Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 16 November 2006, Corrected Copy)

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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

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

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca 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 Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.03 a.m.]: I seek leave to amend Private Members' Business item No. 162 outside the Order of Precedence in the following terms:

By omitting the word "Government" and inserting instead "Premier, the Minister for Planning or their respective agencies".

Leave granted.

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

That under Standing Order 52 there be laid upon the table of the House and made public within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution all scheme documents, designs and models lodged by participants in the East Darling Harbour, Sydney Urban Design Competition stage one, held by the Premier, the Minister for Planning or their respective agencies, other than those exhibited as part of stage two of the competition, or otherwise publicly available, together with all assessments, analysis or reports referring to the entries in each stage of the competition and all minutes or reports of the jury in respect of stages one and two of the competition, other than publicly available reports.

Mr Ian Cohen, as Chair, tabled report No. 26, entitled "Budget Estimates 2006-2007", dated November 2006, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, correspondence and answers to questions taken on notice.

Report ordered to be printed.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.04 a.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Ian Cohen.

The Hon. Robyn Parker, as Chair, tabled report No. 22, entitled "Health Impacts of Air Pollution in the Sydney Basin", dated November 2006, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, submissions, correspondence and answers to questions taken on notice.

Report ordered to be printed.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [11.05 a.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

I inform the House that I am now the Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe was the former chair and I thank her for her contribution to this committee. The committee has worked hard on this report. It is an excellent committee whose members have worked together co-operatively to come up with sensible, reasonable and rational recommendations. I believe it is an example of a general purpose standing committee working well. I urge all members to read the report. It contains some great recommendations. I acknowledge and thank the committee staff, particularly Simon Johnston, Jocelyn Yem and Rachel Callinan, for their contributions to this report. It is a comprehensive report that makes some great recommendations. I hope the Government will take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Robyn Parker.

Petition opposing same-sex marriage legislation, received from the Hon. Rick Colless.

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

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the passage 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.

CHAIR: The Committee will deal first with the Water Industry Competition Bill.

Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.13 a.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 5, clause 10, lines 32 and 33. Omit "sufficient quantities of the water supplied by the licensee". Insert instead "all water supplied by the licensee (other than such water as is necessary to maintain water supplies during periods of peak demand or infrastructure failure)".

The intent that any new water service provider should obtain water from alternative suppliers, not simply act as retailer of water currently provided by a public water utility, is appropriate. However, the reference to "sufficient" water being obtained from sources other than a public water utility is too broad and open to interpretation. While circumstances may arise where peak demand or infrastructure failure means that supplies may need to be topped up with current potable supplies as an emergency contingency, this needs to be made explicit. A new clause should be added to state that use of water from public utilities is only to be permitted as a contingency measure in the event of infrastructure failure or peak demand exceeding supply. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.14 a.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment. A clear objective of the bill is to ensure the long-term sustainability of water resources, and especially to promote the production and use of recycled water. The requirement in the bill that new water suppliers source a sufficient quantity of water from a new water source rather than simply drawing on existing public water resources is directed towards that objective. The proposed amendment, however, goes too far. It would stifle investment and effectively strangle competition at birth, undermining the very objectives it is supposed to be achieving.

Preventing new suppliers from entering the market at all unless they obtain 100 per cent of their water from new sources would create a significant barrier to entry, undermining investment in new water resources, and especially in recycling. For example, a new operator in the initial stages of operations may need some access to existing water sources while commissioning a new or larger recycling works, or while it builds up its market share in, for example, the sewerage market, which will provide it with the raw materials for its recycling operations. It would undermine long-term investment if operators were required to be entirely self-sufficient from day one before they were allowed to enter the market at all. The use of the phrase "sufficient" in clause 10 is deliberately flexible. It enables consideration of all the circumstances of the licence application to permit the Minister to take a long-term view in determining whether a new supplier will contribute positively to the State's water supply.

The Minister's consideration of this issue will be informed by the advice of the Minister for Natural Resources, the licence applicant, stakeholder submissions and the recommendations of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal following public consultation. The bill is designed to strike the right balance between promoting competition and ensuring the sustainability of our valuable water resources. This bill does not extinguish any pre-existing contractual rights and will not allow a licence to be issued where a proponent does not have a proper proposal for creating an alternative water source. For those reasons, the Government does not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.17 a.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2, as amended:

No. 2 Page 7, clause 14. Insert after line 28:

(2) The amount so determined must not exceed the costs of administering this Act, during the year to which the fee relates, in relation to the licensee.

The wording of this clause does not specify on what basis the Minister will determine an annual licence fee. This leaves open the possibility that these could be set at inappropriate levels and act as a barrier to the entry of new operators in the water industry. This clause should be amended to specify that the licence fees will be set at the level of cost recovery of IPART's administration of the licence. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.18 a.m.]: This seems to me to be a fairly commonsense amendment and we would need to hear a good reason from the Government as to why we should be opposing it. If there is one, let us hear it. Otherwise, the amendment seems to be commonsense.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.19 a.m.]: The Government will support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 as amended agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.19 a.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 7, clause 15. Insert after line 37:

(2) Before taking action under subsection (1), the Minister must refer the matter to IPART for inquiry and report.

(3) Section 9 (subsection (1) (a) excepted) applies to and in respect of any matter referred to IPART under this section in the same way as it applies to and in respect of any application lodged with IPART under section 8.
Clause 15 of the bill would allow the variation of licence conditions without any public review process. This is totally at odds with the principles of public transparency and community consultation. This clause should be amended to require a public review of any proposed changes by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal and public consultation prior to any variation of licence conditions. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.20 a.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment. The concerns raised by this amendment are already addressed in the bill. In particular, clause 17 requires the Minister to consult with persons prescribed in the regulations before taking action to vary licence conditions. This provision will enable regulations to be made which specify the consultation requirements applying to particular types of licence variations. There will be some cases where the Minister will need to be able to act quickly to amend certain conditions of the licence in the event of an emergency or to respond to concerns that may arise from time to time. There is no requirement for the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] to conduct an investigation and seek public submissions prior to the amendment of the Sydney Water or Hunter Water operating licences.

It is even more important that the Minister is able to act quickly in relation to licensees under the proposed legislation. Licence conditions are the primary means used to control the activities of private sector service providers. This contrasts with Sydney Water and Hunter Water, which may be given directions by the portfolio Minister under the State Owned Corporations Act. If the Minister were required to await a public review by IPART before making any amendment to the operating licence, there is a real risk that public health and safety could be compromised.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.23 a.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 4:

No. 4 Page 9, clause 18, line 21. Insert "to the environment or" after "risk".

In relation to emergency directions under clause 18, risk of environmental damage should be included in the grounds for a direction by the Minister to take action to reduce or eliminate the risk. The section refers to situations such as risk to public health. It would be entirely appropriate to include environmental risk as a trigger for emergency directions. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.23 a.m.]: This amendment is not supported, as it is unnecessary. There are full and comprehensive powers to direct licence holders under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act if there is a risk to the environment arising from their activities. For example, a clean-up notice may be issued to direct an occupier of premises where a pollution incident has occurred to take the clean-up action specified in the notice. A prevention notice can be issued if the regulatory authority reasonably suspects that any activity has been carried on in an environmentally unsatisfactory manner. Prevention notices require that action specified in the notice be taken. The Minister for the Environment can issue a prohibition notice directing that an activity cease for the period specified in the notice. There has been no suggestion that these provisions are inadequate, and they should continue to be the primary mechanism for protecting the environment from harmful activities. This amendment would overlap with and duplicate these provisions, creating regulatory uncertainty.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 104 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
Dictionary agreed to.

Title agreed to.

The CHAIR: The Committee will now deal with the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.28 a.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 3 in globo:

No. 1 Pages 2 and 3, clause 2, line 26 on page 2 to line 6 on page 3. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 3 Pages 63 and 64, schedule 7, line 25 on page 63 to line 4 on page 64. Omit all words on those lines.

So that honourable members are clear, amendment No. 1 deals with—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: I do not want to assist the Opposition, but is there a reason that we can't consider amendment No. 4 at the same time? They seem to be closely linked.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My instruction from the shadow Minister is to move amendments Nos 1 and 3 and then to move amendments Nos 2 and 4. That is how I will move them. So that honourable members are clear, Opposition amendment No. 1 will omit subclauses (5), (6), (7) and (8), which are very much about arrangements for proclamation. Amendment No. 3 relates to schedule 3 on page 63 and will delete all lines from line 25 on that page to line 4 on page 64. That amendment relates to the constitution of the water supply authority and basically omits Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council as water supply authorities. That is the scope of the amendments. The Opposition moves the amendments, as outlined to the House yesterday by me, by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and by the Leader of the Opposition, because we are concerned about and opposed to the way the Government has decided to move against Gosford and Wyong councils and their traditional role as water suppliers for the people of the Central Coast. Effectively, those subclauses intend to ensure that the councils are stripped of their authority to make decisions for the benefit of the residents of the Central Coast.

The interesting and sneaky thing about what the Government proposes is that this will happen in two steps. Although we have this bill now, there is no intention to trigger any substantive change prior to the 24 March election, but after the election the bill will give the Government the capacity to make major changes to the traditional arrangements for the supply of water on the Central Coast. We have had the benefit of taking advice from Wyong Shire Council, which was provided with Senior Counsel's advice on the nature of the bill. That advice makes it quite clear that the practical effect of the amendments proposed by the Government is:

To denude the councils of the power to raise funds for water and sewerage services. They will lose the power to levy service charges and impose fees and other charges and the power to recover the cost of existing works or to claim the cost of proposed works as a condition of granting a certificate of compliance for a development under the Water Act.

I will not read the whole advice. My colleague the honourable member for Gosford read from large slabs of the advice in the other place. These amendments oppose the arrangements the Government is putting in place to try to change the traditional water supply arrangements.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: They are trying to pinch the whole authority.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: It is the Government's latest attempt to take that authority and vest it in something that clearly will be under the Minister's control in Sydney. We are not buying it and we urge the Committee to support the Opposition's amendments.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.34 a.m.]: The Government does not support Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 3 in relation to the Central Coast Water Corporation. The bill creates a new entity to better deliver water and sewerage services to the Central Coast community. I am not sure of the veracity of the advice from the honourable member for Gosford, but as I live and have lived for 20 years on the Central Coast I can tell the Hon. Don Harwin that there is a great deal of community concern about the water issue on the Central Coast. The people of the Central Coast are now very appreciative of the fact that the Iemma Government has clearly created an opportunity to address both the medium-term and long-term issues of water supply on the Central Coast, and in an innovative context, effectively creating a water grid for the major urban populations that now reside on the Central Coast and in the Hunter Valley. That has created considerable interest.

There is a great deal of community sensitivity about these matters. There have been traditional arrangements on the Central Coast that have grown from the time when Gosford shire and the other smaller local government entities, including Wyong and Woy Woy, had their own water supply arrangements. Those water supply arrangements culminated in a joint water supply authority arrangement. It is important to understand—in response to the interjection from the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans—that there is nothing to pinch or grab here. There is no way that the Government is seeking to get hold of the authority, but we are trying to make sure, in a collaborative way with the institutions that have run the water supply on the Central Coast—that is, the two councils through a joint water supply entity—that proper governance arrangements and proper responsibilities are in place. To secure this grid to share water effectively, or to allow water to be relayed and transferred between the Hunter catchment and the Central Coast and vice versa, has involved a great deal of confidence and a long-term requirement for the public interest to be observed.

My colleague the Minister for Planning is not using any big sticks. As someone who lives on the Central Coast I am very aware that the Minister is consulting in great detail with Gosford and Wyong councils. The Government as a whole has sought to move swiftly through the Premier's announcement the other day to resolve some of the serious issues of water supply that Gosford and Wyong councils face. I assure the Opposition spokesperson that regardless of the advice he is getting from his colleague the honourable member for Gosford, recent announcements about these arrangements are genuinely appreciated. It is agreed that the overall solution must be in the public interest and must be fair, not only to the people of the Central Coast but also to the whole of New South Wales and the people of the Hunter, who will, through that innovative policy model announced by the Premier, be sharing water as the occasion arises—not only now but well into the future.

The Government has consulted extensively, through the Minister for Planning, with the Gosford and Wyong councils and the corporation. The proposed corporation is the best model to deliver efficient management of the Central Coast water supply for the benefit of the local community. This is what the people of the Central Coast have asked for; indeed, it is what they are demanding. The effect of the Opposition's amendments would be to create three separate bodies dealing with water, sewerage and drainage on the Central Coast. That would be inefficient and irresponsible. The Opposition has said in the other place that supporting three organisations instead of two will result in increased costs to taxpayers. That is why the Government cannot support this amendment.

The Government's model is for the Central Coast Water Corporation to replace Gosford and Wyong councils as the legal entities with responsibility for water, sewerage and drainage. Under the Government's model the current two bodies with these responsibilities will be replaced by a single, efficient corporation wholly owned by each council. Under the Opposition's model the current two bodies with these responsibilities would be expanded to three. That is clearly not acceptable and fundamentally irrational. It is an illogical policy position that does not help with any of the serious issues facing both the Central Coast and the Hunter in relation to water supply.

The Government supports a smooth transition to the corporation becoming a water supply authority, and this is provided for in the bill. Clause 2 provides that the Central Coast Water Corporation will become the water supply authority with responsibilities and powers under the Water Management Act. This will happen after the corporation has been established for 12 months by operation of the law. The Minister has no power—I repeat this because it was very pertinent to the remarks of the Hon. Don Harwin, who led for the Opposition on this point—to change the date unless the request is received from the councils. The date may be changed to an earlier date or a later date if the councils request it. The later date must be no later than two years after the corporation is established. Once the corporation is a water supply authority Gosford and Wyong councils will no longer levy funds for water and sewerage charges. This is because they will no longer be providing water and sewerage services.

Instead, charges will be levied by the Central Coast Water Corporation on behalf of the councils. Obviously, the councils should not be able to charge ratepayers for a service that they will no longer be providing. No dividend will be paid by Central Coast ratepayers to the State Government because of any provision in this bill. That is simply a scare campaign. If the Hon. Don Harwin could communicate that to his colleague Chris Hartcher, it would save us all a bit of time with respect to the scare campaign that Chris Hartcher obviously intends to run on the Central Coast on this matter. Any dividend payments made by the corporation will be paid to Gosford and Wyong councils. Clause 19 makes this clear. I do not want to have to get on to Central Coast radio and call Chris Hartcher a liar again but it is very clear that that is the case.

The Hon. Don Harwin: You would not do that.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Not unless I have to. The Opposition is out of touch and has no idea how to solve the problems of water on the Central Coast. The Minister for Water Utilities and the Premier are sensitive to these issues. As the Hon. Don Harwin and members familiar with the politics of the two local government bodies involved would know, Labor is in the minority on both those councils. The mayors involved are Independents and there are considerable and influential people from the conservative and Liberal Party persuasions as well as green politics involved in those councils. Much of the work on solutions for Central Coast water have been worked on the basis of a consensual approach with the support of those councils above politics. If the Opposition thinks that it can win a few points on the Central Coast by playing politics with water, regardless of what the member for Gosford says, it is barking up the wrong tree. The people of the Central Coast know how dire the situation is. They want solutions; they do not want propaganda.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.44 a.m.]: I am somewhat in a quandary about these amendments. I would like to keep these issues closer to the ground by giving the local councils more control in the situation. I understand the amendments would provide only for a period of two years, so it is not as though a permanent arrangement is being put in place. I am equally concerned when I hear that, for a change, Minister Sartor is not using the big-stick approach. It is the first I have heard for quite a while. I was at Budgewoi where the local community was up in arms about the current situation and the possible introduction of temporary desalination plants on the beachfront—massive infrastructure. I am concerned that the Government is pushing hard. As the amendments provide for only temporary measures, I am inclined to, dare I say, trust the Government on this matter, and that makes me feel rather uncomfortable. The Greens will support the Government.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.45 a.m.]: I must admit that I find the amendments hard to understand. It is a shame that the Opposition has not given us more briefing than in the Chamber. It is a very disappointing feature of all Opposition amendments; they very rarely take the trouble to brief the crossbench and then they complain when they do not receive support from the crossbench. This was originally said to have been a problem because the crossbench leaked it to the Government. I do not believe that in the eight years I have been a member of this place that there have been any significant leaks to the Government. It is a very worn excuse for an Opposition that simply does not brief people when it wants help. It appears to me that the Opposition merely spends its time posturing in order to win elections rather than actually improving legislation.

The Government's response seems a little lame, on the other hand. It says that the new authority will fix the water problem. These are happy little assertions that may or may not be the case. I am sure there is a new authority and its intention is to fix the water problem. The Government criticises the Opposition for having no policy but it might be noted that there is only 1.5 per cent water reuse in an area that is very short of water—an abysmal rate, given that Adelaide is reusing 19 per cent of its water. There is also practically no demand management strategy. The Government has allowed this water shortage to develop over a long period by having a lack of any serious water policies. So for the Government to criticise the Opposition is the pot calling the kettle black.

The ownership of assets is still not quite clear. Does the corporation become a separate entity or will it be owned by the people of Gosford and Wyong? The Minister said that the State Government will not charge a dividend at any time. However, it might be noted, and as I pointed out yesterday, the reason that Sydney Water is in such a muddle is that as a corporation it was charged $100 million a year by way of a dividend and that money was not used to replace pipes and sewers that needed replacement. This resulted in an increase in water use to compensate for water leaking out of pipes and sewage plants had to process rainwater that leaked into the sewerage system. The pipe systems have not been well maintained because the Government has been happily taking a dividend of $100 million without raising other taxes. It was taking money from the statutory water corporation.

This is always done when the Government wants to corporatise things. It sells everything possible to Macquarie Bank or whoever else and downsizes government. That always creates vulnerability. Obviously the corporate entity will trade with other suppliers. The Opposition has said that this is a takeover bid by the Government. I am not sure that there is a problem with regard to the three entities—Wyong Council, Gosford Council, and the new water entity. If the councils cease to charge for water and sewerage services, they will still charge for government elections and so on. The billing system will have to be rationalised, and presumably the three bodies will work that out sensibly, as the two councils have a history of co-operating on water supply and sewerage. The suggestion that the amendment should be discarded because of the Government's position that this would result in three entities, which would make the situation complicated, is probably a furphy in order to defeat the amendment. I am inclined to think that the amendment probably has merit.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [11.49 a.m.]: I spoke at great length about this yesterday and I do not propose to repeat myself. Since yesterday I have had the opportunity to speak to the mayor of Gosford. I discovered that, contrary to some of the earlier publications presented by the Gosford City Council, there appears to be a diversity of views between Wyong and Gosford councils. I am sorry about that, because the people suffer when local councils cannot agree.

The practical effect of the amendments is, in the words of one person, "to denude the councils of their power to raise funds for water and sewerage services". They will lose the power to levy service charges and to impose fees and other charges. That does not relate so much to new works. However, all councils would have some residual costs that have not yet been covered for more recent works, such as extending pipelines and so on to new housing developments, and they need that opportunity to impose a levy on water and sewerage services. Once the councils' water distribution infrastructure is transferred to this combined corporation, they will lose the power under the Local Government Act to impose special rates and charges for water supply and reticulation because a condition for doing so is that the land is supplied with water from a water pipe provided by council. Contributions cannot be extracted under section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for public amenities or services comprising water supply and sewerage works.

I wish we did not have to vote on an issue about which there is no clear understanding of what the councils jointly want. Accordingly, the effect of the councils ceasing to be water supply authorities will be to prevent them from raising money, whether by levies or contributions, for water or sewerage services, and to restrict their power to raise money for drainage purposes. This is a very important issue on the Central Coast, where much of the land and housing development is roughly at sea level and drainage is very important. The extent to which a council will be able to impose a rate or charge for water, sewerage or drainage will depend, in the case of water and sewerage, on the extent to which the council retains its infrastructure and the proximity of the infrastructure to the land upon which the rate or charge is to be levied.

It is unfortunate that we are not getting clear guidance on this from the councils' point of view. All we can do is represent the viewpoints of the councils, and yesterday I represented the viewpoint of Wyong Shire Council, its general manager and Mayor Bob Graham accurately and faithfully. I am inclined to think from a conservative point of view that we should support the Liberal Party's amendments.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.53 a.m.]: I have listened to the debate with interest and I take it very seriously. Ms Sylvia Hale and I do not feel that we have received enough information. I appreciate the input of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes on this matter. We had further consultations in the short time available and I am inclined to be convinced by the debate on the floor of the Chamber that this could be worthy of support. I obviously take this very seriously. I also take seriously the powers of local government to be able to operate basic infrastructure and I have consistently had major concerns about the overlay of big infrastructure. I will discuss that matter, but I make it clear that I am listening to the debate as it is taking place and will then decide whether or not to support the amendment.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.54 a.m.]: I take the point of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes about the inability of councils to raise money for items of water infrastructure. On the other hand, if there is an overarching body that is doing that and it is effectively a satellite body of Wyong and Gosford councils, I am sure that will not be a huge problem in the sense that if they delegate the task to a body over which they have a significant influence, they do not then have to do it themselves. It does not have to be done twice.

I do not know whether drainage is included in that, but I presume that it will also be a function of the new water corporation—it would deal not only with water and sewerage services but also with stormwater drainage. There are obviously some elements of that. However, from a drainage point of view and in terms of building culverts and gutters, that is obviously a council function. Normal rates for services such as garbage collection would presumably be able to encompass that. Therefore, the division of water and sewerage services between the new entity and the traditional jobs done by the council surely would not be difficult to address.
I am interested in the proclamation by the Government that creates this entity and what the Government wants to do with it. Obviously it should belong to the people of Gosford and Wyong, and I am inclined to support the Opposition's amendment. However, as I said, there has been a lack of information provided to assist us to make this decision, and that is most unfortunate.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.55 a.m.]: I hear what the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and Mr Ian Cohen have said about these amendments. These are not easy bills to deal with when they are put through in the time frames required at this stage of a session. I sympathise with them. To the extent that it is necessary, I offer them an apology on behalf of the Opposition for what they feel is not enough detail to make a decision at this point. They should remember, of course, that we are the Opposition, not the Government, and we do not have the resources of the bureaucracy to respond in the time frames that the Government can. We have earnestly tried to do our best. We also flagged at the end of the second reading debate yesterday that we would move these amendments. I refer the crossbench to the lengthy remarks made by the shadow Minister in Committee in the other place, because these are the same amendments as those moved in the other House. I trust that that has been of some assistance to the crossbench. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.58 a.m.]: I echo the comments of my colleague Ian Cohen. I am reasonably familiar with the Central Coast area and the problem confronting the residents. If ever an area that has been laid waste by rampant, unplanned development it is the Central Coast. It has been a case of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. It is not as though the problems we are encountering with water on the Central Coast could not have been anticipated; it has been an ongoing problem. The rate of housing estate sprawl has contributed to that problem and to the despoliation of the environment. Wyong and Gosford councils have had strong differences of opinion about how to deal appropriately with water supplies for a long time.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What is despoliation?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: It is the despoiling of the environment. As I said, Wyong and Gosford councils have had differences of opinion for a long time about how to deal with the problems of water supply. For quite some time Gosford council ran very strong on the proposals to introduce a desalination plant for the area—to the despair of many members of the local community.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: You've got it round the wrong way, Sylvia.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: It was Gosford council that was keen to introduce a desalination plant. I remember having detailed discussions regarding the issue with the Greens councillor on Gosford council, Councillor Terri Latella, who was very much opposed to that approach. To the best of my understanding, Wyong council certainly was far more reluctant to proceed with any proposal to introduce a desalination plant. As the community is well aware, a desalination plant is far from being an appropriate answer to any water problem.

Pursuant to sessional orders progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government. Can the Minister indicate to the House whether the former member for Swansea, Milton Orkopoulos, has already been granted his parliamentary pension?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am not able to provide the Leader of the Opposition with an answer to that question. I will seek further advice. Why would I be aware of that? I am not a member of the Parliamentary Superannuation Trust; indeed, there are Opposition nominees on that body.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Commerce, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the Government doing to protect vulnerable workers in New South Wales?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Kayee Griffin for her question and her ongoing interest in this important matter. Demonstrating the Government's commitment to protecting vulnerable workers, a package of laws to help young people and injured employees as a result of WorkChoices was passed in this place yesterday. Given the High Court's decision on Tuesday to uphold WorkChoices, it was vital for the Iemma Government to ensure that workplace protections are put in place as soon as possible. Intriguingly, the laws passed unchanged and unopposed by the New South Wales Opposition. This is despite Peter Debnam's pledge to hand over to WorkChoices, if he is elected next year, the one million workers who are still protected by the New South Wales industrial relations system.

Peter Debnam supports WorkChoices, but he did not speak out against the Iemma Government's new young and injured worker protections. This could mean either that he does not understand the impacts of these new laws or that he is too afraid to highlight his true intentions. He claims that he will keep frontline public sector workers under the fair New South Wales system, yet he sacrifices other hardworking New South Wales families to the Commonwealth's regime. But why would he keep the New South Wales system intact for just a small number of public servants—29,000 of whom he intends to sack? His workplace policy makes no sense and is not credible. On top of this, he is too spineless to stand up to his political masters in Canberra.

Only the Iemma Government will stand up to the Howard Government's unfair laws and Peter Debnam's plans to force New South Wales families into WorkChoices, under which they will have their conditions and entitlements stripped away. More than 150,000 young people under 18 years of age in employment across the State will benefit from our new laws, which will ensure wages and conditions are maintained at least at the level provided by New South Wales awards and legislation. Young workers will not have to bargain individually to maintain their existing penalties, allowances, training pay and training leave. They will also be protected from unfair dismissal. As part of this new package of laws, workers caught under WorkChoices who suffer an injury would also be protected through changes to workers compensation laws. To ensure the New South Wales laws that protect injured workers are not overridden by WorkChoices and are extended to all workers in the State, they are being transferred to the New South Wales workers compensation legislation. These protections are fundamental to the rehabilitation of injured workers. The sooner an injured worker is reintroduced into the workplace, the better the prospect of a complete recovery.

Despite the High Court decision—which made a ruling about the validity of the use of the Corporations Power rather than a judgment about whether WorkChoices was fair or good—the Iemma Government will redouble its efforts to protect New South Wales families from WorkChoices. We will continue to ensure that Australian values such as a fair go are upheld in this State. We will maintain the fair and balanced New South Wales industrial relations system, and the one million workers who remain in our system will continue to benefit from its protections under the Iemma Government. As well as the new young and injured worker laws, the New South Wales Government has already put in place legislation to protect frontline public servants such as nurses, TAFE teachers, ambulance officers and police officers. A vote for Mr Debnam at the next State election will be a vote for WorkChoices—a vote for lower living standards, fewer entitlements, conflict and division in the workplace, and the loss of essential services that our community depends on.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that many of the 4,200 submissions regarding the Port Stephens Great Lakes marine parks draft zoning plan were extensive, including the joint 292-page submission prepared by Ernst and Young, costing more than $100,000 and involving research and surveys over nearly 12 months? Does the Minister agree that an independent review and audit of these submissions will help relieve concerns that the short process is cursory? Will he agree to an independent review and audit of all submissions for this and all future marine parks conducted by the New South Wales Auditor-General's Office?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The simple answer is no.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Commerce, representing the Premier. Is the Minister aware of concern in the community about the Premier's decision to suspend the superannuation of sacked Minister Milton Orkopoulos? Is he also aware that this concern arises from the fact that the beneficiaries of the superannuation are likely to be Mr Orkopoulos' family, who are innocent victims of his situation? Can the Minister assure the House that other former members of Parliament who are the subject of police allegations will not be summarily robbed of their superannuation by retrospective and politically motivated legislation?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: There is no proposal before either Houses of Parliament to, as the Hon. Peter Breen put it, rob Mr Orkopoulos, his family, or anyone else of his superannuation. The fact of the matter is, as I have said before in relation to the events surrounding Mr Orkopoulos, we need to be responsible in our approach when debating any observations we might make about the matter. The proposals that have been suggested will be available for debate in this House in the immediate future, and I suggest that the honourable member restrain himself from further comment until he has the opportunity to make a contribution to that debate.

As to who may or may not be the beneficiaries of Mr Orkopoulos' superannuation, I again point out that as far as I am aware, unless someone has an amendment to the proposed legislation that is as yet undisclosed, no-one proposes to rob anyone of any superannuation. The proposed legislation is simply to take measures in relation to the departure of members in circumstances in which serious criminal charges are pending.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House what steps New South Wales is taking to lead the push for a national standard for reduced fire risk cigarettes?

The Hon. John Ryan: Not another one on cigarette butts. It is good to see that Labor is dealing with the big issues.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am dealing with the deaths of 67 people. It would be wise for the Hon. John Ryan, particularly with the weekend coming up, to not interject. As members are aware, cigarettes are a major killer in our society. Smoking cigarettes has a dramatic adverse effect on health, including debilitating disease and death. Smoking also poses another risk—fire. The National Coroner's Information System shows that 67 people died in fires directly attributed to cigarettes in Australia for the period 2000 to 2005. Cigarettes may have caused deaths in many other fires but the connection could not be proved conclusively. We can do something to help prevent people from dying in fires caused by cigarettes. We can require that cigarettes sold in Australia are reduced fire risk cigarettes, similar to the requirement by many American State laws currently in place.

That is why New South Wales, with the support of all the States, will tomorrow call on the Commonwealth to adopt a national standard for cigarettes at the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management meeting in Adelaide. The New South Wales Government has proudly led the fight for the introduction of a fire safety standard for Australia's cigarettes. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that reduced fire risk cigarettes can help reduce the number of deaths from house fires. Reduced fire risk cigarettes are designed to self-extinguish rather than keep burning.

If all cigarettes manufactured or imported for sale in Australia met this standard, it could have the effect of reducing a major cause of fires in homes and bushland. To help prevent more deaths it is vital that this is recognised and that the tested standard is quickly adopted to reduce the risk of cigarette-ignited fires. All that remains is for the Federal Government to agree to this national standard so that the States can get on with the job of implementing it. All Australian States support it, firefighters across the country support it, and now a coalition of prominent Australians from fire control, health and scientific backgrounds has also added its support for this national mandate.

This coalition includes the Australian fire commissioners; Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Frazer; former Australians of the Year Sir Gustav Nossal and Dr Fiona Wood; the heads of three medical colleges; the Australian Medical Association; the Cancer Council Australia; the National Heart Foundation of Australia; and tobacco-health groups Action on Smoking and Health [ASH] and the Australian Council on Smoking and Health [ACOSH]. I am advised that following discussions in New York State and Canada, NSW Fire Brigades representatives have found that the reduced fire risk cigarettes standard developed by ASTM International, a standards development organisation, was suitable for Australian conditions. This is a simple but effective fire reduction measure that can potentially save lives and millions of dollars in property damage.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. On 14 November the Minister told this House that the Lane Cove Tunnel Integration Group had met with local councils. Will the Minister please tell the House on what date that group met with local councils, and will the Minister give documentary evidence of the nature and substance of that meeting?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Members of the House would be well aware that the parliamentary inquiry recommended that we look at a transition strategy for any variation to the surface road of Epping Road in relation to the Lane Cove Tunnel. The Government set up a transition group, which is working that through. I do not have the specifics of individual meetings but I am happy to take those parts of the question on notice.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Could the Minister please confirm and explain why all future meetings of the Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park Advisory Committee have been cancelled? Could the Minister further explain why phone calls from media outlets to the marine park office are not being returned or are referred to the Minister's media office, which does not return them either? Does this mean that the final zoning plans for the marine park have been finalised? Does the Minister not agree that with the upcoming busy summer holiday period affected communities and fishers have a right to know where they stand? When will the Minister release this important information about the marine park?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: In relation to the supposition at the commencement of the question, I am not aware of that. If anyone wants to ring my office about the park, we will be quite happy to talk about it. Let us be very clear: The government has been considering the report for some time and I am going to give due consideration to this matter. But I point out to honourable members that if they really are interested in the concept of a marine park, they should look up the web site of the Marine Park Authority where they will find a very well researched paper on the benefits and role of marine parks—benefits that can be shared by every sector that has an interest in marine parks. For instance, for the honourable member's benefit, contained within the information on the web site is a range of examples where marine parks right around the world have had a significant impact on overall fish stocks. Marine parks have had significant impacts on lifting the numbers of fish that may have been endangered in an area and, in fact, in New Zealand there has been research that shows that the marine parks that have been declared there have led to an enhanced fishing sector because in many circumstances the fish line up around the boundaries of these parks and there has been increased fishing activity. Marine parks have therefore been very, very useful.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Tell us more.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am glad I am getting such fulsome support. If honourable members need some further education in this area, they could look at the documentation and see the value of the park. There is Australian research relevant to various areas. It stands to reason that marine parks will play a magnificent role in the future. For instance, the Western Australian Government has adopted a similar strategy and is now creating a marine park off the coast of Margaret River. In the future marine parks are not going to be isolated; all States will have marine parks. These are multi-use marine parks; only a certain area is defined as sanctuary and the vast majority of the parks are open to recreational, commercial, charter boat and any other activity that fishers of one category or another want to undertake.

We believe we have got the balance right, and that is what upsets The Nationals and some unthinking Liberals. We have a park system that is balanced and meets scientific criteria. To save Coalition members looking up the research on the Internet, I will give them some research that they may be able to spend some time to look at to inform and improve their minds.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer please advise the House on the latest developments in regard to TransGrid and the Energy Industries Superannuation Scheme?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I was expecting this question from the Opposition as the first question of the day, but clearly Opposition members are not up to it. I am pleased to advise the House about matters relating to TransGrid and the Energy Industries Superannuation Scheme. Claims made by former TransGrid chair, Phil Higginson, in today's media are incorrect and display a lack of understanding of the purpose of workers superannuation.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Which part?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I want to give members a comprehensive answer. The purpose of the Energy Industries Superannuation Scheme is to provide superannuation benefits for workers in the New South Wales energy industry. Trustees represent the interests of the fund's energy workers. They are not appointed, as was written in the Sydney Morning Herald today, so that TransGrid can keep track of its money. It is not Transgrid's money; it is the money of the energy workers. The role of trustees is to ensure the fund is well managed with appropriate returns on members' retirement benefits. TransGrid has performed well since its inception in 1995 under former chief executive officer David Croft. Mr Croft has been an Energy Industry Superannuation Scheme board member since 1999, and he has been chairman for two years. He is more than capable of continuing to represent TransGrid and look after the interests of fund members. In line with industry practice, relevant unions are also represented on the board. Any assertion that Mr Croft's reappointment to the Energy Industry Superannuation Scheme board would make the fund a union fiefdom is not only preposterous, it is a slur—

[Interruption]

It is the union members' money! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should get that into his head. It is their entitlements that are being managed. The Opposition does not understand.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Opposition members want to strip workers' entitlements. They supported WorkChoices to take workers' entitlements, and now they want to take their superannuation entitlements! Mr Croft was appointed to the board by Mr Higginson, who was TransGrid Chairman during the period that Mr Croft was the chief executive officer. Directors on the board of State-owned corporations are required to represent the shareholders. They are required to do that under the State-Owned Corporations Act and the Energy Services Corporation Act. Shareholding Ministers can also remove any director for any reason. Mr Higginson has been a director of TransGrid since 1995. The Government's policy, in line with good corporate practice, is to periodically rotate directors.

Mr Higginson's replacement as chairman is an existing director. Mr Paul Moy, the new Chairman of Transgrid, is an acknowledged expert in State-owned businesses. He is highly regarded and is an independent expert on corporate governance. Under the Government's capital structure policy, the capital structure of State-owned corporations is independently reviewed. There is no attempt to hide debt. That would be impossible under current accounting practices and governance procedures. The finances of these companies are transparently reported to the New South Wales Parliament and are reviewed by the Auditor General. Any changes to capital structure of individual businesses have no impact on the overall breadth of these organisations. [Time expired.]

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Planning. Will the Minister advise whether the Australian Labor Party [ALP] has received donations from the development companies or associated consultants that have had applications determined by the Government since the introduction of State environmental planning policy [SEPP] 71 and if there has been any increase in developer donations since the introduction of SEPP 71? Does the Government believe that it has a responsibility to acknowledge conflicts of interest when it is assessing development applications from donors to the ALP, as is required by elected representatives of local government when assessing applications, and therefore prohibits those with conflicts of interest from voting on the assessment of applications? Is the current State situation of the non-declaration of interest in relation to development assessment conducive to corruption, as has been indicated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in respect of local government? Specifically, what donations have the Government received from Becton and Hawker Britton?
The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member obviously does not understand the State Electoral Act and the requirements under the electoral procedures that govern donations. This is not a matter for the Government: it is a matter for the Australian Labor Party. This question ought to be directed to the State Electoral Office and those responsible for the Act, not the Government.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I direct my question to the Minister for Health. The Minister announced last week funding for yet another study into the health needs of the Narrabri community. His Government has already carried out a comprehensive study that resulted in a recommendation for a new district hospital. In these circumstances, will the Minister explain why he does not just get on

with the recommendations from the previous study and immediately announce funding for a new Narrabri hospital?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I know the honourable member has a passing interest in some of these matters, but I in fact visited the Narrabri community. I spoke to the health council, I spoke to the mayor, I spoke to those persons who were pleasant enough and interested enough to be there. They welcomed my announcement. The circumstances of an announcement were explained to them, and they were very supportive of the way forward. They are confident that—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They would not welcome a visit with you!

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: They were there in their numbers. Indeed, they made very positive statements in the media. The reality is that the people of Narrabri were very pleased with the announcement that I had made and they embraced it. On 21 July the head of the Narrabri Hospital Action Group, who was present at one of the meetings, indicated that as long as Narrabri got a new hospital, it did not matter if 20,000 jobs were cut from the public sector. That is what he said. He said it did not matter. What we need to know from the Opposition is whether embracing the job cuts is something that the Opposition continues to articulate, and what it is going to mean for the people of Narrabri.

It is also time to mention that the community was extremely supportive of the massive upgrade of their emergency department, which I was pleased to open. We allocated $350,000, and $340,000 worth of works was carried out to the building apart from the emergency department. That is a total of approximately $700,000. They were very pleased about that and, indeed, they were very pleased about the announcement that I made in response to their concerns. I might at this point make a special mention of Tim Horan, whose has been campaigning very strongly and making strong representations in relation to this issue. We will continue to work with the community and the Narrabri Council in respect of this matter.

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

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Would the Minister provide the House with an update of the Nursing in Schools Program?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am pleased to advise the House that this morning, with the honourable member of the Georges River, I attended a graduation of school students who were taking part in the Nursing Studies Program. The Premier launched this successful program in February 2005; it gives students practical clinical experience in nursing before they choose nursing as a career. I can advise that 18 year 11 students commenced the course, which was delivered by New South Wales TAFE and the St George hospitals. The year 12 component required students to complete two units from the Bachelor of Nursing Year 1 course at the Australian Catholic University, and the Board of Studies fully endorses it. The results so far are very exciting. Our students have been awarded, on average, a distinction grading from the university and all students have indicated that they want to continue with their nursing studies at university.

This program, in conjunction with other nursing in schools programs, is offering nursing in the public hospital system as a real career option. In June this year the Premier announced the expansion of the Nursing in Schools Program for another 100 students in western Sydney. The demand was such that we have accepted 145 students into the program next year and that is additional to the 38 students that have been accepted into the Nursing Studies Program at the St George hospital next year. New South Wales Health has a very proud employment record for nurses. Our nurses are the best paid in the country, with pay increases of more than 41 per cent since 2000, with the average starting salary for a registered nurse at $44,000. Nurses now have 14 weeks maternity leave. The Iemma Government has implemented 10-hour night shifts across 45 hospitals, with 60 more to be rolled out by July next year. The Government is also creating additional child care places for nurses—328 so far, with more to come. More importantly, we have also invested $30 million each year in education, scholarships and professional development for our nurses.

The key difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Government is about action, not rhetoric. Indeed, it is important to set a few records straight, particularly in light of the constant criticism by the member for North Shore. The nursing work force in New South Wales is increasing at a significant rate. In September this year we achieved a 20 per cent increase in nurses over the past four years. That is an increase of 6,744 nurses. Since Morris Iemma became Premier, an additional 1,300 nurses have joined the public health system, almost three times the number Jillian Skinner has pledged to recruit over a four-year period. In September 2006 NSW Health was actively recruiting 1,334 nurses and midwives, 86 per cent of whom are for registered nurse positions. We urgently need additional training places in universities provided by the Commonwealth to ensure that some of those who want to take up nursing have the opportunity to study nursing as part of their university studies. But of course we have nothing from the Opposition on that issue. There is nothing in the Opposition's policy about requiring the Commonwealth to provide additional places.

Moreover, the Opposition continues its robust defence of the regressive and draconian WorkChoices legislation, which jeopardises all the improvements to working conditions made by this Labor Government. The Government is spending $36.6 million each year on recruitment initiatives that compensate for the Commonwealth's failure to adequately meet our training needs. That includes new entry pathways into nursing, such as starting training in schools and boosting the trainee enrolled nurse program. We are opening up new career development opportunities for nurse practitioners. We have the highest number of nurse practitioners of any State in the country, with 79 now practising in New South Wales. We will continue to invest in initiatives to support our health work force and our health system.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Health. When will the We Help Ourselves drug and alcohol rehabilitation service be relocated to Callan Park? Has the service been prevented from commencing refurbishment work on the site after being granted a lease by the Department of Health? What is the cause of the delay in this work, and when will work be able to proceed?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will get some information and come back to the House.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I ask a supplementary question. Is it true that the planning Minister's failure—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The alleged supplementary question by Ms Sylvia Hale is clearly out of order as the Minister cannot elucidate an answer to a question that he has taken on notice.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have ruled previously that when a Minister says that he or she will take a question on notice no elucidation of the answer is possible.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. Have any funds been invested in Chifley Financial Services by the Energy Industries Superannuation Scheme, of which Australian Labor Party and union official Bernie Riordan is a director? Does the Minister recognise any conflict of interest in such an investment, and do any such interests explain Mr Riordan's determination to have Mr Croft continue on the Energy Industries Superannuation Scheme board?

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: And how many people has he kneecapped in a lift?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Look at this face! I do not kneecap people. Clearly, Energy Industries Superannuation Scheme investments are matters for the trustees of the fund, not for me. The press report today that somehow I am a mate of Bernie Riordan's is complete nonsense. Anyone who knows my relationship with Bernie Riordan would realise that he could hardly be regarded as my close mate. In fact, he calls me Dracula because I wanted to sell and privatise the energy industry—a proposal he opposed vigorously during the period of that debate. Of all the slurs I have read in the newspapers today, the one about my being Bernie Riordan's close mate and doing things for him is probably the worst to have been levelled at me in my time in this Parliament.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As the Leader of the Government says, Bernie Riordan is actually his mate. Bernie and I probably disagree on everything relating to politics. Indeed, I would argue that he is barely to the right of the Greens on public ownership and such matters. Currently, Bernie Riordan is the deputy chair of the Energy Industries Superannuation Fund. David Frost is the chair. Clearly, what was reported in the press today is absolute nonsense. All that the unions and I have sought to do is maintain the status quo. Unfortunately, some people do not understand how superannuation works. The reality is that it is there for the members of superannuation funds; it is not there for the benefit of employers. The Energy Industries Superannuation Fund is well run.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It's all about the Labor Council. It's all about getting money into the Labor Council.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: There are industry funds everywhere that have union members on their boards. The Opposition's obsession with and hostility towards the union movement has made members opposite irrational. All industry superannuation funds have union and employer representation on their boards, and we do not intend to change that. That is the law. As for directorships, one should question the Opposition and its performance, particularly at the national level. Recently the Prime Minister foisted one of his personal advisers, Jeff Cousins, onto the Telstra board. Members of the Opposition should not come in here making allegations about the operation of the Energy Industries Superannuation Fund, which protects members' super entitlements.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Catherine Cusack to order for the first time.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Members are entitled to have representation on the board, because it is their money and the board members are the best people to look after the interests of their members.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Catherine Cusack to order for the second time.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister outline the benefits of the New South Wales State Plan as it relates to older people and people with disabilities?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I commend the Hon. Penny Sharpe for her ongoing interest in disability services. The New South Wales State Plan highlights the Government's commitment to some of the most vulnerable in our society—older people, people with disabilities and those who care for and support them. The State Plan highlights the changing needs of the people of New South Wales as a result of population ageing, and our agencies are actively responding. Ageing-related strategies and initiatives have been integrated into plans and programs across government departments. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care is implementing cross-agency initiatives on important issues such as the mature work force, older people in disadvantaged communities, responding to the abuse of older people and supporting people with dementia and their carers. Earlier this year the shadow Minister told the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled conference that there "is no substitute for a clearly articulated program of reform and innovation."

I agree with that. The Government has one such program. The Hon. John Ryan and the Opposition have produced nothing. The Opposition has no plan. The shadow Minister told the peak body that he was well advanced in policy planning and had a series of bids in with the leadership for new resources to be announced in the months before the election. How successful has he been? With only four months to go, it has been a dribble. There is no plan, but this week the Opposition announced $250,000 for an ageing carers network—no actual services, just a network to talk about it! In contrast, the Iemma Government's Stronger Together plan contains 750 new respite places to commence this year; the cost will be some $61 million over five years. Families of people with a disability want accommodation. We have resourced 1,000 group home places over five years, and Stronger Together provides another 1,000 places. The Opposition has promised none.

People with a disability and their families need a comprehensive plan and plenty of resources. In partnership with the community the Government has designed Stronger Together, the largest increase in disability funding—$1.3 billion in its first five years—and the most comprehensive plan of action in the State's history. Recently the Leader of the Opposition in the other place told the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader, when proposing changes to disability services, "We are not talking significant dollars." He was right. The Opposition pledged not one extra accommodation place, not one extra attendant care place, and not one extra case manager or therapist. It has not agreed to fund the additional respite places contained in the Iemma Government's Stronger Together plan. That means that the effect of the election of a Debnam government would be a massive cut in disability support services.

The Opposition will not even join us in asking the Commonwealth to match the additional $1.3 billion, because Peter Debnam is too spineless to stand up to John Howard, and members opposite know he never will. The Hon. John Ryan and Peter Debnam will not stand up to John Howard and they will not stand up for people with disabilities and their carers. The Hon. John Ryan faces preselection this weekend. The three horsemen of the apocalypse are sitting right behind him! Poor old John Ryan! No doubt the extreme wing of the Liberal Party will replace him with someone less committed to the vulnerable and people with disabilities.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Health, representing the Minister for Education and Training, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware of the program recently released by the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training to partly fund the school chaplaincy with a $20,000 per annum grant to each school? Is the Minister aware that the directive in the memorandum to principals sent by the Director General of School Education on 10 October 1995, Ken Boston, which deletes the position of chaplains in New South Wales schools, is still in force? Will the Minister order that this directive be modified in consultation with the Inter-Church Commission on Religious Education in Schools to allow for these much-needed funds being offered to other States to be used to fund chaplains to provide support and counselling to New South Wales students?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am aware of the Commonwealth's announcement but I am not familiar with the details. I know a lot about chaplaincy. In my previous portfolio, when I was Minister for Justice, we had chaplains in Corrective Services. As the Hon. Michael Costa reminds me, I once got a letter from the Greens urging me to have a chaplain for atheists. If I ever write a biography, that request will end up as a footnote somewhere. I will take the question on notice and provide an answer subsequently.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter. What conversations did he have or what instructions did he give to his adviser Seija Wolk or his close friend Mark Duffy, Director General of the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability Director General, in relation to commencing a media campaign to discredit the chairman of TransGrid if he did not go quietly?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: My office has not spoken to the media other than in response to propositions that were put by them. Unfortunately, some people do not understand how corporate governance works in relation to superannuation funds. Fortunately, it is my responsibility to ensure that we have appropriate and adequate corporate governance in relation to all our state-owned entities, and I make no apology for that.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. How successful has the State Government been in its efforts to assist oyster farmers in the Hawkesbury deal with the 2004 QX disease outbreak?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The State Government has stood shoulder to shoulder, as everyone knows, with oyster growers since the QX disease hit the Hawkesbury in 2004. The Sydney rock oyster has a long history in this State. Commercial production began around the 1870s. By 2003-04 the Sydney rock oyster industry was worth $36 million at the farm gate, following significant growth of 10.5 per cent in the past year. QX was first detected in Moreton Bay, Queensland, in 1968 and appeared in some northern New South Wales estuaries in the 1980s. It was first discovered in the Hawkesbury in June 2004. It is important to point out that QX affects only the Sydney rock oyster. It does not affect other marine life or humans. The "Q" stands for Queensland and the "X" stands for unknown.

As honourable members on this side of the House know, when the disease hit the Hawkesbury in 2004 it decimated the industry. The New South Wales Government was quick to react. The Government provided an initial $280,000 package for affected growers, including the waiving of fees and providing $200,000 to purchase millions of juvenile oysters in the coming growing seasons. A further $2.7 million over three years was provided to help affected growers return to production via a $150 per tonne subsidy to remove dead stock and infrastructure. One of the biggest tasks was the removal of dead and infected oyster stock and infrastructure. Approximately 4,000 tonnes of dead oysters and redundant oyster cultivation material has now been removed from the Hawkesbury River under the New South Wales Government funded clean-up program. The clean-up is now in its second year. Hawkesbury River farmers are also assisting the Queensland Museum with research. Some 300 sediment samples have already been taken in search of the parasitic host. I am pleased to report that in 2006 the picture is much brighter. Farmers are growing sterile Pacific oysters to return cash flow.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Rick Colless has said that the oysters grown in the Hawkesbury by the growers who have survived this terrible affliction of the industry are horrible to eat. What a disgusting statement! It shows the honourable member has little regard for the industry or for the survival of the people of the Hawkesbury.

The Hon. Peter Breen: Point of order: The honourable member did not say they were disgusting at all. He has been misquoted. He simply said he did not like them.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Peter Breen knows that is not a point of order.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Now that The Nationals have raised their ugly heads—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister has deliberately misled the House about the comments of the Hon. Rick Colless.

The PRESIDENT: Order! On numerous occasions I have reminded the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that when he seeks the call to make a point of order the matters he raises must be relevant to that point of order.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Given that The Nationals have entered this debate, we ought to talk about what is happening to The Nationals in Victoria. Their leader, Peter Ryan, said yesterday—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: We know the Minister is irrelevant, now we know his answers are irrelevant. My point of order relates to relevance. The Victorian Nationals have absolutely nothing to do with the question that he was asked.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister's answer must be relevant. The Minister's time for speaking has expired.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I wish to ask the Minister for Roads a question without notice. Is it a fact that CrossCity Motorway Pty Limited is facing bankruptcy, as it has debts of $580 million? Is it a fact that the Cross City Tunnel is only receiving $85,000 per day in tolls from 30,000 vehicles when it had budgeted for 90,000 cars and for revenue of $260,000 per day, and the banks, as has been reported, could foreclose on their loans? Will the Minister give a guarantee that the Government will ensure the continued operation of the Cross City Tunnel if CrossCity Motorway Pty Limited goes bankrupt, as it would be a major blow against business confidence in New South Wales if the tunnel closes?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I note the ongoing interest of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile as chair of the parliamentary inquiry into the Cross City Tunnel. The contract for the tunnel ensures that New South Wales taxpayers and motorists are protected: the private sector carries all of the financial risk of the project. I can give the people of New South Wales these assurances. Should the tunnel change ownership or go into administration, there will be no financial risk to the taxpayers of this State. The tunnel will remain open and operational. The tunnel operators will work within the existing toll cap. The ownership of the tunnel will still return to the public after 29 years.

The Roads and Traffic Authority advises that since the Iemma Government commenced the central business district [CBD] road changes in June the volume of traffic in the tunnel has increased by 12 per cent. The Iemma Government restored direct access across the CBD via Druitt Street, access to the harbour crossings from William Street, and reopened Bourke Street at William Street. That was in response to strong community concern. The financial position of the CrossCity Motorway has no financial impact on the RTA or New South Wales taxpayers. The RTA has at all times remained within the terms of the contract. The New South Wales Government has no plan to purchase the tunnel in the event of a change of ownership. The New South Wales Government has not been informed by the CrossCity Motorway or the company's chief executive officer, Graham Mulligan, of any changes to the ownership of the company. I am advised that the RTA's chief executive officer, Les Wielinga, had a discussion with Mr Mulligan this morning. Any issues relating to the financial affairs of the Cross City Tunnel are affairs for that company to deal with. The RTA will continue to monitor the situation.

I must express my surprise at hearing this morning Andrew Stoner, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, actually pledging to buy the Cross City Tunnel. I pose the question to the Coalition: Which road projects will it cut to fund the road from Vaucluse to the city? Peter Debnam—because he is in a bad position now, worried about his own seat—has ordered Andrew Stoner to pledge to buy the Cross City Tunnel. Will they cut the Pacific Highway upgrade? Will they cut the Great Western Highway upgrade? Will they cut the Princes Highway upgrade? Will it be the Central Coast road that the Coalition chops? We just do not know. The Peter meter is about to explode. Andrew Stoner's promise this morning to spend $400 million, $500 million or $600 million dollars to buy the road from Vaucluse to the city is absolutely staggering, the craziest election pledge so far by the Coalition. We wait with bated breath: they will be hitting the $30 billion mark soon. We wait with interest to see how they will fund the purchase of the Cross City Tunnel and which roads they are going to cut. The Nationals can forget about a timber bridges program because Andrew Stoner will need every cent to pay for the Cross City Tunnel.

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

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport. I refer to the recent report examining the option of transferring some of the heavy transport load from the Pacific Highway to an upgraded Summerland Way route. Can the Minister advise why a 50 per cent contingency was built into the cost estimates for constructing an alternative Summerland Way inland route when a contingency of only 23 per cent was allowed for in relation to the Ballina bypass? Is it not correct that the Ballina bypass is a technically more problematic project than the suggested Summerland Way route? Does this 50 per cent contingency provision not unfairly inflate the estimated cost of a Summerland Way upgrade compared with the proposed Pacific Highway upgrade, and was it not used as a key factor in rejecting the development of the Summerland Way option? Was the case for the rejection of the Summerland Way option, therefore, fundamentally flawed?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The upgrade of the Pacific Highway is one of the largest infrastructure projects ever undertaken in Australia. The scale of the project is often underestimated. We are talking about upgrading a 677-kilometre stretch of the road from Hexham to the Queensland border. Of course, it is a joint project. Over 10 years the New South Wales Government has funded $1.66 billion, more than double the Federal Government's funding of $660 million. A further $1.3 billion will be invested by both governments to 2009. That is a huge investment. I am working with my Federal counterparts to find more. I certainly welcome the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, making the Pacific Highway a priority, because it must be one. The New South Wales Government is getting on with the job of improving roads on the North Coast and the upper North Coast.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Treasurer to order for the first time. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Iemma Labor Government is getting on with the job. In the six months since the Pacific Highway committee's report was released the New South Wales Government has announced five preferred routes, started construction of the $245 million Bonville deviation near Coffs Harbour and preconstruction work on the Ballina bypass, completed construction on the $69 million Coopernook bypass in March and the $115 million Bundacree Creek to Possum Brush project near Nabiac, and will finish the $115 million Karuah to Bulahdelah project by the end of this year. These works will result in 250 kilometres of dual carriageway. Historically, we have now finished identifying routes for the entire length of the highway. Deciding where to build major roads is not an easy process. It is about getting the best balance between meeting community needs, ensuring environmental protection and boosting the State's economy.

The RTA has co-ordinated an independent review of the issues around the Summerland Way. The independent experts demonstrated that the inland route would not take a sufficient amount of traffic off the Pacific Highway. So the current coastal route would still need to be upgraded in the event that we did upgrade the Summerland Way. We can certainly build the road but we cannot force people to use it. Estimates provided to me show that if an inland alternative were constructed it would attract a maximum of 1,900 vehicles a day from the Pacific Highway, leaving at least 7,800 vehicles a day on the Pacific Highway. Even The Nationals agree that this is not viable. The Hon. Rick Colless was quoted recently in the Armidale Express saying exactly that. Perhaps the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner should consult the Hon. Rick Colless before asking her questions in future. He actually lives in the country and understands country issues. The priority must be to get the upgrade of the Pacific Highway done as quickly as possible.

The Hon. John Ryan: Let's get it into the 150-year plan!

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Is the Hon. John Ryan still here? Yes, the vote is on Saturday. I challenge the Opposition to stop bickering about the Pacific Highway as a way of scoring cheap points and to join me in lobbying their Federal Liberal and Nationals colleagues to increase funding so we can get on with the job and accelerate the Pacific Highway upgrade. The community deserves it.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads. What is the latest information on road upgrades and improvements for the Sutherland shire area?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for his continuing support for road networks. The Iemma Labor Government is making real progress in improving local roads in the Sutherland shire area. Members would be aware that the New South Wales Government is delivering roads funding of $50.7 million to the St George and Sutherland shire area in the 2006-07 budget. That is a 37 per cent increase for this growing region. The honourable member for Menai, Alison Megarrity, is a famously hard worker. She is getting on with the job of delivering for her constituents in an area neglected by the Liberals for a long time. Last year she was present at the opening of stage one of the $115 million Bangor Bypass. That is a significant piece of road infrastructure, which at last count was attracting approximately 92 per cent of through traffic.

Traffic surveys conducted six months after its opening indicate that the Bangor Bypass is doing the job it was built to do. A second traffic survey will be conducted early next year to tell us if that trend is continuing. In the meantime, planning for stage two of the Bangor Bypass is continuing, with $500,000 allocated in this year's budget. The local member has also campaigned very strongly to bring this project to fruition. She is a toiler for her constituents. Following community consultation about four options, the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] is undertaking further investigations, including geotechnical studies, to develop a preferred option. I take this opportunity to reiterate the New State Wales Government's commitment to complete the Bangor Bypass with the construction of stage two.

Another significant project that is moving ahead is the duplication of Alford's Point Bridge. Tenders for construction of the duplicate bridge were called on 24 July 2006. I understand the RTA is working its way through the tender assessment process. The Government has allocated $9 million in the 2006-07 budget to begin work on the duplication, which involves building a second bridge to the east of the current bridge. While the existing bridge, which was built in the early 1970s, has served the region well over many years, there is a need to improve road safety and travelling conditions. The local member, Alison Megarrity, has been a consistently strong advocate on behalf of her constituents for the duplication of the bridge. I know she is particularly keen to get construction under way on this project as soon as possible after the successful tender is announced.
[Interruption]

As if they would ever show the polling to the Hon. John Ryan. The new bridge will carry two lanes of southbound traffic, while the existing bridge, which is currently tidal flow in the peak periods, will carry two lanes of northbound traffic. It will also provide for a shared-use pedestrian/cycle path on its eastern side. These projects mean we are heading in the right direction and getting on with the job of improving local road infrastructure in this growing region. I compliment the honourable member for Menai for her ongoing commitment to her constituents and for the way she regularly bangs on my door and telephones me to campaign for her electorate. She is one of the finest examples of an active local member that I know.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Earlier in question time I was asked by the Hon. Michael Gallacher about superannuation and the former member for Swansea. I have sought advice and the Parliamentary Superannuation Fund advises me that no payment has been made.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On 14 November Ms Sylvia Hale asked me a question about a proposal to register the New South Wales branch of the Australian Institute of Radiography. Further to the answer I gave the House on that occasion, I inform honourable members that existing regulation of the medical radiation science practitioners profession in New State Wales consists of registration of apparatus, including fixed radiation gauges, diagnostic imaging apparatus and cyclotrons, licensing of persons using, selling, or possessing radioactive substances and ionising radiation apparatus, and the accreditation of persons as radiation experts.

The submission put forward by the Australian Institute of Radiography proposes retention of the licensing system with the addition of a registration system. If it were to be adopted, a registration requirement would involve an added expense to the profession, which would inevitably be passed on to consumers. I have received advice from the Department of Health relating to this issue. I have returned the matter to the department requesting responses to specific questions, and at this time I do not have any further advice from the department. However, the issue remains broadly under consideration in accordance with the terms I advised to the House on 14 November.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Earlier in question time I was asked a question about the Lane Cove Tunnel Integration Group and local councils by the Hon. Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. The $1.1 billion Lane Cove Tunnel and the expanded Gore Hill Freeway have to be integrated into the surrounding road network. This is a huge task and there will be teething problems. That is why in June the New South Wales Government established the Lane Cove Tunnel Integration Group. Let me be clear, and I shall quote Hansard. On Tuesday 14 November I informed the House that the Lane Cove Tunnel Integration Group:

... is working with the company, local councils and other agencies to make the project's transition into the existing road network as smooth as possible.

This transition needs to be achieved on sound traffic management principles. There is an ongoing dialogue with local councils regarding the Lane Cove Tunnel and expanded Gore Hill Freeway project. These meetings are frequently focused on the integration of the massive $1.1 billion project into the existing road network. For example, as recently as Wednesday 8 November a representative of the integration group attended a public meeting at Lane Cove Council's invitation. That is another example of collaboration with North Sydney Council and local community representatives working on an option for a shared pedestrian cycle bridge across the Warringah Freeway in the vicinity of Falcon Street. A further example is the local area improvement plans lodged in October for local back streets. These local area improvement plans were developed with the local community and councils and are designed to improve amenity on local streets after the Lane Cove Tunnel opens. The New South Wales Government remains committed to working with councils and the community before and after the Lane Cove Tunnel opens. I am happy to keep the honourable member informed.
Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.06 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. John Della Bosca agreed to:

That these bills be now read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages, and the second readings of the bills stand 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. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans 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 Hon. John Della Bosca tabled the following papers:

Annual Reports (Departments) Acts 1985—Report of NSW Agriculture, Administration of Agricultural Statutory Authorities for the year ended 30 June 2006

Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) 1984—Report of New South Wales Casino Control Authority for the year ended 30 June 2006

Greyhound Racing Act 2002—Report of Greyhound Racing New South Wales for the year ended 30 June 2006

Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996—Report of Racing NSW for the year ended 30 June 2006

Ordered to be printed.

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

CHAIR: I will now put the question on Opposition amendments 1 and 3 to the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill.

Question_That the amendments be agreed to_put.
The Committee divided.

Mr Brown Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Mr Gallacher Mr Gay

Mr Lynn Mr Mason-Cox Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Ms Parker

Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Mr Ryan Tellers, Mr Colless Miss Gardiner

Mr Breen Dr Burgmann Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca

Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon

Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Harwin

Mr Kelly

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [2.47 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 5, clause 5. Insert after line 12:

(b) to maximise water conservation, demand management and the use of recycled water,

The principal objectives of the corporation in clause 5 are sound and similar to those applying to Sydney Water. The Sydney Water Act, however, also contains a number of special objectives relating to protection of the environment and water conservation. The Central Coast faces major water supply challenges. It would thus be appropriate to include special objectives requiring the corporation to maximise water conservation and demand management efforts to maximise the use of recycled water. This might point the new entity in the right direction and away from energy-guzzling desalination. I commend Greens amendment No. 1 to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.48 p.m.]: The Government does not oppose Greens amendment No. 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 11 agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [2.48 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 in globo:

No. 2 Page 9, clause 12, line 36. Omit "3, but no more than 7,". Insert instead "5, but no more than 9,".

No. 3 Page 10, clause 12, line 6. Omit "5 (not 3)". Insert instead "7 (not 5)".

No. 4 Page 10, clause 12. Insert after line 8:

(7) Two of the directors (not being directors referred to in subsection (5) or (6)) must be persons having experience and expertise in both business and water conservation. With water conservation and the financial management of the corporation of paramount importance, the bill should be amended to require membership of the board to include two people appointed by the Minister for their business and water conservation experience. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.50 p.m.]: The Government is not inclined to support the amendments, not because the spirit in which they have been drafted is not supported by the Government but because the amendments are unnecessary. Clause 12 of the bill clearly states that each person recommended for appointment to the board must be a person who will assist the corporation to achieve its principal objectives. The principal objectives of the corporation include: to be a successful business and to comply with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. It is thus clear that board members must be persons skilled in business and water conservation issues. Increasing the size of the board from seven members to nine members is more strongly opposed. The primary reason for establishing the corporation is to improve governance and decision making in relation to water on the Central Coast. Increasing the size of the board will make decision making more complicated and unwieldy. That is not in the best interests of the Central Coast community.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 31 agreed to.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.52 p.m.], by leave: I move Liberal Party amendments Nos 2 and 4 in globo:

No. 2 Pages 21 and 22, clause 32, line 30 on page 21 to line 7 on page 22. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) A constituent council may, by order in writing, transfer to the Corporation such of its staff, assets, rights and liabilities as are specified or referred to in the order.

No. 4 Page 64, schedule 7, lines 8 to 11. Omit all words on those lines.

These two amendments relate to control and ownership. The Opposition's amendments will give the councils the ability to make an order in writing. In fact the amendments I have proposed will remove from the bill the clause that vests that power in the Minister. Clause 32 (2) of the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill states that the Minister may, by order in writing, transfer to the corporation such of a constituent council's assets, rights and liabilities as are specified or referred to in the order.

The purpose of the amendments is to protect council assets and council employees. The Government's proposal will have the effect of denying staff the protection that the Minister said in his second reading speech would be afforded to them. This is not just about the water supply; this is about the head works and the whole box and dice and the transfer of staff, assets, rights and liabilities of Central Coast councils. The Coalition's proposition will provide for the council to transfer to the corporation, by order in writing, such of their staff, assets, rights and liabilities as are specified or referred to in the order. The Government wants to have control and these amendments mean the Government will have to sit down with the councils and try to reach an agreement that meets the needs of council employees and the constituents, who are the owners of the assets. It is about reaching an agreement rather than simply saying, "We are taking the lot." That is exactly what that provision will allow the Minister to do.

I think the proposition put forward by the Opposition is reasonable and will ensure that, at the end of the day, there is an agreed outcome rather than an enforced outcome, which clause 32 currently guarantees will happen. Of course, it is well worded in that it states that the Minister "may, by order in writing," do certain things, but we all know that the Minister "will" do certain things. The amendments will remove that component relating to the rights and liabilities of the councils, as well as the assets and the staff, and ensure there is discussion and negotiation between the Government and the two affected councils that result in a decision that satisfies each party's needs, not simply the Government's desire to take control.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.56 p.m.]: The amendments will remove an important dispute resolution mechanism to ensure the Central Coast Water Corporation has access to assets essential for water supply. Therefore the Government will not support the amendments.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Brown Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Mr Mason-Cox Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Ms Parker

Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Mr Ryan Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Lynn

Mr Breen Dr Burgmann Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca

Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon

Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Harwin

Mr Kelly

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.05 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 6:

No. 6 Page 24, clause 35, lines 18 and 19. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) Before taking action under subsection (1), the Minister:

(a) must consult with the Corporation, and

(b) must refer the matter to IPART for investigation and report.

(3) On receiving a matter referred to it under subsection (2), IPART must invite submissions on the matter from the public.

(4) After considering the matter and any such submissions, IPART must furnish a report on the matter to the Minister.

(5) Such a report must include recommendations as to whether any action, and (if so) what action, should be taken in relation to the Corporation's operating licence.

With regard to amending the operating licence the bill provides:

35 Amendment of operating licence

(1) The Minister may amend or substitute the Corporation's operating licence or impose, amend or revoke conditions of the operating licence.

(2) The Minister is to consult with the Corporation before taking action under subsection (1).

This will allow the Minister to amend the licence without public consultation or reference to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. This clause should be amended to require the Minister to undertake public consultation and seek advice from IPART prior to amending the operating licence. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.06 p.m.]: The Government is not prepared to support the amendment, although once again the issues relate to proper administration. The Minister will need to be able to act quickly to amend the conditions of the licence in the event of emergencies or in response to concerns that may arise from time to time. There is no requirement for the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] to conduct an investigation and seek public submissions prior to amendment of the Sydney Water or Hunter Water operating licences. It is more important that the Minister is able to act quickly in relation to the Central Coast Water Corporation, which will be owned by Gosford and Wyong councils, not the State. If the Minister were required to wait for a public review by IPART before making an amendment to the operating licence, there would be a real risk to public health and safety, and environmental difficulties and other issues would be compromised. So the Government is not prepared to support the amendment, which I suspect is based on a misunderstanding on the part of the Greens about the operation of this part of the bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 63 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 8 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bills reported from Committee, each with an amendment, and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.12 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As the Education Legislation Amendment Bill was amended in the other place subsequent to its introduction, I would like to make some brief comments about those amendments and, as the bulk of this speech is the same as that given by the Minister in the other place, I shall seek leave to have the remainder incorporated into the record.

One of the key objectives of the bill is to improve the management of students whose enrolment at government or non-government schools is likely to pose a risk to the health or safety of any person arising out of the behaviour of the student. The bill will do this by facilitating the provision of information to schools from government agencies, and by empowering the Director General of the Department of Education and Training, as a last option, to direct a student who seeks enrolment in, or is already attending, a government school to an educational setting that can more effectively manage the risk that student poses.

I am aware that concerns have been expressed that the bill gives insufficient guidance to protect the rights of families or students with disabilities to be consulted about provisions related to information and the direction by the director general. I make it abundantly clear that this legislation is not about excluding students from public education. It is about keeping our schools safe and identifying the environment in which a student can be effectively assisted in continuing their education. I assure the House that extensive consultation on the content of the guidelines—with relevant agencies, with groups representing parents, disability advocates and unions—will occur prior to their finalisation.

The Government amended the original bill in order to provide clarification of several issues. Firstly, the information to be sought under proposed section 26B is in relation to assessing whether the enrolment provides a risk to the health and safety of any person in relation to the behaviour of the student. This will ensure that the provisions are relevant to the handful of students whose violent behaviour poses a risk to others. Secondly, the bill will specifically provide for students and their parents, including carers, to be consulted during the process of the assessment of any risk, including disclosure of any relevant information obtained under the provisions. Thirdly, the bill will provide that before a direction is made by the director general, students and their parents will be given access to information, will be given written notice of the grounds for the proposed direction, will be given the opportunity to make representations, and that the director general must take these into account.

The bill provides that the guidelines will provide for some exceptional circumstances in which a student or parent will not be consulted or provided with access to information, given written notice of a direction, or given the opportunity to make representations. This would be applied in circumstances that are expected to be extremely unusual: for the protection of the child, such as when the child is part of a witness protection program and has been separated from one or both of their parents; when a non-custodial parent has a court order against them; where there is a real risk based on the circumstances of the case that a parent or student may endanger the safety of a third party if the content of the information became known to them; or as otherwise prohibited by law.

The Education Legislation Amendment Bill contains reforms that are commonsense, practical improvements that will strengthen the public education system in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House. As the remainder of the speech is the same as was given in the other place, I seek leave to incorporate the balance of it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

As we all know, a quality education gives young Australians the best possible start to life and the Iemma Government remains committed to ensuring that students receive an education of the highest quality and are supported to achieve their educational potential.

The Government also recognises that safety and security in our schools is essential to ensure the delivery of a quality education and everything that schools do—for the excellent and creative work of students we see in classrooms every day; for the inspiring guidance that teachers are providing their students; and for the participation of parents in their children's education.

Improving safety in schools enhances a school's capacity to focus on its core function—teaching and learning.

And of course, like all employers, the Department of Education and Training has an obligation to ensure the safety of all those who work at and attend its schools—employees, students and visitors.

And schools are safe places.

However safety in a school can be threatened by the propensity for violent behaviour by a tiny proportion of very disruptive students. In such circumstances one student can disrupt the learning environment for everyone else.

To ensure the safety of students and school staff it is essential that if such a student is identified, then schools are able to obtain sufficient relevant information about any risk to health and safety posed by that student's behaviour to enable the school to develop strategies to avoid, prevent or minimise any such risk and support the student.

Let me make it abundantly clear, this is not about excluding students from public education.

It is about keeping our schools safe and identifying the environment in which a student can be most effectively assisted in continuing their education.

Accordingly the Government will amend the Education Act 1990 to enhance the ability of schools to manage the risk posed by violent students.

The bill also makes some other important changes to the Education Act 1990 with respect to compulsory schooling and student reports, to the Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act 1987 with respect to delegations, and amends the Teaching Service Act 1980 with respect to the making of regulations under the Act. The Bill will:

• amend the Education Act to facilitate the identification and management of students whose enrolment at a school could pose a risk to health or safety of any person by improving the process for the flow of information to schools from government agencies;
• empower the Director-General of the Department of Education and Training, as a last option, to direct a student who seeks enrolment in, or is already attending, a government school to an education environment that can more effectively manage the risk that the student poses;

• enhance the Department of Education and Training's ability to deal with parents who fail to comply with their legal obligation to enrol their child in a school or register their child for home schooling;

• extend the protection currently applying to the results of the basic skills tests, the Higher School Certificate and School Certificate to school student reports and assessments that are to be produced in compliance with the Commonwealth Schools Assistance (Learning Together–Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004;

• deal with regulations made under the Teaching Service Act; and

• amend the Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act to streamline the way the Director-General of Education and Training can delegate his functions under the Act.

Information

The Bill amends the Education Act to enable informed decisions to be made by government and non-government schools about risks to safety.

This will be achieved by providing that information may be obtained from schools and relevant agencies for the purpose of assisting schools assess whether the enrolment of a particular student is likely to constitute a risk to others.

The agencies currently identified are the government and non-government schools, the Department of Education and Training, Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, Department of Community Services, Public Health organisations, TAFE, Department of Juvenile Justice and NSW Police. It will be possible to identify other agencies in the Education Regulation should that prove necessary.

The information to be obtained must be solely for the purpose of the assessment of a risk that the enrolment of a particular student at a school may constitute to the health and safety of any persons (including the student) and developing strategies to eliminate or minimise any such risk.

The bill provides that information may not be disclosed if it is prohibited by sections 20G, 20P or 23 of the Health Administration Act 1982, dealing with a range of provisions designed to protect the investigation of adverse clinical events via the work of specially privileged committees, Quality Assurance Committees and Root Cause Analysis Teams and section 29 (1) (f) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 which protects the identity of people who make mandatory reports to DOCS about children who are at risk of harm.

Guidelines will be published by the Minister that deal with:

• The general principles that a person must bear in mind when exercising a function under this Part such as the importance of safety, the need to ensure that students are assisted to achieve their educational potential and the obligation to not unlawfully discriminate;

• The matters that are likely to constitute a risk to the health or safety of any person;

• The way in which risk assessments are to be carried out;

• The kind of information that may, or must, be sought;

• Who may make a request for information and who may provide it;

• The circumstances in which a person may refuse to provide information that has been requested;

• The way in which information is to be kept and the length of time it is to be kept;

• The circumstances (if any) in which the information may be further passed on and to whom it may be passed on;

• The circumstances in which consultations are to be held with students about whom information has been obtained and their parents;

• Memoranda of understanding between relevant agencies with respect to passing on relevant information.

An extensive consultation process will be undertaken during the development of these guidelines.

This consultation process will not only involve the government agencies that are directly involved in this process and non-government schools but will include the Attorney General's Department, the Privacy Commissioner, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and other key government agencies

Representatives of the various groups representing parents and those who advocate for those with a disability, disorder and/or syndrome who may be affected by the changes and unions will be an important part of the consultation process.

Enrolment Form

The bill will complement recent changes the department has made to seek additional information from parents at enrolment.
A new application form to enrol in a government school has been developed which in part seeks information which can assist identify students who may pose a risk to the health and safety of staff, other students at the school and themselves.

The new form has been designed to ensure that schools can identify students with additional needs so that appropriate support can be put in place.

Directions regarding enrolment

Information obtained from parents, other schools or agencies will assist government schools assess the risks posed to the health and safety of others by the handful of students to whom these provisions will be applied.

In many cases this will involve instituting a behaviour management plan at the very school that the student enrols in and attends.

The risk assessment and management process may conclude however, that a student cannot be safely accommodated in the school of their choice.

In such circumstances it may prove necessary to direct such a student to a particular education environment—one at which they can be safely supported and educated.

It is anticipated that such a direction would only rarely need to be issued.

It would certainly only be issued after an assessment had been undertaken of the risk posed by the student in the education environment they seek to enter, and it has been concluded that the risk posed by the student cannot be safely managed in that environment.

Parents will be consulted throughout this process, and their agreement will be sought.

And our experience is that the vast bulk of parents will agree with a recommendation made by the department about where their child can be safely supported and educated.

If the student's parents refuse to accept the department's recommendation about a more suitable education environment, then a direction can be issued.

The guidelines will also deal with the procedures to be followed before the Director-General can issue a direction about enrolment at government schools, and how that direction may be reviewed.

This is not about excluding students from public education.

It is about identifying the form of education that can most safely accommodate the individual student and other students and staff at the school.

The NSW public education system is large and complex—we educate 741,000 students in over 2,200 schools in a wide range of circumstances right across NSW.

This bill will assist the department manage that complexity so as to deliver quality education to all its students.

Our students, their parents and teachers deserve no less.

Other steps taken by Government

The proposed changes to the Education Act are not the only steps taken by the Government in response to the need to deal with the violent behaviour of some students.

Over the past four years:

• Additional behaviour schools and tutorial centres for students with behaviour difficulties have been established to enable NSW schools to have a range of options available for students who exhibit extreme behaviour problems which disrupt the effective learning of other students and need specialist support;

• new suspension centres have been established by the Government to cater for students on long suspension (5-20 days). These centres assist students to successfully return to school following suspension;

• the Department's special education budget has increased from $515.1 million in 2002/2003 to $773.4 million in 2005/06 and represents 8.1 percent of the Department's total recurrent expenditure. The special education budget provides funds for a broad range of services and programs to support students with disabilities enrolled in regular classes, special classes and special schools.

Only a small number of students will be directly affected by the proposed changes, whilst the Government's initiatives to enhance safety at our great public schools will benefit all students and school staff.

These steps maintain our commitment to give our students a quality education.

Freedom of Information Act

The Freedom of Information Act will be amended to protect the information that will be collected by the Department of Education and Training from non-government schools and government agencies under the information provisions from being accessed through "non-personal FOI applications".
This means that such information is exempted from Freedom of Information requests unless those requests are made by the student that is the subject of the information, their parents or their student or parent's nominee.

This provision will address privacy concerns that individuals may have about sensitive personal information being placed in the public domain.

Prosecution of parents who fail to enrol their children in school

I now wish to turn to another issue which is of particular concern to the Iemma Government—the need to deal with parents who fail to comply with their legal and moral obligation to enrol their school aged child in a school or register them for home schooling.

Access to education is vital. The Iemma Government is committed to removing any impediments to children accessing education that is caused by their parents' failure to enrol them at a school or register them for home schooling.

Parents who do this can be prosecuted for a breach of their legal obligations under the Education Act.

In the past some prosecutions for non-enrolment have been unsuccessful because magistrates have held that the Department of Education and Training has failed to prove a child is not enrolled in school even with evidence that the child attends no school within a reasonable distance of their home.

The Education Act will be amended to provide that the Director-General of Education and Training can, after reasonable inquiries have been made (including asking the parents and making inquiries of surrounding schools and the Board of Studies), issue a certificate stating that to the best of his belief a student is not enrolled in a government or non-government school or registered for home schooling.

This will be accepted by a Court as evidence that the child is not enrolled at a school or registered for home schooling.

It is then up to the parent to prove to the Court that their child is in fact enrolled or registered for home schooling with the Board of Studies.

Student Reports

The House would be aware that the Government is introducing new plain English student reports in 2006.

The Commonwealth has also required changes be made to student reports by the end of the 2006 school year, linking funding to the education sectors in each State and Territory for the period 2005-2008 to these requirements.

Existing Education Regulation provisions exempt production under the Freedom of Information Act of a range of test and examination results to prevent publication of "league tables".

The amendments proposed in the Bill to the Education Act and Education Regulation will extend the protections and requirements which currently apply to the basic skills tests, the Higher School Certificate and the School Certificate to student reports.

This is appropriate as student reports contain information pertinent to the personal educational achievement of individual students.

This does not mean there is no information available about results. School reports are produced annually and are available to parents.

Further section 18A(3) of the Education Act requires that a report be made to Parliament so as to allow meaningful and substantial analysis of the effectiveness of schooling in achieving the aims of the Act and the Government.

The Teaching Service Regulation

The Teaching Service Act currently gives the Director-General of Education and Training power to make regulations that are then approved by the Governor.

This is inconsistent with the way that regulations are made under the other employment Acts which apply to staff who work in the department which provide for regulations to be made by the Governor.

The Bill will change the Teaching Service Act so that future Regulations will be made by the Governor.

As the validity of the Regulation has been subject to legal challenge on technical grounds provision will be made in the Bill to remove any doubt about its validity or the validity of any action taken under it.

Delegations under the Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act

Currently the Director-General may delegate his functions under the Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act except the power to delegate. This prevents a delegate from sub-delegating a function. The Bill will amend the Act to give a power to sub-delegate.

All other legislation Department of Education and Training staff are employed under contain a sub-delegation power.
The absence of a sub-delegation power in the Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act is contrary to the recent significant amendments to create far more consistent employment arrangements for all staff employed by the Department and is also administratively onerous.

The Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 contains reforms that are common-sense, practical improvements that will strengthen the public education system in New South Wales.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.15 p.m.]: On behalf of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition I speak on the Education Legislation Amendment Bill. I note at the outset that the Minister's comments are an indication of what has gone on with this bill. Once again the Government has hastily prepared legislation without consulting with the community or the people most affected. That is the, mums and dads and, children, in particular, children with behavioural issues or specific disabilities. They are among some of the most vulnerable children and families in our society. One hears about the devil being in the detail. There was no detail in this legislation. We are supposed to just trust what the Minister says.

I give credit to the shadow Minister for Education and Training, the honourable member for Wakehurst, and some representative groups for their determination to discuss urgently with the Minister some of the problems with the bill. The Minister has said that some concerns will be dealt with in the guidelines but as they do not appear in the bill, I wonder whether they will be fixed. Indeed, the bill had to be amended in the other place before the Liberal-Nationals Coalition would support it in this place. I wonder why the Government keeps ramming things through without consultation. It is par for the course.

The Education Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Education Act 1990 with specific regard to the management of students who have become a risk to the health and safety of parents and other students. The bill will also amend the Education Regulation, the Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act and the Teaching Service Act to grant the Director General of the Department of Education and Training specific powers to send government school students to behaviour schools without parental approval and to allow schools to collect and exchange information on a student's background. The Government has given an assurance that there will be consultation. Hopefully, that will be the case, but there is even uncertainty as to whether there will be guidelines; in some instances there will be. Teachers have expressed concern that prior history of a student's violent behaviour is not notified to a school when a student enrols. This bill seeks to rectify that problem. Students found guilty of violent behaviour currently cannot be moved to a behaviour school if parents object. This bill will circumvent their need for approval.

Division 2 deals with the obtaining of information about students. Specifically, the bill underpins the perceived need for the Government and schools to assess appropriately whether particular students are likely to represent any risk to the occupational health and safety of teachers or to the well-being and harmonious learning environments required by students. My colleagues in the Liberal-Nationals Coalition acknowledge the concerns of the community and share with the Government the view that certain students represent a risk to classrooms in this State. We have to get the balance right so that one student does not disrupt a whole class. A management plan will be prepared for such students. Everybody's rights should be considered and we need to have the right information in order to do so. For example, violent behaviour must be assessed on the right sort of information and not just on the say-so of teachers: it should be based on fact, not just anecdotal evidence. We also have to take into account the special needs of children. For example, children may have disabilities. Violent behaviour needs to be assessed in context. Sometimes the causes of violent behaviour might not be immediately apparent. Those considerations are factors in balancing the rights of children and the educational environment. Children in public education have the right to a good education and should be supported in the way that we would all expect.

The Coalition does not oppose the bill but we have great concerns about the implementation and development of guidelines, which are critical to the bill's proper functioning. Violence in our communities has gone too far, and violence in schools and on sports fields is a real issue. I have campaigned heavily about violence in the schoolyard. During the budget estimates process the education Minister informed General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 that only 0.5 per cent of New South Wales students were subject to expulsion in the previous year. Students whose behaviour will be subject to the provisions of this bill are a minority. Whilst violent behaviour in schools, particularly attacks on teachers, creates something of a stir in the media, such incidents are rare, albeit on the rise. What is not rare is the increase in school bullying and general antisocial behaviour. We need a clear line between behaviour that constitutes a criminal offence and behaviour that constitutes mismanagement of the child's best interests by parents—behaviour that in decades past did not seem to be so harshly under the glare of public opinion.
All parents and teachers know that children play up in school. There seems to be a decline in family values. Parents have unclear boundaries and are continually influenced by the media about how to deal with issues. In some ways society has become less well equipped to deal with the problems. The bill is nevertheless about control: it is about controlling parents and students. That is necessary because this Government is out of control. We should not have to control students; we should not have to control children. We should create an environment in which a child is valued rather than one in which governments take control of children on our behalf. The Government has created a "father knows best" state of misplaced paternalism and a lack of trust in its constituency. The only thing the Government should not trust about the people of New South Wales is that they will deliver it back to office in March 2007.

The Legislation Review Committee, of which I am a member, questioned whether the matters set out in proposed section 26J should be dealt with by ministerial guidelines rather than in the Act—whether that is an appropriate delegation of legislative power. We are deeply concerned about this. Under this Labor Government ministerial power has been delegated to individuals against whom allegations of the worst kind of corruption are currently levelled. We should not be surprised. We wait to see whether the assurances about proposed section 26J are honoured. Governments, and this Government in particular, are not the best equipped to deal with violent and recalcitrant behaviour. The Liberal Party values the rights of the individual above all else and would prefer minimal government interference in the everyday lives of people. As I have said, the bill seeks to juggle the rights of all New South Wales children—and they do deserve our support—and the rights of parents, and to redefine the role of government in that relationship. With so many balls in the air it is no wonder that some of them fall to the ground. In this case the ball that has been dropped by the Iemma Government is an appropriate degree of community consultation.

The Hon. Rick Colless: It is not the only ball it has dropped.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: I agree. We have seen a few balls drop lately, and I am sure a few more will fall in the next few months. Lack of appropriate community consultation is a factor in nearly every bill that is put before this House. We get community consultation in name only. It is all too late. It is just appalling that consultation has to take place when a bill is before the House—and this is happening with more and more bills.

We have been told by the Minister that the guidelines will be forthcoming. We know in the broadest sense what they will contain. However, the Opposition, like the Legislation Review Committee, notes with concern that whilst the matters listed in proposed section 28J to be included in ministerial guidelines provide some safeguards against any undue trespass on a student's privacy rights, these matters are so central to the operation of the new regime that they should have been provided for in the Act. The Opposition and the Legislation Review Committee regard this as an inappropriate delegation of legislative power.

The bill amends the Education Act 1990 to facilitate the identification and management of students whose enrolment at a school would pose a risk to the health or safety of another person. It empowers the Government to make regulations for the publication of information contained in periodic reports to parents on student achievement. It also facilitates what the Government hopes will be successful prosecutions for failure to enrol school-age children for school or to register them for home schooling. That is a reasonable and responsible amendment. The bill amends the Education Regulation 2001 to make provision for the publication of results of annual assessments of academic achievement contained in such reports to parents. It amends the Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act 1987 to provide for subdelegation of functions previously performed by the director general of the Department of Education and Training to the Governor.

Finally, the bill amends the Freedom of Information Act with regard to the exemption of documents for publication under that Act. The bulk of the Government's legislative agenda for the bill is revealed in schedule 1. The amendments will allow a government department, specifically the Department of Education and Training, as well as non-government school authority bodies and what the Minister describes as "relevant agencies", to share information about a particular student. It specifies that this information be shared only for the purposes of making a risk assessment for that student to determine whether he or she constitutes a hazard to the health and safety of others. What concerns the Opposition is that the Minister will hand down the specific guidelines at a later date following foreshadowed community consultation. What deeply concerns the Opposition is the precedent that sets for future legislation. This buy-now-pay-later attitude is not conducive to good governance. Parents, teachers and key stakeholders from the education sector must be consulted. Legislation with such far-reaching consequences for the rights of children must be debated vigorously.

The Opposition has had only since 27 October to consider this matter. As a result of the suspension of standing orders with regard to due passage in the other place, it has barely 24 hours to consider the bill in its current form. The Government should not be sneaking this bill through a regulatory backdoor at the eleventh hour. That is what these ministerial guidelines represent. In essence, we have been given only the skeleton of a bill here today. Through ministerial intervention, this bill can be strengthened beyond what this Parliament has considered, or weakened to the point of irrelevancy, all without due oversight by the Minister's parliamentary peers.

I understand that most Government Ministers are very busy covering each other's backs at the moment, but considering the poorly thought through, ill-advised policy that comes from their offices, scribbling a few notes on guidelines to protect the rights and privacy of children should not be too much hassle. Honourable members should make no mistake: the consequences of this legislation are indeed far reaching. As lawmakers we must empower parents with the tools to make the right decisions for their children. We must also empower children, through appropriate education, to be well equipped to make the right decisions later in life.

That this bill provides for the prosecution of parents who fail to enrol their school age child in an appropriate educational institution is a good thing. Parental responsibility should be backed up by strong policy. However, in certain circumstances this bill also empowers the director general of the Department of Education to make a ruling on the management of a child without the consultation of the parent. The Government is talking about its much-vaunted behaviour schools. In another example of this Government flouting due process under the law, it is eroding the rights of children and parents through ministerial regulation. Moving students from mainstream schools to behaviour schools on information that may or may not be valid, without any appeal process and without guaranteed privacy on irrelevant issues, is a path that no government should take lightly. It should certainly not be taken without appropriate consultation with the community, let alone this Parliament.

Are behaviour schools the right place for students with behaviour issues, whether due to an inherent behavioural problem, a disability or otherwise? The Liberals and The Nationals have concerns about the Government's wholesale rush to encourage the development of more behaviour schools. The Minister acknowledged a few weeks ago that no evaluation has been made of behaviour schools and their outcomes. I draw the attention of the House to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 August 2006, which states:

The State Government has admitted that it had no idea how successful its behaviour schools were at helping children back into mainstream schools, TAFE or jobs. The admission was made yesterday when the Premier, Morris lemma, and Education Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, re-announced an initiative to build two new behaviour schools and nine new suspension centres.

That is a disturbing aspect of what the Government is doing. Obviously it wants to be seen to be tough on children who misbehave. I guess it has to be seen to be tough on something, and children cannot fight back. Behaviour schools came under close scrutiny during the estimates committee process. The Minister refutes the fact that these are dumping grounds for students whose behaviour cannot be managed by a mainstream school system under huge levels of stress. The Minister claims that these schools serve the purpose of re-educating students so that they can be returned to the mainstream at a later date. The Opposition is informed that of the students at the two behaviour schools—Lomandra School and Campbell House—only one child has been returned to a mainstream school, and that most students who commence years 7 and 8 in these schools serve out the entire year.

The Government has not yet established all 35 of its promised behaviour schools, and it will not provide a formal evaluation on the ones it has until next year. It cannot inform us how many students in total at behaviour schools have been reintegrated into mainstream high schools, how many have gone on to TAFE, how many have completed their school certificate, and how many have completed their higher school certificate. The Minister could not supply this information during the estimates committee hearings, and claims the information will be known in 2007, once the rollout of schools has been completed. The Minister also did not deny during the budget estimates hearing the fact that a number of these secondary behaviour schools have primary school teachers, and did not deny—that I am aware—that the curriculum and facilities provided are not necessarily adequate for secondary students.

The Government cannot provide sufficient reassurances about these schools although this legislation will allow students to be placed in them despite the fact that they are yet to be unevaluated. I reiterate my earlier point that this is a buy-now-pay-later Government. Once the rollout is complete we will only then be allowed to know whether this concept is a success or failure. By then, these schools could have become holding places for another generation of young people the system has let slide through the cracks. There is a genuine risk that without appropriate guidelines students with disabilities could get lost in this regime.

It is a huge concern for parents of children with disabilities—and it should be a huge concern for all of us—that given the haste of the passage of this legislation and without having assessed students' needs or examining why they are behaving in a violent manner, it could be all too convenient to move children out of one educational environment and into another without providing appropriate consultation and assessment. In some cases violent behaviour could be fixed if only the Government were to provide the appropriate support to parents and students when they need it.

If only the Government would realise that the lack of school counsellors is a huge problem. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition is acutely aware of the problem with school counsellors. This Government has provided the worst ratio of school counsellors to students in Australia. This State has a ratio of one counsellor to 1,000 high school students and one school counsellor to 1,500 primary school students. That is an appalling situation. If the Government provided adequate resources, perhaps there would not be so many students who need this sort of legislation. Such students should have the attention they need when it is needed. When in government, the Liberal-Nationals Coalition will provide the necessary resources so that those students have the support when and where they need it.

It is a sad indictment of this Government that it needs to establish behaviour schools. It cannot even tell us whether they have been a success or a failure, and it cannot provide an appropriate number of counsellors. Many schools have a counsellor for only one-and-a-half days a week. Teachers also need that support. It goes to the core of the classroom situation. If students need help, they should get it. A teacher trying to provide an educational program in a classroom environment with children who need counselling is up against it. This Government has had long enough; it has had 12 years during which it could have been resourcing teachers adequately, providing assistance for troubled students and ensuring that they have the right psychological and behavioural support. If it were to do that, this State would not have the lowest counsellor to student ratio of any State in Australia.

This legislation is the Government's response. Instead of providing appropriate support, it is providing more behaviour schools—more dumping grounds. Until they are assessed otherwise, that is what me must assume they are. The hardworking and committed teachers working in these schools go without support and students go without the assistance they need to lead productive lives and to have the education they deserve.

Under this Government's education system, students are simply caught in a crossfire. Students are forced to suffer because of mismanagement by a government that has been in office too long; that talks about spin, that does not provide adequate resources; that does not provide basic services for students and their parents; that does not provide assurances to parents of children with disabilities that they will be dealt with sensitively and will be consulted about the management of their children to ensure the best management plan possible; and that ignores community concerns. The Government's attitude of "Trust us; we are the Government. We'll provide; we'll build all these guidelines into this legislation. We'll make sure it is all right on the day, don't you worry" is a pretty poor way to run an education system.

I pay credit to the community groups that have raised these concerns in the short time they have had to consider the legislation. I pay credit also to my colleague Brad Hazzard, the shadow Minister for Education and Training, for seeking to improve the legislation on behalf of the students, parents and teachers of this State. I reiterate that the Liberal-Nationals Coalition will support the legislation—poorly crafted though it is—in order to provide some sort of support for students, parents and teachers. However, we do so with great reservation.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.41 p.m.]: The Greens take occupational health and safety issues very seriously. We want to see a regime and programs in place that will ensure that our teachers and students are safe and secure at school. But we believe that the regime put in place must be transparent, it must be fair, it must not trespass on rights or privacy, and it must not pigeon-hole young people. And it must be backed up with funding from the Government to ensure that students are given appropriate programs and support within the public school system. We have very serious reservations about the bill, and I foreshadow that I will move a number of amendments to address our concerns.

The Greens support the more minor amendments in the bill that provide for the prosecution of parents who fail to enrol or register their child for schooling and that extend privacy protections to the new A-E student reports. My contribution will focus on the aspects of the bill that deal with school safety. As I said, the Greens take occupational health and safety issues very seriously. We believe that students and teachers have a right to be safe and secure at school. This is essential to ensure that every child receives quality education. The Greens agree that schools should be aware of the special needs of students, including whether the student has a history of violence, in order for the school to manage that risk and support the student.
I have consulted widely regarding the bill. The Teachers Federation informed me of many circumstances in which teachers have been injured by students. In the past four years very serious injuries have been inflicted upon teachers at Kurrambee School in Werrington, at Dover Heights High School in Sydney's eastern suburbs, and at Rowland Sassall School in Parramatta. Last week I visited Holroyd School for Special Purposes in Merrylands. There are 175 students at the school, and they have a range of serious disabilities. I pay credit to the principal of that school, Anne Flint, and all her staff. The fact that there is such a low turnover of staff says a great deal about the senior teachers who manage the school.

I found my visit to the school a most moving experience. I was able to visit a large number of classrooms, and I was at the school while the students went to little lunch. In many ways it was like any school during a break; obviously, in many other ways it was not like any mainstream primary or secondary school. It was very much like any school because there was a buzz and great excitement as the students went out to play. The students engage in a range of activities, and they hang out in different groups. Obviously many of these children face numerous challenges, and the staff are always there to work with them. I really felt the buzz at the school—the excitement you feel when you go into a school because there are young people learning and excited about life and the day ahead of them.

The teachers at Holroyd School told me of the difficulties they have as teachers managing children with behavioural difficulties in their classroom. They also told me of the need to devise a regime that creates a safer school environment. There is clearly a need to ensure the safety and security of students and families. The Greens agree with that. But we are wary about this bill; we are unsure whether it gets the mix right. The Greens are concerned that the scheme established by the bill may lead to abuses of privacy and stigmatisation of students at a young age. We have consulted extensively with various groups, including the Australian Privacy Foundation, Family Advocacy and People with Disabilities.

The bill provides for a large amount of information—broadly defined—to be shared between a large number of government departments and "other agencies or individuals". Key aspects as to how the bill will operate are vague or absent in the legislation. We fear that the wording is too general and would allow the provisions to be applied for unintended purposes. The bill delegates a large authority to the Minister to issue guidelines about information sharing between agencies and schools. Schedule 1 [5] inserts in the Act part 5A, which allows for the information obtained to be passed on to any other person or body as determined by the Minister. Why give the Minister such large discretion to release sensitive information to "any other person or body"? This means that poor-quality information may find itself in the hands of people who do not need to know.

This discretion is dangerous and unnecessary, given that the bill could set out the relevant agencies and restrict the flow of information beyond that circle. Similarly, from my reading the bill does not specify or expressly restrict the kinds of information that may be sought from other agencies—or what weight is to be given to information—even though this is crucial to the intent of the regime. Does this mean that a file note made five years ago by a Department of Community Services worker that is unsubstantiated and untested could be used to judge whether a student is sent to a behaviour school? Would the same apply to a warning by NSW Police given three years ago? What safeguards are in place to test the probity of the information? Could a child be sent to a behaviour school on the basis of this untested information, without a right of appeal? A reading of the bill does not answer these questions.

All of this has been deferred to the guidelines. This mandate given to the Minister is dangerously large given the importance of the issues at stake. We are being asked to vote on a bill today and are told, "Don't worry about the nuts and bolts of how it will operate; the Minister will work that out later on." Surely these central aspects should be in the bill for open parliamentary debate, rather than pushed into the guidelines at a later stage. Sharing sensitive information between various bodies inevitably encroaches on the privacy of students and families. Given the significance of this legislation, surely the basic ground rules of the scheme should be clearly laid out for public and parliamentary debate.

The Greens have real concerns that this large mandate may result in abuses of privacy for students and their families. I note that the Government has moved a series of amendments in the lower House to address some of these concerns. I am pleased that it has moved amendments that will give students a right to access information and to respond to that information. This answers one of the Greens key concerns. I foreshadow that I will move a series of amendments to address our other concerns. These amendments would provide for a right of appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, and would ensure that the Minister's guidelines must be in the form of regulations that will come before Parliament and could be struck out if Parliament is not satisfied that privacy is protected.

The Greens have a further concern about the bill. We are concerned that identifying children as "violent"—to use the Ms Burney's term from the second reading speech—may lead to children being stigmatised from a young age. The line between a violent child, a child with learning difficulties or disabilities, and a child without support from home is fine. Any moves to label a child as "violent" or "posing a risk" should be carefully considered. We know that labels stick and that they can damage a child. That is why this provision needs to be considered carefully. We are concerned that children labelled as "violent" may be either shut out from the public school system or marginalised within the school system.

It is integral that any direction about students made by the director-general should be made with a view to providing appropriate support for students in their schools and to supporting teachers to manage risk. The second reading speech emphasised twice that this bill is not about excluding students from public education. I hope that that is true. Children with special needs or behavioural difficulties should be integrated as much as possible into the public school system. The Greens do not want this scheme to be used as a mechanism to shunt kids out of the mainstream public system and into behaviour schools. The crucial question remaining is whether this bill is to be backed up by financial resources. The bill must be backed up by government support to ensure that students are not excluded from school or marginalised within schools. This is really where the rubber hits the road in respect of the effectiveness of the bill. This is what we have to hear from the Government so we can be confident that what the Government says is the intent of this bill can become a reality.

What happens to a child labelled as violent in a small country town with only a handful of schools, all of which are underresourced? Which one of these schools will accept the student? Will the Government provide money for counsellors, for specialist teachers, for programs on behaviour management and for learning difficulties? What about teachers? It is not fair to just tell a teacher that a student is a potential risk and leave the teacher to manage that risk. Will there be money for training of teachers and what form will this training take? Will class sizes be reduced to allow teachers to more closely supervise students? Will teachers' salaries be increased to compensate for any increased workload? These are all relevant questions to which we need answers to ensure that this bill will deliver in the way the Government argues it is meant to. The Greens would like the Minister in his reply to respond to these important questions.

While not opposing schedules 3 and 4, the Greens do not want to see any weakening of the current administrative arrangements that protect the values of public education. I ask that the Minister come in on this point. We seek specific assurances from the Minister that there are no hidden agendas about disaggregating powers or radically altering current administrative arrangements. We believe it is essential that the Minister give a detailed explanation and some assurances about the intent of those aspects of the bill. We fear this is a tabloid bill that the Government will use and wave around in the lead-up to the election to say it is doing something to protect teachers, when really what is needed is a cultural shift in this area. Our concern on reading the bill is whether it is superficial. At the moment we are not sure whether the bill has substance, and that is what we are waiting to see. We need resources put into our schools to support teachers, and we need comprehensive programs to manage and support students with behavioural difficulties.

The Greens believe that education is a key determinant of the ability of an individual to participate in economic, cultural and social life. Ensuring that all children in New South Wales are able to access quality public education is a key plank in a cohesive and sustainable society. This bill addresses very serious and very real occupational health and safety concerns in schools. But if this bill is to work it must be transparent, it must not trespass on the rights of students and their families, and it must be backed up with solid funding from the Government for programs to appropriately manage risk and support students. I thank all the organisations and individuals that have given us advice. It has been a great deal of work. I also thank my staff who have worked on it because many times we have had to grapple with our position on this. We still await further information from the Government.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.54 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Education Legislation Amendment Bill, which amends the Education Act 1990, the Education Regulation 2001, the Teaching Service Act 1980, the Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act 1987 and, consequentially, the Freedom of Information Act 1989. The main purpose of the bill is to deal with some of the serious behavioural problems that have been occurring in the school system, particularly in government schools but, to a small degree, also in non-government schools. The purpose of the legislation is to enable government and non-government schools to deal more effectively with students whose violent behaviour poses a risk to safety at schools, whilst still ensuring that those students are assisted to achieve their educational potential. On our reading of the bill we believe this is a genuine attempt by the Government to deal with that problem.

We have received material from various organisations, including Family Advocacy and some organisations associated with students with disabilities, who have some real concerns about certain areas of the bill. Even though the Government is proposing its own amendments that deal with some of its original concerns, they are still not happy with some aspects of the bill, particularly proposed section 26B, which deals with the purpose of obtaining information about students, and proposed sections 26D and 26E dealing with the obtaining of information and privacy. It seems that we have to have a degree of trust that the bill's intention is genuine and that there is no hidden agenda on the Government's part that it will be particularly targeting students with disabilities. I do not believe that is the purpose of the bill, although sometimes legislation works in ways in which perhaps even the Government did not intend, or there may be provisions in the legislation that may be abused by bureaucrats either in the head office or down at the local school level.

The legislation will provide the opportunity for the Department of Education and Training to deal with parents who fail to comply with their legal obligation to enrol their children at school. Obviously, it is the greatest disadvantage for a child if he or she does not receive the free education that is available through the government school system if parents are irresponsible and do not ensure that their children are enrolled and attend school. There can be arguments as to whether a child has been enrolled in a school. I refer to children who are enrolled and registered for home schooling under the Education Act. That is a legal option for parents, and some thousands of parents in New South Wales take advantage of that option, sometimes at great sacrifice to themselves financially—it means that at least one parent has to stay at home to be the teacher in the home—and because of the pressure on the family. I have visited a number of homes where the children have home schooling. I have been greatly impressed with the results that have occurred in the children's knowledge, behaviour and self-discipline when they have been taught by their parents day after day after day. Obviously, the parent has to be a good role model, and that was the case with the families I visited. Sometimes there is the perception with home schooling that the parent is not capable or is not a good role model.

I have been impressed with the families I have visited, and I consider home schooling to be a valuable option that must be maintained. Nothing in this legislation, either directly or indirectly, should make it more difficult for parents to choose home schooling. There may be, and I think there are, some parents who, for religious reasons—they may be active Christians and members of various religious groups—are not happy to even register their children for home schooling. It is my understanding there has been some way in which their conscientious objection has been noted so that, indirectly, they are registered. It may be the case that the parents of a very small number of children do not wish to be associated with any government agency at all, but provide exemplary teaching and training of the children, far beyond what happens in government schools.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: It is anti-socialisation. You have to live in this world.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: You can only judge by the fruit and I have seen the fruit. These parents do not want their children taught obscenities, bad language, drug use or promiscuous behaviour—as happens in many state schools. They have protected their children from that environment.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: That is an appalling slight on our state schools!

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am saying that this is what happens in many of the state schools by association with other children.

The Hon. Ian West: But it happens in Christian schools, too, Fred.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: It can happen in any school. I am stating the reason why these parents have chosen home schooling. Their children have been protected from those influences and it has had a positive impact on the children. The legislation will accord to the new A to E student reports the same confidentiality that applies to the results of the basics skills test, the higher school certificate and the school certificate. It is puzzling that the Government would want to shroud these tests in secrecy. I know the Government's opinion is that the results could be used by the Daily Telegraph to condemn a school that shows up poorly, but in my view the more information that is available to the community, the better it will be. If there are poor results from a particular school or group of children, then there should be an investigation as to why that has occurred. In my opinion it would never be the fault of the children. There would be some breakdown in discipline, or in the operation of that school or the procedures adopted by particular teachers.
The application of this formula may reveal the existence of teachers who require retraining. It may reveal some who may be unsuitable to be teachers in the state school system. I believe the Teachers Federation is keen to bury those teachers in the system and does not want them identified by external publicity relating to the results of the basic skills test. I think that is part of the hidden agenda and why the Teachers Federation is playing such hardball by refusing to adopt the Government's policy of using the A to E student report system. Now, apparently, the Teachers Federation is even objecting to the provision of a few additional words to the effect that the child is progressing well or needs help at home. Teachers say that they will not provide even that information. They are blackmailing the Department of Education and Training and the Minister by their unco-operative attitude. They should be genuine and allow these improvements to be implemented and then they can be assessed.

I believe it is harmful and negative of them to block these progressive programs that the Government seeks to adopt in co-operation with the Federal Government. It will result in parents in this State becoming even more disillusioned with the education system, and will only increase the flood of children and parents moving to the non-government sector. I do not know whether the Teachers Federation understands that. The federation wants to save jobs, but jobs are being lost in every suburb. The number of teachers is being reduced because of the numbers of government school students moving to non-government schools. That means there are no jobs those teachers. The federation should be more positive in its attitude. I am not talking about individual teachers. I believe they are victims of the left-wing influence in the Teachers Federation. The federation dominates the 70,000 or more teachers in this State because of the way in which it is organised.

I have had discussions with teachers about this over many years and have asked why they have not become involved in the Teachers Federation to try to make it more democratic and more open. They have told me that the constitution has been so designed that it is almost impossible to change the ruling group that controls the New South Wales Teachers Federation, including the regional groups. It would take 20 years of hard work to change the leadership group of the Teachers Federation.

[Interruption]

I am only quoting the teachers. That is what the teachers tell me. Many of those teachers have left the state system. They have left government schools and gone to teach in non-government schools, and some of them were very good teachers. As I said, I am quoting what teachers have told me. They have explained to me the constitutional set up of the Teachers Federation. I do not want to take time now to go into detail, but I think I could convince even the Hon. Ian West. If he were to look closely at the constitution and study the way in which it is structured he would agree with me. The legislation will also amend the Teaching Service Act to deal with regulation-making issues, and amend the Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act to deal with delegation-making issues.

There certainly needs to be greater facility for schools to deal with disruptive or violent children. I am not speaking of children with disabilities: I do not believe the bill deals with that issue, judging from the way in which the Government has presented it. The legislation will amend the Education Act to facilitate the exchange of information between government and non-government schools and other prescribed agencies in New South Wales about students whose behaviour or conduct may pose a risk to the safety of others at a school. Those prescribed agencies are the Department of Community Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Department of Health, NSW Police, the TAFE Commission and the Department of Ageing and Disability.

It is obvious that there has to be recognition of the traditional right to privacy under the privacy legislation and that is something that the Government will have to balance in this regard. I have been advised that not only have those government agencies been involved in the preparation of this legislation, but there has been extensive consultation with the Attorney General's Department, the Privacy Commissioner—who, I understand, is happy with this legislation—the Commissioner for Children and Young People and other key government agencies, as well as groups representing parents and other stakeholders. The bill will also amend the Education Act to empower the Director General of the Department of Education and Training to direct a student seeking enrolment in or attending a government school to attend a particular school, type of school or form of education. Once again, that power must be used with discretion.

The Government has advised that that direction will be issued only where there are reasonable grounds to conclude that the student cannot be accommodated at the school he or she seeks to attend because of the risk the student poses to that school. Such a direction would be issued only after all other means of resolving the situation had been explored and extensive consultation had taken place with parents. Parental agreement will be sought, but will not be mandatory. A process for seeking a review of the direction will be established in the guidelines. I believe that is a sufficient safeguard because we know that if a child is disposed to violent behaviour, it is the case that not only will that child not go anywhere, but he or she could disrupt the whole class. That child could hold back the class from achieving a satisfactory education. In the long run the inclusion of that provision is for the betterment of the violent student or the student with a tendency toward violent behaviour, and also in the best interests of all the children.

The Freedom of Information Act will be amended to protect the information that will be collected by the Department of Education and Training from non-government schools and government agencies from being accessed through non-personal freedom of information applications. That will protect the privacy concerns of those who may be the subject of information exchange. The Christian Democratic Party supports this legislation. As I said, Family Advocacy and People with Disabilities have concerns about the bill. I believe that the thrust of the legislation will not in any way harm students with disabilities. That area will need to be monitored to ensure that the legislation is not used wrongly or abused by a bureaucrat at any level of the education system.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.10 p.m.]: I understand that the Education Legislation Amendment Bill arose from two cases where teachers were put at risk by violent students. Barry Johnson v State of New South Wales in the Industrial Relations Commission this year arose from a teacher being threatened with a knife by a student at Dover Heights High School in 2001. In that case I gather that the information from the previous school had not been passed along. Sullivan v State of New South Wales followed a student at a special school attacking a teacher's aide on a day when teachers were absent. Apparently the Department of Community Services had known about this student's violent tendencies but the Department of Education and Training did not. So the question became privacy versus the need to know and the transfer of information. The court found that when the State of New South Wales knew, the Department of Education and Training should have known and should have taken steps to protect the teacher's aide at the special school.

One object of the bill is to amend the Education Act 1990 with the intention of helping schools to manage the risk posed by violent students. The bill also makes amendments concerning compulsory education whereby the Department of Education and Training can take action against parents who fail to comply with their legal obligation to enrol their child in school or register their child for home schooling. The Minister has given an assurance that this will not be used any more frequently or invasively than necessary. Under the bill, the Government will have the power to make regulations for the publication of information contained in periodic reports to parents of student achievements in the Higher School Certificate and the School Certificate. Student reports and assessments are to be produced in compliance with the Commonwealth's Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004. What a lovely propaganda name for an Act! I gather that this is the A to E grading.

The most contentious aspect of the bill concerns the proposed amendments to the Education Act. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Education, Linda Burney, said in her second reading speech on behalf of the Minister, the Act intends to improve the flow of information to schools from Government agencies when identifying students whose enrolment at a school could pose a risk to the health or safety of any person. Under this bill, the Director General of the Department of Education and Training will have the power to direct a student who would like to enrol or is already attending a government school to an institution, such as a behavioural school, that can manage the student more effectively.

Behavioural schools have been operating since 2002. They involve 170 teachers and 630 students from years 5 to 10. I think the current teacher to student ratio at such schools is one to every six or seven students, plus a teacher's aide. This is a much higher teacher to student ratio. It also demonstrates the intensity of education and attention that must be placed on children with behavioural difficulties. The schools are located in Dubbo, Mittagong, Toronto, Allambie Heights, Riverstone, Canley Vale, Regents Park, Naremburn, Tamworth, Tweed Heads and Sutherland. Two established schools—Lomandra and Plumpton House—have also successfully piloted the model. Proposed part 5A of the bill allows the Department of Education and Training, a non-Government schools authority or a school to request a relevant agency to provide information about a particular student.

It may make a request only for the purpose of assisting it to assess whether the enrolment of the student at the school is likely to constitute a risk to the health or safety of any person, including the student, and to develop and maintain strategies to eliminate or minimise such risk. The school can obtain information from other schools and government agencies to assess whether the enrolment of a particular student is likely to constitute a risk to others. The risk assessment of a particular student's enrolment at school will help in developing strategies to eliminate or minimise such risk. The Parliamentary Secretary, in the second reading speech, said:

The agencies currently identified are the government and non-government schools, the Department of Education and Training, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, the Department of Community Services [DOCS], public health organisations, TAFE, the Department of Juvenile Justice, and NSW Police.

This seems reasonable. However, the Government proposes that it could broaden the scope of the reporting agencies under the regulation. Obviously, this is a potential problem. The Government could include the Department of Fair Trading or the State Debt Recovery Office if there are unpaid fines. Certainly, that has been a problem for people travelling on busses without a pass or not paying for train tickets and so on, which may have severe consequences. The Legislation Review Committee said:

The proposed part allows for the information obtained to be passed on to other schools, the Department or a non-government schools authority or other person or body as determined by the Minister and set out in the guidelines.

Proposed section 26J provides that the Minister may issue guidelines in relation to the sharing of information about students. The guidelines must make provision for a number of different matters, including the general principles that a person must bear in mind when sharing information under these amendments; what constitutes a risk to the health or safety of a person; the kind of information that may or must be sought from an agency; who may make a request for information; who may provide information on behalf of an agency; the circumstances in which a relevant agency may refuse to provide information; the way in which information obtained is to be kept and the length of time it is to be kept; and the circumstances in which consultations are to be held with students about whom information has been obtained, with the parents of the students concerns, or with parents and students.

In addition, the Minister can make provision in the guidelines for other matters as he or she considers appropriate, and may amend or revoke the guidelines. The guidelines and any instrument amending or revoking them must be published in the Government Gazette, but are not disallowable instruments. I understand that a Greens amendment will make them disallowable instruments and as such formal regulations. Under proposed section 26K, any person or agency involved in the administration of, or having functions under, the provisions relating to the sharing of information about a student is under a duty to comply with any applicable guidelines. However, the bill does not make it an offence to fail to comply with the guidelines.

Proposed section 26J provides that the ministerial guidelines regulate the way that information may be shared under the legislation. In effect, there are safeguards to ensure that the authority to exchange and use information obtained under the bill is not misused. The Legislation Review Committee is of the view that these safeguards are vital to protecting a student's right to privacy from undue trespass under a regime that, necessarily, trespasses on that right to a significant degree. The Legislation Review Committee continued:

In addition, most of the matters set out in section 26J for inclusion in guidelines regulate the exercise of the new information sharing powers given by the Bill and include definitions central to the appropriate exercise of those powers.

For example, the bill does not specify the kind of information that may be sought and provided to a school, although this is at the crux of the regime. This is to be covered in the proposed ministerial guidelines. The Legislation Review Committee is of the view that definitions which are central to the operation of the legislative regime should be provided for the legislation itself and not in the guidelines, especially if those guidelines are not disallowable. The Freedom of Information Act 1989 will be amended to provide that a document containing information provided a student under division 2 of proposed part 5A of the Education Act 1990 is an exempt document under that Act. But apparently the parents of a children being sent to a behavioural school do not need to be informed. The Parliamentary Secretary in the second reading speech said:

An extensive consultation process will be undertaken during the development of these guidelines. This consultation process will not only involve the government agencies that are directly involved in this process and non-government schools but it will also include the Attorney General's Department, the Privacy Commissioner, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and other key government agencies.

The information I received on this bill was extremely negative. I was amazed at the number of people protesting about the bill. The Family Advocacy Group and People with Disabilities addressed the crossbench with great concerns about the bill. The groups that protested about it in various ways included Family Advocacy, People with Disabilities, the Australian Privacy Foundation, the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, the New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability, the Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association of New South Wales and the New South Wales Disability Discrimination Legal Centre Incorporated. That is quite a lot of groups to be upset all at once. In particular, the Australian Privacy Foundation wrote to the Minister on 13 November, saying:

Dear Minister

We urge you to withdraw Schedule 1, Clause [5] of the above Bill, as it will result in unjustified intrusion into the privacy of thousands of individuals and families in NSW.

These provisions, ostensibly addressing a problem, involving a relatively small number of violent children, amount to a wholly disproportionate authorisation for exchanges of personal information, including sensitive health information, about any family with children in the NSW Education system, without consent.

The provisions directly undermine the privacy protection that would normally be provided albeit imperfectly, by the State's own Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002, and the federal Privacy Act 1988.

Section 26B is not limited to "violent behaviour", and therefore authorises the secretive transfer of any information in relation to a very broad concept of "risk to the health or safety of any person", without any effective scrutiny or safeguards. This can include information that may be out-of-date or irrelevant, and even of baseless or prejudicial opinions.

We are particularly concerned that the number and type of persons to whom information can be disseminated within schools or education agencies are not limited. Thus inadequate or poor quality information may find itself in the hands of people who do not need to know, both within schools and within education agencies. For example, records may contain a mother or father's personal details, information about their marital state, employment, criminal record etc., dissemination of which should be closely guarded, and would be if privacy principles were to apply.

The Memoranda and Guidelines mechanism (ss 26 J & K) under which the Director-General has total discretion in determining the nature and level of safeguards, are clearly inadequate as a substitute for the operation of information privacy laws. We argue that the provisions are in any case unnecessary and certainly not urgently required. This is because DET's current enrolment form already asks parents to consent to information transfers where risk has been identified.

Further, we understand that the DET's own legal advice which they have circulated to staff in their Legal Issues Bulletin No 40 supports the view that DET already have the power to request information from other sources even without parental consent in cases involving violent behaviour. There is for example an exemption already under privacy law for the use or disclosure of personal information where it is necessary to lessen or prevent the risk of serious and imminent threat to any person.

Even if a case can be made for some changes, there is a statutory mechanism available that is far more appropriate than this blanket exemption from the normal operation of privacy principles. The privacy legislation in NSW permits the creation of Privacy Codes of Practice that give effect to targeted exemptions from the requirements of the privacy legislation where those exemptions are required in the public interest. We understand the NSW Privacy Commissioner recommended the use of a Code of Practice in this particular case.

We understand that the NGOs People with Disability Australia and Family Advocacy have identified other problems with the bill which include potential discrimination arising from the almost unlimited information exchanges which are authorised. While we have not had time to analyse these concerns in detail, they do appear to illustrate the many and varied adverse consequences for individuals, and families, which could flow from the proposed regime.

Yours faithfully,

David Vaile

Vice-Chair, Australian Privacy Foundation

This is considerable food for thought. The legislation is obviously trying to solve a problem of a department being criticised in court for not protecting its staff and wanting to make some public gesture of the degree to which it has gone to try to address the issue for which it was criticised and for which it will have to pay considerable compensation. The Minister has pointed out that there has been some change. The Family Advocacy Group feels an independent appeal process is necessary and I believe it has supported some amendments of the Greens about an appeal process to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. A breach of a direction can therefore result in a criminal offence should a parent not be able to ensure the enrolment of a child at the specified school. Therefore, the direction is a significant decision, impacting on the rights of students and parents, and must be amenable to administrative review on an urgent basis. I suggest provisions are required for an independent external review by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

Two aspects of the bill cause serious concern. Proposed sections 26B to 26E refer to the obtaining of information about students and authorise the Department of Education and Training to obtain information about the health or safety risks arising from student behaviour. These sections are very poorly drafted. They subvert New South Wales privacy legislation and result in abusing the privacy of many students and their parents. Proposed sections 26F to 26I relate to directions about enrolments at government schools and authorise a process that lacks transparency, procedural fairness and natural justice. Family Advocacy recognises the requirement to obtain information relative to health and safety but believes it is possible to do so without subverting safeguards under the privacy legislation.

As I say, the Government amended the bill in the other place. Those amendments are made by item [5] of schedule 1, which was the area about which the Australian Privacy Foundation expressed great concern. I have not yet heard from the Privacy Foundation whether it is satisfied with these changes. This is the only problem I have at present. Certainly the situation was unsatisfactory but it has been improved by the Government's amendments. I believe the changes from the Greens, particularly those relating to external review through the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, gazetting and possible disallowance of regulatory instruments with respect to behavioural guidelines and then the review of cases every two years will also improve the bill. My view is the review should be every year, which is a long time in the life of a child. There can be significant behavioural changes in that time. The choice of school is significant as it relates to the child's development and behaviour, which can change from time to time and needs to be constantly reviewed. Also, the review must be conducted independently and by different people every 12 months. I support the amendments to shorten the time between statutorily reviewing cases.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.28 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who have taken part in the debate. The Education Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Education Act to facilitate identification and management of students whose enrolment at government or non-government schools could pose a risk to the health or safety of any persons by improving the process for the flow of information to schools from government agencies; to empower the Director General of the Department of Education and Training, as a last option, to direct a student who seeks enrolment in or is already attending a government school to an education environment that can more effectively manage the risk the student poses; enhances the ability of the Department of Education and Training to deal with parents who fail to comply with their legal obligation to enrol their child in a school or register their child for home schooling; extends the protection currently applying to the results of the basic skills test, the Higher School Certificate and School Certificate to school students reports and assessments; deals with regulations made under the Teaching Service Act and amends the Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act to streamline the way the Director General of the Department of Education and Training can delegate his function under the Act.

As we all know, a quality education gives young Australians the best possible start to life and the Iemma Government remains committed to ensuring that students receive an education of the highest quality and are supported to achieve their educational potential. To ensure that students can learn and teachers can teach in a safe environment it is essential to be able to identify students whose behaviour poses a risk to the health and safety of others, and put in place strategies to avoid, prevent or minimise any such risk and support the student. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that these situations are properly managed. Public education takes all comers, and it is this diversity that is the great strength of public education. It is this diversity that attracts people to public education, and to want that sort of educational environment for their children.

But it also places a responsibility on government to ensure that the learning environment of the great bulk of students who are at school to learn is not compromised, and that we have in place appropriate arrangements to accommodate students who are violent, and that we have those arrangements in the right learning environment for those students. This bill aims to achieve that end. I am aware that concerns have been expressed that the bill gives insufficient guidance to protecting the rights of families of students with disabilities to be consulted about provisions related to information and the direction by the director general. I want to make it abundantly clear that this legislation is not about excluding students from public education; it is about keeping our schools safe and identifying the environment in which a student can be effectively assisted in continuing their education.

I can assure the House that extensive consultation on the content of the guidelines with relevant agencies, with groups representing parents, disability advocates and unions will occur prior to their finalisation. The Government amended the original bill in order to provide clarification that the application of the provisions in relation to assessing risk is in relation to the behaviour of students, and specifically that parents ought to be consulted during the application of the provisions. The Education Legislation Amendment Bill contains reforms that are commonsense, practical improvements that will strengthen the public education system in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.34 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C-062C:

No. 1 Page 8, schedule 1 [5]. Insert after line 22:

26L Review of directions

(1) The Director-General is to review each direction in force under this Division and determine whether the direction should remain in force, be varied or be revoked.

(2) A review of a direction is to be undertaken as soon as possible after the second anniversary of the date of the issue of the direction, and at subsequent intervals of two years.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) prevents the Director-General from reviewing a direction earlier, or more frequently, than as required by that subsection.

The amendment addresses a concern that a number of people raised in the second reading debate. Students can be stigmatised if they are labelled as violent from a young age. They may not be able to move beyond that classification: it could stay with them throughout their schooling and would be very detrimental. The amendment is most reasonable. It is not saying that there cannot be a review more frequently; it is just saying that it should happen at least every two years. Proposed section 26L (3) makes it explicit that nothing in the amendment would prevent the director general from making the review earlier or more frequently. The amendment in no way weakens the intent to ensure that there is safety in the workplace for teachers. They will have every measure to be able to handle difficult students. But the amendment puts in place protection for students, which I believe is paramount and something that I hope everybody is committed to. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.36 p.m.]: The amendment is unnecessary and cumbersome. The bill already allows the director general to vary or revoke a direction. The guidelines will provide for directions to be reviewed regularly. The existing obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to conduct risk assessments and under the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act to meet the needs of students with disability are continuing obligations. If circumstances change significantly, directions may need to be considered, even without this amendment.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.37 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not support the amendment. Ongoing review is essential and necessary and we expect that the director general and the department will conduct reviews on a regular basis under the current provisions. However, if experience shows that this is not occurring in some cases we may have to revisit the issue. At this stage we do not support the amendment.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.38 p.m.]: I support the amendment. Putting children into schools for behavioural reasons should not be looked at just by the school; it should be looked at broadly by the department, which might see a pattern of behaviours in certain schools and take a broader view of the situation. The amendment makes clear that the director general has to do that. It is a good principle that there be an external review by the department and indeed perhaps outside the department. I believe this should happen annually. Two years is a very long time in the life of a seven-year-old child. I move:

That the amendment be amended by omitting "second" and inserting instead "first" and omitting "two years" and inserting instead "one year".

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.40 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not believe this amendment is necessary, because the legislation states clearly that the director general may vary or revoke a direction on the application of a student, the parent of a student or at the director general's own initiative. In addition, proposed section 26J provides that they must receive written notice of a direction under this division and the grounds for the direction. That must be given to the student and to the parents. I believe that is enough protection.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.41 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not support this further amendment. It is too prescriptive and inflexible. It is important when talking about children that we have the capacity to undertake reviews as and when needed.
The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Assuming it happens.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: We said that we are assuming it happens. If the case is put that it will not happen, we have said that we will review the situation. At this stage we are assuming it happens and it is already in the legislation. If we stipulate a year, a child may miss out being assessed or reviewed in a shorter period. Perhaps six months is all that is needed. Why have a time limit on a review process? The most important thing for children is that there is a review and that it is regular and appropriate.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.42 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment to the amendment.

Amendment of amendment negatived.

Amendment negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.43 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 8, schedule 1 [5], proposed section 26L, lines 24–29. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

26L Setting out of guidelines

(1) The regulations may set out guidelines for the purposes of this Part.

(2) The guidelines may make provision for or with respect to the following matters:

This amendment addresses the concern that the bill gives the Minister a dangerously wide discretion to draw up guidelines for the operation of the legislation. The Greens strongly argue that that is not necessary and that such powers should not rest with the Minister. The Legislative Review Committee picked up on that point and noted that the guidelines will concern central matters in the legislation and should be presented to Parliament. That is the key intent of this amendment—to give the power to Parliament and not to allow such power to rest with the Minister.

The amendment changes proposed section 26J to provide that regulations may establish guidelines with respect to the matters set out in original section 26J. The effect of the amendment will be that the guidelines will have to come back to Parliament as regulations and will be disallowable if this Parliament deems that they trample on privacy or other rights. The amendment reverts to the usual practice of putting the guidelines in regulations so that we have some powers as members of Parliament to have an input. It would allow us to exercise our responsibility. As honourable members know, we are limited in the way in which we can engage with regulations. However, if this amendment is passed there will at least be the possibility for the elected representatives of this State to exercise the responsibility that I believe we have, rather than allow such power to rest with the Minister alone. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.45 p.m.]: It is inappropriate and inflexible for the guidelines to be made under regulations. Regulations usually take a year or more to be made because of the onerous requirements that apply. Under these proposed arrangements, finetuning of the guidelines would be required to address unforeseen cases. Regulations would prove too unwieldy and inflexible to meet these needs in a timely way. The guidelines are intended to be practical and operational, and should therefore be free of the logistic nature of regulations.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.46 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not support this amendment. As I have already stated, flexibility is the most important thing. We have been assured that the guidelines will be as practical and as flexible as possible. I note the Parliamentary Secretary's comments about the time taken to develop a regulation. Under the guidelines we will be able to act in a more flexible, practical and timely manner.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.47 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not support the amendment because the bill states in proposed section 26L:

(5) The guidelines, and any instrument amending or revoking the guidelines, must be published in the Gazette.

(6) The guidelines as in force from time to time must be made publicly available in such manner as the Minister thinks appropriate.
That would provide the opportunity for the community to have input if there is a need to clarify the guidelines or if additional guidelines are required. As has been stated, that provides the flexibility for the Minister to respond to situations that may occur after this bill is enacted.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.47 p.m.]: I support these guidelines. If guidelines are being made, they should be disallowable and publicly discussed. The idea that a guideline has to be flexible presumably means that it can be changed quickly whenever it suits. Are these guidelines going to bend with the wind depending on which case is causing minor inconvenience?

Honourable members must recognise that these guidelines provide an exemption to the Privacy Act, and should be treated with great caution and developed carefully. They should also be presented as regulations, and closely examined and disallowed if necessary. The fact that they will be in the Government Gazette but that they can be easily changed is concerning. We are talking about exemptions to the Privacy Act. The idea that when the case is a bit inconvenient we can simply change them is extremely cavalier. It concerns me that the Opposition is once again mirroring the Government. Honourable members of the Opposition are not thinking this through for themselves. I have said previously in this House that the fact the Government and the Opposition agree in 91 per cent of cases is alarming, and this is yet another such case.

Amendment negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.49 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7 in globo:

No. 4 Page 10, schedule 1. Insert after line 15:

[9] Section 107 Applications for review of certain decisions

Insert after section 107 (1) (e):

(e1) a direction of the Director-General under Division 3 of Part 5A concerning the government schools in which a particular student may be enrolled,

No. 5 Page 10, schedule 1. Insert after line 15:

[9] Section 107 Applications for review of certain decisions

Insert ", direction" after "recommendation" in section 107 (2).

No. 6 Page 10, schedule 1. Insert after line 15:

[9] Section 108 Determination of application by the Tribunal

Insert ", direction" after "recommendation" in section 108 (1) (a).

No. 7 Page 10, schedule 1. Insert after line 15:

[9] Section 108 Determination of application by the Tribunal

Insert after section 108 (1) (a):

(a1) in the case of an application for the review of a direction of the Director-General concerning the government schools in which a particular student may be enrolled—recommend to the Minister that the direction be varied or revoked, or

These amendments will provide a right of review to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal [ADT] for decisions concerning the government schools in which a particular student may be enrolled. The powers given in this legislation to direct which schools a child can be enrolled in are significant. They can have a large impact on the student and the family, how the student travels to school and what chances the student has to advance in their learning. Obviously those issues would impact on their future life. This aspect of the bill is most significant.

Given the extent of the power given to the director general, the Greens believe it only right that this decision be subject to the independent and judicial review of the ADT. We imagine that this type of appeal would be rare. Nonetheless, it is an important principle of natural justice that it is available. The Greens believe it is vital and that it would provide some consistency with other aspects of law in this land. It would provide some comfort to the people who have worked hard to ensure that this legislation is fair and that it reduces risk in the classroom for teachers. It will help to ensure that teachers can fulfil their educational role with the minimum risk. However, when students experience problems, they should have a right of appeal at some stage. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.50 p.m.]: The Government does not oppose the Greens amendments.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.50 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not oppose Greens amendments Nos 4 to 7. We believe it is reasonable and fair that parents be allowed to go to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal so there is an opportunity for appeal if they are unhappy with the director general's direction. For parents of children with disabilities, in particular, it is vital that an external appeal mechanism is available, and we therefore support the amendments.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.51 p.m.]: We believe the amendments are unnecessary. Section 26I already provides for an appeal process. It provides that, before a direction is given under division 3, there must be an opportunity to make representations, whether oral or written or both oral and written, and as a student, parent or other person chooses, in relation to the information and proposed direction. If there is a problem with transport or other matters, it could be raised with the director general at that time.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

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 passage 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 Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.55 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Della Bosca: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No 2) 2006 continues the well-established statute law revision program that is recognised by all members as a cost-effective and efficient method for dealing with minor amendments.

The form of the Bill is similar to that of previous Bills in the statute law revision program.

This session, the Bill includes an additional Schedule to deal specifically with statute law revision amendments consequential on the enactment of the Legal Profession Act 2004.

Schedule 1 contains policy changes of a minor and non-controversial nature that the responsible Minister considers does not warrant the introduction of a separate amending Bill.

That Schedule contains amendments to 34 Acts.

I will mention some of the amendments to give Honourable Members an indication of the kind of amendments that are included in the Schedule.
Schedule 1 amends the Conveyancing Act 1919 to permit plans or other documents lodged with the Registrar-General under that Act to be kept in any medium or combination of media ensuring the Registrar can deal with plans in hard copy and electronically.

That Act is also amended to permit the Registrar-General to refuse to register a plan that has been executed under a power of attorney unless the power of attorney is also registered.

A similar amendment is made to the Real Property Act 1900.

Other amendments made by Schedule 1 are to the Western Lands Act 1901 to provide that a person is not disqualified from office as the Western Lands Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner merely because the person has an interest in freehold land in the Western Division.

This is appropriate because the Commissioner does not have powers to deal with freehold land.

The amendments will also allow the Minister for Natural Resources to resolve urgent title issues over special easements over land within the Western Division that are being used as a road or track instead of having to request that the Registrar-General do so.

Schedule 1 also amends the Royal Commissions Act 1923 and the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 to update the offences of giving false testimony before a Royal Commission or Special Commission of Inquiry.

The updated provisions bring these Acts into line with the offences of giving false and misleading testimony found in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 and the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996.

The updated provisions also apply sections 331 and 332 of the Crimes Act 1900, which remove some technical defences.

Section 331 provides that where a person has made 2 irreconcilable statements, a jury is not required to know which statement is untrue to find the person guilty of the offence.

Section 332 provides that an accused person cannot rely on a technical defect in an instrument to prevent it being used in evidence at his or her trial.

Another amendment made by Schedule 1 is to the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991.

This will remove an anomaly whereby an application for development consent to the use of land for the purpose of obtaining petroleum does not require the consent of the owner of the land, but an application for a modification of any such development application may require the land owner's consent.

Consistent with existing policy, the amendment makes it clear that the consent of the land owner is not required in either case, despite the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Food Act 2003 is also amended to clarify that regulations can be made to allow a person to make an application to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of any decision under the Act.

Currently regulations provide for such an application but may be outside the scope of the Act.

This amendment is intended to clarify and confirm these rights.

The concurrence of the Attorney General will be required to the making of any new regulations.

Other amendments are made by Schedule 1 to the Sydney Opera House Trust Act 1961.

These amendments clarify the land and buildings to which the Act applies.

Amendments also permit the Sydney Opera House Trust to operate more than one bank account.

This is necessary as fundraising legislation around Australia often requires money raised through a fundraising appeal to be paid into a separate bank account.

Finally, this Act is also amended to provide for the disclosure of pecuniary interests by members of the Trust.

The amendments to the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences Act 1945, the Library Act 1939, the Historic Houses Act 1980 and the Australian Museum Trust Act 1975 also provide for the disclosure of pecuniary interests by trustees or members of the Trust or Council established by each of those Acts.

Schedule 1 also amends the Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Act 2005, which inserts a new section 33C into the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998.

That section prevents a prohibited person from applying for child-related employment.

The proposed amendment clarifies that the new offence will also prevent a self-employed prohibited person seeking such employment.

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 is also amended by Schedule 1.

These amendments provide that the biennial report of the EPA on littering is to contain estimates of the composition and quantity of litter.
They also provide that when an authorised officer requires a person to take a vehicle to a place to be tested for compliance with the Act, it is not an offence to drive the vehicle to that place and they allow a court to order an offender to pay any specified organisation an amount for environmental purposes.

Currently, such payment can only be made to a specified "environmental" organisation.

Schedule 2 deals with matters of pure statute law revision that the Parliamentary Counsel considers are appropriate for inclusion, for example amendments arising out of the enactment or repeal of other legislation, those correcting duplicated numbering and those updating terminology.

Schedule 3 contains statute law revision amendments that are consequential on the enactment of the Legal Profession Act 2004 and include standardising terms used in other Acts, and updating references to the Legal Profession Act 1987 now repealed.

Schedule 4 repeals a number of Acts and provisions of Acts.

Schedule 5 contains general savings, transitional and other provisions.

The various amendments are explained in detail in explanatory notes set out beneath the amendments to each of the Acts and statutory instruments concerned or at the beginning of the Schedule concerned.

If any amendment causes concern or requires clarification, it should be brought to my attention.

If necessary, I will arrange for Government officers to provide additional information on the matters raised.

If any particular matter of concern cannot be resolved and is likely to delay the passage of the Bill, the Government is prepared to consider withdrawing the matter from the Bill.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [4.56 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No 2).

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.56 p.m.]: I draw the Government's attention to schedule 1.22, which deals with the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991. Item [1] amends section 64 to provide that consent of the landowner is not necessary in an application required by this division. I understand from the second reading speech that if members object to any provision in this legislation the Government will withdraw the provision. The Greens will not oppose the remainder of the bill. However, I wish to place on record that we have not had time to adequately scrutinise it. When we asked at the Government briefing why the bill has been introduced at this late stage, we got the usual explanation: "Well, that is how it has to be done because we have been waiting to see what bills need to be tweaked."

The bill is a lengthy document—85 pages—and it makes hundreds of changes to a large number of Acts. I am sure that most of the amendments are of a minor or technical nature. However, as in the example I have just given, we are concerned that the bill could contain provisions that the Government is taking advantage of in order to get them through in this way. Schedule 1 makes 26 minor amendments, and schedule 2 makes amendments by way of statute law revision. There are a total of 111 changes to Acts, regulations, rules and other measures. The Greens would like to have had time to send the bill out to the people we work with in order to get feedback on it. Schedule 2.103 omits section 106 from the Trustee Act 1925. It reads:

Section 106

Omit the section.

Explanatory note

The proposed amendment omits a redundant section.

We do not know what that refers to; there is no explanation at all. The way the bill is drafted is not satisfactory. I appreciate that the Government has to introduce this legislation, but a little more time would have allowed us to quickly go through the bill and make sure that the people we work with, who depend on many of these Acts, regulations and rules, are happy with it.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Which provision does the member want clarified?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I understand that if a member objects to a provision in the legislation it will be removed. The Greens object to schedule 1.22, which deals with the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 No. 84. I ask the Government to indicate whether it will remove that provision.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Will the member explain further?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I understand that if a member objects to any provision in a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the provision is removed from the legislation.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is supposed to be discussed with the Government before it comes to the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I note the interjection from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. I make a point about the lack of time available to members. I discovered the matter about which I expressed concern when I was flicking through the bill, and I think what I have just put on the record is quite relevant. It is a quite straightforward way of handling the matter.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: When the Leader of the House explained this to the crossbench—and this has happened previously—I understood it to be a matter that should be raised with the Government prior to the bill being introduced in the House so there can be some discussion. If there is strong objection to a provision, the Government would then consider withdrawing it. I do not think it was ever agreed that matters that were objected to would be automatically withdrawn by the Government. If that were the case, members could object to the majority of provisions in a bill and the bill would not proceed. The offer by the Government is a matter of interpretation. As I have outlined it is how the process has worked in the past. It has never taken place on the floor of the Chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.02 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Della Bosca: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

I am pleased to introduce the Police Powers Legislation Amendment bill 2006.

This bill contains amendments to Police powers legislation in a number of different respects.

Firstly there are amendments to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 which has been in operation for nearly a year now. These amendments address a number of different issues that have become apparent during the implementation of the new Act.

Secondly the bill makes amendments to the Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas Trial) Act 2003 arising out of an Ombudsman Review of that scheme.

Thirdly the bill makes amendments to the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 arising out of a legislative Review of that Act.

Finally there are amendments to a number of Acts to facilitate the State-wide roll-out of the Criminal Infringement Notice Scheme which has been trialled in 12 Local Area Commands and will now be available in all areas after a number of amendments are made as recommended by the Ombudsman in his Review of the trial.

I will now turn to the details of the bill.

Schedule 1: Various amendments to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.

Extension of police powers of search

Clauses [2] and [3] of Schedule 1 make amendments to personal search powers. The changes allow a police officer who is conducting an ordinary search to require the person to remove his or her socks, in addition to his or her shoes.

There is also a new power to require a person to open his or her mouth or shake their hair if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is concealing something in those places. Failure to comply is an offence. Operational police have reported that some offenders, particularly drug dealers, are secreting small objects in their mouth and hair. The new law makes it clear, however, that this power does not give police the right to forcibly open a person's mouth.
Clause [4] of Schedule 1 allows a police officer who is conducting a search of a student at a school to also search the student's bag, regardless of whether the student is carrying the bag at the time.

Clause [6] of Schedule 1 amends section 28 to make clear that where an officer is searching a person for a dangerous implement, the officer has a choice to either ask the person to hand over the suspicious object, or to simply confiscate the item if that is the safer course of action to take.

Clause [11] of Schedule 1 amends section 82 to make clear that the power conferred on a police officer to enter and remain on premises where the apparent victim of a domestic violence offence has issued an invitation to do so even if another occupier expressly refuses the authority of the police to do so.

Cronulla Powers

Clauses [12] to [14] of Schedule 1 make amendments to the emergency "Cronulla Powers" that were implemented last year.

These minor amendments will permit a police officer of or above the rank of Superintendent to revoke an authorisation, made in connection with a public disorder, that prohibits the sale of liquor from licensed premises. Currently the police officer must be of or above the rank of Inspector.

The Emergency alcohol-free zone powers are also strengthened by requiring people to remove alcohol from the zone immediately rather than simply "putting away" the alcohol. The police officer may seize the liquor if the direction is not obeyed.

Crime scenes

Part 7 of the LEPAR Act deals with crime scene powers.

Clauses [17] to [23] of Schedule 1 make a number of amendments to the crime scene powers to:

Clarify how crime scenes are established

Allow crime scene powers to be exercised with the aid of assistants

Broaden the role of scene of crime officers; and

Allow vehicles, vessels and aircraft that are within an established crime scene to be searched without the need for a further warrant; this may only occur however where the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to preserve, or search for and gather, evidence of the commission of the offence in connection with which the crime scene was established-or the police officer is authorised to do so by some other lawful authority.

Safeguards in relation to exercise of police powers (including warnings)

Currently section 201 of the LEPAR Act provides that certain warnings must be given when law enforcement officers are exercising coercive powers, for example, identifying themselves as police officers and warning people that failure to comply with a request is an offence. The bill simplifies this regime, makes it more consistent, and clarifies which police powers it applies to.

Clauses [36] to [42] of Schedule 1 make amendments to provide that:

No warning is required if a person has already complied with the direction

Police are not required to warn the person that failure to comply with the direction is an offence unless the person has been given a chance to comply and has failed or refused

An officer has only to identify themselves once

One warning can cover a situation where an officer is exercising a number of powers or where there is more than one officer exercising powers

Police powers exercised under other Acts are not subject to section 201-these Acts have their own accountability provisions, if needed.

These are sensible amendments. They balance the public's right to be confident that police will exercise their powers accountably and openly, with a common-sense practical approach to policing.

Taking and destruction of finger-prints and palm-prints

Clause [28] of Schedule 1 allows any person from whom any finger-prints or palm-prints have been taken to request the Commissioner of Police to destroy them if the offence in connection with which they were taken is not proven. The Commissioner of Police is required to destroy them as soon as practicable after receiving such a request. This is merely providing a legislative base for an administrative practice that has been in place for many years.

Schedule 1 [47] extends these arrangements to finger-prints and palm-prints taken before the relevant amendment commences.

Section 353AC of the Crimes Act 1900 currently provides that a police officer who serves a penalty notice on a person under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 may require the person to submit to the taking of finger-prints and palm prints and that such prints are to be destroyed on payment of the penalty under the penalty notice.
That section, and related sections currently in the Crimes Act, are transferred from the Crimes Act 1900 to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 by Schedule 4.1 [1].

Schedule 1 [30] amends the transferred section 138A relating to fingerprinting persons who receive penalty notices, to make it clear that a requirement to submit to the taking of prints may be requested before or after the penalty notice has been served.

Schedule 1 [31] provides that the prints are to also be destroyed if a court deals with the penalty notice offence and dismisses the relevant charge or arrives at a finding of not guilty for the charge or if the penalty notice is withdrawn.

Review period

Schedule 1 [45] extends the period at the end of which a review of the LEPAR Act is required to be carried out. The amendment requires the principal provisions of the Act to have been in operation for 3 years before the review is required.

Other amendments

Schedule 1 also contains a number of other minor amendments such as:

Updating the reference to the position of clerk of a Local Court (now the registrar).

Clarifying provisions relating to occupier's notices

Allowing for another authorised officer to extend a warrant if the original authorised officer is not available.

Transferring the provision relating to arrests by a commander of an aircraft from the Crimes Act 1900 to the LEPR Act, and updating an outdated reference in the provision.

Extending "time-out" for the calculation of time spent in lawful custody so that time spent in obtaining a crime scene warrant is disregarded-which is similar to the treatment of other types of warrants.

Requiring a search warrant in respect of suspected drug premises to be applied for by the police officer who is in charge of an investigation into the suspected use of the premises as drug premises (rather than any police officer of or above the rank of sergeant).

Removing the requirement that a police officer make a record of certain matters when another police officer has already made a record of those matters.

Allowing the Ombudsman to require information from a public authority (as well as the Police) in connection with the exercise of functions under the LEPAR Act.

Schedule 2: Amendment of Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas Trial) Act 2003

Schedule 2 revives, with modifications, the drug detection scheme that operated under the Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas Trial) Act 2003 ('the Drug Detection Trial Act'), which allowed police to establish check points in a search area, to stop vehicles at the check points and to use dogs to carry out general drug detection in relation to the vehicle.

The principal change to the scheme, as revived by the amendments, is that it will operate under an authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Police or another designated officer (as defined by Schedule 2 [5]), rather than under a warrant-based system. This will make it more consistent with the schemes provided for by the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 and the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997.

Schedule 2 [6] sets out the new procedure for applying for, and granting, an authorisation to exercise powers conferred by the scheme. The designated officer will be able to issue an authorisation to exercise the powers conferred by the Drug Detection Trial Act on the same sort of grounds as a Judge was permitted to issue a drug detection warrant under the previous scheme. In addition, the amendments will require the application to include details of past applications in relation to the area and of past operations in relation to the area. The designated officer will also be required to be satisfied that the nature and extent of the proposed drug detection operation is appropriate to the suspected criminal activity concerned.

Schedule 2 [14] provides for authorisations to remain in force for up to 14 days, unless sooner revoked. Under the previous scheme, drug detection warrants had effect for only 72 hours.

Another key change to the scheme is that it will extend to all parts of the State that are outside the metropolitan areas of Sydney, Newcastle and the Illawarra. In addition, a search area may be comprised of an area of up to 5 square kilometres, rather than a maximum of one square kilometre under the previous scheme, and police may establish more than one check point in a search area and may move check points at any time.

These changes will increase the flexibility and mobility of operations, as well as making the operations less predictable and more difficult to evade. To complement the changes, Schedule 2 [12] replaces the previous signage requirement with an obligation on police to ensure that adequate measures are in place to ensure the safety of persons and vehicles approaching the check point.

Schedule 2 [10] and [11] make adjustments to the provisions of the Act that require police to issue a warning to persons who fail to comply with requests, in line with the changes made to section 201 of the LEPR Act by Schedule 1.

Schedule 2 [19] to [21] require the Ombudsman to undertake another review of the scheme, as modified, at the end of the period of 12 months after the commencement of the relevant provisions. For that purpose, the powers of the Ombudsman are extended so as to allow the Ombudsman to inspect the records of New South Wales Police at any time.
Schedule 2 [22] provides that the scheme is revived from the commencement of the relevant amendments and will have effect for 18 months.

The new 18-month trial steps up the fight against the transportation of illicit drugs into, out of, and around New South Wales. The new regime is closely modelled on the highly successful controlled operations legislation, and will incorporate the changes to police practice and procedure recommended by the Ombudsman following his review of the previous scheme.

Schedule 3: Amendments to the Terrorism (Police Powers ) Act 2002

The bill seeks to amend provisions in the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. The proposed amendments arise directly from the Review conducted in accordance with section 36 of the Act.

On the whole, the Review concluded that the Act strikes a good balance between extraordinary law enforcement powers that will be effective in preventing an imminent terrorist act or investigating a suspected attack, and the necessary tests and safeguards to ensure that these powers are only used in urgent and appropriate circumstances. However, several legislative amendments were identified to clarify the original policy intention of certain provisions.

Schedule 3 [1] requires the Commissioner of Police, when giving an authorisation (or any other officer who gives an authorisation), to be satisfied that the nature and extent of the powers to be conferred by the authorisation are appropriate to the threatened or suspected terrorist act.

Clause [2] of Schedule 3 will amend section 14(2) of the Act to clarify that the special powers conferred on police officers through an authorisation under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 can be exercised whether or not the officer has been provided with a copy of the authorisation, or informed of all the terms of the authorisation. This ensures that police can use these powers without having to be informed of the parts of the authorisation that are not relevant to their area of operations.

Clauses [3] and [4] of Schedule 3 will amend sections 17(3) and 18(2) so as to be consistent with section 204 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, so that the provision reads that a police officer must not detain any longer than is reasonably necessary rather than "may detain for a long as necessary". This makes the provisions more consistent with the LEPAR Act.

Clause [5] of Schedule 3 will amend section 23 to impose a duty on a plain-clothed police officer to provide the person subject to the exercise of the power with their name and rank and other information in the same way as is required under the LEPAR Act.

Clause [6] will amend section 23 to insert a notice provision in relation to offences contained in the Act, similar to the notice provisions in section 201 of the LEPAR Act-namely a warning that a failure to comply with a direction is an offence under the Act. All of the common-sense amendments made to section 201 by Schedule 1 of this bill are also picked up here.

Clause [7] will clarify section 27O, which concerns the covert search warrant powers, to allow police to do things to maintain the secrecy of their search.

Clause [8] will amend section 36 of the Act to provide that it be reviewed every 2 years rather than annually. As the emergency powers have only been authorised once and never used it is considered that Review every 2 years is adequate. This time frame will also fit well with the Ombudsman reports into the covert search warrant Scheme and the preventative detention scheme.

The amendments proposed in this bill will improve the Act and bring it into line with the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act.

Schedule 4: Amendment of other Acts and instruments

Schedule 4 contains various amendments that will facilitate the state-wide of the Criminal Infringement Notices Scheme.

The scheme has been operating as a trial across twelve police Local Area Commands, since 2002.

The Ombudsman has reviewed the scheme and, whilst finding it to be generally successful, has recommended a number of legislative and procedural improvements. This bill implements the legislative changes proposed by the Ombudsman.

A state-wide rollout of the penalty notice scheme is proposed for mid next year and it is anticipated that by 1 May 2007, all police will be trained in the use of these penalty notices, and will have the legislative power to deal with these minor matters on the spot.

This simple reform benefits all police; it saves the courts' time; and it diverts minor offenders away from the criminal justice system.

Schedule 4.1 moves from the Crimes Act to the LEPAR Act provisions relating to taking of fingerprints of persons issued penalty notices, and a provision relating to the arrest of persons on aircraft. I have already explained the effect of those changes. It makes further minor statute law revision amendments.

Schedule 4.3 makes amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act relating to the Criminal Infringement Notice scheme. Part 3 of Chapter 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 enables police officers to serve penalty notices (known as criminal infringement notices) on persons in certain areas for prescribed minor offences.

The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 as follows:

Currently, section 334 of the Act provides that such penalty notices may only be served personally. Schedule 4.3 [1] amends the Act to allow for penalty notices to also be served by post.
Section 340 of the Act currently provides that a penalty notice may be withdrawn by a senior police officer before the due date for payment under the notice. Schedule 4.3 [2] provides, instead, that a penalty notice may by withdrawn at any time.

Schedule 4.3 [3] provides that if a penalty notice is withdrawn then any subsequent action taken, including any enforcement action, in relation to the notice is to be reversed and that any costs in relation to that action are not payable and, if paid, are repayable.

Section 340(3)(c) of the Act currently provides that if a penalty notice is withdrawn then further proceedings in respect of the alleged offence to which the notice relates may be taken against any person as if the notice had never been served. Schedule 4.3 [4] makes it clear that such proceedings may be only taken subject to any time limit within which the relevant proceedings for the offence are required to be commenced.

Schedule 4.3 [6] provides that the Ombudsman is to review and report to the Attorney General and the Minister for Police by 30 November 2008 on the operation of the penalty notices scheme in so far as the provisions impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2005 as follows:

Schedule 4.4 [1] extends the operation of Part 3 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2005, which establishes a trial period for a penalty notice scheme for certain offences under the Crimes Act 1900 and the Summary Offences Act 1988, until 30 April 2007.

Schedule 4.4 [2] removes the offence of common assault (under section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900) from the offences prescribed for which police officers may issue penalty notices.

Conclusion

The bill makes a wide variety of amendments to improve and clarify the operation of Police powers across the state. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.02 p.m.]: I lead on behalf of the Opposition on the Police Powers Legislation Amendment Bill. The Iemma-Costa Government is waiting until its dying moments to introduce legislation that will make major changes to the laws of this State. It is important to include the Hon. Michael Costa, because he has been part of the problem that has confronted police over the past few years. He was the Minister for Police who promised police so much following Paul Whelan's pathetic years as Minister. Put simply, Paul Whelan was just not that interested.

Unfortunately, Michael Costa's time as Minister was a bit like an Alka Seltzer: he sort of fizzed and spat up all over the place when he first dropped in, but once he settled back down again everything went back to the way it was. That is exactly what has happened with policing. The Government has made many changes to policing—particularly those driven by the Attorney General, Bob Debus—that really have not been in the best interests of police. And if they are not in the best interests of police it is natural to assume that they are not in the best interests of the community; police are merely doing work that the community wants them to do.

That the Government has sought to amend its own legislation to take into account concerns expressed by the NSW Ombudsman is testament to its inability to draft meaningful and relevant legislation before it is introduced in Parliament. The bill contains a number of amendments to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, which is also known as the LEPAR Act—laws that have been in force for less than a year. In many respects the so-called LEPAR Act has made the lives of our hardworking police even more difficult; it works against them in terms of the job they have to do. It is for that reason that many police have renamed it the "Leprosy" Act.

In a submission in January this year relating to staffing issues in NSW Police, the New South Wales Police Association recognised that the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act has increased demands on front-line police. As the association pointed out, many processes, such as the execution of search warrants, are now very labour intensive. Brief handling and service means that police are now spending more time on paperwork than they did 10 years ago. Whilst the Police Association indicates that the original Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act may help to provide a better service in the long run, it recognises that in the current situation it ties up officers and takes them away from front-line policing.

I have regularly raised in the public forum police concerns about the impact of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act on their ability to do their work. In February this year the former Minister for Police Carl Scully—there have been so many police Ministers in the past couple of years it is hard to keep track—told 2GB listeners and the community that he would take on board concerns regarding the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act to see whether changes could be made. It has taken 10 months for this Government to finally do something about it and introduce this bill. Whilst during this limited time the Opposition has had a chance to examine the legislation, and it appears that many of the changes are sensible in their intention, it is obvious that the amendments do not go far enough. There are still issues with the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act that have not been addressed in this bill. Therefore, it is fair to assume that under this Government they will not be addressed between now and sometime next year.

The bill also seeks to amend the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act—a direct result of the legislative review of the Act. The amendments include the following. A police officer may exercise the special powers whether or not he or she has been provided with a copy of the authorisation or notified of all its terms; an officer must not detain any longer than is reasonably necessary, rather than "detain for as long as necessary"; a duty is imposed on plainclothes officers to provide the person the subject of the exercise of a power with his or her name and rank; the insertion of a notice provision warning that failure to comply with a direction is an offence; covert search warrant powers will be amended to allow police to do things to maintain the secrecy of their search; and a clarification that any authorisations made should be reasonably proportional to the terrorist threat as assessed by the Commissioner for Police or by the person who is making the authorisation, should it be a person other than the commissioner.

As legislators, it is important that we provide police with all the powers they require to investigate and charge any person or group involved in terrorist activity. In order to ensure that police have the right powers, the legislation must be regularly reviewed. Each investigation, charging and prosecution of offenders identifies issues with the legislation that need to be addressed.

The bill makes amendments to the operation of the criminal infringement notices [CIN] scheme, which allows police to issue fine notices for minor offences. The scheme has been trialled in 12 local area commands since 2002. I understand that after reviewing the trial scheme the NSW Ombudsman made a number of recommendations. Fingerprints taken as part of the issuing of a CIN must be destroyed once the fine has been paid or if a court finds a person not guilty or dismisses a charge. It must be clarified that fingerprints may be taken at any time during the issuing of a CIN and that a CIN can be served personally or by post. Provision is made for a further review by the Ombudsman of the impact of the scheme on Aboriginal communities. The review will be conducted on a statewide basis 12 months after the scheme is rolled out. The Government indicated it expected that by 1 May 2007 all police would be trained in the use of criminal infringement notices. If the past is any indication of the ability of this Government to deliver on timetables, there is every likelihood this deadline will also not be met.

In January 2004 police began an 18-month trial of new laws to allow police to randomly stop motorists in order to screen their vehicles for prohibited drugs. The trial applied to specific sites across the southern borders of New South Wales. As part of this trial the Ombudsman was asked by the Parliament to monitor its implementation and report on its findings. A few weeks ago I moved a motion in this House to force the Government to table the Ombudsman's report into the Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas) Trial Act 2003.

The Ombudsman's report had been completed and was handed to the current Minister for Police in January 2005, just before he lost the portfolio—which he has recently regained—to the honourable member for Smithfield. It took almost two years and a motion of this House for the Government to release that report. The report found that police were hampered by the requirements of the legislation, and made 33 recommendations for changes to the scheme. The report concluded:

The results of operations, when viewed in the context of a combined expenditure by NSW Police and the RTA of at least $179,180, have led us to question whether the continued allocation of public resources to this project is in the public interest. Our research indicates that there may be alternative strategies which more effectively target vehicles carrying significant quantities of drugs. On this basis we recommend that Parliament consider allowing the Act to expire.

The Government has chosen to continue with the trial, despite the report's conclusion. The Government has indicated that these amendments go beyond the recommendations of the New South Wales Ombudsman, and has said it will put in place a trial process that will be better than if the recommendations were to be implemented. It is now up to the Government to deliver on that commitment and to make the program work within the additional 18-month trial. It has one chance to get it right and to get illegal drugs off the streets. One major change will be to allow operations throughout New South Wales, with the exception of the Sydney, Newcastle and Illawarra metropolitan areas. Expanding the operational area is all well and good, but it will only benefit the community and be successful in getting illegal drugs off the streets if police resources are dedicated to implement the trial.
The Ombudsman's report indicated that during the course of nine operations, 3,809 vehicles were stopped and 291, or less than 8 per cent, were searched. In 31 per cent of those vehicle searches an illegal substance was found. I am pleased to note that the Ombudsman will continue to monitor the trial. This Government invariably fails to get anything right the first time. It needs multiple opportunities to get legislation, procedures and resources into place in order to give police the powers they need to protect the community. The Government has to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way along the line. There are still problems with the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, particularly in regard to knife searches. That is becoming a major issue for the police and the wider community. There are significant problems relating to the ability of police to conduct searches effectively and safely.

The Opposition has raised this matter time and again because we listen to police. This was an excellent opportunity for the Government to say, "Yes, the Opposition has raised a valid point," and include our proposals in the changes. But no, the Government has preferred to play politics and has declined to make the changes, just so it does not have to concede that the Opposition has got it right. The problem for police is not with paper work or duties that make the job of policing more difficult; put simple, the problem is that the lives of police officers are being put at risk because of difficulties associated with their ability to conduct knife searches. The Coalition will not oppose the bill, but I place on record that I will be talking more about how we can make the job of protecting the community easier for police.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.13 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Police Powers Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. It is long overdue. The main purpose of the bill is to make various amendments to police powers to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement in the State. I have prepared the Police Authority Bill, the objects of which are similar to the objects of this legislation, in a bid to restore authority to police officers in New South Wales. As a result of progressive changes over a period of years that authority has been eroded and called into question. I believe that has played a major role in demoralising the New South Wales Police Service and reducing the effectiveness of police officers. If you do not have a clear understanding of your authority as a police officer, you cannot carry out your duties.

Incidents involving what might be called summary offences cases have been raised in this House on a number of occasions. I refer specifically to situations involving police trying to restrain individuals who are perhaps drunk or who cause violent disturbances in the street that have resulted in police bringing charges. In such situations, police officers have been abused, sworn at and spat at for carrying out their duties. Offenders often push their face right into the face of a police officer and tell the officer to "F-off". Of course the offenders use the full word; but I will not. In such cases, magistrates have dismissed the charges when the offenders appear before the court.

Magistrate Pat O'Shane is notorious for being anti-police. She administers the law in such a way that, almost invariably, she doubts the words of police officers who bring complaints before her, and that in turn leads to the charges being dismissed. Often Magistrate O'Shane will make comments to the effect that there is really no community standard in New South Wales. She questions who says what is right and what is wrong. I feel sure that 99.9 per cent of the community knows what is right; they certainly know that it is wrong for anyone to shove his face into a police officer's face and tell him to "F-off". In most cases of that nature Magistrate Pat O'Shane will dismiss the charge and comment that there is no clarity about community standards. Well, I believe there is.

Such statements undermine the authority of police and create confusion in the minds of police officers about what charges can be brought against persons who are obviously in breach of summary offences-type legislation. Honourable members may know of the successful operation conducted in New York when authorities introduced a policy to crack down on what is regarded as minor crime, street offences and so on. Whether or not it was intended, the result has been a dramatic reduction in major crime. It was a way for police to assert their authority on the streets of New York. The result is one of the greatest reductions in major crime, murders and so on, of any American city—and New York is a huge and complex city.

The Christian Democratic Party is pleased that this bill has been introduced. It will extend the personal search provisions to clarify that searches of socks, hair and mouths may take place. Some offenders have voiced objection to that course. Police officers must have that ability if they are searching for drugs or knives. It would not be difficult to conceal a small, sealed packet of heroin in one's mouth. The legislation also makes it clear that police can enter premises at the invitation of an apparent victim of a domestic violence offence, despite the express refusal of another occupant of the premises. At present, a situation may arise in which a female resident will want the police to assist her, but the police are unable to help because someone else in the premises, perhaps even the person causing the female distress, says, "I own this house and I do not give permission for police to enter." Police will now be able to respond at the invitation of a victim.

The bill will strengthen the emergency alcohol zone powers so that police may order the immediate removal of alcohol. Alcohol is the number one social problem in Australia. It is more serious than drugs in terms of quantity, because it affects so many people, and is often a cause of violence. More often than not in Sydney now we see groups of young men who, after heavy drinking late in the evening, are prepared to take the police on. It is not uncommon for a gang of 10 or 12 young men to try to beat up the police if there are only one or two officers. That is a new development. In the past people respected police officers in uniform and obeyed their directions; these days people are prepared to start a punch-up with the police.

The bill will provide a legislative basis for people who have been found not guilty of an offence to apply to NSW Police to have their fingerprints destroyed. This is a civil liberties issue and perhaps a privacy issue. I sometimes wonder whether, in the fight against crime, it would be better to maintain fingerprint files so that everyone has an identity on record. Sometimes it is difficult to identify a person whose face has been badly injured or burnt in a serious car accident. If the person's fingerprints were on file it would be easier to identify them. Indeed, if the body of a murder victim were dumped in the ocean and had deteriorated over time, it may be possible to identify the body through fingerprints. It is possible that in the future everybody's DNA will be on file for a multitude of reasons and for identification purposes in particular. The police spent years trying to identify the remains of victims of the terrorist attack in Bali. If there had been DNA records the identification process would have been much easier. Some people will respond to my comments by saying, "We don't want our details on file." But if we are not criminals, if we are not breaking the law, what do we have to fear?

The bill also amends the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. This arises from a legislative review of the Act. The amendments cover a number of areas. In particular, they clarify that a police officer must not detain a person for "any longer than is reasonably necessary", rather than "may detain for as long as necessary". Perhaps the Minister can explain the distinction. Does it mean that persons will be able to be detained for a longer or shorter period than was originally intended? Under the current legislation, police are under pressure to get information, perhaps about a potential terrorist attack, within a certain period of time. The bill amends the covert search warrant powers to allow police to do things to maintain the secrecy of their search. That is an important aspect of the bill.

The bill deals with criminal infringement notices or CINs. It means that we now have CINs in legislation—we could call it CINful behaviour. The CIN scheme allows police to issue fine notices for minor offences such as larceny. Will the Minister explain what other minor offences will be included? I hope that the Government will not attempt to include some drug offences under the CIN system. There is a requirement that fingerprints be destroyed once a fine has been paid or when a court finds a person not guilty or dismisses the charge. I ask the Government to review that whole approach and consider whether maintaining a record system in the future is justified. The DNA of all prisoners is already tested. Prisoners may be in gaol for one offence, but DNA tests often show that they committed other offences in the past, including rape. That is why it is important to keep DNA on file.

The bill amends the Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas Trial) Act 2003, which deals with the transportation and distribution of prohibited drugs using road transport, including cars, trucks and motorbikes. I understand that some illegal bikie gangs are part of a regular transport system for moving drugs, especially marijuana from South Australia, around Australia. Under the bill, operations will last for a maximum of 14 days and be conducted in a three or five square kilometre area. The bill provides for multiple checkpoints and/or the movement of checkpoints within the duration of the authorisation. Although the provisions do not specify the use of drug dogs, I presume that drug sniffer dogs will be used during heavy vehicle checks, especially if drugs are hidden in part of the load or the truck and are not easily located. Dogs can indicate where drugs are hidden. The Christian Democratic Party is a strong supporter of the use of sniffer dogs. I know that the Greens, who have a negative attitude to the use of sniffer dogs, would like to see that scrapped. However, I believe they are an important part of the war against drugs, and we support their continued use. We support the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.26 p.m.]: The Greens object to how the Police Powers Legislation Amendment Bill is being pushed through Parliament. It is not what democracy should look like. Again, we have had little time to consider the far-reaching measures contained in this significant bill. One would have thought that in the past week the Government had learnt about the importance of public confidence in the New South Wales Parliament. Ramming bills through the Parliament does nothing to restore public confidence. The crossbenchers found out about this bill only on Tuesday. Indeed, we are concerned that the Legislation Review Committee has not had a chance to comment on it. The Legislation Review Committee is a fairly recent addition to the work of the Parliament and plays a useful role. But when it is cut out of the process it is not good.

We have not had a chance to adequately consult community groups and stakeholders. I simply do not trust the Government to have undertaken consultation during the drafting stage. This bill deals with an important aspect of criminal law: people's rights in the criminal legal system. Those rights should be treated with more respect; the Government should not be rushing another law and order bill through Parliament. Many amendments in this bill are minor, and possibly reasonable. As I said, however, we have not had time to scrutinise the bill. Given the Government's history of tabloid law and order bills designed more for catchy headlines than to address crime rates, we are sceptical. As we know, the devil is in the detail of the bill, which is why we need more time to analyse it.

The law and order debate pushed by both the Labor Government and the Opposition parties is designed to get short-term political advantage by promoting a fear of crime and simplistic solutions. It is a perfect fit with these neo-Liberal conservative agendas that see the Government moving away from providing services to promising safety. Promising safety does not deliver safety. These laws are being misused to scare people; and when people are scared the major parties know that they have a chance of holding on to their support. The solutions in these law and order bills are not real solutions at all. The Government's increasingly shrill cries on law and order have not reduced crime rates in this State or delivered safer communities. That is the key issue.

I should not need to remind honourable members that, despite the raft of law and order bills that have gone through this Parliament, crime rates have not decreased. A recent study by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research showed that crime rates remained stable from April 2004 to March 2006. Meanwhile, the number of prisoners in New South Wales gaols has increased to more than 9,000.

I remember hearing former Premier Bob Carr boast about that fact. He was a complex character and I often wondered whether he believed the things he said. I remember him saying that with such passion and zealousness. It was such a shameful thing to say, because so many of those people should not be in gaol. It is a drain on the resources of the State and it does not make our community safer. The type of fear mongering whipped up by this Government is despicable and dangerous. Rather than reducing crime, these bills erode civil liberties and create a more divided society in New South Wales.

We have before us amendments to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. The Greens will support most of those amendments. We support amendments that allow the police to enter premises on invitation from a victim of domestic violence and we support amendments to provide the Ombudsman with the power to require any public body to provide material for the purpose of a review. We have reservations about the proposal to extend personal search provisions to allow searches of socks, hair and mouths, and the impact these searches may have on civil rights should be a concern to all of us. I imagine having someone search your mouth would be a confronting and intimidating experience. What safeguards are in place to ensure that these powers will not be abused? The police do abuse their powers and the culture that is created in this State with the major parties so readily signing off with these laws does not help to wind back that abuse of power that we have seen over centuries from too many sections of our police force. I would like the Minister in his reply to tell us what safeguards are in place to ensure that these powers will not be abused.

The bill also makes a number of amendments to the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act. The Greens did not accept that a sufficient case was made out to bring in the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act in the first place. The Government did not prove that the law was necessary and that it would not erode personal freedoms. We argued that the existing State legislation gives the authorities all the powers they need to deal with threats as they arise. We are saying, "Yes, terrorism needs to be dealt with, but the power is already there and has been there for a long time." All these bills that came before Parliament with the word "terrorism" in the title were part of a tabloid response so the Government could make out it was being responsible and acting against this new threat, but there have been enormous police powers in this State for a long time, and that bill was not needed.

We are concerned that the bill proposes to review the Act every two years instead of every year. I remind members that when this Act was passed there was much debate in the community about its potential to breach civil rights and democratic freedoms. The annual review provisions were put in place in response to these serious community concerns. My staff and I did not have time to go back and find the quotes that I am sure are there from the Attorney General and other Labor figures saying that we need this bill and that it is important to safeguard us from terrorism, but we need to safeguard civil liberties and we are therefore putting this review in place. My recollection is those comments were made quite frequently but, down the track, we are now watering down the review and it will be every two years. I do not believe the concern from the community about the erosion of civil rights has gone away.

Another aspect of the bill is to do with drug detection in border areas. This is where the Government has really outdone itself with arrogance. Its arrogance is on full display with the proposal to extend the trial of the use of sniffer dogs to search cars for drugs. When will the Government learn that it is barking up the wrong tree when it comes to sniffer dog operations? This is spin of the first order. Although they are not the words of the Ombudsman, that is what one would have to conclude when one reads the official reports about sniffer dog operations. In our society people should be able to drive their cars without being arbitrarily searched by sniffer dogs when there is no reasonable suspicion that they have broken the law.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What about random breath testing? It is the same thing, isn't it?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is not the same thing at all. Recently the Greens called for papers to get the Ombudsman's review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas Trial) Act released. I hope Mr Charlie Lynn listens and learns what a waste of money this is and how the authorities have said this is not the way to go. It is worth noting how this has played out over the past couple of years. The report has been waiting on the Attorney General's desk for 21 months. I am sure he has been busy_he has lots of portfolios_but 21 months is pushing it. By law the Attorney was required to table the review in Parliament as soon as practically possible. One has to ask: Did it really take 21 months for Mr Debus to go through the report and organise its tabling? That is a joke. I do not believe it took 21 months. I think he was sitting on it. Thank heavens we have provisions in this House by which one can call for papers so one could flush it out. That is how we got it into the public domain.

I wonder whether the Attorney read the Ombudsman's report in the 21 months it was sitting on his desk. The conclusions to draw from the Ombudsman's review are clear. Basically the review found that sniffer dog operations were an expensive farce that failed to catch the Mr Bigs. Many members sitting in this House—probably all of them—would say, "Yes, we need these operations to catch the drug dealers." This report will tell you that that does not catch the Mr Bigs. It is not the Greens saying this; the Ombudsman has said that this is not the way to go. Of course, we say we have to catch the big drug dealers. I am sick and tired of members of the major parties trying to distort our policy. The Ombudsman found:

It was clear that the objectives of the Act had not been met. That is, police operations had not effectively targeted the trafficking of indictable quantities of prohibited drugs.

That is clear, but this bill provides that we will use sniffer dog operations all over the roads in our border areas. Mr Charlie Lynn says it is just like random breath testing. It is not like random breath testing because it has been shown that it does not work. Figures from the Ombudsman's report may get the point across to members of this House. In one operation involving 21 officers no drugs were found. In another three-day operation involving 21 officers only 6.8 grams of cannabis were found. Police expenditure over the course of the trial was $239,188. In addition, the Roads and Traffic Authority spent $430,000 to facilitate these operations. This takes the total cost of the trial to $669,188. This means it cost the New South Wales Government $334,594 each for the two operations, neither of which led to convictions for drug trafficking or supply. How embarrassing! Members of this House should hang their heads in shame. They are being conned. They probably believe that these operations work but they should read these reports. It is a joke. The bill we are passing tonight will not make our community safer and will not catch the Mr Bigs. The Ombudsman's report concluded:

The results of operations when viewed in the context of a combined expenditure by NSW Police and the RTA had led us to question whether the continued allocation of public resources to this project is in the public interest. On this basis we recommend that Parliament consider allowing the Act to expire.

For the benefit of readers of Hansard, there are no interjections. Members of the major parties are silent. I hope they are considering what they are signing off on here. They are wasting public resources. It is a con job. It is public relations spin so the Government can say it is doing something to catch the Mr Bigs. The Opposition is foolish for going along with these law and order bills time and again. For whatever reason, it judges that it is good for its constituency, but it has the Ombudsman's report and it could use that report to say that the Government is wasting resources and does not know how to catch the Mr Bigs and it is not going to support them. However, Opposition members go along like placid little puppy dogs and support the Government once again.

With remarks such as I quoted from the report, no wonder the review got only a passing mention in the second reading speech. The Ombudsman recommended against extending the Act, the Attorney General sat on the report for 21 months, then the Government rushes through a bill to extend the Act. The Government is using the cover of the end of year rush, when we pass bills by exhaustion, to slide this bill through. It is quite shameful. The law and order debate does not make communities safer. I will keep saying that because that is the essence of the problem we have with this type of bill. It is the essence of the big lie. It makes our prisons full and our communities divided. But it does not assist the victims of crime. It makes headlines but it does not reduce crime rates. The people of New South Wales deserve better.

Safe communities are part of the Greens' vision for a sustainable future. We take crime seriously and our policies are designed so that people can live their lives free from the fear of violence. Safer communities are not created by more charges, less bail and longer sentences; safer communities are based on sound social justice policies, and a humane and fair criminal justice system. The money spent on locking up an adult in a New South Wales prison is about equal to the salary of a youth worker. Many people in New South Wales gaols should not be there. So much money could be directed into socially useful programs if only this Government would break its addiction to tabloid headlines. I thank the Public Interest Advocacy Centre for its advice on the changes to the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act. The Greens do not support the bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.42 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the Police Powers Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill contains a range of amendments to the various police powers laws to ensure the efficient and effective operation of our criminal justice system. I will address some particular matters that have been raised in debate. First, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act does not go far enough. That Act was the product of years of work by a multiagency group including the Attorney General's Department, the Police Ministry, the Police Force and the Police Association. The final product was agreed upon by all parties and represented a major achievement in the codification of police powers. It will be reviewed in three years, and until that time an ongoing monitoring committee will ensure the efficient operation of the Act.

In response to the remarks of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the criminal infringement notices scheme does not include any drug offences. The scheme is designed to deal with minor offences that fall at the lower end of criminality. The amendments in relation to the detention of people are intended to make the provisions consistent with the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. They are not intended to change the period for which a person can be detained. In response to the remarks of Ms Lee Rhiannon about safeguards for search powers, the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act contains several safeguards in regard to police officers exercising their powers, including identification of the officer, warnings and a reasonable suspicion that something has been done. In addition, police are subject to internal complaint mechanisms as well as inquiries by the Police Integrity Commission and the Ombudsman.

In response to criticism surrounding the effectiveness of drug detection dogs, both under the previous border areas trial and in general drug detection, as reported by the Ombudsman, drug detection dogs are used by police and customs departments around the world as an effective law enforcement tool. Through the present legislation and as part of future targeted drug law enforcement initiatives, the Government is committed to ensuring that drug detection dogs are used to optimal effect in disrupting the illicit drug trade. The intelligence-driven nature of operations under the proposed new regime will assist greatly in this regard.

On the criticism of the delay in tabling the Ombudsman's report, the Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas Trial) Act involved, as the name clearly indicates, a trial. It allowed NSW Police to test a new method of detecting the road-based transportation of drugs for a defined period. The Ombudsman's review has allowed a reassessment of methods. The Government has used the time since the Act expired to closely examine the factors that contributed to the problems encountered while it was in force. Using the lessons learned in the border areas trial, a new random stop and screen trial was developed to tackle the movement of drugs by road. Extensive consultation was undertaken with every local area command and crime manager to determine the extent to which road transportation of drugs was occurring around the State and how best to address the problem.

Our main goal was to get it right. But that is not to say that NSW Police have not continued to target the road transportation of drugs in the meantime. Police are still empowered to conduct searches if the vehicle has been pulled over for another purpose such as random breath testing and officers have a reasonable suspicion that drugs may be present in the vehicle. Significant drug interceptions have occurred through this process. For example, members may recall media reports on 2 October when highway patrol police near Goulburn seized ecstasy worth an estimated $500,000 from a car after stopping it for speeding. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.49 p.m.]: I understand that the Government will move an amendment that will solve a problem I raised earlier. I appreciate the fact that the matter has been resolved speedily.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.50 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.51 p.m.]: I move:

No. 1 Pages 21 and 22, schedule 1.22, from line 20 on page 21 to line 4 on page 22. Omit all words on those lines.

Given that it is almost Christmas and the season of goodwill, the Government will remove from the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) the proposed amendments to section 64 of the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991. The Government proposed this amendment to treat applications to modify development consents consistently with original applications for development consents. However, concerns have been raised by the Greens. It is the Government's general policy to withdraw from the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill proposals that cause concern. As such, it will remove this provision from the bill. The Government reserves the right to bring this matter before Parliament in the future not in the context of statute law amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.56 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Ian Macdonald: 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.

This Bill provides for amendments to the Registered Clubs Act that have emerged from the deliberations of the Club Industry Working Group.

The amendments are a package of reforms developed in partnership with the NSW clubs industry.

The Club Industry Working Group is a joint Government and club industry body that I established in May of this year. The Industry Working Group includes representatives of the club industry and the New South Wales Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, a representative of the Premier, as well as members of my staff.

The role of this Working Group is to examine, discuss and develop proposals for amendments to the Registered Clubs Act arising from issues of concern for the Government and the industry. In the coming months the group will continue to examine other significant issues facing the club industry.

This was a genuine participatory process, a real partnership that will protect and enhance the rights of clubs' members. The hard work and commitment of the Working Group have achieved a number of practical solutions for the industry.

The bill includes a number of measures that will improve club governance, cut red tape and help sustain the club industry into the future. It represents the way forward for the Government and the club industry to develop a shared vision for the future of the industry.

The first stage of the Working Group process is consolidated in this bill. Particular emphasis has been placed on the importance of maintaining transparency and accountability.

The bill deals specifically with the provision of recommendations for legislative amendments to club governance, probity and various reporting requirements.

I will now briefly address the detail of the legislation.

The bill includes proposals that will improve the probity of club election, provide greater consistency in the election process and help ensure skilled club directors.

The way in which registered clubs are managed is central to their survival. Club members have a right to expect their club to be properly managed.

It is therefore disturbing when any complaints about club elections come to light and allegations are made about elections being conducted in a less than professional manner. This leads to perceptions that some clubs may be engaged in improper practices.

The club industry through the Club Industry Working Group is seeking changes to the election process to improve the probity of elections.

The bill before the House introduces new procedures that will provide a more consistent approach for the conduct of club elections. I should also note that the State Electoral Office has been consulted about these procedures and strongly supports the new approach.

Clubs with more than 10,000 members will be required to use an accredited independent returning officer for election of club directors.

Around 175 clubs in New South Wales fall into this category.

The Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing will be responsible for accrediting private sector organisations to provide the function of independent returning officer.

The use of an accredited independent returning officer will also be an option for clubs with fewer than 10,000 members.

To provide guidance, a set of rules or procedures for clubs with less than 10,000 members will be developed by the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing in close consultation with the State Electoral Office and club industry representatives.

In addition, anyone who nominates for election as a club director will be required to receive a pre-election education package.

This change will increase awareness regarding the responsibilities involved in being a club director and is an important step toward more informed participation in club governing bodies. Clubs NSW has developed an excellent education package and it will be made freely available to clubs, including clubs that are not members of that association.

Another important practical change concerns the number of club members who must be full voting members.

There have been some difficulties arising from existing requirements in the Registered Clubs Act concerning voting rights of club members, in particular, the requirements in section 9 of the Act regarding a majority of all club members being full voting members.

This effectively places limits on how many social or non-voting members a club could have. This bill will rectify this matter by clearly stating that only 25 per cent of the members of the club must be full voting members.

This will be of enormous benefit to many RSL, bowling and golf clubs in particular because it allows them to expand their membership and generate additional revenue from an enhanced membership base.

Finally, with regard to election probity we are also strengthening the current prohibition that exists to ensure that only club members should be able to determine who should be on the governing body of their club. This is an entirely appropriate approach to adopt towards such matters and this bill will ensure the rights of club members are protected.
The bill seeks to provide greater flexibility for the disposal or leasing of club property, while maintaining transparency of the process and probity standards.

Processes were introduced in early 2004 to enhance accountability in the disposal of club land or property. However, clubs have encountered problems with that process for various reasons—including the requirement for the disposal of club land to be approved by members at a general meeting.

The number of arrangements already in place such as shared development ventures as well as other unique and complex circumstances involving the use and disposal of club land and property have also given rise to unforeseen difficulties.

To clarify and simplify this situation this Bill will introduce a definition of "core property" which will include a club's defined premises and any facility used by club members.

It will also provide for club members to determine what other club property is to be classed as "core property".

Other club property will be regarded as 'non-core property' for example land purchased by a club as an investment property with a view to selling or developing the land at a later date.

These changes will not diminish accountability and transparency. Clubs will be required to report to their members what property is being classed as core and non-core and the disposal of core property will require agreement by club members.

Greater flexibility will also be built into the Act through appropriate exemptions. For example clubs will be able to dispose of core property but only if the members of a club at a general meeting have approved the disposal of core property and the parties price property and valuation have been disclosed.

Leases licences subleases and sub-licences of core property with terms not exceeding 6 years and which are supported by a valuation will also be exempted from current requirements.

In addition regulations will provide for exemptions to the disposal requirements. For example, the regulations will provide for sale by private treaty in the case when a club has followed the required open tender procedure and is still unable to dispose of the land in question.

These exemptions will be the subject of consultation and discussion with the club industry prior to the commencement of the new provisions.

To explain this new classification at the moment all club property is effectively core property and must follow the existing disposal requirements which are quite specific and require independent valuation a public auction or open tender process and approval of club members.

For example under existing measures a club that had a small area of land which a neighbour wished to purchase and the club was willing to sell. But the value of the land exceeded the costs the club would have had to incur to go through the required process.

Under this new approach such an area with the approval of club members could be classed as "non-core" and sold directly to the interested party via private treaty thereby facilitating the disposal of land while not incurring significant cost. This would result in benefits for the club members the club and the person purchasing the parcel of land.

To explain the new measures would mean that a club at a general meeting would provide members with full details of its land holdings and also which areas are proposed to be classed core and non core.

This would provide members with the opportunity not only to determine what land is core and non core but also to seek further information if required as to the reasons why the land would be classed as such. This new arrangement means club members will have a much greater say in the process for both classification of land and its disposal.

Clubs will be allowed a period of time up until the next reasonable opportunity for example their annual general meeting before they will be expected to have all of their property divided into core and non-core property.

Another example of the importance of this reform is where a club and a developer may want to swap parcels of land of equal size as part of a development. Current provisions under Section 41J would prohibit or significantly hinder this type of arrangement even though it would benefit the club.

Another example illustrating the importance of this change is that the current provisions do not even envisage the type of shared or joint development ventures that some clubs may seek to enter into to capitalise on the value of land holdings that were never intended to be used for club members.

This Bill is also about reducing red tape and the compliance burden for clubs.

The reporting requirements for clubs have increased over the years. As a result some of those requirements now overlap or are redundant or obsolete. While it is acknowledged that club members and others need to be informed about a club's operations and financial status the current requirements are cumbersome and require reform.

The bill removes many of the reporting requirements from the Act and transfers them to the Regulation. The requirements will be streamlined and updated and then consolidated into a single section of the Regulation.

This will also enable reporting requirements to be updated in the future to reflect improved processes of information collection and any changes to the type of reports required.
It is important to note that these changes will not impact on accountability or transparency of the reporting process. Information will still be available for club members and appropriate reporting processes will be maintained.

Following the passage of this legislation, the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing will also seek to improve the reporting process by the club industry to Government.

A similar example of such an improvement is the one introduced this year for the CDSE scheme where reports by clubs are now done in a consistent manner electronically.

The Bill will also improve the operation of the 5 kilometre rule particularly for clubs whose location makes the application of the rule problematic.

A long-standing requirement for clubs has been that anyone living within 5 kilometres of a registered club must be a member of that club in order to enter and use the club's facilities.

The way in which the 5 kilometres is to be measured is not specified in legislation but the policy has been that a direct 5 kilometre radius from a club is used. This was considered to be easy for patrons to understand and simple for clubs the police and departmental inspectors to administer.

While many clubs are strongly supportive of the 5 kilometre rule for a number of clubs their location or nearby geographical obstacles have created some problems concerning the manner in which the 5 kilometres is measured—particularly in rural and regional areas.

A prime example of the importance of this change is the Yamba Bowling and Recreation Club that is situated on one side of a river.

For people living on the opposite side of the river the most feasible means to get to the club is a 55km road trip. Although they live well within the 5km of the club as the crow flies in this case this does not mean they only need to travel that distance to reach the club.

As a result even though people may visit the club on a rare occasion they are obligated to become a full member of the club and cannot take advantage of temporary membership status. In such cases the Bill will provide for these clubs to seek exemptions from the 5km rule on application to the Director of Liquor and Gaming.

To clarify the situation the bill will provide for the regulation to create exceptions to this rule. Any such any exception will not automatically apply to all clubs but will involve a prescribed process whereby a club will have to apply to the Director of Liquor and Gaming for a variation in the way the 5 kilometre distance is measured.

The Bill will also reduce current restrictions on club amalgamations to allow for an increased number of amalgamations between clubs.

The Act has long provided for the amalgamation of registered clubs. Amalgamation can make the difference between the preservation or permanent loss of the community assets that have been established by a club for example sporting grounds or community meeting areas.

The Government moved to put in certain limitations on the amalgamations process to ensure club groups did not get too large or lose touch with their local communities.

Therefore the existing amalgamation process does prevent some clubs that would be interested in amalgamating from doing so.

The Government has listened to club's concerns and has agreed a new direction is needed.

The new amalgamation procedures will provide for a club to have a much wider choice of potential amalgamation partners.

The maximum number of amalgamations will be increased from 4 to 10 keeping the intent of some limit but to keep the number at a manageable size. This new cap has been suggested by the club industry.

The Government acknowledges that many club groups that sit at the current cap of 4 are operating very well and may be in a position to partner with additional clubs.

The new processes will also provide assurance to the Government and local communities that amalgamations will only occur when they are in the best interest of the community and that community facilities will be preserved.

This is a very important point.

Therefore proposed amalgamations will be subject to the completion of a Community Impact Statement which will bring together relevant information regarding the maintenance of facilities and services at both clubs accessibility to these facilities and the impact on the local economy in terms of employment and impact on local suppliers.

Another requirement would be the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding stating both clubs' position on any proposed amalgamation. Both of these documents would be made available to club members.

These strengthen the integrity of the amalgamation process and will ensure that club members get a fair deal out of an amalgamation.

The details of the new process will be subject to further consultation with the club industry.

One recent example of how club amalgamations preserve community facilities is the amalgamation of Mt Pritchard and District Community Club Limited known as Mounties and Harbord Diggers.

While they are two very different types of registered clubs the amalgamation has resolved whatever financial difficulties are faced by Harbord Diggers and will also facilitate the renovation and revitalisation of the Harbord Diggers' premises. This, of course, is of great benefit to members of Harbord Diggers, the local community and also to the members of the Mounties group of clubs in general.

There are many other examples of smaller clubs particularly bowling clubs that have been saved by amalgamation with a larger parent club.

The new club amalgamation provisions will expand the potential for amalgamations by relaxing the current restrictions on the number of amalgamations a club may enter into. This measure is being introduced specifically because there are clubs who are willing and ready to assist smaller clubs preserve their long held community assets through an amalgamation but have already reached their limit of 4 amalgamations and are therefore unable to assist.

I understand many of the more profitable clubs within the State are frequently approached by smaller clubs seeking an amalgamation partner. The current restrictions mean that the more profitable clubs often have no choice but to turn down these requests.

I also want to touch on some of the transitional arrangements and miscellaneous provisions that are contained in the Bill.

The Bill takes account of club amalgamations that might already be underway through appropriate transitional provisions. That is the changes to club amalgamations in the Bill will not apply to pending applications for an amalgamation. This is the standard approach taken in such circumstances.

By way of miscellaneous provision it has been a long standing requirement that clubs have been required to include the statement "for the information of members and their guests" on all visible and audible promotional and advertising material relating to club facilities. This requirement was introduced at a time when concerns existed about some clubs operating an 'open door' policy.

Clubs are now more vigilant about this issue and many clubs are proactive in promoting membership requirements through their websites. Also there is now more of a focus on the sign-in procedures at clubs.

As a result the broader community is better informed about the need to be a club member if they live within 5 kilometres of a registered club.

It is considered this statement no longer serves any real purpose and is little more than a compliance burden for clubs. The Bill removes this outdated requirement.

In addition the existing definition of "top executive" in section 41B was inserted to help clarify the application of certain reporting and disclosure requirements as part of the club accountability and governance measures introduced in April 2004.

Since the commencement of the relevant reporting and disclosure provisions there have been difficulties arising from the broad reach of this definition.

In some cases employees with no managerial responsibilities have been captured by the definition. This is not what was intended.

This Bill inserts an amended definition that will rectify this situation and limit the application of the term top executive to the appropriate persons.

In summary this Bill introduces measures that will produce direct and long-term benefits for registered clubs and their members.

The changes are supported by the club industry club employee associations the Government and other stakeholders.

Through the Club Industry Working Group the Government is working in partnership to deliver the much-needed reforms and an industry plan to ensure the future viability of registered clubs in a competitive marketplace. This bill is the first stage of that new partnership.

The Iemma Government understands the importance of the club industry to its membership and the broader community.

Clubs provide important social sporting and other facilities for their local communities.

Clubs through the Community Development Support Expenditure Scheme provide crucial funding for local projects.

Clubs also make an enormous contribution to employment in NSW and the NSW economy in general.

It is therefore essential that the club industry is in a position to be viable and strong into the future that is what this bill is all about.

The Bill delivers practical solutions in the best interests of clubs and their members across NSW.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.57 p.m.]: The Registered Clubs Act places unnecessary restrictions on club amalgamations that increase the hardship on smaller clubs. The regulations also make the process for disposal of club property unduly arduous and cause significant cost to the clubs. The majority of this legislation relates to relatively minor amendments to the Act and it provides for further regulations to the Act. The bill increases from four to 10 the number of clubs that can amalgamate with another club; it streamlines the process of asset disposal and goes some way to consolidating financial reporting requirements. The bill also provides for further regulations, which is consistent with the way this Government does things rather than publicly and transparently including them in the bill. Communities and clubs will have to wait for the detailed regulations setting out the requirements for amalgamation and potential exemptions for temporary membership.

The legislation does not go far enough to address the concerns of clubs and their patrons. As the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Upper Hunter, pointed out in another place, there are still question marks about section 41J, which he says increases the burden of red tape on clubs in the sale of assets. As I said, there is a degree of discomfort about the fact that the industry is being required to rely so much on regulations. That is in the context of the Government bringing this legislation forward in the dying days of this Parliament and leaving dozens of crucial elements to be dealt with in the regulations, when they are eventually introduced.

The Opposition has a couple of concerns about some of the drafting provisions, for example, the change in the definition of "top executive" in a club. As the shadow Minister in another place said, as some clubs in New South Wales have just a handful of employees and some have only one, the regulations must take into account the flexibility the community requires of its clubs and avoid unnecessarily encumbering the employees and volunteers who support clubs in this State. The legislation also consolidates a number of financial reporting requirements, one of which is aimed at increasing transparency in the awarding of contracts by requiring disclosure of gifts and remuneration. That provision appears to be a little limited, in that it does not seem to cover potential or prospective contracts as well as those that are already in place. The bill increases the supervision and standard of prospective club board members. I know that the clubs support that measure; they are very pleased that the standard of board members will now be beyond reproach.

The other major provision in the bill, which is welcomed by all of us, is the provision for Defence Force personnel to acquire honorary club membership. That provision recognises the service, contribution and dedication that run throughout Australia's Armed Forces, including the thousands of reservists who are a continual source of pride for all Australians. The legislation therefore meets some of the needs of New South Wales clubs. Having commenced work on this legislation as early as May this year, it is a pity that the Government has not been able to deal with the outstanding issues and, in particular, has had to leave so much to the regulations. Importantly, however, the relaxation of the club amalgamation rules will assist struggling clubs to remain viable, and to continue to support and provide services to the communities they serve. In those circumstances the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.01 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Registered Clubs Amendment Bill. The bill has been introduced after extensive consultation with the New South Wales club industry. In June 2006 the Government and ClubsNSW formed the Clubs Industry Working Group, bringing together representatives from the Minister's office, ClubsNSW, highly experienced club chief executive officers, the Premier's Office, and the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing. Obviously it was required that that step be taken. As we know, the controversy over the massive increase in poker machine taxes sent many clubs bankrupt and many others to the wall. As honourable members are aware, the clubs launched an anti-Labor Government campaign and threatened to run that campaign during the next State election. Obviously the Government has seen it as a priority to restore its relationship with the club industry. That can only be good for the people of this State, given that clubs now perform such an important role in that they have become basically the community centre in many suburbs and towns.

The bill includes a number of measures that will improve club organisation and activities, cut red tape, and help sustain the club industry into the future. I hope the legislation achieves that aim. Wherever I travel throughout the State I continue to hear from club officials how difficult they are finding the situation financially because of the high taxation on poker machines, even with the adjustments the Government has made. The bill provides that clubs will now be required to use an accredited independent returning officer when electing club directors. I believe that is an important provision. Many clubs have become very large and occupy extensive real estate. In recent years many clubs have built attractive club buildings for their members and are now virtually large businesses. As a result, there is now some competition for people to become club directors. There could even be a temptation for people to try to manipulate a club election. It is therefore important that an accredited independent returning officer be appointed through the Government.
The Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing will be responsible for accrediting private sector organisations to provide the function of the independent returning officer. The use of an accredited independent returning officer will be compulsory for clubs with more than 10,000 members but will be optional for clubs with fewer than 10,000 members. The State Electoral Office has been consulted on the bill and strongly supports the new approach. I wondered why the State Electoral Office was not in charge of this election process, in that a division of the electoral office could provide officers to supervise club elections. As we know, the State Electoral Office supervises a large number of elections held throughout the State, including parliamentary elections. It also supervises the elections of trade unions and other bodies. I believe it would be consistent to have used the State Electoral Office to supervise elections of club directors.

The State Electoral Office may not want that responsibility, and I assume that is why it has not been proposed. However, it creates a whole new organisation of accredited independent returning officers. I imagine their fees will be charged to the clubs. What their fees will be and how much time they will spend supervising elections will have to be determined, as well as whether they will be employed to supervise the election process only for the duration of the election or from the time the election is announced. Perhaps the Government could indicate the role of those returning officers, whether it is simply to supervise the count when nominations close or whether they will supervise the process of the election to ensure that it is transparent and above criticism and that there is no corruption in the process. The bill provides that new club directors will be required to receive a pre-election education package. This is a positive move forward. However, the directors must be required to read the package, or view it if it is provided as a DVD.

I find one aspect of the bill puzzling. Clubs will be able to apply to reduce the number of club members who must be full-voting members from a majority—or 50 per cent plus one member—to no less than 25 per cent of the total membership. This will be subject to the agreement of club members and an application to the Director of Liquor and Gaming. However, we would have the unusual situation of a person being a full member of a club and paying the membership fees but not being allowed to vote. This may cause some tension within clubs, because a club may have 10,000 members but only 2,000 or 5,000 of those members will be eligible to vote. Who will make the decision as to which members will be able to vote? The provision has the potential to cause some controversy within clubs.

One of the positive aspects of the bill, and which I support because of discussions I have had with various clubs, is that it will provide greater flexibility for clubs seeking to dispose of or lease club land and property while maintaining transparency and probity standards. Many clubs have large areas of land, which may not be required for future expansion of the club. A club may have an area that was once a bowling green but the club no longer requires the bowling green because its members are no longer interested in playing bowls. Rather than have that unused land, it may be possible for the land to be sold. A club may own an out-of-date racing track that is no longer required. The club could dispose of that property but maintain the core property to ensure the viability of the club.

The bill reduces current restrictions on club amalgamations to allow for an increased number of amalgamations between clubs. It also requires a club wanting to amalgamate with a principal club to explore all avenues of amalgamation from other clubs within a 50-kilometre radius. The bill improves the interpretation of the five-kilometre rule for clubs whose location makes the application of the rule problematic. An example has been cited of people who live on the other side of the river, which is some kilometres from the club by road but is less than five kilometres as the crow flies. It has been asked whether that distance is measured by road travel or as the crow flies.

Serving defence personnel will have automatic honorary membership of RSL, service clubs and other registered clubs, whose aims and objectives include reference to active or ex-active service men and women. That is a very positive move. Again, the question is, how will it operate? Will there be application forms they have to sign that will indicate they come within those categories? Will there be some procedure to avoid any embarrassment of an ex-service man or woman wanting to use the facilities of the club and being told there is no record of the person's name. There must be some way in which that can be maintained, particularly for persons visiting the clubs. We support this bill, especially as the Government claims it will reduce red tape. I hope that is the case.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.10 p.m.]: The Greens have serious concerns about this bill. It is another rushed bill. The Legislative Review Committee has not had a chance to analyse it; nor has it had time to seek advice from community groups. The first time we heard about the bill was at a briefing on Tuesday. The second reading speech states that this bill will "cut red tape"—obviously a bit of rhetoric to appeal to people. But some of the tape that is being cut in this bill was tape put in place to ensure that fair and open processes were followed.

The Greens are particularly concerned about the so-called greater flexibility given to clubs seeking to dispose of club land. The Greens are concerned that the proposed changes will make it easier for clubs to sell off land or property to developers without clear and open procedures being followed. We are concerned about the division that this bill creates between "core" and "non-core" properties. It is noted that a definition of "core property' is to be included, but that this will include "any facility used by club members". This is a broad definition and it is not clear what is meant.

Exemptions to the disposal requirements are also problematic. Existing laws mean that a transparent process must be followed before any property is sold. These include an independent valuation, public auction or open tender process, and the approval of club members. Why should there be changes to this process? Surely, if it is in the interests of the club to sell the land, the members would agree and a transparent valuation and sale process would apply. Defining a property as "non-core" and then selling it via a private treaty to an interested party sounds like legislating for an underhand process. It goes against the existing transparent regulations.

The Greens are concerned also about moves to increase allowable club amalgamations. This bill increases from four to 10 the number of allowable club amalgamations. That is an increase of 150 per cent. While acknowledging the need to support smaller clubs, the Greens are concerned that this number of amalgamations could simply increase the power of larger clubs. We are already seeing that trend. I have heard about it at my local club, Easts, and I am sure members have heard about other clubs.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Are you a member?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, I am actually.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I belong to Wests.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Lee is a bit of a silvertail.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: She is an eastern suburbs rich person; I'm from the poor suburbs.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I often see Mr Debnam down at Bondi Beach.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: What about the MLC for Vaucluse, Mr Roozendaal?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: He's also a bit of a character, isn't he? The existing limitations were put in place to ensure clubs did not get too big and to ensure they did not lose touch with their community. These concerns still exist and are important considerations. We are also concerned that clubs could use this bill to get around laws that limit the number of poker machines in these clubs. These rules have been put in place, and they are fairly moderate in what they do, but they do put limits on the number of pokies in our clubs, and that is very important.

Section 12 of the Gaming Machines Act limits the number of gaming machines in registered clubs to 450. I would hope by anybody's standards that would be enough. But the rules are different for large-scale clubs. The Greens are concerned that this bill will be used by clubs to amalgamate and push them into the large-scale club category and in doing so increase the number of poker machines they can have on their premises. I would like the Minister to respond to this concern in his reply. Many clubs play an important role as community-focused organisations. It is important that clubs not only represent but also involve their members. We do not support moves in this bill that would marginalise members from important decisions about the future of clubs under the guise of getting rid of red tape.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.15 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Registered Clubs Amendment Bill. As has been observed in this debate, the bill will introduce measures that will support the ongoing viability of registered clubs while protecting the rights of club members. It also provides practical solutions that reduce the compliance burdens of clubs. These are sensible and timely reforms and result from the Government and clubs working together embodied in the Club Industry Working Group. I turn now to matters raised during the debate.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile commented on the election. In order to address the concerns of club members and to provide greater consistency in the way elections are conducted, the club industry has sought changes to the election process. It is essential that the club election process is transparent. The proposed changes in the bill will make it mandatory for registered clubs with more than 10,000 members to use accredited independent returning officers for the conduct of elections for members of the governing body of those registered clubs. The requirement for an independent returning officer will be optional for clubs with 10,000 members or less, and a set of rules or procedures will be developed to help these clubs conduct elections. The State Electoral Office, the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing and club industry representatives will be involved in developing the procedures. This new approach to club elections will provide benefits for club members and the club industry. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. Henry Tsang tabled the following paper:

Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Report of the Institute of Psychiatry for the year ended 30 June 2006.

Ordered to be printed.

Bills received.

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

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.20 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Della Bosca: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Opera House gives so much to Sydney and Australia but it is surprisingly difficult for individuals and businesses to give something back to this great institution.

By amending the Charitable Trusts Act this Bill makes it easier for the community to support the Opera House.

Charitable trusts are the legal vehicles that allow individuals, families and corporations to make philanthropic donations. Charitable trusts have a range of tax benefits under Commonwealth income tax law: the trusts themselves are exempt from income tax, and donations to charitable trusts are tax deductible.

The value of grants made by Australian charitable trusts cannot be accurately measured, as there is no public reporting requirement and such figures are not collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. However, it is estimated that the 220 PPFs established by 2004 held around $300 million under investment for future distribution. The entire Australian philanthropic sector (made up of over 1200 trusts and foundations) is estimated to distribute up to $500 million a year to charities.
A PPF is established in accordance with Commonwealth tax legislation. It is a charitable trust to which businesses, families and individuals can make tax-deductible donations. The PPF can only give gifts to deductible gift recipients or DGRs. DGRs are listed in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Generally, DGRs have charitable purposes and functions, or perform work that is of benefit to the public.

Ancillary funds are another class of charitable trusts that are active in the philanthropic area. They were first established in the 1960s. An ancillary fund is a type of public philanthropic trust fund that effectively acts as a conduit or intermediary between:

• Members of the public who make tax deductible donations to it; and
• DGRs to whom, in its discretion, it passes on the funds or makes donations from time to time.

However an ancillary fund is not permitted to carry on any direct charitable activities.

The Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 originally only allowed tax exemptions where a PPF or an ancillary fund made gifts to DGRs that were charities. This meant that bodies such as the Sydney Opera House Trust and the Powerhouse Museum could not receive gifts from PPFs or ancillary funds, because they are not charities at law due to their connection with government.

In 2005, the Commonwealth amended the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow a PPF or an ancillary fund to donate to any DGR, regardless of whether the DGR is a charity.

However, the trust deeds of most PPFs and ancillary funds do not allow the trustees to donate to bodies that are not charitable at law. If the trustees make grants to bodies that are not considered charitable at law, then the trustees are technically in breach of their trust deeds.

Trustees are generally unable to alter the trust deeds to widen the list of potential donees so as to reflect the new tax arrangements. This is frustrating for the trustees of a number of PPFs and ancillary funds who would like to be able to give to a wider range of DGRs including bodies such as the Opera House or the Powerhouse Museum.

This Bill will give trustees of existing and future PPFs and ancillary funds (referred to in the Bill as "prescribed trusts"), the power to give to any DGR recognised by the Commonwealth legislation. These DGRs are referred to in the Bill as "eligible recipients".

The Bill will allow the trust instruments of new prescribed trusts to contain a power to give to eligible recipients.

The Bill also expands the distribution power of existing prescribed trusts to give to DGRs. However it does not authorise a prescribed trust to make grants that are inconsistent with specific prohibitions in their trust deeds on the making of grants to certain kinds of bodies.

Before trustees of existing prescribed trusts can exercise the additional powers given in the Bill, the trustees will have to execute a deed declaring that the new law will apply to it. This should ensure that trustees consider the tax and legal implications of 'opting in' to the new provisions.

The bill prescribes the form of such a deed to ensure the decision of the trustees is recorded with certainty. The prescribed form will also help trustees with the administrative aspects of 'opting in', as the A TO will require documentation of the decision of the trustees. The deed or a certified copy will need to be kept with the records of the trust.

The Bill makes it clear that even though a prescribed fund can give to a body that is not charitable at law, this will not affect its status as a charitable trust. This is important as these bodies must continue to remain subject to the Charitable Trusts Act 1993 and to the general charity law. The Supreme Court's supervisory role is also expressly preserved.

The bill also validates grants made by prescribed funds to DGRs before the commencement of the bill. This is important, as some trustees may have inadvertently breached their trust deeds by making donations to DGRs that are not charities such as arts institutions.

I stress that the bill will not change the legal meaning of 'charities' or 'charitable at law' for any purpose other than to extend the distribution powers of PPFs and ancillary funds, while maintaining their charitable status. I would also like to stress that the Bill does not require the trustees of a PPF or an ancillary fund to adopt the additional power, to include the power in new trust deeds, or to give to any particular DGR.

The problem that we are addressing in this legislation is not unique to New South Wales. Victoria recently enacted similar legislation to address this problem.

This legislation will be important for the many organisations in this State that rely on donations to carry out their activities. It reflects the government's commitment to facilitating philanthropy in New South Wales.

I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [6.20 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill. This important bill deals with charities and philanthropic enterprises, which play an important part in our society—in fact they play a pivotal part in our society. Many people contribute to them and many people gain assistance from them. Indeed, if charities and philanthropic enterprises did not exist, it is hard to see how government would fill the vacuum. The cost to government would be immense. Therefore, any legislation that regulates enterprises that have charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes is important, and governments need to provide a legal framework in which such enterprises can operate efficiently and effectively, and to the continuing benefit of the community.
In essence, the overall purpose of the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill is to allow trustees of charitable trusts to make gifts to prescribed philanthropic organisations even though they are not a registered charity. This will help harmonise State law with Federal law because presently charitable trusts are precluded under State law from providing donations for non-charitable philanthropic purposes, whereas under Federal law such donations to prescribed philanthropic purposes gain a tax deductibility. The bill before us has a worthy purpose because it will enable charitable trusts to make donations to bodies such as the Sydney Opera House, which are not registered as a charity but have a non-profit philanthropic purpose that serves the community.

Currently in New South Wales charitable organisations are regulated by the Charitable Trusts Act 1993, which prohibits trustees of charitable trusts making gifts for non-charitable purposes. This position will change with the passage of the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill, which will, as the overview to the bill states, amend the Charitable Trusts Act 1993 so as to enable the trustees of certain kinds of trusts to make gifts to eligible recipients even though the recipients are not charitable at law. The bill confirms that under current law trustees of a charitable trust cannot make gifts for non-charitable purposes. It clarifies that the trusts to which the amendments relate are referred to in item 2 of the table in section 30-15 of the Income-Tax Assessment Act 1997, a Commonwealth Act, and are known as prescribed private funds and ancillary funds.

This covers a particular class of trusts that are philanthropic in nature, and gifts made by them to eligible recipients are tax deductible. The regulations may extend the kinds of trusts to which the new provisions apply. An eligible recipient is defined as a deductible gift recipient within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. This includes entities that are not technically charitable at law, such as entities with a connection to government, for example, the Sydney Opera House Trust. A long-term effect of this bill will be to encourage the establishment of private foundations on the American model. As I indicated earlier, the Opposition sees this bill as having a worthy purpose. The State has many private philanthropic enterprises, which, although not having the legal status of the charity, nevertheless contribute to the enrichment and betterment of our society.

Most of these philanthropic enterprises, and their good works, would not exist without private financial support but the bill we are presently considering will serve, in a substantial way, to secure their continued existence. One matter of concern to the Opposition is the hasty manner in which the bill appears to have been prepared and brought before us. Although the New South Wales Law Society was asked by the Attorney General for its comments, very little time was made available to it to consider the bill and to make recommendations. However, in the very limited time made available to it, the Law Society proposed a number of important corrections and amendments to the bill, some of which have been taken on board by the Government.

I do not propose to traverse those amendments and suggestions of the Law Society rejected and ignored by the Government; that has already been done by the shadow Attorney General, Chris Hartcher, in the other place. What I want to say, however, is that it does not reflect to the credit of this Government when bills are presented to Parliament before there has been sufficient time for consultation with interested parties. Is it too much to expect that interested parties are given sufficient time for to fully evaluate bills and to offer a response? And is it too much to expect the Government to allow Parliament sufficient time to consider legislation instead of members being faced with this end-of-year fiasco during which bills are rammed through without sufficient time for proper consideration by Parliament?

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [6.25 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party to the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill. Probably no other bill that has come before the House has given me greater pleasure to speak about because I have been involved, as I will indicate, for the last several years working with the Federal Government to make this legislation appropriate in the various States. The object of the bill is to amend the Charitable Trusts Act 1993 to enable trustees of charitable trusts to make gifts to eligible recipients even though the recipients are not charitable at law. As honourable members may know, I have spent my whole life involved in charitable activities and organisations.

Australians are giving more than ever before to charities. In 1996-97 the Prime Minister set up the Community Business Partnership, on which I was invited to be a board member. I retain my board membership of that partnership until this day. Board members meet regularly from across Australia to seek to encourage giving by individual Australians and businesses to charities. Under the chairmanship of Mr David Gonski, the partnership became involved in a very long-running taxation issue with the current Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, as a result of which ways were found to change the Commonwealth Taxation Act to support charitable giving to various philanthropies.
We produced a report entitled "Giving Australia: Research on Philanthropy in Australia" and found that in 2004 the value of individual giving was $5.7 billion, an increase of 88 per cent since 1997 when the Community Business Partnership was established and I became a board member. That is an astonishing amount of money and it indicates the generous and open spirit of our people. We are all very aware that in times of crisis, such as a bushfire or a tsunami, Australians are very generous of heart. But we wanted to do more than make just charitable gifts on odd occasions. We wanted to set up ways in which organisations, companies, individuals and communities could give on a regular basis to help community developments. The Prime Minister's Community Business Partnership has been very successful in that regard.

The report made a number of key findings, and I would like to refer to some of those findings as they specifically outline the manner in which the level at which individuals and businesses have given to worthy causes. It is because of this that this bill is before the House. We needed to amend the law in each of the States to bring them into line with the new Commonwealth taxation provisions and the opportunities for companies and corporations to give. About 10.5 million Australians lend their support annually by participating in raffles, lotteries and fundraising events, which provides about $2 billion to worthy causes. Approximately 87 per cent of all adult Australians—equivalent to 13.4 million people—donate an average of $424 each throughout a year.

Business giving has more than doubled since 2000-01. Businesses were a primary aim of the members of the Prime Minister's Community Business Partnership because we felt there was much that businesses and corporations could do to help in the charitable section of our community. As I said, business giving has doubled in the past five or six years, with more than 500,000 businesses—in other words, 67 per cent of all businesses and corporations in Australia—giving $3.3 billion in money, goods and services during 2003-04. Melbourne and Sydney were responsible for nearly half of all the individual donations—47 per cent—but Adelaide had the highest giving rate, with donations from more than 90 per cent of all of its adults. On another note, the number of hours donated by volunteers has risen 16 per cent since 2000, with 41 per cent of adult Australians volunteering some 800 million hours per annum.

These extraordinary and compelling facts reinforce the idea that Australians are a generous people. We have often spoken of the fact that philanthropy has become a way of business and individual life in the United States of America. However, one reason Australians are able to give so liberally is that legal platforms have been established by both the Federal and State governments to facilitate that giving. As I said, under the chairmanship of David Gonski, I headed a special task force to see how we could change the Federal tax law. That was successfully done, and now we want each State to bring its laws into line with that of the Commonwealth. The Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill is the direct outcome of the work we put into action from 1997 until recently.

The introduction by the Federal Government of further tax initiatives to encourage giving has greatly assisted the plight of many commendable causes. One tax initiative was the 2005 amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow a prescribed private fund [PPF] or an ancillary fund to donate to any deductible gift recipient, regardless of whether or not it is a charity. These PPFs or ancillary funds and deductible gift recipients are all covered under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. However, I will make some brief remarks about each of these entities for the purpose of this speech.

Deductible gift recipients, known as DGRs, are entities that generally have charitable purposes and functions. Some DGRs may be philanthropic rather than charitable in nature. Although both philanthropic and charitable organisations have merit-worthy purposes and are of benefit to society in different respects, they must be distinguished. Prescribed private funds are charitable trusts whose sole purpose is to give funds to DGRs. These vehicles were established in 2001 and have become one of the most effective ways to vest gifts and donations. I am absolutely amazed how the change to the tax Act to allow prescribed funds to be established has become so successful in the Australian community.

PPFs as they are more commonly known have been on the increase. Recent statistics indicate that as of November 2005 there were 312 such funds established by the Government. Indeed, 340 PPFs have been established since 2001. These funds now have a corpus under investment of more than $334 million and have made grants of $52 million to other charitable organisations. If honourable members are not sure about what a PPF looks like, I only have to mention names like the Myer Foundation, the Clitheroe Foundation—Paul Clitheroe made his money writing books and talking about finance on television—and the Greaterox Foundation, which was established by a close friend, Dr David Greaterox.

Ancillary funds, which have existed since the 1960s, are another type of charitable trust. An ancillary fund is a type of public philanthropic trust fund that acts as a conduit between members of the public who make tax deductible donations to it and certain DGRs. Much of my early life when I came to Sydney 30 years ago was spent back in Melbourne, which was the philanthropic centre of Australia. Every three months I would knock on the doors of various companies in Collins Street, because they were the headquarters of most charitable entities in Australia. I would introduce myself and request funds to support the charitable work at Wesley Mission in Sydney. I found the Melbourne companies most generous. However, this has become a national issue; it is no longer an issue only in Collins Street, Melbourne.

The Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 originally allowed tax exemptions only when a PPF or ancillary fund made gifts to DGRs that were charities. The Prime Minister's Community Business Partnership board discussed this at great length because many fine organisations that are not charities still need the charitable dollar. This was not a fight among charities; it was a fight to expand the interests of Australians in supporting all kinds of philanthropic and charitable work. Honourable members may not know that all DGRs are charities although they may have a philanthropic role at heart. For example, the Sydney Opera House Trust is not a charity. The Powerhouse Museum would not be able to receive gifts from ancillary funds or PPFs because it is not a charity although it is a DGR.

With the 2005 changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow PPFs and ancillary funds to make donations to DGRs regardless of their status—whether or not they are a benevolent charity, that is, giving individual support to individual people who need benevolence—changes would need to be made to the trust deeds of PPFs and ancillary funds in all States to allow such donations to occur and to give a tax benefit to companies and donors. This is because the trust deeds of most PPFs and ancillary funds do not allow the trustees to donate to entities that are not charitable at law. We had to overcome that hurdle, and this amendment bill will overcome that problem. If trustees make donations in accordance with these amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, they are likely to be in breach of their duties as a trustee.

Generally, trustees are unable to enlarge the net of potential donees and thus are hindered in being able to donate to non-charity DGRs. This charitable trust amendment will overcome that problem. This bill will give trustees of existing and future PPFs and ancillary funds, referred to in the bill as "prescribed trusts", the power to give to any DGR recognised by the Commonwealth legislation. Under the bill, these DGRs will be referred to as "eligible recipients". An eligible recipient is defined as a "deductible gift recipient within the meaning of the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act 1997". This includes entities that are not technically charitable at law, such as entities with a connection to the Government.

The bill will allow the trust instruments of new prescribed trusts to contain a power to give to those recipients and the distribution power of existing prescribed trusts to give to DGRs. Importantly, in cases where the trust deed expressly prohibits the provision by trustees of funds to an eligible recipient, the amendments will not violate that intention.

I conclude simply by saying that the Australian philanthropic sector, made up of more than 1,200 trusts and foundations, is estimated to distribute about $500 million a year to various charities. With the amendments brought about by this bill we will witness increasing funds provided for philanthropic purposes. I look forward to the positive benefits that will be brought about by this bill, which brings New South Wales into line with the law in other States and federally. On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I have a great deal of pleasure—and indeed on behalf of the Prime Minister's Community Business Partnership I have some pride—in commending this bill to the House.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.40 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.41 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment (Criminal Charges and Convictions) Bill 2006 will ensure that members the subject of criminal charges will be treated in exactly the same way in relation to superannuation, regardless of whether they remain in Parliament or cease to be a member prior to being convicted of a serious offence. As the second reading speech is lengthy and it has already been delivered in the other place, I seek leave to incorporate the balance of my remarks in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The New South Wales Government considers that this bill will address legitimate community concerns which have arisen in relation to the issue of access to superannuation by former Members of Parliament who cease to be a Member while criminal charges are pending.

The Government has since last week been taking advice on the Government's options to address the issue of superannuation entitlements for Members facing serious criminal charges.

This legislation will ensure that Members who are the subject of charges for an offence carrying a gaol term of five years or more will not have access to their publicly funded superannuation until the conclusion of those proceedings.

This will apply regardless of whether or not the Member remains in Parliament to face those charges.

As the law currently stands, if a Member continues to sit in the Parliament and is found guilty of an offence punishable by five years or more imprisonment, their seat is vacated under section 13A of the Constitution Act.

Section 19(7) of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act currently provides that a Member whose seat is vacated, loses their entitlement to the taxpayer funded part of their benefits from the Parliamentary superannuation scheme.

All these Members receive is a refund of their own contributions.

One way in which Members can avoid the operation of this provision is by resigning from Parliament before criminal charges are finalised.

There is considerable public disquiet as to whether this is appropriate.

There is a very strong argument that a Member who ceases to be a Member, and who is ultimately convicted of charges which were pending at the time he resigned, should be in no better a position in relation to their superannuation entitlements than a member who remains in Parliament while the charges are dealt with.

The bill provides that where a Member is facing criminal charges at the time when he or she ceases to be a Member, their entitlement to a superannuation benefit will be suspended.

This entitlement will be suspended pending resolution of the criminal charges.

The normal entitlements of the Member will be restored at the completion of any legal proceedings if there is an acquittal or the charges are withdrawn.

If the charges are proven and the former Member is convicted, there will no longer be any entitlement to the publicly funded part of the superannuation benefit.

A convicted former Member will receive a refund of the contributions which have been deducted from their salary.

This bill will address a significant anomaly in the superannuation legislation.

It will ensure that community concern regarding access to publicly funded superannuation entitlements in cases where serious criminal wrong doing is involved are addressed.

It should also be noted that the bill includes amendments which provide that section 4 of the Act does not apply in respect of this bill. section 4 provides that the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal must approve amendments to this Act.

Section 4 was originally inserted as a check to ensure that MPs do not consider amendments which might benefit them without first having those amendments independently reviewed by the Tribunal.

While the Government has sought the relevant approval, the Tribunal has indicated that it wishes to have more time to consider the matter.

Of course, these changes are clearly not intended to benefit Members. Given the urgency of this matter, the Government considers it appropriate that the bill proceeds without the need for an approval form the Tribunal.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [6.42 p.m.]: Tonight I give the Opposition's support for this bill. It is important to point out that we are very sad about the reasons this bill has been introduced, and we do not want to impede its progress through the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.42 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment (Criminal Charges and Convictions) Bill, the object of which is:

… to amend the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1971 to provide the same disqualification from receiving a pension if the person ceases to be a member while relevant serious offence proceedings are pending and is later convicted. In addition, the former member's pension under that Act is suspended while any such criminal proceedings are pending, but the suspension is lifted if the proceedings do not lead to a conviction for the offence.

Honourable members know the background to this legislation. It has arisen out of some controversy and from challenges directed at the Government. I wonder whether it is absolutely necessary; it has not been necessary for the past 150 years. However, we accept that in the current climate this bill is the best way to allay community concerns. We support it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.44 p.m.]: It should go without saying that bills should be based on careful analysis and research, not rushed through in response to a media circus—especially when such bills deal with such important matters as the presumption of innocence and workers entitlements. The media has been talking about this bill all week, but I got my hands on the bill only this afternoon. I imagine the same would apply for all members of this House except those on the Government benches. This is no way to make a significant change to the law, and the swirl of the Orkopoulos scandal is no time to make a significant change to the law.

At this point members need to take a step back from the media circus and think carefully about the proposals in this bill. The bill might as well be called the Orkopoulos bill. Emotions are running high in this place at the moment. The Greens are concerned that the bill is essentially a reactive move in response to a politically damaging situation for the Labor Government. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Debnam, is trying to score political points out of the Orkopoulos business. Premier Iemma has dutifully responded by bringing on this bill in an attempt to hose down the scandal. These same slippery principles were seen on the question of bail for Mr Orkopoulos. Premier Iemma and Mr Debnam would usually be the first to call for alleged child-sex offenders to be refused bail, but on this occasion they were unusually, but interestingly, quiet.

The Greens believe that members of Parliament should be held to a very high level of accountability. It is a key plank in our campaign for open and accountable government. Members' accountability is necessary to maintain public confidence in Parliament. The Greens do not want to see a member, charged with a serious offence, resign before conviction, cash out his or her superannuation in bulk and spend the funds before a conviction is recorded. If a loophole persists, we need to debate how to close it without undermining important legal principles and rights—particularly the principle of innocent before guilt is proven.

The House has not been given enough time to analyse the bill and weigh up this important equation. We are concerned that the bill is the thin edge of the wedge, that it potentially condones the taking away of workers rights and entitlements before someone is convicted of an offence. We are concerned that the bill is a dangerous step towards undermining the presumption of innocence—a fundamental building block of society based on the rule of law. Mr Orkopoulos may be guilty of terrible offences and, if he is found guilty, we will all condemn the alleged actions and the abuse of power that they represent. However, Mr Orkopoulos may be found not guilty. Accordingly, like all citizens, he should be entitled to the presumption of innocence. Moves to take away his superannuation at a time when he has only been charged—but not yet convicted—bumps up against that principle.

The taking away of parliamentary superannuation from a member of Parliament convicted of a crime is a complex question. A parliamentary pension is an accrued employee entitlement payable in lieu of a superannuation benefit. If a politician is convicted of a serious offence involving corruption or misuse of office, I can see very good reasons to take away the pension, in addition to the usual criminal penalties: corrupt acts by people who hold public office must be dealt with thoroughly. However, serious offences unrelated to corruption or misuse of office already have attached to them very significant penalties that represent what the community believes the punishment should be for such offences. In Mr Orkopoulos' case, if he is found guilty, he will face a long prison sentence. That is the punishment the law sets. But it is another question entirely whether his workers entitlements should be taken away as well.

The Greens do not want a situation in which members of Parliament can make off with their taxpayer-funded superannuation when they have abused their position and have been convicted of a serious offence. But neither do we want a knee-jerk tabloid bill. There are important legal and industrial relations principles at stake here, and this is a heated, and I think irresponsible, time to have a rational debate about such a bill. The bill should be deferred until 2007 when we can give it the clear consideration that is warranted.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Before I call the next speaker, I advise that I am mindful of the need to ensure that debate continues within the rules of sub judice previously set down by Presidents in this place. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice states:

Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate, subject to the right of the House to legislate on any issue.

All members contributing to this debate should bear that advice in mind.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.50 p.m.]: I support the remarks made by my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon. I do believe that this is an appalling example of tabloid lawmaking. The presumption of innocence appears to have been jettisoned by both Labor and Liberal as each party tries to appear the most hairy chested to satisfy the baying tabloid mob. The making of laws should be done in a coolheaded and objective way, not in such a tabloid media driven frenzy. Making laws in haste does not give time to consider unintended consequences and thus it can lead to the making of bad laws. As the adage goes, marry in haste, repent at leisure: legislate in haste and repent at leisure. In attempting to examine this bill it is appropriate for everyone to step back from the current situation and consider the bill on its objective merits.

The bill appears to be an attempt to address the fact that a member of Parliament facing serious charges will lose his or her entitlements if they are convicted while still a member of Parliament but can keep them if convicted after resigning from Parliament. That is the issue I assume the bill is attempting to deal with. But I put it to the House that the current legislation provides an incentive to any member of Parliament facing serious charges to resign from the Parliament. If the bill is passed it will remove that incentive. In fact, there is a greater incentive for the member to remain in the Parliament until convicted so as to continue to gather a parliamentary salary while awaiting trial. We all must be aware of the considerable legal costs involved in being tried for a serious criminal charge. So rather than such a member being encouraged to resign under the current arrangements, as we have seen in the recent example, the member will be encouraged to stay on. I ask members to think of the consequences of that. Do the Liberal and Labor parties really want to provide an incentive to someone facing serious charges to continue to sit in the House, to participate in debates, to vote on laws, to continue to represent their constituents, to run their parliamentary office—to continue to function in every respect as a member of Parliament? Is that what they really want? That is what will be the upshot of this bill.

Perhaps I should put it in terms that both the Liberal and Labor parties might be more interested in. Do either of them really want to go to an election with a sitting member facing serious charges? We could perhaps suggest that the recent departure of a member of this Parliament was brought about primarily by a desire of his party not to be in that situation, not to be carrying the burden of someone who, as a member of your party and as an elected representative, is continuing to operate in that position. The unintended consequence of the bill will be to encourage any person facing serious charges to continue as a member of Parliament. This is simply one of what I assume are the unintended consequences. Because the bill has been pushed through in a rush, solely as a response to the media frenzy, no-one has paused and thought about whether there are other consequences. These are issues that obviously should be considered in the cool light of day with some level of objectivity and not in the current overheated environment. I join with my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon in saying that the bill should not be proceeded with now; it should be held off until the new session in 2007 when it can be considered on its merits, the implications can be thought through, and a rational rather than a media-driven result can be the outcome.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [6.54 p.m.]: Like the previous two speakers, I oppose the bill. I think it has been prepared in a rush without proper consideration of its implications for the justice system, for the rights of the press to publish material prior to trial, and for the accused in this case, Mr Orkopoulos. Madam Deputy-President, I was interested to hear your remarks about sub judice. But I wonder in this case just what else remains to be said that has not already been published in the press, particularly in the Daily Telegraph, which included a whole page of the full police brief of evidence. I cannot recall a case in which the press has gone so far in publishing material available in the prosecution case against a person facing serious charges.

The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment (Criminal Charges and Convictions) Bill is misconceived policy. It reminds me of former Labor leader Mark Latham's sole contribution to public life when he persuaded Prime Minister Howard to scrap the old parliamentary contributory superannuation scheme. If anybody in the private sector or the union movement was subjected to arbitrary slashing of their pay and work conditions there would be an uproar. I could not help smiling today during question time to hear the Treasurer defending the rights of workers, including their superannuation entitlements. Yet here we have a clear case of a worker whose entitlements—which have nothing to do with the charges that he is facing; they are work entitlements—are being summarily removed by this House with a hastily drafted piece of legislation. Because we are workers who also happen to be MPs, not only are we pilloried and maligned for our contributions to public life but our pay and conditions can be cut on a whim in the name of policy. The Mark Latham initiative cost members affected by it around $40,000 a year. This bill will cost not Mr Orkopoulos but his family something in the order of $60,000 a year. The summary removal of entitlements and rights of workers is unprecedented in my experience.

The bill robs the family of pay and entitlements that have nothing whatsoever to do with the allegations against Mr Orkopoulos. It is the family who are the real victims of the allegations, yet the bill seeks to punish the family as if they were somehow responsible for what has happened. Last night I attended three separate functions and at each people spoke to me about this legislation proposing to remove the superannuation entitlements of Mr Orkopoulos. On each occasion people described what they referred to as an injustice: taking money away from the dependent family of a member of Parliament, or any other worker for that matter. The harsh reality is that if the drugs and sex allegations are true, Mr Orkopoulos will be either dead or serving a lengthy jail term while his family will be destitute. The family has no independent income and no means of support other than Centrelink payments. If Mr Orkopoulos is successful in defending the allegations against him the bill provides that his superannuation entitlements will revive. But that will occur many years down the track when the appeal processes are exhausted. Meanwhile, his family will be destitute and all the money in the world will not restore the security that they could otherwise have expected but for this bill.

I know nothing about the case against Mr Orkopoulos other than the material published in the press but there are serious questions just from that material about the ages of the two boys making the allegations and the issue of consent. By the time these questions are resolved Mr Orkopoulos's family will be in the poor house. It is so unfair to punish them in this way, on the run, hastily, without any proper consideration of the implications of this bill on not only Mr Orkopoulos but also other members of Parliament in the future who may even be retired from Parliament and receiving pension payments when they are the subject of allegations.

On a quick assessment of the bill, and given the small amount of time that we have had to consider it, I am not certain whether in future, if a member of Parliament were receiving pension benefits through the contributory superannuation scheme, under this bill those payments would be suspended if the member were to be subject to allegations of the kind mentioned in the legislation, that is, attracting sentences of five years or more. I think this is legislative policy on the run and I think it is grossly unfair on families. I can see that it has bipartisan support from the major parties on the basis that that is what they perceive the community wants, but I am not at all certain that the community thinks this is a fair proposal.

I am not at all certain about the extent to which material available from the police and prosecution has been published. I am not at all certain that Mr Orkopoulos can get a fair trial. In the event, for example, that a decision were made by a court that he could not get a fair trial, what effect would that have on the legislation? There is no provision for that in the legislation. This legislation, which has been hastily cobbled together, is inappropriate and, in my opinion, it should be deferred until further consideration is given to these issues.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [7.01 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats have difficulty with this issue because we support the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. Obviously, if somebody's normal income is suspended, that punishment effectively starts immediately. We are concerned that this is policy on the run in respect to a very emotional issue. There is no point in pretending that this legislation does not relate to Milton Orkopoulos. It might be noted that he made a suicide attempt and he is now in Newcastle hospital. It could be suggested that this bill was on his mind at the time. Some people might think that a paedophile deserves to commit suicide and to be that remorseful or anguished.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I caution the member against making further comments of the type he just made, which might prejudice the matter when it is before the courts.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: He only discussed the bill.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I am chairing this Chamber and I will not allow any breaches of the sub judice rules.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I withdraw my last remark.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Thank you.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: At one level politicians are expected to be an example and, at another level, many people are jealous of their superannuation schemes. Politics is certainly a far less attractive profession to leaders in our society than it was a long time ago. At that stage the cream of people were in politics. I think they would now go into business, as it is a less stressful and more lucrative profession. These complex issues must be discussed. In my view they should be discussed in a less heated and emotional environment than the one in which we find ourselves after such charges have been laid. I would prefer it if this legislation were deferred. The bill was introduced quickly because of populist opinion, which does not make for good legislation.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [7.03 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to debate on this important bill. I thank them also for the responsible way in which they conducted the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

That these 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 stand as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 7 to 10 postponed on motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [7.07 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Warragamba) Bill allows for a minor change to the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act to de-proclaim a portion of the Warragamba Special Area. As the speech is fairly lengthy and has been delivered in the other place, I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Sydney Water Catchment Management (Amendment) Bill allows for a minor change to the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act to de-proclaim a portion of the Warragamba Special Area.
The amendment is necessary as a Sydney Catchment Authority Special Area can only be repealed by an Act of Parliament. The change is important because it will allow the local council to access Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) land that could provide valuable recreational opportunities to the local community. It will also streamline regulatory process as this land is currently being regulated to protect water quality even though the land is downstream of any water storage facilities.

Special Areas are tracts of land adjacent to Sydney Catchment Authority's dams. The SCA regulates access and other activities on these lands to protect the quality of the water in the dam, or to maintain ecological integrity. Restrictions on access and activities in Special Areas only apply to land owned by the SCA or the Crown and do not apply to privately owned land.

When the Warragamba Special Area was proclaimed in 1942 it included the protection of a catchment area surrounding Warragamba Weir. The Weir was part of the Warragamba Emergency Supply Scheme built in the 1940s as an emergency measure during the 1934 to 1942 drought and it continued to be used during the construction of Warragamba Dam.

Warragamba Weir is downstream of Warragamba Dam and has since been decommissioned. This portion of the Warragamba Special Area is an historical legacy as the Weir is no longer used as a water supply source, and the area is outside the hydrological catchment because it no longer drains to any water supply.

Let me reassure you that there is no intention to de-proclaim any Special Area lands upstream of the Warragamba Dam wall as these lands form part of the hydrological catchment that drains into Lake Burragorang. These lands are vital for the protection of water quality in the lake and will remain Special Areas.

As I have mentioned, the bill has a very practical outcome as de-proclaiming this portion of the Warragamba Special Area means that the SCA can consider council's request to acquire an SCA picnic ground which is adjacent to the council's community recreation facilities.

The Council facilities include tennis courts and an oval. Council would then be in a position to be able to consider constructing a proposed community centre and to provide additional open space for community recreation activities. The aspirations of Council to provide additional facilities to the community are not possible under the current Special Areas classification.

As I raised earlier, de-proclaiming the Warragamba Special Area would also result in the removal of unnecessary regulation currently placed on the Warragamba community. The portion of the Warragamba Special Area to be de-proclaimed includes the townships of Warragamba and Silverdale. Special Area restrictions on access do not apply to privately owned land. However, some activities such as the operation of on-site sewage management systems and animal husbandry are regulated in Special Areas regardless of the ownership of the land, and this may have impacts for private landowners.

Under the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act access and other activity can be restricted by declaring a portion of land a Special Area because of its water quality or ecological value. The Act also allows for a Controlled Area classification. This classification places restrictions on access and other activities in order to protect SCA infrastructure. In this way, the areas containing SCA infrastructure are subject to the same regulation as Special Areas.

Where the bill de-proclaims Warragamba Special Area land, and that land contains SCA infrastructure, the land will be declared a Controlled Area. This will occur under the SCA's existing regulation-making powers ensuring continued restricted access to those lands containing infrastructure.

The bill de-proclaims a portion of the Warragamba Special Area but lands with infrastructure necessary for water supply purposes will continue to be protected under the same regulatory powers that apply to Special Areas. The de-proclamation in no way affects the Special Area that forms the hydrological catchment and protects the water supply.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [7.08 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Warragamba) Bill. When the Warragamba Special Area was proclaimed in 1942, it included the protection of the catchment area surrounding the Warragamba Weir. The weir was part of the emergency supply scheme that was built in the 1940s as an emergency measure after the 1934 to 1942 drought, and it continued to be used during the construction of the Warragamba Dam. Warragamba Weir, which is downstream of Warragamba Dam, has since been decommissioned. In other words, this portion of the Warragamba Special Area has an historical legacy because the weir is no longer used as a water supply source; that is, the area is outside the hydrological catchment because it no longer drains to any water supply.

In his second reading speech in the other place the Minister advised that he was aware that the honourable member for Camden supported the outcome of this bill for his local community. I know this local community fairly well, as I visit the area a fair bit. Warragamba, which is not a Labor Party town, has been neglected by Labor for the last 30 to 40 years. When I first had sight of the bill it appeared to me to be a noble bill. I do not think the Minister was being quite up front when he said he was aware that the honourable member for Camden supported the outcome of this bill for his local community, because after the March election this will no longer be in the electorate of the local member for Camden.

As honourable members know, the Government had some difficulty finding a candidate for the electorate of Wollondilly. Councillor Michael Banasik would have been a good candidate. He knows the area well and he would have been a good representative. However, he was shafted at the last minute so that the party could bring in a local celebrity candidate, Phil Costa. This legislation should be named the "Save Phil Costa Bill". The local branch of the Labor Party had no idea of the local backlash that would occur in response to the imposition of a local celebrity candidate rather than a well-established candidate. I stop short of saying that this is a bribe. It seems strange that the Government has neglected this traditional Labor town for so long and all of a sudden, just before the House rises, there has been a major party crisis. It now has a celebrity mayor who is a legend in his own mind already as its candidate. As a result, the Government has had to bribe the people of Warragamba. It is absolutely outrageous. The good people of Warragamba can be assured that when the Coalition wins government in March next year it will honour this bill—the save Phil Costa bill.

Mr IAN COHEN [7.12 p.m.]: I speak for the Greens on the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Warragamba) Bill, which deproclaims an area of 494 hectares of the Warragamba special area. I understand that this land is downstream of any of the hydrological catchment and it does not drain into any part of the catchment. It used to drain into Warragamba Weir, which has since been decommissioned. Special areas are used to preserve the integrity of the water supply. Deproclamation of a special area can only be done by an Act of Parliament. As this area will not drain to any part of the water supply, it would seem reasonable that it should be deproclaimed as it is sought by the local council for a community centre.

However, the Greens oppose the revocation of an area of the Warragamba special area consisting of the Warragamba Gorge downstream of the dam and west of the Warragamba River. These lands contain habitat for the brush tailed rock wallaby. Once the special area is revoked, the Sydney Catchment Authority would no longer be required to ensure the ecological integrity of these lands is maintained and restored, as provided for by section 44 of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998. I am advised that these lands were partly covered in rock waste from the construction of the Warragamba Dam side spillway and should be fully restored to ensure the wallaby habitat is enhanced.

Environment groups and the Greens would like to see lands to the left of the river, as viewed facing downstream, transferred to the Blue Mountains National Park to ensure continued protection of the wallaby habitat and protection of intact and regenerating bush land. The corporatisation of Snowy Hydro Limited required that the new corporation restore a number of waste heaps and spoil areas within the Kosciuszko National Park. The Sydney Catchment Authority should be required to restore the waste rock heap and ensure that it becomes suitable habitat for the rock wallaby and add the area to the Blue Mountains National Park. The Greens do not oppose this bill, but hope that honourable members will accept our amendment to exclude the section described earlier from the deproclamation.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [7.13 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Warragamba) Bill.

Mr Ian Cohen: And our amendment.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: The amendment sounds reasonable. We establish a wildlife nature reserve at the cost of Sydney Water. The object of this bill is to reduce in size an area of land at Warragamba that is a "special area" under the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998. More than a decade of hard and ingenious workmanship poured into the construction of Warragamba Dam. Construction of the dam began in 1948 in the area of Burragorang Valley. An area four times the size of Sydney Harbour was dammed for drinking water. Some three million tonnes of concrete were placed across the river in a series of large interlocking blocks to hedge off an appropriate area for the dam. An aerial ropeway was constructed for 19 kilometres to McCanns Island on the Nepean River, from where sand and gravel was mined and delivered straight to the dam. A copious amount of construction ice was added to the concrete to facilitate its setting. Curiously, the project was on such a grand scale that an entire township was built adjacent to the construction site to house workers.

This massive exercise led to Warragamba Dam being the largest concrete dam in Australia. It is also one of the largest dams in the world that is used specifically as a water supply for a metropolitan area. The result of this amazing feat of engineering is that millions of Sydneysiders have access to a supply of clean, potable water. The dam can deliver 2,630 megalitres of water a day to the city via 27 kilometres of pipeline to the Prospect water filtration plant at Prospect Reservoir, supplying water to about four million people at any one time. Many of us have closely monitored news of the dam level, which currently sits at about 40 per cent capacity.

To safeguard the Sydney water supply, areas deemed "special areas" were created around water storages, such as Warragamba Dam, across New South Wales. In fact, special areas comprise around 3,700 square kilometres of land surrounding water storages and lands containing the Sydney Catchment Authority's canals and pipelines. Schedule 1, land close to the water storages, and schedule 2, second tier buffer zone, adjoining schedule 1, are together known as special areas. Special areas, in effect, are buffer zones that help in preventing nutrients and other substances that could potentially affect the quality of water from entering the storages. Incidentally, the existence of these areas also assists in protecting animal and plant species found within these corridors. For the benefit of the Greens, I emphasise the rock wallaby. Unfortunately, the Greens members are not now listening. We know of the presence of the grey rock wallaby.

These special areas consist primarily of unspoilt bush land to which public access is restricted in parts. The use of a restricted area in an unauthorised manner carries a maximum penalty of $11,000. The Sydney Catchment Authority and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, in accordance with the Special Areas Strategic Plan of Management, manage special areas. Under section 44 of the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998, the Governor upon recommendation by the Minister may declare special areas. The relevant order is published in the Government Gazette. The special area to be modified by the instant bill was declared to be a special area by order published in the Government Gazette of 4 September 1942 and later amended by two consecutive orders in 1944. Section 44 (4) of the Act provides:

a special area must not be reduced in size, and an order declaring an area of land to be a special area must not be repealed, unless authorised by an Act of Parliament.

That is why we are here tonight. The object of the bill before us is to deproclaim a special area of 494 hectares found within the Warragamba locality. It is said that this land is found downstream of Warragamba Dam and has no impact on the quality or the amount of water. The reason for this deproclamation is to allow Wollondilly Shire Council to access this land to provide important recreational opportunities to the local community. The land will be used as a picnic ground, adjacent to current recreational facilities such as tennis courts. The second reading speech indicates that when the bill is enacted the council will be in a position to consider "constructing a proposed community centre and to provide additional open space for community recreation activities for Warragamba residents". Whether this will fit in with the presence of the grey rock wallaby in the area is still to be established. I support and encourage the local council in its initiatives to provide recreational facilities for young and old. However, it would be of interest to know whether the council will use all of the deproclaimed land for public purposes.

The portion of the Warragamba special area to be deproclaimed includes the townships of Warragamba and Silverdale. Importantly—and as mentioned in the second reading speech on this bill—while special area restrictions on access do not apply to privately owned land, some activities, such as the operation of on-site sewage management systems and animal husbandry, are strictly regulated in special areas regardless of the ownership of the land. The land will be declared a "controlled area" upon the passage of this legislation. The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [7.20 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I commend the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment (Warragamba) Bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [7.21 p.m.]: I move:

Page 3, schedule 1, lines 10 and 11. Omit "Map 687_1.2". Insert instead "Map 687_1.5".

The amendment aims to exclude from the area to be deproclaimed from the special area the section of land to the left-hand side of the Warragamba River, as viewed facing downstream. The area in question is the habitat of the brush-tailed rock wallaby, and at some point in the near future it should be reserved in the national park estate. This amendment will not affect the Wollondilly Shire Council plans for community facilities, which will be located on the other side of the river. I understand that the council does not oppose the amendment.
I have distributed to members a map that shows clearly the area to be de-proclaimed and the land on the other side of the river that will remain intact as a special area. The amendment will help to facilitate the maintenance of an endangered species. Some members of Parliament are endangered species—I suppose we could call it the ACE reserve. This is a reasonable amendment to which I can envisage no objections. It will deliver an environmental win for an important endangered species while not impacting on the social amenity of the area, and is in line with the main thrust of the bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [7.23 p.m.]: I support the Greens amendment, which appears excellent. The side of the river to which it applies is not currently threatened with development, and I see no reason why it would be removed from the restricted area. One can assume only that the land could be removed for a future use, and the price of having national parks is eternal vigilance. I congratulate Mr Ian Cohen on moving the amendment, which I support.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [7.24 p.m.]: I am pleased to respond positively to the issues canvassed in the Greens amendment and to indicate that the Government will support it.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [7.24 p.m.]: The Opposition recognises the benefits of this amendment and supports it. We compliment the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans on his wonderful contribution to the Committee's consideration of the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [7.25 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party also supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages.

Government Business Order of the Day No. 12 postponed on motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [7.27 p.m.] , on behalf of the Hon. Tony Kelly: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Apiaries Amendment Bill introduces a set of useful and practical changes to the administration of beekeeping in New South Wales. I might add that when my great-grandfather migrated to Australia his first job was as an apiarist in the Bathurst region. As the balance of the speech is the same as that delivered in the lower House, I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Apiaries Amendment Bill introduces a set of useful and practical changes to the administration of beekeeping in New South Wales. It makes reforms in the areas of compliance, and it puts in place the last of a set of changes that the Government has brought to beekeeping. Beekeeping is an important area of agriculture and agricultural production. It provides a range of important economic and social benefits. Most obviously, the honeybee industry produces a diverse number of valuable commodities. The main direct product of beekeeping is honey. Beekeepers can also profit from the sale of queen bees or other hive products, such as beeswax, comb honey and royal jelly.

The benefits of beekeeping go well beyond honey and wax. Honeybees play a critical role in the pollination of agricultural and horticultural crops, as well as the house garden. A recent report estimated that 65 per cent of crops introduced to this country are reliant to some extent on honeybees for pollination. The value of this free pollination service to the Australian economy is estimated to be around $1.7 billion. Additionally, beekeeping provides important social benefits, being an outdoor pursuit that is enjoyed by people of all ages and from all walks of life. Many beekeepers belong to their local amateur beekeeping groups, adding a further social dimension to this activity.

Honourable members would agree that honeybees require proper and responsible management to protect human safety and prevent the spread of disease. Responsible beekeeping in New South Wales is promoted through a voluntary Beekeeping Code of Practice. Apiarists, decision-making authorities and the public use the code, which was developed in consultation with key industry stakeholders, to provide a consistent approach to beekeeping issues. The regulation of beekeeping in New South Wales is primarily carried out through the Apiaries Act 1985.

That Act requires the registration of all commercial and recreational beekeepers. Its main purpose is to prevent the introduction of, and to control and eradicate, certain diseases and pests that afflict bees in New South Wales. Additionally, the Act contains provisions to manage nuisance bees. The Act is being amended to improve the administrative arrangements. The amendments are designed to promote responsible beekeeping, enhance compliance with the Apiaries Act, and minimise potential risks to human safety, while still recognising the importance of recreational and commercial beekeeping. This is part of the continuous improvement process undertaken by the Department of Primary Industries, which is responsible for administering the Apiaries Act.

In terms of threats to human safety, the statistics show that managed bees present a very low risk to the human population. In New South Wales, managed bees have been associated with only two human deaths, the most recent being in early March 2000. As honourable members might recall, an inquiry was initiated following that tragic incident to assess the level of risk to humans posed by urban beekeeping, and to determine whether any further measures were needed to control urban beekeeping. The inquiry identified that the danger to the community from managed beehives is in fact very low. The inquiry's technical expert advised that only one or two people per annum die from bee venom allergy in Australia. The expert also outlined that a person is more likely to die from being struck by lightning than from an allergic reaction to a bee sting.

The inquiry made several recommendations to promote responsible beekeeping. These recommendations included the introduction of penalty notices for breaches of the Apiaries Act and regulation. The inquiry also recommended the need for improved information and education for urban beekeepers. The Government has already taken steps to implement many of the inquiry's recommendations. In terms of compliance, the Apiaries Act has been amended to allow penalty notices to be issued by prescribed officers for offences against the Act or regulations. These offences include, for example, failing to register hives and owning hives that do not display a registration number.

Authorised officers are inspectors employed by the Department of Primary Industries and can include other persons authorised by the director general of the department. In terms of education, the web site of the Department of Primary Industries now contains detailed information on beekeeping. This includes information on the Beekeeping Code of Practice and other important legal requirements of beekeeping. This information is produced in a variety of languages, which will ensure that non-English speaking beekeepers have access to useful information on urban beekeeping. The code is provided to all apiarists on registration and re-registration. The purpose of the bill is to build on these initiatives. In terms of consultation, the amendments were discussed with key industry and amateur beekeeping representatives, including the New South Wales Apiarists Association and the New South Wales Amateur Beekeepers Association. I am advised that there was support from these groups for the amendments currently before the House.

Turning to the specifics of the amendments, the bill proposes a number of changes to further improve the compliance provisions of the Apiaries Act. I will first address the changes to the provisions on registration of beehives. Registration and the display of registration numbers on hives is a critical tool in effective beekeeping management. Among other things, it assists in controlling and eradicating diseases that afflict bees. For example, where a disease outbreak occurs, a registration system allows authorities to identify all beekeepers in New South Wales, including their home location and the number of hives they keep. This enables all beehives to be inspected and traced from infected locations. This is essential to limit the spread of a disease and ultimately to eradicate it. This system is particularly important, as hives are often not kept at a beekeeper's residence. Beekeepers sometimes travel long distances with their hives to find good flower sources, and usually have hives in numerous locations.

Registration also provides a mechanism to ensure beekeepers receive the latest information on bee disease prevention and management. While many beekeepers are responsible and law-abiding, there are some that do not adhere to the requirements of being registered. Therefore, several amendments in the bill strengthen the existing obligation on beekeepers to register and to display a registration number on their hives, and to encourage them to take responsibility for their hives. Public lands provide a vital flora source for beekeepers. Most beekeepers register their hives and seek the permission of public land managers before locating their hives on such land. However, a small number of beekeepers effectively leave their hives on areas like roadsides and reserves without permission. This works against efforts to control disease and can potentially compromise public safety.

Under the new arrangements, inspectors will have the power to seize and remove unidentified beehives on public land. Any expenses incurred by an inspector in removing the hives will be payable by the owner of the hive, and the beekeeper will not be entitled to compensation for the loss of the hive. Identified hives on public land may also be seized by an inspector and forfeited to the Crown if an inspector believes that the hives are on the land without the permission of the controller of the land. Before an inspector can seize a hive in these circumstances, the inspector must serve a notice on the owner of the hives. The notice will advise that the owner has 14 days to remove the hives, or provide satisfactory evidence that permission has been obtained to keep the hives on the land. Unidentified hives can also be a problem on private land, and the bill addresses this issue.
Under the new arrangements, inspectors will have the power to seize and remove such hives, provided that a notice is displayed in the vicinity of the hives for 28 days. The notice will state that the hives are to be forfeited to the Crown unless they are identified. A similar notice must also be placed in a newspaper with statewide circulation. An owner of such hives on private land can avoid forfeiture if the hives are identified with a registration number within the 28 days, or if the owner can prove that registration of the hives took place within 60 days prior to the notice being served. Another amendment in the bill that will encourage beekeepers to register and display a registration number is the removal of the requirement for hives to be branded. Currently, the Act specifies that beekeepers must brand all hives with a registration number.

Branding requires the use of a hot brand to burn the numbers into the box, or other tools such as a router. This requirement can act as a disincentive for beekeepers to display their registration number, in terms of the effort required to physically brand their hives. This is particularly so for beekeepers with only one or two hives. Under the new arrangements, this requirement is modified to make compliance easier. Beekeepers will be required to display their registration number on the outside of their hives. For example, it will be acceptable to paint a registration number on a hive. Another major feature of the bill is the provision of powers to inspectors to relocate beehives in emergencies. Currently, removal of nuisance hives from premises is subject to a fairly lengthy process. Once it comes to an inspector's attention that bees appear to be posing a risk to public health or safety, it is routine practice that an inspector investigates the matter.

Unfortunately, some people make vexatious complaints because of neighbourly disputes and other reasons. When an inspector is satisfied that the bees are posing a risk to public health or safety, a report is prepared by the inspector, with recommendations for the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries. The director general may order the removal of the hives if this is the best possible solution. The owner of the bees then has 14 days to comply with the order. Often beekeepers comply quickly with such orders, but in other cases they take the full 14 days. This is an appreciably lengthy amount of time and can potentially put human safety at risk. In particular, the safety of a person with a severe allergy to bee venom may be severely compromised. The bill improves this arrangement by allowing inspectors to immediately seize and remove beehives from premises if the bees are a danger to public health or safety. In such cases, the beehives will be relocated to prevent any continued threat to the community.

The seized hives can be removed for a period of 21 days. During that time, an order prohibiting the keeping of bees must be served or the beehives must be returned to the land from which they were removed. The amendments in the bill provide other additional powers to inspectors under the Act. Inspectors will be able to require a person in charge of a premises to produce any records or documents under the person's control that relate to beekeeping. The inspector will also have the power to make copies of these records and documents. This change will allow inspectors to thoroughly investigate matters, including the location and prior movements of hives, and any other relevant information on problematic hives or beekeepers who breach the law. Additionally, inspectors who find a person committing an offence against the Act or regulation will be able to require that person to specify the location of all their hives.

Currently, inspectors may only require persons to state their name and address. This change will allow inspectors to locate the person's hives more quickly. The bill also makes various changes of a minor, administrative nature. The register of beekeepers, for example, is to be maintained by the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries, rather than by a registrar. Access to the register by authorised officers will be free of charge. Authorised officers will include police officers, employees of local councils, and any other persons approved by the director general. Other changes include the removal of section 25 from the Act. This provision imposes an unnecessary restriction on interstate trade, and in any event section 26 provides adequate power to prevent the introduction of diseases from other States or Territories. The apiary industry supports this amendment.

Another minor change concerns liability. The bill inserts a new provision that excludes personal liability for certain persons for things done, or omitted to be done, in good faith for the purposes of executing the Act. This is a standard provision and it is similar to that contained in other legislation, such as section 22A of the Stock Diseases Act 1923. Good beekeeping practices are critical to safe recreational and commercial beekeeping, and the bill recognises this. The amendments in the bill will further improve the management of beekeeping, particularly in urban areas, and will be welcomed by beekeepers and the general community. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [7.28 p.m.]: I did not realise that the Hon. John Della Bosca came from primary producer stock, but I know of many who have said that he is an old B. I lead for the Opposition in the debate on the Apiaries Amendment Bill. The Government claims that this bill will further promote responsible beekeeping, enhanced compliance with the Act and regulation, and minimise any potential risks to human safety. Let us hope that those claims are correct. Key amendments include the provision of powers for inspectors to seize and remove hives in emergency situations, provisions to enforce the requirement for all beekeepers to be registered and to display a registration number on their hives, and the repeal of provisions in the Apiaries Act 1985 restricting the introduction of bees into New South Wales.

The honeybee is not native to Australia. It was brought into the country in 1822 aboard the good ship Isabella. Beekeeping is a unique primary industry that has faced increasing pressure in recent years due to a number of issues. A couple of years ago I attended an apiarists conference at Ballina. I found the beekeepers to be a terrific bunch of people. They were gregarious and told some great beekeeping jokes. They had some great beekeeping jokes. You have to be part of the network to understand them, however. They are like the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans' Democrats jokes: they have a limited audience. I just love their company. They were so pleased to have someone there who was actually interested in what they were doing.

There are 673,000 registered hives in Australia, from which 30,000 tonnes of honey is produced per year, and 45 per cent of that alone comes from New South Wales. The industry is worth more than $60 million per annum. The bill abolishes the office of the registrar of beekeepers and provides for the functions of the registrar to be exercised by the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries. I am unsure why this change is being made and what it will achieve. However, we must take the Government on its word that this is one huge step for mankind, especially for beekeepers.

In the other place it was said that access to the register will be free of charge and that authorised officers will include police officers, council employees, and any other persons approved by the director general. It will be interesting to see how long access to the register remains free of charge; that is always a concern. The bill allows for the relocation or forfeiture of the hives in certain circumstances. There is some concern, however, that the legislation does not mention how beehives would be disposed of if forfeited. Authorised officers will have the power to make copies of, or take extracts from, the records and documents of a beekeeper. The bill includes a provision to ensure that the director general, or any inspector, will not be subject to any action, liability, claim or demand if something was done, or was omitted to be done, in good faith. A further amendment will change the definition of branding. Currently beekeepers must use a hot brand to burn registration numbers into boxes, but this is quite a cumbersome task.

Mr Ian Cohen: That's cruel.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Mr Ian Cohen says that that is cruel. It depends whether timber actually feels the pain. In any event, it is a great carbon sink. Under the new arrangements beekeepers will be required to display their registration number on the outside of their hives, and it will be acceptable to paint a registration number onto the hive. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Mr IAN COHEN [7.32 p.m.]: The Apiaries Amendment Bill builds on the changes to beekeeping legislation that have been brought in over a number of years. Current legislation requires commercial and recreational beekeepers to be registered. This is aimed largely at preventing the introduction and spread of pests and diseases, as well as managing safety aspects. I understand that the industry and recreational beekeeping associations were consulted about the bill and do not oppose it. While bees pose a very low risk to humans, some individuals can suffer severe allergic reactions to bee stings. Therefore, it is important that any risk is minimised by appropriate regulation of commercial and recreational beekeepers. An incident involving a fatality was caused by bees in the inner-west of Sydney in 2000. Every possible measure must be in place to avoid this type of tragedy occurring.

I note that there is a voluntary beekeeping code of practice. This is provided to all apiarists and is displayed on the department's web site in a number of languages. This is to be commended. The bill seeks to improve the compliance provisions of the Act by changing beehive registration requirements. One of the proposed changes is that beehives will no longer need to be branded with the registration number but will be able to display it by other methods, such as it being painted on. This will remove a disincentive to small operators to register their hives and display the registration number, as branding can be onerous for someone with a few hives. This is to be supported, so long as the display of registration numbers, by whatever method is chosen, is still enforced.

Under the provisions of the bill inspectors will have the power to seize and remove unidentified beehives from public land, with any expenses incurred being borne by the owner of the hives. Inspectors will also be able to seize unidentified hives on private land. In both cases notice is to be given, 14 days in the case of public land and 28 days in the case of private land, which I believe is adequate. I understand that public lands are commonly used as a source of flora for beekeepers. Bees can do immense damage to native flora, as well as competing for pollen with native bees. They can disrupt native pollinators and change the seed-setting patterns of native plants. Exotic, or non-native, bees can also be important pollinators of weeds, which are an enormous problem in our national parks and other public lands. The damage that can be caused to native flowers should not be underestimated. These bees are an imported insect that can burrow through the sides of the native flower to get the nectar from the plant, and that can have quite an impact on native vegetation. The bee industry would be wise to be mindful of these problems, particularly in areas where the bees may use the national parks as a foraging area for their hives.

I am somewhat concerned about the repeal of a provision restricting the introduction of bees into New South Wales. While I understand this is aimed at improving interstate trade in bees, I seek an assurance from the Minister that it would not result in the introduction of species of bees that could wreak havoc in our natural environment. I note that the Minister will retain the power to prohibit the importation of bees into New South Wales, so hopefully this discretionary power will be used responsibly. The Greens do not oppose the bill.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [7.35 p.m.]: The object of the Apiaries Amendment Bill is to make a number of amendments to the Apiaries Act 1985 to improve the administration of beekeeping in New South Wales. Many people may not be aware that beekeeping, an activity regarded as a recreational pastime for many, plays a major role in delivering benefits to the agricultural industry and the economy as a whole. In 2003 the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that the Australian beekeeping industry had a gross value of production of just over $60 million per year, with $26.8 million produced in New South Wales. Interestingly, these amounts pale in comparison with the estimated benefit to the Australian economy from cross-pollination by honeybees. Some have reported that the value of this free pollination service to the economy is close to $1.7 billion. Thus honeybees play a crucial role in the development of agricultural and horticultural crops in this nation.

By way of background to the industry, an Australian Bureau of Statistics report of 2003 entitled "Australia's Environment: Issues and Trends" states that registered hives in Australia numbered 466,684, delivering 32,675 tonnes of honey for domestic and international consumption. In New South Wales registered hives number 209,049, with a honey production of 14,635 tonnes. These statistics were collected in 1998. A more recent snapshot of beekeeping activities is required to accurately depict the status of this industry. Total production not only includes the production of liquid honey, with which we are typically familiar, but also beeswax, and queen and package bees.

In New South Wales the keeping of bees is regulated by the Apiaries Act 1985. Aside from administrative matters, one of the objects of the legislation is to prevent the introduction of, and to control and eradicate, certain diseases and pests that afflict bees and apiaries in New South Wales. This is of vital importance not only for the agricultural industry but also for the conservation of native flora and fauna. Further, the Apiaries Act has put in place arrangements to mitigate any risk to the public arising from the keeping of bees. A study indicates that between 1979 and 1998, 38 bee-related fatalities had occurred in Australia and many of the bee sting victims were apiarists. Eleven bee sting deaths occurred in New South Wales during that period.

Some fatalities have occurred within urban settings. Members may remember that in 2000 Marianna Savor died after she and her baby daughter were attacked by a swarm of bees kept at Ms Savor's mother's home in Stanmore. This tragic incident prompted an inquiry into the level of risk to humans posed by urban beekeeping. The inquiry resulted in a code of conduct for beekeeping, and the minimisation of the number of hives and their location on a block. Responsible beekeeping in New South Wales is now promoted through a voluntary beekeeping code of practice.

I own a small property on the Central Coast. Some years ago we purchased and registered one hive of bees, which stands in a triple section. After having a very successful year of getting honey from those bees, my eldest son and I one day discovered a wild swarm in a high gum tree. I encouraged him to climb the gum tree so that if he tapped the branch suddenly the swarm would drop. Meanwhile I stood below with a cardboard box with a lid so that when the swarm fell into the box I would close the lid and I would be able to double the number of bees I had in my one single triple hive. Needless to say, he hit the branch, the swarm fell down but his aim was not good because instead landing into the box they landed all over my head, hair and shoulders. I laughed so much that one got into my mouth and stung me on the inside of the cheek, others stung me around the neck and I started to run like mad to my nearby dam to dive into it.

This was the funniest thing that our family, who happened to be out on the lawns that day watching us, had ever seen. Father went running with a head full of bees, dived head first into the dam in the hope that that would get rid of the blighters. I might say that although it was a registered beekeeping activity—I have got an official number and all of my hives have that number burnt on them—the bees did not take much notice of the number, and when I surfaced they came back and re-established themselves in my hair.

Mr Ian Cohen: You must have sinned.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I must have been not a sinner but a good-living person because I survived the stings without any hardship whatsoever.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You were sinned against, not a sinner.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: Just buzz off, Ian! My son is the person who actually robs the hives and makes the honey. It is a good interest for people with the time to keep a few hives if they have room and water. Unless the bees can take off over the north in a good straight line over water they are unable to do all that they should do. The reforms in this bill strengthen the administrative framework provided for commercial and recreational beekeepers. According to the second reading speech, the amendments are designed to promote responsible beekeeping—something which I promote—enhance compliance with the Apiaries Act, and minimise potential risks to human safety, while still recognising the importance of recreational and commercial beekeeping.

It is reported that the amendments were discussed with key industry and amateur beekeeping representatives, including the New South Wales Apiarists Association and the New South Wales Amateur Beekeepers Association, and support for these amendments followed. The amendments proposed in this bill are many. I will not seek to go through any of them. The Act provides for the registration of beekeepers, which we certainly agree with. The bill introduces provisions to enforce the requirement for all beekeepers to be registered and to display a registration number on their hives. That is a disincentive to some people from stealing hives, because they are expensive. This registration system is central to effective beekeeping management.

The bill proposes that inspectors have the power to seize and remove hives not identified with a registration number. That is particularly relevant in cases where hives are left on the roadside, or near public parks and pose a risk to human safety. Provision is also made for the seizure of identified hives on public land, with certain procedures to be followed by inspectors. For example, under the new arrangements, inspectors will have the power to seize and remove such hives, provided that a notice is displayed in the vicinity of the hives for 28 days and also in a local newspaper. A major incentive for registration under the Act is the removal of the requirement for hives to be branded with a registration number. That is expensive because one not only has to brand the outside of the hives but also all of the separate parts inside them with the same number.

The Act has been amended to allow penalty notices to be issued for offences against the Act or the regulations. The web site of the Department of Primary Industries now contains detailed information on beekeeping, and certain beekeeping information is being produced in a variety of languages for non-English speaking beekeepers. In cases where an inspector believes, on reasonable grounds, that the keeping of bees on particular premises is a danger to the public, the bill provides powers for inspectors to seize and remove hives. It has been said that existing provisions in the Act relating to the removal of hives are cumbersome and can potentially place human safety at risk, particularly where a neighbour of a beekeeper has a life-threatening allergy to bee venom.

Amongst other things, the bill proposes that the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries will now keep registration details kept by the office of registrar of beekeepers. The bill also repeals provisions of the Act restricting the introduction of bees into New South Wales. The reason for the repeal of these provisions is to remove unnecessary restrictions on interstate trade. Adequate power is provided to prevent the introduction of diseases from other States or Territories. Minor and incidental amendments are also made to the Apiaries Regulation 2005. This proposed legislation strengthens existing arrangements, improves the management of beekeeping for recreational and commercial beekeepers alike. I commend apiarists in general. They are most hardworking people and make a great contribution not only to the national economy but also to the breakfast tables of the nation. On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [7.45 p.m.], in reply: As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not in the Chamber I will not provide more detail about my heritage as a primary producer. I will take that opportunity later. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. John Della Bosca tabled the Government's response to the report entitled "The Cross City Tunnel and Public Private Partnerships: Second Report", tabled on 18 May 2006.
Ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 21 November 2006 at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [7.47 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

Mr IAN COHEN [7.47 p.m.]: After many years of campaigning and consciousness-raising by environmental groups, scientists and concerned individuals, the number of people talking about climate change and global warming has reached a critical mass. Now it is on everyone's agenda. While the drought worsens in New South Wales, weather records are being broken here and around the world. The year 2005 was Australia's warmest year on record. Nineteen of the top 20 warmest years on record worldwide have all occurred since the 1980s. While temperatures rise, all Australian cities and most of our agricultural land is receiving lower rainfall than ever before.

Oceans are becoming warmer, sea levels are rising, glaciers are retreating, and polar bears drown as distances between ice flows increase. There is increasing frequency and intensity of weather events like cyclone Larry in north Queensland, which cost more than $1 billion, damaged 55 per cent of homes in Innisfail and destroyed all banana crops in the region. Global warming is happening faster than anyone expected. Temperatures in Australia are set to rise by 6 per cent by 2070. Even a 1 per cent temperature rise now would result in a 70 per cent increase in drought in New South Wales.

While other countries and some Australian States act to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and create higher renewable energy targets, New South Wales lags behind. The Premier's recently announced targets of 10 per cent by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2020 are encouraging but do not go far enough to address the critical need to avoid dangerous climate change. New South Wales needs to legislate for at least 20 per cent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. Zero emissions technologies are crying out for support in New South Wales, but the Government is not acting. These Australian industries will go offshore if they do not receive encouragement in New South Wales.

Sustainable industries that create electricity from wind and the sun could provide thousands of new permanent jobs and billions of dollars of investment for New South Wales if a 20 per cent renewable energy target were set for 2020. This would be likely to create new capacity equivalent to two coal-fired power stations. Energy efficiency support is needed from the Government to keep growth in electricity consumption below 1 per cent, as well as targeted efficiency measures to protect low-income consumers. This might mean a low-interest loan scheme to buy an energy efficient washing machine, or retrofitting and weather-proofing public housing for example.

They are some of the measures that governments need to take urgently to address global warming and thus protect the future for our children and grandchildren. Individuals, of course, can make a contribution too by taking public transport more often and driving a car less; replacing regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs; recycling all household waste and saving an average of 2,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide per year; using less hot water and installing an energy efficient triple-A rated showerhead, saving three tonnes of carbon dioxide per year; avoiding products with a lot of packaging—cutting down household garbage by 10 per cent will save 545 kilograms of carbon dioxide a year; not using an air conditioner; planting trees; and turning off electronic devices.

Around the world, the Walk Against Warming, held on 4 November, sent politicians a powerful message, urging action on climate change now. In Sydney, 40,000 people walked to urge government to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, support more renewable energy initiatives and move away from our reliance on fossil fuels. In New South Wales we need to start getting our electricity from sources like wind and solar, rather than through burning coal. At the moment only 2 per cent of all of Australia's electricity comes from renewable energy. This is embarrassing by international standards. We are worse than China and India. New South Wales should be pushing for and supporting the development of sustainable renewable fuels and improving our public transport system so that people are motivated to reduce car use. We need to take action now on climate change to ensure a healthy planet for the future.

On another matter, Wytaliba community, situated 50 kilometres from Grafton, is complaining that Forests NSW is trashing a safety buffer zone of 940 hectares at Diehard Creek water catchment. The community asked the Minister responsible for forestry to intervene and stop the logging of Diehard Creek water catchment to protect its zero energy cost, gravity-fed water supply. The community is now forced to take legal and protest action to protect the rights of their children to drink pure, clean water and protect the environmental and human rights of future generations.

At a recent meeting with the community representatives of Forests NSW, David Wilson from the Coffs Harbour office admitted that the actual timber gained from this operation will be poor in terms of quality and quantity but he said that Forests NSW still has to go ahead to satisfy contractual obligations to the logging contractors as the contract was signed in 1990. The Environment Protection Authority [EPA] found breaches of a previous contract licence granted to Forests NSW and stated in its response that it expects compliance in protecting riparian zones in future operations. The EPA has not done enough research to give surety on the effects of logging around water catchments.

There is sound evidence to prove that the Diehard Creek water catchment, 50 per cent of which has already been logged, will not recover for at least 50 years and further degradation will have the trickle-down effect all the way along the ailing Clarence River system, further destroying farming and fish and contributing degraded water to our sick oceans. The Regional Forestry Agreement is a flawed document and the work of contractors is poorly monitored by an arrogant, moribund bureaucracy that has instant profits and business interests at heart. We must ask how long will each of us tolerate our leaders failing to make the connection between cutting down trees and the destruction of a clean water supply. The water in these areas has to be worth money, and I hope the Minister recognises that. We are seeing other areas in Brisbane and Goulburn running out of water. We have a major problem. The Wytaliba community, which lives sustainably and gets a fresh water supply from natural resources, deserves to be acknowledged. [Time expired.]

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [7.52 p.m.]: A couple of weekends ago people from all over country New South Wales gathered in Queanbeyan for the largest rural and regional policy conference in Australia. This conference—the second largest political conference in the Southern Hemisphere, trailing only the New South Wales State Australian Labor Party [ALP] Conference—of course, was the annual Country Labor Conference. As seems to be the case every year, once again the conference and the fine people who attend it demonstrated that only Country Labor truly represents country New South Wales.

There is a stark contrast between Country Labor, which works within the Australian Labor Party and the State Government to get results, and The Nationals, who are nothing more than the rump of the Liberal Party—puppets for their Sydney masters, who promise all things to all people, and when they fail to get any outcomes for country people, simply resort to smear campaigns. An editorial published in the Tweed Weekly on 6 October made all sort of claims about my history. It erroneously claimed that I was a former union official with no connection to the country. Not that anybody would want to be responsible for utterings in the Tweed Weekly, but the newspaper's almost slanderous take on me has got to have been fed by city-based Nationals and Liberals who are working for a foothold in the country.

The whole reason this smear happened in the first place was because The Nationals were unable to answer criticisms about the Coalition's plans to sack 29,000 workers and the effect that this would have on front-line services and jobs in the country. The Coalition's puppet master, the member for Vaucluse, has variously claimed that he is only going to remove backroom staff, that he is only going to remove spin doctors, that no jobs are going to be lost from the country, and that there will be no sackings, but that jobs will only be lost through natural attrition. The problem is that none of this adds up. This mishmash is supposed to pay for the billions of dollars promised on the "core" and "non-core" Peter meter list.
If only Sydney back-office jobs are to go, the member for Vaucluse is looking at reducing 33,000 positions to just 4,000, effectively eliminating the backroom altogether. What he does not realise is that whilst the front-line services are important and vital, they cannot exist without important behind-the-scenes workers to back them up. All this would do is force police off the beat and back into the station to do paperwork, take teachers out of the classroom to process records, and have nurses and social workers fixing their computer systems instead of attending to their patients or clients—let alone the inevitable policy implementation vacuum. And if these job cuts are not made, we will be left with billions of dollars of unfunded promises from the Coalition, proving yet again that the Coalition is not fit for government. For someone who talks big about putting substance ahead of spin, this is remarkable for its complete lack of substance.

However, the important point here is that it is simply impossible to cut this many jobs without hurting the country. People may not remember, but back in 1988 when the Greiner Government was elected, similar promises were made and the country was made to suffer as it was stripped bare of its essential services. Where have The Nationals been with all this? Absolutely nowhere. We have not heard them fighting Peter Debnam's plans to cut back country services or sack workers in their towns and villages. We have not heard a peep out of The Nationals, just as we did not hear any protest out of them when the Opposition failed to join the New South Wales Government in its fight against the Federal Government's extreme industrial relations changes.

Unfortunately for The Nationals, the list of things on which they have sold out country New South Wales and Australia is growing at a rapid rate, and explains why they are in terminal decline as a political party. Compare their performance with Country Labor, which has never been the rump of another political party and has always fought for country people and communities within the ALP. At the Country Labor Conference, yet another win was chalked up for Country Labor when the Premier announced the immediate commitment of funds to fix timber bridges around New South Wales. No doubt the Nationals will claim that they had already committed to doing the same thing, but the difference is that we have actually delivered, with money already being allocated to fix bridges around the State, whereas their promise will either come at the expense of country jobs and services, or be scrapped as a non-core promise when they run out of money.

After promising individual bridges across the State they have now changed to talking about a full review when they get into government. Surely the people of country New South Wales deserve better than another "non-core" promise. And the so-called country infrastructure plan will make it easier for the Liberals to amputate. Country Labor is the only voice that can represent country people, and is part of a proud Labor tradition of working for rural and regional areas: we do not just represent sectional interests, we deliver for all country people. If The Nationals want to gain some relevance in rural and regional Australia, there are some simple tasks that they have to undertake. A good start would be to stop apologising for the Liberal Party's radical and harmful agenda. I would suggest also that they would be wise to develop comprehensive and funded policies instead of promising all things to all people and resorting to smear campaigns when their policies are found to be harmful. Only then can they claim to represent the country. Until that time, Country Labor will remain the most representative voice of country New South Wales.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [7.57 p.m.]: On this, probably my last adjournment speech of the Fifty-third Parliament of New South Wales, celebrating the 150th sesquicentenary of the New South Wales Parliament, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the inaugural speech of the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox from the Liberal Party. It is great to have him here. We have got some hard work to do together but we will enjoy that process on our way to government on 24 March 2007. The release of the State Plan process this week will confirm our place in government because the irony is that many of the things that the Government paid $2 million through the State Plan process are things that are already part of our policy framework.

We have some exciting things in store in regard to my duty electorates of Queanbeyan, Monaro and Port Macquarie. I mention at the outset that the $2 million—$1 million in advertising and $1.8 million for the process—that the Premier admitted to during budget estimates hearings has gone to paying people like Trish Oakley, who has been providing strategic communications and issue management advice to the public sector. She was, as the Hon. Eric Roozendaal would know, the chief of staff to the former Deputy Premier, Andrew Refshauge. That is where the money for the State Plan went. Trish is a nice person, but she is a political operator working for Elton Consulting, and that is where taxpayers' money has gone, not to solving on the ground problems.
I will just go through some of those problems. The people of Queanbeyan identified to Government members who were present that they would like a reduction in heavy vehicle traffic through the centre of Queanbeyan. Well, hello! In 1995 Bob Carr promised the mayor of Queanbeyan, Frank Pangallo, that he would get those trucks off the main street of Queanbeyan. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox was probably living there at the time and would remember that promise well. That the promise has not been kept is very disappointing. But the Government has spent nearly $3 million to find that out. Well done! That is the sort of issue on which the people of New South Wales will judge this Labor Government.

Also, the people of Queanbeyan said that the Government would do better if it could create local employment and pathways from education to training and employment for young people. Garry Nairn and the Federal Government are doing that really well. Last week they announced a partnership of the Australian Technical College, the Master Builders Association, the Queanbeyan Business Council, the Queanbeyan Enterprise Centre and that the Federal Government will provide certificate III courses.

The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: You're wasting your time.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Tell an apprentice with a certificate III qualification that it is a waste of time! If you do, you will not get very far. The best the State Government could do is offer certificate II courses at the Queanbeyan High School. It is playing catch-up politics on that front, and that is not good enough. The people of Queanbeyan will judge Labor on that. Another of the main things that the people of Queanbeyan told the Government they wanted was an answer to the long-term water management issues within Queanbeyan. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, in his inaugural speech last night, covered that issue in detail. The supply of water is an issue that the Australian Capital Territory is holding over the head of the people of Queanbeyan and surrounding districts. The Australian Capital Territory wants to do all the development in the Territory to get the property taxes, to the detriment of growth and development of industry opportunities and employment in Queanbeyan.

Other issues in Queanbeyan include improved provision of health and transport services in rural areas. The Coalition has its policies on the table. We will reintroduce local hospital boards, so that local people once again can have a say in the decision-making processes of the local health system. That is what the people want, and that is what we will give them. We have had 12 years of Labor Government excuses, cover-ups, corruption and a whole variety of things. The people of New South Wales have had enough—enough of the spin and enough of the rhetoric. The State Plan, which was subsumed by the hyperbole this week, has not gone anywhere. It has been an absolute waste of money. Government members only needed to walk through the main streets of those communities. They did not need to spend all that money paying people like Trish Oakley to find out what was necessary.

I would like to close with a comment made by Ms Lee Rhiannon during the budget estimates hearings in addressing a question to the Premier. She said that unemployment rates in the Lakemba electorate are 15.4 per cent for Islamic males, when the unemployment rate for Sydney young males is 7.7 per cent. Who is the local member? It is Premier Morris Iemma, who is doing nothing on important issues in New South Wales. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.02 p.m.]: The Public Interest Advocacy Centre represented the family of Scott Simpson at the coronial inquiry into his suicide in custody, and Coroner Dorrell Pinch handed down her findings on 17 July 2006. Mr Simpson was seriously mentally ill at the time of his death, and the Coroner was critical of the fact that Mr Simpson did not receive adequate and timely medical care for the treatment of his mental illness. In presenting her findings Coroner Pinch said that "more could have been done, should have been done, and it wasn't." Mr Simpson had been recognised as at acute self-harm risk by his treating psychiatrist, but was not transferred to the psychiatric ward of Long Bay Prison Hospital. Instead, Mr Simpson was kept in solitary confinement for the final 26 months of his life. The Coroner made important and broad-reaching recommendations, including that inmates diagnosed with a serious mental illness should only be placed in solitary confinement in exceptional circumstances and for limited periods.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission also made a submission to the Coroner on the treatment of Scott Simpson. The commission made submissions that the treatment of Mr Simpson during his incarceration was inconsistent with the rights to humane treatment in articles 7 and 10 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the following respects: one, the prolonged detention of Mr Simpson in segregation, particularly in light of his mental illness; two, the failure to transfer Mr Simpson to hospital; and, three, the failure to provide adequate psychiatric care to Mr Simpson while he remained in the correctional environment. The following recommendations were made by Magistrate Pinch, Deputy State Coroner. I seek leave to incorporate those recommendations in Hansard.

Leave granted.

To the Minister for Health

1. In relation to inmates of Correctional Centres who have been diagnosed with a mental illness and require treatment in hospital:

A. There should be a standardised procedure for admission to hospital.

• That procedure should be based on the provision of Sections 97 and 98 of the Mental Health Act 1990 and the completion of a Schedule Three form. The procedure should be set out in writing and circulated to all visiting consultant psychiatrists and Justice Health Staff.

• The members of the Committee making the decisions about hospital admission (which has superseded Dr White's role) should hear personally from at least one of the medical practitioners who have examined the prospective patient and completed the Schedule.
B. There should be standard criteria for admission to hospital to be taken into account by the Committee. The criteria should be set out in writing and circulated to all visiting consultant psychiatrists and Justice Health staff.

(a) The criteria should be based on the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness, namely that persons serving sentences of imprisonment for criminal offences, or who are otherwise detained in the course of criminal proceedings, and who are determined to have a mental illness, have the right to the best available mental health care.

(b) Specifically, in addition to the inmate's present clinical condition, the committee should have regard to:

• any likely deterioration in the person's condition;
• whether the person has been placed in segregation and, if so, for how long;
• any non-compliance with medication;
• the treatment options available outside a hospital environment, including the frequency of access to a psychiatrist.

C. Those persons in respect of whom a Schedule Three has been completed but who cannot be immediately placed in hospital should be placed under the care of a nominated appropriately qualified medical practitioner, who will take responsibility for their treatment and who will provide up-dated reports for subsequent meetings of the Committee.

2. In order to ensure that all relevant information is placed before Justice Health staff at the time of the Reception Assessment of inmates ie. prior to the arrival of Justice Health files, a Discharge Summary should be completed by Justice Health staff on all inmates diagnosed with a mental illness within 14 days of their discharge. This Summary should then be made available in electronic form for access by Justice Health Reception staff in the course of all subsequent assessments on admission.

3. Given that decisions about placement within Correctional Centres and the release of forensic patients are made in other States by either an independent Tribunal such as the Mental Health Review Tribunal or by superior courts, a review should be conducted as to whether the present system of Executive responsibility is best suited to ensure the placement and movement of inmates on clinical grounds. The review should specifically assess whether, under the present system, the decision-making process about the movement of forensic patients ensures the best use is made of the limited available hospital beds.

To the Minister of Health and the Minister of Corrective Services

4. In relation to inmates with a mental illness, an integrated approach between Justice Health and the Department of Corrective Services should be adopted in decisions about placing those inmates in segregation and reviewing the relevant Segregation Orders to ensure that the consequences for the inmates' mental wellbeing are taken into account. As part of that approach:

• an appropriately qualified medical practitioner nominated by Justice Health should examine the inmate within 48 hours after the initial placement in segregation and a written report should be forwarded from Justice Health to the Department of Corrective Services detailing any clinical concerns and recommendations to address those concerns;

• a similar assessment should then be conducted on a weekly basis and a written report forwarded to the Department of Corrective Services detailing any clinical concerns and concomitant recommendations.

To the Minister for Corrective Services

5. The Department of Corrective Services should adopt the policy that inmates diagnosed with a mental illness should be placed in segregation only in exceptional circumstances and for a limited period.
6. The Department of Corrective Services should ensure that Discharge Summaries on all inmates are completed and can be accessed by Reception staff within a reasonable time, at least within 14 days, after an inmate's discharge.

7. The Department of Corrective Services should ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to the Working Party for the Reduction of Hanging Points, including the appointment of a full-time manager, to enable the current work of the group to be carried out at the earliest opportunity. Additionally, the scope of works should be expanded to include, on a priority basis, all cells in maximum and medium security institutions.

8. The Department of Corrective Services should implement a policy to ensure that any violent or other aberrant behaviour by an inmate at the time of reception into a Correctional Centre is immediately brought to the attention of the Justice Health Staff member conducting the reception assessment of the inmate. This should occur irrespective of whether the assessment has been completed.

9. The Department of Corrective Services should note that the policy in relation to immediately cutting down an inmate found hanging and commencing resuscitative efforts was not followed in this case. The Department should consider the best way of reinforcing that the policy should be complied with in all circumstances.

To the Attorney General

10. A protocol should be developed between the referring courts and the Mental Health Review Tribunal to ensure that notifications of the court's decision that a person has been found not guilty on the grounds of mental illness occurs at the earliest possible time and, at the outside, no later than seven days.

This is a damning report by Magistrate Pinch, Deputy State Coroner, chronicling the systemic failure of the handling and treatment of people with a mental illness in New South Wales who are a danger to themselves and others because of their condition. I call on the Government to formally and publicly address the criticisms and failings as elucidated by Magistrate Pinch. I note that Minister Hatzistergos replied to my question asked in the estimates hearing of 4 September 2006. I urge that this matter be addressed as soon as possible.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [8.05 p.m.]: The skills shortage in rural and regional New South Wales has long been of concern and is often compounded by the drain of young people to metropolitan areas. This has been confirmed by the Standing Committee on State Development's Inquiry into Skills Shortages in Rural and Regional New South Wales, which clearly showed that skills shortages exist across almost all sectors of the economy in rural and regional parts of the State. I am pleased to say that the inquiry generated a lot of interest across the whole of the State. The Committee secretariat, whom I wish to thank for their assistance and input, received high-quality submissions from a diverse range of people and organisations including local councils, employers, training organisations and government departments. Public hearings were also held throughout rural and regional New South Wales, with many people taking the time to participate in the hearings. The future prosperity of rural and regional New South Wales is of high importance to local communities and the response to the hearings was most encouraging.

The New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring that skills development is at the forefront of policy decision making. A New South Wales Skills Council is being established to act as a bridge between business, training providers and policy makers. Further, the New South Wales Government is considering the establishment of an employment lands task force to help increase economic growth in the Riverina-Murray region. The idea for the task force follows feedback from the region's communities that identified addressing the skills shortage, attracting new businesses, access to employment lands, and continuing to build and diversify the economic base as high priorities.

The State Government also recognises that as industry and the economy change, people will need to have the skills to adapt. This Government has set the target of increasing the proportion of the population aged 15 to 64 years participating in vocational education and training from 11.7 per cent in 2005 to 16 per cent by 2016. Of course this target will only be met through joint effort with industry and the Commonwealth Government. Unfortunately, in recent years we have witnessed the Howard Government reducing education funding. It is disappointing to see, as a percentage of the Howard Government's budget expenditure, that spending on training has declined and is projected to decline through to 2009-10. We need serious investment in training from the Federal Government to address skills shortages. It is ridiculous that there are not enough places in universities for example to train doctors when our population is increasing; and further, that John Howard places more importance on using funding as a gun to the head of educational institutions all for the sake of achieving his aim of reducing the conditions of workers.

Existing institutions, such as TAFE colleges do an excellent job, yet the Prime Minister is hell-bent on creating his own Australian Technical Colleges [ATCs]. The strong possibility that there will be duplication of roles, particularly when New South Wales students are offered the opportunity of participating in vocational education and training in schools, have access to nationally accredited courses at TAFE and will benefit from the establishment of 10 trade schools across the State, is of great concern. At present only a few ATCs exist in Australia and those are all located on the eastern seaboard. Negotiations on the establishment of the ATCs have been troubled, to say the least, and the future of many ATCs is unclear. John Howard has rejected all bids by New South Wales—which have extensive industry and community support—to run the ATCs.

The New South Wales applications proposed the delivery of the colleges within the existing governance and human resource framework of New South Wales public schools to ensure that public schools students would be able to take up the opportunities they will offer. Training for our young people as well as older workers is invaluable. However, the Federal Government quietly continues to cut back programs, including the rural and regional skills shortage incentive for many apprentices, and funding to our educational institutions.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [8.10 p.m.]: It was a great honour and pleasure to be invited to attend the Netball New South Wales Awards held at Sydney Olympic Park on Saturday 4 November. Netball is a game that virtually every Australian girl or woman plays. At an official level it is Australia's largest organised sport, with 300,000 registered players nationally and 110,000 registered players in New South Wales. Of course, hundreds of thousands more are playing netball at school and in social competitions. It is clear the future of netball is in very good stead, with positive and visionary leadership of National President Noeleen Dix, who is a Victorian with strong New South Wales credentials, New South Wales President Wendy Archer, and General Manager of Netball New South Wales Carolyn Campbell.

My colleague the member for Willoughby and I were made to feel very welcome at the event, and it was in every sense a gala celebration of a wonderful year as well as a tribute to all generations participating at all levels of the sport. I was thrilled to meet the former Captain of the Australian Netball team, the legendary Anne Sargent, who was at the peak of her playing career when I was playing for my school. Anne has of course been the face of Netball on ABC broadcasts. I had not appreciated how involved she continues to be in supporting netball, particularly as a role model for younger players, who referred to her with great affection and appreciation. The awards ceremonies featured the following:

Hall of Fame Inductees: Margaret Corbett and Terese Kennedy.

The Anne Clark Service Award: Cathy Aird, Baulkham Hills; Val Brunker, Kiama; Beverley Dew, Manly; Kay Smith, Lower Clarence; and Rhonda Swindale, Ulladulla.

Marilyn Melhuish CBT Player of the Year: Liz Ellis.

Judy Dunbar Media Award: Amanda Lulham, Daily Telegraph.

Neita Matthews Umpires Encouragement Award: Rachel Hughes, Bathurst.

Margaret Corbett State League Coach of the Year Award: Moira Gaha, St George.

Nance Kenny Medal-State League Player of the Year Award: Katie Walker, Manly; and Applee Kannengiesser, Penrith.

It has been a remarkable year for New South Wales Netball. In September the Sydney TAB Swifts Netball Team made history by winning the Commonwealth Bank Trophy Grand Final after finishing the season as undefeated minor premiers In October Australia defeated the world champions, the New Zealand Silver Ferns, on their home ground. Australia clinched the Fisher and Paykel Cup in a thrilling 40-46 third test decider. The Australian Team has our best wishes for what will be another epic campaign for the World Championships in Fiji next year. I have already mentioned Liz Ellis, the Australian and Sydney TAB Swifts captain, who was honoured at the New South Wales Netball dinner as "Player of the Year".

Last Monday Liz was awarded the National Commonwealth Bank Trophy Most Valued Player award, the highest honour that can be given to an Australian netball player. I congratulate and thank Netball New South Wales for all they do to develop outstanding young women and keep Australia at the forefront of the world in this important sport. I believe it is vital that the State Government provide assistance to Netball New South Wales to enable it to achieve its vision for a world class Sydney netball headquarters at Blacktown. We need to conquer the sponsorship issue and I believe a very good beginning can be made by following through the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry into Women's Sport.
On Friday 3 November I attended the annual Womensport Sydney Schoolgirls Breakfast with the Stars at Sydney Olympic Sports Centre. Over 800 elite schoolgirls attended and celebrated the achievements and future of women's sport. Included on the program was a display of rhythmic gymnastics by students of the Sydney Academy of Sport that was simply breathtaking. Other events included Salsa dancing and a panel discussion featuring Kerri Pottharst, our Sydney Olympic Volleyball Gold Medallist; the inspirational Louise Sauvage, who won two gold medals, a demonstration event gold medal and a silver medal at the Sydney Paralympics, and her fellow Paralympian Gold Medallist Amy Winters.

In total there were 43 women sports stars, including representatives from our world champion Opals Basketball team; netball, cycling, rowing and weightlifting—showing that all sports are for women. I congratulate the organisers of Womensport New South Wales, who, under the energetic leadership of President Imke Fischer, achieve an enormous amount by bringing together the different sports and actively promoting the opportunities and needs of women's sport at all levels. Imke and I had the opportunity to discuss the research that shows how powerful the effect of role models are in inspiring and motivating women to become involved in sport. With a virtual epidemic of eating disorders ranging from anorexia to obesity, we have simply got to do more to support those whose leadership will inspire younger generations to make sport a part of their lives.

I am concerned at the meagre resources with which so much is being achieved. Womensport as a peak leadership organisation for girls simply must be supported to a professional level that reflects its importance and standing. It is not good enough that it virtually exists on charity and the goodwill of volunteers. Indeed it is an embarrassment. I thank all those with the vision and wit to sponsor women's sport. The benefit to the individual is life-changing. The benefit to the nation is immense. This is a major area of focus for the Coalition and I look forward to working with Womensport New South Wales to the benefit of our girls and sport.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.15 p.m.]: The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] is in the process of widening, from two lanes to four, the Great Western Highway through the township of Lawson. Under the proposed plan all of the shops that front the highway, except the hotel, will be demolished to make way for a car park and service lane. Residents of Lawson are angry, not only with the RTA, but also with the actions of the Blue Mountains City Council. On 26 September the council announced, with barely a scrap of community consultation, that it had revamped the development plan for Lawson, now known as the revised concept plan. What had been played down as minor and insignificant changes turned out to be the exact opposite. The changes include an increase in the council's budget for the plan from $3 million to approximately $20 million, not including certain key elements of the plan such as the library.

Residents are asking themselves how the council will fund such a massive increase. Will it beg the RTA for what appears to be a shortfall of at least $10 million? Council will also have to fund and build a $2 million building to temporarily house businesses during the construction and transition period. The building will be in front of the community centre and prevent further planned extensions of that centre. Car parking has been totally rearranged to include 97 underground car parking spaces—an enormous number for such a small village. The school currently shares the community hall and has a safe access across unused community land. Council has placed a road and parking spaces between the hall and the school, creating an unnecessary new danger for schoolchildren travelling between the two. Trucks will use the road to use the centre's loading bay. A new road is now placed where the village square was, with no plan to replace it.

The council did not consult with the community of Lawson in preparing this revised plan, and the plans are not supported by the people of Lawson. They reflect the arrogance of the Government, the RTA and the Blue Mountains City Council and should be reviewed. There are alternatives to the demolition of the historic buildings and I urge the Government, the RTA and the council to withdraw the current plans and seriously examine those alternatives. Last night I read into Hansard some of the letters that members of the Balmain community had written protesting at the closure of Rozelle Hospital.

[Time for debate expired.]

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 8.17 p.m. until Tuesday 21 November 2006 at 2.30 p.m.

_______________