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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

The President announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Planning for Sydney's Water Needs", dated May 2005.

Ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

That Ms Tebbutt be appointed as a member of the Procedure Committee in place of Mr Egan, resigned.

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That, under standing order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within seven days of the date of passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Infrastructure Planning and Minister for Natural Resources or any department or agency under the Minister's portfolio, the Minister for the Environment or any department or agency under the Minister's portfolio, the Minister for Primary Industries or any department or agency under the Minister's portfolio, or the Cabinet Office:

(a) any document concerning the options for the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion developed by the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council referred to in the document TCO/09099 dated 29/12/2003 provided in the return to order required by the resolution of the House of 6 April 2005,

(b) all documents concerning the request that the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair undertake a review of the options referred to above,

(c) a copy of the report prepared by Mr Sinclair and referred to in Cabinet Minute M04/29 provided in the return to order required by the resolution of the House of 6 April 2005, and

(d) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

Motion by the Hon. Robyn Parker agreed to:

That, under sanding oder 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Health or the Department of Health (including Area Health Services):

(a) all documents produced since January 2004 for or by the Department of Health in relation to:

(i) the proposal and implementation of a new patient allocation system for the management of ambulance transports and hospital emergency departments (also known as the "hospital matrix"), and
(ii) the performance, efficacy and future of the "code green / orange / red" classification system,

(b) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled, pursuant to a Coroners Act 1980, a report entitled "Report by the NSW State Coroner into Deaths in Custody—Police Operations—2004".

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 3 May 2005.

The Hon. John Della Bosca tabled the Government's response to report No. 21 of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, entitled "Murrumbidgee College of Agriculture", tabled on 21 October 2004.

Ordered to be printed.

Petitions requesting legislation to protect foetuses of 20 weeks gestation and to make resources available for post-abortion follow-up, received from the Hon. David Clarke and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Petition requesting reinstatement of rail services from Casino to Murwillumbah, received from the Hon. Catherine Cusack.

Petition requesting the withdrawal of changes to the rental structure of Crown land leases, particularly enclosed road permits, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Petition opposing the proposed anti-discrimination (religious tolerance) legislation, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Petition opposing any legislation that would inhibit unencumbered discussion and freedom of speech regarding religion and introduce religious vilification in New South Wales, received from the Hon. David Clarke.

[During notices of motions]

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: Standing Order 95 deals with the rules for points of order and states that a member can take a point of order at any time. Therefore, I take a point of order under Standing Order 71 (8), which states:

A notice which is contrary to these standing orders or practice will be amended before it appears on the Notice Paper.

Notices of motions regarding the introduction of marriage bills, et cetera, are out of order as they do not conform with the practice and Constitution of New South Wales, as recently stated by the New South Wales Attorney General, Mr Debus, in regard to these bills. He said:

The States have no jurisdiction over marriage. It is very clear in section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution where it lists a number of issues which the Commonwealth has exclusive power over, and one of these is marriage.

Section 51 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act states:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to makes laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(xxi.) Marriage

The definition of "marriage" in the Constitution has not been changed by a referendum. The New South Wales Constitution states:

CONSTITUTION ACT 1902 – SECT 5

5 General legislative powers

The Legislature shall, subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever.

As the notice of motion clearly uses the word "marriage" in relation to a bill, it concerns a bill that is outside the jurisdiction of this Parliament and should be ruled out of order by you, Madam President, so that they do not appear on the notice paper. Standing Order 136 (4) states:

A bill not in accordance with the order of leave, or with the rules and orders of the House, will be ordered to be withdrawn".

This notice of motion with respect to the marriage bills is not in accordance with the rules and orders of this House, so you should order it to be withdrawn. Finally, the notice of motion also seeks leave to bring in a marriage bill, so I urge the House to not grant that leave.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: To the point of order: I dispute the arguments that the honourable member has just made. He has argued that this is exclusively a Federal matter. Legal advice is publicly available from Professor Williams that points out that States can bring forward legislation on marriage. Until the 1960s, laws governing marriage were at the State level. Western Australia still has to this day its own State-based family law court. So, not only are there leading legal arguments to show that is not exclusively a Federal matter; practice in other States shows that argument is wrong. I argue we are totally correct in bringing forward these three bills.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: To the point of order: This notice of motion specifically talks about same-sex marriage, which presumably is not the type of marriage the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over, thus this different type of marriage could possibly come within the purview of this Parliament.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Further to the point of order: With regard to the arguments of Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, section 51 (xxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution simply says "marriage". So, if these bills refer to marriage they are overlapping Commonwealth powers.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I agree with former Presidents who have ruled that it is not the role of the President to decide points of law. The President in 1862 ruled:

It is the duty of the President not to give opinions on points of law, but to declare and give his opinion, when it is called for, on all matters relating to the ordinary forms and rules of proceeding in Parliament.

The President in 1901 ruled:

The President, in giving a ruling, is not called upon to decide points of law, but is merely required to express his opinion, as some guide to the House, on any question referred to him.

The President in 1951 ruled:

The President is not called upon to decide any question of law, but to decide those questions only which refer to the forms and proceedings of the House.

I am not required to decide questions of law; I am merely required to decide whether a notice of motion conforms to the rules and forms of the House. As this notice of motion does, it is in order.

Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca.

The PRESIDENT: I announce that on 2 May 2005 Mr Greg Donnelly was nominated by the Leader of the Government as a Government member on the Standing Committee on State Development and General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 in place of Mr Eric Roozendaal, and on General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 in place of Ms Kayee Griffin.

Debate resumed from 3 May 2005.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.32 a.m.]: The Electricity Supply Amendment Bill is unfortunate in that what is more significant is what is not in it. Demand management is known to be the most effective way of reducing the requirement for increased generation and distribution capacity, yet there is little mention of demand management in the bill. There are two important aspects of demand management. The first is the reduction in the need to enlarge the distribution system. There is also the possibility of reducing the generation system or at least not expanding it. This can happen in a number of ways. The installation of advanced electricity meters at the customer end can monitor the amount of electricity used at any one time. The cost of supplying electricity at total peak demand, which used to be on cold mornings in winter but now also is on hot days in summer, can be three times the cost at low demand time.

Meters that give the rate of consumption at any time give a price signal to the consumer and produce a reduction in peak demand. If it is cheaper to turn on the washing machine at a certain time of the day than at other times many people with discretionary electricity use can adjust their behaviour patterns. This takes the top off the peak. Interval meters are designed to assist with this and can notify the consumer in real time. Given that the generation, transmission and distribution systems have to be built for peak load, a large amount of infrastructure is used for only a few hours per year. This is a very inefficient use of capital. Indeed, it is sometimes better to pay people not to use electricity, to pay them to shut down their factories. While that may seem silly or counterintuitive, if the shut downs save a huge investment in generation capacity, transmission lines and substations that may give the best use of capital. We really have to look at those possibilities.

Expressions of interest could be called from people who, at certain times and under whatever agreed contract conditions, would reduce capacity. They may agree to do this only for a couple of days a year or in certain circumstances. Presumably, some people would be willing to do it depending on how much they are paid to do it. If they shut down their factories without much notice they would have to pay the wages of the people who would have worked. They might have to pay start-up costs to restart machinery.

Some machinery or industrial processes cannot be stopped. For example, my understanding is that if blast furnaces are cooled down the firebricks collapse and cannot be reused. Blast furnaces are coal-fired so this example may not apply to electricity. Perhaps the furnaces could be maintained without steel in them at a lower temperature, thus allowing some load shedding in the steel or aluminium industries, which account for 20 per cent of New South Wales electricity consumption. That remains to be seen but those possibilities need to be looked at. The idea that demand management is not up to this is a nonsense. It is very disappointing that the New South Wales Energy Directions green paper states at page 16:

However, even if the full estimates of cost-effective demand management potential in the immediate future are achieved, its effect will be to defer the need for new supply by a year or two, rather than eliminate it.

Deferring the spending of billions of dollars for a year amounts to a lot of saving. The statement in the green paper was taken up in an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald pooh-poohing demand management—I think unjustly and foolishly. My records show that I went to Kim Yeadon on this subject in August 2000 and was promised that something would be done. Nearly five years later the Government has done precious little. I will speak more about that later. It has been clearly demonstrated that energy savings of 20 to 25 per cent can be achieved in city office buildings by reprogramming ventilation and lighting management. Appreciable savings in peak load of overall electricity consumption can also be achieved in private houses by simple adjustments in lighting, ventilation and installation.

A working group of the Council of Australian Governments found in 2003 that between 35 and 70 per cent of electricity could be saved by such measures. Yet as recently as last year private sector people came to me asking, "How on earth do I get through to these government agencies? They will not do anything about demand management in government buildings." This is the Government that loudly trumpets its record in progressively reducing greenhouse gases. Basically, this is the Government of hot air—literally and metaphorically. In many industries power consumption could be halved by redesigning some of the manufacturing plant. Overseas experience has shown that demand management programs have yielded benefits of 1.7 times the cost for residential premises and up to three times the cost for commercial and industrial initiatives.

This bill is something of a dog's breakfast. The installation of prepaid electricity meters does nothing to regulate or reduce demand for electricity and only serves the convenience of the retailers. It would seem likely that small retail customers who are unreliable in paying their electricity bills represent the poorest people in our society. They thus would make up a very small fraction of the electricity market, even at a household level, and presumably a very high percentage of the compliance, enforcement and debt recovery procedures of the electricity utilities. It would thus seem that the main purpose for prepaid electricity meters is the convenience of the retailers. If they are losing money on this small amount of electricity perhaps they should look at other strategies rather than simply prepaid electricity meters which allow them presumably to get rid of their compliance staff and to make some money from this small amount of electricity sold.

At a social level, I well remember working in Britain under the National Health Service when people literally died if they could not get coins for their meters—they simply froze to death in winter in their little council flats. Presumably, in most parts of Australia it is not so cold that people would die in those circumstances. However, that may not be the case in the mountains if we have some particularly cold winters. I suppose the main problem would be people sitting in the dark—which would be inconvenient, but not terminal. The other point is that if one does not have the money for the meter and the fridge goes off and the food is spoiled, the cost of restarting is much higher because either one eats the spoiled food or one buys additional food. Effectively, one has the most expensive electricity in real terms, which is paid in advance, and the costs associated with disconnection are borne by the poorest people in society.

The objective of this provision of the bill is really linked to compliance problems experienced by the retailers. I put it to the House that this is bad social policy and I foreshadow that I will move an amendment seeking to delete that section of the bill. If we need programs related to electricity for poorer people, let us look at that rather than simply empowering the utilities to introduce prepaid metering. I will speak to my amendment during the Committee stage of the bill and commend my amendment to honourable members at that time. The original Act gives a great deal of discretion to the Minister in enforcing licensing conditions imposed on electricity retailers. The bill strengthens the power of enforcement by requiring more detailed reporting, but still leaves the discretion vested in the Minister. I note that Mr Ian Cohen proposes to move amendments in relation to this aspect.

In order to achieve an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it is necessary that the target amount of carbon dioxide emissions per head of population be reduced from year to year. While the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme [GGAS] is a good first step towards the reduction of New South Wales greenhouse gas emissions, it has key flaws that undermine efficacy. For example, the scheme's cap levels out in 2007 and fails to take into account population growth. After 2007 the unaccounted for population growth will cause emissions to escalate. By 2012 actual emissions will exceed Australia's Kyoto target, which is already generous at 108 per cent above 1990 levels. Without correction of this obvious flaw, it is obvious that the Premier's claim that the GGAS will reduce emissions to 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012 cannot be supported.

The University of New South Wales Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets produced an analysis of the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Certificate Registry for the 2003 compliance period. The key findings of this impressive think tank, comprising the Faculty of Engineering, the Faculty of Commerce and Economics, and the Australian Graduates School of Management, were that most 2003 New South Wales greenhouse gas abatement certificates [NGACs] come from just a few types of projects. First, waste coalmine gas and landfill gas projects were the main sources of New South Wales greenhouse gas abatement certificates for 2003, registering just over two-thirds of the total between them. Together with natural gas-fired plant they made up just under 84 per cent of the total, and these three with coal-fired plant made up just under 92 per cent of the total. Second, project accreditations for 2004 included more waste coalmine gas, landfill, demand site abatement, bagasse and fossil-fuel power stations as well as two new activities—sequestration projects and large user abatement certificates. Third, just over 40 per cent of the 2003 abatement certificates were from projects located outside New South Wales.

The analysis also found that there is a high level of market concentration. A single participant, Integral Energy, created almost half, or 46 per cent, of 2003 New South Wales greenhouse gas abatement certificates, and, together with Energy Development Ltd, 17 per cent, and AGL, 8.5 per cent, created over 70 per cent. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index [HHI], a metric measure used to quantify market concentration, for the supply side of the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme in 2003 was around 2,540. Indicatively, a market where the HHI exceeds approximately 1,800 may be considered highly concentrated, with the implication that the assumptions of a competitive market may be violated.

I note that that reporting transparency is lacking. The lack of publicly available data often makes it difficult to assess how a particular project created New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates, and the likelihood that the underlying emission reduction activity was additional. I raised this issue with the former Minister for utilities and with Treasury as far back as 2001 and I am very disappointed to see that nothing has changed. The main problems relate to which method or equation was used, how the baselines were calculated and how compliance was achieved. Despite the lack of reporting transparency, on available evidence from the registry it appears that the level of additionality, in terms of emission reduction activity, may be low.

This particularly applies to category A fossil fuel plans and to biogas plants that create abatement certificates through so-called avoided methane emissions for generation above their mandatory renewable energy target baseline, such as landfill gas, which together account for more than 75 per cent of 2003 New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates. The abatement certificates created directly from mandated retailer renewable energy certificates [RECs] obligations reduce additionality further. They made up 28.5 per cent of total certificates surrendered in 2003. It is worth noting that if you pay extra—about 30 per cent extra—to have clean energy from Energy Australia, approximately 72 per cent of that energy is biomass being burnt.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: None of the government departments, with the exception of the old Sustainable Energy Development Authority, ever took it up.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I acknowledge that interjection. I think I am keeping the air clean, but if all I am doing is burning so-called forest waste and so-called thinnings from sugar cane, I must confess I am tempted to keep that money from the Government and put it into something such as wind or solar energy in my own house. That would render it cheaper and I would probably be doing a lot more for the environment. The emissions are greater than implied by the scheme. First, a significant proportion of the low emission plant does not have to increase generation, compared to the level of output before the scheme, in order to create abatement certificates. Thus their activities that created abatement certificates will not necessarily have changed the emissions intensity of electricity sold in New South Wales. Second, despite the NGACs being denominated in units of one tonne of CO₂ emission abated, the average emissions displaced by each abatement certificate was less than one tonne of CO₂.

The University of New South Wales Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets considered the implications for scheme performance to 2012. In addition to the current New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates whose degree of additionality is low, abatement certificates created through renewable energy certificates—created due to the Federal Governments mandatory renewable energy target [MRET]—will reach around 2.5 million per year by 2012. Combined, these NGACs might contribute over 9 million NGACs per year of the 20 million per year target that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] has projected for 2012. NGACs likely to be created through activities under other government programs, and by new plant built to meet demand growth, could also significantly limit the need for additional abatement certificates from other activities.

Renewable energy certificates created through the Australian Government's mandatory renewable energy target can be used to meet participants' liabilities under the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme. These are created using low emission generation plant. However, the Total Environment Centre has noted that low emission generation that creates renewable energy certificates under the MRET would occur regardless of the New South Wales scheme. The ability for renewable energy certificates to be used as New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates effectively results in double counting and overblown claims by the scheme. In 2003, 544,518 of the RECs generated for electricity sold in New South Wales were converted into 488,432 NGACs. They made up 28.5 per cent of total NGACs surrendered in 2003. This is equivalent to one-quarter of the scheme free-riding on the MRET scheme.

The Total Environment Centre proposes that RECs be excluded entirely from the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme to avoid any double counting and to increase the real level of abatement achieved by the scheme. With regard to limiting abatement certificate creation to New South Wales, a significant proportion of NGACs are currently created outside of New South Wales and stop the wide area in which NGACs can be created, releasing pressure for abatement beyond business as usual. As a result, the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme may not help in reducing greenhouse emissions over the long term by failing to go ahead with significant abatement activities now.

A negative side-effect is that New South Wales electricity consumers end up paying for abatement in other States, effectively subsidising out-of-State electricity generation. Only a small proportion of this electricity is consumed by New South Wales customers. For example, 251,199 abatement certificates for generator efficiency standards were created in 2003 by Hazelwood power station, Australia's dirtiest brown coal fired generator, in Victoria. At a price of around $11 per certificate, this would amount to New South Wales consumers paying $2.7 million for Victorian electricity! While the Carr Government throws a big song and dance, claiming that New South Wales is effectively subsidising other States through revenue collected by the GST, under this bill New South Wales taxpayers may well be effectively subsidising Victorian generators.

The Total Environment Centre argues that this provision of the bill should be amended to limit the creation of New South Wales greenhouse gas abatement certificates to those created in the State of New South Wales, and I am inclined to agree. One of the difficulties in assessing the future development of electricity supply in New South Wales is that all the planning seems to be done by TransGrid, the organisation that operates and owns the distribution system. TransGrid is responsible for developing the set of proposed options to solve network and reliability problems. Its skills and experience clearly lie in the assessment of network augmentation options as the answer to network constraints. TransGrid's ability to appropriately evaluate competing options such as distributed generation/co-generation, demand management or alternative energy options remains less obvious. An incentive clearly exists for TransGrid to assess options involving energy forms that compete with electricity, such as gas, and to assess options that do not involve TransGrid's transmission system.

[Debate interrupted.]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the honourable member for Campbelltown and representatives of the Macarthur District Soccer Association.

[Debate resumed.]

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.52 a.m.]: TransGrid earns its keep by distributing electricity and has little interest or experience of alternative methods of supplying electricity or distributing other forms of energy. TransGrid is therefore unlikely to show much interest in proposals for distributed generation technologies, such as photovoltaics, wind power, and small local generators using biofuel or micro-hydroelectric schemes. It would also have little interest in demand management because that process cuts TransGrid out of the equation. Indeed, demand management would involve money that TransGrid might otherwise have got for those projects. Demand management schemes not involving networks are TransGrid's direct competitor, so effectively Dracula is in charge of the blood bank. The greater utilisation of localised co-generation plants would also be against TransGrid's commercial interest.
In this connection one must remember that approximately 20 per cent of the total energy transmitted by TransGrid, the New South Wales transmission operator, is consumed by four customers, who are engaged in the aluminium and steel manufacturing sectors. According to the Minister, the demand management code of practice requires the evaluation of alternative methods of solving demand problems. However, the experience and ethos of TransGrid is not well suited to giving such proposals fair evaluation. The performance of the national electricity market, as the historical excess in capacity is consumed by load growth, is untested. Some elements within the electricity supply industry are using this uncertainty to call for the Government to again start investing in large-scale electricity infrastructure, to avoid a Californian, or even a South Australian, situation. If the Government wanted to do that, the best thing to do would be to upgrade the distribution network infrastructure, rather than construct another generator.

What is not well known is that most blackouts are caused by substation failures. Obviously, therefore, embedded generation that lessened the pressure on substations would be a way of increasing the reliability of supply. The bill leaves a lot to be desired. It is more about rhetoric; it is more about empowering the Minister than having a program and following it through. It shows that when it comes to the crunch, the Carr Government is more about rhetoric than action when it comes to implementing sustainable energy policy in our State. I am a little disappointed in the Opposition because it did not say what it would do or what should be done; it merely criticised the Government for having blackouts and predicted that more blackouts would occur. If the Coalition aspires to be an alternative government, it should say what ought to be done. The bill effectively serves to empower the Minister and does not take demand side management seriously. I visited Minister Yeadon on 3 August 2000 and provided him with material on the issue. I gave him a document setting out the following key points:

1. TransGrid is planner, operator and constructor and is in a conflict of interest situation which it seems unwilling to acknowledge, let alone address. This was made clear in its Planning Forum in June [2000]. Ashock Manglick [who was an officer of TransGrid at the time] stated that TransGrid could not fund any non-network options, even if they had a lower NPC than a network option. It would seem that a limited reading of their regulation is being used to state that they cannot consider consequences outside electricity costs and benefits (such as other unrelated benefits of non-network strategies like availability of gas).

In other words, TransGrid had the problem that it was only considering electricity costs and benefits and it could not take a broader view. Therefore, it was impossible for TransGrid to evaluate non-network options, even if it chose to do so, because this was not in the company's commercial interest. The document continued:

2. There are numerous overseas examples of large projects similar to the Sydney CBD augmentation that have been managed by DSM or other strategies. In NZ the transmission utility Southpower used aggressive DSM and other non-network options to increase their utilisation from 50% to 60%. The peak load fell from 540mw in 1994 to 530mw in 1999, leading to the permanent deferral of the $NZ220m network construction option.

This is a major saving, and it shows what can be done if demand side management is pursued as a serious option. The document continued:

Toronto Ontario Hydro invested $C100m in distribution reconfiguration and DSM to save doing a $C300m augmentation. New York State's investment of $US45,000 in communications and metering hardware avoided $6.5 m in transmission and distribution.

3. Integral Energy looked at 14 projects. Of these, 2 were solved by DSM, 2 had network expansion limited by DSM, and in 5 cases it was not feasible. 5 required further investigation. In short, of 9 resolved cases 2 were solved by DSM, and 2 were significantly improved. It might be noted that Integral Energy are also a retailer, and that they are also strapped for cash, so are more likely to look for the most cost-effective solutions. But they spent $1.36m to save $21.29m in capital expenditure and $10.61m in NPV. TransGrid were given this information as an Appendix to the SEDA submission.

4. In contrast to (3) above, TransGrid looked at 6 projects. All were given network augmentation solutions. There are 23 future projects. In each case the phrase is "at this stage the preferred network option is …" and then there is a network or transformer solution. In no case is DSM preferred or evaluated. This suggests that TransGrid is unwilling or incapable of seriously considering options other than network augmentation. While it is able to be both assessor and builder and while it has the ear and financial backing of government, this is likely to continue.

5. An academic paper by Prof. Hugh Outhred analysing the TransGrid augmentation decisions in the CBD, Molong and Balranald is attached in Appendix E.

6. With regard to the TransGrid CBD option, reliability is used as the criteria for the augmentation. This is another way of asking for a non-market solution. The reliability criterion is arbitrarily defined by TransGrid. It is also by no means certain that augmentation is the most cost-effective way of achieving reliability.

7. It might be noted that DSM and more widespread generation and cogeneration options are good for reliability. In general they are also better for the greenhouse, as they involve reduced consumption or more modern sustainable or gas options. Australia's greenhouse record is poor.
Professor Outhred is critical that the reliability benefits are being overstated. The last CBD blackout would not have been affected by the planned augmentation. The reason for that is, as I stated, that the blackout that occurred in 2000 was caused by a substation failure. Improving the distribution cabling from the Hunter Valley generators to the CBD would have upstreamed it, to put it that way, from the substation that had failed. There was a lot of publicity at that time.

It might be noted that the CBD option, which I think was $170 million, was pushed through despite discussions of demand side management, and the Minister said, "Let us have this one and after we have done that we will seriously consider demand side management". Of course, five years down the track that has been pushed through and again we still have no consideration systematically of demand side management by this Government. It might also be noted that demand side management and more widespread generation and cogeneration options are good for reliability. In general, they are also better for the greenhouse emissions; they involve reduced consumption or more modern sustainable gas options. Australia's gas record is poor.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does the Minister recall saying that he would make an announcement on the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion by the end of March 2005? Does the Minister further recall me asking him on 6 April when his decision will be made publicly known and that he replied, "Soon"? Will the Minister now inform us when that decision will be made to end the uncertainty for this industry that he has created? Will the Minister rule out a 35 per cent cut in timber harvesting volume that would result in a loss of up to 400 jobs in western New South Wales and the destruction of many small towns?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am prepared to inform the House that the decision will be announced in the not too distant future and that the alarmist nonsense at the end of the member's question will not happen.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for industrial Relations. In light of the Minister's answer yesterday will he confirm that insurer Vero has contacted several of its major policyholders to inform them of its decision to leave the New South Wales workers compensation scheme? Will the Minister also confirm that Vero has told these policyholders that upon leaving the New South Wales scheme their policies will be transferred to another insurer, allocated by WorkCover? Will the Minister confirm that the tender process which forced Vero's decision to leave the New South Wales workers compensation scheme was designed to increase competition, not limit choice for employers by forcing them to take up the services of one insurer at the behest of the WorkCover Authority?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I have to admit to being somewhat confused; not confused about his question but confused about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question. I am a bit concerned that the Opposition is a bit confused about who in the shadow ministry has responsibility for WorkCover.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The Minister is debating the question. I would ask him to return to the question without debating who should be asking it or being intrigued by the nature of it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that he must not debate the question.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I would have thought that I was perfectly entitled to be intrigued but, nonetheless, honourable members in the House will be aware that the WorkCover scheme is being opened to greater competition between insurers. A request for proposals to deliver workers compensation claims and policy services is currently in the marketplace and WorkCover has received a very positive response. The honourable member refers to that tender process in his question. As I advised the House on 3 May, one of the six existing insurers has indicated it will not be tendering. I made adequate comment on that yesterday and also about Vero Workers Compensation Ltd withdrawing its business in South Australia.

The company has indicated, as I said yesterday, that it has embarked on a collaborative process to transfer its current policies and the premiums attached to other insurers. The honourable member has referred at the end of his question to the process by which WorkCover is completing the shift in emphasis from insurers acting as agents in the scheme or insurers participating in the scheme on licence from WorkCover to the active agency that is required by the reform program. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition and to the member who asked the question yesterday—and to any other members who want to engage in this debate—that, in fairness to Vero, it has not publicly nominated the changes in workers compensation in any way, shape or form as the reason for the decision. It has simply not elected to go on with the tender process and therefore will be withdrawing from the New South Wales WorkCover scheme.

I reminded members yesterday that Vero has only 1.3 per cent of New South Wales policies, making it by any standards a relatively small player, although it has a relatively sizeable premium, which means that it is handling what we would regard as medium to large employers within the scheme. It is useful that it is possible now for the scheme to reallocate that work potentially to some of the new agents and operators who will come into the scheme with a new mandate to more effectively manage the needs of injured workers; to more effectively satisfy the scheme's requirements for proper injury management and therefore to make sure that workers are treated and healed more promptly; and also to make sure that employers are getting good value for their premium dollar, that is, that there is, at the appropriate time, an adequate and early return to work.

If I could just reflect on the state of confusion I referred to earlier in my answer, it seems to me a little bit strange that the honourable member asked this question. Most of the comments about WorkCover made by Chris Hartcher, a good friend of the Leader of the Opposition, are wrong.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: He is a resident of the Central Coast.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yes, he is a resident of the Central Coast as well. Almost all of his comments are wrong, but also, interestingly, he is not actually the shadow Minister for WorkCover. [Time expired.]

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Fair Trading. Is it true that the Office of Fair Trading does not accept formal complaints about poor building practices from members of the public affected by those practices? Is the refusal to accept such complaints the reason for the Minister's department not even acknowledging, let alone acting upon, a letter from Mr Bruce Berry of 9 June 2004 requesting the department take action to suspend the licence of Hazzouri Constructions Pty Ltd, and its associated entities, in view of the company's conviction in April 2004 for improper disposal of asbestos; convictions in July 2004 for another four offences, including building without a construction certificate; being issued with numerous penalty infringement notices in 2002 and 2003 by Parramatta council; and being currently subject to further action in relation to the illegal removal of trees?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I reject the first part of the question, that the Office of Fair Trading does not take action in relation to complaints about poor building practices. In fact, we have strengthened our capacity to take action in relation to poor building practices following the legislation that was passed by this Parliament at the end of last year—with the Opposition's very strong objections.

[Interruption]

The Hon. John Ryan talks about suspensions, which this motion calls for. The suspension power was proclaimed last Friday. But do not be so excited about it—

The Hon. John Ryan: And you rushed into action.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I rushed into action because when the bill was debated here the Opposition opposed it. The Opposition opposed everything that we put in the amendments to the Home Building Act in December last year. We inserted the power under section 61A to suspend licences for 60 days and issue a show cause notice, which was opposed by Chris Hartcher, who said:

This will have a devastating effect not only on builders but upon subcontractors.

We introduced the powers to require inspectors to go on site to find out the names of contractors and whether they were licensed. Chris Hartcher said:

This bill makes industry policemen of principal contractors and builders …

He said that the task would be near impossible for small business and that builders would get no satisfaction from the legislation. He stated:

[It is] the most unworkable, draconian legislation this industry has ever seen … It has shown that it will do absolutely nothing for the home building industry.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why don't you answer the question?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The answer is that the powers are now there to be able to do these sorts of things. This might be foreign to Ms Sylvia Hale, but there is the question of process. I know that in the supreme Soviet and other places she would be particularly familiar with there is no such thing as process. We do not just get a complaint and immediately act on it in the way she would like. I will examine the particular facts she has asserted and come back to the House with more detail.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading. Can the Minister update the House in light of comments in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald that builders were being victimised by the recent cancellation of a number of licences?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the honourable member for this very important question. Honourable members will be aware that following an announcement I made on Monday, the Office of Fair Trading is proceeding to cancel the licences of some 80 builders who used fraudulent qualifications to obtain their licences. This morning in the Sydney Morning Herald there was a misguided and ill-informed commentary on a Victorian builder, who is not even licensed in New South Wales. He is quoted saying that he did not think the builders involved were guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever; they were innocent victims, simply vulnerable people desperate to get back into the industry after the HIH insurance collapse. That is a load of drivel and has nothing to do the HIH collapse.

This was a sophisticated criminal scam to give full building licences to people who did not possess the required qualifications or skills. These people knew full well the proper way to get a building licence. The suggestion in today's paper that one can get a building licence for a development site with two instalments of $5,000 from a person whose surname cannot even be remembered is ridiculous. It is absurd to suggest that that person is a victim, particularly when one considers that the applicant in question signed an application form for a licence, attaching to it a fraudulent TAFE diploma. The question must now be asked as to the credibility of the builders collective, if they are prepared to publicly support people who participate in activities of this nature. These comments are a direct kick in the head to those people who are currently studying and working in the industry.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Why don't you apologise?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: From time to time members of the Opposition say, "Why don't you apologise?" They have been running around the country saying, "Speed up the issue. Don't bother checking things. Just keep issuing these licences." If they would actually spend a bit of time to go through this matter they would find that the Office of Fair Trading uncovered the fraud and reported it to the ICAC. That is the answer to the question. People know that; they understand Fair Trading—

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I know that Barry Collier excited you all yesterday, but recently I attended a fair trading Ministers conference and the person sitting in the chair of the fair trading Minister from South Australia was a woman called Karlene Maywald, a member of The Nationals, who obviously has some interest in joining the Labor coalition in that State. She is a particularly inspiring and intelligent woman, not in the same class as the Hon. Melinda Pavey—but then again, few would come within that particular category—but she understands this issue. Few people understand these issues as well as fair trading Ministers, who understand that we have to act decisively in relation to them. That is why we passed the legislation last year, which the Opposition opposed—and South Australia was quite interested in that—to crack down on shonky builders. That is why we will not relent from taking action against those individuals who act in this way.

The Hon. Rick Colless: And you licensed them with their fraudulent qualifications in the first place.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: You are the ones running around saying, "Issue these licences like confetti".

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Just have more inspectors out there to help get the licensing system approved more quickly.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. Melinda Pavey got a tick of approval from me earlier. She is going to lose it if she continues to interject like that. I was distressed that she did not get a shadow portfolio in the recent reshuffle. I can understand why the Hon. Greg Pearce did not; they could not find anything shadowy enough. But the Hon. Melinda Pavey is in a totally different class.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice, and Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that the matters under consideration by the Police Integrity Commission in Operation Vail were the subject of a previous complaint rejected by the commission? Why is the present complaint by Commissioner Moroney any more important than the previous complaint and why was the previous complaint rejected? Is the Minister aware that the terms of reference for the current inquiry are limited to the question of the unauthorised use of information obtained from telephone intercepts? Have complaints also been made to the Police Integrity Commission about applications for telephone intercepts, applications for listening devices and applications for search warrants, and will the terms of reference for Operation Vail be extended to include these matters?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Minister for Police.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. Did a spokesman from the Minister's office recently state in an Australian Associated Press story published on the ninemsn web site that hours for those formally on the Adult Training, Learning and Support Program would "be reduced in some cases" and that "in individual cases, people may experience a reduction in hours". Does the Minister stand by these comments, given that the former Minister for Disability Services promised in this place on numerous occasions that service users would not experience a reduction in the number of hours they received?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question, although the premise on which he started the question left me a little bit confused.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You are confused again. That is two questions.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am confused again, but I will get to the punch line. It is not possible for me to indicate whether or not I accept or take ownership of comments on the ninemsn web site. Immediately after question time I will familiarise myself with that web site and the comments allegedly made by somebody to AAP, which have been recorded on the ninemsn web site, and I will let the member know—

The Hon. John Ryan: Denounce the comments then, if they are not true. Are they true or not?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: —whether I denounce them, accept them or what comments I have about them. But at this stage of the game I have no comments about a web site I have no knowledge of.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am not going to comment about the member's allegation or assertion that there are comments on a web site I have no knowledge of. The intent of the reforms to the post-school options program was to provide a long-term, viable program for people with a disability who need high levels of care. Although the previous program was designed as a two-year training initiative, many of the participants—as the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt when Minister for Disability Services and I have mentioned in this House a number of times—will never be able to enter the work force. When the former Minister for Disability Services, my colleague the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, announced those changes she made a commitment to review the effects of the changes.

Consistent with her commitment I have undertaken to personally do exactly that. I have met with the parents and discussed their needs, and this year the New South Wales Government will spend $62 million providing programs for school leavers with significant disabilities. Far from being a reduction, this is $5 million more than last year. The Government has doubled funding for disability services since 1996. Unfortunately, many service providers—and this must be considered in the context that DADHC itself provides some of these services through non-government and private organisations—have significantly increased their fees this year well beyond the consumer price index movement.

The Hon. John Ryan: So it is all the fault of the service providers?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, I did not say that. It is not about attributing fault. It is about the facts. The honourable member wants me to disclose fully the facts, and I am happy to do it. In fact, some programs have increased by more than 60 per cent, an increase that cannot be covered by the taxpayer dollar.

The Hon. John Ryan: Because you cut the funding by 60 per cent.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I just explained to the honourable member that I did not, and neither did the Hon. Carmel Tebbut. We must ensure that taxpayer funds are used in the best way to help people with disabilities and their families. The short, simple, clear answer to the honourable member's question is that I am, consistent with the Hon. Carmel Tebbut's previous commitment, reviewing personally the impact of the ATLAS and PSA changes on the families and the clients.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. I did not catch whether the Minister stood by his predecessor's commitment that no existing services would suffer a cut. Do you stand by it?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I have adequately covered the honourable member's inquiry.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Minister outline the disadvantages for New South Wales in handing the State's industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I can, and I am pleased that the Hon. Henry Tsang is asking this question. It is a matter of some importance generally to the people of New South Wales but in particular to members of this Chamber. From the outset, I explain that this step of handing New South Wales' powers to the Commonwealth is something the New South Wales Government would not consider. By any objective measure—in particular, for example, days lost to strikes—the New South Wales industrial relations system has given our State a clear competitive advantage. It would be a reckless move, and out of step with some of his colleagues interstate, for the Leader of the Opposition—not the Opposition leader in this House—to do what he indicated he would, that is, to refer the State's industrial relations powers to the Federal Government in the unlikely event that he was ever in a position to do that.

Like Jeff Kennett in the 1990s, the New South Wales Opposition apparently intends to junk the State's successful industrial relations model and adopt the discredited Federal model. This would be disastrous for workers and their families. Lower-paid workers would be confined to a newly created minimum wages regime—which we have not yet had described to us—which has been designed in secret by Minister Andrews and a few apparent cronies from the big-end-of-town law firms. It will mean that 1.8 million workers employed by small business in New South Wales will no longer have any access to the various remedies they have with regard to employment entitlements, including wages recovery, and a range of provisions under common law protection that they currently enjoy.

Workers will be stripped of these various award protections and conditions of employment whether or not they are members of unions. One of the great myths on the other side is that this is somehow about union power. The New South Wales industrial registry and court and the trade union movement in New South Wales have for a long time provided non-union workers—people who are employed and are not unionists—with a free service to protect their industrial rights. It is a very low-cost, simple way of doing it and it is widely supported by small business. Independent contractors will also lose protections and remedies that have existed under the New South Wales system for generations. They are low-cost options compared with the relatively high-cost Federal system.

There is the potential for employers to be crippled by disputation. In comparison with New South Wales, Victoria has more than double the working days lost through strikes, more protracted disputes and infinitely more lockouts. The independent Industrial Relations Commission in New South Wales will be left as a powerless observer on the sidelines while the State tries to cope with a new Federal era of industrial disputation. Strong, organised work forces will take on their employers; weaker work forces will not and will not be able to. Conflict will become the name of the game, and 372,000 small businesses will lose the common rule award system, which gives them confidence that they are paying a fair rate to their employees and also that their competitors are limited in what they can do within the labour market.

This is further evidence of the New South Wales Opposition leader's inexperience and his reckless approach to planning any—however unlikely—transition to government. For years the Opposition has put industrial relations into its now overflowing too hard basket. It never had a policy. In hindsight it was much better to adopt the Hon. Michael Gallacher's policy, old me too-ism. Now the Opposition has a policy. It is different from ours and it is wrong—wrong for employers and wrong for employees. John Brogden has taken the easy to way out to impress his mate or patron, the Prime Minister. He is offering to give away our State's advantage for purely ideological reasons. The New South Wales Government will continue to defend the State system. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Disability Services and refers to people with an intellectual disability in contact with the criminal justice system. Has the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care provided the Ombudsman with the revised terms of reference for the senior officers group and a strategic plan to implement these by 1 May 2005, as was recommended by the Ombudsman late last year? If so, what are the terms of reference? If they are not yet available, when will they become available?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care [DADHC] continues to work with other government agencies on legislative amendments to develop a multiagency response to issues concerning people with an intellectual disability who come into contact with the criminal justice system. The human services and criminal justice clusters, that is, those chief executive officers of public sector organisations in the human services area—the head of the DADHC and the Department of Community Services—have been preparing reports to the human services CEOs' forum for August 2005. The provision of services to people with an intellectual disability at risk of or in contact with the criminal justice system is an ongoing concern to the Government. A number of government departments have been working together to ensure that when people with an intellectual disability come into contact with the criminal justice system they are dealt with in a fair and appropriate manner.

The Senior Officers Group on Intellectual Disability and Criminal Justice, to which the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans referred, was established to co-ordinate efforts across human services and justice agencies. The group has identified several practical projects and strategies that have been developed and implemented. This group continues to work to inform a whole-of-government approach to this population with unique needs. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care administers a statewide behaviour intervention service. This service currently has four forensic casework specialist positions that work directly with this population to support individuals and to enhance local service capacity. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care has funded the intellectual disability rights service to provide independent information, support and assistance to people with intellectual disability in contact with the criminal justice system. This project, called the criminal justice support project, involves the provision of information and provides support to people with an intellectual disability when they are being interviewed by police or attending court.

The Government is committed to improving support for people with an intellectual disability who come into contact with the criminal justice system, and believe this is best progressed through collaboration between a range of government and non-government agencies and, within government, the various services that impact on those with an intellectual disability who come into contact with the criminal justice system in their role of providing support. The Government recognises that people with an intellectual disability do at times remain in custody beyond their earliest release date due to community support options now not being available. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care is working closely with other agencies to develop strategies that will deliver realistic and integrated accommodation and support options for people currently in that category.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister be really clear: Is the Government going to meet the Ombudsman's recommendation, yes or no? Has the Government met the recommendation to set up that committee with its terms of reference by 1 May, yes or no? If not, will it do so?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I think I dealt with those matters in the original answer.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Is the Minister for Primary Industries aware that all forestry workers from Inverell, Baradine and Dubbo regions will meet in Dubbo this afternoon? What is the nature of that meeting? Why have the workers been called to the meeting? Will they be advised of the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion decision and that their jobs have been substantially changed or terminated?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Wrong again! Just wait for an announcement shortly.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. What action is the Government taking to support children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to learn to their potential and achieve positive educational outcomes?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: That is a very important question. Research clearly shows that educational attainment levels are linked to positive outcomes in later life. More simply: education is the pathway out of disadvantage. That is why the Carr Government in 2005 will spend $270 million on students from disadvantaged communities to directly address the educational effects of poverty and disadvantage. This is a substantial increase in funding from when we took office. New South Wales is now the only State in Australia that has maintained a discrete program to address the educational needs of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

More than 152,000 students from 576 schools—more than 20 per cent of public school students—will benefit from the program. The Government is proud of its longstanding commitment to supporting the education of students from disadvantaged communities. They have been a catalyst for innovative teaching practice and significant and successful school reform programs. The New South Wales Basic Skills Test, English language and literacy assessment, numeracy tests, the Reading Recovery Program, the Middle Years Education Agenda, the Holiday Reading Program, Edassist summer schools, the Country Areas Program, the State Literacy Strategy, the Early Learning Initiative and the Class Size Reduction Program in part owe their origins and development to the Government's continued commitment to disadvantaged students and the equity programs that serve them.

I make clear that the Government recognises that family support is critical to good educational outcomes. While what happens in the education system is critical, it is not the only factor that contributes to students achieving educational success. That is why we have supported programs such as Families First focusing on supporting parents giving their children the best possible start in life. That is why, for example, we have provided a significant injection of funds to the Department of Community Services for early intervention programs to support some of the most disadvantaged families that are at risk of coming into the formal child protection system. That is why we support cross-agency collaboration.

The Department of Community Services, the Department of Education and Training, the Department of Health and other agencies work collaboratively to support students who experience disadvantage. I reject any assertion that the Government does not have a clear commitment to students who have extra support needs. There is no doubt our programs are getting results. The 2004 evaluation of the State Literacy Strategy found that 28 per cent of poorer performing year 3 students moved into higher literacy bands in the Basic Skills Test between 1996 and 2003; 33 per cent of poorer performing year 5 students moved into higher literacy bands in the Basic Skills Test; and there was a 22 per cent increase in the number of students studying advanced English for their Higher School Certificate between 2001 and 2003.

The Government is not prepared to rest on these results. A review of equity programs is currently under way to ensure that they are being delivered efficiently and to the best benefits of students—that we are getting the best outcomes for the dollars we are spending. The Government also supports children and young people who struggle with the experience of mainstream schooling, for whatever reason. We provide funds to ensure that students who have difficulty studying in the mainstream classes receive assistance to enable them to return to school or, where this is not possible, receive an educational program that meets their needs.

In 2003 the Government announced that a further eight new behaviour schools and seven new tutorial centres would be progressively established by 2007. The behaviour initiatives address the needs of students who require assistance in working co-operatively in mainstream classes. They are a vital part of the Government's commitment to students who have particular needs. There is no doubt that one of the greatest challenges that confronts our community is to improve outcomes for indigenous students, and the Government is committed to the directions of the Aboriginal Education Review. I have already outlined our actions on that front. [Time expired.]

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, Assistant Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. The Lung Bus, which recently visited the Baryulgil community, which is ravaged by the legacy of asbestos mining, screened more than 100 people at its last visit. The X-rays from the bus did not show patients' pleural plaque, a precursor to mesothelioma, which had been found in a significant number of these people by their doctors and by the medical service in Grafton. Will the Lung Bus be provided with appropriate equipment that is capable of identifying pleural plaque? Will the Government see to it that pleural plaque, a precursor to mesothelioma, is classified as an identifiable disease for the purposes of compensation so that victims of industrial asbestos exposure can receive the fair compensation they deserve?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member raises a number of matters. The last one was about fair compensation. Of course, the Government is absolutely committed to fair compensation for asbestosis and mesothelioma sufferers. That is why we set up the Jackson inquiry and forced James Hardie to come to a reasonable accommodation with the asbestos victims that are its responsibility. That is why we have the statutory Dust Diseases Board scheme. That is why we maintain a specialist court for dust diseases. It is the state-of-the-art jurisdiction in the world. The Government's track record in relation to a commitment to those with asbestos-related and dust diseases is absolute. The honourable member—or whoever suggested that he ask the question—need not be in any doubt in relation to that. With regard to the first part of his question, I am concerned about the assertion that in some way the Lung Bus, which is an important initiative of the Dust Diseases Board, is inadequately equipped. I have inspected the Lung Bus and had a technical briefing about its capacities. I am somewhat surprised at the inference that somehow its diagnosis was deficient in relation to the people in Baryulgil. All I can do in relation to that part of his question is get further information and provide it to the member as early as I can.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. What will the Minister do about another serious security breach in March at the Dillwynia women's prison at Windsor? On the evening C watch a local pizza delivery person was told by prison officers to meet them with their meals at the front gate house of the prison but was found inside the complex, saying he simply wandered in through an unlocked "security door".

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Opposition has been making a number of claims about security at the Dillwynia Correctional Centre. It is the traditional pattern of the Opposition to make such claims to get a few grabs in the media and then to run and duck for cover after their validity has been exposed to be in error. Last week the shadow Minister for Justice—I presume this assertion has come from him—issued a press release in which he described security at Dillwynia Correctional Centre as "a security debacle". He made a series of claims, all of which I had investigated and all of which I found were in error. He firstly claimed that inmates were able to swipe open security doors using their plastic ID cards and wander around. That was found to be incorrect. No reports, information or evidence suggested that inmates had left accommodation units after they were locked in. Nor could they access the electronic security doors in that manner. He then claimed that prisoners were wandering around the grounds outside their units undetected, and the security breach was picked up only by officers at the neighbouring men's gaol, John Morony, and Dillwynia was alerted through a phone call.

That, of course, was incorrect. The routine at the correctional centre was examined and, as at 28 April 2005, which was when the claim was made, there were no reports or evidence to support any claims of security breaches or unsupervised access of inmates to the internal grounds. It was claimed that as a result of the failure by an educational officer to lock up a storeroom in a hair salon that operated within the gaol a theft occurred. It was claimed further that various pieces of equipment were still missing. As I have indicated, there was such an incident, but all the items have been recovered. In fact, the scissors that were said to be still outstanding were in fact recovered on the day the incident took place.

The Opposition claimed that a butcher's knife that had been taken from the prison kitchen had yet to be recovered. That was incorrect: all knives were accounted for. It was also claimed that there had been numerous electronic security breakdowns resulting in transport vehicles not being able to access the prison reception area. It was claimed further that the company that had installed the state-of-the-art security system had been called to the prison on a regular basis to fix the repeated failures. Of course, that claim was also found to be incorrect. There were no reports of disruption or delays to vehicle movements into or out of the centre—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: There was no report so it didn't happen. Is that what you are saying?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: We know about these things. It is quite interesting that apparently the source of this information in one respect was a prisoner. Would you believe it? This is where members of the Opposition are getting their tidbits for question time. Honourable members should listen to this further claim: The staff were concerned about a sharp increase in drug use at prisons through items thrown onto the prison grounds, the very same area where the inmates gained access simply by swiping their cards. I have already advised that there was no swiping of cards That did not occur. The facts are that as at 28 April there was one occasion on which drugs were thrown on the ground. That attempt was detected by the video motion detection cameras, the drugs were intercepted and the culprit was arrested and charged. So, there you go.

I have in my hand a copy of the press release that was issued in relation to Dillwynia. All the claims were shown to have zero validity. No doubt this claim comes from the same impregnable source that the shadow Minister referred to last week. The press release stated: "Prison locks don't work. Inmates swipe themselves into the open air … The Dilllwynia facility at the new Kempsey prison and part of the Government's new way forward, but this is the way out …". As I said, all the claims were found to be incorrect. I will look into this matter and I look forward with pleasure to responding in precise terms to the honourable member's inquiry.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister advise the Chamber how New South Wales firefighters are commemorating International Firefighters' Day?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Today is St Florian 's Day. I am sure honourable members will be aware that St Florian is generally regarded in most countries around the world as the patron saint of firefighters.

The Hon. John Ryan: Is this in your portfolio?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Emergency Services, yes, of course it is. New South Wales is extremely fortunate to have the benefit of two world-renowned fire services, New South Wales Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service. Our firefighters—both permanent and volunteer—have won international accolades for their expertise, professionalism and commitment to their work protecting our community. So it is fitting on this, International Firefighters' Day, that we acknowledge and thank our firefighters for their hard work and dedication, particularly those who have made a tremendous individual effort beyond the call of duty, often showing great courage in the face of danger. New South Wales Fire Brigades Commissioner Greg Mullins and Rural Fire Service Commissioner Phil Koperberg have today conferred the highest honours of their respective services on a number of firefighters, and also on one civilian.
Five Rural Fire Service volunteers have been awarded the Commissioner's Commendation for Bravery for their efforts in the ferocious Canberra bushfires of 18 January 2003. They are: Barry McNeil from the Helensburgh brigade, Steven O'Callaghan from the Candlagan brigade, Robert Pyers from Moruya, Ronald Shaw from Batemans Bay and Roger Benjamin from the Glenellen brigade. All five were located at the Rural Fire Service base camp at Stromlo in the Australian Capital Territory, which was threatened by a large firefront. When the call was made to evacuate, the five men chose to stay, acting at great risk to themselves to assist with civilian evacuations and to help injured people, as well as protecting the base camp and extinguishing spot fires, thus helping save many properties.

The Commissioner's Commendation for Service was awarded to Mr Phillip Jarick of Glenellen for his courage in crawling through his burning home to rescue his mother from the flames. Mr Jarick's disregard for his own safety and presence of mind during this emergency are to his great credit. Four Rural Fire Service volunteers were awarded the Commissioner's Commendation for Service, with another seven individuals, five brigades and the Shoalhaven Community Education Committee presented with Certificates of Commendation. The Boxing Day tsunami was a natural disaster on a scale none of us could have imagined. It is a matter of extreme pride that New South Wales Fire Brigades was able to make an immediate and valuable contribution to the international relief effort. Four fire officers were deployed within days to provide essential logistical support to four New South Wales medical teams working in some of the hardest-hit regions—Banda Aceh, the Maldives and Sri Lanka. A former member of this House, Dr Brian Pezzutti, was working in one of those regions.

Commissioner Mullins has today awarded Station Officers Chris Sykes, Bruce Cameron and Tim Fox and Senior Firefighter Greg Watson individual commendations for their crucial work amid true devastation. Rescue unit manager Superintendent John Denny and deputy manager Inspector Warwick Kidd, who were responsible for co-ordinating the Brigades' rapid response, also were commended. Another 15 Brigades personnel received a unit commendation for their work preparing the required logistical support to ensure relief teams were adequately covered. Eight firefighters have received commendations for meritorious service for their courage at a house fire in Turramurra in March 2002. Their efforts in rescuing and reviving the occupant of the home via the rooftop and extinguishing the fire embody the finest qualities of all our firefighters.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that a 2004 audit by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources found that portal emissions from the M5 East tunnel have been a relatively common occurrence and are in breach of the conditions of approval for the project, putting the health of residents near the tunnel entrances and exits at risk? Is the Minister also aware that there is no publicly available data on air quality inside the tunnel, apart from assertions by Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] officers that they meet the conditions of approval? Why has the RTA refused to make the monitoring results of portal emissions for the M5 East tunnel available to the public? Will the Minister instruct the RTA to make real-life monitoring data in relation to all tunnel emissions publicly available so that drivers and residents can make informed decisions to reduce their own exposure risk?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Here he goes, the Graham Richardson of the Left. What Graham Richardson did for the right wing numbers, you're doing for the Left. Good on you, Michael. Keep going. The Richo of the Left!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am amazed that the Liberal Party would talk about numbers. We have been reading with the—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We have been reading with interest, on an almost daily basis, about the shenanigans that have been going on in the Liberal Party. It has been very enlightening to read.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: The question related to M5 East air quality. Clearly the Minister is not being relevant. I would ask you to direct him to keep his answer relevant.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that his answer must be relevant to the question asked.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have made a number of comments in the past in relation to the M5 East tunnel filtration. I will repeat those comments. The fact of the matter is that there is an obligation on the part of the operators to maintain standards in accordance with the approval requirements. That is the expectation. The Roads and Traffic Authority will ensure that that occurs and monitoring will take place in accordance with those standards.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. What steps are being taken by your Government to address problems identified by the 2004 report of the review of Aboriginal education? Did that report find that Aboriginal students are falling behind academically, are twice as likely to be absent, three times more likely to be suspended, and have a retention rate of 36 per cent compared with 68 per cent for non-Aboriginal students? What is the Minister's reply to allegations that the Government has failed to announce any new initiatives or target additional resources in response to the report?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Catherine Cusack for her question. It allows me to further elucidate the answer I provided to the House earlier concerning actions we have under way to address the needs of students who experience difficulty and students who are disadvantaged. As I said, undoubtedly the greatest challenge facing our community and education system is how we improve outcomes for Aboriginal students. Some Aboriginal students are getting fantastic results in the school system; indeed, they are role models for other students and are achieving at very high levels. However, as the report of the review of Aboriginal education shows, the reality is that the educational outcomes gap between indigenous students and non-indigenous students is totally unacceptable.

The report of the review of Aboriginal education, entitled Feeling the Spirit: Dreaming an Equal Future, was commissioned by the former Minister and released on 1 December 2004. The report makes 71 recommendations for changing the delivery of quality learning programs to school and TAFE students. The recommendations are broad-ranging and affect all areas of the Department of Education and Training. The Government supports the intent of the majority of the recommendations in the report.

I have already announced the re-establishment of the director-general's advisory group, which will have its first meeting on 1 June this year, and the establishment of a new position of Director, Aboriginal Education and Training. The director's position will ensure an integrated and focused response to Aboriginal education and training. As I said when I addressed the Aboriginal Education Consultative Committee Conference a few weeks ago, the director's position is critical because it will drive the reform agenda. Nonetheless, Aboriginal education is the responsibility of every person in the Department of Education and Training. If we rely on one individual or one unit of the department, we will fail. As the Aboriginal education review clearly showed, we have to do things differently.

The recommendations were grouped into nine interrelated themes: strengthening policy planning and implementation, extending quality teaching and learning, fortifying the identity of Aboriginal students, engaging Aboriginal students, applying Aboriginal cultural knowledge, establishing community partnerships, building community capacity, challenging racism, and advancing leadership and accountability. The director-general's advisory group will provide advice to both the director-general and me as to how we should move forward with implementing the recommendations of the Aboriginal educational review. Many of the recommendations can be implemented with existing resources or by reordering priorities, but there is no doubt that some recommendations require additional resources. However, I have no intention of pre-empting the budget; the issue will be dealt with through the budgetary process.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister update the House on efforts the State Government is undertaking to address cattle ticks in the northeast of the State, and will he provide confirmation of tick fever on two properties?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries recently identified tick fever on a property in the Woodenbong area and on two adjoining holdings in the Tweed Valley. The department immediately quarantined these properties and all surrounding properties. It has also traced all stock movements from the affected properties, and it is important to note that the appropriate legal processes have been followed with all cattle movement.

All cattle entering New South Wales from the tick-infected area in Queensland must be treated for cattle ticks before leaving their property of origin. They are then inspected for the presence of cattle ticks at border surveillance, either inside Queensland by Queensland Department of Primary Industries officials or on the actual border by New South Wales Department of Primary Industries staff. If any animals are found to have ticks, they are returned to the property of origin for further treatment. If none are found, they are then treated one more time before proceeding to New South Wales. All cattle on the tick fever affected properties are undergoing a treatment program to kill ticks and ensure that the tick fever parasite does not spread to other animals.

It is very important to understand that individual cattle cannot spread the tick fever parasite to other cattle. The only thing that can spread tick fever is a tick. Therefore, the way to stop tick fever in its tracks is to treat the ticks—and that is exactly what we are doing. Tick fever only affects cattle, buffalo and wild deer, and it has been detected on a handful of occasions in New South Wales over the past 20 years. The current situation has clearly created much concern in the northeast corner of the State. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, the Board of Tick Control and local producers have been working together to address the issue. For example, the Board of Tick Control recently wrote to me asking that the State Government consider the potential use of a vaccine to treat tick fever in emergency situations, and only with certain restrictions.

Despite the attempted beat-up by The Nationals—and by Thomas George in particular—their advice has not proposed the generalised use of a tick fever vaccine in New South Wales. The aim of the board's proposal is to provide a strategy for herds that cannot use the tick fever antidote in the face of a tick fever outbreak, such as in dairy herds. So The Nationals have got it wrong again. But the mere mention of a tick fever vaccine has caused much tension within the local industry. Given the emotive nature of tick fever—and the great amount of misinformation in the community about it—I have today announced an inquiry that will canvass these issues.

I advise that Mr Garry West, a former Minister and member for Orange, has agreed to head the inquiry on behalf of the State Government. I remind the House that Mr West was, variously, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Land and Forests, Minister for Conservation and Land Management, Minister for Energy, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services. It must be remembered that Mr West did an absolutely brilliant job on behalf of the committee, the Government, and the Opposition, which signed up to the arrangement, on the transaction levies for ovine Johne's disease—under trying circumstances, I might add, for some members of that committee. I doubt that Mr West would ever have had his arm twisted—except perhaps by the Liberals occasionally.

The inquiry will specifically review the use of cattle tick vaccine, the introduction of Queensland cattle into New South Wales, the possibility of using electronic surveillance to enhance existing border control, and advisory mechanisms in the State government. It is important to note that the New South Wales Government continues to have a strong and robust tick management program.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Does the Government intend to increase car registration fees for vehicle owners with families? How will increasing taxes on the average family who need a larger vehicle—for example, a Commodore, a Falcon, a people mover, or even a four-wheel-drive vehicle—reduce greenhouse gases? If this so-called greenhouse strategy is released, will the Government ensure that the document and the process are subject to public submissions?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am sure everyone is aware of my interest in greenhouse issues, and I presume the honourable member is referring to a report on greenhouse abatement strategies that was issued today.

The Hon. Jon Jenkins: The Minister should read the speech I made last night on greenhouse gases.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will read the speech of the Hon. Jon Jenkins on greenhouse gases because I have a real interest in the subject. Recently I had the opportunity to watch a program on the ABC about the super volcano in Yellowstone National Park. The program convinced me that that matter is probably more important than the greenhouse issue. It was a very interesting program. If one followed the logic of that level of alarmism, one would want to increase greenhouse gases so that when the planet is thrown into the ice age that is predicted to be a consequence of a volcanic eruption, greenhouse gases could melt some of the ice so we could live.

It becomes very complex when we start talking about environmental issues, particularly if alarmism is thrown into the picture. People end up being totally confused by some of the ideas being thrown around. I certainly cannot comment on a document I have not read. As I said, I will read the speech of the Hon. Jon Jenkins with interest, but I will do so in the context of the emerging fears about the super volcano in Yellowstone National Park.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Minister for Economic Reform, Minister for Ports, and Minister for the Hunter. Is the Minister aware that the Attorney General recently advertised for a Manager, Correspondence and Complaints, on a total remuneration package of $104,000, whilst the Department of Commerce apparently cannot obtain legal advice and is advertising for a senior solicitor, also on a package of $104,000? Is the Minister aware also that the Department of Commerce is advertising for a Talent and Knowledge Specialist, on a salary of $86,000 per annum, and a Designer, Marketing Branch, at $75,000 per annum? Can the Minister assure the people of New South Wales that these jobs are necessary and represent good value for money? What plans does the Minister have to implement industrial and workplace reform as part of his so-called agenda for economic reform?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am glad the honourable member is taking an interest in matters to do with economic and industrial relations reforms because my colleague the Minister for Commerce and Industrial Relations had a very eloquent response to some of the positions the Federal Government is adopting on industrial relations reform. It will be interesting to see whether he will respond to the Minister's interesting comments. In relation to those particular jobs I have full confidence that the Ministers who are responsible for each of those areas will apply the appropriate scrutiny to those particular positions through their respective management structures.

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Earlier the Hon. Charlie Lynn asked me a question about pizzas. It is very interesting because I recall when I was trawling through the previous Government's exploits in this area that one day they ran out of food at Long Bay gaol and they rang up Pizza Hut to deliver pizzas for the prisoners.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: That was Goulburn gaol.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: You would know about it better than me, wouldn't you? I am advised that no pizza delivery driver has been found wandering through the centre.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

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

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

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

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

Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.

Debate resumed from 6 April 2005.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [2.36 p.m.]: I had the privilege to serve on this committee in a substitution role for the Hon. David Oldfield. I spent quite a lot of time on the North Coast meeting with various interest groups about the Casino to Murwillumbah train service. At Lismore the committee met with the mayors in a meeting that was well attended by the community. There were further meetings at Murwillumbah and Byron Bay. I have been on the North Coast now for in excess of 16 years and I have never seen an issue cause so much discontent and concern as the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah train service.

There is a view on the North Coast that it is one of the most picturesque and environmentally beautiful regions in the State and local people are justly proud of their area. Each year large numbers of tourists visitthe area. In Byron Bay alone in excess of one million young people travel there each year from various parts of the world. To close the Murwillumbah train service in the way that the Government did, after initially promising that the service would remain open for a certain period for investigations to take place, and then deciding, certainly without consultation with any of the people on the North Coast, that the service would be closed after all—and closed immediately—was one of the most cynical exercises that I have seen.

The Federal Government is so concerned about the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah train service that it has placed something like $30 million on the table to assist in maintaining the line, the track work, the bridges and the infrastructure, in the hope that either the Government or a private operator will introduce a new service. The area from Casino to Murwillumbah is populated and a number of industries would have the potential to use the line. If by some miracle the line were extended the 22 kilometres to the Coolangatta airport, it could be expected that the line would attract a large amount of freight that would otherwise go up the inland route.

It seems to fly in the face of logic—not to mention cause insult to residents, who are attached to their train service just as they would be to any infrastructure the Government allowed to run down or dismantle—to undermine and close a structure such as the Casino to Murwillumbah train service, which is in one of the fastest-growing areas in this State and is an attractive area for tourists. The Casino to Murwillumbah train service is part of the local area. It is tragic to stand on the Murwillumbah station platform and look at the heritage buildings, the hills behind Murwillumbah, and realise that this important part of the community is being allowed to fall into rack and ruin. Grass is now growing over the train tracks and each day the bridges are falling further into disrepair. The inquiry conducted by the Parliament raised such interest in the area that, even this long after its closure, it is still the issue that local residents are most concerned about when talking to members of Parliament. Despite concerns about family, jobs, housing and the community, this is the most important issue for them.

I attended the mayors meeting at Lismore and was amazed to hear local people stand up and express their concern with such conviction. It was as if the Government was taking away from them something fundamental to their lifestyle and existence. The train service is that important. Many people only travel by train and the fact that a large number of them are from a disadvantaged part of the community has made local response even angrier. The Government should not target the disadvantaged by saying that if they use the train service they should pay their way; that runs contrary to all our recognised democratic principles. The Government has an obligation to provide infrastructure such as the Casino to Murwillumbah train service.

One significant finding of the report is that because of the terrain and the many rivers, a large numberof bridges are located on that line. On that line there are in the order of 168 bridges, which represent around one-third of the total railway bridges in New South Wales; a significant amount of money would be needed to maintain that infrastructure. It was demonstrated to the committee that the arrangements in place at the time of the closure, together with the funding that was provided—I think in the order of $2 million to $3 million per year—were sufficient to maintain the service until either a private operator came along or the Government decided to provide another service on the line.

With the prospect now that the Federal Government will provide funding, this is an opportunity for an entrepreneur or a compassionate State Government to look at the area, the line and the people affected by it, and acknowledge the opportunity to develop infrastructure that is already in place. If the area continues to grow at the current rate—and there is no reason why that would not happen, given its location, climate, environment and other infrastructure—it is unrealistic of the Government not to maintain the rail service or, indeed, upgrade it. It was a great privilege to serve on the committee and to be able to see first-hand the concern of the local community. I hope that, as a result of the committee's inquiry and the publication of the report, the Government will look at the service again and give local people the opportunity to develop what is a real asset to this State, one that should be properly maintained.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.45 p.m.]: The Government announced as part of its mini-budget that it would close the Murwillumbah XPT service in April 2004. At that time the Greens said—and still believe today—that this was a mistake, which is exactly what the committee's report concluded. New South Wales is sliding into an infrastructure crisis. The decision to keep on closing country rail lines is part of a broad-reaching failure to invest in adequate infrastructure. The decision to cut the Casino to Murwillumbah rail link was widely opposed in northern New South Wales. A number of rallies and protests were held in Lismore, Mullumbimby, Casino, Murwillumbah and Byron Bay.

The mayors of Lismore, Richmond Valley, Byron shire and Tweed shire councils all opposed the closure. There was cross-party opposition to the closure. Even the Australian Labor Party State conference opposed the closure. The committee of inquiry received 263 submissions, an indication of the broad public concern about this issue. The submissions were from diverse sources such as private individuals, doctors, members of The Nationals and Country Labor, chambers of commerce, local government, businesses, unions, and community and welfare organisations. During the hearing in the northern rivers region the remarks of the honourable member for Lismore were appropriate when he said:

The community feeling about the loss of this rail service is unprecedented during my term in Parliament. Everyone has been firmly behind the campaign to retain the rail service.

That was the experience of members of the committee. I have served on a number of committees, the first being an inquiry into the amalgamation of local councils, the second or third being this inquiry. What characterised both of those inquiries were the strength of public feeling and the preparedness of the Government to antagonise communities and to plough ahead, despite input from those communities, which drew the Government's attention to the ill-effects of this course of action that had been already undertaken. Community members wrote hundreds of letters to the Government and to their local papers.

Virtually all politicians and political parties in the Northern Rivers area were united in opposition to the closure. Despite this, the Government decided to go ahead and, as a result, saved a insignificant amount of money in its 2004 mini-budget. The social impacts of the closure on the people of the Northern Rivers area have been considerable. The report makes note of these and I draw the attention of honourable members to comments on the impacts of the closure on the frail aged and those with disabilities and special needs. Mr Parker from the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association told the committee:

Being a group of old people, some of our members have mobility problems and they depend on the train to visit family and friends in all parts of the State. They find it is more convenient and comfortable to travel on the train, as it has facilities for people in wheelchairs or on walking frames, plus it has toilet facilities with easy access.

Buses are usually narrower and have steeper stairs. Getting on and off them is not easy. The Government is being discriminatory in withdrawing more accessible rail services. Even though the coaches that have replaced the train are required to be wheelchair-accessible, there are complications for users due to the physical layout of the coaches and the fact that they have only one staff member, the driver, to assist passengers who are in a wheelchair or who have mobility problems. Spinal Cord Injuries Australia and the Tweed Heads branch of the Blind Citizens of Australia made these points to the committee about the inadequacies of coach services. Those who need to travel into Lismore or to Sydney to access specialist medical services could do so on the train. Dr Gudmundsen, a dermatologist from Lismore, submitted that:

My patients should not be denied public transport to specialist health facilities because they live in the country rather than in a major city.

The loss of the train service prevents people with mobility problems from travelling to see friends and family, and from having easy access to appropriate medical services. The Casino to Murwillumbah rail link provided a means of travel to both Sydney and Brisbane, as well as between the inland areas of northern New South Wales and the coast. The committee's report makes a number of points about low-income earners. The region has a higher than average unemployment rate and lower than average household incomes. Many residents relied on the train to travel in the region. Councillor Dowell, a Lismore City Councillor and an Australian Labor Party member, submitted that the unavailability of public transport makes access to health, education and employment opportunities more difficult. The Mayor of Byron Shire Council, Councillor Jan Barham, made a similar point. In relation to young people, she said:

Every study and survey of young people indicates that inadequate transport is a major issue denying them access to training and employment. Young people are the future of this region and this country. Where is the consideration for them in this decision to cut this rail service?

The committee heard that the closure will also impact on local businesses and result in job losses. The Government said that the rail line was inefficient and poorly patronised. Yet we all know of the extensive commuting between Tweed Heads, Byron Bay, Lismore and Casino. A lot of people drive their cars to work and travel between towns in the region. If there were train or even light rail services between these towns, running at convenient times that suited working people, undoubtedly patronage of the rail line would increase. Rail is a manifestly more efficient, safer and less polluting way of moving people than road transport. Data from the Australasian Railway Association shows that rail causes only 0.4 per cent of total greenhouse emissions and only 2 per cent of transport emissions.

Rail is also a safer way of travelling. The relative risk of fatality is five times less for rail travel than for road travel. The roads in the Northern Rivers region are already congested, and there has been a significant and unwelcome increase in large B-double trucks on the roads. There is also a significant number of fatalities each year on the roads in the Northern Rivers region, and the report provides details of this aspect. Adding to road traffic will increase the number of fatalities. If the 133,000 passengers each year who formerly patronised the rail service use a bus service instead, it has been estimated that this will result in an additional 2,900 buses on the road each year. Before it was closed, an average of 365 passengers patronised the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line each day, despite the timetable being designed to discourage rail use.

There is no doubt that the rail system in New South Wales needs major work. Train fares are too expensive, trains are too slow and there are speed restrictions on the track. The result is that many people are obliged to take alternative forms of transport, such as cars or buses, simply because they are faster. Train services in places like Europe and Japan are properly funded, which means that they are the public transport of choice because they are faster and more efficient than road-based transport. Investment in rail in New South Wales and in Australia is important if we want to cut down the numbers of trucks on our highways, move freight more efficiently and reduce polluting emissions.

The population of the Northern Rivers region is growing at a higher rate than the New South Wales average. Transport links between Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Byron Bay, Lismore and other regional towns in the area will become more important in the future. If a decent rail service is available, people will use it. Mr John Vaughan made the point to the committee that in that region there are significant population growth areas such as Kingscliff, Casuarina, Pottsville Beach, Ocean Shores, Lennox Head and Ballina. These areas are nowhere near the current rail line, but that is not to say that they could not be linked with it in the future. The Government should also examine smaller commuter rail options for this area, and possibly investigate the use of light rail. [Time expired.]

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [2.55 p.m.]: The Casino to Murwillumbah rail line is known locally by some as Australia's Burma railway. That reflects what an incredible engineering achievement it was to build that line. It was built mainly by hand in sections more than 100 years ago, and it is regarded with enormous affection by the whole community. That was demonstrated by the outpouring of grief and anger when on 6 April 2004 the Government made the shock announcement that it would be closing the rail line. When the Government made the announcement it breached a promise it had made to the community that there would be a 12-month moratorium, which was not due to expire until December of that year, and that there would be no changes to rail services. The Government's dishonesty brought all politicians into disrepute.
Even as late as May 2004, shortly before the line closed, many of us did not believe that it would happen. It was not until the notorious night of the vigil, which I spent at Lismore station, where the XPT was blocked and prevented from leaving for some time, that we realised that the line would be closing and that the XPT would not be coming back on that line. The Government realised that it was closing the railway line about a week short of its centenary; it proceeded to publish beautiful glossy publications about the centenary and the glory of the rail system in New South Wales, but the Casino to Murwillumbah line had been completely omitted. However, the history of the Casino to Murwillumbah line as one of the greatest engineering achievements in the world is significant and integral to the history of the development of the Northern Rivers area.

The upper House inquiry was held at the request of the community, and I was proud to be part of the inquiry, as I am proud to be part of the community that showed so much fight to save a railway line that is so special and means so much to everyone in the region. During the inquiry we held three public hearings, in Lismore, Byron Bay and Murwillumbah. At Lismore we heard from Merv King, who famously lost his temper that day—one never sees the Mayor of Lismore lose his temper. His passion and emotion were very moving. Ernie Bennett and Charlie Cox are sensible, hardworking members of their community. All the evidence given by witnesses in Lismore made a remarkable contribution to our inquiry. I thank them, as I thank all the witnesses in Byron Bay and Murwillumbah.

In Murwillumbah we had the privilege of hearing from Jim Galloway, who is a former manager of CountryLink at Murwillumbah rail station. I am sure honourable members will recall the way he discussed the provision of a rail service and how much he enjoyed helping people plan their holidays and following up with them after they got back. He was everything one would hope for in a railwayman concerned about his passengers and their comfort and needs. Throughout the public inquiry one could not help but be moved, if not heartbroken, by the stories we heard. Most days more than 100 people were in the audience; one could have heard a pin drop as everyone listened intently. The community participation not only in our inquiry but more broadly was extraordinarily courteous and constructive at all times, and was a great credit to the Northern Rivers community.

This report is marvellous because it draws together so much information on many aspects of running a railway line, from the physical infrastructure, to the passenger services, to the history, to the maintenance, to the future. The staff—Stephen Frappell, Ashley Toms, Natasha O'Connor and Hansard—did a brilliant job supporting us, often in tense and trying circumstances. It was a privilege to work with them. CountryLink conceded it is now the biggest bus company in Australia. We dealt with a lot of concerns about the tendering process—how virtually all the local bus companies were excluded from the tender and continue to be excluded. I believe, all this time later, that we still do not have a conclusion to that tendering process. No wonder people feel lied to and that the whole process was a shonk. We heard amazing evidence from people who are disabled and from people who represent the disabled community about the humiliation of trying to transfer from the train at Casino to the bus. One poor fellow was stranded on the platform for three hours. All those promises about accessibility were broken.

From the inquiry we learned that CountryLink pricing is irrational. Nobody could justify it. Jill Brennan, representing the Association of Independent Retirees at Lismore, offered on behalf of the pensioners to pay an administration or booking fee to contribute to the cost of the fares to help make the service more viable. It is this Government's policy—as it is for many governments—that pensioners in New South Wales will get two free return rail tickets to a destination of their choice each year. CountryLink should not have to fund the cost of that Government promise; it should be funded from a different bucket of money.

CountryLink is responsible for running as efficient a rail service as possible. It is unreasonable to expect the Casino to Murwillumbah line to bear the cost of a social policy to support our older citizens and to still be viable. I believe that was a major factor in the Government's calculations when it decided to target that line for closure. The Government did not properly or fully fund concessional fares, and they ought to be properly and fully funded. The rail system cannot be run properly until that simple fact is recognised and the funding is worked out rationally.

It was clear that for years the money allocated to maintain the line had been diverted and converted into concrete sleepers on the main line. Everyone knew the Government was taking this money from the Casino to Murwillumbah line and that it intended to come back to that line at a later date, once the main line had been secured. The main line was transferred to the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the State Government was left with the branch line, which the Government then said was in such poor condition that it had to be closed. One can imagine how frustrating it is to the community when money that should have been invested in maintaining the line was diverted elsewhere and then the place to which that money was diverted was transferred to the Commonwealth. The community was left with a line in poor condition, which then had to be closed because of that shabby treatment. That situation caused part of the anger in the community, and the committee demonstrated that in its report.

The committee heard a lot of evidence from people about the need for a commuter service. A commuter service could be established on that line, particularly for education, health and recreational clients in the region. The way the line runs is absolutely perfect. It connects Coffs Harbour to Lismore to Byron Bay to Murwillumbah. Lismore is the centre of education and health in the region. A rail commuter service is ideal for the needs of people from Byron Bay and Murwillumbah trying to get to the base hospital. People also feel that no consideration has been given to connecting Murwillumbah to Queensland. There would then be a through rail service to Brisbane, where all the teaching hospitals for the region are located.

When the committee was in Byron Bay Michael Maloney asked us to question the Government—which we did—about where the travel planners and local planners are for the region. After being referred from agency to agency, including Planning NSW, we discovered that there are no transport planners. They all disappeared in various restructures of different departments. Some planning was going on, but that was in Sydney. For example, replacing the train with bus services was planned in Sydney with no regard to the topography of the region, which is why we ended up with so many buses travelling empty all over the region and wasting so much money. The need for proper planning in the region was a major finding of our inquiry and some attention has been given to that. The decision to close the railway line when there was no transport strategy was a pre-emptive and foolish decision. It was the source of great anger.

I refer to the inequities and the waste of money we found: hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent on sleepers distributed up and down the line, which then had to be re-collected, and a $30,000 fence has been built at council expense. I thank all the local mayors. The Northern Star ran an incredible campaign, which has been nationally recognised with an award. Karin Kolbe and Neil Battersby were two leading campaigners in the community. I notice that the Northern Rivers Trains for Our Future has become incorporated and launched a new campaign: TOOT. The strength of feeling has not retracted one millimetre. I look forward to working with the community and to achieving a re-opening of this railway line in 2007. [Time expired.]

Mr IAN COHEN [3.05 p.m.]: I shall make some comments about this excellent report by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 into the closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah rail service. I was interested in this inquiry, and I went to one of the hearings. I come from this area, being a resident of Byron Bay for some 20 years. I have experienced the difficulties faced by people in the region. I commend the members of the committee for a fine report. The committee comprised members from various parties, including the Hon. Catherine Cusack; the Chair, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner from The Nationals; and Ms Sylvia Hale from the Greens. The ALP made a huge political and social mistake with this issue.

I know from living in the area that there is a paucity of public transport. It is difficult for people to get around, both for young people who do not have licences and for pensioners. We have heard about the difficulties people faced when getting onto the buses that replaced the trains. We have heard a lot about the poor timetabling of the trains as a deliberate or inadvertent ploy—we do not know why—to make it difficult for people to travel. In the past I have travelled from Sydney on the train, getting off at Grafton at about 2.00 a.m. and getting on a bus to travel further north. It is a difficult trip in that respect.

These services have been downgraded for a long time, to the point where there are massive problems on the roads in these areas, young people are unable to get around and people attending the major campus of the Southern Cross University in Lismore face difficulties. People have the opportunity to get an education in their local area, but they cannot get to the university because of the woefully inadequate train service—there could have been a creative use of this rail service. Of course, the service from Murwillumbah to Sydney is important. However, a creative and practical lighter rail commuter service interlaced into that service would have been fantastic for older people going to hospital, for young people without licences and for students travelling to the campus in Lismore. The Government has lost an incredible opportunity by breaking down this important community infrastructure and closing this rail line.

Many jobs have been lost. People have been working on the rail in this region for a long time. I want to return to some of the bread and butter issues of the region. Whilst there are expanded studies into the upgrading of the Pacific Highway, much to the chagrin of many people who are complaining about the danger of traffic in that area, there is a lack of attention to rail infrastructure. Ms Louise Doran, who is a retired community worker, stated during the hearing in Byron Bay on 10 June, at which I was present:

Most of us are terrified of driving on that highway given the number of trucks on it. And they do not stick to the speed limit. They are always passing you, even when you are doing 110 kilometres an hour on that new stretch of highway. Trucks and B-doubles continue to pass all the time. I have travelled by train from Robina to Brisbane, and coming back on that road at peak hour, with two lanes of traffic bumper to bumper, with trucks weaving in and out of the traffic, even on a wet road, is really frightening. I just do not want to be there.

Such comments are repeated time and again. There is carnage on North Coast roads because of traffic levels, speeding trucks and sometimes difficult weather conditions. People want an adequate public transport system so that they can sit back and relax while travelling. I am also concerned about Government evidence on the condition of bridges on that stretch of rail. It considerably overstated the cost of repairs needed. Some of the old wooden bridges can be taken apart in sections. A post can be taken out and replaced. The whole bridge does not need to be replaced. A lot of misinformation led to the downgrading of this incredibly important community facility, and the North Coast has been left further impoverished. Tourism is another important aspect in the area. Jan Barham, the Greens Mayor of Byron Shire Council, said:

Without a rail service to ensure the safe and unique opportunity that visitors could enjoy and explore in the region, people will be forced to travel on our roads. Already these are dangerous roads that have seen an increase in use by the freight industry, with B-doubles in particular making our roads unsafe. The highway that the Government had to give us has increased pressures on this area. For many who travel these roads regularly, freight vehicles create grave concern.

Time and again people say that freight on the highway is dangerous. Why can the freight not be put back on the rail? Why can the rail service not be upgraded? This inquiry was timely. Data was provided by Mr Collins showing that over the five-year period ending in September 2003 the crash rate on the Pacific Highway from Ballina to Brunswick Heads was 39.8 per 100 million vehicle kilometres. The crash rate on the Pacific Highway from Brunswick Heads to the New South Wales-Queensland border at Tweed Heads was 56.9 per million vehicle kilometres. Mr Collins also provided the following data on the number of people killed on the roads. From Grafton to Ballina over the five-year period ending September 2003 the Pacific Highway between Grafton and Ballina had 25 fatal crashes and 35 people killed.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Most of them locals.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Catherine Cusack. That is true. Time and again we hear of people we know personally being killed on the roads. I have a friend in Byron Shire who was in the first car after a fatal car crash. She had to render assistance. Those sorts of stories are not included in the statistics but such events traumatise the whole community. Rather than pouring so much money into the upgrading of superhighways to facilitate industrial vehicles, maintaining the rail infrastructure and improving local roads would get real credit for people. I am talking of credit in terms of people's lives. On the Pacific Highway between Grafton and Casino there were six fatal crashes and six people killed. On the Pacific Highway between Casino and Ballina there were 11 fatal crashes and 13 people killed. Such a waste of life is terrible. An important facility is being lost.

The opportunity to have local transport options interwoven with major transport options between Murwillumbah and Sydney is being lost. The opportunity in the future to extend the rail network, if it was kept in good working order, into Queensland is being lost. Buses are transporting people around the north of the State who otherwise would travel on rail. The buses in themselves are a danger, as I have said before. The buses back in to a crowded party scene at the Railway Hotel in the middle of the night—Friday and Saturday nights and all through the week. There is going to be an accident there when someone who is drunk walks out behind a bus. Who will be to blame? I blame the Government and in particular the former Minister for Transport, Mr Costa, for the shortsighted direction the Government took. It will suffer politically in the northern regions as a result. I commend the committee for the report. It has done an excellent job. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.15 p.m.], in reply: I thank the speakers in the debate. My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out the importance of the report and, more importantly, the infrastructure that has been lost because of the closure by the Labor Government of the Casino to Murwillumbah rail service. I thank the Hon. Peter Breen for his participation in the inquiry in the Northern Rivers region. As he pointed out, there was a great deal of community input. He mentioned that the Federal Government still has $30 million on the table. It is extraordinary that the Carr Labor Government is so utterly paralysed that it has not seized the opportunity to take up those funds and get on with the job of reopening the service, acknowledging that a previous Treasurer and a previous Minister for Transport made a major error.
The Hon. Peter Breen pointed out that the closure of the rail service flies in the face of logic given that the Northern Rivers area is maintaining a very high population growth and that the decision of the Government is an insult to the people of the Northern Rivers. For example, Murwillumbah railway station is overgrown and bridges are deteriorating as we speak. Committee members and others have pointed out that this is still the biggest political issue in the northern region. Recently the new Minister for Transport visited the Tweed electorate on the way to a holiday on the Gold Coast. He met a delegation that was hopeful that perhaps a fresh face in the ministry would be more positive than Mr Costa had been.

The Hon. Don Harwin: They are in the same faction.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: That is right, for the moment. The reaction from the large numbers of people at the visit by Mr Watkins was extremely cynical. The local people are very disappointed indeed. The latest reshuffle in the ministry does not seem to have done the Tweed any good.

The Hon. Don Harwin: He is such a poor member he can't even get someone from his own faction to change his mind.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Well, that is right. The Hon. Don Harwin points out that Mr Neville Newell, who is in the left wing of the Labor Party—Mr Watkins is also a member of the left wing, at least for the time being—has absolutely no impact on the Government and cannot get one of his factional leaders to change his mind on the biggest single issue affecting his electorate. At a public meeting that I attended in the Tweed last week I pointed out that Mr Newell had not spoken on this issue at all in the New South Wales Parliament on behalf of his electorate since before the last Federal election.

Mr Ian Cohen: Has he spoken at all?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I think he got up and muttered something about it in September last year—not very strongly, it has to be pointed out.

Mr Ian Cohen: "Napping Neville", his name is.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: That is right: Napping Neville. I mentioned at the public meeting last week in the Tweed that Napping Neville had not spoken for seven months on this issue. Somebody in the audience yelled out, "Oh, he did talk about beekeeping." I said, "It was not a very stinging speech, though, was it?" It is sad that a local member will not speak on behalf of his constituents in regard to the biggest single issue affecting his electorate. The closure of the Casino to Murwillumbah rail service is indeed a case study that demonstrates the low priority that has been allocated by the Carr Labor Government to delivering the infrastructure needs of New South Wales, and in particular the needs of non-metropolitan New South Wales.

The Hon. Peter Breen also pointed out, as other speakers have done, that the inquiry attracted input from witnesses on a multiparty basis—with the obvious exception of Mr Newell, who did not appear before the parliamentary inquiry to present his constituents' point of view. However, the committee heard from witnesses from the parliamentary Nationals, the Greens and the local Labor Party organisation, which had in vain put a motion on this subject before the conference of what used to be called Country Labor—I have not heard that nomenclature used for a long time. It may be that that organisation no longer exists.

The Deputy Chair of the committee, Ms Sylvia Hale, pointed out that the Government has ploughed ahead with the closure of the rail service in the face of community outrage, as it has done in respect of a number of other issues. It seems that community opinion in the Northern Rivers of New South Wales counts for nothing. Ms Sylvia Hale also pointed out that the savings that were announced in Mr Egan's famously brief mini-budget statement were insignificant. That is true, and that in itself was insulting to the people of the Tweed, as well as to the people of the Clarence, Lismore and Ballina electorates, who are directly affected by the closure of the rail line.

Committee members have also pointed out that members of Parliament gave evidence to the inquiry, including my colleagues the member for Ballina, Don Page, and the member for Lismore, Thomas George. Mr Ian Cohen, from the Greens, was present at the public hearing in Byron Bay. It was even more obvious that the member for Tweed, Mr Newell, did not turn up. Ms Sylvia Hale referred to the Government's line that there was poor patronage on the service and has pointed to a number of reasons for that. It was obvious from the evidence of witnesses before the committee, particularly at Murwillumbah, that some of the poor patronage—apart from the poor, and almost irrelevant in some circumstances, timetabling—was due to the failure of the Carr Labor Government to promote the rail service, not merely in the Northern Rivers but throughout the CountryLink network.

It was as though the Government did not want people to get on the train; it wanted to keep it a secret—in other words, it had, perhaps, a longer term agenda. Many witnesses, as well as members who contributed to this debate, referred to the numerous environmental and safety benefits of rail services over and above reallocating traffic to the already congested Pacific Highway and other roads in the area—for example, the ones used by the supposedly replacement bus service. It is a tragedy that there are so many road deaths on that section of the Pacific Highway, parts of which are the most notorious sections of the Pacific Highway.

We have existing infrastructure and alternative ways to use it in the future, as was demonstrated by the committee—for example, a light rail service that would be up and running fairly quickly—but the Government has closed down its consideration of these matters, it seems. That was further evidenced today by the lack of support Labor members who served on the committee had for the recommendations of the committee's inquiry. Their silence was deafening, and they have backed up the comatose representation—if I can put it that way—of the member for Tweed, Mr Newell. They have applied some sort of weird self-gag so far as sticking up for the people of the Northern Rivers is concerned.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: They're embarrassed.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I suppose they have been embarrassed into total silence. No doubt, if I were a member of the Labor Party I would be embarrassed, too, not just in respect of this issue but in respect of a number of issues.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Except the local Labor Party people—they had plenty to say.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Yes, I have acknowledged that the local Labor Party membership spoke up. They had the guts to turn up, not only to make submissions but also to give evidence to the inquiry.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Jenny Dowell and Sue Dakin.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Jenny Dowell and Sue Dakin. The committee appreciates that. It takes courage to speak up against your party, and it is a pity that the member for Tweed does not do likewise. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.

Committee Reports Order of the Day No. 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang.

Debate resumed from 9 December 2004.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.26 p.m.]: I shall continue my remarks on the report of the inquiry into the Hunter Economic Zone [HEZ]. The inquiry was interesting and, at times, there was quite heated debate on this issue. Many members of the Cessnock Council area have expressed concern to Ms Sylvia Hale and to me by about a development under the auspices of the Hunter Economic Zone Ltd. That group had an interest in developing a particular area, an extremely sensitive area from an ecological perspective in a region where there has been a perceived and reasonable need for significant economic development. Hence, the Government had taken a great deal of trouble through its various departments to undertake appropriate investigation into the potential for an industrial park in what it knew was an important ecological zone.

That process was well under way when General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 received the reference to inquire into the matter. The positions adopted by members of the committee reflected the nature of the polarised perspectives of the general community. Conservationists and developers are often perceived as antagonists. A considerable challenge was presented to the committee in striking an appropriate balance in the opposing responsibilities on behalf of people and the environment of New South Wales.

A considerable amount of effort was put into working out how the report could be tailored to reflect the ideas and ideals of committee members. The representatives of the major parties, the Government and the Opposition, tended to take one side and the minority party, the Greens, took essentially a dissenting opinion on the matter. A number of hearings were held in Sydney and the Hunter area. Committee members also conducted an inspection of the site, and that was a good educational experience for them. The environmental assessment process associated with the Tomalpin woodlands and the Hunter Economic Zone industrial development has been both strongly criticised and strongly praised as an example of the whole-of-government approach to the facilitation of major investment projects.

The Greens members of the committee raised significant concerns regarding the valley floor of the Tomalpin area, and we maintain those concerns as being relevant. The Tomalpin area is inhabited by a number of threatened and endangered species, and provides significant biodiversity. Supporters of the development argue that the process adequately provides for environmental protection and that the development provides an opportunity to revitalise a region that has suffered from low employment since the decline in local coal production.

The environmental assessment process commenced in 1999 with the preparation of the first draft local environment plan [LEP]. The revised LEP was made by the then Minister for Planning in March 2002. The report focuses primarily on the environmental assessment process associated with the development applications lodged for the site post the rezoning of the land. In particular, the report examines the nature and effect of the interactions between the Premier's Department, the former National Parks and Wildlife Service, Cessnock City Council, and the proponent for the site.

It was an interesting inquiry, particularly the hearings I chaired in Kurri Kurri. I vividly recall Brian Gilligan, the former Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, giving his interpretation of the Threatened Species Act. In particular, he commented that the Act, in itself, did not protect the threatened species on site. It was a sad day for conservation in this State to hear a person whom we expected to staunchly defend threatened species effectively giving the go-ahead to this development. I was extremely disappointed to hear his remarks, which simply reflected the lack of support for our position from members of the bureaucracy.

The decline of the Hunter region is obvious from the economic downturn that is suffered. Clearly, the Hunter Economic Zone plays an important role in rejuvenating the Hunter economy and creating jobs. The committee attempted to assess an appropriate balance between development and conservation. It was the belief of a minority of the committee that the majority report had been edited to fit within very narrow confines. Whilst the terms of reference clearly indicated the need for a close examination of the role of the Premier's Department, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Environment and Conservation, the introductory paragraph provides an opportunity to examine broader issues of the environmental assessment process. Confining such an inquiry does not serve the interests of all parties, whether they be government officials, local council staff or conservationists.

As the minority, Ms Sylvia Hale and I sought to expand the boundaries of the committee so it could inquire into areas that potentially would provide valuable material. The process of gathering the material was, in itself, a valuable experience for committee members, as it was for the community members who had the opportunity to attend the committee hearings. Narrowing the parameters of the inquiry has impacted on the potential to gain a balance between development and our fragile environment. Most disappointing were the comments of the former Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, who was at pains to clarify that endangered species classification has never meant full protection of the species under threat.

For those concerned with the fragile state of our ecosystems and the perilous condition of endangered species in New South Wales, the comments were a loud reminder that we, in our zeal to protect the living standards of the current generation and encourage sectional profits, may be robbing from future generations. Perceived economic benefits have driven the project, yet the perception may have been overstated. Regarding jobs, figures of 10,000 to 15,000 have been bandied about. Yet, while the service sector is moving forward on job creation, the manufacturing sector is employing fewer workers. Stories of companies with large employment requirements relocating to the area have not materialised. As was raised in the original report, the developer made a substantial donation to the Australian Labor Party five weeks after the land was rezoned.
The issue of responsibility for infrastructure development is largely unresolved. The dissenting statement annexed to the report raises issues of imbalance that could see a potential for significant infrastructure costs being born by the ratepayers of New South Wales. Ms Sylvia Hale and I, as the minority members, oppose the inclusion of the Werakata National Park in the Hunter Economic Zone rezoning. We believe the inclusion in the Hunter Economic Zone boundaries is inappropriate and that the problem will be compounded by the proposed Crown land additions. The Government should not include the national park in formal statements when discussing conservation areas of the Hunter Economic Zone site. This fudging of the boundaries in protected areas was a major concern of the minority members of the committee.

Pursuant to standing orders debate interrupted.

CHAIR: Before proceeding with this bill, the Clerk has drawn to my attention the amendments of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes circulated on sheet C010B, which appear to be inadmissible. The object of the bill, clearly stated in the long title, is to ensure that offences under the Crimes Act 1900 relating to infliction of grievous bodily harm extend to the destruction by a person of the foetus of a pregnant woman other than in the course of a medical procedure. The amendments of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes seek to substitute the amendment to the Crimes Act 1900 proposed in the bill and create a new offence under the Crimes Act 1900 of killing an unborn child by destruction of a foetus or destroying or inflicting grievous bodily harm on a foetus, except in procuring a lawful miscarriage or any other act done with lawful cause or excuse. The rules regarding admissible amendments in Committee of the Whole are relevant. Erskine May states:

An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading, is not admissible. Where the scope of a bill is very restricted, the extent to which it may be amended at all may thus be severely limited.

The objects of the amendments of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes are inconsistent with the decision of the House on the second reading of the bill. This is particularly evident from amendment No. 2, which proposes to insert a new division 5A into the Crimes Act 1900 relating to killing or harming an unborn child, and also amendment No. 3, which proposes to substitute the long title of the bill with an alternative title reflecting amendment No. 2. Secondly, the amendments attempt to introduce into the bill a subject that should be a distinct measure. Thirdly, the proposed amendments are equivalent to a negative of the bill and would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading.

The House has agreed to the second reading of the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Bill and therefore the scope of the amendments that may be moved are restricted and must be limited to the object of the bill in the long title. None of the amendments of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes are cognate to the object of the bill in the long title and I therefore rule the amendments inadmissible.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.41 p.m.]: As I foreshadowed in the second reading debate, I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1, line 7. Omit "the foetus of a pregnant woman". Insert instead "a child in utero".

This amendment makes clearer what the bill is dealing with. The title of the bill, Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Bill, indicates that we are dealing with the issue of harm to a body. I believe it is more accurate and meaningful to use the words "a child in utero", as to do so would confirm the fact that this Chamber accepts that the victim is a child in utero and that that is the reason for the legislation. Without revisiting the matters canvassed in the second reading debate again, members are aware of cases in which children in utero were killed as a result of attacks on pregnant women. Therefore, I urge members to support this amendment. As I said in my second reading speech, the amendment is also in accordance with legislation passed by the United States Senate and Congress in March 2004 that contained the term "a child in utero". I believe that is a more accurate way of presenting the legislation. The amendment does not change the purpose of the bill in any way; it just makes the bill clearer and more accurate in its terminology.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.44 p.m.]: The Government cannot support the amendments proposed by the Christian Democratic Party. This bill codifies the judgment of R v King and adds to the non-exhaustive definition of what can constitute grievous bodily harm under section 4 of the Crimes Act 1900. This codification in no way limits the operation of other laws, either statutory or common, and in no way limits what can be found to be grievous bodily harm or some other type of harm against any person, including a pregnant woman. The definition is not an exhaustive one, and while it includes what grievous bodily harm may be, it does not exclude other harms that may constitute grievous bodily harm.

It is totally incorrect to say that women who are 55 days pregnant are not currently protected by the law. They are clearly protected by the law, and any person who assaults a pregnant woman, at whatever stage of pregnancy, will be guilty of an assault offence against her and can and will be prosecuted. If the subjective circumstances fall outside the non-exhaustive definition of grievous bodily harm, it does not mean that the charge will not be grievous bodily harm, it simply means that it is a matter of fact to be established by the court. There is no doubt, however, that it will fall under some form of assault depending on the subjective circumstances of each case and the injuries sustained by the victim.

The current drafting of the bill avoids significant causation problems that will be inherent in extending the definition in the way proposed. In the early stages of pregnancy there is a higher chance that a woman can miscarry for any number of reasons, and sometimes for totally unknown reasons. Each case will be different, but it may be difficult to establish causation in certain circumstances. The Government will not support the amendments as we are satisfied that all pregnant women are currently covered by the existing law and the amendments add unnecessary practical complications.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.46 p.m.]: I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that the Opposition has decided that its members will exercise a conscience vote in relation to this amendment and two other amendments proposed to be moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. The reason for that is that some members take the view that this amendment raises issues that really go beyond the scope of the legal argument that the Government appears to be putting in relation to the effect of the bill. For my part I think that the bill should be approached in a strictly legal fashion, and therefore I will support this amendment.

As it is drafted, the bill refers to the foetus of a pregnant woman, and the argument seems to be that there may well be a definition of some description applying to the foetus. In Black's Medical Dictionary and various other dictionaries, including the Australian Oxford Dictionary, the definition of foetus basically relates to the young in the womb eight weeks after conception. For my own part, I do not see the necessity to engage in a debate over whether that definition is correct or not when the intention of this bill is to protect women and protect the unborn. Therefore, I will vote in support of this amendment and the other two amendments moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.48 p.m.]: I appreciate the comments by the Hon. Greg Pearce on behalf of the Opposition. The Hon. Henry Tsang spoke to my three amendments. However, I moved only one amendment.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: I will respond in the same way.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: But I have not outlined the arguments for Christian Democrat Party amendments Nos 2 and 3. The Chair asked me to move only amendment No. 1 because of an amendment foreshadowed by another member. The Hon. Henry Tsang was out of order to speak to the three amendments given that I moved only amendment No. 1, which merely seeks to change the definition.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: I was giving notice that the response will be the same.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [3.50 p.m.]: The Minister has advised me that the amendment is symbolic and will have no practical effect on the bill. The symbolism is in referring to the foetus as a "child"—in other words, humanising the language. The intent of the mover is clearly to create a concept that the foetus is human, ergo a person and ergo an individual with some form of rights. The Government is adamant that the bill has nothing to do with abortion and resists the amendment because it appears to have been moved for pro-life reasons. The Government does not want this bill to become entangled with the anti-abortion debate.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Are you speaking on behalf of the Government or on your own behalf?

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: No, I am giving the Committee information about the advice I have received.
The CHAIR: Order! Interjections are disorderly at all times. It is very difficult for honourable members to hear if there are continual interjections. I ask the Hon. Catherine Cusack to ignore the interjections.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: This is a complex matter. Indeed, its complexity has taken many members by surprise, even though it involves only a small number of words. I seek to place on record information I have been given that has assisted me to deal with this complex issue. The pro-life movement, as I understand it, is seeking to develop in law the concept that a foetus is not so much a heap of protein but, rather, a person, a human being with rights like everybody else.

I agree with the Government that it is not productive to use this important legislation to advance an anti-abortion agenda. The bill is necessary for a number of other excellent reasons and I would be disappointed if the bill were to be undermined by a different agenda. The anti-abortion issue should be run on its own merits, not using tricky tactics. Issues that concern the beginning and the sanctity of human life are too deep and profound to be dealt with by trying to slipstream off ancillary issues. I say this as someone who could, in the right circumstances, vote pro-life, but only in an up-front and open manner, not through a side attack on important legislation that protects women and their unborn babies against deliberate harm or murder in cases envisaged by the bill, including domestic violence and road rage.

I regret also that the amendments were only circulated yesterday—and some are still being circulated now—after the commencement of the second reading debate. It is not satisfactory to expect members or the community to process the matters in such a short time. This point weighs heavily against the amendment because the effect is to undermine confidence in our ability to give the matter proper and thoughtful consideration. Having said that, I am of the view that my colleague the Hon. John Ryan yesterday made a very persuasive case that the amendment is symbolic and consistent with the idea that unborn children are just that—children in need of care and protection, and what could possibly be wrong with that?

The symbolic issue is not small; it is a large issue. It raises the question of when do we believe that human life begins. The amendment states that it begins at conception, and I agree. Certainly, as a member of the minority in this Chamber who have actually been pregnant and given birth, I assure honourable members that I always considered I was carrying a young life. I treated pregnancy as a responsibility and believed that the new life should be treated with respect. But can, and should, this personal perspective translate into a public policy position? Clearly it cannot by itself. The issue is not a personal referendum for a select few in Parliament. We need a lot more information than our own life experiences, and I have tried to do my best to obtain that information in the short time available to me.

I am indebted to Dr Sue Page, National President of the Rural Doctors Association, for her discussions with me yesterday on this subject. I asked Dr Page when medicine considers life begins and she said that there is no definition. There are various ways of asking the question. The amendment, which seeks to introduce the idea of a child in utero, states that life begins at conception. A legal definition, as referred to by my colleague the Hon. John Ryan yesterday, refers to it as the moment a child draws breath. In the past this has presented an unfortunate situation for a doctor who had the sad duty of issuing a death certificate for a baby who apparently died at birth. The lungs were removed and placed in a tub of water to establish whether the baby had taken any breath.

The law requires death certificates to be issued for the passing of any child after 20 weeks gestation. This then requires a funeral, regardless of the circumstances. My colleague the shadow Attorney General has advised me that a foetus is defined in law as being eight weeks gestation. This definition is taken from a legal dictionary. Dr Page suggests that eight weeks is something of a milestone because research shows that 10 per cent of pregnancies fail prior to eight weeks; after eight weeks there is a 90 per cent chance of success.

A further significant medical milestone is twinning. Dr Page advises that twinning, or the subdivision of the fertilised egg, does not occur until four days after conception. This advice presents an enormous problem for the amendment. If we define life as beginning at conception, then four days later that single life can become two, three or more lives. The legal complexities are mind-boggling. I sympathise with the intent of the amendment, but it would appear to me to be an impractical choice of words. I am also adamant that this is such important legislation that we must do nothing to jeopardise its value, and I would not wish to support anything that could inadvertently make it more difficult to prove cases of grievous bodily harm against offenders who assault pregnant women, particularly in cases involving domestic violence or road rage. For those reasons, on balance, I will not support the amendment.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [3.57 p.m.]: I speak on my own behalf, as the Opposition will allow its members to vote with their conscience on this amendment. I am confident that the bill will pass. I note from conversations I have had with a number of people that there is general support for the thrust of the bill. It is a matter of individual interpretation whether the term should be "the foetus of a pregnant woman" or "in utero". It is my view that the Black's Medical Dictionary definition of "eight weeks" is impractical. That being so, no action could be taken in the case of an infant born with severe injuries that were sustained when as a foetus at seven and a half weeks its pregnant mother was assaulted and sustained grievous bodily harm.

A foetus that is eight weeks and one day could be considered to be low range, as it were, as opposed to high range. It is impractical that according to law the cut-off mark is eight weeks. The opinions of doctors could vary markedly on the mark: seven and a half weeks, seven weeks and one day, or eight weeks and one day pregnant. There would be debate surrounding the interpretation of a mother's medical condition, and that could lead to inconsistency. I support the amendment; it provides consistency but does not set any other precedent.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.59 p.m.]: I speak in two capacities: first, as an individual member of this House and, secondly, as the Leader of The Nationals in the Legislative Council. I indicate that The Nationals have decided to support this amendment. I do not for one moment indicate that my reasons for supporting the amendment are the same as those of my colleagues. Each of my colleagues has their own reasons for supporting the amendment. I would hate this to be seen as a referendum on abortion but, rather, as reinforcing how despicable it is to cause grievous bodily harm to a woman by assaulting her. Once again, I indicate that the members of The Nationals will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.00 p.m.]: I shall present my personal view. Once again I am heartened by the consideration that honourable members have given to this matter. They have given the amendment a great deal of thought in the short time available. I have considered the amendment long and hard but I cannot support it. The bill is about extending the definition of the infliction of grievous bodily harm to the destruction of a foetus; it is about the woman being the victim. The amendment, which seeks to attach a status to a child by creating a definition of a human life, would establish a difference in terms in the legislation that we are now debating. I think that all honourable members would agree that the bill, introduced following terrible circumstances, is important legislation.

It is necessary to recognise the offence of harming a foetus, but the bill provides for grievous bodily harm caused to a mother. Once a woman becomes pregnant I have no doubt she feels an emotional connection with the embryo or foetus. I agree that there is an emotional connection between a mother and the foetus throughout a pregnancy. However, causation is difficult to establish in relation to an embryo before it is eight weeks old; once it reaches eight weeks—and that why I assume the term "foetus" has been used—causation is easier to establish. Prior to eight weeks there is a much higher percentage of spontaneous miscarriages. The bill does not give status to a foetus, for a range of reasons, yet that is what the amendment is attempting to do.

Regardless of whether there is discussion about when human life begins, we need to be clear about the intent of the bill. We must also be clear that we do not make it more difficult to prove causation by attaching a status to the age of an embryo or foetus. Therefore, we need to ensure that we do not make it more difficult to establish causation. I support the Government in ensuring that the bill will not affect the current law with respect to the lawful termination of a pregnancy. I am concerned that seeking to amend the terminology is an attempt by whatever means to establish the definition of the beginning of human life. I agree with my colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack, who presented the argument eloquently, that that is a different debate. This debate is about grievous bodily harm.

I take on board the comments by the Hon. Henry Tsang, who said that the law provides protections for pregnant women. I acknowledge the horrific circumstances that have brought forward the bill. We need to understand that at common law an unborn foetus or embryo does not have rights until birth. In my view, and in terms of the advice I have received, there are no rights until birth, and to legislate in the way that this amendment is worded grants them a different status from what is currently applied. It is easier to determine the definition of "foetus" once it is older than eight weeks. I understand that the definition of "foetus" relates to a foetus that is more than eight weeks because certain formations have occurred by that time. The definition of "foetus" relates to a later development stage than that of an embryo, but neither the definition of "embryo" nor the definition of "foetus" refers to an unborn child. I have been unable to find a definition of "unborn child". So it seems almost a nonsense to refer to a term that does not have any status medically. While there is a medical definition of "in utero" the definition does not include the word "child".

This bill is not about the rights of the unborn child, because there is no status for or definition of "unborn child". It is about a victim, who is the mother. It is also about considering the effects of violence, of assault, of grievous bodily harm. It is about acknowledging the horrific circumstances that have brought about this legislation. It is not about using this legislation to create a precedent or terminology. That would be the thin end of the wedge; we would be on a slippery slope if the definition were used in other legislation. Determining when life begins is a separate issue for another debate. I ask all honourable members to consider that when voting on this legislation. I do not support this amendment, and I will not support subsequent amendments to be moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [4.08 p.m.]: First, this bill is important. It is a vital piece of legislation and I am sure it will be passed. Indeed, it is probably long overdue. I support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, because I think we are losing the plot a bit. There has been a lot of talk about academic definitions of when life begins, when life is sustainable, when an embryo becomes a foetus, and all the rest of it. I believe that the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile clarifies what this bill is about. Whether or not an unborn child has rights in the law, it makes no difference to the fact that the child has a basic right to expect to be born and to live a life.

We are dealing here not with a bill about legal definitions—at least, I hope we are not. We are dealing with a bill about cause and effect, the cause being an attack or some kind of violence offered to a pregnant woman and the effect that has on her, her pregnancy and her child. To suggest that a life is viable at eight weeks but not before simply begs the question. If grievous bodily harm to the mother stops the foetus from reaching eight weeks or stops it from being born and having the life expectancy that all created life is supposed to have, the effect is the same. The threshold is irrelevant. As far as I am concerned, if we do not have it in law, we have a moral obligation to regard the child in utero—as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile prefers to call it—as a potential human being which is entitled to whatever protection we can offer it and which is entitled to be grieved over when its life is cut short. I support the amendment.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [4.10 p.m.]: I support the amendment. I think the amendment is worthy of support because it clarifies the law and makes the intention of the law a great deal clearer than it otherwise would be. I was not able to listen to what the honourable member speaking on behalf of the Minister said about this amendment but I understand that the essence of the Government's argument against it is that all pregnant women are currently protected by the existing law and that the amendment advances unnecessary practical complications. If the second argument is true, the Chamber ought to consider those practical complications, but not one practical complication has been explained. There are no practical complications. There are more practical complications in having a definition that includes some stages of pregnancy but not all. This amendment clarifies the situation and would make this law easier to administer.

The other thing the Government said—and I am using the words of the Government so I cannot be construed as misrepresenting the Government's case—was that all pregnancies are currently protected by the existing law. If that is the case, why are we changing the law at all? If all pregnancies are covered, this law is not required. Obviously, this law is required—for two reasons. At the moment this law is established as a result of a judicial precedent. Judicial precedents are subject to another judge having a different opinion at a later time. One judge might decide that a previous judgment was in error and should be retracted, while another judge might decide to advance the precedent even further. It is important to establish what the law is. The people who have the responsibility for establishing what the law is are the members of this place. Parliament should say what the law is, so it is important for us to legislate so the law is codified. We have a responsibility on behalf of the community to codify the existing law and make it clear. If we are going to put people in gaol for an offence we ought to make sure what that offence is. I support the bill, and this amendment makes it even clearer.

There has been a lot of debate about the impact this amendment might have on abortion. It has no impact on that debate because it has nothing to do with the status of the unborn child. This bill and this amendment do not accord the unborn child one iota of additional recognition. If a pregnant woman loses that pregnancy, does that enhance the significance of the assault that had taken place on her? Obviously it does. This amendment will mean that all pregnancies are protected regardless of what stage they are at. Let us imagine a woman who is a couple of weeks pregnant and then, as a result of the criminal act of someone assaulting her, she loses that pregnancy. Is there a member in this Parliament who would not say that that woman had lost something, particularly if she had been anxiously wanting and expecting a joyous event? Even worse, imagine if she had been through the IVF technique and had achieved the pregnancy as a result of significant medical intervention. Would she not have lost something as a result of being criminally assaulted and losing that pregnancy?

This has nothing to do with the status of the baby inside her; it has entirely to do with that woman's feelings about her being pregnant. I say to people who want to advance the pro-choice view that as a result of the criminal act somebody would have taken from her her choice to become pregnant. Does that not deserve recognition in law? Of course it does. That is why I support the amendment. I do not believe we need to make a distinction about how long the pregnancy has advanced. A pregnant woman who is happy about her pregnancy and loses the baby as a result of someone's criminal intervention deserves to have that loss recognised at law. It does not matter whether the pregnancy was over or under eight weeks.

I can see the bizarre situation in court when someone will argue that it is not beyond a reasonable doubt whether the pregnancy had advanced eight weeks or not. There will be enormous medical argument about it. Consider the practical implications of the operation of this law. No woman who does not know for sure she is pregnant will be able to seek any redress under the bill. If the bill becomes law, she will need for all practical purposes to establish that at the time she was assaulted she was pregnant. I do not agree with abortion, but let us imagine she has discovered she is pregnant and has made no attempt not to be pregnant. Some louse removes that pregnancy from her as a result of a criminal act. If we take the view that it is a woman's right to choose—I do not necessarily subscribe to that view but I am asking members to bear with me—that choice should be recognised at law and it should not matter whether the pregnancy is six weeks, 12 weeks or 26 weeks. This bill is about protecting pregnant women and I see no reason why it should not protect all pregnant women as opposed to recently pregnant women. If we make the decision to recognise that the removal of pregnancy as a result of a criminal act attracts to it an additional criminal act—and I think it does—this amendment makes the law clearer.

There has been much debate about whether this bill impacts on abortion. I believe it does not. I know all members of the Government are opposing this amendment. I do not wish to make a political point but—in case members on the Government side are taking delight in members on this side of the House having different points of view—our side of politics has at least had the courage to give our members a free vote on this. There is the opportunity for all of us to vote according to our conscience. In my view that achieves the best outcome. These matters are enormously sensitive and they should be decided on the basis of conscience.

In any event, the Government has made no real case as to why this amendment does not improve the bill. It makes it clearer and ensures that all women who know they are pregnant and want to be and have that pregnancy removed from them are protected. If I had a pro-choice view and took the view that an embryo is not a separate person, I still believe there is a requirement to protect a pregnant woman—and that is protecting motherhood, is it not? This is a simple amendment. It clarifies the law. I see no reason to vote against it. I was waiting to hear an argument from the Government that the amendment created enormous complications and created legal loopholes. I did not. There is a lot to be said for this amendment. It makes things clear.

This is not a debate about abortion; it is a debate about respecting pregnancy. I believe pregnancy is something worthy of respect regardless of one's belief about abortion. I make it clear, in case people want to know where I am coming from, that I do not accept abortion is simply a matter of a woman's right to choose. I accept there might be special circumstances in which a pregnancy might be legitimately terminated. In most instances they would involve danger to a woman's life.

Abortion is certainly not something about which I am happy, nor a moral position that I support. Nevertheless, I see nothing in this amendment that is not worthy of support, that does not make the law clearer. If we were debating other amendments which seek to achieve the same objective by means of recognising the status of the unborn child there may have been reason to have a different debate. But we are not doing that; we are simply talking about whether a woman is pregnant or not. In my view the practicalities of this amendment are that it will apply only in circumstances in which it is able to be demonstrated before a court beyond reasonable doubt—remember, all those tests need to be met—that a woman was pregnant. If it cannot be demonstrated, if there is any doubt, the court would have to find that the offence had not occurred. The only circumstances in which it could be demonstrated would be where the prosecution has advanced as part of its case that the victim of the assault had been medically found to be pregnant and as a result of the assault the pregnancy had come to an end and the baby had been lost.

I do not think it makes a lot of difference whether the woman was four weeks pregnant. In practice very few women know that they are pregnant the day they fall pregnant. It does happen but the brutal truth is that most do not know. But it does not matter, and in one respect it should not matter. It has been said that it does not matter but it does matter in a court. This offence has no impact if it cannot be proved that the woman was actually pregnant. It would be simply a matter of a grievous bodily harm having occurred and it would be assessed in terms of whether or not there had been scarring of the female victim. To prove this offence you would have to prove that the woman was pregnant. I reckon it would have to be that she would know, and from the date that a woman knows that she is pregnant she is certainly entitled to the protection that this amendment would give. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [4.22 p.m.]: In my heart I want to support this amendment. That is what my heart tells me to do. But I suspect that at the end of the day I will not support it. I suspect this because I have to say in all honesty, unlike it seems most other people in the Chamber, I have not finally drawn a conclusion. One of the reasons that my heart tells me that I should support the amendment is that if a woman suffers grievous bodily harm, if she is kicked in the stomach or whatever and loses her unborn child at any stage in the pregnancy, I would like to think that appropriate action will follow. The reason we are debating this today is that there were apparently gaps in the law.

If a woman is pregnant we want to be able to make sure that at all stages of the pregnancy this applies equally. I think that is what Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile wants to achieve. That is certainly what he said. I have been a member of this Chamber for a long time. Sometimes I get a little cynical. I really would not want to be cynical about the amendment moved because I hope it is for absolutely the best intent. But when dealing with a matter as complex as this—I am not a lawyer and I am not a doctor—it is really disappointing that the amendment was circulated only when the debate on the bill began yesterday. The amendment was sent from the Parliamentary Counsel on 6 April. So the honourable member was aware for about a month that the issue would come up. I am really disappointed that the amendment was not circulated to us.

In the past 24 hours I went into all sorts of search engines on my computer to read about the consequences of the amendment. For example, I found a very enlightening letter of 6 February 2003 to the Hon. Mervyn Finlay, of the Criminal Law Review Division of the Attorney General's Department, from the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales. It dealt with manslaughter generally and then specifically with some of the issues that we are dealing with today. While various terms have been used, the commission did not see that changing the law was necessary in some of these respects. But in any case I think we are all agreed that the bill as debated yesterday was needed, and we have given it unanimous support.

We now come to how we deal with the amendment. The reason I am a little concerned is that the Government has not given an absolutely persuasive argument either as to why it has chosen to use the term "foetus" and why it would be more difficult to accept the expression "a child in utero". Neither side has given a compelling argument. I am more persuaded by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile about "at all stages of pregnancy" and that there might be issues about different times. But the Government said that if we adopt that definition it may make it harder to prove the offence. I would like better clarification.

I suspect that the Minister may need to intercede in the debate and not leave it to the Parliamentary Secretary because, like me, the Parliamentary Secretary is not a lawyer. I was not persuaded by what the Government said. But at the same time I accept that it has had the benefit of the drafting of the legislation and the Government has chosen to use the word "foetus", and there is certainly a medical understanding of foetus. That understanding generally relates to the fact that a heartbeat in an unborn baby is not present before seven or eight weeks. I think that it is clearer to establish a baby being alive when there is something that can be proved, and a heartbeat can be proved. But the Government has not given a clear explanation. Shortly I will have to vote on the amendment. If I have not finally drawn a conclusion I may have to take the conservative approach, which in this case will be to vote with the Government.

I accept that the original intention of the bill has nothing to do with abortion. We have made it quite clear that it is not about medical procedures; it is to do with grievous bodily harm. We know the cases that led to the bill. But the Government has had the benefit of the original advice from the Hon. Mervyn Finlay. It has had the benefit of time for consideration of various points of view put to it. It chose to use the word "foetus". I would like a better explanation from the Government about why it has chosen to do that. I guess I would like some explanation from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile as to why there seems to have been an apparent ambush of members. I do not say that lightly because I have general respect and regard for his position. But he would know that on some of these issues there is enormous anguish for some members.

I for one find myself in a very difficult situation. I suspect that, absent better explanation from either side, I will have to go with the Government on the basis that I am uncertain as to whether there are unintended consequences of accepting the amendment. Many amendments to bills passed in this place are accepted because on the surface they seem the right way to go but we later find that they have unintended consequences. Perhaps before we vote on the amendment there will be clearer explanations, particularly from the Government of its point of view, to enable me and other members who have not drawn a final conclusion to reach an understanding of the direction in which to go.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [4.29 p.m.]: I do not wish to speak at length on the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile other than to say that I support it. I endorse wholeheartedly the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, who highlighted the bizarre situation under the bill whereby a crime is committed when an eight-week-old unborn child is destroyed but no crime is committed with respect to a seven-weeks-old unborn child being destroyed.

Some honourable members may oppose this amendment because of a misguided but strong desire to stand as guardians to the right to abortion, but I think they should take into account the fact that this bill has nothing at all to do with abortion. I believe that they should give some thought to the grieving mother who was seven weeks pregnant and wanted her baby but now cannot have it because it has been destroyed, and to the fact that the law says, "No crime has been committed, but had the child lived for another week, the assault in question would have constituted a crime." What a tragedy that would be, what a miscarriage of justice, what an infamy.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [4.30 p.m.]: This is a very difficult amendment that we find ourselves discussing this afternoon, simply because the genesis of this matter is somewhat removed from what is in large part playing on the minds of honourable members—that is, the wider question of the sanctity of life and the point at which human life begins. This bill is designed to bring into force criminal sanctions against someone who has committed grievous bodily harm against a pregnant woman. Several honourable members—principally the Hon. John Ryan, who I think put it very well—have now made an important point, with which I would agree, that there has not been a satisfactory explanation from the Government as to why the particular definition of "foetus" has been chosen.

A number of honourable members who support this amendment have contributed to the debate and, I believe, have made a legitimate point about the inconsistencies and difficulties that will arise in regard to picking an arbitrary point of eight weeks. I accept that some of my colleagues have made a fair point about why there is some significance to the period of eight weeks, but this is a Government bill and, given that my personal view has always been that life begins at the point of conception, I would like to hear from the Government as to why it cannot reflect the decision that is the basis of this whole bill by choosing a point earlier than eight weeks as the definition that it is going to employ. Of course, as has been repeatedly stated, this bill is not about abortion. We are not talking about the termination of pregnancy; that is an entirely separate issue.

We are debating issues surrounding the infliction of grievous bodily harm to pregnant women and we need from the Government a satisfactory explanation as to why the bill cannot apply to "all" pregnant women. I believe that, if that explanation is not forthcoming, the appropriate thing for me to do will be to support the amendment. At the moment that is the way I feel I will vote on this amendment because they are my personal views on life. I think I will leave it at this point. As my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe very fairly stated, we need a bit more time than we have been given.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [4.33 p.m.]: I agree that we have had only a short time to consider this amendment. My preference would be to adjourn the debate for 24 hours and consider the amendment at a later time. However, I take it that that is not to be and that we will have to make a decision fairly shortly. I am of the opinion at the moment—we are deciding things almost in an instant—that an assault upon a woman that results in the loss of a foetus, a child in utero, a part of her or what is going to be a separate individual, is an assault and it should be treated as such. I believe medical decisions about the age of the foetus are irrelevant. I think medical decisions about what even caused the loss of the foetus are also irrelevant to our decision.

These medical decisions should be argued on a case-by-case basis in front of a judge or jury of our peers. I am leaning towards support for the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. I have often harangued members in this Chamber because I think that, because of the party structures—I understand the reasons why they have to exist—often our decisions do not reflect what people in the community want us to do. Being an Independent, I have the great privilege of often doing that. I asked myself what the average person in the street wants us to do. If a woman was assaulted when she was six weeks pregnant and lost the foetus or child in utero—whatever you consider that to be—would the general public, the average person in the street, want us to treat that, or run the risk of treating that, any differently from the case of a woman eight weeks and one-day pregnant? I have to answer the question this way: They would not.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [4.36 p.m.]: My comments relate to a point of clarification. If it is maintained that life can be identified or recognised, or whatever word we want to use, at eight weeks but not before, could someone in the Government explain to me how, from the moment of conception, the foetus manages to grow to be eight weeks old? My understanding was that without life there can be no growth. If the foetus is growing, is it then maintained that it is not alive? Could someone explain that?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.36 p.m.]: I thank honourable members who have participated in the debate about my amendment and for their sincerity. I apologise for the mix-up with my amendment. I have never before proposed an amendment that was planned as an ambush. When the debate commenced I asked of the Clerks, "Where is my amendment?"—because the amendments are usually here—but the amendments had not been passed to the Clerk by my staff. There was a lapse in our efficiency and I apologise to the Committee. I certainly had no intention of ambushing members. I forget which of the Clerks I spoke to, but I simply assumed the amendments would be here.

I appreciate the contribution of each honourable member. I know, and it is quite clear, that this bill does not deal with abortion. It states, "other than in the course of a medical procedure," which makes it very clear. We have it in black and white. The Hon. Catherine Cusack, quoting from advice she had received, mostly suggested we must not do anything that will encourage the abortion debate. I do not believe that was helpful to the debate on this amendment. Obviously, it may be a factor in the mind of the Government, if it gave her that advice.

The Hon. Robyn Parker emphasised the fact that the bill deals with the case of a pregnant woman. There are already in existence laws relating to offences involving injuries to a woman. This bill deals with what a woman is carrying in utero. Women are protected, as are men and children, from the infliction of grievous bodily harm and physical attack.

The purpose of this bill is to take the next step, when a woman is carrying a child in utero. I know this is a difficult subject for a male to speak about—obviously females are the experts on motherhood—but I think of my four children and seven grandchildren. I have never heard any woman say, "I am now carrying a foetus." They invariably say, "I am pregnant" or "I am carrying a baby." I know it is a medical term, but the dictionary I have states that the word "foetus" derives directly from the Latin word "fetus", meaning offspring or young one. So including "child in utero" is not a dramatic change, but it does give further protection to women who are pregnant. On the issue of violence against pregnant women, the Medical Journal of Australia, volume 161, dated 17 October 1994, states:

Pregnancy may be a stimulus for the first episode of violence or may prompt an escalation in an already abusive relationship. Jealousy, possessiveness, low self-esteem, stress, and rigid sex-role stereotypes have been suggested as some of the contributing factors.

The journal states at page 363:

In a study of domestic violence in pregnancy, Webster et al {page 466) found that 29.7% of the women presenting to the antenatal clinic of a major hospital reported a history of abuse, with 5.8% reporting abuse in the current pregnancy …

These figures are staggering: the more so as the researchers note that some married women were not "allowed" to be interviewed by their husbands and that others may have been afraid to disclose abuse because of the consequences.

We are probably dealing with the tip of the iceberg with regard to domestic violence against pregnant women. As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, I commend the Government for introducing the legislation, and I hope that my amendment, if passed, would in no way hinder the Government's implementation of the bill. It is certainly not my intention to hinder the passage of the legislation. However, I hope that the Government will give further consideration to the minor change of including "child in utero". I thank members for their comments.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, Minister for Fair Trading, Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [4.42 p.m.]: The Government has proceeded along the lines it has because it needs to avoid the sort of controversy that has occupied so much time of the Committee. The definition provided in the bill is an inclusive definition, rather than an exclusive definition. As the Hon. Henry Tsang indicated, the definition covers all pregnancies, as does the decision in Regina v King, which precipitated this legislation in codification of existing law. The argument that some pregnancies would be covered by the legislation and some would not misconstrues the nature of the legislation.

The Government has chosen to draft the bill in the way it has precisely to avoid the sort of argument that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's amendment raises—that is, as to when life begins. I am aware that honourable members have differences of opinion about whether life begins at conception or at some other time. However, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's amendment seeks to have the bill define life as having commenced at conception, that a child in utero is when life begins, and to commit this Parliament to a view that may be offensive to some honourable members.

The Government seeks to avoid those definitional difficulties and deal with the practical issue. The practical issue is addressed by this legislation. There is no need to go into a definitional argument about when life begins, and to seek to include such a definition in the legislation in a way that may cause offence to some honourable members and disagreement among them. I think honourable members are in broad agreement that violence against pregnant women should be addressed. There is no need to go down the path that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile proposes by way of his amendment. It adds nothing other than a definitional debate, which I believe some honourable members would have difficulty supporting. That is why the Government has drafted the legislation in the way it has.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [4.45 p.m.]: With great respect, I do not believe that the Government has clarified the matter. The Minister said that the Government has chosen the form of words set out in the bill because there is some dispute about a definition, and that the Government's choice of words is clearer. In some respects, eight weeks in a pregnancy is a long time. Many women are aware of the fact that they are pregnant long before eight weeks gestation. It may be a little self-indulgent to refer to one's own family situation, but I recall the time when my wife and I discovered that she was pregnant with our second child, Nicholas. It was not a planned pregnancy; we had not planned to become parents straightaway. My wife went to the doctor because she was feeling ill.

The doctor was unable to reach a diagnosis, and decided to carry out a pregnancy test. Within a few weeks of conception we discovered that Nicholas was on his way. Whilst the pregnancy was not planned, it was our choice to continue the pregnancy and welcome our baby into the world. If someone, as a result of a criminal act, had removed that joy from us, why should we have to go to court and prove that the foetus was eight weeks old, and not six weeks or four weeks old? Clearly, if a woman knows that she is pregnant, that is all that needs to happen. Arguments about the definitional issue simply do not arise.

I thought the Minister was going to argue that if the legislation uses the words "a child in utero", a judge might decide that the word "child" is a matter of insubstantial definition, and that if the judge did not believe that an embryo was a child there may be a problem. A judge might decide that an embryo does not become a foetus until the advanced stages of pregnancy. In those circumstances, I am sure even Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile would understand that through his amendment he might be doing something to the law that was far from his intention. If the Minister wishes to advance such an argument, I would be happy to listen to it. As members of Parliament we are seeking to have a definition of the law that is clear and does not raise practical problems.

As I said, we are not disputing whether an embryo is a person; we are simply defending a woman's right to choose to remain pregnant and protect her status of being pregnant. If her pregnancy is removed as a result of a criminal act, does that not constitute assault? In my view, it does. Regardless of one's view about whether an embryo is a person, many people make the choice to continue the pregnancy. If someone were to remove that pregnancy by a criminal act, and that were the only injury that occurred as a result of that criminal act, I believe the court should recognise that that has occurred. I do not believe that the Minister's explanation clarifies anything at all, regrettably.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, Minister for Fair Trading, Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [4.57 p.m.]: I have given up trying to convince the Hon. John Ryan of anything, because he obviously does not understand what I said. I said that if honourable members were to read the decision in the case of Regina v King and this bill, which seeks to codify the law, they would understand that clearly all pregnant women are covered by the legislation. If causation with regard to the loss of the embryo can be proved, potentially it is covered by the legislation. By way of his amendment Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile seeks to define the commencement of life as a child in utero at the embryonic stage, extending to the foetal stage. The bill was drafted in this way to avoid debates such as those that have been taking up the time of the Committee, about when life begins. The practical issue here is the protection of pregnant women, and the bill addresses that. Everyone seems to be in agreement about that. The rest of the debate concerns definitional matters.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [4.58 p.m.]: I ask the Minister a question. Is he telling the Committee that the Government's bill protects a woman who discovers that she is pregnant four weeks into the pregnancy, that the prosecution simply needs to demonstrate that she was pregnant and therefore she is covered by legislation regardless of what stage the pregnancy had reached, and that there would not be what I believe to be asinine arguments about the length of the pregnancy? Would it be necessary only for her to demonstrate that she had been pregnant? Would there be no arguments about whether the pregnancy was an embryo or a foetus? Is that what the Minister is telling the Committee?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, Minister for Fair Trading, Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [4.59 p.m.]: I will try not to lose my temper with the Hon. John Ryan. The Parliamentary Secretary read this out earlier and I will read it out again for the edification of honourable members, particularly the Hon. John Ryan. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary said:

The definition is not an exhaustive one. While it includes what grievous bodily harm may be, it does not exclude other harm, and may constitute grievous bodily harm. It is totally incorrect to say that women who are under 55 days pregnant are not currently protected by the law. They are clearly protected by the law and any person who assaults a pregnant woman, at whatever stage of pregnancy, will be guilty of an assault against her and can and will be prosecuted.

If the subjective circumstances fall outside the non-exhaustive definition of grievous bodily harm, this does not mean that it will not be grievous bodily harm, it simply means that it is a matter of fact to be established by the court.

I think that addresses the issue satisfactorily.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [5.00 p.m.]: I seek clarification from the Minister. Prior to reading that explanation I believe the Minister said in his previous contribution that a woman was already covered; that the law—

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: The common law.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: So why are we dealing with this legislation?

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: We are codifying the law. The Hon. John Ryan addressed that.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.51 p.m.]: I believe what the Minister read is not really helpful to this issue. Obviously, if a woman who happens to be pregnant is attacked and there is grievous bodily harm, that is an offence. That is what the Minister just said. This bill deals with what happens to the foetus, the child in utero, that she is carrying. The Minister just said that the woman would be covered by the law, and she always has been. We are just debating the child she is carrying in utero. The Minister should look at what he has just read. He is reassuring us that if the woman is only one week pregnant when she is attacked she will be protected; it will be an offence of grievous bodily harm against her if someone attacks her. We understand that; we are not discussing that. We know that she is covered by other criminal laws. We are talking about what happens to the foetus or the child in utero. The Minister's answer did not clarify that at all.

We all know that a woman is classified as a pregnant woman from day one of her pregnancy. However, would it be an offence if the child that she was carrying were destroyed? The bill uses the word "destruction". For the Minister's information, I am not trying to have a debate about when life commences. Obviously, I believe life commences at conception. I believe it would be past anyone's imagination as to how one could prove a case in court concerning the time from when a woman becomes pregnant. No one is trying to do that in this debate. We are not raising the issue about when life commences; we are simply talking about the child in utero.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, Minister for Fair Trading, Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [4.53 p.m.]: I do not think I can make it any clearer than I already have. I repeat the phrase:

If the subjective circumstances fall outside the non-exhaustive definition of grievous bodily harm, this does not mean that it will not be grievous bodily harm, it simply means that it is a matter of fact to be established by the court.

The definition is an inclusive one; it is not an exclusive one. In regard to the other issue raised by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile about the definition, I saw this amendment only yesterday. The way the amendment is phrased—I do not know whether some other work could have been done on it—it clearly tries to define when life commences.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It doesn't.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yes, it does. It says "child in utero", and it defines it as the embryonic stage or the foetal stage. That is what the amendment is seeking to do, and that is what it is seeking to inject into the debate. I do not see what value that has in the context of this debate—the Government is proposing to protect pregnant women. That is what we appear to be in agreement upon.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [4.54 p.m.]: It might help the Minister if he could focus on what those who are supporting the amendment are most concerned about. As the Minister says, the definition of "grievous bodily harm" is inclusive. The new definition of "grievous bodily harm" in section 4(1) is:

Grievous bodily harm includes

(a) the destruction (other than in the course of a medical procedure) of the foetus of a pregnant woman...

I think most honourable members who support this amendment are concerned that it then brings in the definition of "foetus" and makes it plain that "grievous bodily harm" does include the destruction of an eight-week-old foetus. The bill ought to cover any unborn child. It should not be potentially limited to and include only unborn children from that eight-week period.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, Minister for Fair Trading, Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [4.55 p.m.]: In response to the contribution of the Hon. Greg Pearce, the common law still covers any pregnant woman before eight weeks because there is no definition of "foetus" in this bill. I addressed that issue in my reply to the second reading debate yesterday. The Parliamentary Secretary also addressed the fact that simply of its nature it will, however, be harder to prove that the unlawful act caused the loss of the foetus under that eight-week period. There can be multiple causes of a woman losing a baby before eight weeks—it may have been an assault or it may have been something else. Causation issues are associated with that. For this reason, the so-called eight-week issue was not addressed in the specifics of the definition of "foetus". I know that other legislative instruments define "foetus", but this one has left it open. We must remember that this bill is deeming what is "grievous bodily harm"; it is not excluding anything. The definition of "grievous bodily harm" in the Crimes Act is non-exhaustive. The bill simply adds an extra example of what constitutes "grievous bodily harm".

The Hon. JON JENKINS [4.56 p.m.]: I want to clarify one thing. The Hon. Greg Pearce raised the same problem I am having. If the woman is pregnant and she is less than eight weeks pregnant—however that is determined—the problem is whether or not the embryo is classed as a foetus. The ambiguity that might arise and might be argued—and will be argued—by some legal people is as to whether this constitutes grievous bodily harm if the only result of an assault this woman suffers is the loss of the embryo or foetus, whatever one calls it. Nothing the Minister has said makes it absolutely clear that, regardless of where one thinks life begins—whether one believes it is at conception, whether one thinks it is at eight weeks or wherever one thinks it begins—that line is irrelevant. The bill should make it very clear that if a woman loses a pregnancy—for want of a better term—either side of that line it constitutes grievous bodily harm without any legal argument over whether the foetus was eight weeks old, seven weeks and three days old, or whatever.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.57 p.m.]: I would like briefly to clarify the point the Minister has been raising. I had my staff contact the Attorney General's office before we drafted this amendment. When we were told that, in the view of the Attorney General's office, the bill provided protection for an eight-week-old foetus we thought it was necessary to move this amendment. That was the interpretation given by the Attorney General's office. The Minister can check with the Attorney General on that.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.58 p.m.]: Earlier I indicated that I would oppose the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile on the grounds of ambiguity. However, after listening to this debate, I have found what the Minister has said more ambiguous than the amendment. On that basis, I am reconsidering my position. There have been a number of genuine requests from honourable members who are trying to understand this—we are not stupid; it is confusing and it is complex. I am now less clear about the Government's position and more clear about the amendment. I shall reconsider my position on that basis.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Clarke Mr Colless Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Mr Harwin Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Tellers, Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile

Mr Breen Dr Burgmann Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca

Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Parker

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

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: Order! Christian Democrat Party amendments Nos 2 and 3 as circulated cannot now be moved as they were consequential upon its first amendment being agreed to. If the term "child in utero" does not appear in the definition clause, it cannot be inserted into subsequent clauses of the bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.12 p.m.]: Another possible reason for the enthusiasm to augment the grid is to increase its value when it is privatised. This is a bad reason to augment the value of the grid as it involves paying present dollars to get back discounted dollars later. It also assumes that consumers will, willingly or unwillingly, pay more for a suboptimal electricity cost outcome so that the Government can hopefully make a bigger profit later. As the grid is a natural monopoly, it is better that it remain in public hands but that it has an independent regulator who is given the technical expertise to look at options. It might be noted that at one stage New South Wales had a huge overcapacity in generation, with a reserve plant margin—that is, an idle plant generation capacity at peak load times—as high as 73 per cent in 1986-87. The source of that information is page 21 of the 1991 Industry Commission report. This has wasted billions of dollars, and it emphasises the need for governments to have and use independent outside expertise to oversee the electricity industry.

That is all the material I gave to Minister Yeadon in August 2000. Tragically, since then no Minister has taken any real notice of the huge amounts of money that can be saved by demand side management. The Government has learned nothing. It boasts about the fact that we have cheap electricity. That is because we now have plants that are virtually beyond their use-by date and electricity has been so cheap that there is no money to build replacement plants. It is elementary economics that the cost of replacement is built into the cost of the product. If one is producing electricity from a plant that will last for 20 years, one builds in the replacement cost so that after 20 years one has made sufficient profit to build another plant. Yet the Government boasts about how cheap its electricity is and then when it must build a new plant it does a Mother Hubbard and says, "We will have to get the private sector in." As the Hon. Jon Jenkins pointed out, it is noticeable that all the plants are past their use-by date, with the exception of one group of boilers.

How much will the Government spend on this electricity? What sort of figures are we looking at? In answer to question No. 2035 of 2004, $1.4 billion will be spent on generation in the next four years, and in answer to question No. 2038—both of these questions were asked by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner—$6.2 billion will be spent on transmission and distribution in the next five years. If you add those two figures, you will see that $7.6 billion will be spent on electricity infrastructure in the next five years. That is how much money the Government is willing to spend. It is interesting that the cost of transmission and distribution is $6.2 billion. The Government will spend $7.6 billion to look at options other than to build if it can manage the demand side. It is the substations that are causing blackouts in Sydney at the moment. There is sufficient power—

[Interruption]

I acknowledge the interjection. I am sorry that the Hon. Eric Roozendaal is having a problem with democracy.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I wasn't talking to you.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The problem with democracy is that the outcome is not predictable.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Are you upset that we are talking? Is that what you are saying?

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The substance offended me as well. The problem is substations—in other words, distribution from the generators being stepped down and distributed to more local networks. It is not actual generation that is a problem. If there were better generation, the substations would not need to have the extra load; they could be relieved of the load. There were three controversial examples of this in 2000, but the two I wanted to refer in particular were the central business district augmentation, which cost $170 million, and other demand management schemes for buildings. I understand that one of those schemes involved the use of excess gas at Orica, which would have been an alternative to building a huge wire for $170 million. There was also one at Munyang, which cost $7 million. I recall that there was an option for greater use of gas as it was close to the gas pipeline, but this option was not used.

As it was controversial at that time, some of the people in demand side management asked the Government to set aside a fund for demand management; $10 million was put into that fund. I understand that the funds have not yet been spent because the Government has nothing to spend them on. In the meantime the Sustainable Energy Development Authority has been downgraded and, I think, swallowed by a government department and given no profile at all. All the while the Government is bashing out rhetoric about how progressive it is in terms of greenhouse gases. That shows what utter nonsense this Government talks. Yesterday at a crossbench briefing I asked Minister Sartor's staff whether the Minister had carried out any expression of interest processes for demand side management. I was told that none had been done. I pointed out that Victoria, at the time of the major blackouts in that State, conducted expressions of interest for demand side management contracts.

In essence, they said in those contracts that if they were to pay, electricity should not be taken at peak loads of what was on offer. I have no idea of the magnitude of those contracts. Presumably someone with a certain type of battery would say, "If you pay all our workers, our start up costs and a little more money, we will shut the show down. The workers can go home and have the day off." That may well be a cheaper option to building infrastructure that is used only a few days a year at peak load times. Those potential contracts from the EOI process were sitting in the bottom drawer in an office in the Department of Energy, or whatever it is called, in Victoria when that State was experiencing severe blackouts some time ago. In other words, no-one knew anything about demand side management, and when demand could have been produced, the contracts sat there while the State was in blackout. Minister Sartor's response that there had not been a demand side management EOI process was different from the answer I received to question on notice No. 1859 of 2004, which asked:

(1) (a) Have tenders been called for Demand Side Management of Electricity?
(b) Has funding been set aside for this purpose?
(2) (a) Have long-term building standards been set for Demand Side Management?
(b) If not, why not?

The answer I received was as follows:

(1) (a) and (b) Yes. The Electricity Supply Act 1995 requires all New South Wales electricity distributors to investigate demand management or non-network options before committing to expand or increase the capacity of their networks. This requirement is also repeated as a licence condition. Distributors allocate funding to meet these requirements to assess Demand Management options.

The Demand Management Code of Practice, which was recently revised and updated, provides guidance to distributors on satisfying this requirement. The Code requires distributors to:

• publish an annual Electricity System Development Review;
• issue a Request for Proposals to give proponents an opportunity to suggest alternative solutions to address network constraints; and
• evaluate equally the network augmentation and non-network solutions, taking into account all relevant costs and benefits in a way that is consistent with National Electricity Code requirements regarding new investment in network capacity.

Distributors must then report the results of their activities on an annual basis to the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability, which carries out an analysis and assessment of performance. The answer continued:
(2) (a) and (b) Yes. The Government's adoption of BASIX is an effective demand side management initiative to implement energy and water efficiency in new houses.

Interestingly, the answer—which distressed me—relates to electricity distributors. Real savings are not gained by distributors. If the electricity is an embedded generation or local generation, distributors are not needed at all; the electricity does not need distribution. Real demand side management would not involve distributors. Embedded demand side management, either by paying customers not to use less or by paying them to have embedded generation, is all right so long as what is paid by the Government is less than what it would have cost to build infrastructure and generate supply. In simple terms, if any entity is paid to generate its own power and the amount it is paid is less than the cost of the grid and distribution augmentation to supply power to the entity, the Government can come out ahead. It is sensible to think that a distributor would decide to pay an entity to generate power rather than find the funds to do so itself.

A separate regulator with considerable sophistication is needed. TransGrid has data from the substations. One of the greatest costs associated with making a demand side management option viable is the cost of supplying alternative electricity; that is to say, from the place at which it is generated—in the Hunter Valley or wherever—to the substations. The questions that have to be answered are: Is there a capacity in the big distribution line? Is there a capacity in the substation? Is there a capacity in the small local lines? TransGrid is the only entity in possession of specific data on power station loads and their projected future loads. So the figures for TransGrid have to become transparent to a sophisticated separate regulator. At the moment, if TransGrid keeps those figures commercial in confidence, no-one else can make a costing of demand side management as against a network option.

Therein lies the problem. If a regulator is not sophisticated and is working at a micro level, it cannot optimise the alternatives to networks and generation. What bothers me is that a suboptimal solution will be all that can be achieved by an ignorant government that is prepared to steamroll ahead and spend $7.6 billion without giving an independent regulator a look-in. It seems an outrageous allocation of resources in this State that over the next five years $7.6 billion will be spent on electricity generations when we have to scratch around to find a few hundred thousand dollars for community services. The Government's record on greenhouse is again, sadly, the source of some considerable embarrassment. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked the Government question No. 2037 of 2004, which states:

(1) What amount of green power was produced in NSW in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004?
(2) What percentage of green power has been purchased in NSW in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004?
(3) How many consumers have taken up the offer to purchase 'green' power in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004?
(4) What percentage of total consumers does this represent in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004?

The following answer was provided:

(1) Green Power is a Government-accredited national program that sets stringent environmental and reporting standards for renewable energy products offered by electricity suppliers to households and businesses across Australia. The annual Green Power audits do not provide production information on a state basis, only national information.

(2) For the reasons are detailed in (1), it is not possible to provide percentage purchases. However, the total purchases for the requested time period are:

2000/01 -233,319 MWh
2001/02 -213,066 MWh
2002/-3 -153,638 MWh

(3) 2000/01 -20,263
2001/02 -18,221
2002/03 -13,477

(4) 2000/01 -0.66%
2001/02 -0.595
2002/03 -0.43%

It is disappointing that the Government does not have its own figures; it is relying on Federal figures. How assiduously are they being collected? The amount of electricity in megawatt hours is declining, as is the percentage of customers. What sort of progress is that? It is not very much. The answer provided to my questions about demand management referred to BASIX, which is the building sustainability index. The index for new buildings was available from 1 July last year, from which date all new building applications were required to rate buildings based on electricity and water use.

My understanding is that existing buildings will have to be rated from 1 July this year when a development application for them is submitted. Interestingly, a rating is not required at the time of sale. The Government is obviously very sensitive about energy-inefficient buildings not currently being seen to be energy inefficient at the time they are sold. So the position for consumers will be buyer beware. The Government certainly will not do anything that might touch property values, even if the ratings would help to identify which houses are not water and energy inefficient. So the Government's commitment is not what it might be. Rather than the consumer being provided with a realistic assessment when he or she buys a house, it will be up to them to go to the web site, assess the house and then arrange for their own rating, which I gather is possible, to enable them to decide which house to buy. But houses will not have to be rated yet.

The New South Wales Government produced the Energy Directions green paper in December 2004. The paper was something of a farce. It was all things to all people. The executive summary states that the reforms have been successful, and that electricity prices have fallen in real terms and are amongst the lowest in the world for both residential and industrial consumers. That is terrific stuff if you are into industrial development on a 1950s model. However, if the Government has totally obsolescent plant that needs replacement and has no money to replace it, that approach would seem a bit silly. Also, if you are priding yourself on reducing demand for processes that produce greenhouse gas, pricing electricity very low and boasting that it is the lowest in the world is scarcely helpful. I do not know why it would be called a green paper; it might be called a brown paper. The paper praises the Government for having greenhouse targets. What it does not mention is that they have not been met and are not enforced, and that the targets are also incredibly modest. There seems very little progress in the understanding of demand-side management even in the paper. There are ridiculous comments on pages 15 and 16. Page 16 states:

Demand management to curb peak energy demand has become an increasing focus internationally for governments, electricity industry participants and the wider community. Successful peak demand management programs will reduce investment in network capacity and peak generation plant which is only utilised for a small portion of the year. This can result in significant cost savings to consumers.

That is a statement of the obvious. Also on page 16 is the depressing statement:

However, even if the full estimates of cost-effective demand management potential in the immediate future are achieved, its effect would be to defer the need for new supply by a year or two, rather than eliminate it.

Against a background of rising electricity demand deferral for a year, that is very significant. If we could delay spending $7.6 billion for two years that would give a significant saving. This statement does not appear to have a great deal of real assessment behind it because the Government simply has not been making real assessments. Having not put any money aside to build power stations, the Government's comment on new investment is interesting. At page 46, referring to industry structure, it states:

The Government recognises that changes need to be made to the structure of these businesses in order to meet the following objectives … Promotion of private investment in energy infrastructure. The Government does not consider it appropriate to invest further capital in high risk commercial activities like electricity generation, when this capital and risk exposure can be provided by the private sector.

The Government has had a virtual monopoly of power generation for as long as most people can remember. It has totally run its infrastructure down and now talks about new generation being a high-risk commercial activity. Talk about an abdication of responsibility! The Government's response has been just plain silly. While talking about greenhouse gases we should deal with the sequestration of carbon dioxide, which should be highly criticised. It is a farcical concept being used by the producers of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide. The pretence that carbon dioxide can be somehow pumped into the earth to disappear harmlessly is a complete nonsense.
The chemical equation involved is that H₂O and CO₂ go to H₂CO₃, which goes to H⁺ as the ion and HCO₃, that is to say, carbonic acid. Pumping CO₂ in under pressure enables more CO₂ to dissolve in the water. As soon as you take away that pressure it is given off again. In the meantime, while it is underwater it forms carbonic acid. Although that is a weak acid, it will eat away rock and so on. So the pH of the whole water table that the CO₂ is pumped into would be changed. The idea that it just needs a few engines to do this is a farce, to prolong the notion that we continue to pump out carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. It is really a fossil fuel industry nonsense as propaganda to delay government activity by pretending something other than reduction of production can be contemplated in the medium term.

I foreshadow an amendment to delete the ability to have prepaid meters. The bill generally aims to save large amounts of electricity. The Minister in his briefing said that the main purpose was to give him a fund to provide for the good management of electricity. The proposal for prepaid meters is all about small and impoverished retail consumers of electricity, who may be less reliable in their payments. They take a very small fraction of the electricity sold but they take a very large amount of effort to recover money from as they may have a bad incidence of skipping and not paying and so on.

At the bottom end they presumably become totally uneconomic customers in that they do not use much electricity, and when they do they do not pay for it. This makes the army of compliance officers marginally cost effective. One way to deal with this is to install prepaid meters. The army of electricity workers become prepaid meter installers and emptiers, and the electricity company gets its money through the prepayment system. The downside of this is that poor people have to pay for their electricity more expensively than anybody else because they are paying in advance whereas everyone else gets at least three months credit. That is even assuming that the rate is the same, which often it is not.

It is not just a question of putting a coin in. People who cannot pay bills when they come in often do not have the ready cash to feed meters. When I worked in Britain in 1979 and 1980 in the British National Health Service and there was a coal strike, people literally froze to death if they did not have money to put in their electricity or gas meter. Freezing to death is less likely in Australia but it is still possible. The main problem in Australia is that if you cannot pay for your electricity your fridge is likely to go off and all your food then rots. You then have to find the money not just to put in the slot of the electricity meter but to buy another supply of perishable foods. That becomes immensely expensive for the poorer members of our community.

I think it is a bad solution to the problem that electricity companies have of collecting money from a few consumers. We need a better social program for people who cannot afford to pay their electricity bills than simply to allow prepaid meters. It is disappointing that the New South Wales Parliament does not appear to view this as a major change, a highly regressive electricity pricing regime that will have a detrimental social effect. As I said, in Committee I will move an amendment to delete that clause from the bill.

I believe this bill will give even more power to Mr Sartor. Mr Sartor is quite an active Minister, although one could certainly argue that he has a great deal on his plate at the moment, what with rebuilding Redfern, fixing electricity and fixing water. I believe that even a man of his capacity cannot look at issues such as demand management in the way such issues should be looked at. That is very worrying, but this is really about missed opportunities; the lack of depth; the lack of discussion of sensible options on the part of the Government; the lack of an independent regulator with sufficient flow of information from Transgrid and the distributors to look at alternatives on the demand side; and the lack of will on the part of the Government to consider the demand aspect.

It is, frankly, depressing to note the lack of intelligent alternatives on the part of the Opposition. I think we are going to spend a lot of money on things that are not the optimum solutions in New South Wales. I am very concerned about this, but all I can do is hope that somewhere along the line the Government will have a change of heart.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.41 p.m.]: I wish to speak in support of the bill. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes has already spoken at length to the bill and covered many aspects of it. The bill will allow for further government initiatives on greenhouse policy, electricity market reform, peak demand reductions and safety measures in relation to electricity supply. I was interested to read a submission from the Total Environment Centre dealing with this whole issue of how to reduce demand for electricity in this State. In its resource paper of February 2004 it quotes a lot of material from the United States of America about demand management in competitive American electricity markets, and indicates how they have become very efficient and in fact have reduced their program expenditures since 1993. Obviously the New South Wales Government is hoping it can do the same in this State.
What surprised me on reading the resource paper is that it refers to reducing the impact of greenhouse effects on the environment, but nowhere does it acknowledge the fact that in the United States of America the bulk of electricity is supplied by nuclear power stations. That is one of the strange aspects of this debate, the almost unmentionable concept of establishing a nuclear power station. I know a lot of people are concerned about the use of nuclear weapons in war—obviously we are all opposed to that course—but the peaceful use of nuclear power should be an option that both the State and Federal governments should now reconsider, in view of the developments in safety in the operation of nuclear power stations, the disposal of waste and so on.

We read in the newspapers almost every day now that China is increasing its demands on Australia to supply uranium, and obviously the companies that have uranium mines are making a great deal of money. I believe that, because of the number of orders received in the last year or so, those companies have increased the price of the product. From memory, they were charging $10 per pound for uranium and they simply doubled the price to $20, an increase of 100 per cent. As we have such huge reserves of uranium in Australia, in fact we may have the largest reserves in the world, it is a very profitable moneymaker for those companies that have been able to gain control of uranium.

I would prefer it if the uranium could be controlled by either the Federal Government or the State Government. Bearing in mind the way in which Federation works, it would probably be the case that the State Governments would have the right of control over that uranium, which is such a valuable resource. At the moment all we are doing is selling it to China and other countries for use in their nuclear power stations. Yet we have a fear of using it ourselves. We could build a nuclear power station close to a uranium mine and incur almost no transport costs and no fossil fuel discharge into the atmosphere. It would be of economic benefit to our nation and, as some of us hope will happen, make this country the next United States of America. In other words, Australia, with its population growth and prosperity, and use of uranium and nuclear power, could become one of the leading nations in the world so far as production and supply of all types of items is concerned, and at a very efficient cost. It could lower the cost of electricity to New South Wales consumers and Australian consumers generally.

It would appear the Government is chasing its tail. It wants to reduce demand for electricity and we appreciate that. I understand the Government appreciates the need for a new coal-fired power station and the environment movement opposes that course and is doing all it can to prevent it. The Government faces a dilemma. Obviously, those same groups will vehemently oppose the construction of a nuclear power station, but I believe that Government should have the courage to set in process investigations and set up a task force to investigate all the pros and cons as to what can be done in 2005-06. Times have changed since 10 or 20 years ago when there was a great deal of debate and uncertainty about these issues. Most of those concerns have now been satisfied and that is why every nation is reintroducing nuclear power stations to supply electricity at a lower cost to consumers.

I think that is something New South Wales should be considering. Honourable members will be aware that some years ago there were problems associated with nuclear power plants, but as I speak there are 442 nuclear power stations in the world. Of those, 103 are operating in the United States of America. The total in Australia is nil; the total in New South Wales is nil; why? I think we should have the courage to investigate the peaceful use of uranium when I believe, in a Christian sense, that God has provided Australia with the greatest amount of that resource. Let us use it for the development of New South Wales and our nation. I support the bill.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.48 p.m.]: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and for their support of the bill generally. The Government is committed to ensuring that New South Wales households, businesses and industry have access to a reliable, affordable, sustainable and secure electricity supply. The Government is taking the initiative to ensure that New South Wales maintains its strong, reliable electricity supply system, and prepares the electricity system for a transition towards a lower greenhouse emissions future. As has been outlined previously, the release of the energy directions green paper is playing a vital role in addressing these challenges.

The Government has invested more than $4 billion in the last five years in distribution and transmission networks and will spend another $6.2 billion in the next five years. This is a significant investment in the New South Wales energy infrastructure to enhance the already high levels of reliability. The bill is consistent with the Government's initiatives, to date, in greenhouse policy, electricity market reform, consumer protection, and safety measures in relation to electricity supply.

I would like first to address the Hon. Don Harwin's comments about the reliability of the New South Wales power system. Suggestions that the system is in crisis or reaching breaking point are simply incorrect. The overall reliability of electricity networks in New South Wales has consistently remained in between 99.94 per cent and 99.98 per cent. In the last five years New South Wales electricity businesses spent over $4.8 billion to meet the demands of the network. Over the next five years more than $6.2 billion will be invested on transmission and distribution system upgrades. As mentioned, the Government has issued an energy directions green paper to establish the policy settings which will ensure the system remains strong and reliable.

The New South Wales Government strongly encourages private investment in the generation sector through the national electricity market. The independent operator of the national electricity market, the National Electricity Market Management Company, confirms that there will be more than enough generating capacity available to New South Wales until at least 2008-09 based on conservative planning and forecast assumptions. In fact the company has stated, "Queensland and New South Wales have generation capacity well in excess of the minimum levels for a number of years."

The Government will shortly release an energy directions white paper which will take account of the many submissions received from industry, energy consumers and community groups. The white paper will assist future investment in new capacity by providing greater certainty regarding the role of government in the electricity sector, future greenhouse gas regulation and future pricing regulation. The Hon. Don Harwin also raised the issue of electricity prices. I remind the Opposition that the electricity bill of a typical residential customer per year is $965. That is cheaper than in any other State!

I now turn to the comments of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and Mr Ian Cohen regarding prepayment meters. I make clear the following points. Prepayment meters offer customers choice and flexibility. The Government has consulted widely with consumer groups and the Energy and Water Ombudsman, and prepayment meters will only be offered to customers on a purely voluntary basis under a negotiated contract. I wish to respond to concerns expressed by Mr Ian Cohen and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans regarding the need for more energy savings. The Government recognises the contribution energy savings can make to the economy and the environment, as well as to household and small business budgets.

The Government is committed to helping consumers save electricity within government, the private sector and the community. The aim of the proposed Energy Savings Fund is to support projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to address peak demand, and to reduce the energy bills of New South Wales households. This investment is wise as it will pay for itself many times over by cutting energy waste in households and businesses.

In response to concerns about renewable generation I inform members that 26 per cent of the existing generation installed in New South Wales is powered by renewable sources. The Commonwealth Government recently had the opportunity to encourage the renewable energy industry in Australia by increasing the mandatory renewable energy target above the current 2 per cent. The Commonwealth failed to act on this opportunity. Once again I thank members for their contributions to the debate, and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [5.55 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1, 3 and 6 in globo:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1, line 10. Omit "definition of large customer". Insert instead "definitions of large customer and renewable energy certificate".

No. 3 Page 5, schedule 1, lines 17–19. Omit all words on those lines insert instead: certificates of the participant counted for that year" from section 97BD (3).

Omit "and any renewable energy Insert instead "for the purposes of compliance with the participant's greenhouse gas benchmark".

No. 6 Page 5, schedule 1. Insert after line 29:
[16] Section 97I Appeals to Administrative Decisions Tribunal about certificates and related matters

Omit section 97I (1) (c).

[17] Section 97K Greenhouse gas benchmark rules

Omit ", including activities the subject of renewable energy certificates" from section 97K (1) (a).

These amendments seek to exclude the use of renewable energy certificates towards New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates. Renewable energy certificates are created through the Australian Government's mandatory renewable energy target. The certificates can be used to meet participants' liabilities under the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme. As the lower emission generation that creates renewable energy certificates would occur in any event, the ability for renewable energy certificates to be used as New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates effectively results in double counting. While there are limits on the ability for renewable energy certificates to be used as New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates, the Greens seek to exclude this altogether. I commend Greens amendments Nos 1, 3 and 6 to the Committee.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.56 p.m.]: The Government does not support these amendments. The New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme does allow retailers to bring to account the abatement that is represented by the surrender of renewable energy certificates. And the reason that this is included is because this is abatement that NSW consumers have paid for once already through their retailer. While it is clear that the Commonwealth Mandatory Renewable Energy Target [MRET]does not achieve low cost abatement, it seems unreasonable to charge NSW consumers again for this abatement.

While renewable energy certificates may have represented a significant proportion of abatement in the first year of the Scheme, this will decline as the benchmarks decline substantially faster than the MRET target increases. It is estimated that compliance with the existing State greenhouse gas benchmarks will require the surrender of abatement certificates equivalent to 130 to 140 million tonnes of abatement of carbon dioxide equivalent over the life of the scheme, and over 20 million tonnes in 2012, in addition to any renewable energy certificates that may be brought to account.

Amendments negatived.

Mr IAN COHEN [6.00 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1. Insert after line 37:

[12] Section 97B State greenhouse gas benchmarks

Omit section 97B (1) (e). Insert instead:

(e) for the year commencing 1 January 2007, 7.27 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions per head of State population,

(f) for the year commencing 1 January 2008, 6.99 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions per head of State population,

(g) for the year commencing 1 January 2009, 6.70 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions per head of State population,

(h) for the year commencing 1 January 2010, 6.42 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions per head of State population,

(i) for the year commencing 1 January 2011, 6.13 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions per head of State population,

(j) for the year commencing 1 January 2012, 5.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions per head of State population.

This amendment concerns the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, a scheme that is misleading in its claim that it will reduce greenhouse emissions. Indeed, between 2007 and 2012 greenhouse emissions will rise in New South Wales, contrary to the Premier's claims. This amendment seeks to account for population growth in New South Wales by reducing the per capita emissions as the population of New South Wales expands. I commend Greens amendment No. 2.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.01 p.m.]: The Government does not support Greens amendment No. 2 to section 97B (1), reducing the State greenhouse gas benchmarks from 7.27 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per head of State population in 2007 to 5.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per head of State population in 2012. This would represent a reduction of some 32 per cent in per capita emissions from the electricity sector for the period 2003 to 2012, requiring abatement in 2012 of over 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Over the life of the scheme to 2012 the proposed new benchmarks for the period 2008 to 2012 would require a total abatement of around 170 million tonnes, or about an additional 30 million tonnes of abatement over the five years to 2012. Abatement of 30 million tonnes would represent a substantial abatement task. For example, it would require the operation for the entire five years of some 3,000 megawatts of new combined cycle gas-fired base-load generation operating 50 per cent of the time, or the operation for the five years of 27,000 megawatts of open cycle gas-fired generation operating 10 per cent of the time, or the installation of 100 million new compact fluorescent lights. Such a large additional abatement task would have a substantial impact on cost to consumers.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [6.03 p.m.]: The Opposition will not support this amendment. We agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there would be a significant impact on cost from the abatement task outlined in this amendment.

Mr IAN COHEN [6.03 p.m.]: I understand and appreciate the reticence of the Government and the Opposition in relation to the framework of how we see economies working in the use of electricity in this society. What is being missed is the potential, which I described, in part, in my contribution to the second reading debate. This is something very close to the heart of conservation-minded people throughout New South Wales. There is immense potential to save an extraordinary amount of energy usage in this State by clever demand management means, basic conservation means and basic design. It goes to planning in our society, the types of buildings we build and the way the buildings are managed. There is potential to retrofit conservation devices, which can encourage the development of clever solar passive design.

I do not think it is a simple case, as the Parliamentary Secretary stated in his assessment of the size of supposed gas-fired power stations, of their number and capacity to resolve the problem. Even in recent days we have heard of the introduction of energy production through wave machines. That interesting new development is being trialled in Port Kembla. While the Opposition is obviously going to concur with the Government on this, in the future we will be seriously looking at clever strategies. I see it in small communities where people have an enthusiasm for undertaking these types of measures. The potential is there.

To simply ignore or condemn this as too large a problem to deal with is all part of the greater problem and why governments are not prepared to deal with effective greenhouse abatement strategies—strategies that have been put forward by many scientists and many conservation-minded groups and individuals in the community—and to forge ahead with strategies that can adapt to a greenhouse negative impact strategy, which is what the Greens are all about. It is a major issue for the future and it will show the Government and the Opposition to be rather lead-footed in their misuse of electricity and their openness to more creative ways of dealing with it, which many scientists and people keep offering to governments of both persuasions and are continually ignored. I think the price is a great one to pay for our future.

Amendment negatived.

Mr IAN COHEN [6.07 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 4:

No. 4 Page 5, schedule 1. Insert after line 19:

[14] Section 97BE Greenhouse shortfalls may be carried forward

Omit "or counting renewable energy certificates" from section 97BE (4).

[15] Section 97CA Greenhouse penalties

Insert after section 97CA (3):

(3A) The regulations must provide for an annual review of the greenhouse penalty after 1 January 2007 for the purpose of maintaining the relative level of the penalty in the light of changes to greenhouse gas benchmarks after that date.

[16] Section 97CB Annual greenhouse gas benchmark statements

Omit "and all renewable energy certificates sought to be counted for that year or sought to be surrendered or counted" from section 97CB (4). Insert instead "or sought to be surrendered".

Part of this amendment deals with the exclusion of renewable energy certificates from use in New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates to avoid double counting. As already discussed in reference to Greens amendments Nos 1, 3 and 6, amendments 1, 3, 4 and 6 work together to this effect. Part of amendment No. 4, referring to section 97CA (3), seeks to ensure that an annual review of the greenhouse penalty is carried out after 2007. If the greenhouse benchmarks are adjusted, as per amendment No. 2, the penalty must be adjusted accordingly. Otherwise, it may be cheaper to pay the penalty and emit more greenhouse gas than it would be to comply with this regime. I commend Greens amendment No. 4.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.08 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr IAN COHEN [6.08 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 5:

No. 5 Page 5, schedule 1. Insert after line 23:

[15] Section 97CD Assessment of compliance with greenhouse gas benchmarks

Omit section 97CD (1) (a), (b) and (2).

[16] Section 97DA Eligibility for accreditation

Insert after section 97DA (3) (c):

(d) activities that consist of carbon sequestration by the planting of forests or other means.

[17] Section 97DA (4)

Omit "The regulations and greenhouse gas benchmark rules may make provision for or with respect to eligibility for accreditation in respect of carbon sequestration by the planting of forests or other means, but". Insert instead "The regulations and greenhouse gas benchmark rules may make provision under subsection (2) with respect to eligibility for accreditation in respect of activities,".

This amendment seeks to limit the creation of New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates to those created in New South Wales. A significant proportion of New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates are currently created outside New South Wales. A negative side effect is New South Wales electricity consumers paying for abatement and subsidising electricity consumption in other States. In 2003 251,199 New South Wales greenhouse abatement certificates for generator efficiency standards were created by Hazelwood power station, Australia's dirtiest brown coal-fired generator in Victoria. At a price of around $11 per certificate, this would amount to New South Wales consumers paying $2.7 million for Victorian electricity. This amendment would alleviate this rather unsatisfactory situation. I commend Greens amendment No. 5.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.09 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Ian Cohen on moving this amendment. We should not be foolish and subsidise dirty coal-fired power stations in Victoria. I am concerned that the Government has ignored this problem and does not have stringent greenhouse targets. Indeed, the proponents of the network expansion usually conduct assessments into alternatives to demand management whereas it should be an independent regulator who assesses the options. I will be disappointed if the amendment is not supported. Even though someone with a vested interest in not examining alternative options may be given that authority, if the amendment is defeated no assessment will be undertaken.

The superior option is for an independent regulator to consider the options and for it to be mandatory that the independent regulator is given the appropriate figures to examine the merits of networks versus demand management. If the amendment is defeated not only will the independent regulator be deprived of the necessary information to make calculations with respect to cost effectiveness but also no assessment will be undertaken. Sadly, neither the Government nor the Opposition seems to be addressing this issue. This is really a minimalist amendment and I urge the Committee to support it, for the simple reason that something is better than nothing.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.12 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment, which seeks to treat all eligible abatement activities under the scheme in the same manner under the Electricity Act 1995 as carbon sequestration is currently treated—that is, limited to New South Wales or another jurisdiction that has a mandatory scheme in place intended to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and subject to the Minister's approval. Honourable members may recall that it was, in fact, the Greens who proposed that carbon sequestration be treated differently from other forms of abatement. However, the effect of this amendment would be substantial with respect to potential impact on national electricity market [NEM] operations, cost of compliance to New South Wales electricity consumers and the likelihood of sufficient abatement being generated to meet the New South Wales benchmarks over the current life of the scheme. Basically, the amendment will restrict eligible generation and abatement activities to New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, which, from 1 January 2005, has implemented a scheme based on the New South Wales model.

As indicated previously, the current design of the New South Wales scheme was based on detailed modelling and included abatement from generation activities occurring in the national electricity market. The benchmarks were set at levels that would be achievable at abatement costs expected to be delivered from generation activities across the NEM, as well as activities in New South Wales arising from energy efficiency, carbon sequestration and reduced industrial greenhouse gas emissions. The inclusion of all NEM generators will have the effect of providing incentives for interstate generators to abate their greenhouse gas emissions. It will also have the effect of minimising the impact of the New South Wales scheme on the operation of the national electricity market. To achieve the current benchmarks only from activities within New South Wales would result in either higher costs of abatement passed on to New South Wales consumers or greater payment of penalties where insufficient abatement certificates were available at costs below the penalty level, representing no additional greenhouse abatement. Neither of these outcomes is acceptable to the Government.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

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

Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Costa Mr Donnelly Mrs Forsythe Ms Griffin

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

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

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.21 p.m.]: I move:

Page 6, schedule 1 [18], lines 16 to 20. Omit all the words on those lines.

The essence of this amendment is to remove from the bill the right basically to install electricity prepayment meters which, as I have said, are extremely socially regressive and have had an extremely bad effect in the United Kingdom. Effectively, they mean that poorer customers pay in advance whereas richer customers pay three months later. The cost becomes higher, and the costs of having intermittent electricity supplies are high in practice. The real cost of electricity interruption is high, it is paid by the poorest people in society, and fundamentally it is being done to solve the problem of bad debtors, who are a tiny fraction of a retailer's customers. This Labor Government should not allow such massively regressive charges. It is a disgrace that the Labor Government is allowing this, and I urge honourable members to support the amendment to stop this from happening.
Mr IAN COHEN [6.23 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendment moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. We believe that electricity prepayment meters target poor people. Often people in lower socioeconomic circumstances, single-parent families and the like have many obligations and their lives can be chaotic. Rather than providing for the use of technology available these days, which would enable people to pay off their outstanding bills by paying an extra $1 or $2 on their regular bills over a period, they are in a trap. They lose their electricity supply at the most inopportune time; they are unable to pay their bills, they are unable to keep their electricity going, they lose valuables such as perishables in their refrigerators and so on. We have heard many stories about people in Great Britain who have died as a result of exposure to the cold, and in New South Wales people can become ill from exposure to heat in extreme circumstances. The amendment moved by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is both humane and commendable, and the Greens support it.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [6.24 p.m.]: It would be a matter of considerable concern if consumers were being forced to install prepayment meters. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre raised these concerns with the Government, and I am advised by the Government that there were discussions between the department and the Energy and Water Ombudsman to ensure that there was an appropriate framework to cover this situation. Given that using these meters will be voluntary and that they will not be forced on any customers, the Opposition has decided not to support the amendment.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.25 p.m.]: To answer the Opposition's point, the idea that a utility representative will race down and remove a prepayment meter installed in rented or temporary premises if a new tenant does not want it is one of the most fanciful ideas I have heard for some time. Nothing in the legislation implies that prepayment meters will be optional for customers. I am sure that once a prepayment meter is installed it will remain in the premises. In terms of Supported Accommodation Assistance Program clients, mental health clients, disadvantaged people, and those with a mental illness or an intellectual development delay, the overall trend is that an inability to pay bills is one trigger to people becoming homeless. They need support in the community, including assistance to pay their bills. Part of the graded support in the community is the provision of services, and providing for prepayment electricity meters is a retrograde step. Once a prepayment meter in installed I do not believe it will be removed if a new client or renter—this includes more itinerant people—decided not to have the meter. The idea that prepayment meters will be voluntary is fairyland stuff, and I am disappointed that the Opposition has been so gullible. I continue to urge honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.27 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment. Electricity prepayment meters for small retail customers have been successfully introduced in other jurisdictions in Australia. The Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability has consulted broadly with the electricity industry, the New South Wales Energy and Water Ombudsman and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre to develop an appropriate regulatory framework which includes consumer protection mechanisms and technical market rules. Using prepayment meters will be voluntary; it will not be forced on any customers. Account holders—that is, either the tenant or the owner, not a landlord—must agree. To ensure that the interests of small customers are protected, the Government will establish a consumer protection framework through amendments to the Electricity Supply (General) Regulation 2001.

Amendment negatived.

Mr IAN COHEN [6.28 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 7:

No. 7 Page 6, schedule 1. Insert after line 20:

[19] Schedule 2 Licences

Omit clause 6 (5) (a) and (b). Insert instead:

(a) a condition requiring the holder of the licence, before expanding its distribution system or the capacity of its distribution system, to carry out an analysis to calculate the value of the savings that would be made by deferring the expansion, taking into account:

(i) the total capital cost of the expansion, and

(ii) the weighted average cost of the capital cost, and

(iii) the annual depreciation rate applying to the expansion,

(iv) the annual operating cost to the holder,
(b) if the value of savings calculated under paragraph (a) exceeds $200,000 in a single year, a condition requiring the holder of the licence, to seek demand management alternatives through the market and to implement demand management alternatives to the expansion of its distribution system or the capacity of its distribution system in circumstances in which those alternatives are found to be more cost-effective than expansion,

(c) a condition requiring the holder of the licence to prepare and publish an annual report containing the following information:

(i) the value and cost of investments in projects to expand its distribution system or the capacity of its distribution system,

(ii) the location of the projects,

(iii) the value of the deferral of the projects in the year concerned,

(iv) particulars of any analysis of projects carried out under the condition contained in paragraph (a),

(v) any proposed projects for the 12 months following the report.

This amendment seeks to make it a condition for licence holders to carry out demand management where it is cost-effective to do so. There is an urgent need for network demand management in the New South Wales electricity supply system. Demand management is a critical tool to reduce wasteful energy use and avoid unnecessary infrastructure costs. Despite the superior savings demonstrated by network demand management projects to date, demand management has largely failed to eventuate. For example, although demand management projects for 2003-04 were almost seven times more cost effective than augmentation, saving consumers $40.6 million, only about 1 per cent of net capital expenditure is spent on demand management. The threshold proposed for this is $200,000 per year, which is taken from the Demand Management Code of Practice.

Responsibilities of networks should be written into legislation to ensure that government-owned networks deliver real efficiency for electricity consumers. Otherwise we find in practice, despite the fact that they are government-owned corporations, a clash between their drive to increase profits and electricity usage with their paying lip service to demand management activities, which go against the profit drive. In the long run, this affects consumers in New South Wales and is also a major cause of climatic greenhouse gas emission problems. I commend Greens amendment No. 7 to the Committee.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.30 p.m.]: The Government does not support this amendment. I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate and for their support for the bill generally. The Government already ensures that distributors implement energy-saving options under their network management plan. These requirements are spelt out in the New South Wales code of practice for demand management and are enforced under the Electricity Supply (Safety Network Management) Regulation 2002. A number of significant new amendments have been proposed to clause to 6 (5) requiring distribution licence holders to carry out and report analysis of demand management possibilities that may defer the expansion of their networks.

Preliminary estimates are that distributors carry out in excess of 20,000 extensions or upgrades of the network each year, in addition to extensions specifically required to connect new customers. The great majority of these works are needed to cater for the continuing strong growth in customer numbers and connected loads. Often this work is required at relatively short notice to cater for unexpected commercial development or residential load growth. A requirement for an analysis and report of all individual investigations carried out during the year—which may exceed 20,000 sites—is unmanageable and would result in substantial costs associated with preparation of such an encyclopaedic-style report—which I doubt anyone would read apart from, perhaps, the Greens and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. This in itself may exceed any potential benefits.

The implementation of energy-saving options and demand management has been further enhanced by improved incentive arrangements introduced under the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal's 2004 electricity distribution pricing determination. Work now being undertaken by distributors is expected to show improved results in the near future as additional resources have been allocated to this work. The consequences of the proposed amendments to clause 6 (5) have not been subjected to full consideration or consultation with relevant stakeholders. As such, the Government does not support the amendments. In summary, the existing Act and associated regulation already provide a clear direction to distributors on the requirement to carry out demand management where it is practicable and cost-effective. Distributors must also ensure that their network can meet customers' demands for adequate and reliable supply.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.32 p.m.]: My comments about Greens amendment No. 5 apply also to this amendment. It is interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary says stakeholders have not been asked about demand management. That has been my complaint. They do not have the expertise to do so, and there are financial disincentives associated with it. That is why this amendment is important and I urge honourable members to support it.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

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

Motion by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal agreed to:

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

Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.

[The Deputy-President (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile) left the chair at 6.36 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.15 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 Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Bill 2005.

This Bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to expand the protections the Act provides to sexual assault complainants, thereby ensuring that complainants are accorded a measure of privacy and respect, that they are able to give the best evidence they can, and that the court process does not re-victimise these courageous people.

This Bill is part of the Government's on-going process of legal reform in the area of sexual assault prosecutions. The Government made a number of election commitments in relation to the area of sexual assaults and we have fulfilled those commitments—and more—with this Bill.

This will not, though, be the end of reforms in this area, as the Government is committed to improving the criminal justice system's response to sexual assault crimes and committed to doing this without sacrificing any of the principles, such as the right to a fair trial, that we as a society hold dear.

And with this package of reforms, the Government, after wide consultation, has improved the system for sexual assault victims and, at the same time, has upheld those cornerstone legal principles.

There can be no doubt that the prosecution of sexual assault is one of the most difficult areas of the law. Sexual assault is a difficult event to come to terms with, to report, to investigate and to judge.

And, by its very nature, giving evidence of a sexual assault is like no other evidence. Sexual assault complainant evidence must include precise and explicit details of sexual acts and of intimate sexual violence. Evidence may include swear words, slang usage for body parts, name-calling, derogatory terms or remarks of a personal nature. It is embarrassing and humiliating evidence to give.
It can come as no surprise that many victims feel reluctant to come forward and report sexual assaults and, of those that do, their efforts to have their day in court is nothing short of heroic.

There are many reasons for the low rate of reporting by sexual assault victims: a fear of reprisals; a wish to protect the offender; to keep the family together; shame; embarrassment; and, in some cases, fear or suspicion of the criminal justice system.

By making it easier for complainants to give evidence - which is what this Bill does - these reforms will encourage reporting and encourage those victims who do choose to report to see the legal process through.

The Bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 as follows:

• it imposes a duty on a court hearing any criminal proceeding to disallow improper questions that are put to witnesses in cross-examination;
• it prevents the circulation, and the unauthorised copying, of sensitive evidence;
• it requires any part of proceedings for a sexual offence in which evidence is given by the complainant to be held in camera;
• it confers an entitlement on a complainant in such a case to have one or more support persons present near the complainant when giving evidence;
• it simplifies and standardises the coverage of various provisions of the Act that relate to the protection of a complainant in sexual offence proceedings; and
• it makes it clear that a complainant in a sexual offence proceeding is entitled to give evidence utilising alternate arrangements such as screens instead of by the use of closed-circuit television, whether or not closed-circuit television facilities are available in the proceedings.

The Bill amends the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, the Crimes Act 1900, the Evidence Act 1995 and the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 consequentially, provides for savings and transitional matters and makes minor amendments by way of statute law revision.

I will now turn to the detail of the Bill.

The new section 275A of the Criminal Procedure Act deals with improper questions.

At present, section 41 of the Evidence Act gives the court the power to disallow a question put to a witness in cross-examination, or to inform the witness that the question need not be answered, if the question is misleading or unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive or repetitive.

The application of section 41 is inconsistent: some counsel are reluctant to object each time they think a question is improper as they believe it may place them at a forensic disadvantage—such as appearing to be trying to hide something - and, although judicial officers have the power to intervene, some judges are reluctant to take this up.

The amendment in relation to improper questions set a new standard for the cross-examination of witnesses in criminal proceedings, including by referring, for the first time, to the manner or tone in which a question is asked.

It is an important amendment, as improper questions asked of them in cross-examination are one of the most distressing aspects of the court process for sexual assault complainants. This amendment will also apply to our most vulnerable witnesses, child complainants.

Under the amendments, a court must disallow a question put to a witness in cross-examination, or inform the witness that it need not be answered, if the question:

(a) is misleading or confusing, or
(b) is unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, humiliating or repetitive, or
(c) is put to the witness in a manner or tone that is belittling, insulting or otherwise inappropriate, or
(d) has no basis other than a sexist, racial, cultural or ethnic stereotype.

This amendment places a positive duty on judges to act to prevent improper questions, thereby ensuring that witnesses are able to give their evidence free from intimidation and fear. It also allows a party to the proceedings to raise an objection if they wish.

The factors which may be taken into account by the court in determining whether a question should be disallowed have been extended to include the ethnic and cultural background of the witness, their language background and skills and their level of maturity and understanding.

The amendment provides that a question is not a disallowable question merely because it challenges the truthfulness of the witness or the accuracy of their recollection or because it requires a witness to discuss a subject that could be considered distasteful or private.

The amendment also allows a question to be asked if there is some basis for asking it—such as the fact that the issue was raised in evidence-in-chief—other than to reinforce a sexist, racial, cultural or ethnic stereotype.

These are sensible safeguards that will ensure every witness's evidence can be fairly tested.

A failure by the court to exercise the duty placed upon it will not affect the admissibility of any evidence given in response to a question. This amendment therefore does not open a new stream of appeal points for accused persons.

Section 41 of the Evidence Act 1995 will no longer apply to the cross-examination of witnesses in criminal proceedings but will continue to apply to civil proceedings.
Clause 5 of the Bill creates new sections 281A to 281F, which deal with sensitive evidence.

As I have already mentioned, one of the reasons the Government is undertaking this on-going process of reform to sexual assault laws is to ensure that the court process does not re-victimise the victims.

The possession and dissemination of sensitive material by an accused—sometimes as a form of "gaol porn"—is another cause of distress and humiliation for sexual assault complainants and another reason for them to fear the court process.

As such, the Government has introduced a new Part 2A of Chapter 6 which contains provisions preventing the circulation and unauthorised copying of sensitive evidence. This amendment takes the protection of sexual assault complainants in NSW to a new level.

Under the new section 281B, a thing that contains or displays an image of a person (referred to as the protected person) is sensitive evidence if:

(a) the image is obscene or indecent, or
(b) providing a copy of the image to another person without the protected person's consent would interfere with the protected person's privacy, or
(c) the image was taken after the death of the protected person.

Under section 281B(3), the fact that the thing, such as a photograph of injuries suffered by a complainant, was only created to provide evidence is to be disregarded when determining whether the thing is sensitive evidence. Even if created by the police or the coroner, it may still be sensitive evidence and must be treated as such.

With this amendment, the Government is concerned not only to prevent the re-victimisation of sexual assault complainants and to prevent them from feeling further embarrassment and shame; but to also protect the privacy and dignity of all other victims, including those who have tragically lost their lives.

The amendments will prevent the unauthorised circulation or reproduction of sensitive evidence.

The prosecuting authority is not required to provide the accused person, which includes his or her representative, a copy of any sensitive evidence under Section 281C.

Section 281D sets out the procedures however, which will provide an alternative means for the accused person to be given access to view but not copy the sensitive evidence.

This will ensure that an accused person is able to access all the relevant evidence the prosecution has compiled and, therefore, be fully informed of the case against them.

Section 281E allows the prosecuting authority to retain or regain possession of sensitive evidence, or copies of sensitive evidence, tendered in criminal proceedings.

And section 281F creates offences for the unauthorised or improper copying or circulation of sensitive evidence.

Clause 7 amends section 291 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

At present, section 291 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 gives a court discretionary power to close the court when a sexual assault complainant gives evidence.

However, not all complainants receive the benefit of being able to give their evidence in camera. This provision will ensure that they do, and that when complainants do give their evidence, it will be free from the stress, trauma, embarrassment and humiliation of having to recite the minute details of their sexual assault before a court full of strangers, full of the accused's family and friends or full of teenage boys on school excursions.

In assisting to reduce the stress and humiliation complainants face when giving evidence, closed courts also assist complainants to give "best" evidence, that is, accurate, reliable, coherent and complete evidence. Assisting complainants to do this, also serves the interests of justice.

These amendments replace the existing section 291 and will ensure that courts are closed as a matter of course. They will give greater certainty and privacy to sexual assault complainants and, as mentioned, assist in the giving of "best" evidence.

The new provisions require that any part of proceedings in respect of a prescribed sexual offence in which evidence is given by a complainant are to be held in camera, that is, in a closed court, unless the court otherwise directs.

This applies even if the complainant gives evidence by means of closed-circuit television or other technology or under any alternative arrangements available to the complainant.

This is important, as the embarrassment and humiliation associated with giving evidence arises from the presence of the listening public—whether or not the complainant can actually see them. Also, complainants using closed-circuit television can still hear and often see the public.

The new provisions provide that a court may direct the evidence to be given in open court only if a party to the proceedings requests it and the court is satisfied that:

(a) special reasons in the interests of justice require the part of the proceedings to be held in open court, or
(b) the complainant consents to giving his or her evidence in open court.

This last subsection is important, as it empowers complainants by allowing them a choice in how they give their evidence.

The court will retain its current discretion to direct that other parts of the proceedings, or the entire proceedings, be held in camera and the amendments do not affect the existing requirement that proceedings for certain incest offences must be held entirely in camera.

Clause 18 creates a new section 294C that improves the previous support person provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.

An important part of giving evidence for a sexual assault complainant is the right to have a support person or persons of their choice present when they give evidence.

Support persons provide emotional, logistical and other support to sexual assault complainants. Such support throughout a trial can help reduce the trauma of the court experience and its intimidating and alienating effects.

The amendments confer on a complainant who gives evidence in sexual offence proceedings an entitlement to have one or more persons chosen by the complainant present near the complainant, and within the complainant's sight, when the complainant gives evidence in the proceedings.

This is an improvement on the current provisions, which give the court a discretionary power – which is not uniformly applied - to exempt a person supporting the complainant from a closed court direction.

The entitlement applies even if the:

(a) complainant gives evidence by means of closed-circuit television or other technology or under any alternative arrangements available to the complainant, and
(b) even if the proceedings, or the part of the proceedings in which the complainant gives evidence, are held in camera.

The amendments limit the right of the accused person to object to the suitability of the person or persons chosen by the complainant to be with the complainant when giving evidence.

This means that taking tactical objection to a complainant's choice of support person at the door of the court will no longer be allowed.

But the amendments also provide a safeguard if the complainant's choice of person is likely to prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial, for example, if the person chosen is a witness or potential witness in the proceedings.

Of course, the complainant's choice of a support person or persons will continue to be guided by the advice of the DPP.

The entitlement conferred by the new provision extends to a complainant of any age, and to cases heard in the Children's Court, so that all sexual assault complainants, regardless of their age and regardless of what court they appear in, receive the same rights in relation to support persons, just as these amendments mean they do in relation to giving evidence in a closed court.

Clause 1 provides for a revised definition of prescribed sexual offence and a number of other minor amendments relate to this definitional change.

At present, there is no standard definition of the types of offences to which the various legislative provisions providing sexual assault complainants with special protections, such as those provisions I have already outlined, apply.

Each of the relevant provisions contains its own definition of the types of offences to which the provision applies. As a consequence, the provisions do not apply uniformly to all complainants in all sexual offence proceedings.

Therefore, the amendments address this issue by providing for a new, comprehensive definition of prescribed sexual offence. The definition is intended to cover all offences of a sexual nature (including repealed offences) under the Crimes Act and various related offences.

These amendments do not affect the validity of anything already done in proceedings already instituted or part-heard.

Clause 15 amends the existing subsection 294B(3) to improve complainants' choice in how they give evidence.

This amendment will give greater choice to complainants so that they can choose to give evidence by use of alternative arrangements—such as screens that restrict contact between the complainant and the accused—whether or not the technology is available for the giving of evidence by closed-circuit television.

At present, complainants can only use screens if closed-circuit technology is not available.

The savings and transitional provisions make it clear that where appropriate the new requirements extend to criminal investigations already instituted and criminal proceedings already instituted or partly heard.

Schedule 2 to the bill makes consequential amendments to other Acts, including the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 in relation to the closed court and support persons amendments.
This consequential amendment makes it clear that the new provisions extend to proceedings to which a child is a party (generally heard by the Children's Court), and that the support person or persons chosen by the complainant cannot be directed to leave the court.

The Evidence Act 1995 is also amended consequential on the proposal to require the court in criminal proceedings to disallow improper questions put in cross-examination of a witness.

And the Evidence (Children) Act 1997 is consequentially amended in relation to the support persons proposal. If the complainant is a child, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 apply instead of the provisions relating to support persons that might otherwise apply under the Evidence (Children) Act 1997.

These schedule 2 amendments are important in that they give all sexual assault complainants, irrespective of age, and irrespective of the court in which they give evidence, the same protections.

I know that all members of the House are impressed by the courage shown by those sexual assault complaints who report these horrendous crimes and who follow the court process through to its conclusion. And I know that all members wish to assist these complainants to give their evidence free from additional stress, trauma and humiliation.

I am sure that this amendment will therefore be welcomed by all members.

I commend this bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [8.16 p.m.]: The Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, the Crimes Act 1900, the Evidence Act 1995 and the Evidence (Children) Act 1997. It is not opposed by the Opposition and contains provisions, long overdue, giving further protection to sexual assault complainants in the course of sexual assault prosecutions. An overview of the bill specifies its objects as:

(a) to impose a duty on a court hearing any criminal proceedings to disallow improper questions that are put to witnesses in cross-examination,

(b) to prevent the circulation, and the unauthorised copying, of sensitive evidence,

(c) to require any part of proceedings for a sexual offence in which evidence is given by the complainant to be held in camera,

(d) to confer an entitlement on a complainant in such a case to have one or more persons present near the complainant when giving evidence,

(e) to simplify and standardise the coverage of various provisions of the Act that relate to the protection of a complainant in sexual offence proceedings,

(f) to make it clear that a complainant in a sexual offence proceeding is entitled to give evidence by use of arrangements to restrict contact between the complainant and the accused person, instead of by the use of closed-circuit television, whether or not closed-circuit television facilities are available in the proceedings.

For a long time now there has been deep concern in the community about the additional traumatic effects on sexual offence victims arising in the course of prosecution proceedings. Time after time the trauma incurred by a victim from the perpetration of the sexual offence itself has been multiplied and aggravated by further trauma incurred during court proceedings. Clearly, as a consequence of this state of affairs there has been a definite and consistent pattern of a marked underreporting of such offences by victims. Very often they may not be prepared to suffer what they see as public embarrassment by reliving their ordeal in court. They may not be prepared to subject themselves to the very often intrusive, unfeeling and provocative cross-examination that they may face. They may feel intimidated as they give their evidence by the presence of friends of the accused acting as a sort of cheer squad for the accused by subtle and not so subtle gestures and provocations against the complainant. And from time to time this sort of thing does occur.

For these and other reasons the law needs to incorporate safeguards to ensure that victims will not feel embarrassed, humiliated, harassed or intimidated during court proceedings. The bill seeks to achieve that purpose, and it is hoped that it will serve to encourage more victims to come forward and report to the authorities the heinous crimes of sexual assault that presently go unreported and thus unpunished. For too long many of the perpetrators of these crimes have been escaping prosecution and avoiding conviction. The bill will amend section 41 of the Evidence Act 1995 so as to widen the circumstances in which questions asked during cross-examination may be disallowed. These circumstances include where the tone of the question is belittling or insulting or has no basis other than to highlight a sexual, racial, cultural or ethnic stereotype. This extended duty is imposed on the court whether or not the question has been objected to. The provisions relating to the circulation and unauthorised copying of sensitive material will encompass, for example, photographs of a victim in a state of undress, a video showing a person committing a sexual offence on the victim, or images of child pornography.
An important provision of the bill, which replaces section 291 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, provides that evidence given by a complainant in proceedings relating to a prescribed sexual offence must be held in camera unless the court otherwise directs. Such evidence may only be given in open court if a party to the proceedings requests it and the complainant consents or it is held to be in the interests of justice. The provision extending the right of a complainant giving evidence in sexual offence proceedings to have one or more persons chosen by the complainant near the complainant is likewise welcome. This will certainly serve to assist the complainant in giving evidence in a less overpowering or even perceived hostile environment. This entitlement is extended to a complainant of any age and to cases heard in the Children's Court.

At present a complainant in sexual offence cases can choose to give evidence from a place other than the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television facilities or other technology that enables communication between that place and the courtroom. If such technology is unavailable, the complainant may give evidence by use of alternative arrangements to restrict contact between the complainant and the accused. The new provisions of the bill clarify that the complainant is entitled to choose to give evidence by use of those alternative arrangements whether or not the technology is available for the giving of evidence by closed-circuit television.

All in all, I believe that this bill will serve the interests of justice. It will encourage victims of sexual violence to bring forward their complaints to the authorities, it will encourage victims to persevere with court proceedings once they have been instituted and it will allow complainants to give evidence in less intimidating, embarrassing and traumatic circumstances. As I indicated earlier, the Opposition supports the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.23 p.m.]: The Greens generally support this bill. Its reforms are reasonable and will go some way towards making it easier for women to come forward and engage with the criminal justice system if they have been the victims of sexual assault. The Greens support the right of complainants to have the opportunity to choose to have their evidence heard in a closed or open court. It has been pointed out to me by prominent academic writer and barrister Jocelynne Scutt, who up until recently was the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in Tasmania, that it may not always be in the best interests of women complainants in sexual assault matters to have their evidence heard in a closed court. This is because the problems women face in sexual assault trials often stem from the defence team and the judiciary, not the audience in the courtroom. This makes closing courts off from outside scrutiny problematic.

We all remember the line of questioning pursued late last year by Ian Harrison SC, President of the New South Wales Bar Association, in the case of a former student of Tara Anglican School for Girls who was bringing a case claiming a breach of the school's duty of care during an overseas trip when she was allegedly raped. Representing the school's insurer, Mr Harrison was hell-bent on attacking the complainant's credibility. He pursued the issue of the student's wearing of short skirts, saying it took a lot of confidence to wear "a skirt as short as that" at a bar in Sydney two years after the event. What was worse, the young woman's barrister was reportedly invited to object to this line of questioning but failed to do so.

The media reported on this story and an important debate followed about the propriety of this type of questioning. If the evidence had been heard in a closed court, the media would not have been in a position to reveal this archaic and disturbing line of questioning, which was designed to paint a poor picture of the student as a "bad girl who deserved what she got". Often the greatest problem for women in these cases is inappropriate questioning from the defence that goes unchallenged, and poor responses by judges to this behaviour is, unfortunately, not uncommon. Questioning by the defence is designed to be intimidating. It can be aggressive and humiliating in the hope of portraying the complainant as either "asking for it" or lying. Ms Scutt points out that what we need to be working on is how to shift this behaviour. There is no long-term solution to be gained from locking women away in closed courts, where this very poor behaviour can go on, beyond the reach of outside scrutiny.

Importantly, Ms Scutt has identified that the media can play a very important role in alerting the community to the deficiencies of the judiciary and the defence during sexual assault hearings. Our court system is patriarchal. It sometimes supports women, but unfortunately this is not the norm. Courts can become more satisfactory places for women to give evidence through initiatives such as closed circuit television and by judicial direction. For example, judges have the power to order that individuals or groups, such as schoolchildren, leave the court if they are concerned that the presence of such individuals or groups may cause distress to the complainant. It is important that women are given the opportunity to choose whether or not they wish to face an open court. It would be a disappointing society if we forced women into closed courts, with the implication that it is the woman who has done something wrong.

The more general complaint the Greens have with this bill is that it, like other legislation, is just tinkering around the edges. We need fundamental change in this area and that is currently the task of the Sex Offences Task Force, which was set up by the Attorney General in response to calls by the Rape Crisis Centre and the Greens for a thorough overhaul of sexual assault laws. It would be a significant victory for women if this task force recommends the establishment of a specialist sexual assault court for New South Wales. This would enable a cultural shift in our criminal justice system. It could be a much-needed fresh start, opening up the possibility that we could do away with the myths and misogyny that now sully our court system when it comes to sexual assault cases. Such a court has been established in Canada and it provides a successful model for the Attorney to emulate.

Another necessary reform to the Evidence Act would be to require judges to give rulings to juries to debunk some of the myths that surround women and sexual assault, for example the claim that women's complaints are often based on mistruths. The Rape Crisis Centre is also pushing to allow the female victim in a sexual assault matter to be represented in the court by her own lawyer, in addition to the Director Of Public Prosecutions, whose sole job it is to make sure the Evidence Act is applied appropriately and in the victim's best interests. Again this proposal has been implemented overseas and I believe it is working successfully.

The Attorney General often talks about reform to the justice system as being the key to having women come forward to engage with the justice system. This is critical. But there are other things that can be done by his Government, such as implementing education and other programs to change community perceptions about sexual assault and reduce unethical behaviour between men and women. Inequality between men and women is very relevant to the sexual assault debate. I believe that in this regard the Carr Labor Government is failing women.

Abolishing the Department of Women is a clear example of this failure. The status of women in our society needs to be the Government's priority, rather than an afterthought at election time. I believe that Premier Carr could take a leaf out of the book of former Premier Wran, who did a great deal and was much more effective regarding the women's advisory councils that were organised under his leadership. The Greens support the bill, but we look forward to a far weightier one following the release of the report of the Sex Offences Task Force at the end of the year.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [8.30 p.m.]: I wholeheartedly support Ms Lee Rhiannon's contribution to debate on this issue. I will not go into the details of the matter, but an issue such as this got me involved in politics. The issue arose in a case involving my daughter at Bathurst when she was a university student. As I listened to Ms Lee Rhiannon's contribution I reflected upon the fact that the system is biased against the victim and supports the perpetrator. I would add that if it had not been for the support that my wife and I gave to our daughter as parents, she would not have gone the distance. The fellow changed his plea a number of times and relied on legal aid. However, when we eventually got to court, which took some 18 months, suddenly he could afford the best legal representation money could buy, including a Queens counsel, a junior barrister and a solicitor. We had to accept the legal representation provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

A large number of witnesses were called. They made up a story and, one by one, they were knocked out. They clearly lied and perjured themselves, and I never understood why they were not pursued for that. The police told us that it was such a clear-cut case that it would be over in one day. On day four I realised that the tactic of the Queens counsel defending what I call the indefensible was to allege a technical breach of court, in the hope that perhaps one or two years down the track we would give up the fight. However, it made us more determined to pursue the case and support our daughter. I think the most disturbing aspect was that during the court proceedings it was not actually the fellow who committed the offence who was our major concern, it was the Queens counsel defending him. I thought his behaviour was unconscionable.

I realised during the conduct of the case that it was almost a sterile type of environment. Throughout the hearing counsel argued points of law that bore no resemblance to what was going on in real life at the time. This concerned us. Our daughter survived the questioning, although it caused her to break down a number of times; indeed, on occasions we had to request that the court adjourn while she settled down. Eventually the fellow was found guilty. I wholeheartedly support Ms Lee Rhiannon's comments. I believe there is a need for special protection for complainants in sexual assault matters. I congratulate the Hon. David Clarke on his contribution. I believe this bill is the first step in long-overdue and much-needed reform on these issues. I speak from bitter personal experience in this regard.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.34 p.m.]: The Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Bill stems from an election commitment of the Labor Government to introduce reforms to improve the court process for complainants in sexual assault matters. There have been a number of well-publicised incidences of sexual assault in the past few years, the most notable being the Skaf case. The case illustrates all too graphically the suffering and trauma that victims of sexual assault have to ensure to enable prosecutions to get to court. The victim has not only gone through an horrific assault but subsequently faces questioning by police and then reliving the whole ordeal in court. It is no wonder that this results in lower rates of reported incidences of sexual assault. The bill aims to make the court process in this chain more endurable so that more victims will come forward to report incidences of sexual assault and subsequently give evidence in court.

The difficulty in this area is balancing the rights of the accused against those of the victim. This was brought into stark relief with the bill just passed by the House, the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Evidence) Bill. That bill addressed a slightly different issue, whereby, in the case of a retrial, the victim had to give evidence twice regarding the same assault. With regard to that case, the Law Society's suggestion of allowing video evidence of the victim's testimony would have been the best option to balance the rights of the victim with those of the accused. I wish to address three key aspects of this bill that I believe require change. Members would have been informed of those aspects at the crossbench briefing by the Law Society.

New section 275A places an obligation on the court to disallow improper questions, regardless of whether an objection is raised. This has the effect of negating section 41 of the Evidence Act in regard to cross-examination of witnesses in criminal proceedings. The intent of the bill is for this to apply in sexual assault trials, but it will in its present form apply to all criminal trials. I foreshadow moving amendments to give the court discretion to allow improper questions. It is assumed that a judge in a sexual assault trial will use this discretion to protect the victim from overly aggressive defence counsel asking inappropriate or offensive questions that are designed to unsettle the witness rather than serve the interests of justice. Subsections (5) and (6) of section 275A are, in essence, confusing. Indeed, as they are not a critical part of the bill I believe they should be omitted.

New section 281C (1) provides that the prosecuting authority is not required, and cannot be compelled, to give an accused person a copy of the transcript of sensitive evidence. In recent years our legal system has moved towards full discovery of both sides' evidence, so that the accused is aware of the case against him or her and the prosecution is aware of the defence case. The whole idea of these reforms was to save the court's time. Quite often it would result in an accused making a plea of guilty after seeing what evidence the prosecution had. The new section takes the court system back to the past.

I can understand the rationale behind the section in preventing sensitive evidence being widely circulated at the expense of embarrassment on the part of the victim. However, I believe that as presently drafted the provision does not serve the interests of an expedited trial process. There are also practical difficulties that would disadvantage an accused person. Section 281D (2) (d) allows the accused to view the material at a place nominated by the prosecuting authority, but it does not take into account an accused who is in custody. Section 281D (4) requires expert witnesses to travel to the offices of the prosecuting authority every time they need to view evidence. Experts are often from interstate or overseas, so the provision is unreasonable and possibly unworkable. It is worsened by the national shortage of forensic pathologists, particularly in New South Wales, which makes it necessary for defence counsel to get expert evidence from interstate. To balance the rights of the accused and the privacy of the victim, I foreshadow moving an amendment to give the accused's legal representative access to evidence deemed to be sensitive. My amendment will also include an undertaking that the accused's legal representative will enter into with regard to the confidentiality of sensitive evidence.

There is a difference of opinion about whether sexual assault proceedings should be held out of public view. It is extremely difficult for a victim to give evidence at all, and when the evidence is given in court that is open to the public it is even more difficult. However, it is a feature of our legal system that matters are heard in public so that justice is seen to be done. Justice behind closed doors always leaves doubts. The media also has a role to play in ensuring that the public are informed about how the law is being administered and what is happening in New South Wales generally.

Section 291 provides for a presumption that proceedings for a prescribed sexual offences be held in camera. The court can rule otherwise, but the presumption is that it is a closed court. A very high test is set to overturn this presumption, as set out in section 291 (3), which provides that there must be "special reasons in the interests of justice". It is not sufficient to offer as the reason that "justice should be seen to be done". I understand that the Government is considering an amendment to delete section 291, which I would support. In short, I will reserve my decision on supporting the bill, depending on how the proposed amendments are dealt with.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.39 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Bill. This bill will introduce very important reforms to improve the court processes for sexual assault victims in sexual assault prosecutions. As we know, there has been a number of complaints about the treatment of some of the victims of sexual assault—I prefer to use the word "rape", because the word "rape" carries with it a feeling of revulsion held in our community about rape. I have argued previously that "sexual assault" is a softer term and I believe it does not do justice to the victims of rape.

In view of those complaints, the Government has brought in this welcome piece of legislation to improve the process surrounding sexual assault prosecutions and there has been discussion with all the various stakeholders. There have been many reports in recent times of the stress that rape victims go through when they have to first of all make the decision to report the rape, that is, to a police officer. There are reports sometimes that the victims are not handled in the caring, sympathetic way they should be. That is the first hurdle the rape victim has to overcome: to make the decision to report the rape, to be questioned by police officers and then cross-examined as the material is prepared for the ensuing court case. Then the victim has to go through the trauma of giving evidence in a court, often with many people present as well as the alleged rapist, or rapists if it was a gang rape.

Under our criminal law system, the rape victim is required in her evidence to give all the details about the rape in a precise and explicit way, and under cross-examination; to describe the sexual acts in detail, even the language that was used by the rapist or rapists to describe her or her body parts; and to say the names that were used to describe her, which are usually of a very offensive nature and would include swear words and so on. For the victim it would be painful even to think about them, let alone repeat them in a court. So it is a very embarrassing and humiliating experience for the rape victim to go through. Of course, other women who have been considering reporting a rape see such cases reported on television and in the media; they see how distraught the rape victim is and they think, "I do not want to go through that situation myself." Consequently, they are reluctant to report that they have been raped or have suffered any other form of sexual assault.

I believe this bill is important if it can remove some of those handicaps that prevent a woman reporting a rape, and assist her to retain her dignity in the court, and hopefully to finally see the rapist convicted as a result of the woman putting herself on the line and being prepared to go through the whole ordeal. The bill provides that the court must be closed when the complainant in the sexual assault proceedings gives evidence, unless there are special reasons why in the interests of justice the court shall remain open, or unless the complainant chooses otherwise. We support that provision. The bill will also provide that a support person or a person of the complainant's choice is exempt from the order to close the court. It is a very important provision to have someone who may be a sister, a mother or a support person from one of the victim organisations, sometimes a Salvation Army officer, who can be with the rape victim.

Thirdly, a very important new provision places a positive duty on the court to disallow improper questions or improper tones of address in cross-examination of all witnesses in all criminal matters. This provision is based upon section 41 of the Evidence Act 1995, which gives a court a discretionary power to disallow questions that are "misleading or unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive or repetitive". I think this is important because we know that the lawyers defending an alleged rapist will do all they can to defend the accused person—of course, that is their job. Lawyers use all the ability that they have and also, one may say, the tricks of the trade as lawyers, to in some way harass the victims, to upset them and to get them emotionally distraught so they can use this tactic of making the victims appear to give conflicting evidence. During cross-examination the lawyers will say, "You said this previously and now you are saying this."

I am sure any one of us going through that stressful situation would find it very difficult to keep remembering exactly what we have said on each occasion and the way in which we have said it. Rape victims even have to take their minds back and picture in detail the actual rape and the series of events. They have to remember what was said and be able to repeat all those words accurately under cross-examination. I believe this provision is a very important one and hopefully it will assist women to come forward. A new provision, based on a similar Queensland provision, is also created limiting access to and distribution of sensitive evidence, such as medical photographs taken as part of a sexual assault investigation. The reform will operate in the same way as the present prohibition that exists in relation to the taped evidence of a child sexual assault victim.

I understand that this provision in the bill was developed because of reports that photographs of a sensitive nature, being of a body photographed in a post-mortem situation, and even photographs of a rape victim and her private parts, were handed over to the defence and finished up in the hands of the alleged rapist. In that case, the convicted rapist accessed these photographs and, because he was in prison, he was able to gloat and boast as he passed the photographs around to other prison inmates. That is the reason for this provision. For that reason we fully support that only photographs that are necessary should be made available and that the defence would have the opportunity to see photographs, but they cannot copy them and make them available to their clients.
I have received a submission from the Law Society of New South Wales that is critical of a number of the bill's provisions, such as the measure dealing with improper questions. The Law Society has recommended that the words "unless relevant to a fact in issue" be inserted into new section 275A (1) (a). It is critical also of the clauses that deal with sensitive evidence. Law Society representatives and defence lawyers briefed honourable members, arguing strongly that unless the photographs can be copied, many cases will be delayed, resulting in additional costs. This will certainly be the case with expert advice if it becomes necessary for experts to travel to where the photographs are held.

The Law Society believes lawyers should have access to photocopies so that they can be shown to expert witnesses in the United Kingdom, the United States of America or some distant place from the police station where the photographs are held. That argument has some merit, although I accept that some lawyers are unethical. The question is whether we accept the assurances of the Law Society that photographs will not be used inappropriately by lawyers and that lawyers who show copies to unauthorised persons will be punished. Indeed, the Law Society has drafted an undertaking to be signed by defence lawyers in the following terms:

• The defendant's legal representative takes all responsibility for the safe-keeping of the sensitive evidence.

• The sensitive evidence will not be published by any means.

• The sensitive evidence will not be copied—

They will be provided with a copy but they will not copy it—

• The evidence will not be given to any other person.

• The sensitive evidence will not be shown to any person other than:

• the defendant,

• if counsel is instructed to appear, counsel appearing for the defendant at the hearing, committal, trial or appeal of the matter,

• defence expert witnesses, if appropriate.

• The only time that the defendant will view the sensitive evidence is in the presence of the defendant's legal representative.

I assume that means the lawyer will actually retain control of the sensitive evidence, show it to the defendant but not allow the defendant to take it away—

• If the defendant's legal representative ceases to act for the defendant, the sensitive evidence will be returned to the prosecutor within 7 days of the defendant's legal representative ceasing to act.

• If the defendant is discharged or is found not guilty, the sensitive evidence will be returned to the prosecutor within 7 days of the end of the legal proceedings.

• If the defendant is convicted, the sensitive evidence will be returned to the prosecutor within 28 days of the last day for the lodging of the relevant notice of appeal or notice of intention to appeal.

These are worthwhile safeguards, which I understand the Government will agree to, provided protocols are drawn up after the passage of the bill. I am prepared to accept the word of the Government if it gives assurances that protocols will be drafted to meet the suggested undertakings of the Law Society. That is preferable to amending the bill to make it a statutory requirement. I would prefer to maintain that confidentiality rather than risk photographs getting into the wrong hands.

I am concerned about certain aspects of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and related legislation that deals with evidence used in court. I place on record my concern over the recent case involving Lyle Simpson, a 47 year-old-man who has been in custody for 14 months awaiting trial after being charged with the murder of Rhonda Buckley in her Newcastle home in September 2001. During the trial in March 2005, the Supreme Court heard legal argument, following which the prosecutor announced that she had been directed to discontinue the trial. The ABC news stated that Lyle Simpson said the decision was a great relief and that he was looking forward to being reunited with his family. The relatives of Rhonda Buckley were shocked at the decision. Initially, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would not comment on the reasons for that decision. The media then diligently investigated the case and found that Lyle Simpson had confessed to being a killer. Indeed, his DNA evidence was found on the body of the deceased. He then tried to commit suicide a day later. It is asserted that Lyle Simpson confessed to killing not only Rhonda Buckley but also another woman who, he said, was a prostitute.

Following three days of legal argument in the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Whealy ruled that some evidence was too damning and could be prejudicial to the accused. This case hit the headlines. I was not aware that the prosecution could possess such overwhelming evidence that an accused could be found guilty almost instantly and both Justice Whealy and the Director of Public Prosecutions agreed that the evidence was prejudicial to the accused. I thought it was the function of police and everyone involved in fighting crime, particularly in rape cases, to gather as much evidence is possible—the more damning the evidence, the better. The role of the police is to be diligent and to obtain forensic evidence in order to convict offenders.

In New South Wales we have the bizarre circumstance that if the evidence is so overwhelming that it could be prejudicial to be accused, the case cannot proceed, which is what happened in this case. The relatives of Rhonda Buckley were shocked by the decision to allow Lyle Simpson to go free. It is alleged that Lyle Simpson rang his wife, Kamara, several times, saying that he had "killed two sheilas". In another phone call he allegedly said, "I have killed a prostitute, there's two less sheilas in the world." Ms Buckley, who was his mistress, was discovered, strangled in her bed, by her daughter and son-in-law and Simpson's DNA in the form of semen was found on her body.

I urge the Government to review and amend the legislation to remove this bizarre anomaly. I note that Suzy Westgarth, the daughter of Rhonda Buckley, described the situation as "disgusting", and has appealed to the Government to change the laws allowing vital evidence in her mother's case to be withheld. She said:

I'm … angry, so angry. I would have liked the DPP to have tried a bit harder to get the evidence in …

The police did all they could and I can't believe it gets to this stage and they can decide not to go ahead with the most important evidence.

It is very difficult to make sense of the legal system and I definitely think the Government needs to make changes, and soon.

Mrs Westgarth said that she had been told this week in talks with the DPP and the police that this outcome was likely. She said:

I was prepared for what happened but that doesn't make it any easier.

I urge the Government to take note of what I have said about that matter in my contribution, and to introduce an amending bill. If not, I will introduce a private member's bill to clarify the situation so that justice is done and is seen to be done in this State.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.00 p.m.]: I am sorry that I was not here earlier to hear the full contributions of Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Charlie Lynn because they expressed reservations that perhaps the Government had not clarified the whole picture. I am of the view that the sooner this bill is passed the better because some aspects of it will clarify the legal position in New South Wales. I note two aspects in particular. I recall making an adjournment speech in this House a few years ago in which I contrasted women giving evidence in sexual assault cases in an open court and women giving evidence before closed-circuit television, and I highlighted their experiences. No doubt closed-circuit television will give many women much greater capacity to be open in the way they present their case.

However, we must acknowledge at all times that our court system is based on being open and accessible and upon which there can be appropriate reporting. I acknowledge that the Government will move amendments relating to media reporting. It is not about media reporting; it is about the nature of the media reporting, the fact that families and supporters of the alleged perpetrator of a sexual assault are present, and the fact that the whole theatre of the court can be played out to the detriment of victims of sexual assault. The point I make—it is the reason that the sooner some provisions are enacted the better—is that the amendment imposes a positive duty on judges to act to prevent improper questions.

In terms of improper questions, new section 275A (1) (d) provides that questions are disallowable if they have no basis other than a sexual, racial, cultural or ethnic stereotype. In the past fortnight we have been reminded that in our multicultural society we are tolerant of the different views of people with different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds. However, the actions of one Muslim cleric have required us to stop and think about how far we take that multiculturalism and how open it is. I found the words—I said this on radio on the morning that I read the Sunday newspaper—of a particular cleric from Western Sydney grossly offensive to women in general and to rape victims in particular. He placed the responsibility for the sexual assault and rape of women on how those women dressed and acted.

The cleric was probably sincere in his view, but it is not the view of the society in which we have raised our daughters in terms of how they dress. What we accept as acceptable clothing is not acceptable in his eyes, and he has placed a sense of prejudice and hatred in the eyes of young men in his community in terms of how they interpret the way young women dress. He gave young men an excuse and a way out that is intolerable and unacceptable. That is why we must put in place legislation that makes it clear that an approach that places the responsibility for rape on women is unacceptable in any cultural group in the community. Not long ago prominent men in our society—I do not want this to sound like a feminist speech because it is not meant to be—considered that somehow or other women had caused the sexual assault or rape when in fact men in positions of authority had inappropriately acted towards young women. I clearly recall that some men thought that the women were responsible for the sexual assault or rape.

In some court cases the way questions have been posed has meant that responsibility for the actions has been reversed. I am sorry that I did not hear the contribution of Ms Lee Rhiannon because her perspective would have been insightful. When I came into the Chamber I heard her express some doubts or questions about this. The Hon. Charlie Lynn brings a personal perspective and one I respect enormously. Indeed, anyone who has been through what his family went through would certainly be alert as to whether all cases have been adequately covered and whether protection is provided to young women who find themselves in a situation similar to that of his daughter.

This bill provides an opportunity to make it clear that attitudes such as that conveyed recently by a particular cleric are entirely out of place in our society. We must protect young women from the potential consequences that could flow from that. We must make it clear to women who go to court as a result of a sexual assault that how they dressed, their religious persuasion or any aspect of their behaviour is not the issue. The stereotyping displayed by this cleric—when he had an opportunity to clarify his comments he did not do so adequately—reminded me of the free and open approach in our community and the clear view about the obligations of all people in the community in terms of the crimes of sexual assault and rape. The reaction by some people has been insidious, and what we take as a given in terms of stereotyping and what should be disallowable questions needs to be clarified. The sooner we make it clear, as this bill proposes, that there is a positive duty on judges to prevent improper questions based on stereotyping, the better off the community will be.

We should not feel intimidated for highlighting in this debate an individual and a particular cultural point of view. I do not feel intimidated by that cleric. At the time I said in the media that he was wrong and that he should apologise to women in general and to the victims of rape in particular. The Western Sydney community has had to deal with gang rapes in recent times. We should call a spade a spade. It is extraordinary to me that in 2005 we have to make it clear to judges what their obligations are. One would have thought that within our community, as broad as it is, the positive duty of judges should be obvious. But, if we need to spell it out, as this legislation does, I welcome it. There is no doubt that in our community people still have points of view—based on ethnic, religious or whatever backgrounds—that put women at risk. That is the effect of that cleric's words, not just to his audience but also to other people who are looking for excuses for the way they treat women.

The sooner this legislation is in place the better off women will be. Parliament should take this opportunity to say clearly that the sorts of words we heard from that cleric do not belong in our society. It is unforgivable that they could potentially give rise to crimes, and we should use the full force of law—and this legislation will strengthen that law—to make sure that nobody uses the rhetoric of that individual as an excuse to assault young women because of how they dress or act. I have long supported a multicultural society, but if that is the logical conclusion of a multicultural society it is not the sort of society I feel comfortable with.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.13 p.m.]: I congratulate my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe on her remarks. I believe that the community wants us to call a spade a spade in relation to these important issues. For the sake of our different cultures and the future of multiculturalism we have to be honest and deal fairly with all issues. I draw the attention of the House to an interesting point that became known to me only recently. It is true that there is an overrepresentation of Muslim boys in the juvenile justice system, but I have yet to find anyone who can recall a Muslim girl being in the juvenile justice system. That is a remarkable statement about Muslim women. They may commit crimes, but I am not aware of them. Not many cultural groups in Australia could claim never to have had a woman from their background in custody at some stage.
I welcome the rights of victims being addressed in this legislation. It is long overdue. In my daily work I come into contact with many victims of crime, as do many other honourable members. I listen to their heartbreak and their frustrations with the system. All feel that the State Government is often not the best advocate for its clients if those clients are victims. It is a positive step to put in place in the court system a framework that will improve victims' rights and make the process simpler. I stress that this is a framework and requires resources to make it work. The Government will need to follow it up, particularly with new technology.

Victims I have spoken to feel the problem is not only the giving of evidence but the very lengthy delays leading up to the giving of evidence. Because of the way cases are scheduled they find they are in queues for years. These people effectively put their lives on hold. In many cases they are motivated to give evidence by a sense of closure but find this a devastating experience, as do their family members. This enormously long and stressful build-up—the relentless delay—is almost as abusive as the process itself. I appreciate that many people in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions go to great lengths to liaise with victims, and there are many people of goodwill. Nevertheless, they are fighting systemic issues, and I draw to the Government's attention that these issues are broader than just giving evidence in court. I am absolutely delighted to see these long overdue reforms.

I will not recap on the excellent contributions made in this debate. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile drew attention to an issue of particular interest to me, and that relates to access to sensitive evidence. Some cases have been cited, but one case has obviously been an important trigger for these provisions, which relate mainly to victims of sexual assault. The legislation also refers to sensitive evidence, including post-mortem photos. Last year post-mortem photos of nine-year-old Brendan Saul from Dubbo were obtained by a detainee who was accused of being the driver of the car that killed that boy. I understand the detainee had those photos in his possession for some time. The Minister indicated it was less than 24 hours but my information is different, that the detainee had possession of them for some time and was boasting and bragging about his crime.

I understand detention centres are empowered to regulate what property detainees have and do not have, but for some reason there seems to have been considerable hesitation and it was decided that these were the property of the detainee. Eventually some person with commonsense removed the photographs but incredibly it appears that a few weeks later the photographs were given back to the detainee and they had to be removed a second time. This was an embarrassing case and the Minister and the Government shared everybody's horror that this could occur. This legislation has provisions relating to post-mortem photographs, and that is appropriate. Obviously I was critical of the Government at the time of the incident, but I commend the Government for including those provisions in the legislation.

Unfortunately—and this is a regular concern with this Government—nothing was done in relation to the incident in the Orana Juvenile Justice Centre at Dubbo, where Brendan Saul's photographs were in circulation, until the matter was revealed by the media. John Ryan of WIN Television in Dubbo broke the story after a person in the system was so disgusted by what had happened that he came forward to him and spoke out.

Kevin and Patsy Saul were not aware that this had occurred inside the centre until many weeks later when the story was broken by WIN Television. They were very disappointed at the poor victim liaison: they had to find out something as shocking as that on television one night. I believe that there were further apologies to them for that as well. But had WIN Television not run that story, had some person in good conscience not come forward to WIN Television with the story, we would not be considering these provisions tonight. It is a great shame that whistleblowers have to act, often at great personal risk, to draw these matters to public attention before appropriate action is taken. Nevertheless, appropriate action has been taken in this bill. I warmly welcome and support the bill.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [9.21 p.m.]: I totally support the bill and commend the Government for introducing it. I agree with many of the points raised by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. In this day and age perhaps we should not need to introduce such a bill. However, sometimes a society and judges need to be educated and we have to impose a bill such as this for the female members of our society to have adequate protections. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe referred to a certain cleric in Western Sydney. Obviously, the cleric is eccentric and does not represent most people of Islamic faith. I am sure that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and everyone else would assume that his views would not reflect the views of Islamic women anyway. Even among the Christian community people hold extreme views that she and I would not endorse in any way. With those remarks, I totally support the bill and congratulate the Government again.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [9.22 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and support, Opposition members and crossbenchers in particular. The Government is proud to stand by its continuing record of reform in this area of sexual assault prosecutions. The remarks of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile about the Simpson case have nothing to do with this bill. However, I am advised that currently a review of the Evidence Act is being conducted by the Law Reform Commission and he is free to make a submission to that review. I will address the points raised by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans during the Committee stage.

We are aware of the shocking re-victimisation that can occur to sexual assault complainants in their simple quest to have justice done in their case. We are determined to ensure that these courageous people can receive all the appropriate support to allow them to give the best evidence that they can in an environment that does not exacerbate the ordeal that they have already suffered. In making the amendments we carefully considered the competing policy considerations and we are confident that we can provide these mechanisms to protect complainants and ensure that accused persons continue to receive their right to a fair trial. The Government has always been active in reforming this area of the law and will continue to look for ways to improve and modernise this very difficult area. The Sexual Assault Task Force convened by the Attorney General's Department, with representatives from key stakeholders and peak bodies, will be meeting throughout the remainder of this year and will deliver a report to the Attorney General by the end of the year. I look forward to receiving the report. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.26 p.m.], by leave: I move Australian Democrats amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1, proposed section 275A (1), line 16. Omit "must". Insert instead "may".

No. 2 Page 5, schedule 1, proposed section 275A (5) and (6), lines 9-14. Omit all words on those lines.

Amendment No. 1 would change "must" to "may" in proposed section 275A (1). Proposed section 274A places an obligation on the court to disallow improper questions whether or not an objection is raised in court. This has the effect of negating section 41 of the Evidence Act with regard to cross-examination of witnesses in criminal trials. The intent of the bill is for the provision to apply in sexual assault trials but the bill in its present form would apply it to all criminal trials. The proposed amendments would give the court discretion to disallow an improper question. It is assumed that the judge in sexual assault trials would use this discretion to protect victims from overly aggressive defence counsel asking inappropriate or offensive questions that are designed to unsettle the witness rather than serve the interests of justice.

What is an improper question is a matter that can only be decided by a judge at the time, or in retrospect from a transcript if the matter is heard on appeal. But in any case the matter becomes a question of judgment for the judge. So in this case the Parliament is assuming that judges are not enlightened enough to allow a cross-examination that is fair from the defendant's point of view and is taking away the judge's discretion. Presumably the judge will have to decide what is an improper question in any case in order to disallow it without an appeal from the prosecution counsel. In a sense the judge will be under some pressure not to miss any improper questions as failure to disallow an improper question presumably would instantly give grounds for appeal. So in a sense that provision detracts from judicial independence.

It was said by Ms Lee Rhiannon, I think with justice, that there were unenlightened attitudes in the law 20 years ago. People said things like, "Well, she deserved it" and so on. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe referred to this opinion being uttered recently by a Muslim cleric in Western Sydney. Obviously, some people come from relatively less progressive subcultures that have not embraced a more modern approach to these matters or to the advancement of the women's movement. Indeed, quite recently an occupant of the post of Governor-General of this country was in trouble for this very thing.

The assumption that this Parliament has to impose an obligation on judges and will remove their discretion should not be made lightly. That is why I believe judges will be robustly criticised if they allow a witness to be hectored, or if they do not protect the interests of obviously vulnerable victims. However, judges should retain that discretion and the Parliament should not trespass in areas of that law in respect of which judges should have a discretion. I have spoken previously about the separation of powers.

Subsections (5) and (6) of proposed section 275A will be deleted by amendment No. 2. They are in essence confusing and should be omitted in any event. They are certainly not critical to the proper functioning of the Act. I commend my amendments to the Committee in the interests of the separation of powers between the Parliament and judges, and I believe the bill will be improved by this minor change.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [9.31 p.m.]: The Government cannot support Australian Democrats amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Firstly, the amendment proposed by the bill is intended to apply to all criminal matters, not just sexual assault prosecutions. The intention of the amendment, as stated by the Attorney General in his second reading speech, is to ensure that courts consistently disallow improper questions. This aim would not be achieved by making the rule applicable to a limited set of proceedings.

Australian Democrat amendment No. 1 seeks to substitute the word "may" for the word "must" in relation to the requirement for a court to disallow an improper question. Amendment No. 2 seeks to remove the provision that the duty to disallow improper questions applies regardless of whether a party has objected to the question. These amendments would render the provision meaningless as this is the current law under section 41 of the Evidence Act 1995.

The purpose of the provision in the bill is to place a requirement on the court to ensure that harassing, intimidating and humiliating questions are disallowed. The Democrats amendment removes any duty on a trial court, permitting a totally discretionary power to disallow questions. The intention of the Government was clearly stated by the Attorney General in the following terms:

It is not an unreasonable policy position to expect that, in getting to the truth of the matter, questions in court will not be misleading or confusing, that they should not be harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, humiliating or repetitive. Neither should questioning be belittling or insulting. Questioning should certainly never be solely based in sexism, racism, or a cultural or ethnic stereotype. I do not think it is all that inappropriate for the Parliament to establish a standard to which the trial should be conducted, and to ask judges to ensure that these standards are adhered to.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [9.33 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendments moved by the Hon. Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.33 p.m.]: The Greens do not support these amendments. We believe that the provisions should remain as they are. The Greens believe that judges should be obliged to stop counsel asking improper questions. We believe strongly that discretion should not rest with the court with regard to whether an abusive line of questioning should be stopped. Such a provision should be locked in, and we believe that in this instance the Government has got it right. We are unable to support the amendments.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.34 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 7, schedule 1, proposed section 281C. Insert after line 35:

(3) In subsection (1), a reference to an accused person does not include a reference to a legal practitioner representing the accused person who has made an undertaking in the following form:

Undertaking regarding sensitive evidence

Prosecuting authority giving copy of sensitive evidence (the prosecuting authority)

Description of sensitive evidence:

Name of legal practitioner giving the undertaking:
Name of accused person legal practitioner is representing (the accused person):
Proceedings (if any) (the proceedings):

I undertake to ensure that the sensitive evidence is not damaged, lost or in any way altered by any person before it is returned to the prosecuting authority.

I also undertake to ensure that the sensitive evidence is not published by any person by any means.
I further undertake to ensure that the sensitive evidence is not copied by any person.

I further undertake to ensure that no person views, comes into possession of, or becomes aware of the contents of the sensitive evidence other than:

(a) the accused person, but only in my presence, or

(b) a legal practitioner representing the accused person at a hearing, committal, trial or appeal in or relating to these proceedings, or

(c) a person giving expert evidence at a hearing, committal, trial or appeal in or relating to the proceedings where it is appropriate that the person do so.

I further undertake to ensure that, if I cease to represent the accused person, the sensitive evidence is returned to the prosecuting authority within 7 days of my ceasing to act.
I further undertake to ensure that, if the accused person is discharged or is found not guilty in the proceedings, the sensitive evidence is returned to the prosecuting authority within 7 days of the accused person being discharged or found not guilty.
I further undertake to ensure that, if the accused person is convicted in the proceedings, the sensitive evidence is returned to the prosecuting authority:

(a) if a notice of appeal or notice of intention to appeal in respect of the conviction is lodged—within 7 days of the appeal being determined, or

(b) if a notice of appeal or notice of intention to appeal is not lodged in respect of the conviction on or before the last day on which such a notice may be lodged—within 7 days of that day.

Signature:
Date:

Proposed section 281C (1) states that a prosecuting authority is not required and cannot be compelled to give an accused person a copy of sensitive evidence. In recent years our legal system has moved towards full discovery of the evidence of both parties so that the accused knows the case against him or her and the prosecution knows the defence case. The whole idea of these reforms was to save the court's time. Quite often the strength of the prosecution's evidence would result in an accused entering a guilty plea.

This proposed section will take the court system back to the past. I can understand the Government's rationale: that this measure will prevent sensitive evidence from being widely circulated to the embarrassment of the victim—a matter referred to by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile in his contribution. However, I believe that, as the provision stands, the trial process will not be expedited. In fact, things may be made more difficult for the victim if the trial process is lengthened by cumbersome evidence.

There are also practical difficulties that would disadvantage an accused person. Paragraph (d) of proposed section 281D (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act will allow the accused to view the material at a place nominated by the prosecuting authority, but it does not take into account an accused who is being held in custody. Proposed section 281D (4) requires expert witnesses to travel to the prosecuting authority every time they need to view evidence. Experts are often located interstate or overseas, particularly because of the shortage of forensic pathologists in Australia, and in New South Wales in particular. This provision is unreasonable and probably will not work. It may well further delay the trial process, and any such delay would constitute an impairment of the justice system for both victim and accused, who often is required to spend time before a trial in custody.

Clearly we must balance the rights of the accused and the privacy of the victim. The amendment I have moved proposes that the accused's legal representatives will have access to evidence deemed to be sensitive. This amendment also includes an undertaking with regard to sensitive evidence that the accused's legal representative will enter into. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile suggested, not to put too fine a point on it, that you "cannot trust lawyers". Clearly my amendment requires a contract to be drawn up; it is a matter of professional ethics. It was proposed to me by a number of defence barristers, and although it is set out in my amendment, it is worth repeating. It states:

Undertaking regarding sensitive evidence

Prosecuting authority giving copy of sensitive evidence (the prosecuting authority)


Description of sensitive evidence:

Name of legal practitioner giving the undertaking:
Name of accused person legal practitioner is representing (the accused person):
Proceedings (if any) (the proceedings):
I undertake to ensure that the sensitive evidence is not damaged, lost or in any way altered by any person before it is returned to the prosecuting authority.
I also undertake to ensure that the sensitive evidence is not published by any person by any means.
I further undertake to ensure that the sensitive evidence is not copied by any person.
I further undertake to ensure that no person views, comes into possession of, or becomes aware of the contents of the sensitive evidence other than:

(a) the accused person, but only in my presence, or

(b) a legal practitioner representing the accused person at a hearing, committal, trial or appeal in or relating to these proceedings, or

(c) a person giving expert evidence at a hearing, committal, trial or appeal in or relating to the proceedings where it is appropriate that the person do so.

I further undertake to ensure that, if I cease to represent the accused person, the sensitive evidence is returned to the prosecuting authority within 7 days of my ceasing to act.
I further undertake to ensure that, if the accused person is discharged or is found not guilty in the proceedings, the sensitive evidence is returned to the prosecuting authority within 7 days of the accused person being discharged or found not guilty.
I further undertake to ensure that, if the accused person is convicted in the proceedings, the sensitive evidence is returned to the prosecuting authority:

(a) if a notice of appeal or notice of intention to appeal in respect of the conviction is lodged—within 7 days of the appeal being determined, or

(b) if a notice of appeal or notice of intention to appeal is not lodged in respect of the conviction on or before the last day on which such a notice may be lodged—within 7 days of that day.

Signature:
Date:

That is the form of undertaking the barrister would enter into if he or she asks for sensitive evidence to be kept confidential so it could not be issued to the media or prisons, or circulated in a public forum. The advantages of such an undertaking—which is a tightly defined contract by a barrister whose credibility, probably for his or her whole life, is at risk if the undertaking is breached—are that a sufficient safeguard is provided to allow sensitive evidence to be given to the defence barrister and, further, that convenience in terms of getting the trial expedited for the benefit of both the victim and the accused is increased. I believe my amendment strikes that balance, and I commend it to the Committee.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [9.41 p.m.]: The Government cannot support Australian Democrats amendment No. 3, which states that for the purposes of the section a reference to an accused person does not include a reference to the accused person's legal representative. First I stress that the amount of evidence that will fall into the category of "sensitive evidence" would be a very small percentage of the entire prosecution brief; it will only be evidence of the most serious and distressing type.

Second, section 281C (4) already requires the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] to give access to sensitive evidence to defence counsel and any other person assisting in the preparation of the defence case, for example an expert, as soon as practicable after a notice has been given, and if necessary on more than one occasion. Subsections (5) and (6) also already give the DPP a wide discretion to facilitate access by a defence counsel and experts to sensitive evidence. The only requirement in subsection (5) is that the DPP grants access under conditions that ensure that there is no unauthorised reproduction or circulation of the sensitive material.

I can inform the House that the DPP is well advanced in drafting a policy in relation to the operation of these provisions. I also believe that NSW Police will be involved in finalising a policy. The DPP is very much aware of the concerns of the Law Society, and of defence counsel in particular. I wish to emphasise the following point made by the Attorney General in the other place:

There is absolutely no benefit in the prosecution making it impossible for an accused person to access material defined as sensitive material; to do so would merely provide grounds for a valid appeal in relation to an unfair trial.

There is already a similar scheme in operation governing accused person's access to JIRT tapes, which are video interviews with children who have been sexually assaulted. The DPP and police are experienced in facilitating access to this type of sensitive material, including to accused persons who are in custody.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [9.44 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [9.45 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 in globo:

No. 1 Page 13, schedule 1 [7]. Insert after line 16:

291C Media access to proceedings held in camera

(1) If a complainant gives evidence in proceedings in respect of a prescribed sexual offence from a place other than the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television facilities or other technology that enables communication between that place and the courtroom (whether under section 294B or the Evidence (Children) Act 1997), and the proceedings, or the part of the proceedings concerned, are held in camera under this Division, a media representative may, unless the court otherwise directs, enter or remain in the courtroom while the evidence is given from that other place. This subsection does not apply to proceedings in respect of an offence under section 78A or 78B of the Crimes Act 1900.

(2) The fact that proceedings in respect of a prescribed sexual offence, or any part of such proceedings, are held in camera under this Division does not prevent the court from making such arrangements as the court considers reasonably practicable to allow media representatives to view or hear the evidence while it is given, or to view or hear a record of that evidence, as long as the media representatives are not present in the courtroom or other place where the evidence is given during the in camera proceedings.

Note. For example, the court may permit media representatives to view the proceedings from a place other than the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television facilities.

(3) In this section:

media representative, in relation to any proceedings, means a person engaged in preparing a report of the proceedings for dissemination through a public news medium.

No. 3 Page 18, schedule 1 [26], line 14. Omit "and 291B". Insert instead ", 291B and 291C".

No. 4 Page 19, schedule 2.1, line 10. Insert ", 291C" after "291B".

The Government is aware that the media has expressed particular concern that the proposal to require a court to be closed during the evidence of the complainant will somehow adversely impact on the media's ability to fully and fairly report on sexual assault matters. The Government does not deny that this is a change to media practice in reporting on sexual assault cases. But we cannot ignore the other significant competing policy issues at work for complainants of sexual assault, particularly those who are reluctant to testify. This reluctance to testify can only be increased by the prospect of testifying before a crowded court room containing not only the jury, judge, the accused and various legal representatives, but also interested members of the public, members of the family of the accused, representatives of the media and so on.

This proposal was one made to the Government by the Heroines of Fortitude Report. It was an election commitment made by the Government in 2003 and it is just plain common sense that the closing of the court and the exclusion of the public, including the media, may be a reassuring mechanism that allows a complainant to give her best evidence without having to be re-victimised in front of a room full of strangers. It was never the intention of the Government that sexual assault prosecutions would be held in secret and not reported upon. I take this opportunity to refute one of the furphies being perpetuated about this bill that "in camera" means suppressing the evidence. While "in camera" in one sense may mean closing the court and suppressing the evidence, the bill does not reflect this meaning and the Attorney General made this abundantly clear in the other place when he said:

… the media will not be prevented from reporting cases and the evidence will not be suppressed. For example, in the past where a court has been closed the media has been able to report on evidence given through some sort of alternative arrangement, through listening to audio or watching a video feed in a separate room or, of course, by having access to court transcripts so that they continue to report on any particular case. The media is not being prevented from reporting on cases by these particular provisions and, in any event, it may be assumed that some complainants will choose not to close the court if they would like journalists to be present.

Nevertheless, to clarify this intention even further, the Government is introducing these amendments. The first amendment introduces a new section 291C headed "Media access to proceedings held in camera." Section 291C (1) provides that in cases where the complainant chooses to give evidence via closed circuit television and is therefore not physically present in the courtroom, the media will be allowed to remain to hear the complainants evidence, though the court will be closed to the rest of the public. This amendment will not apply to incest proceedings under sections 78A or 78B of the Crimes Act. Contrary to another furphy doing the rounds, the substance of proposed section 291B merely replicates what is currently the law in existing section 291 (1A). In fact the requirement that incest proceedings be held in camera was inserted into the Crimes Act 1900 in 1924—formerly section 78F (2)).

In reality prosecutions for incest are extremely rare. Scenarios that involve a child and/or lack of consent are usually prosecuted as child sexual assault or adult sexual assault offences, regardless of any familial relationship. Proposed section 291C (2) also clarifies that the court may make alternative arrangements for the media where the complainant chooses to give evidence in the court room in person. The court already has the power to make orders facilitating alternative access to the complainant's evidence or the record of the complainant's evidence. This section, however, highlights that power and will provide a certain degree of comfort to the media that their needs will be considered. The discretion is drafted in a wide way and will depend on what is practicable in the circumstances, but some examples of how the media might access the evidence are: a live audio feed from the closed court, as occurred in a previous gang rape case; listening to a tape of the evidence; or reading a transcript. Amendments No 3 and 4 are consequential upon amendment No 1.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [9.48 p.m.]: The Opposition is pleased to hear the Minister's clarification that in-camera evidence does not mean suppressed evidence. Subject to noting that the Government will need to provide special court facilities for these amendments to work, the Opposition supports the amendments.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [9.49 p.m.]: I support Government amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4. The bill goes a long way towards clarifying some matters and providing a measure of confidence and comfort to victims of sexual assault. It makes much more transparent the ways in which evidence can be presented and heard. We have a duty of care at all times, particularly with such sensitive issues, to provide a legal environment that is fair to everyone and a legal environment in which victims can be confident they and their evidence will be treated carefully and sensitively. The best justice is achieved when the system in which it is dispensed is open. This proposed legislation will give clarity to that openness, but we must give victims a feeling of security, that their evidence will be heard in an environment in which they can feel comfortable and confident; where they can suffer no further harm. They have already been through such traumatic circumstances and have suffered horrific emotional and physical upheaval.

If we adopt that as a duty of care, we will ensure that no further harm is done to victims—that they are protected—and at the same time ensure that the alleged perpetrators of crime maintain their rights to defend themselves against such allegations. Sexual assault cases must be dealt with sensitively. Many sexual assault cases are not reported on by the media; it tends to be only the more sensational cases that receive such attention. And the nature of that reporting has been the cause of some concern. We have heard about some terrible circumstances, but we do not want victims to be unintentionally harmed further because only one side of the evidence is reported upon.

The media will be able to view such proceedings by way of closed-circuit television [CCTV]; they will have access to information and evidence in a closed, in-camera environment without the victim feeling uncomfortable. This is a significant improvement; it is a good step forward. It will provide some protection for everyone. It will certainly provide an environment in which the victim can feel confident and maintain some dignity. It will provide an open system of justice that will give the media an opportunity to report matters in a more immediate sense, as it were, rather than at some time further down the track.

I note, however, that until there is a rollout of CCTV and videotape equipment it will be difficult to provide such facilities, particularly in country areas. The Government must address that problem. I applaud the Government for moving these amendments, which will provide certainty to victims and encourage thereby, I hope, more victims to report offences because they will have confidence that they and the evidence they present will be treated sensitively and with dignity. I am pleased that we can provide an environment in which victims will no longer be leered at and ridiculed as they come forward to give evidence, where improper questions will be ruled out of order, and where evidence can be given openly without threat or innuendo. I support these amendments and I look forward to the quick passage of this bill so that we can get on with making sure justice is done.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [9.54 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports these amendments. We are committed to the rights of victims. So often the law, in ensuring the rights of the perpetrators of crime, actually harms the victims, and we do not want that to continue.

Amendments agreed to.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [9.55 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 16, schedule 1. Insert after line 32:

[25] Section 314 Media access to court documents

Omit ", a suppression order or are held in closed court" from section 314 (4) (a). Insert instead "or a suppression order".

Amendment No. 2 makes a slight change to existing section 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This provides another alternative for the media to access the evidence or the record of proceedings. Under this amendment media will not have to seek any orders from the court; they will gain access to the evidence through the court registry. Currently section 314 prohibits a registrar from giving the media access to documents from proceedings held in closed court. By removing this prohibition, the media will be able to access these records to prepare a full and fair report. This access will still, of course, be subject to any suppression orders or non-publication orders made by the court. I hope that this amendment and the other Government amendments will clarify what has always been the Government's intention, and that the two principles of protection of sexual assault complaints and of open justice can be satisfactorily balanced.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [9.56 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister for Lands) [9.58 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [9.58 p.m.]: I speak tonight about the long-awaited announcement on the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion, which was finally made by the Premier today. As expected, the Government has capitulated to the environmental extremists in agreeing to an almost total lockup of the Pilliga, Goonoo, Bebo, Terry Hie Hie and Liverpool Plains forest islands. Mills at Bingara, Narrabri and Baradine will exit the industry, with the loss of jobs having a huge impact, particularly in Bingara and Baradine. To demonstrate the scale of the losses, 20 jobs lost in Bingara is equivalent to about 62,000 jobs lost in Sydney, if the Premier were to make a similar decision affecting Sydney.

The locking up of 350,000 hectares of these forests will increase the harvesting pressure on those forest compartments remaining available for harvesting, from approximately 0.15 cubic metres of timber per hectare per year to 0.5 cubic metres per hectare per year—a threefold increase in the amount of timber to be harvested from each hectare each year. The nonsense contained in the Premier's media statements this afternoon claims that "every timber worker who wants a job will have one" and that "this is a win for conservation and for jobs"; it could not be further from the truth.

If the Premier had bothered to go to the Pilliga and Goonoo forests, he would have noticed that the biodiversity is actually contained in the areas where sustainable forestry practices have been in place for over 100 years. He has allocated $80 million to shut down an industry that is worth approximately $50 million per year in returns from the forestry and apiary industries, yet admits that exit payments will be paid to those mills wishing to close their doors. The biggest joke of all is the offer of a 20-year guaranteed timber supply to those mills wishing to stay in the industry.
Millers on the North Coast were offered the same deal some years ago but, alas, in only three or four years those forest compartments, which were supposed to deliver the guaranteed supply, had been overharvested and the timber had to be imported from further south. Depending on which compartments will remain available for harvesting in the Brigalow, it is highly likely that the same problem will develop with this clayton's guarantee. Biodiversity will not be protected or enhanced, as the whipstick pine will regenerate and prevent any other species from colonising the area. In fact, it will drive out of their homes those plants and animals already living there as the overpopulation of pine develops. I shall quote a letter I received from a Mr David Johnston, an ornithologist who has lived beside the Pilliga forest for over 70 years. He raises the following pertinent points:

Point No 1—The best habitat in this forest ie. Well spaced trees with a grassy, limited shrub understorey, so favoured by the majority of wildlife, is where State Forests have been involved in Silviculture practices …

Point No 2—We are going to lose this valuable habitat if NPWS exclude logging activities from the Cypress Pine Forests. A few wet years and the passing of time would see vast areas of National Parks in the West Pilliga overrun with closed up whipstick Pine scrubs—lost to all forms of wildlife.

Point No 3—Under the guidance of NPWS over more recent years State Forest management practices have become dramatically drawn towards the needs of the environment. Examples of these are the requirements when logging to leave a number of millable trees to each hectare as future habitat trees; the protection of hollow ironbark and hollow logs; in exclusion of logging activities adjacent to Koala and Barking Owl roost sites and various waterways riparian zones.

Point No 4—Immediately after logging activities I and others have observed dramatic increases of bird numbers in the logged areas. Likewise a notable increase in Species numbers has been evidence in the following years eg. Woodswallows are particularly drawn to recently logged areas, Barking Owls favour open forest, Speckled Warblers, Rufous Whistlers, Eastern Yellow Robins, Treecreepers and many others prefer this type of open habitat.

Point No 5—PLEASE REMEMBER: We have a unique and incredibly valuable example in this forest. Man and Nature are both major beneficiaries of the same management practices.

Point No 6—If Green activists cannot see the wisdom in leaving the West Pilliga in the hands of State Forest management then there is a commonsense compromise to be considered. The formation of a Forest management regime embracing all stakeholders, that places active conservation above all other considerations. They would be asking themselves what they can do to create a Forest they had wanted to see in 100-200 years time …

The existence of the moratorium, the introduction of National Parks and the 50% cut in milling activities would in a few years completely eliminate all Cypress milling from the Pilliga.

That is what the Government is seeking. The letter concludes:

I am appealing to you not to let this happen.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.03 p.m.]: I inform the House that during the recent break I travelled with Jeff Hunter and John Mills as part of the New South Wales Parliament Asia-Pacific Friendship Group to China. We visited Fujian province, flew into Xiamen, visited Wuyi Mountain and then travelled to the city of Fujou. We paid for our flights and the Chinese paid for our food, accommodation, and land and water transport while we were there. I know that sections of the media do not encourage these sorts of trips; nor does the Federal Government encourage them.

Some provincial government areas have more than 100 million people and even local government areas have more than 20 million people. The Chinese culture places a high value in trust and face-to-face contact is extremely important. Politicians give legitimacy to businessmen and generally one needs to be known as a friend before discussion and business can commence. That fact does not mean that the Chinese are not tough negotiators, but they only deal with people they know. Friendship is necessary before any dealing begins. The Chinese are keen to look to the West, and, as all honourable members would be aware, China is becoming the most important economic and military power in the Asia-Pacific region. It may even become the greatest economic power in contemporary history.

The Chinese economy is expanding at a rate of 7 per cent to 8 per cent a year and its international trade value has quadrupled in the past decade. The Chinese see Australia as a vital market and we would be foolish not to regard China as a potential market for tourism and goods. Wuyi Mountain in Fujian province, which is across the straits from Taiwan, is keen to have a sister-city arrangement with the town of Katoomba. It has a three sisters geological feature and a very beautiful national park, which has World Heritage listing.
We went on a boat trip down the river and enjoyed participating in a number of banquets. The people were very hospitable, although for those not used to the protocol it was quite hard work to be good guests for our gracious hosts in saying and doing the right thing. Of course, there is a huge middle class in China. Only a small percentage of China is middle class but in such a huge population that still equates to a lot of people. I remember that on my last trip to China I went to Langhou, a city of seven million people near the northern border—a place that is not well known in New South Wales. That city had a huge department store, bigger than any in Sydney, which stocked $US300 Pierre Cardin shoes. China has a significant market for western goods and the suggestion that Chinese people do not have money to spend is nonsense. They have the money and they can come to Katoomba. The enthusiasm of the Wuyi Mountain people for bushwalking provides a wonderful opportunity for us to promote our tourism.

China has a significant budget for entertaining foreign guests. Perhaps it would be wise for New South Wales to have a similar budget, not under the control of individual members of Parliament for self-indulgence but controlled by a body that would ensure the money is spent sensibly and in the interests of New South Wales. This would encourage more business opportunities through reciprocal arrangements when Chinese businesspeople visit. At a personal level, members of Parliament need insight into other countries, especially our significant trading partners. I am concerned that I do not possess the appropriate business-negotiating skills and members of Parliament must hone those skills.

We must make more of an effort to learn foreign languages—and I have spoken about that in this House before—particularly the Mandarin language. We have gone from learning French like the British to learning very few languages, as is the case in America. The national Asian languages strategy in Australian schools has been somewhat neglected, particularly through defunding by the Howard Government. Indeed, I had difficulty in encouraging the primary school that my son attends to teach Mandarin, as it does not appear to be a priority. We should contrast that with China, where English is taught in schools and English teachers are encouraged to teach even younger children. Such enlightenment is necessary. We must do better than simply sneer when State members of Parliament travel overseas; we need a policy. Members of Parliament should travel overseas to gain knowledge of other countries and the danger of not doing so is highlighted by the effect of George Bush's ignorance of foreign countries on American policy. I commend the Asia-Pacific Friendship Group to members of Parliament and ask that they join our activities. [Time expired.]

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.08 p.m.]: There has been a lot of talk recently about a free trade agreement with China, one of the region's fastest-growing economies. Therefore, I asked my research assistant, Mr Jason Kara, to do some background research and he found a number of disturbing facts. He found that a free trade agreement with China has the potential to severely damage Australia's economy. In China workers have no right to freedom of association or to join independent unions, no right to strike and no mechanism for approving collective agreements. In some ways it is what the Federal Government is seeking to implement in Australia, but it is already in effect in Communist China. Partly due to this, Chinese workers have some of the lowest wages in the world. For example, the Economist magazine estimates the average Chinese wage at about US80¢ an hour.

Also, there are no genuine provisions for occupational health and safety. The American State Department, in its Human Rights Report 2004, quoted official figures as 14,595 killed in workplace accidents. The actual figure is believed to be much higher. Eighty per cent of the world's deaths in mines occur in Chinese mines. That is more than 100 miners killed each week on average. Chinese mines annually release an amount of carbon dioxide equal to all the cars in America, leaving two-thirds of Chinese cities plagued by acid rain, polluting rivers and urban quality so badly that respiratory diseases are now the leading cause of death. This lack of environmental controls is a huge subsidy for business in China.

Without real wages, environmental controls and genuine safety provisions, Chinese manufacturing is able to undercut manufacturing throughout the world. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union is concerned that Australia's trade imbalance with China will get worse, rather than better, under a free trade agreement with China. An Australia-China free trade agreement could lead to the destruction of large parts of our manufacturing industry, and therefore have significant negative consequences for the Australian economy as a whole and regional areas in particular. Possible gains to Australia in agriculture and mining should be treated with caution. Just as the Australia-US free trade agreement resulted in significant protection for the American agricultural sector, China, too, will seek to protect its agricultural and mining industries.

The proposed feasibility study has totally undermined the basis for the Australia-China free trade agreement. The Australian Government's high water mark is a $A24.4 billion gain to the gross domestic product. That is $24.4 billion spread over 10 years, or just a 0.039 per cent increase in gross domestic product a year. Yet as expected from the Howard Government, even this paltry increase has flaws. This figure is contingent on the unrealistic targets of all trade barriers being removed immediately in 2006. Additionally, two-thirds of the alleged gains come from service and investment liberalisation, which even the Australian Government's report admits is very unreliable. In addition, China will not change its laws on investment and services just for a bilateral agreement with Australia, further reducing the agreement's reach. Finally, even if services and investment are liberalised the Australian Government's report acknowledges that there will not be a single Australian job created out of that investment and services liberalisation.

John Howard went to water in the American free trade agreement and betrayed the sugar industry, and he will do it again. He has already started by giving away the biggest prize of all that China wanted in the negotiations before the negotiations even commenced—market economy status. That does not give one much confidence, especially when we know that the agreement will cost significant jobs in the textile clothing and footwear sector and the automotive sector. When John Howard was asked about these job losses in China he refused to comment. That is simply not good enough. As John Howard said recently, nothing in life is free and that includes free trade agreements.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.13 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members to an important matter regarding my constituent Mr Ewan Watkins. Mr Watkins operates a successful private hatchery and for the past 20 years has been stocking public waters with trout from his farm on the Goobraganda River near Tumut. Late last year the Department of Primary Industries [DPI] informed Mr Watkins that an application to stock trout into the Jounama Dam using his trout stocks had been refused. It was the Talbingo Fishing Club that had applied for this permit from the Department of Primary Industries to stock a public waterway with money it had raised from its members. The substantial amount of money raised from this club had always gone into private hatcheries, including Triton Trout Farm, to help supplement the stocking done by public hatcheries in the area.

In February 2005 the Minister for Primary Industries informed Mr Watkins that fish stocking was being subjected to an environmental impact statement that identified a number of risks associated with the activity. The upshot of this assessment was that salmonid stocking required greater quality control to offset the risks involved with this activity. In response to these risks, the Department of Primary Industries developed a fishery management strategy, due to be implemented earlier this year. The DPI decided that only New South Wales Government hatcheries would produce and stock salmonid species in public waters until a hatchery accreditation system is developed and implemented. The absence of such an accreditation system was the primary reason that the application from Talbingo Fishing Club to stock Jounama Dam with trout from Mr Watkins' hatchery was declined.

However, Mr Watkins was further informed that even when this accreditation system is developed there is no guarantee that the stocking of public waters with trout from private hatcheries will be necessary. Not surprisingly, the Minister's response has left Mr Watkins extremely frustrated. First, his fish stocks, which have been used for the past 20 years, have been made redundant on the basis that his hatchery is not accredited. This is despite the fact that this tired, old Government has not yet implemented a hatchery accreditation system. Secondly, even when Mr Watkins does become accredited—paying for the course out of his own pocket—the monopoly held by the New South Wales Government in stocking public waters may mean that there are no opportunities for his business to stock public waterways.

The fact that the New South Wales Government has not developed a hatchery accreditation system to be implemented at the same time as its fishery management strategy is abysmal, to say the least. The delay and lack of information regarding the accreditation system means that Triton Trout Farm and many other private hatcheries in regional New South Wales cannot continue trading with fishing clubs. Frankly, I find it a bit rich that a government that claims to support small regional businesses has created a monopoly that will undoubtedly harm the private hatcheries that in the past have complemented the New South Wales Government's fish stocking efforts. In the case of Mr Watkins, the New South Wales Government hatcheries are stocking the same waterway with the same species of fish that the Talbingo Fishing Club wants from the Triton Trout hatchery. All Mr Watkins wants is to continue to be allowed to stock public waters with fish, as he has been doing for the past 20 years.

Mr Watkins is a sensible business owner who recognises the importance of a fisheries management strategy, and is more than happy to comply with its requirements. Private hatcheries, like New South Wales Government hatcheries, provide valuable employment opportunities in regional centres and contribute greatly to their local economy. Mr Watkins is a small business owner and through no fault of his own is facing considerable financial difficulty as a result of the New South Wales Government's policy that is short on detail. In recent years his business has been impacted by the drought, having a reduced demand for the stocking of private dams. It comes as no surprise that the Minister's decision to refuse him a permit to stock trout in public waterways will be a further blow to his business. In light of these hardships, it is crucial that the New South Wales Government does whatever it can to support such businesses. Instead of forcing these valuable businesses out of the State's fish stocking activities in public waterways, more must be done by the DPI to help them go on. This includes delivering on its commitment to develop and implement a hatchery accreditation program. [Time expired.]

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.18 p.m.]: The Government's plan for public housing was announced last week. The Government claims that it is introducing the most significant changes to public housing in 50 years. The changes might also be described as the worst changes in 50 years. The Government intends to increase rents, place all tenants on short-term renewable leases and require them to pay for water usage. This is yet another unimaginative response to the real and serious problems facing public housing. Rather than expanding public housing, and ensuring healthy cross-subsidisation by encouraging a mix of tenants, with some able to pay rents approaching market value, the Government is further limiting eligibility, increasing rents for those earning a low wage, spending less on building or buying new stock, and undermining tenants' security of tenure.

The Government is slowly but surely taking a wrecking ball to a significant piece of the State's social architecture and to Labor's formerly socially progressive policies. The Government will raise rents from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of a tenant's income where a tenant earns $28,600. After paying rent, a tenant would be left with $385 a week to pay for tax, transport, food, medical, clothing and telephone bills and everything else. This is not a huge sum and I wonder how members of this Parliament would cope on an income that is less than one-fifth of what they are paid and less than a tenth of what housing Minister Joe Tripodi collects from salary and perks. Maybe we could have a reality TV show called Public Housing Survivor and see how long members of this place could last on a government benefit income or low wage.

The decision by the Government to bleed even more money out of tenants is reprehensible. It is another short-term response to a problem of the Government's own making. It is the short-term, economic rationalist policies of this Government, and of the previous Liberal Government, that have crippled our public housing system. A series of mistakes over the past 15 years has led to the dead end the Government now finds itself in. The Government has reduced the proportion of publicly owned housing stock to a mere 4 per cent of all housing stock. It has continually narrowed eligibility criteria. It has failed to make any productive use of its assets. It continues to demolish or part privatise public housing estates—a process of cannibalisation—just to keep the Department of Housing's head above water financially. If the Government decided, instead, to expand public housing to a sustainable level, the Minister for Housing would not now be squeezing tenants for extra dollars, because the system would pay for itself, as it used to, prior to the tightening of eligibility that occurred in the 1980s.

The Government wants to get rid of those tenants who are working and who can afford to pay more rent. The Minister for Housing makes ludicrous references to BMW-driving public housing tenants. This is a callous, ignorant comment designed only to appeal to the tabloids and bears no relation to reality. I have not seen many BMWs around the estates, just lots of old second-hand Holdens. I have not seen many millionaires either. More than 90 per cent of public housing tenants are on very low statutory incomes. The rest earn a little extra from small amounts of casual or part-time work. Very few are full-time workers. The Minster has not provided us with any figures about how many of these supposed BMW-driving public housing tenants there are. Let us remember this rubbish about BMWs is coming from a tenant of this Parliament who the Sydney Morning Herald reports has a penchant for Saabs. Maybe the Minister is the one who should be evicted instead of public tenants on below-average wages.

The State Government blames the Federal Government for reducing the money flowing through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. This is true, but the Commonwealth's tight-fisted policies are no excuse for this State's woeful policies that have managed to turn a self-financing, diverse, affordable form of housing into a residualised and shrinking refuge. The State Government seems intent on turning public tenants into private tenants, with higher rents, water bills, short-term leases and no security of tenure. The private rental market is clearly unable to provide secure, affordable housing for low-income Australians. Why then does the Minister seek to make public housing more like the private rental sector? Are the Minister and the Government so captive to the developers that they are totally committed to the destruction of public housing? The Government should be making public housing cheaper, not more expensive; building more housing, not less; and maintaining diversity of housing, rather than applying a concentrating policy.

There are many examples of how public or not-for-profit housing can work: City West is one example. Housing co-ops are another, where those paying higher rents subsidise those on lower rents. Affordable housing levied from developers provides another option—in some areas of London, up to 50 per cent of all new developments must be affordable. Under this Government's policy, public housing will only be for those aged over 80 with a disability who are homeless. [Time expired.]

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [10.23 p.m.]: Tonight I wish to talk about an issue that has been in the news this week—attacks by pit bull terriers. I refer to an article in the Daily Telegraph of 3 May, which stated:

The State Government is considering a ban on pit bull terrier breeding and ownership after a second attack in four days yesterday.

A 75-year-old man suffered bites to his arms and legs after he was mauled by a pit bull on a Homebush footpath.

Yesterday, leading paediatrician Dr Andrew McDonald pleaded for pit bulls to be banned.

…

NSW Local Government Minister Tony Kelly said yesterday he now wanted to put dog laws on the agenda.

"I want to do something and bring in laws right around Australia with the co-operation of the other ministers," he said.

South Western Sydney Area Health Service paediatrician head, Dr Andrew McDonald supported a breeding and ownership ban.

He said while pit bulls didn't carry out the most attacks, they did the most damage to children.

"There's no excuse for having pit bull terriers in our society, they are lethal," Dr McDonald said.

"Pit bulls tend to cause more facial injuries, so you are looking at plastic surgery and children being scarred for life."

There are about 3000 registered pit bull or American pit bull terriers in NSW.

In the last six months of 2004, the NSW Government received 28 reports from councils of attacks by pit bull-style dogs.

Yesterday, in response to a question without notice in the other place, the Premier stated:

This week the Minister for Local Government will meet with local government representatives and rangers to discuss how laws can be strengthened to help councils better control dangerous dogs. The Minister will also take this issue to the Ministerial Council on Local Government where he will push for a national approach. But New South Wales is not prepared to wait and that is why the government will introduce legislation to ban the breeding of pit bulls and similar breeds. The ban will be based on successful laws in force in Queensland. Our new laws will make it an offence to breed, sell, give away or acquire those dogs: and the penalties will be severe. We want to see these dangerous creatures bred out of existence.

The Premier went on to say:

The vast majority of dog owners do the right thing and are keen to always do the right thing, and most dog breeds are a benign addition to human happiness. However, there have been too many vicious, unprovoked attacks and pit bulls no longer have a place in this community.

Following this debate in New South Wales, today's Melbourne Age reported:

The RSPCA and a pit bull terrier victim are calling on the State Government to follow NSW's lead and ban dangerous dogs.

…

RSPCA national president Hugh Wirth applauded Mr Carr's bid to breed American pit bull terriers out of existence in preference to slaughtering the dogs, a plan that drew a public outcry when proposed overseas.

Dr Wirth said the American pit bull was a pure breed genetically designed for fighting.

"The problem we've got in Australia is we've got a large number of irresponsible dog owners of American pit bull terriers who refuse to recognise the potential of the dog as a fighting, aggressive machine," he said.

"(They) don't keep this very special dog in a way that it can not possibly hurt any member of the community, or any other animal for that matter."

…

But Mr Bracks said he would welcome a national approach to tackling dangerous dogs, as suggested by the NSW Government.

We have heard the horror stories in New South Wales, but in Victoria American pit bull terriers must be leashed and muzzled in public and cannot be taken outside an owner's premises by anyone under 17 years. Warning signs must be displayed at all entrances to premises where the dog is kept, and no more than two American pit bull terriers can be kept without council permission. Some councils impose even stricter rules. For example, Hobsons Bay has banned new registrations of American pit bull terriers and other restricted breeds. Mr Tony Pace, 73, suffered cuts and abrasions as he tried to save his pet dog, Whiskey, from two pit bulls last October. He said the RSPCA stance did not go far enough. A pair of pit bulls jumped from behind a fence and attacked the nine-year-old dog as Mr Pace was walking it. Mr Pace said:

They jumped from behind a fence … they just crushed his head straightaway. I'd never seen these dogs before. They chopped him up. I think they should be destroyed completely. The lot of them, all over the world.

I am sure many dog lovers whose pets have been attacked by pit bulls would feel the same way as Mr Pace. I searched the Internet for a little bit about the history of American pit bull terriers. The classic line on one web site I looked at said:

To understand the American Pit Bull Terrier, it is imperative to understand the breed's fighting origins.

That is the real problem. Where I live, a dog around the corner is commonly referred to as Hannibal Lecter, because it has to be muzzled like Hannibal Lecter when it goes out. I looked up the definition of the word "pit". It is "the abode of evil spirits and lost souls; hell or part of it." Pet owners who see pit bulls unrestrained and trying to attack their dogs can only think it is a very apt name for these dreadful dogs.

Motion agreed to.