable members may remember Frank Walker, a former member of this House. It was his special legacy that the Greiner Government had to clean up, and it was a huge task. The maximum security centre for juveniles was Endeavour House at Tamworth. That notorious prison was built in 1869 and featured a heritage-listed gallows. I visited Endeavour House in 1989 and found the conditions were appalling. An Australian Institute of Criminology paper entitled "Deaths in Custody Australia No. 3—Deaths in Juvenile Detention, 1980-1992", written by Christine Howlett, describes Endeavour House in the following terms:

This regime was particularly harsh as the amenities available to detainees in their cells were most primitive: open tin cans were used as toilets, there were no washing facilities, yet detainees were given their meals in these cells. Further "privileges" such as phone calls were restricted. Such a regime, apparently contrary to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners pertaining to accommodation and punishment (1984, especially Rules 12, 31 & 32), was justified by the Superintendent because of feared industrial action by staff who felt threatened by the detainees' behaviour.

The Wran Government had promised for 10 years to close Endeavour House, but when the Coalition was elected to office nothing had been done. There was no plan, no money—absolutely nothing to appropriately house detainees that were described then and today as the "worst of the worst".

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: They didn't have a swimming pool.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Does the Hon. Eric Roozendaal think his comment is funny? Has he ever been to Endeavour House and seen the conditions that Labor—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I have warned members about interjections. I have asked members to cease interjecting.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: All of a sudden the Hon. Eric Roozendaal is an expert on all these matters! I look forward to hearing his contribution. The dire situation in Juvenile Justice when we took office in 1988 was highlighted by the Howlett Paper, which found that nationally there were nine juvenile deaths in custody between 1980 and 1992—five of which were in New South Wales. Three of the four deaths by suicide in New South Wales were associated with Endeavour House. The first death documented was that of Thomas, an Aboriginal youth from Dubbo who died on 23 March 1981 of a heart attack at Minda. The second death was Mark, a non-Aboriginal youth who committed suicide by hanging on 27 July 1987 at Endeavour House. He was aged 16 and had convictions for drug and property offences, motor vehicle theft and absconding. The third death was Alex, another non-Aboriginal youth who committed suicide at Endeavour House on 3 October 1989. My recollection is that Alex was 16 years of age. His death followed a riot at the centre, which resulted in court proceedings to transfer some detainees to gaol. There was talk of a suicide pact amongst detainees to avoid going to prison.

The fourth death was Dermot, a 17-year-old Aboriginal youth who was detained at Endeavour House at the time of Alex's death. Dermot died in the prison system after being transferred there. Dermot was involved in the final disturbance at Endeavour House, but had requested a transfer from that juvenile facility to the adult gaol at Maitland. However, a few days after this transfer, on 21 October 1989, he was found hanged in his cell at the gaol. In stating his findings in relation to Dermot's death, the Coroner voiced his abhorrence at the conditions under which the detainees had been confined at Endeavour House following the riot. The Coroner was particularly critical of the lack of toilet facilities in detainees' cells. He wrote:

I think that it is terribly, terribly degrading for a person to be locked in a cell all night with a pan or a bucket for toilet facilities. People—it does not matter whether they are prisoners, it does not matter whether they are hardened criminals, [they] are still entitled to some human dignity and I think the situation regarding toilets in cells, particularly when they were locked in cells for such a long time after the riot was intolerable.

Endeavour House was closed as a juvenile detention facility in December 1989. I will refer to the fifth death in custody in the juvenile system during that period because I believe it will be instructive to do so. Danny, a non-Aboriginal youth, died at the age of 17 on either 24 or 25 December 1990. According to the report, Danny's death was the result of self-inflicted hanging whilst he was detained at Yasmar Detention Centre, where he wanted to be so that he could be closer to his family at Christmas time. Danny was apparently excited about an expected visit from his mother on Christmas Day. However, in a letter found in his cell following his death he expressed the view that his mother probably would not visit him on that important day.

I give credit to the Howlett report. My remarks about those cases reflect the content of the report and accord with my memories. Virginia Chadwick did what no Labor Minister was able to do. She closed Endeavour House in December 1989 and obtained funding for a replacement. In July 1990 Mrs Chadwick was appointed Minister for School Education and the Hon. John Hannaford assumed responsibility for Community Services, including Juvenile Justice. In June 1991, while Kariong was still under construction, Premier Nick Greiner announced a new Juvenile Justice portfolio under Minister Terry Griffiths. On this basis, Juvenile Justice formally separated from Community Services—a decision that Labor Party spokesman Ron Dyer bagged at the time. It is worth noting that Mr Dyer said:

There is every prospect that juveniles will be treated as harshly as adult offenders are... I think there's every reason to suppose the emphasis will be on punishment rather than rehabilitation. There is also a very grave danger that juveniles will be virtually the fag end of the Department's administration.

According to newspaper reports:

Mr Dyer said the Corrective Services Department was "totally ill-equipped" to deal with the rehabilitation of young offenders.

Of course, these fears proved to be unfounded as the juvenile facilities were kept completely separate. Minister Griffiths commissioned a special report on the future of juvenile justice by a committee chaired by Marie Bashir. The report was published as a green paper when Wayne Merton was Minister for Justice. It was a remarkable and farsighted document, in many ways as relevant today as it was 10 years ago.

The Government's efforts to deflect blame onto the buildings are uninformed and unconvincing. The Kariong centre that this Government inherited is light years ahead of Endeavour House—that is the Government's record and it was shameful. For the Government to discover suddenly, after 10 years in office, that the stairwells are too noisy and the building is not completely to its liking is a pathetic excuse and a pathetic way of avoiding its accountability. The problems for which the Government is accountable include permitting a welfare mentality to overwhelm the management imperatives at the centre. The overpowering welfare mentality destroyed the discipline routine and stymied efforts to introduce a meaningful regime, where good behaviour was rewarded and bad behaviour was punished. The 2002 Dalton report made recommendations along these lines. Such an environment is craved not only by staff but by detainees, and the management and leadership of Kariong failed to deliver it.

We have given examples of a worker being forced to apologise for his broken nose—an allegation denied by the Government but proven—the spending on pizzas, X Boxes, soft drinks and lollies, and outfitting each room with a flat-screen television. They were all unearned rights of residency. Detainees could opt out of programs and lounge in their rooms all day. There was no structure or discipline and punishments were frequently watered down. Time in confinement was reduced and detainees were allowed to take doonas, magazines and walkmans into confinement cells. Most pathetic is the fact that the Government had to resort to getting the deputy superintendent of the Goulburn super-max prison to come to Kariong to stop the pizza purchases. What a reflection that is on juvenile justice! What an admission by Minister Beamer that she was incapable of issuing the simplest directives to her staff.

Secondly, part of the ideologically misguided management philosophy involved clinging to the practice of retaining adults in the juvenile system. Indeed, the Ombudsman's discussion paper released in April this year showed that in 1995, 21 per cent of the detention centre population was adult, with no-one aged over 21 years. Today the proportion of adults in a more hardened detention centre population is much higher at 28 per cent, with four aged over 21. The adult population in Kariong includes most of the very serious offenders—the murderers and rapists for whom the public has very little sympathy. Why is the Government doing this? It is no good for the adults, it is no good for the younger detainees and it is no good for the staff. It is not what the community wants. Yet in many respects this bill entrenches the practice further. Why stick doggedly to this policy when it is against everyone's interests, including those of the Government?

A third cause of the crisis is the funding cuts to the Department of Juvenile Justice, mismanagement of industrial relations and reliance on casual staff—at times casuals were rostered to all positions in the Carinya unit, which is the behaviour management unit at Kariong. No wonder those staff did not stand a chance. Where was WorkCover, where was the Public Service Association, and where was the Minister's duty of care to her employees when workers were being bashed by detainees in order to secure a ticket to prison? A pensioner group in search of the café stumbled into the inner compound at Kariong because inexperienced casuals were placed in positions well beyond their level of training and responsibility.

Finally, and most significant, is the naïveté of the Minister for Juvenile Justice, who ignored many, many warnings and operated instead on autopilot. She had evidence of all the problems but took no action. She is unable to point to a single occasion when she intervened to fix the problems. Minister Beamer instead defended the indefensible and expressed full confidence in the professionalism of management at Kariong. She was conning the Parliament and trying to fool the public. This mishandling of the allegations raised by the Opposition caused the evidence to be leaked that proved conclusively that there were major problems in Kariong and that the Minister was covering them up.

I have heard some people say, "Poor Diane Beamer; I feel sorry for her." I have heard people apologise for the Minister, saying, "It's probably not her fault; she's out of her depth." But I say to those people that they should feel no sympathy for the Minister. I point them to the staff whose lives have been shattered by physical assaults by detainees that were a direct and inevitable result of the dysfunctional and dangerous environment that the Minister defended. I urge them to talk to the people who cowered in the darkness of a unit that had been taken over by detainees or to the staff member who was trapped in a headlock embrace by a vicious gang rapist, who held a sharpened implement to the staff member's throat. I urge them to listen to that staff member tell of his paralysing fear as his assailant literally frothed at the mouth and screamed repeatedly, "You are going to die." Outside the unit management made preparations to negotiate while that poor staff member was subject to intense, brutal physical and psychological abuse. I invite any person to speak to this man and to others who have told me the most amazing stories, and then express sympathy for the Minister. This is not a game. It is real life, and the stakes could not be higher or the consequences more serious.

I turn to Minister Beamer's remarks about the bill. Her second reading speech on this bill is one of the poorest I have ever read. The speech does not take us through the legislation in the usual way. Indeed, when it comes to interpreting the provisions of the bill, the Minister's second reading speech is a wholly unreliable document that sheds little light on what is intended and how the bill will operate. I suspect this is because the Minister genuinely does not know what the effects of the bill will be. Key concepts are missing from the speech. For example, the word "responsibility" does not appear even once in the speech or the bill. Which Minister is ultimately responsible for Kariong and the detainees, given that they are not in detention or in prison?

Given that the bill is all about Minister Beamer shedding and avoiding responsibility, it is probably not a surprise that the word "responsibility" has been deleted from all vocabulary relating to the bill. The word "accountability" does not appear in either the second reading speech or the bill. Who is accountable for the management of Kariong, the mix of offenders and the Government's continuing refusal to send adult Kariong inmates to prison? It seems that the word "accountability", like the word "responsibility", and indeed the word "transparency", has no place in the language of the Carr Government. Nor do the words "performance", "crime", "punishment", "justice" and "victim", none of which are mentioned in the second reading speech or the legislation. I am intrigued as to how a matter of such weight and significance could be discussed without drawing upon any of those concepts.

That issue is particularly significant given that the Legislation Review Committee has referred to Parliament issues arising from new section 41C, which empowers the Minister for Justice to transfer detainees aged under 18 to prison. The committee notes that it is an internationally recognised right of children to be detained separately from adults except when that is not in the best interests of the child. This is a very serious matter that the Government has failed to consider or address in debate about the bill. The Opposition has argued consistently that adults must be separated from children. The inmates of Kariong of greatest concern to the public should be in prison. That is our solution but the Government's solution is to pick up the whole facility—children and all—and dump it into Corrective Services.

The seminal issue for the Opposition is the dishonest and desperate measures that the Government has taken to keep adults in juvenile facilities. The bill before the House provides a new shield for these adults, most of whom are on remand or have been found guilty of homicide, gang rape or aggravated armed robbery. It does this in several ways. The bill creates a new category of "juvenile inmate", and defines such a person as being under 21 years of age. The Opposition believes nobody aged 18 to 21 years is a juvenile; such a person is an adult. This is a fundamental point of difference between the Opposition and the Government. I point out that at least 600 prisoners in this age range are held in the facilities for which the Minister for Justice is responsible, and he has a purpose-built facility at Parklea to manage them. Why is Minister Beamer clinging to the policy of retaining these adults?

[Interruption]

That is not what the Minister's web site says. I thank the Minister for that. The Opposition is incredulous at Minister Beamer's defiant defence of these adult offenders, even in the face of her experience and strong community opinion. Why does she keep devising convoluted ways of keeping them out of prison? Why will she not send them where they belong, which is to gaol with all the other adults? The bill amends section 19 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and changes the way in which courts direct imprisonment. Previously the court would direct offenders to serve sentences in a detention centre. The new provision requires that they may serve them "as a juvenile offender". In other words, the courts are no longer specifying where the sentence will be served. A new note to be inserted at the end of section 19 (1) states:

The effect of such an order is that the person to whom the order relates will be committed to a detention centre … There he or she will be detained as specified in the order. In certain circumstances he or she may subsequently be transferred to a juvenile correctional centre pursuant to an order under Section 28 of the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987.

What that means is that every person sentenced as a juvenile, irrespective of their age—they could be 21 years of age—their behaviour or the nature of their offence, must be sent to a detention centre. They cannot be sent to Kariong, which was the case previously, as all access to Kariong is now in the hands of the bureaucracy. Juvenile offenders must now go to a detention centre first. Given some of the very high profile offenders housed at Kariong, that is utterly inappropriate. I am aware of one person, a prominent member of a south-western Sydney gang who was considered so dangerous that when he was sent to Kariong 30 police, including sharpshooters, were involved in the operation to transfer him from court to Kariong. It appears that this bill will require the police to go on a merry-go-round of detention centre visits, prior to moving these very dangerous offenders to Kariong, while admissions paperwork is completed and transfers arranged with the consent of the Director-General of Corrective Services.

To assist honourable members to understand the nature of the adults to whom I am referring, I can read a list of offences of 12 adult detainees held at Kariong as at 26 October. This document was tabled on 3 November before General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3, with correspondence from Minister Beamer. The document contains the offences. It does not contain detainee names; they are numbered. I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: We object to leave and we would object to the honourable member referring to the document. The document I have just been handed appears to have been tabled before General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3, attached to correspondence apparently received by the committee. It is inappropriate, bearing in mind the take-note debate on that committee report, that the document be incorporated. It should appropriately be raised in the take-note debate. Honourable members cannot refer to something which is before the House in a take-note debate.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Detainee 1—

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: I object to the reading of this document because again it refers to something that was before General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3, attached to correspondence. It is inappropriate that the document be tabled or incorporated in Hansard. It is inappropriate for the honourable member to refer to something which clearly the committee has deliberated upon and which will be discussed by this House as part of the take-note debate.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: To the point of order: throughout the Minister's second reading speech she referred to documents such as the Dalton report which were tabled to our committee and which have been substantially drawn upon and referred to by the Minister in the debate on this legislation. It is impossible to even discuss this bill if the information and the content of the consideration of that committee is to be completely deleted. In fact, I suggest that the Minister is almost saying that the whole bill is out of order and should not be considered on the grounds that a committee looked at Kariong, and everything that has been sent to that committee has to be deleted from this debate. It is an absolutely ludicrous proposal.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: To the point of order: The Hon. Catherine Cusack referred to the report prepared by Vern Dalton into the Kariong centre. The difference between the document being referred to in this point of order and the Dalton report is that the Dalton report was not only made available to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 but was also publicly released.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I want to clarify that the report tabled was the 2002 Dalton report. In fact, the department and the Minister claimed privilege on the 2004 Dalton report tabled in this Parliament and it has not been made public, even though the Minister at the same time held a press conference and distributed copies of it to the public. The 2004 Dalton report has not been tabled in this Parliament. It is in the Clerk's office under lock and key and also on the desk of every journalist and editor in Sydney. That is the ludicrous situation in relation to privilege on that document.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: To the point of order: Standing Order 92 is relevant. It states:

(1) A member may not digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion; or anticipate the discussion of any matter shown on the Notice Paper, except an item of private members' business outside the order of precedence—

which the take-note debate is—

unless, in the opinion of the President there is no likelihood of the motion or order of the day being called on within a reasonable time.

The Hon. Don Harwin: To the point of order: I want to reinforce comments made by the Hon. Greg Pearce about the exception contained in Standing Order 92, which states that there is no likelihood of the motion or order of the day being called on within a reasonable time. As the special adjournment will be moved later today for more than 11 weeks, it is quite clear that it would not be called on within a reasonable time. Bear in mind that this is the last sitting day of 2004, and there will be no discussion of the committee report within a reasonable time.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: To the point of order: The minutes of 3 November of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3, when the Hon. Catherine Cusack was present, show that it received in correspondence a copy of a letter from Mr Vern Dalton to the Hon. Diane Beamer, Member of Parliament, and Minister for Juvenile Justice, and I quote from the Dalton Report dated 5 October 2004. It was resolved on the motion of the Hon. Catherine Cusack that apart from the operational procedures document attached to the letter from the Hon. Diane Beamer, which would be made available for perusal by committee members in the Clerk's office, all other documents provided with the Minister's letter—which means the Dalton report—would be made public. That decision was made by that committee on the motion of the Hon. Catherine Cusack on 3 November. So the Dalton report is a publicly available document.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Further to the point of order: For the benefit and clarification of the Hon. Amanda Fazio, that included the 2002 Dalton report. The 2004 Dalton report came under a call for papers. It was tabled in this Chamber; privilege was claimed. The Hon. Amanda Fazio will find out from the Clerk that he is not able to release it to the general public.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Further to the point of order: Not only is that incorrect but the Minister for Justice and I have also been advised by an adviser for the Minister for Juvenile Justice that the Minister has made the report available. Apart from that, the point of order is about a single page document that the Hon. Catherine Cusack sought leave to table, and leave was granted. That is what the point of order is about, and that is what I was talking about.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Madam Deputy Chair, was leave granted for me to incorporate it in Hansard?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): My understanding was that leave was not granted.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: I objected to the honourable member raising or discussing the issue on a similar basis.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! To try to clarify the document, the subject of the point of order, does the document that the honourable member seeks to have incorporated form part of the Kariong report, at page 10? Is the document part of what is deemed to be part of the operational procedures document that is attached to the letter from the Hon. Diane Beamer?

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: It is not part of that. The document that I seek to have incorporated in Hansard is a document that was tabled before, and agreed to be made public by, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 at its meeting on 3 November this year. It is entitled "Young People in Kariong JJC 18 years and over as at 26 October 2004". It does not name the detainees, but it gives numbers for 12 detainees and lists their offences.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! It is difficult to fully comprehend the minutes of a meeting of a committee on which many members of this Chamber do not serve. If the Hon. Catherine Cusack wishes to refer to a document that she states has been made public through the committee process, it is a matter for the honourable member to vouch whether that is correct. If the honourable member wishes to use that document on the basis that it has been made public, that is a matter for the honourable member.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I will read the document into Hansard:

Detainee 1 Homicide

Detainee 2 Homicide

Detainee 3 Murder; Aggravated robbery with wounding; Aggravated robbery.

Detainee 4 Aggravated break & enter with intent to inflict GBH; aggravated Sexual assault in company x 6; Aggravated sexual assault in company and inflicting ABH x 6; Specially aggravated break & enter and commit serious indictable offence.

Detainee 5 Murder; Aggravated robbery; Aggravated robbery with wounding/GBH.

Detainee 6 Sexual intercourse w/o consent x 10; Threat to inflict ABH by means of offensive weapon x 10; Aggravated sexual assault in company; Threaten ABH by weapon x 7; Take/detain person in company with intent to obtain advantage.

Detainee 7 Aggravated sexual assault in company – Threaten ABH by weapon x 7; Agg indecent assault in company; Detain for advantage x 2; Aggravated robbery; Aggravated sexual assault – under 16 x 3; Aggravated indecent assault – under 16 x 2; Aggravated act of indecency – under 16 in company; Act/make omission intent pervert course of justice; Aggravated robbery.

Detainee 8 Murder, Aggravated robbery. Aggravated robbery with wounding.

Detainee 9 Assault with intent to rob whilst in company; Specially aggravated kidnapping; Common assault x 1; Take and drive conveyance without consent of owner x 2; Escape/attempt lawful custody x 2.

Detainee 10 Robbery whilst armed with offensive weapon.

Detainee 11 Murder

Detainee 12 Murder

These detainees should be in the larger prison system. They are all adults, and they should be with the other adults who are in the prison system. Now, before some honourable members start objecting about all the problems of younger prisoners in the adult system—and by "younger" I mean between 18 and 25 years—I point out that the Coalition recognises that in some respects these younger offenders are a special group. That is why in 1992 we designated Parklea prison as a specialist facility for young offenders in that 18 to 25 years age group. I could read a description of Parklea to the Minister.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Wrong. It is a remand centre.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I am referring to Parklea, which was designated in 1992 a special facility for young offenders in the age group 18 to 25 years. We ask: Why should not the adults at Kariong be detained with the other 600 or so young offenders in the prison system? It is nonsensical to have the juvenile system cling to them. I foreshadow, on behalf of the Opposition, our desire to move amendments in Committee to rectify this situation.

The detainees in all detention centres that are of greatest concern to the Opposition are the real juveniles, that is, those aged under 18 years. Some of these who ought to be managed in the juvenile system are now being transferred to Corrective Services. I know, as Minister Beamer and Minister Hatzistergos know, that many of these young offenders are suicide risks. They are in Kariong, not because of their offences but because of their behaviour and the inability of the rest of the juvenile system to manage their problems.

These detainees are not being supervised by the specialist Serious Young Offenders Review Panel. Indeed that panel does not exist in the bill and was not mentioned in the second reading speech. It seems to have disappeared altogether—another omission from the Minister's second reading speech! These detainees, once transferred to Kariong, become inmates and are liable to transfer to prison without reference to any juvenile justice authority. There is to be no more oversight by the courts of juvenile transfers to prison. This is a first in Australia possibly since convict days, when there were no distinctions at all between children and adults. In that sense, this bill is a humiliating admission of failure by the Minister and the Department of Juvenile Justice.

The bill strips Minister Beamer of virtually all her ministerial powers in relation to detainees. Her consent is no longer required for any transfers, except in some cases from the prison system back to detention. What a humiliation! And what a vote of no confidence in Minister Beamer by her Cabinet colleagues! What an abrogation of responsibility and accountability—as I have said, two key words that were missing altogether from the Minister's second reading speech.

As a further measure to avoid accountability the bill is not Kariong specific. It seeks to give the Government power to declare any correctional facility to be a juvenile correctional centre without further reference to the Parliament. Given the record of the Government, its mismanagement and its lax regard for the truth, it must think we are idiots to let that type of power slip through unchecked. The Opposition will propose an amendment to ensure that any such proclamation would need to be brought before the Parliament. The Opposition will propose further amendments to give effect to a strong belief that adults must be separated from children. The definition of an adult is 18 years and over, while the definition of a child is under 18 years of age. However, prior to the Committee stage we will seek the support of honourable members to inquire more deeply into the rushed and erratic plans of this Government. I move:

1. That the question be amended by omitting all words after "That" and inserting instead "this bill be referred to a select committee for inquiry and report."

2. That, notwithstanding the generality of paragraph 1, the committee examine in particular the following matters:

(a) the reasons for, and the consequences of, the transfer of management responsibility for the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre from the Department of Juvenile Justice to the Department of Corrective Services including the impact on staff at Kariong and Baxter detention centres,

(b) whether the transition of Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre into a juvenile correctional centre operated by the Department of Corrective Services is the most effective method of addressing management problems at that centre,

(c) the issue of adult detainees sentenced as juvenile offenders at Kariong and elsewhere in the juvenile detention centre system,

(d) the classification system and appropriateness of placements for detainees,

(e) alternatives to the establishment of a juvenile correctional centre,

(f) the wider implications of incarcerating juveniles in correctional centres, and
(g) management of staff assaults in the juvenile justice system.

3. That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, the committee consist of six members, comprising:

(a) two Government members,

(b) Ms Cusack and Mr Lynn, and

(c) Revd Dr Moyes and Dr Wong.

4. That the Chair of the committee be Revd Dr Moyes.

5 That the committee report by 29 July 2005.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [4.32 p.m.]: As far back as March 2000 the Ombudsman identified significant problems at Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre. Apparently these problems have escalated since late 2003. We now find the Government introducing legislation to conceal a litany of mistakes made by the department in relation to Kariong. I served with the Hon. Catherine Cusack, the Hon. Charlie Lynn and the Hon. John Tingle on the committee that inquired into Kariong. We were shocked and dismayed by some of the evidence we heard and by the way in which the staff at Kariong were treated. In November 2003 nine offenders barricaded themselves in a room and destroyed property, which resulted in one offender being taken to hospital and two staff suffering minor injuries. In February this year a riot resulted in mattresses being set on fire and 20 people receiving treatment, six of whom required hospitalisation.

There have been constant media reports of staff being abused physically and taunted by detainees because of their lack of authority. Finally there was the comical incident referred to by the Hon. Catherine Cusack, which involved a group of seniors who wound up in the middle of the centre while looking for a coffee shop. I understand the seniors managed to pass through five sets of electronic gates before they were advised that they were at the wrong location. There have been continual reports of staff being frequently assaulted by detainees and undermined by management, episodes of staff apologising to detainees and punishments they imposed being overruled. It is behaviour more closely resembling a schoolies week than a State correctional facility for serious juvenile offenders. These episodes have dismayed and disturbed the public. It is clear that the punishment, rehabilitation and incentive schemes in place at Kariong were ineffective and inappropriate to deal with the calibre of detainees held at the facility.

The Ombudsman's 2000 report recommended that a competent and professional management team was needed to instil a sense of teamwork and professionalism among staff. Evidence taken by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 in November reveals clearly that this objective has not been met—not even close. It has taken a near disaster at Kariong to prompt any sort of action from the Government. Kariong staff have been kicked out of their jobs and replaced by Corrective Services people for daring to complain about the conditions in which they were expected to work, conditions that made them vulnerable to physical and mental abuse. The staff members tried all possible avenues to draw attention to the vast number of problems at Kariong. They attempted to alert the Minister to the problems they had with management. When this achieved nothing and the assaults continued, they approached the Public Service Association to intervene, then the Ombudsman and, finally, when all other avenues failed, members of Parliament.

The Government responded to the youth officers and staff at Kariong by suppressing the evidence provided to the committee and announcing that staff would lose their jobs to Corrective Services officers at the same time as the committee began hearing evidence. In fact, both events took place on 3 November at 10.00 a.m. Whistleblower protection for the Kariong staff under current New South Wales law seems severely deficient. In April this year the Ombudsman reported that the New South Wales Protected Disclosures Act fails to achieve two out of its three core objectives: protecting whistleblowers and insuring disclosures are dealt with properly. The Act has failed the staff at Kariong, management failed the staff at Kariong, the Department of Juvenile Justice failed the staff at Kariong and General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 failed the staff when it chose to suppress evidence given in the hearings.

The problems at Kariong have been shrouded in secrecy. From minimising complaints by staff members about the lawlessness at the centre to reluctantly and hesitantly publishing the Dalton report, the Department of Juvenile Justice has attempted to keep the problems at Kariong out of the public eye. The legislation is a knee-jerk reaction by the Government to conceal the mistakes made at Kariong. The bill must define what it means by a "proposed juvenile correctional centre". What exactly is a proposed juvenile correctional centre? It is wrong to pass legislation that does not state clearly where these young offenders will be held. The Minister should expand on what is meant by a proposed juvenile correctional centre before asking the House to pass the bill. The bill seeks to facilitate the transfer of young offenders within the juvenile justice system, including to an adult prison, and to revoke special provisions, such as attending employment.

Juvenile justice centres are an important part of the criminal justice system. When the young offender graduates to an adult prison the chances of that person becoming a better criminal are greatly enhanced. Young offenders need the right combination of punishment and rehabilitation, incentives and future opportunities. Although this was not achieved at Kariong I would be cautious in deciding to send young offenders into the company of hardened adult criminals. There is also the question of the appropriateness of allowing juvenile detainees to choose if they want to be transferred to an adult prison. Choosing an adult prison really would not be in their best interests, and the department should recognise this rather than take the easy option in the short term as set out in new section 41C (3) bill. I would also question the suitability of enabling juvenile centres to be managed under principles applied to adult prisons, as set out in new section 3 (1) in item [2] of schedule 2 to the bill. Juvenile justice centres place emphasis on reintroducing young offenders back into society, an objective not always achieved or even emphasised in adult prisons.

Transferring responsibility for Kariong to Corrective Services is an admission of defeat by the Government. It has failed the staff at Kariong and it has failed the detainees. Kariong should have been a place of reform and rehabilitation for these young offenders, but because of incompetent management and defective operational structures detainees now will be subject to an adult prison management system. Their greatest opportunities for reform and rehabilitation will be lost forever. It is a mistake to write off young offenders. The Kariong detainees were entitled to expect education, motivation, incentive, rehabilitation and the chance to start again. Because of the failures of Kariong these detainees will be transferred to an adult prison system characterised by overcrowding and assault. The legislation marks a turning point away from the commitment to rehabilitate young people and, instead, to cement them into a life of habitual crime and prison.

I refer to the case of a prisoner named Bronson Blessington, whose redetermination was dealt with in the Supreme Court last Friday. It is a very interesting case. The prisoner entered the juvenile justice system when he was 14 years old. He was a detainee at a place called Minali Receiving and Assessment Centre in 1988. He was in prison with only one previous conviction, stealing a pair of sunglasses. He ran away from Minali and several days later became caught up with other street kids in the murder of Janine Balding. That was a horrendous crime involving abduction, rape and murder. Blessington was sentenced to life imprisonment.

When he was still in the juvenile justice system and aged 17 he converted to Christianity. His grandparents were Salvation Army officers. This boy went from being a rapist and murderer to literally being transformed in the juvenile justice system. He studied theology at Moore Theological College and in the 16 years that he has been in prison, something like 5,000 prisoner attendances have been recorded at his scripture classes. This is an extraordinary outcome for someone so young in the juvenile justice system and who, through various means, has been rehabilitated. In fact, coincidentally, only yesterday, 8 December, I received an email from a former prisoner called Michael Roberts. I shall take the time of the House to read the email, which states:

I write in regard to the efforts you have gone to for Bronson Blessington and in pursuit of a fairer legal system for all and I would like to sincerely commend and encourage you for all of that. To place some background on my involvement, basically I met Bronson Blessington in 1996 while serving a three-month sentence in Long Bay prison for a white collar crime. I mistakenly requested protection and so found myself lodging in the segregation section of Long Bay where protection was a rarity and I met Bronson Blessington. Basically he was responsible for my subsequent conversion to Christianity and my life has been vastly more satisfying and fulfilling since. In the eight years that I have been out of prison I have married and have two wonderful children and attend church regularly.

Mike Roberts

He gave his phone number and address. I do not know that man, but he is testimony to the work of this boy in the prison system. The boy is a product of Juvenile Justice and I commend to the House any measures that can be put in place to help young people who go off the rails to find direction and a new way of living their lives. The extent to which Kariong failed to do that is a great disappointment to everyone, but it would be an extreme overreaction to write off juveniles who commit serious crimes by introducing them to the adult prison system. That is a huge mistake. To the extent that this bill seeks to achieve that, I oppose it.

If there is any lesson to be learned from Kariong it should be that young people have to be treated differently. They are not adults. Some of them are the product of broken marriages, some suffer from developmental delay and others have been abused. They must be treated differently, yet they will not be given that opportunity in the adult prison system. For that reason we should not give up on these people, even though they are the worst of the worst. We should be doing something to make sure that they are given special attention and have an opportunity to be rehabilitated.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [4.43 p.m.]: In speaking to the Juvenile Offenders Legislation Amendment Bill I will not rely on a massive use of quotes, nor is there a need to do so on this bill. During the past 10 years the history of juvenile justice has been the subject of frequent reports and studies that supply much of the research behind this speech today. No doubt many honourable members will rely upon the valuable and considered work of the award-winning Daily Telegraph as the basis of their support for the bill. I do not believe that it is unreasonable for them to also consider the raft of material provided by other experts in the field. These include the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled "Juvenile Justice in NSW" dated 1992, the report of the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council of New South Wales entitled "Future Directions for Juvenile Justice" dated 1993, the report of the NSW Ombudsman entitled "Inquiry into Juvenile Justice Centres", Volumes 1 and 2, dated 1996, the report of the NSW Ombudsman entitled "Investigation into Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre" dated 2000, the Dalton and Johnston report entitled "Review of Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre" dated 2002, and the Dalton report entitled "Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre" dated 2004.

Unfortunately, there have been many other reports that we have not had the privilege of seeing, such as the Shier documents and evaluations by the Department of Corrective Services. Such important material should be made available to all honourable members. I look forward to the day when a royal commission finally makes the documents publicly available. This bill should concern every member in this House and the other place. It is a particularly nasty bill and is one of the most retrograde steps taken in the penal history of this State. I am alarmed that the bill thrusts the onus of responsibility for what has occurred at Kariong solely on the young inmates and shifts the blame away from the workers and management at Kariong. In doing so it exonerates the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Government from any blame and responsibility.

This exoneration will have a detrimental effect upon the amenity of society for the citizens of New South Wales. It will ensure that the Department of Juvenile Justice will not have to evaluate its appalling standards and abilities and will continue to avoid fulfilling its task of rehabilitating young people who have gone astray. The department will continue to simply shrug its shoulders and release meaningless statements such as, "the youth of today are much more dangerous and damaged than in the past." Anyone who has studied criminology and the history of youth crime in this country would know only too well that statistics show that we are no worse off today than at any time in the past. Drug and alcohol addiction, pack rape, murder, crime and vice have remained constant.

We need only to hark back to the young larrikins of Sydney town whose attacks on police were so brazen and constant as to lead to the New South Wales constabulary being among the first police forces in the world to be issued with firearms. Around the time of the Second World War young men of the ages of those in Kariong today whom we remember as the razor gangs were heavily involved in the cocaine trade, murder, prostitution and extortion rackets. Claims by the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Government that young people today are worse than in the past does a tremendous disservice to those young people who have fallen foul of the law at a young age. More importantly, it does a disservice to the wider community, which is constantly being given false and misleading information in order to exonerate itself of any blame or responsibility.

We need a department that works, that has ability and that sets high standards of professionalism. A department that pays mere lip-service and releases false and misleading information in order to justify its failures is not something in which the taxpayers of New South Wales can have any confidence. This is the heart of the matter. People have been misled into believing that the failure at Kariong is not just the responsibility of the young people there but is a fundamental failure of the welfare model ideal. The welfare model has been put forward as being too soft. Young people at Kariong are portrayed as taking advantage of that soft model to unreasonably influence the adult employees of the State, as if they have been somehow brain damaged by the welfare model and turned into pliable automatons. Nothing could be further from the truth when one reads the reports that are publicly available.

Generally, the welfare model has never existed in the juvenile justice system, and Kariong in particular. In fact, certain cliques of staff have done everything possible to undermine the welfare approach in order to keep Kariong as a punitive and correctional facility. To shift the onus of blame onto Kariong and to push for a tough but disciplinary style total institution may result in the implementation of a more media-manageable environment, but it will achieve absolutely nothing for the safety and wellbeing of the general public. Furthermore, to argue that the young people at Kariong are manipulating the system in order to be moved into the adult correctional system so that they can buy cigarettes and be allowed to spend up to $100 a week on buy-ups totally misses the point.

The reality is that these inmates are not as stupid as we are led to believe. There are many reasons why many of them would prefer to be in an adult correctional facility. It would be more credible to suggest that many seek to get away from a clearly dysfunctional system that lacks any serious programs for rehabilitation, education and self-improvement.

It is clear that many of the young offenders at Kariong wish to get away from the dictatorial staff who think their job is to make young offenders suffer in a stifling atmosphere of aggressive punishment and ceaseless boredom. Far from the services that the Department of Juvenile Justice advertises that these young people receive, the few services that exist are run under a regime of mismanagement, staff infighting and a system that is directionless and disorientated. Somehow we expect these highly disturbed and dysfunctional children to be rehabilitated in a system that is as clearly disturbed and dysfunctional as they are. Why would they not riot in a place like that—a place that the Minister herself has tellingly described in her second reading reply as a "regime"?

I have never previously mentioned Government briefings in this place. However, today I am compelled to do so. The staffer who gave me the briefing on this bill on Tuesday stated, "The legislation is to maintain the integrity of the juvenile justice system." That was just the phrase I was looking for to encapsulate the fear that this bill engenders in me. How can one maintain the integrity of the juvenile justice system by removing from it what should have been its flagship centre—a centre where one would expect to see the highest level of professionalism, integrity, programming and opportunities for relocation of young offenders? That decision is nothing less than simply astonishing and it is something that the Government is yet to explain. As no such explanation has been forthcoming, one can only believe that the Government intends to maintain the integrity of the juvenile justice system by making Kariong some type of modern equivalent of the Grafton gaol of the past.

I remind honourable members that the Grafton gaol was designed to instil fear and terror into the hearts and minds of adult offenders to institute good order and discipline throughout the rest of the gaol system. The Nagle royal commission found that offenders in the Grafton gaol had their human rights violated simply to maintain integrity throughout the rest of the gaol system. The fact that that is the current intention of the new and improved Kariong has been confirmed by Minister Beamer's own words:

The Government is pleased to introduce these amendments. They reinforce the fact that in no way has Kariong been lost from the juvenile justice regime. To the contrary, these changes send a palpable message to other detainees in our system. The centre that deals with the highest risk end juvenile offenders now provides a compelling focus throughout the system.

I was also shocked when the swimming pool and barbecue area at Kariong were destroyed by the Hon. John Hatzistergos MLC, reflecting some sort of tough display by the Government that reinforces this disturbing intention by Minister Beamer. Surely the Minister for Justice cannot for one moment seriously believe that the destruction of government property will teach the inmates anything—or does he? I hope that he was responding to departmental advice and did not dream that up all by himself because the only real thing it tells the inmates is that they have riled the Government. The young offenders finally won the battle at Kariong by highlighting the failures of this Government to rectify the longstanding problems with the juvenile justice system, and Kariong in particular, but this is where the danger of the situation resides: while they have won the battle, clearly they cannot win the war.

Despite at least eight reports into deficiencies within the juvenile justice system, members of this House have never been allowed to see many of them because they show the Government's failures. The inability of the Government to manage juvenile justice and Kariong has been demonstrated by what the Government no doubt perceives to be a bunch of ignorant little thugs. I remind honourable members that this is a very dangerous situation. It will create a situation that brings wounded personalities and pride to the forefront as the driving forces behind the Government's debunked public policies on juvenile justice. Public policy should be driven by proper and impartial consideration and planning. At present it is being driven by retribution and payback. The results are obvious and are reflected in the dangerous legislation that is now before the House.

This bill sends a message to the administrators that if the legislation rides roughshod over fundamental human rights, the actions of administrators and staff under this legislation likewise will treat such rights with contempt. These points may seem to be strong charges to make, but they are not made in isolation or without consideration of the past practices of the total institutions of the Department of Corrective Services, child welfare authorities and the juvenile justice system. Mr Vernon Dalton's reports are particularly revealing of the staffing, training and management problems at Kariong. Mr Dalton is well qualified to make such judgments, given the fact that he was a previous commissioner of the Corrective Services Commission.

The Ombudsman has published a number of reports into deficiencies within the juvenile justice system. The latest report to the Parliament, if anyone is interested, is only four years old. I am concerned that the reports have attracted little comment and debate. I have never seen a press release run to 12 pages prior to presentation of this report, or since, nor have I ever seen one by such an important office as the Ombudsman so succinctly titled "Blueprint for Reform", on the first page, and "Department of Juvenile Justice of Shame" on subsequent pages. That the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Minister have failed to undertake the reform measures as outlined by the Ombudsman is evidenced by the loss of Kariong to the juvenile justice system.

More alarming for me is the contempt that the Department of Juvenile Justice has clearly shown to the office of the Ombudsman and, by extension, the public of New South Wales whom that office exists to serve. The contempt by administrators and staff of the Department of Juvenile Justice is amply displayed not only by direct references in the Ombudsman's reports to the obstructive and abusive behaviour by staff toward the Ombudsman during previous inquiries, but also by the very existence of recommendation B. 55 of the special report to Parliament under section 31 of the Ombudsman Act, "Investigation into Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre", which states that the department should:

Provide the Ombudsman with an explanation as to why so many of the recommendations of the 1996 Ombudsman report were not properly implemented in relation to Kariong, as detailed throughout this report...

To provide members with some idea of the problems that have infected Kariong—problems which, I emphasise, were not of the making of the young people there—I cite some extracts from statements made by the Ombudsman. I do so to point out some of the misguided beliefs of some members who argue that the problems in Juvenile Justice are the result of social welfare rather than the enforcement of a punitive and control approach to juvenile corrections. It is clear from all the available evidence that a social welfare approach in Juvenile Justice has never existed. Some of the concerns that have been raised by the Ombudsman are as follows:

There was much evidence of totally inappropriate punishments. Denying detainees family contact or vocational training is counterproductive and mean.

76% of detainees... had substantially less contact with their families than that recommended under UN standards.

There are insufficient facilities to provide adequate supervision and care of detainees with special needs. In too many cases, detainees are confined for long periods of time in substandard accommodation and removed from social contact and interaction.

... boredom is one of the noticeable elements of life for young people in detention centres.

The inquiry found that in many centres, existing management strategies have become indistinguishable from disciplinary systems. They have merged into one large mechanism used by staff to control and dominate detainees.

The centre's deep dysfunction... primarily relate[s] to deeply rooted mistrust, factionalism, suspicion and ambivalence among staff. This can only be addressed by strong leadership by the department's senior management.

The absence of any specialist programs or interventions to manage the behaviour of these "difficult" detainees is particularly concerning as Kariong has always been expected to accommodate and manage such detainees.

Kariong's management and staff requirements, training and supervision were found to be seriously deficient.

Staff commonly were unwilling... to cooperate with this investigation for fear of reprisals from other staff... Other staff were very visibly hostile to the Ombudsman and showed little respect for Ombudsman officers. This gave credence to the common description given by staff and management of the existence of a small group of staff who are physically aggressive and intimidating towards detainees and staff.

I conclude with the following statement of Ms Moss: "The closed, negative culture of the centres must be changed." I agree there is evidence of a social welfare model at work in Juvenile Justice, but not in the way it has been portrayed and as members have been led to believe. Today, 30 per cent of the inmates under Juvenile Justice have been in the care of the Minister for Community Services, as have 40 per cent of the adult prison population. Those prisoners are drawn from 0.2 per cent of the general population. This is a public policy failure of incredible proportions. The Government's failure to address this horrible overrepresentation will ensure that our so-called corrective institutions will continue to fail. Placing children into facilities such as Kariong will not fix this problem.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. The House continued to sit.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: Likewise, transferring Kariong to Corrective Services continues a long and sad tradition of handing over these poor children and these institutions from the Department of Community Services to the Department of Juvenile Justice and finally, as adults, to Corrective Services.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: That is a very forward step, not a backward step.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: A forward step? In what way?

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: The creation of the Department of Juvenile Justice was a forward step.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: Previously the St Heliers prison, the Tamworth prison, the Norma Parker Correctional Centre and even the Eastwood Corrective Services Academy were child welfare institutions. That young people seek to escape the grasp of those who pretend to work under a welfare model and fight to get into Corrective Services—which is exactly what has occurred at Kariong—is a sad indictment of our society.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Ian West.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.02 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Bill reconstitutes the NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation as the NSW Self Insurance Corporation and clarifies its functions and powers as the provider of self insurance arrangements for government agencies. The purpose for reconstituting the Corporation is to provide a more robust legislative framework for managing liability claims with an assessed cost in excess of $4 billion and for managing the funds set aside to meet these claims.

The NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation was originally constituted by section 24 of the Government Insurance Office (Privatisation) Act 1991 for the purpose of receiving and managing residual assets, liabilities, rights and obligations of the Treasury Managed Fund, the Pre Managed Fund Reserve, the Governmental Workers Compensation Account and the Transport Accidents Compensation Fund. These had been part of the business undertaking of GIO Australia Holdings Limited when it was in Government ownership.

The Treasury Managed Fund is a scheme of self insurance which protects the insurable assets and exposures of its members. Fund members include all public sector agencies financially dependent on the Consolidated Fund, all public hospitals and a number of statutory authorities. The three other schemes are now closed and the residual liabilities are being managed through the Corporation.

Since the GIO's privatisation in 1992, the GIO has been retained by the Corporation as the manager of the four schemes. Contracts with GIO General Limited, which is now a subsidiary of Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited, expire on 30 June 2005.

The Corporation, which is administered by the NSW Treasury, is taking the opportunity to implement fundamental reforms to the arrangements by which claims management services are provided to government agencies in New South Wales.

It is intended to create a contestable market for the provision of services. This is to be achieved by unbundling the range of activities currently incorporated under one contractual arrangement into separate contracts for:

• actuarial and information services;
• risk management services;
• insurance broking services; and
• claims management services, which themselves will be broken down by line of business to encourage up to five providers to tender for these services.

Unbundling current activities in such a manner will maximize the opportunity for prospective entrants to bid, under open tender, for services or clusters of services in which they are likely to have a competitive advantage. This is seen as critical to fostering efficiency gains and reducing government liability costs.

The Corporation has, since the privatization of the GIO, simply operated under the broad charter conferred under the Government Insurance Office (Privatisation) Act 1991. However, with the move to a more complex form of management including multiple non-government service providers there is a need to clearly specify the functions, powers and operating arrangements of the Corporation.

The Bill reconstitutes the Corporation as the NSW Self Insurance Corporation, a title intended to convey clearly the nature of the primary functions for which it has responsibility. The Corporation will be managed by the Minister, who will be the Treasurer, and the Minister will be able to delegate the exercise of any of the functions of the Corporation to other persons. This power is necessary to underpin contracts for the claim management, actuarial, risk management and other professional services required to effectively manage liability claims.
As provided under clause 11, the financial transactions of the Corporation will be conducted through a Self Insurance Fund which is to be established in the Special Deposits Account. The operations of the Corporation will be subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General.

This Bill provides a comprehensive and robust framework to support reforms aimed at achieving better outcomes in the management of property and liability risks of the Government. Provision is made in clause 18 for a review of the Act after a period of five years, to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives. The Minister will be required to report to Parliament on the outcome of the review.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.02 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the NSW Self Insurance Corporation Bill. In reply to debate at the second reading stage of the bill in the other place the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, noted:

The sole purpose of the bill is to provide greater clarity of the functions currently undertaken by the NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation and the bill will, in fact, provide more certainty to successful tenderers before entering contracts.

As the House would be aware, the NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation [IMC] was a body corporate constituted in 1991 at the time that the GIO was privatised. A number of funds, schemes and accounts relating to the self-insurance of certain liabilities of the State and authorities of the State were transferred from the GIO to the newly constituted IMC; therefore, that body has been in existence since 1991. The Opposition accepts that the purpose of the bill is to provide clarity, or as the Government said "robust legislative framework", to manage liability claims with assessment costs in excess of $4 billion and to manage the funds set aside to meet those claims. For tenderers entering into contracts the bill provides a codification of the functions of the corporation, and the Opposition believes that that is in the best interests of all contractors. The bill sets out the role and place of the corporation. Other than that there are no shifts in policy, there is no budget implication, and the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.04 p.m.]: I speak in this debate on behalf of the Greens. This bill puts in place the legislative mechanisms to allow the Government to provide self-insurance to some general government budget dependent agencies and trading enterprises. I understand those include the Treasury Managed Fund, the Pre Managed Fund Reserve, the Governmental Workers Compensation Account and the Transport Accidents Compensation Fund. The bill will enable companies to tender to provide some elements of the scheme to those enterprises and agencies with the system then administered by the New South Wales Treasury. That is an innovative approach, and the Greens congratulate the Government on exploring models for self-insurance.

Last night during debate on the Home Building Amendment Bill I spoke in favour of a return to a government-run insurance system for home warranty building insurance. Such an approach is already in operation in Queensland and is strongly supported by the building industry and consumers in that State. In Queensland the insurance industry does not hold consumers and the building industry to ransom. The Queensland Government has not gone down the privatisation path with quite the same zealous enthusiasm as this Government has. In Queensland a government-run insurance system provides builders with cheap, accessible insurance and consumers with the protection they need. The scheme is run on a cost-recovery basis and does not place an undue financial strain on the State's coffers. In New South Wales the crisis in building insurance prompted the Government to conduct an inquiry in 2003. The Grellman inquiry, as it was known, received submissions from a wide range of stakeholders. The Royal Australian Institute of Architects submitted to the inquiry:

… the only alternative system in Australia that appears to be working is the Queensland model which operates as a first resort scheme rather than a last resort scheme as in NSW and provides for ongoing education of builders.

The Master Builders Association is also highly supportive of the Queensland approach. A similar government-run system is desperately needed in New South Wales; indeed, it would simply be a reintroduction of the government-run system that was scrapped in 1997. Instead, from this Government we have seen privatisation and a total capitulation to the insurance industry. Against that backdrop it is welcome to see the Government adopting a self-insurance model as proposed in the bill. The Greens hope that this is a precursor of things to come; a small sign that the Government is finally coming to its senses. This is a positive step by the Government to re-establish the NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation as the NSW Self Insurance Corporation. As I have already said, the model proposed in the bill is a creative approach that allows the Government to run a system without having to provide all the expertise. The Greens look forward to the Government exploring similar creative self-insurance models for other areas of the insurance market.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.08 p.m.]: I have spoken a number of times about the notion that the Government needs to take more responsibility for insurance. Insurance is not a cash cow for the financial services industry; it is a sharing of risk for a public good. The sale of the GIO was a serious error and it was not sold at a good time. Very little was obtained for the benefit of New South Wales from that sale and there was a loss of expertise. The Insurance Ministerial Corporation [IMC] was constituted pursuant to section 24 of the Government Insurance Office (Privatisation) Act 1991. When the GIO was in existence it managed the Government's insurance needs and administered the Treasury Managed Fund [TMF], the Pre Managed Fund Reserve, the Governmental Workers Compensation Account and the Transport Accidents Compensation Fund.

The three funds other than the TMF are now closed and their residual liabilities are being managed through the IMC by GIO, which is now a subsidiary of Suncorp Metway. The TMF is a self-insurance scheme owned and underwritten by the New South Wales Government. Its members are public sector agencies that depend on the Consolidated Fund, public hospitals and a number of statutory authorities. I note that the TMF is managing medical liability at far less cost per doctor than the medical insurers can manage. According to the Treasury, as of June 2003 the TMF's assets exceeded its liabilities. This is because the Government contributed an additional $824 million to the fund in 2002-03. The TMF provides cover in the areas of workers compensation and public liability and for property, motor vehicles and other miscellaneous risks. The New South Wales Self Insurance Corporation Bill seeks to reinvent the TMF as the New South Wales Self Insurance Corporation. Its stated purpose is:

… to establish a robust framework for existing self insurance arrangements for government agencies … it is necessary to facilitate competitive tendering for claims management and other professional services.

At present GIO manages the four schemes and the Government wants to be able to contract out and further segment their management beyond GIO by competitive tender. Given recent revelations, "competitive tender" is often a contradiction in terms. The new corporation will be managed by the Treasurer, who will be able to delegate the exercise of any functions of the corporation to other persons.

The contracting out of government services will be a big issue in coming years, as will the use of public-private partnerships. This will affect hospital, school and transport services adversely as the Government tries to reduce spending of essential services. Unfortunately, the sale of the farm is well advanced—the Coalition had better win the next State election or there will be no farm left to sell. The services referred to in this bill have already been contracted out to GIO so sharing them around will not, in theory, have any effect on government employees and should save money if the tender system is to be competitive. The Auditor-General will oversee the operation of the new corporation, and I look forward to his first audit to see whether the Government's claims are true.

I am concerned that the use of a number of insurance companies has not made for good management of the New South Wales workers compensation system. I have spoken in the past about the woeful management of claims and the insurer's response that the terms of its contract—under which it is paid to perform certain functions rather than achieve certain financial results—are to blame for its extremely poor management performance. Conversely, it is not always a good idea to accept the cheapest tender as insurance companies are very good at simply not paying people—it is in the fine print. As I said earlier, the essence of insurance is mutual risk and offering safety to the public. It is not a financial transaction. If the Government decides to accept the cheapest tender, the insurer that is most inclined to keep the premiums and least inclined to pay the injured will win every time. As a consequence the Government will achieve a better financial result for its self-insurance efforts but at the cost of those who are injured.

I believe there is no substitute for having the necessary expertise in house. Although this bill forces the Government to consider the insurance issue, it does not recapture the expertise provided by a government insurer, who could, through market intervention, greatly change the nature of that market in several areas. The reinsurance repercussions of September 11 have made Australia very much a price taker on the world stage. The insurance industry is run out of Zurich, and Australia has only a tiny fraction of world premiums. So one cannot help but feel that in many cases premiums are set with no regard to Australian risk, and as a result Australia has been getting a very bad deal. Although I appreciate that putting out to tender GIO's management of the Government's self-insurance function may save money, I believe this bill does not go far enough in delivering a more realistic and socially progressive approach to insurance in New South Wales.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.14 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and commend the New South Wales Self Insurance Corporation Bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 5 to 9 postponed on motion by the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [5.17 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 University Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 proposes amendments to each of the ten Acts establishing the State's public universities.

The amendments will ensure New South Wales universities can demonstrate to the Commonwealth Government that they comply with the National Governance Protocols for Higher Education Providers.

For the information of members, because of the document's particular relevance to this Bill, I will now table copies of the National Governance Protocols for Higher Education Providers.
The National Governance Protocols are part of the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines issued by the Federal Government under its Higher Education Support Act 2003.

The Protocols were tabled in both Houses of the Australian Parliament on 21 June 2004.

The Higher Education Support Act 2003 provides, at section 33-15, that higher education providers who satisfy the Commonwealth Minister they meet the requirements of the Protocols, will have their basic Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding increased.

If the Commonwealth Minister is satisfied the requirements of the Protocols are met, universities will receive increases in the basic grant of 2.5 per cent in 2005, 5 per cent in 2006 and 7.5 per cent in 2007.

It is estimated that New South Wales universities' share of the additional funding would be in the order of $104 million over the period 2005 to 2007.

Members would be aware, the Carr Government has long been concerned about the financial health of our universities under the Howard Government.

That is why we have moved quickly to have a Bill drafted, in consultation with the State's public universities, the National Tertiary Education Union and the National Union of Students, to ensure that NSW universities do not miss out on this additional, badly needed funding.

Turning now to the Bill itself, the amendments to each of the State's university Acts (other than the Australian Catholic University Act 1990) are set out in ten separate schedules containing near-identical provisions.

The only variations are those which take account of minor, local, or pre-existing differences between our public universities.

A significant change to the constitution of governing bodies relates to the current arrangement where each governing body includes one member of the Legislative Council, elected by that Council, and one member of the Legislative Assembly, elected by that Assembly.

This arrangement can no longer continue.

Protocol 5 prevents current members of State or Commonwealth parliaments from also being members of university governing bodies, unless they are specifically selected by the governing body.

However, it is interesting to note, that after discussions with my colleague, the Hon Dr Andrew Refshauge, all NSW universities have written to indicate that they value the input of the MPs on their governing bodies and would like them to stay.

The Bill implements this change by removing from all university governing bodies the special categories of membership for parliamentarians.
These two membership categories will generally be replaced with two additional Ministerial appointees, with a total of six Ministerial appointees on each university governing body.

It is important to that the Bill continues to provide for individual Parliamentarians to be appointed as members of university governing bodies provided they are nominated by the governing body.

The other significant changes are designed to meet the requirements of National Governance Protocols 5 and 6.

These Protocols require that:

financial and commercial expertise is always present among the membership;

external, independent members (that is non-student, non-staff members) are always in a clear majority;

non-elected members must possess the ability to contribute to the effective working of the governing body;

universities must adopt systematic procedures for nominating prospective appointed members;

governing bodies do not exceed 22 members in total; and

member's terms overlap and should not exceed 12 years, unless specifically agreed to by the majority of the governing body.

These requirements are all implemented through various straightforward provisions in the sections of the Bill dealing with the constitution of governing bodies.

These requirements of Protocols 5 and 6 have a significant consequential impact.

To help universities meet these Protocols, the Bill provides governing bodies with as much flexibility as possible in deciding their own membership characteristics and numbers, with only minimum requirements set in the legislation.

For those universities that wish to do so, and that have the full support of their governing bodies, the Bill allows universities themselves, through their by-laws, to determine the final make-up of their governing bodies, provided the membership does not exceed the maximum of 22 members.

This flexibility is designed to ensure that universities can always meet the requirements of Protocols 5 and 6, no matter what the circumstances.

Subject to the maximum membership limit, the Bill allows governing bodies to appoint as many members of their own choosing as they feel necessary to meet either the requirements of the Protocols or perceived skill shortages.

This is a change from the current arrangements where all but one of the university governing bodies can appoint only a single member of their own choosing.

The Bill also allows governing bodies to vary the numbers or method of selecting graduate members, or members of Convocation as they are traditionally defined at some universities.

The Bill provides for one or more non-student, non-staff graduate or Convocation members to be either elected or appointed to the governing body.

This represents a significant freeing up of the current arrangements, where the number and method of selecting graduate or Convocation members is set in the Act, and cannot be varied to meet changing needs and circumstances.

Where a university governing body decides that its graduate members should be appointed through a process defined in its by-laws, such appointments will be made by the governing body.

At their request, and in consultation with all other NSW universities, differing provisions have been made for the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales so that they largely retain their existing situations in relation to graduate members.

Although the Bill provides the other eight New South Wales universities with the option of changing their governing body appointed or elected graduate member arrangements, there is no compulsion to do so.

The Bill has been drafted in such a way that universities are free to maintain exactly their current arrangements if they are serving them well.

This is an important point because there have been some erroneous assertions made along the lines that the Government is doing away with graduate elections.

It is clear from the Bill that this is not the case, and universities are free to maintain current graduate numbers and to hold elections as the method of selecting graduates.

The key point is that the decisions will be made by the universities' governing bodies themselves.
Although the Bill provides universities with the capacity to decide these aspects of their governance for themselves, it also requires that their decisions be given legislative force and effect through by-laws, which must be tabled in the other place.

The requirement is important because it provides a means for the Minister to be assured that the decisions being implemented are a true expression of the will of the governing body.

It is also important because it provides legislative assurance to any members whose position on the governing body is determined through these provisions.

By-laws also present an opportunity for public scrutiny of these important decisions of universities.

Protocol 2 requires universities' governing bodies to adopt a statement of their primary responsibilities. The Protocol mandates a number of features that these statements must include.

This statement of responsibilities is not something that can be legislated. It is the responsibility of the governing body itself to implement. However, the Bill does assist university governing bodies to adopt such a statement.

Similarly, the sections in the Bill relating to governing bodies' oversight of controlled entities are intended to ensure that when universities implement Protocol 10, they are acting in accordance with, and are mandated by, their legislation.

One of the National Governance Protocols which clearly places the onus for implementation onto universities' legislation is Protocol 3.

Protocol 3 is already partly provided for in the existing NSW legislation.

This Protocol requires that the duties of governing body members be specified in universities' legislation and that members must always act in the best interests of the university, honestly and in good faith.

Protocol 3 also requires that each university governing body must have only three official members the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and the Presiding Member of the Academic Board(s); and that other than these three official members, each member must be appointed or elected ad personam.

It mandates that there be provisions to ensure conflicts of interest are disclosed and avoided; that there be safeguards to limit the liability of members who have acted in good faith.

In addition, Protocol 3 requires any member who is disqualified from acting as a director under Part 2D.6 of the Corporations Act automatically loses office;

and that governing bodies have the power, by a two-thirds majority, to remove any member who breaches these duties. Each NSW university Act already includes provisions that cover many of these areas.

The Bill includes provisions designed to implement the remainder of Protocol 3.

To this end, it lists the duties of governing body members in a new Schedule to each of the Acts. These duties include the requirement that members must carry out their duties in good faith, for a proper purpose and in the best interests of the university as a whole.

The Bill requires that governing body members act honestly and with reasonable care and diligence; and so as to not improperly use their position, nor information acquired through their position, to gain an advantage or cause detriment to the university.

The Bill broadens the existing New South Wales conflict of interest provisions, which are currently in the context of universities' commercial activities only, to all aspects of governing bodies' responsibilities.

The Bill establishes more detailed provisions, requiring members of governing bodies to disclose and register any relevant material interest, and preventing them from participating in discussion or determination of matters in which they have such an interest, except with the specific approval of the governing body.

Unlike Protocol 3 itself, the proposed NSW provisions relating to the dismissal of members who are deemed to have breached these duties include some basic protections against misuse of this power, as well as natural justice requirements.

Under the provisions of the Bill, removal from office may only be effected at a meeting for which notice has been duly given, including to the member concerned of the proposal to remove him or her.

To remove a member, the two-thirds majority must be a majority of the current membership of the governing body, not merely a majority of a particular meeting; and the member proposed to be dismissed must be given a reasonable opportunity to reply to the motion before it is put to the vote.

The Bill also enhances the existing vacation of office provisions, in line with Protocol 3, to add that any member who is or becomes disqualified from managing a corporation under Part 2D.6 of the Corporations Act automatically loses office.

When there is a change in university governing body membership, it is vital that there be a continuity of skills and experience.

That is why in the Bill, implementing Protocol 6, members' terms of office are required to overlap and to not exceed 12 years in total unless a majority of the governing body agrees.
Finally, the Bill includes savings and transitional provisions to provide university governing bodies with the means of transferring smoothly to their new governance arrangements.

Consultation on the draft Bill has taken place with Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors of NSW public universities.

Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors were responsible for further consultation within their own institutions.

The Universities generally support the Bill as currently drafted.

The National Tertiary Education Union and the National Union of Students were also consulted.

While they were not supportive of many aspects of the National Governance Protocols, they are supportive of the maintenance of the current levels of academic staff and student representation on university governing bodies, and of election as the method of selecting them.

This Bill will enable the adherence to the National Governance Protocols by our public universities in NSW and as such, will allow their share of $404 million to flow to them.

The University Legislation Amendment Bill is an affirmation of the NSW Government's commitment to universities' autonomy and independence.

It grants universities freedom to govern themselves in the way they see fit, while also ensuring that appropriate and effective governance arrangements are in place.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [5.17 p.m.]: The University Legislation Amendment Bill proposes amendments to each of the 10 Acts that established the State's public universities in order to satisfy the requirements of the Commonwealth's national governance protocols for higher education providers. Last year the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training unveiled approximately $1.5 billion in additional funding for higher education over four years as part of a comprehensive reform package. One of the initiatives in the package was a set of national governance protocols designed to develop best practice in university governance arrangements. In a media release at the time of the package's launch, Dr Nelson remarked:

Universities are not businesses but nevertheless manage multi-million dollar budgets and need to be run in a business-like fashion. Anachronistic governance arrangements, in which universities can have up to 35 council members... are often not conducive to sound decision making.

He went on to explain that the national governance protocols:

… strengthen university governance by increasing the responsibilities of university councils in overseeing commercial activities, requiring councils to discharge these responsibilities in a transparent way and ensuring the protection of the public interest.

This bill makes changes relating to the functions and responsibilities of the governing bodies of the universities in accordance with the new protocols. In particular, the bill amends the compositions of university councils. The bill provides that a council have a maximum of 22 members, who are required to have financial and commercial expertise and experience, in accordance with the university by-laws, which also set out procedures regarding the nomination of appointments. The bill removes the current requirement that a council include a member of Parliament. That will be of great interest to many members and former members of Parliament have served on university councils.

The composition of councils in all the Acts will be as follows: the chancellor; the vice-chancellor; the presiding member of the academic senate, or the deputy presiding member in those instances in which the vice-chancellor is the presiding member; six external persons appointed by the Minister; one or more external persons, as prescribed by the by-laws, appointed by the council; two members of the academic staff, elected by the academic staff; one member of the general staff, elected by the general staff; two students who are not members of the academic or general staff, elected by the students; and one or more external persons, as prescribed by the by-laws, who are graduates of the university, elected by the graduates.

This arrangement allows for councils to exercise both greater flexibility and increased autonomy in the selection of their members. Currently, most universities are able to appoint to their council only one member of their own choosing. Under the new system, all universities, subject to the maximum membership limit, will be empowered, through their by-laws, to select members who meet skills shortages, address an imbalance or in some other manner address the needs of the council in changing circumstances. Through compliance with the national governance protocols brought about by this bill, the process by which university councils are appointed will become more open and transparent. Importantly, compliance with the protocols also subjects the functions of these councils to greater accountability.
The bill lists the duties of council members, including requirements that they are to act in the best interests of the university, to exercise care and diligence, to disclose material interests to avoid a conflict of interest, to not improperly use either their position or information acquired through their position to gain an advantage or to cause detriment to the university. The bill also provides for the removal of a council member from office for breach of duty if such a motion is supported by a two-thirds majority of members. The bill also notes generally the obligations of the university governing bodies under the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984. The bill amends the Acts of the following higher education institutions: Charles Sturt University, Macquarie University, Southern Cross University, the University of New England, the University of New South Wales, the University of Newcastle, the University of Sydney, the University of Technology, Sydney, the University of Western Sydney, and the University of Wollongong.

In bringing these 10 university Acts into compliance with the national governance protocols the bill ensures that these higher education institutions will now qualify for additional funding included alongside the protocols initiative in the Commonwealth Government's reform package. Under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme, the basic grant to those universities complying with the protocols will increase by 2.5 per cent in 2005, by 5 per cent in 2006 and by 7.5 per cent in 2007. This will amount to an additional $404.3 million, of which it is estimated that universities in New South Wales will receive $104 million. This clearly demonstrates the Howard Government's commitment to making major investments in the building of world-leading education and training institutions; a commitment that the New South Wales Opposition wholeheartedly supports.

Equally important to securing access to this additional funding is the transparency and accountability of both the appointment processes and operational records relating to the governing bodies of our universities. The selection of university council members, the manner of their appointment and the record of their service should all be open to scrutiny. The national governance protocols developed by Minister Nelson ensure that governance in our higher education sector is open, accountable and streamlined—in other words, that it follows best practice.

Amendments have been foreshadowed for this bill and, rather than take up time in Committee speaking each time an amendment is moved, I will make a number of general observations based on correspondence sent to the Opposition and put them on the record now. The Vice-Chancellor of the University Western Sydney wrote to the honourable member for North Shore, who is the shadow Minister for Education and Training, to thank her for identifying an anomaly in the drafting of this bill that could have put the university's funding at risk. Had the sloppy drafting of this legislation not been rectified, the University of Western Sydney Bill would have been outside the governance protocols. The vice-chancellor wrote:

Dear Ms Skinner

This is just a short note, first of all, to thank you for your support for the amendments for the University Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 to ensure that the University of Western Sydney is compliant with the National Governance Protocols … Your continuing support for the University is very much appreciated.

On behalf of the Opposition I thank the vice chancellor for her letter. It has been our pleasure to support the University of Western Sydney in that way. The Greens have foreshadowed a large number of amendments, none of which the Opposition will support. The outcome of the Greens amendments will be a shift away from the national governance protocols in ways that are either unnecessary or, in fact, contrary to the protocols. That has been reflected in a letter sent to the Opposition by the University of Sydney and in a letter sent by the New South Wales Vice-Chancellors Committee to the Premier. William Adams, Registrar of the University of Sydney, an excellent institution of which I am proud to be a graduate, wrote:

Dear Mrs Skinner …

I write to you in your capacity as Shadow Minister for Education and Training in reference to the above draft legislation and in particular to the amendments to the legislation which have recently been proposed by the Greens …

As you may be aware the Senate of the University of Sydney has expended very considerable effort to ensure that it is able to conform to the requirements of the new Governance Protocols incorporated in the Commonwealth Government's recent higher education reform package. With other NSW universities we have also consulted with the Minister over the legislative changes required to ensure that the University's enabling legislation conforms with the requirements of the Protocols …

My purpose in writing is to express concern on behalf of the University of Sydney that if the amendments to the legislation proposed by the Greens are adopted the composition of the Senate of the University will no longer conform to the requirements of the Governance Protocols. This in turn will threaten the very considerable level of Commonwealth funding which is contingent on the University achieving conformance with the Protocols. I seek your support in ensuring that the legislation is passed in a form which allows the University to achieve the required conformance.

Professor Ross Milbourne, Committee Convenor of the New South Wales Vice-Chancellors Committee, who is also Vice-Chancellor of the University of Technology, Sydney, wrote to the Premier. A copy of that letter was sent to the Opposition. It is worth noting the advice of Professor Milbourne, which states:

I am writing on behalf of the New South Wales Vice-Chancellors, in relation to the amendments proposed by the Greens for the University Legislation Amendment Bill …

We view the Greens' proposed amendments with alarm. The amendments are completely unworkable and will severely restrict the governance role of University Councils.

Moreover, the Greens' amendments are in direct contradiction to the Federal Government Protocols upon which supplementary funding to Universities depend. If passed, the Greens' amendments would deny NSW Universities Federal Government funding in the vicinity of $50 million.

My advice is that in fact even more would be at stake than that. Then he goes on to say:

We ask you to work to ensure that the Legislation is passed without the amendments proposed by the Greens.

That is certainly the position that the Opposition is taking in Committee. The bill provides for our State's 10 public universities to comply with the new protocols, and so I am pleased to advise that the bill will have the Coalition's wholehearted endorsement.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.32 p.m.]: It is now 3½ years since I raised in this House the need for universities to reform their governance. On that occasion I noted that on the very day that honourable members were debating the disallowance of a regulation involving the position of the chancellor of the University of Sydney, in contrast a Tasmanian university was moving to a very streamlined and modern approach to university governance. I have followed with interest the debate that has taken place over some time.

I have been well aware of considerable discussion behind the scenes in relation to the national governance protocols that the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training believes are important to the future of universities in Australia. I am perhaps one of few honourable members—although I know my colleague the Hon. Don Harwin is another—who are active members of the alumni of our universities. I have not had the opportunity to serve on the council of my university; I have never been so appointed by this House. As a former student of the University of Newcastle, as part of my philosophy of giving back to those institutions that have given much to me, I regularly participate as a member of the working party, Sydney chapter, of our alumni group. So I come to this debate as one who takes pride in being a graduate of my university and who believes in the role of the universities, but who also acknowledges that we need to pay attention to the issue of governance.

I am also well aware that, behind the scenes, committees of vice-chancellors have had their own views about governance. This legislation seeks to prescribe that universities may have a governing body of no more than 22 members. Having served at one time on the State executive of the Liberal Party, when we had about 45 members, and to have seen it reduced to 20, I am one of those who well understand the value of a reduction in the size of a governing body, providing it can be assured that the sum of all groups who make up the whole body are well represented.

I believe the vice-chancellors would have had a smaller body—perhaps of 18, which I understand they had been considering for some time—but, fortunately, their views have not prevailed, and the Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Hon. Brendan Nelson, accepted the views of many of the university alumni groups that it was important that, in representation on governing bodies, there had to be a role and place for alumni. Indeed, I wrote to the Minister on 5 March this year on behalf of a number of people from a number of universities who were concerned that the national governance protocols may impact on alumni participation in university governance. The Minister's reply, dated 19 April, states in part:

I cannot agree more on the role of alumni and the valuable contribution that alumni make to university life not only in NSW universities but at universities across Australia. Please let me assure you that the Protocols do not restrict alumni participation on university governing bodies and there was never the intention to do so.

The Minister goes on to say that the protocols clarify the duties and responsibilities of members of governing bodies and set some parameters for them. I passed that letter to people from the University of Newcastle, the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney who were taking an active interest in this developing legislation. They were put at ease by the strength of the Minister's support for the role of the alumni. The legislation before us today acknowledges the place of alumni. No other group has as much to lose from damage to the reputation of a university than its alumni, because the very currency of our degrees is told not by the day on which we received our testamur but by the reputation of the university at any time.

In saying that I choose my words carefully, because I have been viewing with alarm the inquiry that the Independent Commission Against Corruption has been undertaking into certain events that apparently have occurred at the University of Newcastle. I am alarmed because the reputation of my university—which means my degree—is very much on the line. I suspect that out of that inquiry the reputations of some individuals will be very much called into question. But that apart, we have to consider whether we have been well served by the large council that has been in existence, or more particularly by the practices of the university.

As I have not been a member representing the Parliament on the university council I cannot comment, but this House and the other House are represented on that council. Those council members may be able to answer some questions as to how we have reached a situation where the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation is taking place. Could it have been that members of the council effectively have had the wool pulled over their eyes on many occasions, perhaps because they were presented with a large volume of papers relevant to council meetings, and perhaps at very short notice? Perhaps presiding officers of the council have not been allowing council members adequate time for discussion. Whether that or something else is behind the problem, each of the members of the council had a responsibility to inform themselves of the activities of the university.

It is with some concern that I await the findings of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I believe that my university's reputation already has been put at risk by the sort of evidence that has been presented to the inquiry. For me, this legislation could not come quickly enough. I believe it better clarifies the roles and functions of councils. I hope that a number of universities have learnt lessons from recent events, and that when we move forward we do so in a positive way. Today, our universities are multi-million dollar enterprises. It is time we revisited the issue whether it is appropriate to have people in a voluntary and benevolent role, or whether multi-million dollar businesses require a professional approach. But that may be a debate for another day.

We should not step away from the fact that universities are businesses, that pure research in remote ivory towers is not now the reality, will not be their future, and would not serve us well. Universities, however we view them, must maintain their autonomy and their capacity for robust research, strong conclusions and robust participation in debate. I would not want it any other way. But at all times I would want those who are charged with providing governance on behalf of all members of a university—current students and staff, former students and staff—to do so responsibly in the knowledge that the decisions they make today impact on people who may well have long departed an institution, but who carry the name of that institution through their degrees.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.40 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the University Legislation Amendment Bill, which relates to the Commonwealth legislation, the Higher Education Support Act 2003, that laid down requirements that universities must meet if they are to qualify for increased Commonwealth funding. I left school when I was 15 and started work as a junior storeman. I never thought I would have the opportunity to study at university, but I appreciated the years I spent at the University of Sydney and the various courses I took, including ancient history and philosophy. I especially appreciated my membership of the Sydney University Regiment, in which I was a platoon commander. Later I studied as an external student at the University of New England. I also appreciate the opportunity the Labor Government gave me to represent it on the Council of the University of Wollongong.

My spies tell me there was some controversy about my nomination in Caucus, but I am glad the nomination went ahead and that I had the opportunity to serve on the Council of the University of Wollongong for four years. I was involved in seeking to appropriately distribute the university's $100 million plus budget in relation to staff, their conditions and their futures as well as the conditions of students. I believe I made a positive contribution. However, the bill states that the amendments will impose requirements on the composition of university governing bodies, including limiting their membership to no more than 22 members. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the point that refers to removing the requirement that includes members of Parliament, allowing the Minister to appoint members of Parliament as members only if on the nomination of the governing body, requiring the majority of its members to be external to the university, requiring its members to possess certain expertise and experience, and requiring procedures for the nomination of appointed members to be set out in the university's by-laws.

I have been in this place for 23 years and I know that members of the House, regardless of whether there is a Labor or Coalition government, have always been interested in representing the Parliament on a council or senate of university. Liaising between the controlling body of a university and the Parliament, which represents the people, is a positive relationship. The amendment neither abandons nor removes members of Parliament, but according to some members it seems to raise a doubt as to whether they will be appointed. The bill will amend the Charles Sturt University Act, the Macquarie University Act, the Southern Cross University Act, the University of New England Act, the University of New South Wales Act, the University of Newcastle Act, the University of Sydney Act, the University of Technology Act, the University of Western Sydney Act and the University of Wollongong Act.

If the legislation is not passed, the Federal funding that universities can receive will be affected. If the Commonwealth Minister is satisfied that requirements of the protocols are met, universities will receive increases in the basic grant of 2.5 per cent in 2005, 5 per cent in 2006 and 7.5 per cent in 2007. The Commonwealth Minister stated that universities complying with the protocols would share in an additional $404 million nationally over the 2005 to 2007 period. We know that all universities are struggling with rising costs and other pressures. Any additional Federal funding would be greatly appreciated. Therefore, the Christian Democratic Party is very pleased to support the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.45 p.m.]: The Greens support increased funding for universities. Therefore, we support the intention of the bill to comply with the national governance protocols for higher education providers to ensure that New South Wales universities get an estimated $104 million over three years from the Federal Government. The Greens have always campaigned to increase public funding to ensure that universities are not driven to rely on non-government funding at the expense of their independence and integrity. I was concerned to hear a speaker for the Coalition assert that the Greens amendments would put such funding at risk. But they are only scare tactics in response to the Greens amendments, which really will strengthen the bill. We will move amendments in Committee to strengthen democracy within university governing bodies, and to underline the role of universities as public institutions where intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed.

I assure honourable members that not one of these amendments would jeopardise Commonwealth funding to New South Wales on condition of complying with the protocols. I thank the National Tertiary Education Union for their assistance in preparing this material. Good governance in universities is crucial. It is particularly important when faced with a Federal Government bent on bulldozing universities towards a deregulated, privatised higher education system. Federally the Greens have worked hard to stop Howard's attacks on universities. We have seen fee increases, funding cutbacks—stripping around $5 billion from the sector since Howard Government came into office—and reforms to create a two-tiered university system with universities relying increasingly on private funds to deliver education services.

Universities are now starved of funds. Research is increasingly about raising funds for universities rather than growing knowledge. Demand for university places is unmet and a place in universities can be bought, not earned on merit. But our Federal colleagues must brace themselves for an even more sinister attack on universities during the Federal Government's fourth term. The agenda is set: banning strike action, limiting union involvement in negotiating staff salaries, ending compulsory student unionism, and extending the use of workplace agreements. The State Government is not preparing to fight this attack, to protect workers, or to support the integrity of universities as important public institutions. Instead, the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training claims the dubious credit of suggesting to Brendan Nelson that New South Wales transfer all responsibilities for its 11 publicly funded New South Wales universities to the Federal Government.

The Minister calls the role of the States in our universities a relic of the past. He is set to abandon tertiary education, one of our most precious resources, to be manhandled and mistreated by Canberra. This certainly shows the bankruptcy in this Government in one of the areas in which it claims to be so committed—education. This is a very bad plan. It removes the checks and balances, and it would jeopardise the independence of universities. It is opposed by Premier Beattie in Queensland, who has said that the Federal Government cannot be trusted with universities. It is also opposed in Western Australia by the National Territory Education Union, the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and students. Universities will be sucked into the vortex called Canberra, defenceless and less adequately supported by the State Government's involvement in matters like accreditation, appointments to governing bodies, financial auditing and oversighting by the Ombudsman. Associate Professor Dr John Carmody, a member of the Council of the University of New South Wales, wrote last year in an excellent paper entitled "Good unis are communities, not businesses" as follows:

The Federal piper wants to call a tune of few notes and will use control of its payments to achieve it. When there are only a relatively few chiefs who are like-minded … a consensus with Canberra would all too readily be attained.

The Commonwealth, reflected in this bill today, wants to reduce the influence of State governments and to transplant private sector corporate governance principles into the university sector, while reducing the influence of elected representatives. With these dark clouds looming, it is critical that we have strong, independent and fearless governing councils with skilled and equipped membership. It is in that spirit that I will move amendments in Committee. We need to strengthen, not weaken, the role of university staff, students and alumni on our governing bodies. As the heart of the university system, these groups should be well represented. They bring academic, organisational and experiential expertise.

The Greens do not support the holus bolus transplanting of private sector corporate governance principles into the university sector, as the Federal Government is attempting. Universities are not private corporations producing private goods. They must still be accountable to government and to the community by virtue of the legislation that establishes them and the public funding they receive. The Carr Government has rolled over to the Commonwealth's demands, like it will roll over and give its responsibilities for universities to Canberra. The demands of the protocol leave a sour taste in the mouth because they show that the Federal Government does not respect existing councils.

In recent years there has been significant downsizing of government bodies and a shift in composition, with expertise being favoured over representation. This bill entrenches these developments further. This can be dangerous because although governing bodies at times may take a limited and cautious approach, their work is critical to the progressive development of our universities. Although the Greens value commercial acumen in universities in these times, we question whether co-opted expert members, as required by the bill, will see as strong a stake in the accountability and quality of universities as previously. We fear poorer decision making in relation to what the Greens believe should be the core business of universities, that is, teaching and research. Our amendments are designed to strengthen the involvement of staff, students and graduates in our universities because they have the best understanding of how universities function. Dr Carmody stated:

Public funding should not imply political submission. Australia has a more open system, with … councils acting as buffers between scholarship and politics on behalf of the society at large.

He agrees with the Greens that it is crucial for governing bodies to be active and representative in order to succeed in their obligations to keep universities ethical and intellectually successful. Being active means being open to real debate. Being representative means representing the range of social stakeholders in our universities. I understand that the Government is bound by the protocols to remove the current requirement for elected parliamentary representatives to sit on governing bodies. The Greens believe parliamentarians have the potential to make a real difference to the work of a governing body because they are elected by the people, they represent the wider community and they can act as a strong link between universities and government. I believe that the majority of parliamentary representatives from diverse parties have demonstrated that over the years.

Parliamentary members have contributed to the integrity of councils. I have heard praise of the work of the Hon. Peter Primrose on the Council of the University of New South Wales, the Hon. Ian West and Barbara Perry on the Council of Macquarie University and Tony Windsor on the Council of the University of New England, to name but a few. These members can be a useful, independent source of power for universities. They give universities leverage and are particularly valuable for regional universities where their relationship with the local community is strong. Without these members of Parliament the Commonwealth is in a much better position to take control of our universities.

I will be interested to hear from the Minister whether the Government will make a commitment to appointing members of Parliament, on nomination of governing bodies, out of the six external appointments he can make following enactment of the bill. The Greens are also concerned with amendments in the bill that set a limit of 12 consecutive years in office for appointed or elected members, except where the governing body otherwise resolves. The Greens concede the value in limiting terms to ensure rigorous democracy and that long-serving members do not continue as sycophantic apologists for senior management, commercial interests or the Government.

However, the Greens have problems with the provision that will allow the governing body to make exceptions to this rule. When faced with the possibility of an extended term if members of governing bodies behave or toe the line, there is the risk that members will be compliant in order to retain their position on the council. There should not be an exception to the rule. Members should continue on the council with no limit or, if there is a limit, the provision for an exception should be removed because it could be dangerous. I understand that the amendment is one of the Commonwealth's requirements, but I ask the Minister in reply to confirm that the amendment with respect to the 12-year term will not apply retrospectively and that the Government will work with universities to make clear that the discretion of governing bodies to allow an extension beyond the 12-year term should not be exercised in practice in the interests of healthy democracy on governing bodies. I look forward to moving amendments in Committee and to making a positive contribution toward improving the bill. Although I understand that the major parties will not support the amendments, I appeal to them to judge them objectively.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.57 p.m.]: The Universities Legislation Amendment Bill amends a number of Acts establishing and governing New South Wales universities to facilitate the compliance of these universities with the national governance protocols for higher education providers. The Christian Democratic Party, through my leader, has indicated support for the bill. The 10 Acts affected by the bill establish and regulate the following universities: Charles Sturt University, Macquarie University, Southern Cross University, the University of New South Wales, the University of New England, the University of Newcastle, the University of Sydney, the University of Technology, the University of Western Sydney and the University of Wollongong.

Compliance with national governance protocols is necessary for the universities to share in the additional $404 million allocated for the nation's universities by the Commonwealth Government for the period 2005-07. Minister Refshauge's second reading of the bill indicated that it is not known specifically how much will be allocated to New South Wales' public universities. However, it is estimated that the amount will be in the order of $104 million over a three-year period. Each schedule to the bill targets one of the 10 universities proposed to be affected. The provisions contained in each schedule hardly vary between the universities. The nature of the discrepancies between schedules lies in minor local or pre-existing differences between the universities.

The bill primarily focuses on making modifications to the constitution of the governing body of each university. Among the more salient changes are the following modifications. The bill will remove its elected representatives of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council as a specific category of membership. It is important to note, however, that these provisions do not prevent university governing bodies from selecting members of the New South Wales Parliament for appointment either by the governing bodies or by the Minister. The bill increases the number of ministerial appointments from four to six, which apparently is to compensate for the potential loss of members of Parliament from the governing body. The bill institutes a requirement for at least one graduate member to be included with each governing body, with each governing body able to determine, through bylaws, the final numbers of graduates and whether they are elected or appointed.

It is interesting that the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales have graduate numbers and methods of appointment entrenched in their respective legislation. Importantly, the bill makes provision for the inclusion of appointed members with financial and commercial expertise on each governing body, and that is a good move. It is a requirement that external members, non-staff and non-students are always in the majority. Universities, the National Tertiary Education Union and the National Union of Students have been consulted on the proposed amendments. The unions have concerns about some aspects of the bill. The Deputy Premier stated:

Consultation on the draft bill has taken place with chancellors and vice-chancellors of New South Wales public universities. Chancellors and vice-chancellors were responsible for further consultation within their own institutions. The universities generally support the bill as currently drafted. The National Tertiary Education Union and the National Union of Students were also consulted. While they were not supportive of many aspects of the national governance protocols, they are supportive of the provisions in the bill relating to student and staff representation.

I endorse my leader's support for this bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.00 p.m.]: Under section 33.15 of the Commonwealth Higher Education Support Act 2003, New South Wales universities are required to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth's National Governance Protocols for Higher Education Providers to qualify for Commonwealth funding. This bill amends all governing Acts of New South Wales universities. The bill will alter the composition of all tertiary governing bodies and will limit membership to no more than 22 members. Provisions will remove the requirement that the governing bodies of universities include members of Parliament, but will allow the Minister responsible to appoint members of Parliament only if on the nomination of the governing body. Other amendments require the majority of a governing body to be external to the university, requiring its members to possess certain expertise and experience and requiring procedures for the nomination of appointed members to be set out in the university's by-laws.
The functions of the university's governing body include overseeing the university's performance, mission statement, strategic directions, annual budget and business plan and risk management across the university, approving and monitoring the university's systems of accountability, ensuring that the university's grievance procedures and associated information are accessible to the public, performance review, and even adopting mission statements in the corporate world. Provisions will also specify members' duties on governing bodies and will now allow for the removal of a member for breach of duty by motion supported by a two-thirds majority of the governing body. However, there is an aspect of this legislation that warrants some concern. By-laws drawn up under this bill with respect to the terms of elected members provide that the maximum incumbency for a member of the governing body is 12 consecutive years unless the governing body resolves otherwise.

This is a retrospective provision of the bill, which unfortunately was not picked up by the Legislation Review Committee. As I was active in promoting the establishment of this committee, I express some disappointment. There is absolutely no need to make this legislation retrospective. Retrospectivity is a repugnant governance principle and something that the Australian Democrats oppose totally. The terms for all universities should be counted from the date the legislation is passed, not prior to its commencement, which is provided in this bill. When legislation was passed to make judges retire at 65 it was absolutely proper not to make that legislation apply retrospectively to existing incumbents—otherwise it would have been open to the interpretation of being a political move that was aimed at getting rid of dissident judges. The same principle should apply here. The limited terms in the legislation are open to interpretation as having been put there at the request of certain chancellors and vice-chancellors who want to get rid of their most constructive critics.

Retrospective legislation is never desirable. It should be introduced only in situations of most serious need, but that is not the case in this instance. There is a personal overriding provision if a governing body so decides, but this is very odd as it would give an existing governing body the right to say which of its number could present themselves to the electorate and which could not. I am also concerned about excessive ministerial power in the legislation because the Minister will be able to appoint a higher proportion of ministerial nominees to governing bodies than ever before. I note the requirement for the Minister to consult with the 10 universities on ministerial appointments, which was in the earlier draft legislation, but that provision has been deleted from the final version that has been presented to Parliament. That begs the question: Why is this so? I seek leave to incorporate an article by Robin Fitzsimons in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 6 September 2004 entitled "Free thinkers must be allowed educational autonomy".

Leave granted.

______

"A university is not a branch office of a ministry of education. Independence is crucial." The reflections of a former British minister for education trained in medieval history might seem removed from Australia. But the man in question—Chris Patten, best known to many as the last governor of Hong Kong—is now the elected chancellor of Oxford University.

In NSW the autonomy and electoral accountability of universities is under threat from the State Government, with proposed legislation aimed at increasing executive government appointments to university governing bodies and removing the existing entrenched rights of most university members—the graduates—to elect council members, unless the education minister determines otherwise by regulation.

The NSW legislation has been prompted by the financial need to comply with Federal Government governance protocols, but goes far beyond its requirements. There is nothing in the protocols which demands either more government representation on university governing bodies or fewer directly elected members.

At the University of Sydney, for example, the numbers of senate members which the minister will have an unfettered right to appoint will double to six from three. The right of graduates to elect at least five senate members is entrenched in legislation.

Now the education minister may determine by regulation whether these "graduate" positions will be elected or appointed by the rest of the senate or by the minister. And an increased government presence will in turn help determine other senate positions, such as the chancellor and vice-chancellor. There is enormous potential for self-replicating and irremovable cliques—the antithesis of "good governance".

The function of a university is to question, dissent, invent—and to educate. That is why Patten says their independence from government is crucial. There is no government representation on the councils of Oxford or Cambridge universities, for example.

Such independence has long underpinned the quirky creative contribution of universities to human progress and liberty—not to mention national wealth creation. Like the judiciary, universities best serve their communities and humanity when they are independent of government.
Two important principles underpin the governance protocols. One is the need for administrative accountability to the governing body. But this accountability is only proper if the governing bodies are accountable to the broad university membership, including graduates. This is why most senate members at Sydney University have been chosen by direct election.

A second important principle of the federal reforms is diversity: universities of equal esteem have different strengths, with different histories, missions, even traditions of graduate involvement.

Why then should the legislation for all state universities be the same? The draft legislation undermines core principles of the Federal Government reforms by making governing bodies less accountable to members of universities, and it may potentially increase the extent to which they are creatures of the government of the day.

A chancellor is a university ambassador who must embody and promote academic values, not corporate mechanics. Perhaps Australian universities should follow the example of Oxford and elect their chancellors by direct graduate suffrage.

There has been an extraordinary lack of consultation on the planned legislation. True, the State Department of Education and Training has hastily and quietly consulted university councils. But what about the wider university membership, including graduates, who have not been consulted? Does the State Government not realise that on "constitutional issues" you do not enable an existing governing body to have a final say on its own composition? Otherwise, no board minority would be safe from having its electoral status diminished or extinguished by a board majority.

And why does the minister regard graduates as less competent than staff, students, other council members, or indeed himself, to choose university council members?

The process of producing the governance changes has raised serious questions about government relying on governance advice from chancellors and vice-chancellors. The former have no existing statutory role in university governance other than as council members, and the latter may not wish for a governing body which is less rather than more compliant.

These are questions of principle and prudence. Sydney University is blessed by independent-minded government appointees and our vice-chancellor. But it was not always so.

Australia has a reputation as a "sporting superpower". We are not yet an academic superpower. But we can be—and we must aim to be. We must let universities serve their communities by playing to their individual strengths. Our future financial wellbeing demands it.

Robin Fitzsimons is the graduate representative on the Sydney University senate.

______

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: It is interesting that the designation of university members frequently refers to students and staff. That is remarkable because it ignores the largest group of university members in the older universities—the graduates. At the University of Sydney, in a historical sense, graduates always have been considered to constitute the university. In current periods of financial stringency it is interesting that graduates, who potentially are a major source of funds, are not encouraged to bond to their alumni. As a graduate of both the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales I receive a great deal of correspondence requesting such funds. The mind-set that excludes graduates as university members was also pervasive in the relevant government department which prepared the initial draft of legislation but which did not entrench existing graduate elections.

Some universities fought very hard to have their existing complement of graduates directly elected and the elections entrenched in the Act rather than in by-laws. That certainly was the case with the University of Sydney. The proposal to have an additional general staff member in lieu of a ministerial appointment or other membership category on governing bodies can be considered in several ways. On the one hand it may be thought that the Government has too much power over universities through ministerial appointments, which will be increased by two everywhere as the former legislative appointments are replaced by ministerial appointments, and, on the other hand, in an academic institution, such as the University of Sydney, where the principal decisions revolve around how best to position the university internationally, there is a much stronger case for a ministerial appointment being replaced by a directly elected graduate or member of the academic staff.

Graduates represent the strongest case because they are by far the largest university constituency with by far the largest number of actual voters. Nearly 10,000 graduates voted at the last alumni election. It is interesting to note that in relation to the University of Sydney, former Premier Greiner cut graduate representation from 10 to 5 in 1989 while the number of ministerial appointees remained the same, except that one position was reserved for nomination by the Senate as a minor compensation. This legislation will give the Minister unprecedented power over tertiary education in New South Wales because of the unprecedented high number of ministerial appointments. I believe that this is dangerous. I do not understand why the obligation for the Minister to consult the governing bodies of universities regarding the appointments was deleted after the first draft was sent to universities.
Although there is a danger in governing bodies appointing too many of their own number and becoming self-replicating cliques, the greater danger is that, by default, the Minister will informally consult one senior university member—for example, a chancellor or a vice-chancellor—who will thereby have a controlling influence over his or her own council. At least an open process of consultation with the governing body would guard against that type of insularity, even if at the end of the day the Minister does not accept the advice. There is also arguably a conflict between the concept of community representation and autonomy. It must be said that in practical terms the elected graduates and the existing government or legislative appointments cover a fair range of community interests.

The election of graduate, staff and student representatives is an essential component of accountability. The Greens amendments contain some very good suggestions, particularly one which seeks to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the university. That principle is somewhat contradicted by the large numbers of unfettered ministerial appointments. Some universities are concerned about why this bill will make it easier for a governing body to rid itself of an elected dissident than it would be for a company board to do so. The Government also should closely examine conflicts of interest when making appointments. Generally it makes sense for appointees not to have a pre-existing primary identification with a principal competing institution. If legislators are among the ministerial appointments, it would seem sensible to me to follow the old Australian National University principle of appointed legislators being selected from different political parties.

The Greens proposals are the same for all universities, but do not necessarily take account of the diversity of missions of the institutions. Quite rightly, regional universities put a greater focus on their local communities than supra-regional universities, which draw Australians from all geographical constituencies and which serve a more international purpose. The University of Sydney has had important connections with its local community—a disadvantaged community—through the Settlement Project. That connection was mentioned during debate on the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill.

I am informed that the Greens amendment would have the effect of creating more internals—that is, members of staff or students—than externals, and that would be incompatible with the Federal Government's protocols. However, that amendment needs to be supported. The making of limited terms retrospective is repugnant, and that is a huge problem. In that regard, I previously cited the retirement laws. I have some problems with this bill and I hope that the Greens amendments, particularly the key amendments, will be supported. I will endeavour to move an amendment to cut the retrospectivity of limited terms.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [6.10 p.m.]: I am a member of the board of the University of Western Sydney and the bill was discussed at yesterday's board meeting at that university. I stress that while many people, including me, are opposed to much of what the Federal Government has tried to do with university governance, we are now at the stage where the bill has to be passed. If it is not passed the Federal Government's supplementary funding to universities core grants over three years—that is, 2.5 per cent per annum—will not be forthcoming. Supplementary funding is contingent upon compliance. This matter was of particular concern to the University of Western Sydney following the necessity for a late amendment concerning deputy chancellors. Within only the past day or two the University of Western Sydney was formally notified that the amended clause is satisfactory to the Department of Education, Science and Training, and therefore the university is eligible for funding as from 1 January.

These matters are hugely important to universities. It may well be that much of the motivation behind some points raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is well based, but I urge them to not proceed along their foreshadowed track. Every New South Wales university and vice-chancellor has asked for the amendments to be defeated. On 25 November the universities wrote to the Premier in this regard, stating that some of the proposed amendments are in direct contradiction to the Federal Government's protocols; others interfere with the autonomy of universities or would be completely unworkable; and some would mean a considerable process of amendment of university by-laws.

It is not appropriate that at the very last moment amendments are raised that threaten the financial situation and governance of universities, particularly at this time of the year when it is difficult for universities to deal with any changes. Some of us may not like some of the changes foisted upon universities and the New South Wales Parliament by the Federal Government. I join with the members of the board of the University of Western Sydney, and of other universities, in urging the House to reject the amendments. Whether we like them or not, in themselves they are a contradiction of the claims made and interfere with the flexibility and autonomy of universities. The amendments would create enormous problems in a variety of ways and would definitely ensure that that badly needed money would not flow at the beginning of next year. I urge honourable members to bear in mind that the amendments must be defeated in Committee.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [6.14 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to this debate. I will address the issues that have been raised when the amendments are dealt with in the Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1to 5 agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.13 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1, 19, 34, 52, 67, 77, 92, 104, 119 and 130 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 6:

[2] Section 7 Object and functions of University

Omit section 7 (1). Insert instead:

(1) The object of the University is serving the public interest through the promotion, within the limits of the University's resources, of scholarship, research, free and critical inquiry, the right of all stakeholders in the University (including staff and students) to comment on the decisions of the Council with respect to the management of the University, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence.

No. 19 Page 16, schedule 2. Insert after line 6:

[2] Section 6 Object and functions of University

Omit section 6 (1). Insert instead:

(1) The object of the University is serving the public interest through the promotion, within the limits of the University's resources, of scholarship, research, free and critical inquiry, the right of all stakeholders in the University (including staff and students) to comment on the decisions of the Council with respect to the management of the University, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence.

No. 34 Page 30, schedule 3. Insert after line 6:

[2] Section 6 Object and functions of University

Omit section 6 (1). Insert instead:

(1) The object of the University is serving the public interest through the promotion, within the limits of the University's resources, of scholarship, research, free and critical inquiry, the right of all stakeholders in the University (including staff and students) to comment on the decisions of the Council with respect to the management of the University, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence.

No. 52 Page 44, schedule 4. Insert after line 6:

[2] Section 6 Object and functions of University

Omit section 6 (1). Insert instead:

(1) The object of the University is serving the public interest through the promotion, within the limits of the University's resources, of scholarship, research, free and critical inquiry, the right of all stakeholders in the University (including staff and students) to comment on the decisions of the Council with respect to the management of the University, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence.

No. 67 Page 58, schedule 5. Insert after line 6:

[2] Section 6 Object and functions of University

Omit section 6 (1). Insert instead:
(1) The object of the University is serving the public interest through the promotion, within the limits of the University's resources, of scholarship, research, free and critical inquiry, the right of all stakeholders in the University (including staff and students) to comment on the decisions of the Council with respect to the management of the University, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence.

No. 77 Page 71, schedule 6. Insert after line 6:

[2] Section 6 Object and functions of University

Omit section 6 (1). Insert instead:

(1) The object of the University is serving the public interest through the promotion, within the limits of the University's resources, of scholarship, research, free and critical inquiry, the right of all stakeholders in the University (including staff and students) to comment on the decisions of the Council with respect to the management of the University, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence.

No. 92 Page 85, schedule 7. Insert after line 6:

[2] Section 6 Object and functions of University

Omit section 6 (1). Insert instead:

(1) The object of the University is serving the public interest through the promotion, within the limits of the University's resources, of scholarship, research, free and critical inquiry, the right of all stakeholders in the University (including staff and students) to comment on the decisions of the Senate with respect to the management of the University, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence.

No. 104 Page 98, schedule 8. Insert after line 6:

[2] Section 6 Object and functions of University

Omit section 6 (1). Insert instead:

(1) The object of the University is serving the public interest through the promotion, within the limits of the University's resources, of scholarship, research, free and critical inquiry, the right of all stakeholders in the University (including staff and students) to comment on the decisions of the Council with respect to the management of the University, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence.

No. 119 Page 112, schedule 9. Insert after line 6:

[2] Section 8 Object and functions of University

Omit section 8 (1). Insert instead:

(1) The object of the University is serving the public interest through the promotion, within the limits of the University's resources, of scholarship, research, free and critical inquiry, the right of all stakeholders in the University (including staff and students) to comment on the decisions of the Board with respect to the management of the University, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence.

No. 130 Page 126, schedule 10. Insert after line 6:

[2] Section 6 Object and functions of University

Omit section 6 (1). Insert instead:

(1) The object of the University is serving the public interest through the promotion, within the limits of the University's resources, of scholarship, research, free and critical inquiry, the right of all stakeholders in the University (including staff and students) to comment on the decisions of the Council with respect to the management of the University, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence.

Two members have suggested that the amendments threaten the eligibility of universities receiving funding under the new Federal regime. I was disappointed to hear Ms Burnswoods comment that the amendments have been raised at the last minute. Although today is the last day of sittings for this year and we are rushing through so many bills, the amendments have been available for the scrutiny of members since 17 November.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: But not available for consultation with the universities; that was my point.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, there was widespread consultation. I am concerned that we are hearing a regurgitation of comments, in fact scare tactics, about the amendments. When the bill is proclaimed and becomes law we will end up with a system under which the free spirit of universities, the quest for knowledge, will be lost to a great degree as councils become cliques of power rather than bodies committed to free and critical thought. I was concerned to hear Ms Burnswoods intervene in that way. I urge members who argue that the autonomy and funding of our universities is under threat from these amendments to identify those threats because we have received advice time and time again that that is simply not so.

The amendments embody changes to the objects of universities. When people consider universities' traditional place in our society most would think of them as places where open and free inquiry is conducted for the wider good. The amendments propose a new object to the effect that universities should serve the public interest. How could anyone oppose that proposition? The major parties intend to vote down this very sensible proposal. The amendments, if passed, would make universities responsible for critical inquiry as well as free inquiry. Once again, how could anyone disagree with that proposition? Is that not why universities were established in the first place?

Further, we believe universities should promote the right of all stakeholders, including staff and students, to comment on the decisions of governing bodies with respect to the management of a university. That is the background to the amendments before the Committee. I invite those members who I believe are running a scare campaign about the Greens amendments to identify clearly how they will damage the new funding regime and the autonomy of our universities. They clearly will not, and I look forward to hearing members' contributions to the discussion.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [6.21 p.m.]: The Government opposes the Greens amendments. The bill as it stands satisfies protocol No. 1. The amendments are outside the requirements of the national governance protocols and go beyond what is necessary. The objects and functions of New South Wales universities are already wide ranging and democratic in intent. They are clearly directed towards ensuring a focus on academic excellence, scholarship, research and free inquiry. Changes such as those proposed in the amendments would require wide consultation. The Government does not support the amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.22 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 2 to 5, 20 to 23, 35 to 38, 53 to 56, 68 to 71, 78 to 81, 93 to 97, 105 to 108, and 131 to 134 in globo:

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e), line 4. Omit "one person". Insert instead "2 persons".

No. 3 Page 4, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (i), line 5. Omit "is a member". Insert instead "are members".

No. 4 Page 4, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (ii), line 7. Omit "has". Insert instead "have".

No. 5 Page 4, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (iii), line 9. Omit "is". Insert instead "are".

No. 20 Page 16, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e), line 31. Omit "one person". Insert instead "2 persons".

No. 21 Page 16, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (i), line 32. Omit "is a member". Insert instead "are members".

No. 22 Page 16, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (ii), line 34. Omit "has". Insert instead "have".

No. 23 Page 17, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (iii), line 1. Omit "is". Insert instead "are".

No. 35 Page 31, schedule 3 [2], proposed section 10 (1) (e), line 6. Omit "one person". Insert instead "2 persons".

No. 36 Page 31, schedule 3 [2], proposed section 10 (1) (e) (i), line 7. Omit "is a member". Insert instead "are members".

No. 37 Page 31, schedule 3 [2], proposed section 10 (1) (e) (ii), line 9. Omit "has". Insert instead "have".

No. 38 Page 31, schedule 3 [2], proposed section 10 (1) (e) (iii), line 11. Omit "is". Insert instead "are".

No. 53 Page 45, schedule 4 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e), line 6. Omit "one person". Insert instead "2 persons".

No. 54 Page 45, schedule 4 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (i), line 7. Omit "is a member". Insert instead "are members".

No. 55 Page 45, schedule 4 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (ii), line 9. Omit "has". Insert instead "have".
No. 56 Page 45, schedule 4 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (iii), line 11. Omit "is". Insert instead "are".

No. 68 Page 58, schedule 5 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e), line 32. Omit "one person". Insert instead "2 persons".

No. 69 Page 58, schedule 5 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (i), line 33. Omit "is a member". Insert instead "are members".

No. 70 Page 58, schedule 5 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (ii), line 35. Omit "has". Insert instead "have".

No. 71 Page 59, schedule 5 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (iii), line 1. Omit "is". Insert instead "are".

No. 78 Page 72, schedule 6 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e), line 4. Omit "one person". Insert instead "2 persons".

No. 79 Page 72, schedule 6 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (i), line 5. Omit "is a member". Insert instead "are members".

No. 80 Page 72, schedule 6 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (ii), line 7. Omit "has". Insert instead "have".

No. 81 Page 72, schedule 6 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (iii), line 9. Omit "is". Insert instead "are".

No. 93 Page 85, schedule 7 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (b), line 20. Omit "6". Insert instead "5".

No. 94 Page 85, schedule 7 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e), line 32. Omit "one person". Insert instead "2 persons".

No. 95 Page 85, schedule 7 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (i), line 33. Omit "is a member". Insert instead "are members".

No. 96 Page 85, schedule 7 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (ii), line 35. Omit "has". Insert instead "have".

No. 97 Page 86, schedule 7 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (iii), line 1. Omit "is". Insert instead "are".

No. 105 Page 99, schedule 8 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e), line 6. Omit "one person". Insert instead "2 persons".

No. 106 Page 99, schedule 8 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (i), line 7. Omit "is a member". Insert instead "are members".

No. 107 Page 99, schedule 8 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (ii), line 9. Omit "has". Insert instead "have".

No. 108 Page 99, schedule 8 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (iii), line 11. Omit "is". Insert instead "are".

No. 131 Page 127, schedule 10 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e), line 4. Omit "one person". Insert instead "2 persons".

No. 132 Page 127, schedule 10 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (i), line 5. Omit "is a member". Insert instead "are members".

No. 133 Page 127, schedule 10 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (ii), line 7. Omit "has". Insert instead "have".

No. 134 Page 127, schedule 10 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (e) (iii), line 9. Omit "is". Insert instead "are".

The Greens are concerned that the Government, in ensuring that New South Wales complies with the Commonwealth protocols, has overstepped the changes that Minister Nelson requires. The Minister for Community Services claims that the bill makes minimal changes to ensure compliance with the protocols, but this is not a minimum position. The Greens amendments increase from one to two the number of non-academic university staff members who must be elected to university governing bodies. I hope we would all agree that general staff are critical to the functioning of universities, but the reality is that they are often overlooked, taken for granted and poorly treated. These amendments are necessary because general staff remain underrepresented on university governing bodies, as the figures show. On average, there are only 1.35 positions for general staff on governing bodies around Australia.

I remind members that the Greens amendments will not apply to the University of Western Sydney, as legislation already provides for equal numbers of academic and general staff on the board of that institution. I put it to those members who have argued that these amendments will be damaging and knock us out of the Commonwealth funding to explain why a provision should apply to the University of Western Sydney but not to other universities. The Greens have received clear advice that incorporating the amendments in the bill would not cause any problems: it would not affect Minister Nelson's requirements. I urge those members who were critical of the Greens' position to give us their arguments.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [6.25 p.m.]: The Government does not support the Greens amendments.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [6.25 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the Greens amendments. I will put on the record the views of Dr Jessica Milner Davis, a member of the University of New South Wales council, and of Robyn Fitzsimons in relation to this bill. The Opposition believes these amendments are not necessary and will produce anomalies in the size and composition of councils, particularly at universities with different arrangements. Dr Jessica Milner Davis has pointed out that the amendments would cause a big problem on the University of New South Wales governing body. The protocols specify that there must be a majority of external members on the council, but the University of New South Wales will have to choose someone to leave that body. The position of that particular university would be most unsatisfactory if these amendments were passed.

Amendments negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.27 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 6, 24, 39, 57, 82, 109, 120 and 135 in globo:

No. 6 Page 4, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (g), line 20. Omit "one". Insert instead "2".

No. 24 Page 17, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (g), line 12. Omit "one". Insert instead "2".

No. 39 Page 31, schedule 3 [2], proposed section 10 (1) (g), line 22. Omit "one". Insert instead "2".

No. 57 Page 45, schedule 4 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (h), line 32. Omit "one". Insert instead "2".

No. 82 Page 72, schedule 6 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (h), line 30. Omit "one". Insert instead "2".

No. 109 Page 99, schedule 8 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (h), line 32. Omit "one". Insert instead "2".

No. 120 Page 113, schedule 9 [2], proposed section 12 (1) (h), line 27. Omit "one". Insert instead "2".

No. 135 Page 127, schedule 10 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (g), line 20. Omit "one". Insert instead "2".

These amendments increase to a minimum of two the number of graduates of the university to be represented on governing bodies. Members have spoken of the important role that graduates play. If they are to be true to their fine words on the subject they should support our amendments, which will enshrine their commitment to alumni representatives. The arguments that I have given previously apply in this case. We have received advice that the amendments could be accepted and there would be no problem complying with Minister Nelson's requirements. I have received a letter from Dr Jessica Milner Davis, to whom Mr Harwin referred, that sets out very clear reasons why and how graduates play such an important role on university governing bodies. She states:

I believe there is a very strong support, widely among UNSW graduates, for the following views:

• That for reasons of principle, current practice, and future potential, any proposal tending to diminish present alumni participation in and sense of responsibility to contribute to the governance of UNSW should not be supported.

• An endorsement of the view enunciated by UNSW Council that election is the appropriate method of selection for a number of council members drawn from non-ministerial and parliamentary stake-holder groups, including importantly, UNSW graduates.

• A belief that, at a time when UNSW is about to introduce life-long e-mail and other forms of improved communication with its alumni, it is not sensible to contemplate winding back full alumni involvement via formal elections. Ways should rather be found to make existing processes clearer, more vital and participatory …

In response to proposals apparently being entertained by some Australian universities and governments to reduce alumni participation and to displace broad alumni responsibility for selecting members that serve on governing bodies, I would wish to advise against such a course of action in the strongest possible terms.

Many members have spoken again and again about the role of alumni. I would have hoped that they would have supported these amendments because alumni provide an invaluable bridge between the university and the world outside. Mrs Forsythe spoke of the importance of safeguarding the reputation of universities. Those members who have advanced that position surely would agree that a minimum of two alumni is needed. Alumni understand the needs of their own universities but they cannot, like internal members, be so readily accused of a conflict of interest. So there is a real advantage in having alumni. This is where there is inconsistency in the argument that is being put forward by many members who are saying how dangerous these amendments are. The University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney have requirements in place for two or more alumni members to be on the governing body. So there is, unfortunately, a consistency of inconsistency when it comes to some of the arguments members are putting forward. I commend the amendments to the House.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [6.32 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments. There has already been significant consultation on the bill and all the universities and their communities are satisfied with the bill as drafted. The bill was amended in relation to graduate representation at the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales as a result of this consultation. These amendments would reduce the flexibility that governing bodies have to meet the specific expertise requirements of the national protocols.

Amendments negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.33 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 30, 31, 40, 41, 45, 46, 49, 50, 58, 59, 63, 64, 83, 84, 88, 89, 110, 111, 115, 116, 121, 122, 126, 127, 136, 137, 141 and 142 in globo:

No. 7 Page 4, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (g) (iii), line 27. Omit "or appointed by the Council".

No. 8 Page 4, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 9 (3), lines 32 and 33. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 12 Page 8, schedule 1 [11], proposed clause 1 (1) (d), lines 29-31. Omit "(in the case of an elected member) or specified in the member's instrument of appointment (in the case of an appointed member)".

No. 13 Page 9, schedule 1 [11], proposed clause 2 (j), lines 37-39. Omit "or a member appointed under section 9 (1) (g), ceases to be qualified for election or appointment". Insert instead "ceases to be qualified for election".

No. 16 Page 13, schedule 1 [15], proposed clause 43 (1) (b), lines 22-24. Omit "(b) or (7) is taken to be appointed as a member under new section 9 (1) (b), (g)". Insert instead "(7) is taken to be appointed as a member under new section 9 (1) (b)".

No. 17 Page 13, schedule 1 [15], proposed clause 43 (1) (c), lines 26-28. Omit "9 (6) (a), (b) or (c) is taken to be elected as a member under new section 9 (1) (d)". Insert instead "9 (5) (b) or (6) (a), (b) or (c) is taken to be elected as a member under new section 9 (1) (g), (d)".

No. 18 Page 14, schedule 1 [15], proposed clause 43 (6) (e), line 23. Omit "appointed". Insert instead "elected".

No. 25 Page 17, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (g) (iii), line 19. Omit "or appointed by the Council".

No. 26 Page 17, schedule 2 [2], proposed section 9 (3), lines 24 and 25. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 30 Page 22, schedule 2 [13], proposed clause 1 (1) (d), lines 16-18. Omit "(in the case of an elected member) or specified in the member's instrument of appointment (in the case of an appointed member)".

No. 31 Page 23, schedule 2 [13], proposed clause 2 (j), lines 23-25. Omit "or a member appointed under section 9 (1) (g), ceases to be qualified for election or appointment". Insert instead "ceases to be qualified for election".

No. 40 Page 31, schedule 3 [2], proposed section 10 (1) (g) (iii), line 29. Omit "or appointed by the Council".

No. 41 Page 31, schedule 3 [2], proposed section 10 (3), lines 34 and 35. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 45 Page 36, schedule 3 [12], proposed clause 1 (1) (d), lines 16-18. Omit "(in the case of an elected member) or specified in the member's instrument of appointment (in the case of an appointed member)".

No. 46 Page 37, schedule 3 [12], proposed clause 2 (j), lines 23-25. Omit "or a member appointed under section 10 (1) (g), ceases to be qualified for election or appointment". Insert instead "ceases to be qualified for election".

No. 49 Page 41, schedule 3 [17], proposed clause 34 (1) (b), lines 11-13. Omit "(a) or (b) or (6) is taken to be appointed as a member under new section 10 (1) (g),". Insert instead "(b) or (6) is taken to be appointed as a member under new section 10".

No. 50 Page 41, schedule 3 [17], proposed clause 34 (1) (c), lines 15-17. Omit "(5) (a), (b) or (c) is taken to be elected as a member under new section 10 (1) (d)". Insert instead "(4) (a) or (5) (a), (b) or (c) is taken to be elected as a member under new section 10 (1) (g), (d)".

No. 58 Page 45, schedule 4 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (h) (iii), line 39. Omit "or appointed by the Council".

No. 59 Page 46, schedule 4 [2], proposed section 9 (3), lines 5 and 6. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 63 Page 50, schedule 4 [11], proposed clause 1 (1) (d), lines 16-18. Omit "(in the case of an elected member) or specified in the member's instrument of appointment (in the case of an appointed member)".

No. 64 Page 51, schedule 4 [11], proposed clause 2 (j), lines 23-25. Omit "or a member appointed under section 9 (1) (h), ceases to be qualified for election or appointment". Insert instead "ceases to be qualified for election".

No. 83 Page 72, schedule 6 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (h) (iii), line 37. Omit "or appointed by the Council".

No. 84 Page 73, schedule 6 [2], proposed section 9 (3), lines 1 and 2. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 88 Page 77, schedule 6 [11], proposed clause 1 (1) (d), lines 3-5. Omit "(in the case of an elected member) or specified in the member's instrument of appointment (in the case of an appointed member)".

No. 89 Page 78, schedule 6 [11], proposed clause 2 (j), lines 11-13. Omit "or a member appointed under section 9 (1) (h), ceases to be qualified for election or appointment". Insert instead "ceases to be qualified for election".

No. 110 Page 99, schedule 8 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (h) (iii), line 39. Omit "or appointed by the Council".

No. 111 Page 100, schedule 8 [2], proposed section 9 (3), lines 5 and 6. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 115 Page 104, schedule 8 [11], proposed clause 1 (1) (d), lines 16-18. Omit "(in the case of an elected member) or specified in the member's instrument of appointment (in the case of an appointed member)".

No. 116 Page 105, schedule 8 [11], proposed clause 2 (j), lines 23-25. Omit "or a member appointed under section 9 (1) (h), ceases to be qualified for election or appointment". Insert instead "ceases to be qualified for election".

No. 121 Page 113, schedule 9 [2], proposed section 12 (1) (h) (iii), line 34. Omit "or appointed by the Board".

No. 122 Page 113, schedule 9 [2], proposed section 12 (3), lines 39 and 40. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 126 Page 118, schedule 9 [15], proposed clause 1 (1) (d), lines 21-23. Omit "(in the case of an elected member) or specified in the member's instrument of appointment (in the case of an appointed member)".

No. 127 Page 119, schedule 9 [15], proposed clause 2 (k), lines 29-31. Omit "or a member appointed under section 12 (1) (h), ceases to be qualified for election or appointment". Insert instead "ceases to be qualified for election".

No. 136 Page 127, schedule 10 [2], proposed section 9 (1) (g) (iii), line 27. Omit "or appointed by the Council".

No. 137 Page 127, schedule 10 [2], proposed section 9 (3), lines 32 and 33. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 141 Page 131, schedule 10 [11], proposed clause 1 (1) (d), lines 29-31. Omit "(in the case of an elected member) or specified in the member's instrument of appointment (in the case of an appointed member)".

No. 142 Page 132, schedule 10 [11], proposed clause 2 (j), lines 37-39. Omit "or a member appointed under section 9 (1) (g), ceases to be qualified for election or appointment". Insert instead "ceases to be qualified for election".

These amendments consolidate councils and senates as democratic institutions. The amendments require that graduates are elected. That is certainly something that one would hope people would not regard as madly revolutionary, but clearly some do. Members need to be aware that if they fail to support these amendments they will be imposing a dangerous and undemocratic process on universities' governing bodies. Without elections we are opening up a system under which graduates are selected in a way that will entrench certain ruling cliques. That will be inevitable. Free and independent thought will be hard to achieve if these amendments fail. Again, I remind members that the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney already have requirements under the bill for graduate elections. If it is good enough for those two universities, why is it not good enough for the other universities? I am still waiting to hear the arguments on that.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [6.35 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.35 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 9, 27, 42, 60, 72, 85, 98, 101, 112, 123 and 138 in globo:

No. 9 Page 5, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 9. Insert after line 16:

(9) The Minister, in consultation with the Council, is to develop measures to encourage community representation and diversity in the membership of the Council (including in relation to women and indigenous people).

No. 42 Page 32, schedule 3 [2], proposed section 10. Insert after line 16:

(9) The Minister, in consultation with the Council, is to develop measures to encourage community representation and diversity in the membership of the Council (including in relation to women and indigenous people).

No. 42 Page 32, schedule 3 [2], proposed section 10. Insert after line 16:

No. 60 Page 46, schedule 4 [2], proposed section 9. Insert after line 27:

(9) The Minister, in consultation with the Council, is to develop measures to encourage community representation and diversity in the membership of the Council (including in relation to women and indigenous people).
No. 72 Page 60, schedule 5 [2], proposed section 9. Insert after line 16:

(8) The Minister, in consultation with the Council, is to develop measures to encourage community representation and diversity in the membership of the Council (including in relation to women and indigenous people).

No. 85 Page 73, schedule 6 [2], proposed section 9. Insert after line 23:

(9) The Minister, in consultation with the Council, is to develop measures to encourage community representation and diversity in the membership of the Council (including in relation to women and indigenous people).

No. 98 Page 87, schedule 7 [2], proposed section 9. Insert after line 7:

(7) The Minister, in consultation with the Senate, is to develop measures to encourage community representation and diversity in the membership of the Senate (including in relation to women and indigenous people).

No. 101 Page 90, schedule 7 [10], line 4. Omit "(8)". Insert instead "(9)".

No. 112 Page 100, schedule 8 [2], proposed section 9. Insert after line 27:

(9) The Minister, in consultation with the Council, is to develop measures to encourage community representation and diversity in the membership of the Council (including in relation to women and indigenous people).

No. 123 Page 114, schedule 9 [2], proposed section 12. Insert after line 20:

(9) The Minister, in consultation with the Board, is to develop measures to encourage community representation and diversity in the membership of the Board (including in relation to women and indigenous people).

No. 138 Page 128, schedule 10 [2], proposed section 9. Insert after line 16:

(9) The Minister, in consultation with the Council, is to develop measures to encourage community representation and diversity in the membership of the Council (including in relation to women and indigenous people).

These amendments ask the Minister, in consultation with governing bodies, to encourage community representation and diversity in membership of governing bodies, including women and indigenous people. As governing bodies shrink and the Commonwealth imposes more strictures on their composition, it is even more critical that membership reflects our community make-up. Members have spoken about the importance of this, particularly for our rural universities, and these amendments would ensure that that comes about.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [6.36 p.m.]: This series of amendments seems to ignore the fact that the bill provides for a nominations process to operate for all appointed members, with the university and the Minister required to work collaboratively in making the appointments. The amendments also ignore the fact that each university will need to amend its by-laws and provide details of the nominations process. Diversity in membership is important, but that is provided for already in other ways.

Amendments negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.37 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 10, 28, 43, 61, 73, 86, 99, 113, 124 and 139 in globo:

No. 10 Page 6, schedule 1 [3], proposed section 19 (1B), line 19. Insert at the end of the line:

, and

(m) to ensure that the University fulfils its roles as a public institution, including its broader community roles and responsibilities, and

(n) to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the University, and

(o) to recognise the vital role that the students and staff of the University play on the governing bodies of higher education institutions and their right to take part in such governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own (as referred to in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in November 1997), and

(p) to ensure that essential information about the operation of the University is made available to all members of the Council, and

(q) to allow staff of the University who are also involved in governance functions of the University (whether as members of the Council or otherwise) appropriate relief from their staff duties for the purposes of such involvement and compensation for expenses (such as childcare expenses) incidental to such involvement.
No. 28 Page 19, schedule 2 [3], proposed section 16 (1B), line 11. Insert at the end of the line:

, and

(m) to ensure that the University fulfils its roles as a public institution, including its broader community roles and responsibilities, and

(n) to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the University, and

(o) to recognise the vital role that the students and staff of the University play on the governing bodies of higher education institutions and their right to take part in such governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own (as referred to in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in November 1997), and

(p) to ensure that essential information about the operation of the University is made available to all members of the Council, and

(q) to allow staff of the University who are also involved in governance functions of the University (whether as members of the Council or otherwise) appropriate relief from their staff duties for the purposes of such involvement and compensation for expenses (such as childcare expenses) incidental to such involvement.

No. 43 Page 33, schedule 3 [3], proposed section 16 (1B), line 19. Insert at the end of the line:

, and

(m) to ensure that the University fulfils its roles as a public institution, including its broader community roles and responsibilities, and

(n) to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the University, and

(o) to recognise the vital role that the students and staff of the University play on the governing bodies of higher education institutions and their right to take part in such governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own (as referred to in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in November 1997), and

(p) to ensure that essential information about the operation of the University is made available to all members of the Council, and

(q) to allow staff of the University who are also involved in governance functions of the University (whether as members of the Council or otherwise) appropriate relief from their staff duties for the purposes of such involvement and compensation for expenses (such as childcare expenses) incidental to such involvement.

No. 61 Page 47, schedule 4 [3], proposed section 16 (1B), line 35. Insert at the end of the line:

, and

(m) to ensure that the University fulfils its roles as a public institution, including its broader community roles and responsibilities, and

(n) to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the University, and

(o) to recognise the vital role that the students and staff of the University play on the governing bodies of higher education institutions and their right to take part in such governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own (as referred to in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in November 1997), and

(p) to ensure that essential information about the operation of the University is made available to all members of the Council, and

(q) to allow staff of the University who are also involved in governance functions of the University (whether as members of the Council or otherwise) appropriate relief from their staff duties for the purposes of such involvement and compensation for expenses (such as childcare expenses) incidental to such involvement.

No. 73 Page 61, schedule 5 [3], proposed section 15 (1B), line 19. Insert at the end of the line:

, and

(m) to ensure that the University fulfils its roles as a public institution, including its broader community roles and responsibilities, and
(n) to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the University, and

(o) to recognise the vital role that the students and staff of the University play on the governing bodies of higher education institutions and their right to take part in such governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own (as referred to in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in November 1997), and

(p) to ensure that essential information about the operation of the University is made available to all members of the Council, and

(q) to allow staff of the University who are also involved in governance functions of the University (whether as members of the Council or otherwise) appropriate relief from their staff duties for the purposes of such involvement and compensation for expenses (such as childcare expenses) incidental to such involvement.

No. 86 Page 74, schedule 6 [3], proposed section 16 (1B), line 27. Insert at the end of the line:

, and

(m) to ensure that the University fulfils its roles as a public institution, including its broader community roles and responsibilities, and

(n) to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the University, and

(o) to recognise the vital role that the students and staff of the University play on the governing bodies of higher education institutions and their right to take part in such governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own (as referred to in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in November 1997), and

(p) to ensure that essential information about the operation of the University is made available to all members of the Council, and

(q) to allow staff of the University who are also involved in governance functions of the University (whether as members of the Council or otherwise) appropriate relief from their staff duties for the purposes of such involvement and compensation for expenses (such as childcare expenses) incidental to such involvement.

No. 99 Page 88, schedule 7 [3], proposed section 16 (1B), line 13. Insert at the end of the line:

, and

(m) to ensure that the University fulfils its roles as a public institution, including its broader community roles and responsibilities, and

(n) to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the University, and

(o) to recognise the vital role that the students and staff of the University play on the governing bodies of higher education institutions and their right to take part in such governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own (as referred to in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in November 1997), and

(p) to ensure that essential information about the operation of the University is made available to all Fellows, and

(q) to allow staff of the University who are also involved in governance functions of the University (whether as Fellows or otherwise) appropriate relief from their staff duties for the purposes of such involvement and compensation for expenses (such as childcare expenses) incidental to such involvement.

No. 113 Page 101, schedule 8 [3], proposed section 16 (1B), line 35. Insert at the end of the line:

, and

(m) to ensure that the University fulfils its roles as a public institution, including its broader community roles and responsibilities, and

(n) to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the University, and

(o) to recognise the vital role that the students and staff of the University play on the governing bodies of higher education institutions and their right to take part in such governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own (as referred to in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in November 1997), and

(p) to ensure that essential information about the operation of the University is made available to all members of the Council, and

(q) to allow staff of the University who are also involved in governance functions of the University (whether as members of the Council or otherwise) appropriate relief from their staff duties for the purposes of such involvement and compensation for expenses (such as childcare expenses) incidental to such involvement.

No. 124 Page 115, schedule 9 [5], proposed section 22 (1B), line 35. Insert at the end of the line:

, and

(m) to ensure that the University fulfils its roles as a public institution, including its broader community roles and responsibilities, and

(n) to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the University, and

(o) to recognise the vital role that the students and staff of the University play on the governing bodies of higher education institutions and their right to take part in such governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own (as referred to in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in November 1997), and

(p) to ensure that essential information about the operation of the University is made available to all members of the Board, and

(q) to allow staff of the University who are also involved in governance functions of the University (whether as members of the Board or otherwise) appropriate relief from their staff duties for the purposes of such involvement and compensation for expenses (such as childcare expenses) incidental to such involvement.

No. 139 Page 129, schedule 10 [3], proposed section 16 (1B), line 19. Insert at the end of the line:

, and

(m) to ensure that the University fulfils its roles as a public institution, including its broader community roles and responsibilities, and

(n) to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the University, and

(o) to recognise the vital role that the students and staff of the University play on the governing bodies of higher education institutions and their right to take part in such governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own (as referred to in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in November 1997), and

(p) to ensure that essential information about the operation of the University is made available to all members of the Council, and

(q) to allow staff of the University who are also involved in governance functions of the University (whether as members of the Council or otherwise) appropriate relief from their staff duties for the purposes of such involvement and compensation for expenses (such as childcare expenses) incidental to such involvement.

The Greens support the new functions for governing bodies set out in this bill. We believe that they would benefit from the following additional functions to promote good governance: to ensure the university fulfils its role as a public institution, including its broader community roles and responsibilities; to ensure that intellectual freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed and protected in relation to the external and internal functions of the university; to recognise the vital role that university students and the staff of the universities play on the governing bodies and their right to participate in governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own; to ensure that essential information about the operation of the university is made available to all members of the council to allow university staff who are also involved in the governance functions of the university, whether as members of the governing body or otherwise, appropriate relief from their staff duties for the purpose of such involvement and compensation for all expenses, such as child care costs incidental to such involvement. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [6.38 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments. The functions of council sections are already wide ranging. The amendments are not necessary to implement the national governance protocols and would need to be fully consulted on.

Amendments negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.40 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 11, 29, 44, 62, 74, 87, 100, 114, 125 and 140 in globo:

No. 11 Page 6, schedule 1. Insert before line 20:

[4] Section 19 (2A) and (2B)

Insert after section 19 (2):

(2A) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders (including the Council, the students and staff of the University and student and staff unions), is:

(a) to issue guidelines to the Council with respect to its good governance, and

(b) to review the guidelines at least every 3 years.

(2B) The Council must exercise its functions in accordance with the guidelines referred to in subsection (2A).

No. 29 Page 19, schedule 2. Insert before line 12:

[4] Section 16 (2A) and (2B)

Insert after section 16 (2):

(2A) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders (including the Council, the students and staff of the University and student and staff unions), is:

(a) to issue guidelines to the Council with respect to its good governance, and

(b) to review the guidelines at least every 3 years.

(2B) The Council must exercise its functions in accordance with the guidelines referred to in subsection (2A).

No. 44 Page 33, schedule 3. Insert before line 20:

[4] Section 16 (2A) and (2B)

Insert after section 16 (2):

(2A) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders (including the Council, the students and staff of the University and student and staff unions), is:

(a) to issue guidelines to the Council with respect to its good governance, and

(b) to review the guidelines at least every 3 years.

(2B) The Council must exercise its functions in accordance with the guidelines referred to in subsection (2A).

No. 62 Page 48, schedule 4. Insert before line 1:

[4] Section 16 (2A) and (2B)

Insert after section 16 (2):

(2A) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders (including the Council, the students and staff of the University and student and staff unions), is:

(a) to issue guidelines to the Council with respect to its good governance, and

(b) to review the guidelines at least every 3 years.

(2B) The Council must exercise its functions in accordance with the guidelines referred to in subsection (2A).

No. 74 Page 61, schedule 5. Insert before line 20:

[4] Section 15 (2A) and (2B)

Insert after section 15 (2):
(2A) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders (including the Council, the students and staff of the University and student and staff unions), is:

(a) to issue guidelines to the Council with respect to its good governance, and

(b) to review the guidelines at least every 3 years.

(2B) The Council must exercise its functions in accordance with the guidelines referred to in subsection (2A).

No. 87 Page 74, schedule 6. Insert before line 28:

[4] Section 16 (2A) and (2B)

Insert after section 16 (2):

(2A) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders (including the Council, the students and staff of the University and student and staff unions), is:

(a) to issue guidelines to the Council with respect to its good governance, and

(b) to review the guidelines at least every 3 years.

(2B) The Council must exercise its functions in accordance with the guidelines referred to in subsection (2A).
No. 100 Page 88, schedule 7. Insert before line 14:

[4] Section 16 (2A) and (2B)

Insert after section 16 (2):

(2A) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders (including the Senate, the students and staff of the University and student and staff unions), is:

(a) to issue guidelines to the Senate with respect to its good governance, and

(b) to review the guidelines at least every 3 years.

(2B) The Senate must exercise its functions in accordance with the guidelines referred to in subsection (2A).
No. 114 Page 102, schedule 8. Insert before line 1:

[4] Section 16 (2A) and (2B)

Insert after section 16 (2):

(2A) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders (including the Council, the students and staff of the University and student and staff unions), is:

(a) to issue guidelines to the Council with respect to its good governance, and

(b) to review the guidelines at least every 3 years.

(2B) The Council must exercise its functions in accordance with the guidelines referred to in subsection (2A).

No. 125 Page 116, schedule 9. Insert before line 1:

[6] Section 22 (2A) and (2B)

Insert after section 22 (2):

(2A) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders (including the Board, the students and staff of the University and student and staff unions), is:

(a) to issue guidelines to the Board with respect to its good governance, and

(b) to review the guidelines at least every 3 years.

(2B) The Board must exercise its functions in accordance with the guidelines referred to in subsection (2A).

No. 140 Page 129, schedule 10. Insert before line 20:

[4] Section 16 (2A) and (2B)

Insert after section 16 (2):
(2A) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders (including the Council, the students and staff of the University and student and staff unions), is:

(a) to issue guidelines to the Council with respect to its good governance, and

(b) to review the guidelines at least every 3 years.

(2B) The Council must exercise its functions in accordance with the guidelines referred to in subsection (2A).

These amendments propose that the Minister, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including the council, the students and staff of the university and student and staff unions, issue guidelines with respect to good governance. Governing bodies should exercise their functions in accordance with these guidelines, and these should be reviewed at least every three years. With the increasingly complex environment in which universities operate good governance is not an easy task, as we have seen in many examples in universities in this State. But as universities become more commercialised, getting good governance right becomes increasingly important, and guidelines would provide valuable assistance. I commend the Greens amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [6.42 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments. The Acts for each university, and the changes proposed in this bill, already provide each university with its key guidelines for good governance. That is the key purpose of the Act and by-laws of each university. Each university's amended by-laws, following the passage of this bill, will address the more detailed procedural aspects of governance. The amendments are not necessary and are not supported.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [6.42 p.m.]: These amendments propose that the Minister, in consultation with relevant stakeholders including the council, students and staff of the university and student and staff unions, issue guidelines with respect to good governance. Governing bodies should exercise their functions in accordance with those guidelines, which should be reviewed at least every three years. That is the intent of the amendments. With the increasingly complex environment in which universities operate, good governance is not an easy task but as universities become more commercialised getting good governance right becomes increasingly important, and these guidelines are thought to provide that valuable assistance. There is some merit in the idea of best practise governance guidelines but in fact they would be better developed on a national basis. Developing a separate set of guidelines for each institution, let alone each State, is not the best way to go.

Amendments negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.42 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 14, 32, 47, 65, 75, 90, 102, 117, 128 and 143 in globo:

No. 14 Page 10, schedule 1. Insert after line 6:

[13] Schedule 1, clause 6

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) The Council must ensure that all meetings of the Council are open to the public unless the Council determines, in relation to a particular meeting, that the whole or part of the meeting should be closed to the public due to the sensitivity (commercial or otherwise) of the business to be conducted at the meeting.

(3) Any person is entitled to inspect the minutes of the meetings of the Council (other than minutes for any meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public) at any reasonable hour.
No. 32 Page 23, schedule 2. Insert after line 31:

[15] Schedule 1, clause 6

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) The Council must ensure that all meetings of the Council are open to the public unless the Council determines, in relation to a particular meeting, that the whole or part of the meeting should be closed to the public due to the sensitivity (commercial or otherwise) of the business to be conducted at the meeting.

(3) Any person is entitled to inspect the minutes of the meetings of the Council (other than minutes for any meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public) at any reasonable hour.

No. 47 Page 37, schedule 3. Insert after line 31:
[14] Schedule 1, clause 6

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) The Council must ensure that all meetings of the Council are open to the public unless the Council determines, in relation to a particular meeting, that the whole or part of the meeting should be closed to the public due to the sensitivity (commercial or otherwise) of the business to be conducted at the meeting.

(3) Any person is entitled to inspect the minutes of the meetings of the Council (other than minutes for any meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public) at any reasonable hour.
No. 65 Page 51, schedule 4. Insert after line 31:

[13] Schedule 1, clause 6

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) The Council must ensure that all meetings of the Council are open to the public unless the Council determines, in relation to a particular meeting, that the whole or part of the meeting should be closed to the public due to the sensitivity (commercial or otherwise) of the business to be conducted at the meeting.

(3) Any person is entitled to inspect the minutes of the meetings of the Council (other than minutes for any meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public) at any reasonable hour.

No. 75 Page 65, schedule 5. Insert after line 6:

[13] Schedule 1, clause 6

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) The Council must ensure that all meetings of the Council are open to the public unless the Council determines, in relation to a particular meeting, that the whole or part of the meeting should be closed to the public due to the sensitivity (commercial or otherwise) of the business to be conducted at the meeting.

(3) Any person is entitled to inspect the minutes of the meetings of the Council (other than minutes for any meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public) at any reasonable hour.
No. 90 Page 78, schedule 6. Insert after line 17:

[12] Schedule 1, clause 6

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) The Council must ensure that all meetings of the Council are open to the public unless the Council determines, in relation to a particular meeting, that the whole or part of the meeting should be closed to the public due to the sensitivity (commercial or otherwise) of the business to be conducted at the meeting.

(3) Any person is entitled to inspect the minutes of the meetings of the Council (other than minutes for any meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public) at any reasonable hour.

No. 102 Page 91, schedule 7. Insert after line 36:

[13] Schedule 1, clause 6

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) The Senate must ensure that all meetings of the Senate are open to the public unless the Senate determines, in relation to a particular meeting, that the whole or part of the meeting should be closed to the public due to the sensitivity (commercial or otherwise) of the business to be conducted at the meeting.

(3) Any person is entitled to inspect the minutes of the meetings of the Senate (other than minutes for any meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public) at any reasonable hour.

No. 117 Page 105, schedule 8. Insert after line 29:

[12] Schedule 1, clause 6

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) The Council must ensure that all meetings of the Council are open to the public unless the Council determines, in relation to a particular meeting, that the whole or part of the meeting should be closed to the public due to the sensitivity (commercial or otherwise) of the business to be conducted at the meeting.

(3) Any person is entitled to inspect the minutes of the meetings of the Council (other than minutes for any meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public) at any reasonable hour.

No. 128 Page 119, schedule 9. Insert after line 39:

[18] Schedule 1, clause 6

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) The Board must ensure that all meetings of the Board are open to the public unless the Board determines, in relation to a particular meeting, that the whole or part of the meeting should be closed to the public due to the sensitivity (commercial or otherwise) of the business to be conducted at the meeting.

(3) Any person is entitled to inspect the minutes of the meetings of the Board (other than minutes for any meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public) at any reasonable hour.

No. 143 Page 133, schedule 10. Insert after line 6:

[13] Schedule 1, clause 6

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) The Council must ensure that all meetings of the Council are open to the public unless the Council determines, in relation to a particular meeting, that the whole or part of the meeting should be closed to the public due to the sensitivity (commercial or otherwise) of the business to be conducted at the meeting.

(3) Any person is entitled to inspect the minutes of the meetings of the Council (other than minutes for any meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public) at any reasonable hour.

These amendments will promote accountability and transparency by requiring governing bodies to ensure that all meetings are open to the public unless it is determined otherwise in relation to a particular meeting that the whole or part of the meeting should be closed to the public because of the sensitivity, commercial or otherwise, of the business to be conducted at the meeting. That is a basic and sensible requirement and it was certainly how the council of which I was a member operated at the University of New South Wales. These amendments will also promote accountability and transparency by allowing any person to inspect the minutes of the meetings of the council, other than minutes for any meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public, at any reasonable hour. Again these are basic recommendations that when put in place will clearly help universities be more accountable and help avoid some of the unpleasant and damaging problems that have arisen, for example, those at the University of New South Wales and the University of Newcastle. I commend the Greens amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [6.43 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments. The operating procedures of university governing bodies are detailed in university by-laws, generally through standing orders. University by-laws will be amended and updated following the passage of this bill and the by-laws are the appropriate place for such matters.

Amendments negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.44 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 15, 33, 48, 66, 76, 91, 103, 118, 129 and 144 in globo:

No. 15 Page 10, schedule 1 [13], proposed clause 1. Insert after line 15:

(2) However, nothing in subclause (1) prevents an elected member of the Council from representing the views of the member's constituency.

No. 33 Page 24, schedule 2 [15], proposed clause 1. Insert after line 9:

(2) However, nothing in subclause (1) prevents an elected member of the Council from representing the views of the member's constituency.

No. 48 Page 38, schedule 3 [14], proposed clause 1. Insert after line 9:

(2) However, nothing in subclause (1) prevents an elected member of the Council from representing the views of the member's constituency.
No. 66 Page 52, schedule 4 [13], proposed clause 1. Insert after line 9:

(2) However, nothing in subclause (1) prevents an elected member of the Council from representing the views of the member's constituency.

No. 76 Page 65, schedule 5 [13], proposed clause 1. Insert after line 15:

(2) However, nothing in subclause (1) prevents an elected member of the Council from representing the views of the member's constituency.

No. 91 Page 78, schedule 6 [12], proposed clause 1. Insert after line 26:

(2) However, nothing in subclause (1) prevents an elected member of the Council from representing the views of the member's constituency.

No. 103 Page 92, schedule 7 [13], proposed clause 1. Insert after line 9:

(2) However, nothing in subclause (1) prevents an elected Fellow from representing the views of the Fellow's constituency.

No. 118 Page 106, schedule 8 [12], proposed clause 1. Insert after line 1:

(2) However, nothing in subclause (1) prevents an elected member of the Council from representing the views of the member's constituency.

No. 129 Page 120, schedule 9 [18], proposed clause 1. Insert after line 9:

(2) However, nothing in subclause (1) prevents an elected member of the Board from representing the views of the member's constituency.

No. 144 Page 133, schedule 10 [13], proposed clause 1. Insert after line 15:

(2) However, nothing in subclause (1) prevents an elected member of the Council from representing the views of the member's constituency.

These amendments recognise that while members of governing bodies have a duty to carry out their functions in good faith and in the best interests of the university as a whole, they should not be prevented from representing the views of their constituencies. This right is a healthy and productive one. A member's knowledge of his or her constituency is one primary reason why he or she sits on the university governing bodies. It contributes to the wellbeing of universities as public bodies representing the interests of various stakeholders. I believe these are important amendments, partly because of my own experience at the University of New South Wales, where we were frequently told that we were not representing our own constituency and that what came first was our position on the council. These amendments will go a considerable way towards clarifying the role that members of councils play—and it can be a much more useful role if they are representing their own constituency. I commend Greens amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Youth) [6.45 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments. We do not believe they are necessary.

Amendments negatived.

Schedules 1 to 10 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

Messages received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

Madam PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:

That the appointment of Mr Ian Dickson as Parliamentary Ethics Adviser, as resolved by the House on 11 December 2002, be extended up to 22 February 2005.

The Legislative Assembly requests that the Legislative Council pass a similar resolution.

Legislative Assembly John Aquilina
9 December 2004 Speaker

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow consideration of the Legislative Assembly's message relating to the Parliamentary Ethics Adviser at a later hour of the sitting.

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That consideration of the Legislative Assembly's message stand as an order of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [6.51 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 Government is pleased to introduce the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill 2004. Child pornography involves material that describes or depicts the sexual or physical abuse of children. It is abhorrent because its production usually involves the abuse and exploitation of children, and because in the hands of paedophiles it can be used in ways that put children at risk. Child pornography can reinforce a paedophile's perception that paedophilia is normal, and it can be shown to children as part of a process of what is called grooming for future abuse. All members of this House would be aware that police across the nation have been involved in Operation Auxin, targeting Internet child pornography. This operation has resulted in large numbers of arrests in recent months and highlighted the serious nature of child pornography offences.

The main purpose of the bill is to increase the maximum penalties for child pornography offences. It is important that courts give effect to the principles of general deterrence and denunciation in cases involving child pornography by imposing substantial sentences, and the bill gives them the capacity to do so. Those who possess child pornography, though they may not directly harm any child, provide a market for those who produce and distribute this material. If the courts can provide effective deterrence to people who possess child pornography, this market may be eliminated, and the impetus to produce child pornography, and to abuse children in its production, will be reduced. These principles have been recognised and articulated in the Canadian courts in the case of R v Stroempl, where the Court of Appeal in Ontario made the following comments:

The evil of child pornography lies not only in the fact that actual children are often used in its production, but also in the use to which it is put. ….

It is used to "reinforce cognitive distortions" (by rationalising paedophilia as a normal sexual preference); to fuel their sexual fantasies (for example, through masturbation); and to "groom" children, by showing it to them in order to promote discussion of sexual matters and thereby persuade them that such activity is normal.

The possession of child pornography is a very important contributing element in the general problem of child pornography.
…The trial judge was right in his observation that if the courts, through the imposition of appropriate sanctions, stifle the activities of prospective purchasers and collectors of child pornography, this may go some distance to smother the market for child pornography altogether. In turn, this would substantially reduce the motivation to produce child pornography in the first place.

By increasing the maximum penalties for these offences, the Government is sending a clear message to the courts that child pornography should not be tolerated. The bill also expands the definition of child pornography to encompass violence and torture against children. The bill makes the possession of child pornography an indictable offence with no statute of limitations; removes the need for classifying material suspected of being child pornography; and clarifies that prosecutions which commenced before material was classified are still valid by making a retrospective amendment.

I will now outline the principal provisions of the bill. A new section 91H is inserted into the Crimes Act by item [4] of schedule 1. The new offences contained in that section, entitled production, dissemination or possession of child pornography, were previously covered by sections 578B and 578C. The maximum penalties are substantially increased: possession of child pornography will carry five years instead of two years, and production or dissemination of child pornography will carry 10 years instead of five years. Child pornography is defined as material that depicts or describes, in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person under, or apparently under, the age of 16 years: (a) engaged in sexual activity, or (b) in a sexual context, or (c) as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse, whether or not in a sexual context. The definition of "material" to be inserted by item [2] of schedule 1 is a broad one that will cover objects, photographs, films, printed matter, and images on computer screens.

The definition of child pornography is new. The current definition relies on material being classified as "RC", or "refused classification", under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 on the basis of its offensive description or depiction of a person who is or looks to be under 16. The new definition will remove the classification requirement. The requirement to classify material has been unnecessarily onerous in many cases where it is clear that the material is child pornography. The new definition will allow courts to make their own determination as to whether material is or is not child pornography. It is similar to the definitions already used in a number of other States and Territories.

A depiction or description of a child in a sexual context is a broad category that would cover, for example, situations where a child is depicted in an indecent pose or watching another person engaged in sexual activity. The requirement that the material must, in all the circumstances, be offensive to reasonable persons ensures that innocent family photographs of naked children, for example, will not be captured. The inclusion of material in which a child is a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse ensures that abuse which is not purely sexual, but is still offensive, is covered.

The bill contains five defences that are available to the reworked offence. The first defence is that the defendant did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that he or she produced, disseminated or possessed child pornography, as the case requires. This would exempt from liability a person who passes on a computer disk without knowing that a pornographic image was buried in one of its files. The requirement that a defendant establish that he or she could not reasonably be expected to have known that they produced, disseminated or possessed child pornography means that a defendant cannot escape liability simply by asserting that they did not know the material contained child pornography. It adds an objective element to the defence.

The second defence is that the material was classified under the Commonwealth legislation, other than as RC. This applies both to material that had been classified before the alleged offence, and to material classified later. If material is approved by the classification authorities, a court should not then be able to hold that it is child pornography. The third defence is available where the defendant was acting for a genuine child protection, scientific, medical, legal, artistic or other public benefit purpose, and the conduct was reasonable for that purpose. In determining whether the defence was available, regard will need to be had to the circumstances in which the material was produced, used or intended to be used. This defence would cover, for example, news or current affairs programs reporting images of children injured in a war, or medical texts, if that material has not been classified. It would also cover people who report cases of child abuse to the authorities.

The fourth and fifth defences apply to law enforcement officers and classification officers who are acting in the course of their official duties. There is an additional defence which applies only to the offence of possession of child pornography. The defence is available where the material came into the defendant's possession unsolicited and the defendant, as soon as he or she became aware of its pornographic nature, took reasonable steps to get rid of it. A prime example of where this defence would apply is where a person receives unsolicited or spam email containing child pornography, and he or she attempts to delete it as soon as they realise what it is.

The defence applies equally to unsolicited hard copy materials. Item [3] of schedule 1 redrafts the offence of using a child for pornographic purposes in section 91G of the Crimes Act. It doubles the maximum penalties. The offence will carry 10 years where the child is aged 14 or over, and it will carry 14 years where the child is under 14. The redrafted offence provides separate offences for children aged over and under 14, and it allows an alternative verdict for the lesser offence where, in a trial for an offence against a child under 14, the jury is not satisfied that the child is in fact under 14.

The definition of pornographic purposes in the new section 91G (3) reflects the categories in the definition of child pornography in proposed section 91H. Both sections expand what may be the commonly understood concept of what is pornography to include material involving physical abuse. Items [5] to [10] of schedule 1 delete the existing child pornography provisions, leaving section 578C as an offence of publishing indecent articles, and ensuring that a person cannot be charged with child pornography offences and with publishing an indecent article in respect of the same matter. Item [11] of schedule 1 contains the provision clarifying the current offence of possession of child pornography under section 578B.

The controversy of this amendment is well known, and has been substantially exaggerated. For the record, let me say that police legal services sought the advice of the Crown Advocate to clarify whether the commencement of any prosecution was in doubt because they had not yet been classified. The Crown Advocate advised that a court was unlikely to accept an argument that a person cannot be charged before classification, but recommended, however, for abundant caution that a retrospective clarifying amendment would put the matter beyond doubt. That was simply commonsense, and the Government is happy to act to put this matter beyond doubt.
The amendment clarifies that section 578B (4) (b), as in force prior to this legislation, does not prevent, and is taken never to have prevented, process being issued or served, or a person pleading guilty or a plea of guilty being accepted, or sentence being passed after a plea of guilty, without the material having been classified. This amendment will have a retrospective effect and will, therefore, apply to all offences alleged to have been committed before the new legislation commences, including those for which proceedings are now on foot. Schedule 2 makes consequential amendments to a number of other Acts by inserting references to proposed section 91H. As promised, the offence will now be an indictable offence, able to be dealt with in the District Court by a jury. The most serious cases will be dealt with in this way.

Item [2] of schedule 2.3 amends the evidentiary provision in section 58 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995. It clarifies that a certificate issued under the Commonwealth classification legislation can state not only the current classification status of something, but also a classification status at any previous date. Item [1] of schedule 2.3 ensures that the section applies to offences under the Crimes Act. These amendments achieve a uniformity with other States both in terms of penalty and content of the offence. They are a warning to any person possessing or disseminating child pornography or involved in its production that their offending will be dealt with seriously by the courts. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [6.51 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose this bill. Indeed, the Opposition supports it wholeheartedly as it arises, essentially, as a result of the Leader of the Opposition bringing to the Government's attention—and public attention, for that matter—a defect in the law that potentially opened loopholes for people accused of child sex crimes. The Leader of the Opposition bravely withstood a torrent of abuse from the Government as soon as he raised these issues. However, in introducing this legislation, the Government has now accepted the concerns raised.

An issue arose during Operation Auxin, a recent police operation that targeted Internet child pornography. The results of that operation were startling for all of us, and I refer to the Attorney's comments in the other place in relation to those charges. Unfortunately, the Attorney's response to this issue being raised was to attack the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, the Attorney's risible concession in his second reading speech in the other place to the matters raised is not complimentary of the Attorney. As I said, the Opposition does not oppose the bill; in fact, we support the bill and want it passed as soon as possible.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.53 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I am pleased to support the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill. As has been said, the bill was introduced after concern was expressed about persons who have been charged with possession of child pornography that may or may not have been classified. Under the existing legislation, child pornography must be classified under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. As honourable members know, all the States originally had the power to classify materials, but they handed that power to the Commonwealth. For some reason, which I find difficult to understand, the Commonwealth has only a small number of people involved with classification, and that has resulted in a bottleneck involving about 700 cases across Australia. The Commonwealth's classification body must classify this material and determine the charges, which I understand will be many once the material has been classified.

The problem made me think that perhaps we should re-establish a New South Wales classification body. This would give some certainty to the issue and some continuity to the decisions made with regard to classification. As I understand the legislation as it is presently drafted, judges and/or juries will make decisions as to what is child pornography if material is not classified by the Commonwealth body. That may result in two different interpretations, certainly by a jury. In one case a jury may say that some material is child pornography, and another jury may say it is not child pornography. When public servants were handling classifications they followed strict definitions about what is and what is not child pornography, and that seemed to eliminate uncertainty and resulted in more consistent decisions.

I understand that this legislation will ensure that cases that are proceeding now will be finalised and people will be charged with offences. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that that happens. Therefore, we support the bill, which is, in a sense, a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that has arisen with child pornography classification. The Government may need to further consider whether a State process should be put in place, or whether it should at least force the Commonwealth to set up a more speedy system by which material can be shown to a Commonwealth officer in Sydney and a decision can be made within 24 hours as to whether it is child pornography. I do not see why that should not be possible. I am sure the State and Commonwealth governments and their current leadership, the Hon. Bob Carr and the Hon. John Howard, could give this matter a high priority and ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to fund the appointment of classification officers.

The bill provides for more serious cases of possession of child pornography to be dealt with in the District Court. There was some question as to whether that would simply mean that a judge always made the decision or whether a jury would decide in some cases. The better system would probably be for a judge to make such decisions, which would bring some consistency to the process. One concern I have about this child pornography issue is that according to media reports Commonwealth and State police were able to identify the 700-odd people who were engaged in child pornography in Australia only as a result of information provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]. I am pleased that the FBI is co-operating with our police agencies to provide information, but I ask—and many people have asked me the same question—why our Federal and State police were not aware that a minimum of 700 people were using credit cards to access child pornography? If the FBI had not advised Australian authorities, would action have been taken in Australia? Leaving aside the tip-off from the FBI, does that mean that the State and Federal police do not have as a priority the identification of people using child pornography?

Who is conducting those investigations? How many officers are involved? That is a matter of widespread community concern, because the 700 people in Australia who have been identified are only those who use credit cards. The FBI, though United States of America agencies, in concert with other international police forces, was able to follow the credit card sequence, identify these people and track down the source, which in this particular network involved a mafia operation in Russia. We know that child pornography rackets are operating in all countries. I would guess that even in Australia people are producing child pornography using Australian children. I know that police authorities here have been looking very closely at background information and other indications in available material to determine whether there is any evidence of Australian children being used for child pornography. It is not easy to identify locations, but on occasions certain items are written in a specific language or contain newspaper covers or other materials that indicate where photographs are being taken. I imagine those who produce this pornographic material take great care to reduce the possibility that they will be identified, because obviously they will be apprehended if such material identifies a particular venue.

We are very pleased that the bill increases penalties. Earlier legislation provided for prison sentences of 12 months or various fines for using children to produce pornographic material. Because of widespread community concern, this legislation will amend the Crimes Act 1900 and other legislation to increase the penalty for possession of child pornography from two years to five years. There has been some discussion that the Premier of Queensland mentioned a penalty of 10 years for such an offence. So there may be further developments when State Attorneys General meet the Commonwealth Attorney-General in the future and hopefully increase penalties to more than five years. The legislation will increase the penalty for producing or disseminating child pornography from 5 years to 10 years—which is analogous to penalties for possession of a drug as opposed to those for dealers. For persons who actually use a child for pornographic purposes the penalty will increase from 7 to 14 years where the child is under 14 years, and from 5 to 10 years where the child is 14 years and more.

At this stage the definition of child pornography involves the use of material that depicts or describes a person as less than 16 years. However, I note from a reading of the Hansard debate of 1995 that the Coalition Opposition, led by the Hon. John Hannaford, put up a very strong case that child pornography be classified as pornography involving children under 18 years. That argument was strongly supported by the Liberal and National parties. The Coalition parties argued their case strongly because their proposal would remove any doubt about the age of the child. However, that proposal was not supported by the Labor Government of that time.

The legislation replaces the current definition of child pornography with a definition of material that depicts or describes a person who is or appears to be under 16 years engaged in sexual activity, or in a sexual context—the original terminology—but the definition now adds "or as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse (whether or not in a sexual context) in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons". We fully support the expansion of the definition of child pornography. To my mind, it would always have included those other aspects, although they were not of a sexual nature, but perhaps someone with a clever lawyer could get them of