Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 28 June 2007, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Peter Thomas Primrose) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.
The President tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the following reports of the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption:

(1) Report entitled "Report of an Audit of the ICAC's Compliance with Section 12A of the ICAC Act 1988", dated 28 June 2007

(2) Report entitled "Report of an Audit of the ICAC's Compliance with Sections 21, 22, 23, 35 and 54 of the ICAC Act 1988", dated 28 June 2007.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca.

The PRESIDENT: As this is likely to be the last sitting day for this session I wish to advise members of the retirement in the upcoming recess of Greg Thomas, a senior member of the Hansard subeditorial staff. Greg will put down his quill on 13 July after 24 years service to this Parliament. To put that into some perspective: In 1983, when Greg joined Hansard, Neville Wran was still Premier, Johno Johnson was President of the Legislative Council, Paul Landa was Leader of the Government in this Chamber, Reverend Fred Nile was a junior member of the House, and Melinda Pavey had just commenced year 9 at Orora High School! On behalf of members and officers of the Legislative Council I thank Greg for his dedicated service and wish him and his wife, Maree, a long and healthy retirement.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That on Thursday 28 June 2007 Government Business take precedence of General Business.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

1. That during the present session and unless otherwise ordered Standing Order 210 (10) be amended to read:

210 (10) No member may take part in a committee inquiry where the member has a direct pecuniary interest in the inquiry of the committee, unless it is in common with the general public, or a class of persons within the general public, or it is on a matter of State policy.

2. That the Procedure Committee inquire into and report on the provisions in the standing orders relating to pecuniary interests.

Motion by the Hon. Kayee Griffin agreed to:

That the House adopt report No. 36 of the Privileges Committee, entitled "Citizen's Right of Reply (NRMA)", dated June 2007.

Pursuant to standing orders the response of Mr Stuart was incorporated.

————

Reply to comments by Ms Lee Rhiannon MLC in the Legislative Council on 5 June 2007

I write to seek a Citizen's Right of Reply regarding comments made in the Legislative Council by Ms Lee Rhiannon MLC on the evening of 5 June 2007.

NRMA believes that Ms Rhiannon's statements under privilege were incorrect, and that they may adversely affect the reputation of NRMA, our personnel and our business dealings.

In Parliament Ms Rhiannon:

· Stated that on "20 April this year" NRMA had closed its vehicle inspection service "with almost no warning". This statement is wrong. The NRMA issued a statement announcing the closure of our vehicle inspections business on 7 February 2007 which was widely reported.

· Implied that in closing Vehicle Inspections the company was acting against our own Constitution. This is incorrect. Neither clause 3(b)(i) nor any other clause of the Constitution obliges NRMA to conduct a Vehicle Inspection business.

· Stated that the Vehicle Inspection had "posted a profit in some previous years". This implies that the Vehicle Inspections business in its then form was a viable business. This is not the case. Vehicle Inspections was wound down after a steady eight-year decline in member demand, revenue and profit. This was made clear in the company's statement of 7 February 2007.

· Stated that NRMA is "buying unprofitable businesses such as motels, holiday parks and car rental companies." This is not the case. NRMA has not purchased "car rental companies" - it has purchased a 75 per cent interest in Thrifty Australia.

Each of NRMA's recent acquisitions - including a 50 per cent stake in the Travelodge Hotel chain, investment in Thrifty Australia and the purchase of five holiday parks – are profitable. In fact, the company is reinvesting in each of these acquisitions to ensure their continued growth and success. Each of NRMA's recent acquisitions - including a 50 per cent stake in the Travelodge Hotel chain, investment in Thrifty Australia and the purchase of five holiday parks – are profitable. In fact, the company is reinvesting in each of these acquisitions to ensure their continued growth and success.

Ms Rhiannon has made seriously damaging allegations concerning the behaviour of the NRMA and the Motor Traders Association. In Parliament Ms Rhiannon stated that:

the real reason why the vehicle inspection service was axed was as a payoff to the Motor Traders Association for its electoral support of the majority NRMA Board.

Ms Rhiannon's claims allege that corrupt behaviour within the NRMA and the MTA led to the closure of the Vehicle Inspection business. As stated above, Vehicle Inspections was wound down after a steady eight year decline in member demand, revenue and profit. Again, this was made clear in the company's statement of 7 February 2007.

Further, Ms Rhiannon has made imputations about the conduct of NRMA Director Michael Tynan which we reject in the strongest possible terms.

————

Motion by Dr John Kaye agreed to:

That this House:

(a) congratulates the many parents and citizens organisations in New South Wales on the support and advice they provide to their schools,

(b) recognises the excellent work done by the Parents and Citizens Federation of New South Wales and its constituent bodies in supporting and promoting public education in New South Wales and in representing parents when advocating for public schools, and

(c) wishes the Parents and Citizens Federation of New South Wales a successful conference in July 2007.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.05 a.m.]: I seek leave to amend Private Members' Business item No. 63, of which I have given notice, by omitting paragraphs (a) to (h) and inserting instead:

(a) details of recurrent and capital estimates at agency level consistent with the level of disaggregation in the 2007-08 Budget Papers for the financial years 2006-07 (revised), 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 as shown in print outs provided from Treasury’s Financial Information System,

(b) details of uncommitted, allocated funds or contingencies consistent with the 2007-08 Budget Papers within those forward estimates as shown in printouts provided from Treasury’s Financial Information System,

(c) the most recent document showing cost estimates for projects included in the State Infrastructure Strategy 2006-07 to 2015-16, the Water Plan, Metropolitan Strategy, State Plan, Urban Transport Statement and Government Promises made and costed by Treasury during the protocol period prior to the March 2007 election,

(d) documents showing economic and other assumptions underpinning the estimates for the financial years 2007-08, 2008­09, 2009-10 and 2010-11,

(e) documents prepared by Treasury during 2006-07 identifying or qualifying risks and contingent liabilities that might impact the financial years 2006-07 (revised), 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11,

(f) documents commenting on the State’s future financial position as revealed in the estimates,

(g) documents that show 2006-07 actual budget variations, not provided in the Budget Papers or requested elsewhere in this motion,

(h) documents showing the current estimate of the impact on the 2007-08 budget pertaining to agency amalgamations or restructuring, efficiently dividends and other initiatives arising from the Government’s Economic and Financial Statement from February 2006 or other initiatives.

Leave granted.

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 21 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Treasurer, NSW Treasury, The Cabinet Office or the Department of Premier and Cabinet relating to the 2007-08 budget finances excluding any document previously provided to the House under Standing Order 52 or captured by the order of the House of 20 June 2007:

(a) details of recurrent and capital estimates at agency level consistent with the level of disaggregation in the 2007-08 Budget Papers for the financial years 2006-07 (revised), 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 as shown in print outs provided from Treasury’s Financial Information System,

(b) details of uncommitted, allocated funds or contingencies consistent with the 2007-08 Budget Papers within those forward estimates as shown in printouts provided from Treasury’s Financial Information System,

(c) the most recent document showing cost estimates for projects included in the State Infrastructure Strategy 2006-07 to 2015-16, the Water Plan, Metropolitan Strategy, State Plan, Urban Transport Statement and Government Promises made and costed by Treasury during the protocol period prior to the March 2007 election,

(d) documents showing economic and other assumptions underpinning the estimates for the financial years 2007-08, 2008­09, 2009-10 and 2010-11,

(e) documents prepared by Treasury during 2006-07 identifying or qualifying risks and contingent liabilities that might impact the financial years 2006-07 (revised), 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11,

(f) documents commenting on the State’s future financial position as revealed in the estimates,

(g) documents that show 2006-07 actual budget variations, not provided in the Budget Papers or requested elsewhere in this motion,

(h) documents showing the current estimate of the impact on the 2007-08 budget pertaining to agency amalgamations or restructuring, efficiently dividends and other initiatives arising from the Government’s Economic and Financial Statement from February 2006 or other initiatives,

(i) all correspondence between the Treasurer and Secretary of the Treasury on the above matters since the presentation of the 2007-08 State Budget, and

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

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That under Standing Order 52 there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Lands and Department of Lands created since March 2003:

(a) all documents, including maps, relating to the planning and redevelopment of Coffs Harbour Port,

(b) all documents, including maps, relating to the planning and redevelopment of Batemans Bay Marina, and

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

The Hon. Michael Costa tabled the following paper:

Animal Research Act 1985—Report of the Animal Research Review Panel for the year ended 30 June 2006

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Costa.

Petition requesting that the Boxing and Wrestling Control Act 1986 be amended to allow women to compete in boxing matches in New South Wales, received from the Hon. Lynda Voltz.

Petition requesting that the Government introduce regular local passenger trains on the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line, develop an integrated and sustainable plan for meeting the current and future transport needs of the Northern Rivers region, commence planning for a rail link from Murwillumbah to the Gold Coast and promote the expansion of rail freight, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [11.21 a.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Tony Kelly: I move:

That, during the present session and unless otherwise ordered:

1. At the commencement of the sittings following a periodic election, or when a vacancy occurs, the House is to elect a member to be Assistant Deputy-President.

2. The Assistant Deputy-President will be elected in a similar manner as the President.

3. The Assistant Deputy-President will hold office for the life of the Parliament in which elected.

4. In the absence of both the President and Deputy-President on a day when the House is sitting the Assistant Deputy­President will perform the duties of the President.

5. This resolution has continuing effect until amended or rescinded.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.21 a.m.]: The Opposition has a number of concerns about this motion. First, the Opposition has not heard any mention about the need for this new position. There has been no discussion with the Coalition about the creation of a new position of Assistant Deputy-President; it came out of the blue yesterday and it is remarkable that the Government has not forward a case for creating the position. It simply moved the motion.

As the Hon. Catherine Cusack rightly reminded me prior to the debate coming on—she is rarely wrong when it comes to these issues—such a matter must first be thrashed out in the Parliament and then subsequently explained fully to the people of New South Wales. She harked back to an earlier time when the Parliament found itself having to exp As the Hon. Catherine Cusack rightly reminded me prior to the debate coming on—she is rarely wrong when it comes to these issues—such a matter must first be thrashed out in the Parliament and then subsequently explained fully to the people of New South Wales. She harked back to an earlier time when the Parliament found itself having to explain its actions to the people of New South Wales. The Government must tell us today whether any member of this House has been approached, prior to the matter being debated, about their preparedness to take on the new position, be it a Government member or a member of the crossbench. To my knowledge no member of the Coalition has been spoken to.
The Government should place on the record whether it can withstand scrutiny as to the breadth of discussion about the new position. The Government has not mentioned anything about remuneration. I expect that initially we will be told there will be no remuneration, but that later the Government will seek to change that and it will become permanent. Nothing has been put forward about that to the Parliament or to the people of New South Wales. How can the Treasurer move this motion when hardworking, loyal staff of this Parliament have lost their jobs over the past 12 months? They were told there was simply not enough money for them, there was no longer a position for them, they were no longer wanted, and therefore they must go.

It is hypocritical for the Government to now create a job for which somebody will be probably paid, at a time when no case has been put forward for the need for the position, let alone the remuneration that will go with it! The Government must answer those questions. It should answer whether there is a conflict of interest with respect to whether members who believe they may be appointed to the position are entitled to vote on the motion. The Government has not answered these serious questions. It is unacceptable to the Opposition and to the people of New South Wales that the Government has simply moved the motion, and therefore we oppose it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.25 a.m.]: The Greens oppose the creation of the position because it is unnecessary. It is important that the Government answer the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, the motion is an insult to the House. The Labor Government has given no justification for creating the new position of Assistant Deputy-President, and a question hangs over how the whole thing has come about. Is it designed to assist Labor politically rather than improve the running of the New South Wales upper House? Honourable members should remember that we already have a President and a Deputy-President and seven Chairs of Committee who assist the President on a daily basis.

When similar positions have been created, the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal has ruled that there should be additional pay and additional entitlements. Is that part of this package? The Minister needs to come clean on the deal that has been arranged, because at the moment it has a smell about it and it does no credit to the Parliament. It further tarnishes the standing of parliamentarians in the eyes of the public when these sorts of arrangements go ahead, particularly when there is not full transparency with respect to why such a position is needed. The Greens remain extremely concerned about this position. We urge the Government to come clean, spell out why the position is needed, what talks have taken place, and what agreement has been put in place or what discussions are occurring with respect to additional pay and entitlements for the position.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.24 a.m.]: I oppose the creation of this position. Of all honourable members, with the exception of the Hon. Tony Kelly, I am the person in the best position to understand the role of Deputy-President. Most people would think the proposed position would be an assistant to the President, but the role is assistant to the Deputy-President, not assistant to the President. We know how diligent and hardworking the President is. We are not sure how diligent and hardworking the Hon. Amanda Fazio is, because she has not been in Parliament that much this year. If she has time to be away, the job cannot be too onerous. The Hon. Amanda Fazio has travelled to the far ends of the world this year; she has not attended Parliament, yet now that she is back she needs an assistant!

This is the greatest rort ever from this Government. It is not about personalities, it is about the position. It is about what the lower House has done with the Leader of the Government on a ministerial salary. For years in the lower House there was a Speaker and a Chairman of Committees. There is now a Speaker, a Chairman of Committees, a Deputy-Speaker and two Assistant-Speakers, every one of them with a role, every one of them with a salary, some of them with a car and all of them with a car parking space. In fact, there is not enough room on level 3 and level 4 for any more cars! I am sure the Treasurer will attest that there is a budget blow-out because of the extra car park signs that have been created. It is an industry for the Government.

The President is a good President who works hard and is able to carry out his role. I suspect the Deputy-President is a very capable woman who is more than able to carry out her role without an assistant. I did not need an assistant when I was Chairman of Committees; nor did the Hon. Tony Kelly. And, in most instances, we did not have a President who was as diligent and hardworking as the present one. This one is a cracker. The proposed position is unneeded.

As the Leader of the Opposition asked, at a time when good people on small salaries are losing their jobs in this place, how can we justify another job with a double salary? If the Government were fair dinkum and this position were needed it would have appointed a temporary chair of committees. There are seven of them, and there is no roster for them in this place. That is one more reason why this proposal is a farce. If the Government is fair dinkum and is determined to create a position we do not need, in light of the job cuts, the Opposition challenges the Government to create this position without a salary.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [11.31 a.m.], in reply: I will try to answer some of the histrionics of members opposite.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Tell us what's happening!

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I could never tell you what was happening because you never listen, about anything. Of course, the President and the Speaker not only run the two Chambers but also manage the Parliament and staff the library. They control a substantial budget. They have protocol demands of the State and represent this Parliament. They will perform those roles more handsomely with a distinguished Assistant Deputy-President. It is part of the Government's efforts to set higher standards. Yesterday the Leader of The Nationals was ejected by the Independent Speaker in the lower House. Last week the Labor Treasurer was thrown out of this House by a Labor President. This will ensure—

The Hon. Don Harwin: That was Labor Government policy, was it?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It has nothing to do with a policy.

The Hon. Don Harwin: That is what you just said.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I did not. You are going to great lengths to make—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I may seek to enact more policies if members do not desist. Members will allow the Hon. John Della Bosca to continue speaking.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Creating the position of Assistant Deputy-President will bring this House into line with the lower House, and that is exactly what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said. In respect of what the Leader of the Opposition said, the temporary chairmen of this House are, of course, chairmen in this House. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that better than I do. It is a matter quite apart from—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Adjourn it till tomorrow.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: We are not sitting tomorrow. The creation of this position has a great deal of merit, and I think all honourable members will agree.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

[ In division.]

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: I ask you to remind honourable members of the Code of Conduct, which requires that members of Parliament must take all reasonable steps to declare any conflict of interest between their private financial interests and decisions on which they participate in the execution of their office. I ask you to specifically ask honourable members who are voting in this division whether any of them have a conflict of interest which breaches the Code of Conduct.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Given the nature of this debate, I remind members to abide by the Code of Conduct at all times. Members should ensure they are fully conversant with the code.

Mr Brown Mr Catanzariti Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Ms Fazio Ms Griffin Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald

Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Smith Mr Tsang

Ms Voltz Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Veitch

Mr Ajaka Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Ms Hale Dr Kaye Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr Mason-Cox Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Hatzistergos

Ms Ficarra

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I announce that according to the resolution carried by the House it is necessary to choose a member to be Assistant Deputy-President. I now call for nominations for the position of Assistant Deputy-President.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.41 p.m.]: I propose and move:

That Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile be Assistant Deputy-President.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: I ask the Hon. Robert Brown to table the piece of paper from which he read so that we can ascertain who prepared the motion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. There being no further nominations for the office of Assistant Deputy President, I declare Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile elected to the office of Assistant Deputy-President.

Petition objecting to multiple parts of Killalea State Park being leased to private interests for 52 years to undertake a major accommodation development, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.
Government Business Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [11.44 a.m.]: I seek leave to move a motion, notice of which was given this day, under Standing Order 52 regarding the "Breaking the Silence: Creating the Future" report.

Leave not granted.
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.45 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 43 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the tabling of the independent legal arbiter's report regarding the Gretley mine disaster, be called on forthwith.

I call for the tabling of the report of Sir Laurence Street, no more, no less. The Parliament asked Sir Laurence Street to review the papers on the Gretley mine disaster and Sir Laurence Street has delivered a report to the Parliament. I ask that the report be tabled so that all members can examine it and read the view of Sir Laurence Street about those papers. I do not know what Sir Laurence Street's view is, nor does the Government. If the Government continues to oppose the tabling of the report it means that it wants to cover up papers that are important to the families of the people who were killed in the mining disaster and to the company employees whose lives and reputations were disrupted. This is not an unreasonable request. I ask only for the tabling of Sir Laurence Street's report. I do not understand why the Government did not allow it formally this morning. I can only hope that it was an oversight and it was not the Government's intention to oppose the tabling of the document. If it did, it means that the Government wants to cover up and obstruct justice, which this State was built on. Justice in this situation requires that we be able to examine the report.

When the former Attorney General was an honoured member of this Chamber we revisited the issue relating to the status of documents. Young men lost their lives in this mining disaster because incorrect maps caused mining operations to break into a flooded area. The Opposition has called for all documents, particularly those pertaining to the origin of those maps. We want to ascertain how the company came to be using the maps from the Department of Mineral Resources that caused the disaster in which these young men lost their lives. We also want to ascertain, given action was taken against the executives of the company, whether any action was taken or contemplated against the Department of Mineral Resources, which provided the inaccurate maps. They are important issues.

I do not ask today for the release of the documents that are held in the Clerk's office. I ask for the release of the opinion of Sir Laurence Street—no more, no less. That is what we want. I would be surprised and disappointed if the Government were not only covering up the documents but also the opinion of this learned jurist, whom the Parliament has asked to make a decision on these papers. This is an important issue for the State. It is important not only that the people of New South Wales know, but also that the families of the people who lost their lives, the people whose lives have been changed by this decision, be informed. Madam Deputy­President—

The Hon. Tony Kelly: The hardworking Madam Deputy-President.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The soon to be not as hardworking Madam Deputy-President.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind the member that his remarks must be relevant to the motion before the Chair.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: When this debate has come up in the Chamber in the past members have treated the matter with due diligence. [ Time expired.]

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.50 a.m.]: It is important to support the Hon. Duncan Gay's motion. Members are aware of the important precedents and processes established by this House for dealing with the production of papers. That is central to the functioning of this place as a house of review and to our role in ensuring that the Government is held accountable and that matters of public interest are properly ventilated. Some of the newer members may not be aware of the history of the inherent power of this House to order the Government to produce documents, and the cases that went all the way to the High Court when the former Treasurer and Leader of the House, the Hon. Michael Egan, was still here.

As a result of the findings of the High Court, the inherent power of the House to order the Executive to produce documents was confirmed. Very sensible negotiations were held between Government and other members to establish a process to deal with papers that are produced in accordance with the power to order production of papers that are genuinely confidential or contain names and other material identifying people that it would be inappropriate to make public. In that case, members would be able to obtain the order to have the papers produced and the Government, when producing the papers, would be allowed to mount an argument about documents that properly should not be made public. This motion simply enables that process and it is very important that we support it.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 43 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

1. That the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, dated 9 May 2007, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to the Gretley mine disaster, be laid on the table by the Clerk.

2. That, on tabling, the report be authorised to be published.

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

MR PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:

That Anthony Paul Stewart be appointed to serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in place of Ms Diane Beamer, discharged.

Legislative Assembly R ICHARD T ORBAY
28 June 2007 Speaker

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.56 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The consensus of scientific experts is that climate change is a global problem with potentially devastating consequences for New South Wales. In our State climate change will mean more extreme heat and, as a consequence, and more bushfires. It will mean less rainfall—although that is difficult to believe if we step outside the House at the moment—and reduced river flows and water availability. Climate change will also mean more increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events like storms and flooding. The Iemma Government has been a leader in responding to the threat of climate change. The Premier, with his interstate counterparts, has been the driving force that has finally convinced the Prime Minister to make a belated, and as yet incomplete, commitment to a national emissions trading scheme. Within New South Wales the Government is also acting very powerfully to help our citizens make their own changes to help reduce future impacts. Through this legislation the New South Wales Government will establish a Climate Change Fund.

This $310 million initiative will help us respond to two key challenges of climate change: water scarcity and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. The bill will extend the Water and Energy Savings Funds we established in 2005 and expand a very successful program to help business, government, schools, industry and households save water and energy. Today the first $70 million was allocated to the first year of implementation of the Climate Change Fund. In saving energy the Climate Change Fund will save electricity, reduce peak demand and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the contribution they make to global warming. Through improving water efficiency we will save drinking water in every town and region across New South Wales and better manage an increasingly precious resource. The bill will create the $310 million Climate Change Fund to be used to support water and energy saving projects across New South Wales. It will extend the opportunities for water funding to all of New South Wales and it will provide, for the first time, a helping hand to all New South Wales householders to make their homes more water and energy efficient.

A residential rebate program will provide rebates for rainwater tanks, insulation and hot water systems. The rainwater tanks rebate will provide up to $1,500 for householders. To maximise drinking water savings, the rebate will be scaled to provide the highest level to people who connect the tank to toilets and washing machines. By enabling householders to harvest their own water to flush toilets and wash clothes, the rebate program will be available to help save town water in every centre in New South Wales. The insulation and hot water system rebates will help householders reduce greenhouse gas emissions and electricity bills. Like the Water and Energy Savings Funds, this support will help overcome one of the major barriers to water and energy efficiency, which is the upfront cost. Most families realise that investment in energy savings like solar hot water systems saves money over time, but many families cannot afford the initial establishment costs. This fund will be available to help the whole community respond to those savings challenges.

The Climate Change Fund will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by supporting renewable energy technologies. The New South Wales Renewable Energy Target Scheme demonstrates the Government's commitment to stimulating the renewable energy industry in New South Wales. The Climate Change Fund will provide a further $40 million stimulus by helping to get clean energy ideas from the drawing board into the marketplace. Schools, schoolchildren and their parents will also be given the opportunity to save water, energy and emissions through two programs under the Climate Change Fund. The Schools Energy Efficiency Program will offer high schools the chance to have their lighting retrofitted to improve energy efficiency and provide participating schools with a fund to spend as they choose on identified water and energy saving projects. By 2011 every government school in New South Wales will also be harvesting its own water and using it, where possible, to flush toilets.

Local councils and managers and owners of community facilities and public buildings will be able to establish showcases for water and energy excellence through a Public Facilities Program. This funding will support water and energy saving projects in public or educational facilities that demonstrate the potential for savings to a wider audience. The Climate Change Fund will extend this existing program to include water as well as energy saving projects. As I mentioned before, the Water and Energy Savings Funds upon which this new program builds have provided financial support for savings projects which would not have proceeded without it. The funds bridged the gap between the cost of investment in energy and water savings and the business case for investment. The Climate Change Fund will enable the Government to continue to develop its programs to drive reduction in energy and water usage as the State's highest water and energy using industrial and commercial activities.

I will now turn to the details of the bill. The Energy and Utilities Administration Act 1987 will be amended to replace the Water Savings Fund and the Energy Savings Fund with the Climate Change Fund. The purposes of the Climate Change Fund are to provide funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of climate change associated with water and energy activities, to encourage water and energy savings and the recycling of water, to reduce the demand for water and energy, including addressing peak demand for energy, to stimulate investment in innovative water and energy savings measures, to increase public awareness and acceptance of the importance of climate change and water and energy savings measures, and to provide contributions made by the State for the purposes of national energy regulation.

These purposes include those of the current Water and Energy Savings Funds and add new climate change related objectives. Given the Government's commitment to establish the Renewable Energy Development Program under the fund, the Act will no longer specify that it is not a purpose of the fund to provide funding for low-emission power generation. Under the bill the purposes of the Climate Change Fund are not restricted to reducing water demand in water savings areas in the way the purposes of and therefore payments were for the Water Savings Fund. This will allow programs to be delivered statewide rather than restricted to water savings areas. Under provisions already in the Act and a subsequent regulation, the Minister can require certain water utilities—Sydney Water, Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council—and the electricity distribution network service providers These purposes include those of the current Water and Energy Savings Funds and add new climate change related objectives. Given the Government's commitment to establish the Renewable Energy Development Program under the fund, the Act will no longer specify that it is not a purpose of the fund to provide funding for low-emission power generation. Under the bill the purposes of the Climate Change Fund are not restricted to reducing water demand in water savings areas in the way the purposes of and therefore payments were for the Water Savings Fund. This will allow programs to be delivered statewide rather than restricted to water savings areas. Under provisions already in the Act and a subsequent regulation, the Minister can require certain water utilities—Sydney Water, Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council—and the electricity distribution network service providers—EnergyAustralia, Country Energy and Integral Energy—to make annual contributions to the fund by order published in the Government Gazette.

If any other water agencies are to contribute to the fund, the Minister must prescribe the agency by regulation following consultation with the Minister for Water Utilities, if they are State-owned corporations, or the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales, if otherwise. Other functions established in the Act when the Government first introduced the water and energy savings initiatives in 2005 will be retained. These include provision for funds to be sourced from other mechanisms, and the ability for the Minister to establish advisory committees to advise him on the fund. The bill will preserve the second initiative introduced by the Government in 2005 requiring high water and energy users to prepare saving action plans that set out measures to save water and energy. These measures will continue to be driven strongly by the Government.

The bill provides for a very practical approach in New South Wales. It provides for the customers of energy and water utilities to contribute the resources needed to transform our approach to how we use and conserve energy and water. It builds on the very successful separate energy and water savings funds provision, expanded to help tackle climate change. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [11.57 a.m.]: I offer the Coalition's support for this bill, although, as I will explain, we have concerns about it and will be moving some amendments in Committee to overcome them. This bill seeks to establish a Climate Change Fund under the Energy and Utilities (Administration) Act to provide funding for savings in energy and water. It comes as no surprise that funding currently exists for these purposes under that Act and that the new Climate Change Fund is merely a change of name for the Energy Savings Fund and the Water Savings Fund. This bill is nothing more than typically cynical Iemma Government sleight of hand to make it look as though it is doing something about climate change.

The explanatory notes attached to the bill admit that the new fund is a continuation of the existing water and energy savings funds. The Government also claims that funding will be provided to reduce the impact of climate change. It will be very interesting to see the guidelines for funding projects under that heading. The Minister claimed in his speech in the other place that the $310 million—$70 million of which will be spent in the 2007-08 financial year—will help the Government to respond to two key climate change challenges: water scarcity and greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. Knowing the Treasurer's view on climate change, it is quite an achievement for the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water to try to con $310 million out of him for climate change projects.

The Minister referred to a rebate of $1,500 for the installation of water tanks attached to toilets and washing machines. All members would appreciate that the Coalition announced that policy during the last election campaign. Tanks are all we have in country New South Wales. I wonder whether the rainwater tank rebate will apply to all householders in New South Wales, including those who have no other water supply. It is no secret that country people have been living with rainwater tanks all their lives. It is the best-tasting and healthiest water that one could hope to drink. The Government has also announced rebates for the installation of insulation in houses. Of course, many people have already insulated their homes, particularly those living in the colder, higher areas of New South Wales. We would not be able to survive in those areas without insulated houses. What about the householders who have already completed those works? Will they be disadvantaged because they will not be eligible for the subsidy?

There is a sting in the tail of this bill. The second reading speech states that the Minister can now require water utility providers and energy distributors to make annual contributions to the Climate Change Fund. Water and energy prices will jump dramatically as a result.

It is a shame that the Government has not done something to harvest the 600-plus gigalitres of water that pours out into the sea from Sydney's suburbs every year. That must be the greatest waste of water that occurs in this State. Instead, the Government has continued to proceed with the $2 billion energy-hungry desalination plant, which will be forced to continue operating even when Warragamba Dam is full and overflowing. Even when it is discharging a flood down the Hawkesbury Valley, the desalination plant will still be chewing up energy to produce water that will not be needed at that time. What an absolute abject waste of money and energy!

There is concern that this $310 million fund is nothing more than a slush fund paid for by contributions raised at the Minister's discretion from water and energy authorities across the State. We are concerned about the transparency of this fund. How will these projects be selected, how will they be managed, and how will they be monitored? How can we be sure that money from the fund is spent on reducing the impacts of climate change, rather than poured into a ministerial honey pot? I will move amendments in Committee to ensure that projects are contestable, that funding is transparent, and that details of the projects and funding are reported back to the Parliament.

I take this opportunity to remind the Treasurer how impressed we were to hear that $310 million had been donated to a climate change fund given that we all know his views on climate change. The reality of climate change is that if it is caused by carbon dioxide I take this opportunity to remind the Treasurer how impressed we were to hear that $310 million had been donated to a climate change fund given that we all know his views on climate change. The reality of climate change is that if it is caused by carbon dioxide—

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

The PRESIDENT: I advise honourable members that file footage will be taken by a photographer during question time today.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter. Four days ago did the Minister receive a submission from the Hunter Tourism Task Force seeking urgent financial assistance from his Government for an immediate consumer education campaign to stem the false impression that the Hunter wine and tourism sector will take six months to recover from the June storms and floods? This follows a loss of over $5 million in 15 days after 8 June and the expected blow-out in the loss to the Hunter Valley of up to $53 million by the end of September. Given that the Minister has not spoken on this issue in the Parliament, and similarly the member for Cessnock has not even raised the issue in the other place, can the Minister inform the House what action he has taken so far to assist the Hunter Tourism Task Force to secure this urgently needed funding? What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the message "the Hunter is open for business" is being heard loud and clear by the community?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This would have been a good question if it had been phrased sensibly to speak about the impacts that people's perceptions about the flooding have had on the Hunter tourism industry. Indeed, I would have congratulated the Leader of the Opposition on raising the question. It is a little strange that the honourable member attacks me for not raising an issue in Parliament when he has just raised it himself!

I am not aware of any submissions that I have received; they probably would have gone to the Hunter office. But I am happy to have a look at the matter. I agree with the honourable member's sentiment rather than his delivery of the question. People should not take the view that the recent floods have led to a situation where the Hunter's tourism assets are not available for the pleasure of people, particularly those in the Sydney metropolitan area, who have been attracted to the Hunter area via an advertising campaign recently run on local television.

I might also relay the fact that I am aware that one of the wineries near my property in the Hunter was affected by the recent floods and the winery is in the process of having a discount wine sale—or a flood sale—of some of its wines. It is an opportunity for people to get some very good quality wine at a discounted price.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: They're turning the wine into water.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, they are turning the water into wine. I will take the honourable member's question in the spirit in which it should have been delivered rather than in the way it was delivered. If he is concerned about the Hunter tourism industry so am I. I will certainly make inquiries about the matters he has raised and see what the Government can do, through its various agencies, to ensure the continued promotion of the Hunter's world-class wine industry.

The Hon. IAN WEST: I address my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Minister inform the House of the impact of the changes to WorkChoices announced by the Commonwealth on New South Wales businesses and their productivity?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Howard Government's ongoing efforts to hoodwink the Australian public through phoney changes to its unfair WorkChoices laws are costing the Australian taxpayer and New South Wales businesses dearly. During the introductory stages of these laws the Howard Government declared that Australia needed a simpler system that was easier for businesses and workers to understand. In reality, John Howard and Joe Hockey, and his predecessor Kevin Andrews, have created an endless and overwhelming maze of agencies, schemes and regulations, resulting in confusion, duplication and red tape. Mr Howard's gamble has failed miserably, leaving a burning hole in the pockets of all Australian taxpayers—$900 million to date.

On top of this ballooning cost, according to a survey by Harmers Workplace Lawyers, the cost to business of complying with the new WorkChoices guidelines, which started in March, has amounted to $950 million—and this was before the new requirements of the so-called fairness test. Instead of employers getting on with the job of growing their business, they are now required to calculate nominal daily hours for full-time and part-time employees; record all variations to nominal hours; provide a pay slip within one day of the date of payment; and provide every employee with a WorkChoices fact sheet.

A new study by recruitment and human resources company Hallis between September and December last year found annual worker turnover rates were rising. According to the report, the loss of productivity due to job insecurity cost the Australian economy $18 billion last year. The Commonwealth's WorkChoices spending spree began with its $50 million advertising campaign, trying to convince us these laws were the best thing since sliced bread. Then came the $500 million bill to implement the new laws, followed closely by the $370 million needed to fund the so-called fairness test.
And just what do Australian taxpayers get for their $900 million? Workplace laws that are complex, confusing and unfair, and which require a plethora of different agencies and hundreds of additional Federal bureaucrats to administer. At last count there were no fewer than 12 different agencies and schemes involved in trying to implement WorkChoices. They include the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations; the Office of Workplace Services, soon to be rebranded as the Workplace Ombudsman; the Office of the Employment Advocate, soon to be rebranded as the Workplace Authority; the Australian Industrial Relations Commission; the Award Review Taskforce; the Australian Fair Pay Commission; the Alternative Dispute Resolution Providers; the Alternative Dispute Resolution Scheme; the Unlawful Termination Assistance Scheme; the General Employee Entitlements Redundancy Scheme; the WorkChoices Employer Advisory Program; the Australian Building and Construction Commission; and various courts.

It is hardly surprising that since the onslaught of WorkChoices there has been an increase in demand for services provided by the New South Wales Office of Industrial Relations—including 279,000 calls to the Fair Go Hotline.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What is the "M" on your swing tag?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is about time Mr Howard realised his WorkChoices experiment has failed and that taxpayers are tiring of the Federal Government's wasteful ways. It is about time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition understood that the "M" on my swing tag stands for "Minister". He is jealous. Now is the time for Mr Howard to go into voluntary liquidation, before the administrators are forced to move in.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government. Can the Minister inform the House what the remuneration is for the new Assistant Deputy­President and what other entitlements the position will attract?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I expect that in due course the details of that matter will be available to all members of the House. I do not have the information at my disposal; however, I will take the question on notice and provide an answer in due course.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands. Can the Minister tell the House what the Iemma Government is doing to support the Slim Dusty Centre proposal at Kempsey?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Members would agree that Slim Dusty is widely regarded as one of our greatest country songwriters ever. From his first classic recording of 1945—

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: When The Rain Comes Tumbling Down in July.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes, When The Rain Comes Tumbling Down in July , through to 1957 and the legendary The Pub With No Beer , and through to the timeless song—relevant perhaps to this House— I'd Love To Have A Beer With Duncan.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are you shouting?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes, I will, Duncan. Slim's 100-plus albums have left an indelible mark on the history of Australian music and culture. The Iemma Government is a big supporter of the proposed museum and tourism centre in Slim Dusty's home town of Kempsey. We have offered the Slim Dusty Foundation a 12­hectare Crown land site at South Kempsey for the centre, to celebrate the life of Slim. It is an excellent spot on the Pacific Highway and will no doubt prove to be a shrine for the many country music and Slim Dusty fans out there.

A long-term lease will be signed soon and I will travel to South Kempsey to take the opportunity to personally sign that lease on behalf of the Iemma Government. The lease paves the way for the construction of the centre in Kempsey where the king of Australian country music started his career. The lease offer will ensure that the Slim Dusty Foundation will pay nothing up front and nominal rent until the construction of the centre.
The House may be interested to know that this year is the fiftieth anniversary of the legendary hit The Pub With No Beer , at the time of its release the biggest selling record ever by an Australian, and the song that went on in 1958 to become the nation's first gold record. It is just one highlight of a career that spanned six decades, with Slim selling more than 5 million albums and being awarded 35 Golden Guitars. The Slim Dusty Centre will be a boon for Kempsey's economy and will encourage visitors to other local attractions such as Slim's boyhood home at Nulla Nulla and the Kempsey Showground, where Slim gave his first public performance in 1944.

The centre will create jobs, and visitors no doubt will support the local shops and other businesses on the mid-North Coast. I am told the initial stage of construction of the centre will include a museum, a restaurant and a souvenir shop. However, it is not just about entertaining holidaymakers; the museum will preserve the memorabilia of Slim's long and successful career; it will protect the heritage of Slim's country music tradition; and it will tell the story of Australia's cultural identity. The Iemma Government is proud to support this initiative.

Securing the land for the centre gives Slim's family and others involved in the project the confidence to bring their dream to reality. The new architectural design is complete and the foundation has received conditional development application approval from Kempsey Shire Council. The team is now preparing to commence the construction certificate stage and hopes to be in a position to start construction in the first quarter of 2008.

I thank the hardworking staff from the Department of Lands who helped identify the site and assisted the foundation to negotiate the necessary approvals. The proposal enjoys the widespread support of the community. Prominent Australians such as Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Peter Garrett, John Williamson, Dick Smith, Lee Kernaghan and Barry Humphries have also given their wholehearted support. Slim Dusty was an Australian legend who personified a fair dinkum way of Australian life. The Iemma Government is very pleased to be able to assist the proposed Slim Dusty Centre and help keep alive the memory and the music of this great Australian.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Eduction and Training, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice. Is the Attorney General aware of the view that holds that there is a causal nexus between the viewing of X-rated pornography and sexual abuse and other violent behaviour? In light of the Federal Government's recent plan to ban X-rated pornography in the Northern Territory due to its contribution to the child sexual abuse crisis there, can the Attorney General outline what moves will be taken by the New South Wales Government to eradicate pornography in both indigenous and non-indigenous areas of disadvantage?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his very good question. Yes, I am aware of the debate around this issue, and I think most informed people would have examined this debate over the years. I think the professional and scientific areas have different opinions and have sometimes produced conflicting evidence about the issue of causality and exposure to pornographic materials. The matter would be under the purview and the constant view of the Attorney General and I will refer that aspect of the member's question to him. I am sure he will be able to provide the honourable member with a detailed answer.

The second part of the question, which was a very interesting reflection on current events, is the extent to which it might be applicable to look at similar principles to those advocated by the Commonwealth in relation to current interventions in the Northern Territory in isolated and indigenous communities. I am not sure of the applicability but it indicates one of the difficulties of implementing some of the proposals, as we now understand them. I will leave my comments at that and ask the Attorney General to provide the balance of the answer to the member's question.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that between the toll plaza on the M2 and the Delhi Road exit, a distance of two kilometres, there are 44 separate poles, some with multiple legally enforceable or advisory signs? How is it possible for motorists to absorb all this information and still concentrate on driving safely?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Roads and Traffic Authority works closely with the operators of the M2 and Connector Motorways in relation to the Lane Cove Tunnel to ensure that all signage is appropriate and safe. If the honourable member believes there may be some road safety issue with that particular section of road I am more than happy to ask the Roads and Traffic Authority to look into the matter to ensure that it is appropriately signposted.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is directed to the Minister for State Development. Can the Minister inform the House of the latest developments in the recovery of the Tumut region from the plantation fires last December?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: During December last year some 50 fires threatened or destroyed pine plantations within the Southwest Slopes, Central Tablelands, and Southern Tablelands of our State. The Billo Road fire near Tumut resulted in the loss of some 9,000 hectares of plantation, the biggest area of State plantations burnt in more than a decade. I am pleased to advise honourable members that the post-fire recovery program has been a huge success because of the close cooperation between all sectors of the timber industry including Forests New South Wales, the local mills and more than 20 harvesting and haulage contractors.

As a result, this week saw the passing of a major milestone: 75 per cent of the recoverable timber has now been salvaged. But the work is continuing, with the help of the Iemma Government. Recovery planning to minimise the impact of the fire as much as possible has three aspects including salvaging the timber by utilising the region's harvesting and haulage contracting capacity; processing the damaged wood by local and regional sawmills; and a commitment to replant the burnt areas. I am pleased to say the recovery plan has minimised the impact of the fire on the timber industry, which is the economic mainstay and powerhouse of communities around Tumut and Tumbarumba.

Members will be pleased to know that planning began immediately to salvage the majority of burnt logs to minimise loss of revenue and ensure continuity of supply to customers. Our first step was to put in place environmental safeguards to minimise any soil erosion and adverse impact on water quality resulting from the exposed soils after the fire. Harvesting the timber is a critical task and needs to be completed within six to nine months after the fire because burnt timber degrades rapidly and loses its value.

In January this year Forests New South Wales dedicated all its contracted harvest and haulage resources in the Hume region and beyond to the salvage operation because it was recognised that additional resources were needed to maximise the quantity and value of the timber salvaged. With excellent cooperation from industry, this task of recovering as much of the burnt pine as possible and preparing for re-establishment has been progressing well. Local forest growers, aside from Forests New South Wales, also helped with the salvage operations, providing extra harvest and haul capacity and suspending their log flow during the salvage period.

As I mentioned, three-quarters of the recoverable timber has now been salvaged. The speed of this operation has averted a much greater financial impact. Sale of burnt timber generated gross revenue to Forests New South Wales of over $25 million to the end of June. Due to the scale of the fires it will take some years to complete the replanting project but we have made a good start. Full recovery depends on the availability of seedlings, contractor capacity and the cost, which has been estimated at more than $20 million. The commitment and hard work of Forests New South Wales staff, especially the fire salvage and recovery team, who spent most of December last year protecting the plantations, is very much appreciated.

I would also like to congratulate and thank our industry partners, Ausply Pty Limited, Carter Holt Harvey, Hyne and Son, Visy and Weyerhaeuser Australia. The recovery effort was also greatly assisted by the continuing support of the broader community including Tumut Shire Council and, of course, the Rural Fire Service, which assisted in the containment of the fire. The New South Wales Government and Forests New South Wales have made a commitment to replant the burnt areas as quickly as possible to provide continuity of supply of raw material to industry into the future.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I address my question to the Minister for Lands. Is the Minister aware of or considering any proposal for the rezoning and/or sale or leasing of the land currently occupied by the Coffs Harbour Showground? If so, what is the purpose of the proposal and does it have the Minister's support?
The Hon. Michael Costa: Haven't you already asked this question? Somebody asked it? Melinda asked this question.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The interjections are correct. I am sure that the Hon. Melinda Pavey asked me a question regarding the sale of the Coffs Harbour Showground a few weeks ago and I gave a comprehensive and fairly definite answer.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer explain to the House why some 70 items of expenditure for the 2005-06 year, totalling nearly $400 million, were not approved before last night's Appropriation Bill? How is it that expenditures, such as $2.5 million for advertising by the Premier's Department, more than $1 million for management of the Police property portfolio and $3.8 million for Western Sydney International Dragway are only being appropriated now, some 12 months after the close of the relevant financial year? Were these expenditures accounted for in the 2005-06 report on the State finances and audited by the Auditor-General or are they new revisions?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member ought to know, as he has been around long enough, that periodically the Government seeks appropriations for matters that arise during the year. In fact, we have built into our budgets a Treasurer's Advance, for which we have to seek appropriation, during the course of the year. There is nothing unusual about what has occurred this year and I expect it to occur in the future. That is the nature of government. Government seeks to predict in a budget what it will do in the forthcoming 12 months, but one is not always able to account for all items.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: You were not even close.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: We were very close in terms of ensuring that our expenses were close to the mark. There is nothing unusual about this. It is the normal part of the budgeting and appropriation process, and I am sure it will happen in the future. I wish we had perfect foresight but we do not. The Opposition, of course, does have perfect foresight. It is getting very comfortable in its position because I think it is going to lose the next two elections the way it is going.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Can the Minister outline to the House the Government's roads initiatives for rural and regional New South Wales in 2007-08?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: As my colleague the Minister for Lands acknowledged, last week a record $2.6 billion will be spent on the rural and regional roads program in the 2007-08 State Budget. That means almost three-quarters of the roads program will be spent outside the Sydney metropolitan area, with $2.6 billion, or 72 per cent, committed. Funding assistance for councils across New South Wales has increased to $146 million under the REPAIR Program and Block Grant Scheme for regional roads. This budget is about the Iemma Government meeting our commitments on improving and building new infrastructure in rural and regional New South Wales.

Major commitments in 2007-08 include $404 million for the current three-year $1.3 billion State­Federal Pacific Highway program, including $105 million to continue construction of the Bonville bypass and $110 million to commence construction of the Coopernook to Herons Creek upgrade. At 33 kilometres the Coopernook to Herons Creek project is the longest stretch to be upgraded in one project. In the south we are spending $45 million to continue work on the $130 million four-lane upgrade from Oak Flats to Dunmore and $30 million to continue the extension of the Northern Distributor from Bellambi Lane to Bulli. There is $300 million to continue the duplication of the southern Hume Highway and $60 million to continue construction of the Coolac bypass. To the west of Sydney $56.5 million has been allocated in 2007-08 to continue the $460 million upgrade to four lanes of the Great Western Highway between Penrith and Orange.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Well done!

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: It is a good one, isn't it? On the Central Coast $70.5 million has been allocated, including $14 million to continue the upgrade to four lanes of the Central Coast Highway, Ocean View Drive to Tumbi Road and $12 million to continue the upgrade of the Pacific Highway to dual carriageway between Tuggerah and Wyong. Roads and bridges are vital infrastructure links for rural and regional areas and are essential to local economies. This Government is continuing to work with local councils to deliver on our commitment to upgrade timber bridges—they are very important—across New South Wales under the $60 million three-year Timber Bridges Partnership. This partnership is a great example of State and local governments working together to improve local infrastructure and boost the services that rural communities rely on.

We are currently receiving and assessing further applications for the next round of funding to be made available. These are important projects to the community, projects that councils, local members and communities have lobbied hard for, such as the Nundle Bridge over the Peel River, which is currently subject to a tender process, the Gloucester River Bridge in Gloucester, expected to be completed in September this year and Bean Creek in Kyogle shire, with tenders recently called. In 2007-08 the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] continues its worthwhile initiative offering regional scholarships to young people keen to get into the engineering profession. This is an important part of the Roads and Traffic Authority program of encouraging young people into the engineering faculty because of the national shortage of skilled engineers, which is challenging in the context of the increased infrastructure commitment from the Labor State governments in a number of States.

The program for regional scholarships is fully funded by the Roads and Traffic Authority, with each scholarship worth $50,000 enabling students to study a Bachelor of Engineering or Diploma of Engineering Practice at the University of Technology Sydney. Scholarship holders will undertake their industry placements with the Roads and Traffic Authority and will be encouraged to work in a regional or rural centre in their home towns if they choose. This program will help to address the current shortage of engineers, particularly in the regions. This Government is committed to investing in rural and regional roads and the 2007-08 budget reflects this commitment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I direct a question to the Minister for Education and Training, representing the Attorney General. Is it a fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided to drop the Bowraville Aboriginal Mission case, which involves the murders between 1990 and 1991 of three Aboriginal children, a 16-year-old girl, a 16-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl? Is it a fact that certain new evidence has now become available that justifies the reopening of these serious cases of murder involving these three children, possibly by one person? Will the Government request the Director of Public Prosecutions to reopen these three murder cases as a matter of urgency so as to restore the confidence of the parents in the rule of justice for every person, irrespective of race or colour?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Quite obviously the Government shares the disappointment of the families that these cases remain unsolved. However, the decision not to reopen the case against a person who has previously been acquitted of the crimes is made by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am advised that on Tuesday night the Attorney wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking him to reconsider his decision. There is still the prospect that charges will be laid in these matters in the future.

In April this year the Minister for Police offered a $250,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the deaths of the three children. That offer stands, and if any new evidence emerges, it will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration. In addition, under the State's new double-jeopardy laws, a person acquitted of a crime can now be re-tried for the same offence if there is compelling new evidence. As I said earlier, there is still the prospect that charges will be laid on these matters in the future. Consequently, an inquiry could potentially prejudice any subsequent procedures, and that is the last thing anyone would want.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is it a fact that the applicants applying under the extraordinary assistance scheme for irrigators in the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys were recently told by Rural Assistance Authority officers that their applications would be considered if they were postmarked prior to the closing date for the applications? Why were some applicants, including Ian Schippen from Wakool, informed that their applications were declined as they were received after the closing date, yet the postmarked envelopes in which their applications were sent have been discarded?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I was aware there was a cut-off point. I am not aware of this particular case but if the honourable member gives me the details, I will have it assessed quickly.
The Hon. Rick Colless: There are a number of them.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes, I understand there are a few. The decision had been taken to try to find some way of having a cut-off point so we could go forward from there. I will look at the particular case and assess whether a number of applications were processed after the cut-off date to see what scope there is to achieve some resolution of the issue. I must say, we have received many applications and numerous repayments have already been made.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for the Central Coast. Will the Minister inform the House about the performance of the tourism industry on the Central Coast?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Leader of the Opposition never asks me about the tourism industry on the Central Coast, and he is part of it.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I am too busy trying to look after the Hunter in this place.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Treasurer, and Minister for the Hunter has that covered. The Central Coast is a dynamic region, home to approximately 300,000 people and within an hour's drive of both Sydney, Australia's largest city, and Newcastle, the biggest regional city in the country. With close proximity to these two major centres a combined population of five million people have easy access to the region. The Central Coast tourism industry is supported by outstanding hospitality, accommodation and sporting facilities, making the region a popular domestic and international tourist destination.

Domestic tourism figures for the first quarter of 2007 have just been released by the national visitor survey. I am pleased to inform the House the Central Coast tourism industry has again performed extremely well. In the domestic market, average growth across New South Wales was a very healthy 4.6 per cent. The Central Coast increase was 6.5 per cent, with almost 1.4 million visitors in the first three months of 2007. More people are discovering the great things we have to offer on the Central Coast, and our marketing promotion and investment in the region is paying off. During the same period these 1.4 million visitors spent over 4.2 million nights on the Central Coast, an increase of nearly 15 per cent on the previous year, while the State average showed an increase of almost 5 per cent. These positive results indicate people are staying longer to enjoy our fantastic beaches and attractions and to boost our local economy.

Tourism is one of the major employment providers on the Central Coast and is estimated to provide 6,900 full-time jobs, representing 5.2 per cent of the region's employment. This does not take into account the many thousands of part-time and casual jobs provided by the hospitality and tourism industry. The Iemma Government recognises this industry as a vital component of the Central Coast economy and continues to invest in this sector. Just last week, in the 2007-08 State budget the Iemma Government announced a further investment of $55.9 million towards a continued push to bring more visitors to regions, including the Central Coast. This is a $3.4 million increase on last year and will be used to promote and support the development of the State's tourism destinations.

Tourism New South Wales will also continue promoting the Central Coast as part of the Short Breaks campaign and through international promotional activities—including the Asian markets. In fact, the Central Coast was described as a must-see destination in a new guidebook recently launched in Hong Kong. Did the Hon. Henry Tsang have anything to do with that? The guidebook will be given to every Virgin Atlantic customer who books a flight from Hong Kong to Sydney. Tourism on the Central Coast will also benefit from Tourism New South Wales's Regional Flagship Events Program. The Iemma Government has a strong record of supporting Central Coast events. The Australian Springtime Flora Festival was awarded $10,000 funding under the 2007 program and the Central Coast Country Music Festival also received the final $20,000 instalment of a $60,000 grant under the program.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They don't bootscoot on the Central Coast, do they?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: They do indeed. The Central Coast is the real country music capital! These two events have been major drawcards for the Central Coast, attracting thousands of domestic and international tourists every year. The New South Wales Government also contributed $308,000 to the new Gateway Information Centre for the Central Coast. To be built at Kariong, this Gateway Information Centre will be a major reference point for visitors travelling to the Central Coast.
Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Treasurer and refers to an answer he gave to a question from me on Tuesday 26 June in respect of the Kurnell desalination plant. Firstly, is it not true there are two fundamental principles of sound economic management: one, avoid investment in infrastructure before it is needed, particularly if there is some risk that that infrastructure will never be needed; and, two, choose the lowest cost options wherever you can? So, when the Treasurer says the desalination plant would be "integrated into the Sydney water system," does that mean that, first, this infrastructure is needed now and there is no way we can delay the $1.76 billion investment and, second, there are no other lower cost options that could provide water and equivalent levels of security?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, I did not write that question for him!

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why did the Greens give Labor their preferences?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I suspect the real reason for that is they know just how hopeless the Opposition is! In answer to the question, first and foremost I would have to say that I find it quite extraordinary that the Greens should be asking about sound economic management.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Maybe it is because you do not know anything about sound economic management.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I certainly do not have a policy that seeks to do what the Greens do—that is, wipe out most of our economy. First, our export sector—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: The answer is not relevant. The question asked about water, not coal.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. I remind the Treasurer to continue to be generally relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The question referred to economics and certainly I am entitled to refer to the Greens economic policy, because that is the benchmark of a failed economic policy. If people want to see an economic policy that will destroy not only this State but probably the nation if it is ever implemented, they need only look at the Greens policy. That unfundable policy, which is based on economic illiteracy, would lead to significant job destruction. I made some comments the other day about a desalination plant. The Government has made a decision to go ahead with desalination to drought-proof the Sydney metropolitan area. It has chosen a range of strategies to meet that objective.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There was snow at Crookwell yesterday. It will all be flowing into the catchment.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is what I love about these people. When the drought was at its worst, I kept saying, "It will rain". But the Greens and idiots like Tim Flannery said, "It will never rain."

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: He is the Australian of the Year.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: You made him Australian of the Year, not me! Well it has started to rain and now they are saying that it is going to rain forever. These people do not understand climate cycles. When it comes to the climate they are alarmists and cannot see beyond the end of their noses. They create division, panic and fear so that they can rustle up a few naïve people to vote for them at election time. Climates change. If there is one constant about climates, it is that they change. I do not mean that they are changing now, but they have changed over history. We will continue to see climates change, and rain cycles will vary from drought, to normality, to heavy rainfall incidents. That is the reality of the world and that is what we have to plan for. We do not plan on a day-to-day basis, as the Greens do. It is easy for them to make unaffordable promises and to come up with an economic model that could apply only in cloud-cuckoo-land. It is easy for the Greens to make policies that no-one need fear will be implemented. But that does not stop them putting up ridiculous propositions every question time. The Government's policy is clear. We have a range of alternatives to secure our water supply, including capturing water for our dam system, recycling and, now, desalination.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that the private native forestry exemptions from the Native Vegetation Act finished on 30 June? Can he advise if the draft code of practice, which was released by him last July and rejected by the forest industry and New South Wales Farmers, will not be introduced or is he going to extend the current exemptions?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: If the Hon. Trevor Khan looks at the appropriate paperwork over the next day or two, he will read about an extension.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the current status of the State's unfunded superannuation liabilities? Are there any alternative positions on this issue?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thank the Hon. Greg Donnelly for this very important question. I thought the Hon. Greg Pearce would ask this question but, obviously, having done his research, he realises that the Opposition's Finance spokesperson has absolutely no idea about finance.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Who is that?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The next leader of the Liberal Party, Mike Baird. I will go through the State's position on unfunded superannuation liability.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are not game to tackle the Hon. Greg Pearce. We put him back in his cage so that you could have a rest.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I thought I would protect the Hon. Greg Pearce's position as shadow Treasurer, which Mike Baird is after. But going on Mike Baird's performance in relation to unfunded superannuation, the Hon. Greg Pearce has nothing to worry about. He will be in his position a long, long time. One of the achievements of the Government over its period in office has been to reduce the unfunded superannuation liability. This achievement has led to real dividends to the State going forward. On page 4-16 of Budget Paper No. 2 an important graph appears showing the decline in superannuation liability.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: That is a graph showing your popularity!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: You just lost an election; what does that say about you? I won—"A vote for Labor is a vote for Costa". The Opposition does not get it. Government members would not be here if it were not for me, and the Opposition members are there because of their silly campaign!

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order:My point of order relates to relevance. The Treasurer does not realise—

The PRESIDENT: I trust that the Hon. Greg Pearce is not about to make a debating point.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: —that the "Costa" referred to during the last election was Phil Costa, not him.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Minister to be generally relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: In Budget Paper No. 2 there is an important graph that shows the decline in superannuation liability over the next period. It is in the budget. That is why I cannot understand the view of the Opposition. The graph shows that the unfunded liability, in line with demography, will peak at 2013 and then it will be fully funded by 2030. That is the position.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It is all rubbish; it is all lies. The Hon. Greg Pearce told us the truth yesterday.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is not the Hon. Greg Pearce the Opposition has to worry about, it is Mike Baird, who issued a press release entitled, "How will the Government pay for its $17 billion public service super black hole?" I read the document and tried to work out what he was talking about. I saw extraordinary things in that press release. I have even asked others to read it to make sure that I was not having problems with my eyesight! Mike Baird said that the 2007-08 budget confirms that the Government will no longer contribute towards unfunded superannuation liabilities. The budget papers show that in 2006-07 we contributed $7.1 billion, yet Mike Baird says we will not contribute a cent.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order:The Treasurer knows that the $7 billion was from a liability management fund—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Greg Pearce will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: —which was money contributed in prior years.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Greg Pearce will resume his seat.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: He is misleading the House because he got it wrong, wrong, wrong.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Pearce to order for the first time.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer elucidate his answer?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Clearly, the Hon. Greg Pearce has a different definition of the term "will no longer contribute". I take that to mean we will not contribute anything—zero, zilch, nothing! The budget papers show that we will contribute in the forward estimates nearly $1 billion a year to unfunded superannuation liability. It is extraordinary that Mike Baird has been touted as a great financial expert who will revolutionise the Opposition's approach to financial and economic policy. He is also touted as having an 18-year career in corporate banking. I would be worried about a bloke in his position who cannot read budget papers and has no idea about finances. To reinforce the point he said, "The State Government had allocated an average of $1.3 billion towards unfunded superannuation every year for the last four years, but this year Morris Iemma and Michael Costa have failed to allocate one cent." Mike Baird has made a $7 billion mistake in relation to superannuation. Clearly, his expertise, whatever it is, is not in finance and economics. I asked my staff to look up his qualifications, given he arrived at the Parliament with much fanfare. It seems he has a postgraduate diploma in divinity!

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order:Some robustness in question time is expected on the policy position of members, but the Minister is going beyond the pale and is making personal reflections on a member of the other House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind all members that personal reflections are disorderly. The Minister's time for speaking has expired.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Training, representing the Premier. Will special constables be deployed in the New South Wales Parliament to take control of security in the lead-up to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting? If so, will they be required to carry firearms inside Parliament or in the parliamentary precinct? If these special constables are deployed in the Parliament, will responsibility for security in this Parliament shift to the Commissioner of Police and the Minister for Police? Given that at present the Clerks and the Presiding Officers are responsible for the conduct of the security officers and the overall security of the Parliament, what will be their role in relation to security if special constables are deployed in this building?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We are not sitting then!

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition points out, the obvious answer is that the day in question is a public holiday and, as is usual on public holidays, Parliament House will not be open. With regard to the rest of the period, I advise that I do not have a photographic memory of the parliamentary program, but I believe that Parliament is not sitting at that time. In respect of special constables and the carriage of firearms in the parliamentary precinct—I do not think the member is anticipating that anyone would carry a firearm into the Chamber—it is not uncommon for police officers in the course of their duty or otherwise to visit this place and, according to police protocols, to carry relevant side arms while on duty. I am not sure of the point of the member's question. Police on duty carry firearms whether they are special or regular constables.

Mr President, in the second part of the question the member acknowledged that the affairs of the Parliament are governed by you, the Speaker and the Clerks of the Parliament. I am happy to wait upon advice from you about these matters when you deem fit.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government. Given that the Minister has had more than half an hour to obtain information about the remuneration package for the new Assistant Deputy-President, will he now explain it to the House? He said in an aside across the Chamber that it is "no secret". Further, as the Leader of the Government, will he tell the House what discussions were held with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile prior to his appointment to this position given that the Code of Conduct specifically states that members must take all reasonable steps to declare any conflict of interest between their private financial interests and decisions in which they participate?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The member has become very cheeky in her attitude to informal discussions in the House. She has misquoted my interjection: I said, "It's no secret; I simply don't know."

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: That is not what you said.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Why did the member ask the question then? She asked it based on the premise that I would get the information, which I still do not have. The member is drawing a longbow in her attempt to disrupt the smooth order and goodwill that otherwise exists in the House. I was waiting to provide this information to the member at the end of question time, but given that she is insisting on an immediate answer I can inform her that the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989 determines the remuneration and entitlements of parliamentary members and office holders. The loadings for office holders are set out in schedule 1 to that Act. That schedule must be amended to specify the entitlements of the position of Assistant Deputy-President. The Government prepares a regulation setting out the entitlements of this position and that is put before the Governor at Executive Council.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: I have a supplementary question. Given the Minister's response, what was his recommendation to the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal about this position?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: If I had been making the recommendation—which is the implication in the member's supplementary question—I would have made it after having carefully considered it. I have not had the opportunity to do that. I will not provide an off-the-cuff answer because the member wants to make a silly, cheap political point.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I direct my question to the Minister for State Development. Will the Minister inform the House about the latest overseas financial organisations to establish in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am pleased to tell the House that the recent establishment of two new Chinese financial services organisations in Sydney once again shows that New South Wales is a leading financial centre in the Asia-Pacific region and an important hub between China and the rest of the region. It highlights the fact that our State is open for business and there is no better location for business in the Asia­Pacific region than Sydney and New South Wales.

China is set to become the world's largest banking market and India the third largest behind the United States, according to a study by accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. According to the report, by 2050 banks in the seven emerging economies of China, India, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey will have higher profits and more assets than those in the Group of Seven countries. The China Construction Bank ranks seventh among the world's top 10 banks in terms of market capitalisation, according to a top 100 bank list from the Boston Consulting Group. The China Construction Bank is set to open a Sydney office in September this year. Approval was given earlier this month by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority for the expansion. The China Construction Bank is a state-owned bank operating in the key market sectors of corporate banking, personal banking and treasury operations. I am pleased to point out that the Department of State and Regional Development assisted the China Construction Bank to identify a suitable office site, arranged introductions to key industry contacts and assisted with visa requirements. Sydney and New South Wales will reap the benefits.

But that is not all. The People's Bank of China also chose Sydney to set up its South Pacific representative office recently. It is the first foreign central bank to open a representative office in Sydney. The Sydney office will help to enhance economic and financial cooperation between China and the South Pacific countries and provide an important link. These two new banks join the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China in Sydney, which opened its representative office in 1999 and which continues to grow. The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is a leading financial player in China, ranking second in the Boston Consulting Group's 10 top bank list.

Let me spell it out for members opposite. The simple fact that over the past few months two major Chinese financial service organisations have set up in Sydney highlights the fact that our reputation as a financial hub is continuing to grow. This builds on a longstanding relationship between Sydney and the Chinese banking community that began in 1942 with the establishment of the Bank of China. The bank closed in 1972 and reopened in 1985 and has flourished ever since.

There is no doubt that Sydney is Australia's finance capital. In July 2006, banks in Australia held local assets of $1.5 trillion. Of the 54 authorised deposit-taking banks with operations in Australia, 44 are based in Sydney. This includes nine of the 11 foreign subsidiary banks in Australia and all of the 29 local branches of foreign banks. In addition to the 20 global banks, 18 have operations in Sydney, with the China Construction Bank the most recent arrival. Sydney has a large, skilled and multilingual work force. Sydney's financial services work force is nearly half the size of the work forces in the London and New York finance sectors respectively. Sydney is competitively priced, and staff, central business district office space and telecommunication links at world-class standards are available at very competitive rates. We also have time­zone advantages. Sydney is ideally suited to worldwide strategies, which provide 24-hour customer service to global markets. Sydney's time zone spans the close of the United States market and the opening of the European markets. [ Time expired.]

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development. Has the State Government provided any funding to Big River Timbers near Grafton to convert forest or mill waste to electricity? Previously the Government has promised that no forest waste would be used to generate electricity. Does the project at Big River Timbers conform with that promise? Can the Minister assure the Parliament that no tree will be taken to the mill for any purpose other than to be milled and that no trees will be taken for the purpose of generating electricity?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is good to see that the member is very interested in Big River Timbers, and particularly its product range. Big River Timbers is a progressive company and in recent years it has revolutionised the milling of timber in the north of the State. I have had the opportunity to visit the mill on a couple of occasions and have observed the wondrous state of the upgrades on the back of the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program funding provided in recent years. The company produces a very fine product, one that has made timber affordable for many people in regional areas and metropolitan areas of Sydney. The company saws timber in such a way as to produce thin veneer strips. Using the latest adhesive technologies, the timber strips are glued to particle board, creating a replica of household timbers at a discount price. Big River Timbers should be congratulated on its efforts. The company is also a solid employer, and it has upgraded its entire plant. The company is one of the real successes of the Regional Forest Agreement and the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program funding.

The Hon. Robert Brown: And it is a sustainable industry.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes, indeed, it is a very sustainable industry. The Greens seem to have an obsession with attacking our very good industry development in that area—basically because, I believe, they want to close down the entire timber industry. Their objective is to close it down. When these agreements were made they were meant to last for a long time. They are 20-year wood supply agreements.

Members may have noticed the pattern over the past few months. Mr Ian Cohen has attacked the timber and forestry industry in just about every coastal area. He has been having a go at the industry in the south at Bodalla, he has been having a go at it at Eden, and now he is having a go at it in the north. That has been his pattern over the last few years. I wish he would see the light. It is very positive for New South Wales that we have a sustainable forest industry using local product that is available under the regional forest agreements; it supplies an important consumer need in this country.

As I have said on a number of occasions in the past, if we do not have a sustainable forest industry in New South Wales, and indeed in Australia, we will be forced to import timber from overseas, from countries where the practice is completely horrendous. Mr Ian Cohen cannot see that his push on the timber and forestry industry in this State, if it were to be successful, could only lead to additional timber supplies being sought from overseas. I wish he would see the light; I wish he would think more globally, rather than act as a flying wedge for the community of Nimbin.

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yesterday the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox asked a question of my colleague the Hon. Tony Kelly about opal mining at Lightning Ridge. As the matter properly falls into to my portfolio areas I will provide a response. The Government manages the Lightning Ridge area principally via the Lightning Ridge Mining Board. The head of the board is chaired by an independent chairman, Mr John Jobling, and the deputy chair is a executive officer of the Department of Primary Industries. The other members are key stakeholders within the Lightning Ridge area. They include miners associations and representatives from the New South Wales Farmers Association, Walgett Council, and a number of other government organisations.

The board is responsible for the matters that affect the opal mining industry, as well as related matters such as housing for residents in the Lightning Ridge area. The board meets every three months in Lightning Ridge, and the next meeting will be held on 16 August 2007. I can advise that this is a time of considerable excitement and change at Lightning Ridge. The Department of Primary Industries is in the process of completing environmental studies around Opal Prospecting Area No. 4 prior to the release of new prospecting blocks. This has involved considerable liaison with local landholders and miners associations. The release of these blocks will mean that another 6,500 hectares will soon be available for opal miners to prospect and mine, and this has the potential to reinvigorate the Lightning Ridge economy.

I am advised that the Lightning Ridge Mining Board will shortly be asked to consider ways to adopt a more strategic framework for the developments of the opal fields at Lightning Ridge. I am advised that this is the appropriate body to initiate the development of the framework for a strategic plan for the opal fields in the Lightning Ridge area. I am sure that the Hon. John Jobling, a former colleague of ours, will do a good job with that strategic plan.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am pleased to provide a response to the Hon. Ian Cohen's question, repeated by the Hon. Melinda Pavey, regarding B-doubles on the Pacific Highway. I am advised that the current status of the Pacific Highway as a B-double route is valid until September 2010. Road freight is important to the economy, and the Pacific Highway is one of the major freight routes through New South Wales. Of course, it is crucial that we match the right truck to the right road, and road safety is of the utmost importance in the assessment of routes for B-doubles. When routes are approved for B-doubles a number of factors are taken into account, including the suitability of the road, consideration of other road users, road safety, and community impact.

The Pacific Highway has been assessed against a set of criteria that takes into account road space, overtaking opportunities, traffic densities, intersection dimensions, and turning lane room. Community consultation is an important part of this process. The Pacific Highway, as the key AusLink route on the Sydney to Brisbane corridor, is being upgraded as part of the joint New South Wales and Federal Government program. When the upgrade is completed the Pacific Highway will have 664 kilometres of continuous dual carriageway from the F3 Freeway near Hexham to the Queensland border. Over the 10 years to 2006 the New South Wales Labor Government has spent $1.66 billion on upgrading the Pacific Highway—more than double the Federal Government's $660 million. Under this $2.3 billion upgrade program, 47 projects have now opened to traffic.

The New South Wales Government will manage the next tranche of the $1.3 billion joint State-Federal Pacific Highway upgrade program, with funding under AusLink 1. As part of the 2007-08 record Roads budget, more than $447 million will be spent by the State Government on projects to upgrade and improve the Pacific Highway. This includes around $404 million which has been allocated to continue construction and planning work on the highway upgrade and a further $43.6 million to be spent on maintenance work for the highway. The entire length of the Pacific Highway is now either completed or under construction, or has a preferred route identified.

The Pacific Highway is one of the biggest projects ever undertaken in this country to ensure the smooth and timely construction of a dual carriageway from the Hunter to Queensland. The Iemma Labor Government declared the Pacific Highway upgrade as critical infrastructure. I met with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, this morning and we both agree that this is a priority road.

Questions without notice concluded.

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution of the House this day, the report of the independent legal arbiter Sir Laurence Street dated 9 May 2007, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to the Gretley mine disaster.

[ The President left the chair at 1.07 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.30 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 68 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment (MPs Fair Wages) Bill, be called on forthwith.

This is a matter of great urgency because the latest pay rise for New South Wales members of Parliament will be received before the Parliament resumes after the winter break. It is absolutely essential that we deal with this matter today. It is vital that this bill be dealt with today to bring in a responsible mechanism for dealing with salary increases for members of Parliament. As a matter of urgency members of Parliament should reject the full wage increase that will flow to them as a result of the recent determination of the Federal Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal.

The responsible action of this House would be to debate this salary issue in full today. It is a matter of urgency that all members of Parliament take action to restore the damage to our collective reputations that flows from accepting a pay increase of more than 6 per cent while public sector workers will have their pay rise limited to 2.5 per cent. It is urgent that members of Parliament debate this matter today and so take an important step in rejecting the hypocritical label that all members of Parliament will be tagged with if we allow the Treasurer, Michael Costa, to put the brakes on wage increases for public sector workers while members pocket a pay increase.

A top priority of this House is that we restore the reputation of politicians, and there is nothing that brings greater discredit on all of us as members of Parliament than accepting pay rises that are excessive and out of whack with those received by the rest of the community. The urgency of this matter is highlighted also by the fact that the Victorian Premier, Mr Steve Bracks, has already determined that the latest salary increase will not automatically flow to members of Parliament in that State. Surely members of this Parliament would recognise they have a responsibility to act immediately so our reputation is not tarnished. Otherwise, Victorian members of Parliament will show the way on responsible salary determination and we will be left behind.

It is a matter of urgency that the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament are pegged to the consumer price index of the previous year. By voting for this motion we could immediately debate this bill, which would allow that mechanism to kick in. It is time that members of Parliament stopped using the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal as a justification for accepting increases in their salaries and entitlements. How can a tribunal that has its offices in the Premier's Department be called independent? For years we have seen the tribunal used as an excuse; it has gone on from the time of the former Treasurer, Michael Egan, who would ridicule anybody who asked for it to be considered otherwise.

This is an urgent issue. If passed, the bill would be an important step in dispelling the idea that greed and lack of principle motivate most members of Parliament. It is urgent because we should not allow the wages of members of Parliament to soar while the salaries of public sector workers are effectively frozen. For members of Parliament to accept a pay rise more than double the pay rise of public sector workers is unconscionable. The Federal Independent member of Parliament Peter Andren has taken a very clear position on this issue and has spoken on it many times in his Parliament. It is interesting to note also how the pay rises received by other sectors of workers are certainly not up to the 6.7 per cent that Federal members of Parliament are about to receive.

I think the Treasurer will be particularly interested to note that miners received only a 5 per cent wage rise, while the rest of the nation settled for 4.1 per cent. The Treasurer is always telling us how important mining is to the community and the economy and how it is vital that miners receive a decent wage increase, but miners are receiving far below what the Federal Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal has awarded members of Parliament. Also, 1.2 million Australian pensioners have had no real increase in their meagre $219 a week allowance; they have not received any increase since the Prime Minister Howard, came to power. Again, what a contradiction! I quote those figures to highlight the importance and the urgency of this matter because the discrepancy is extreme, and clearly we would be seen as highly hypocritical if we accept this pay increase.

I challenge members of Parliament who enter this debate not to palm off the argument by saying the House is too busy, that this bill is outside the Order of Precedence. I urge members who enter this debate to have the courage to state their position on the pay of members of Parliament and why they think it should increase, or if they agree it should be frozen. The urgency is quite clear because if nothing is done, if members of Parliament just fade en bloc, as we see them do time and time again, this pay increase will kick in. I also challenge members to agree to suspension. Time and time again we see that members will not support what the Greens are doing, but they could come forward with their own motion and their own plan to freeze wages. [ Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.36 p.m.]: Ms Lee Rhiannon just said that time and time again the rest of the House will not support some of the items the Greens raise. That is because the Greens have become the stunt party: they run any political stunt they can, and they disregard the order in which business is listed. Two or three times a week I stand to point out that the Greens are trying to jump the queue on private members' day. They just search around for some political stunt.

The Greens forget that for a long time the base salary for members of Parliament stayed the same. In fact, the Greens were not complaining about the system when for a couple of years we received no pay increase. A factual error that the member made while she was arguing her point—not on urgency but on the main thrust of her motion—was that the tribunal is not independent because it is in the Premier's Department. If Ms Lee Rhiannon checks the Act she will see that the Federal Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal sets a figure and our Act provides for a salary $500 less than the Federal members receive. It is not even our State that sets the figure; it is completely independent of us. We will not support the motion.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [2.37 p.m.]: I have decided to speak based on a comment that the Leader of the House just made about a factual error he identified. That error makes me wonder how a member who has prepared a bill on this subject could have made such an error? Surely if she has prepared the bill and it has been to Parliamentary Counsel and is ready to be debated she would know about that error. I challenge the member right now to hold up the bill. Where is the bill? I note for the record that the member is seeking urgency to bring on a bill but apparently does not have a copy of the bill. I think that says everything about this request to suspend standing orders.
Dr JOHN KAYE [2.39 p.m.]: We must have been listening to different speeches.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Argue why the motion is urgent.

Dr JOHN KAYE: My argument for urgency rests on three key things. First, if we do not do something now, the salaries of members of Parliament will rise faster than wages and salaries of people generally, and faster than those of public sector workers in particular. That leads to two major consequences. If we do not do something now we will massively damage the reputation of politicians and, more importantly, we will damage the reputation of politics itself, which is an important component in how we address the major challenges we face.

The matter is also urgent because of the effect it will have on the public service. There is no question that public servants watch what happens to our salaries and compare them with their salaries. It begs the question: Why is it that the salaries of members of Parliament increase much more rapidly than those of public sector workers? An argument used against urgency was that Ms Rhiannon said the State office was not independent. I heard Ms Rhiannon say very clearly that the increase in the salaries of our members flows on directly from Federal members of Parliament.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: She said the Premier's Department.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Minister and I must been listening to two completely different speeches because I heard her say very distinctly that the salaries of State members of Parliament flow on from the salaries of Federal members of Parliament. The argument against urgency that somehow Ms Rhiannon said something that was not correct simply does not stack up. That is not what she said, and therefore that is not an argument against urgency. I urge the House to support the motion for urgency.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

[ In division]

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Point of order: The Hon. Lee Rhiannon is using a mobile phone in the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I urge all members to show due decorum.

Mr Cohen Ms Hale Tellers, Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon

Mr Ajaka Mr Brown Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Ms Cusack Mr Della Bosca Ms Fazio Ms Ficarra Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Ms Griffin Mr Kelly Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Mr Mason-Cox Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Ms Robertson

Ms Sharpe Mr Smith Mr Tsang Mr Veitch Ms Voltz Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Having examined the item of business that was the subject of the division, I am concerned that it may offend against section 5 of the Constitution. I ask the member to present me with a copy of the bill so that I may seek advice as to whether the item of business should be removed from the Notice Paper.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: Pursuant to paragraph 5 (2) of the resolution establishing the Standing Committee on State Development, I inform the House that on 28 June 2007 the committee resolved to inquire into the following terms of reference from the Minister for Primary Industries:

1. That the Standing Committee on State Development inquire into and report on the agricultural industry in New South Wales, and in particular:

(a) the contribution of agriculture and agricultural-based products to the New South Wales economy

(b) impediments to sustaining appropriate levels of productive capacity and growth in the agricultural industry, and

(c) initiatives to address impediments to sustaining appropriate levels of productive capacity and growth in the agricultural industry, having regard to the New South Wales State Plan priority areas of " Growing Prosperity Across NSW" and "Environment for Living".

2. That the Committee report by 14 December 2007.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the resolution of the House establishing the general purpose standing committees, I inform the House that on 28 June 2007 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 resolved to adopt the following terms of reference:

That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 inquire into and report on:

The operations of the Home Building Service of the Office of Fair Trading, with particular reference to:

(a) the builder licensing system,

(b) the Home Warranty Insurance Scheme,

(c) the resolution of complaints,

(d) the exercise of disciplinary powers,

(e) the enforcement of relevant legislative and regulatory provisions,

(f) the establishment of a Home Building Advice and Advocacy Centre,

(g) any other relevant matters.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: Just a few moments ago you asked a member to provide you with a copy of a bill. I want to know, firstly, whether that has been provided to you. I note the member has left the Chamber. Is that appropriate if the member has not provided you with a copy of the bill? Was that a further breach of the standing orders?

The PRESIDENT: Order! First, in answer to the question, no, I have not yet received a copy of the bill. Second, I have not introduced civil conscription, so any member is perfectly free to leave the Chamber when he or she wishes. However, I hope I will soon receive a copy of the bill so I can seek advice on the constitutional matter.
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [2.53 p.m.]: As I was saying before this debate was interrupted for question time, if climate change is caused by carbon dioxide—and there is considerable scientific conjecture about whether that is the case—we should be looking at long-term major changes that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions rather than tokenistic programs worth less than $100 million a year. The answer lies not in some of the crazy suggestions such as shutting down the coal industry over the next 10 years. It lies in funding truly realistic alternative energy sources, and we must be careful to make sure that the alternatives do not create other environmental disasters.

Research and investigation into geothermal energy, tidal energy and solar energy would be eminently suitable for funding under this program, but I wonder whether we will see those sorts of things funded by the program. Early geothermal research indicates that there is sufficient geothermal potential in reserves in Australia to provide all of Australia's energy for something like the next 800 years. Tidal energy is completely untapped and, while solar energy is gathering momentum, there needs to be more encouragement from the State Government for individual householders to install inverter solar collectors. Unused solar power collected during daylight hours can be fed back into the national grid and credited to the consumer's account. That is something everybody should be thinking about, and it is something the Federal Government currently supports. These are the sorts of projects the Government should be funding under the program.

Solar hot water systems, rainwater tanks and insulation are all worthwhile but they are not sufficiently visionary to solve the problem that we may be facing. The Opposition would like to see more of those innovative projects being considered. We would like those projects to be contestable and transparent and we would like the program generally to be accountable to Parliament. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.56 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Energy and Utilities Administration Amendment (Climate Change Fund) Bill 2007, which will establish the Climate Change Fund to support water and energy saving measures across the State, including reducing the impact of climate change. The new fund is a consolidation of the Energy Savings Fund and the Water Savings Fund currently established under the Energy and Utilities Administration Act 1987. Its funds may be applied for purposes similar to those for which existing funds may be applied.

The fund will affect the citizens of the State in the future by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of climate change associated with water and energy activities. It will also encourage water and energy savings and recycling of water. In the past few weeks we have seen heavy downpours, at almost unseen levels, especially in the coastal areas but now also in country areas. Thankfully, the dams that service Goulburn are overflowing. One dam in Goulburn, whose wall has been raised, is now overflowing. The water that falls on the earth and at present flows through rivers back into the ocean should be saved.

This fund will reduce the demand for water and energy, including peak demand for energy. It will stimulate investment in innovative water and energy savings measures. In addition, it will increase public awareness and acceptance of climate change water and energy saving measures. We hope that the increased rainfall will allow the severe water restrictions in a number of country towns and even in the city of Sydney to be eased. With the building of dams such as the Welcome Reef Dam—I understand it is an urgent priority—we will have sufficient water reserves to meet all the needs of the State and its growing population. The population of Australia has reached 21 million, and a large percentage of the country's population is in Sydney and its suburbs. It is important to have plans to provide our water and energy needs for the future. The fund will also provide funding for contributions made by the State for the purpose of the national energy regulation. Where do the funds for the Climate Change Fund come from? Section 34G of division 2 of part 6A provides:

(1) There is payable into the Fund:

(a) all money received from contributions required to be made to the Fund under Division 3, and
(b) all money advanced by the Treasurer for the Fund

Importantly, money will be advanced by the Treasurer. I thank the Treasurer for this advance from the State budget. Section 34G (1) also provides:

(c) all money appropriated by Parliament for the purposes of the Fund, and
(d) the proceeds of the investment of money in the Fund, and

(e) all money directed or authorised to be paid into the Fund by or under this or any other Act or law, and
(f) all money received from voluntary contributions to the Fund made by any other person or body.

To obtain the source of income in paragraph (f) I assume the Government will initiate an advertising campaign and provide tax incentives—such as making donations tax deductible—to encourage corporations and other organisations to contribute to the Climate Change Fund. I am sure that the many generous corporations in New South Wales would be agreeable to making donations, particularly if they are tax deductible. The Opposition will move an amendment to include certain measures that relate, in particular, to a review of projects and grants and the conduct of such a review. I believe the amendment is restrictive and wordy. I will move an amendment along similar lines at the Committee stage relating to improving the funding of community grants and requiring the Minister to produce an annual report that will be made available to both Houses of Parliament. I make available to the House copies of that amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.02 p.m.]: The Greens support the bill, but I support it with some reservations. The bill combines the energy saving and water saving funds into one fund, thereby giving the Minister discretion to allocate money within and between those two former funds for energy and water saving projects. The bill, to some extent, is flawed. I will spend my time this afternoon talking about those flaws. The first flaw is on a philosophical level: mitigation activities, that is, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are combined with adaptation activities, that is, water saving measures that are carried out to deal with the impacts of drought and global warming. There is some risk when mitigation and adaptation combine that the focus on one or the other will be lost. Both are and will be extremely important in policy setting and expenditure in New South Wales. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put out its mitigation report and its adaptation report as two separate documents. It is a shame that the New South Wales Government did not keep the two issues separate.

The bill broadens the scope of the two funds, which are now one fund. This risks losing some of the highly effective previous programs. The Greens are particularly concerned about energy efficiency activities, which are central to our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The National Framework for Energy Efficiency estimated that without too much difficulty we could reduce our stationary energy consumption by 30 per cent. With a reduction of slightly less than 30 per cent we could increase gross domestic product, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs. Energy efficiency is a win-win-win strategy: it produces huge gains for the environment, the economy and employment. Losing sight of those energy efficiency programs, running the risk of losing them, would be of great concern to the Greens. The Greens, the environment movement and a large number of concerned citizens will watch carefully to ensure that the energy efficiency programs that have been funded will continue to receive funds.

The third area of concern for us is the discretion the bill creates for the Minister. I put on record that the current Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water is a man of good will and has excellent staff who give him high-quality advice. My remarks are not addressed at all at the current Minister. However, we do not know who future Ministers in this area will be: Ministers come and Ministers go. We do not have any guarantee that a future Minister will have the same degree of goodwill and commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change as the current Minister has. Further, the Treasurer has significant power within the current Labor Government, and we know his attitudes to global warming. Some of them have been put on the record. Others have been passed in this Chamber sotto voce—perhaps not sotto, but certainly voce. I do not know that the Treasurer is capable of sotto when it comes to voce.

Clearly, there have been battles in Cabinet over expenditure on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal before us today would not be as large if the Treasurer did not have the political power and sway that he has. The creation of discretionary powers for the Minister comes with an edge. The edge is that the so­called browns in Cabinet, those who are not committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, will in the long run gain control over the portfolio and use those discretionary powers to reduce the effectiveness of the bill. The Greens seek to limit one of those discretionary powers: allowing money from the funds to pass to activities that are not directly related to climate change.

The final area in which the Climate Change Fund is flawed is that the money allocated is inadequate—$310 million over four years, with $70 million in the first year of operation of the fund. That money is welcome. I do not want it to be misunderstood: the Greens welcome expenditure on both adaptation and mitigation activities. But that amount is woefully inadequate, no matter how it is measured, to address the needs of climate change. Not enough money is provided to invest The final area in which the Climate Change Fund is flawed is that the money allocated is inadequate—$310 million over four years, with $70 million in the first year of operation of the fund. That money is welcome. I do not want it to be misunderstood: the Greens welcome expenditure on both adaptation and mitigation activities. But that amount is woefully inadequate, no matter how it is measured, to address the needs of climate change. Not enough money is provided to invest in technologies and technology development to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to a level that is sustainable in the short term. The targets spoken about are interesting. Although there are no targets in the bill, the Government's stated targets are not adequate to hold temperature rise to two degrees centigrade. It is time we had a commitment not just on percentages but also on degrees centigrade.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Over what time frame?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Over any time frame. I acknowledge the interjection by the Minister—rather, Mr Colless. Never let it be said that I accused Mr Colless of being a Minister.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: He would never accuse you of being a politician.

Dr JOHN KAYE: In one sense that may be a good thing. The second aspect of inadequate funding in the bill is that the $310 million provided is not balanced against the cost of failure. The cost of failing to reduce greenhouse gases is set out in the Stern report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and the work of James Hanson in the United States. Compared with that cost, $310 million over four years pales into insignificance.

The third area in which the budget for the Climate Change Fund is inadequate is in relation to the opportunities that the fund could create, such as the economic benefits of an early start. There is no question that an early start on reducing greenhouse gas emissions would diminish the risk of long-term costs. Other issues are jobs and economic benefits. By not investing large amounts now at the ground floor of renewable energy we are losing the opportunity to develop a vibrant manufacturing industry involved in renewable energy. If we are serious about creating manufacturing jobs, there is no more potent area in which to invest than technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

While the Greens argue that the funding is inadequate, the bill at least extends the funding period. That is an acknowledgment that this is not a short-term problem but a problem that will be confronting us for some time. This bill is a small response to a big problem. It is also a small response to the growing demand for real action. That this bill is before Parliament and that we are even talking about climate change and the need to respond is a credit to the scientists who blew the whistle on the issue, to the environment groups and to the local climate action groups on the street campaigning to force politicians to listen and to do something about greenhouse gas emissions. It is a credit to the active and motivated citizens that politicians in this country have finally been forced to respond. We owe this response to those people, but, more importantly, we owe it to future generations. The Greens support the bill.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [3.12 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to this debate. I will respond first to Dr John Kaye. One of the worst things a member can do in this Chamber in arguing about a Government program is zero in on the one element under discussion and ignore a range of programs directed towards the same objective. Dr John Kaye has castigated the Government and said that the $310 million allocated to the fund is not enough. However, he ignored a raft of other programs that the Government has implemented to reduce this State's carbon imprint.

It is easy to say that the $310 million in the Climate Change Fund is not enough given the size of the program; however, the member is not taking into account a range of other programs, such as the Urban Sustainability Program; the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme; the National Renewable Energy Target, which will be a significant contributor to generating new technology in the future; the programs designed to develop clean coal; the GreenPower concept that the Government administers; and the State Native Vegetation Act, which provides $37 million in adjustment funding for farmers. All of that is directed towards sustainability.

Dr John Kaye: How much?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That would be a significant amount when it is added together.

Dr John Kaye: How much?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Off the top of my head I cannot provide a figureon what the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme is worth in carbon reduction—
Dr John Kaye: No, how much is the Government putting in?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: We have put in heaps. I will get the member a figure. However, if the member were to add those amounts the final figure would be double or triple the figure he is talking about. When Dr John Kaye takes that line about a measure he should consider it in a global sense and keep in mind the range of programs directed towards sustainability and what they mean in the State context. The Government has implemented many programs, not only this program. This is just one program that addresses the issue.

The Hon. Rick Colless referred to the Government's new rainwater tank rebate program, which will be created under the Climate Change Fund. He asked whether a rebate will be provided for people not connected to mains water supply. The rainwater tank rebate proposed under this fund will provide a rebate of up to $1,500 to all householders in New South Wales who install a rainwater tank after 1 July 2007. This includes a rebate for people not connected to mains water supply. The key purpose of the rainwater tank rebate is to encourage householders across New South Wales to install a tank to save drinking water. To maximise the drinking water savings, the rebate is scaled to provide the highest amount to people who connect the tank to toilets and washing machines.

Householders can apply for rebates for the tank itself and for rebates for connecting to a toilet and to a washing machine. In keeping with the principle of saving drinking water, people who are not connected to the mains supply are eligible for tank rebates to enable them to increase their storage capacity and avoid carting town water in times of severe water shortages. Because these properties have tanks already connected to the house, they are eligible only for the tank portion of the rebate. That is $500 for a tank with a storage capacity of more than 7,000 litres.

Dr John Kaye also asked whether rebates for insulation will be retrospective. As already announced by the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water, rebates will be available for insulation installed from 1 October this year. The rebates will not be retrospective. The best value for money from the fund is to focus on helping as many householders as possible who have not yet taken the first steps in making their homes water and energy efficient.

The Opposition has stated that funding under the Climate Change Fund should be allocated on a contestable basis. As well as the rebates for householders across New South Wales, the Climate Change Fund also comprises contestable funding, including a $40-million Renewable Energy Development Program to support the commercialisation of proven renewable energy technologies, and a $30-million Public Facilities Program for State and local government and educational and other community facilities to seek support for energy and water savings projects.

The Government stated in its election commitment what programs it will be delivering under the Climate Change Fund. It does not make sense to deliver some of these programs on a contestable basis, and the residential rebate program is clearly in that category. For other programs, it is simply good practice to make these available on a competitive basis to provide the best value from the fund. Those programs include those already announced, such as the Public Facilities Program and the Renewable Energy Development Program, as well any future programs needed to deliver outcomes for the fund. Moneys will be awarded in a competitive selection process, with potential projects assessed against selection criteria related to the objectives of the fund.

In response to the notion that the fund is simply a rebadging of the Water Savings Fund and the Energy Savings Fund, I point out that the Climate Change Fund has far broader objectives than those funds as well as a broader geographical reach across New South Wales. There has been some question about the administrative arrangements and contestability of the Climate Change Fund. The Department of Environment and Climate Change has been consulting with stakeholders, including retailers, to deliver the rebates swiftly. We are getting on with the job. I urge members to support the bill.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Dr JOHN KAYE [3.21 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [3], proposed section 34F (f), lines 33 and 34. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [3], proposed section 34H (1) (b), lines 23-25. Omit all words on those lines.

The purpose of the amendments is to remove the Minister's ability to spend fund moneys on national energy regulation activities, including support for inefficient and greenhouse-polluting energy sources in the National Electricity Market. It needs to be understood that the amendments would still allow the Government to fund national energy regulations that meet one of the other objectives of the fund, such as reducing greenhouse gases and encouraging energy savings. In particular, the amendments would not prevent money from within the funds being used, for example, to establish a national carbon trading scheme, if that were necessary.

The amendments seek to delete proposed section 34F (f) and proposed section 34H (1) (b). The Greens believe that allowing the Minister the discretion to use the funds to support regulatory activities—rather than greenhouse gas reduction activities—in the National Electricity Market would constitute inappropriate use of fund moneys. I emphasise that the Greens do not suggest that the current Minister would do this; indeed, I am convinced that he would not seek to do this. However, a subsequent Minister—particularly a Minister who is under pressure from those within a government of any complexion that does not share a commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions—may seek to use the provisions to drain money out of the funds and put them into activities that do not support the objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions or adapting to climate change. The amendments are supported by a number of environmental organisations, and I commend them to the Committee.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [3.23 p.m.]: The Government does not support amendments to prevent the payment of the New South Wales contribution to national energy regulation from the Climate Change Fund. The Parliament agreed to fund the cost of national energy regulation from the Energy Savings Fund when it was established in 2005. The Government proposes that this arrangement continue with respect to the Climate Change Fund, which will be used to fund the State's contribution to the cost of the Australian Energy Market Commission.

The Australian Energy Market Commission promotes the strategic longer-term design and development of the National Energy Market through its functions of rule making and market development. New South Wales is part of the National Electricity Market. It is in the interests of our consumers to have national regulation of this market to ensure fair prices. Just like the Energy Savings Fund before it, the Climate Change Fund will receive significant funds from New South Wales electricity businesses. It is therefore entirely appropriate that a small proportion of the fund be used to fund the State's contribution to the cost of ensuring proper regulation of the National Electricity Market. Only a small proportion of the cost of national energy regulation will be funded from the Climate Change Fund. The bulk of the cost of national energy regulation is for the Australian Energy Regulator, which is funded by the Federal Government.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.25 p.m.]: As I see it, the Greens amendments basically prevent the Government from spending the funds on energy projects other than those that are greenhouse gas related. If that is the case, I ask whether this would stop the fund being used to contribute to the administration of a national carbon emissions scheme, which we believe should not be precluded in principle. The Minister may wish to comment on that aspect.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [3.25 p.m.]: It would depend on one's interpretation—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The safest thing would be to vote against the amendments.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile gets it right, as usual. I believe the amendments would preclude the Climate Change Fund being used to fund regulation. There may be some future impact, depending upon who is in charge of the carbon trading that is proposed in the future. However, I do not have any specific advice on this aspect.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.26 p.m.]: It is a good question. I draw the attention of the Hon. Rick Colless to proposed section 34F, which states that the purposes of the fund are to provide funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other activities. If the purpose of the carbon trading scheme is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pursuant to the powers given to the Minister under section 34F (a) the Minister would have no difficulty providing funding for a carbon trading scheme.

I wish to correct one thing the Minister said, I think inadvertently. He said that deleting section 34F (f) would prevent funds going to the regulation of the market. That is not true. It would remove the power to provide non-specific contributions, that is contributions that are not in respect of greenhouse gas emissions activities. However, under section 34F (a), (b) (c) and (d), but possibly not (e), there would still be heads of power, as it were, within the Act that would allow the Government to fund regulatory activities in the National Electricity Market, provided those regulatory activities were specifically focused on one of the objectives set out in those provisions. Section 34F (a) refers to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Greens amendments would still allow the Minister to fund an emissions trading scheme using moneys from the Climate Change Fund.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [3.28 p.m.]: The Government's position is that the safest course in this instance is to vote against the Greens amendments.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 negatived.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.28 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No.1 Page 5, schedule 1 [3]. Insert before line 1:

(b) establish a public scheme for the funding by payments from the Fund of community grants and projects, with the scheme featuring public contestability for funding, specified selection criteria to determine the kinds of grants and projects that will be eligible for funding, and required outcomes (such as required delivery dates) for eligible grants and projects, and

No.2 Page 5, schedule 1 [3]. Insert after line 13:

(3) The Minister is to conduct a review of the projects, grants and programs that are funded by payments from the Fund during each financial year. The review is to assess the expected impact on climate change of those projects, grants and programs.

(4) The review is to assess the expected impact on climate change of projects, grants and programs by reference to key performance indicators established by the Minister for the purposes of the review.

(5) Each review under this section is to be conducted within 3 months after the end of the financial year to which it relates and a report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 6 months after the end of that financial year.

(6) The Minister is to publish each such report for the purpose of promoting schemes, technologies and processes that address climate change to the NSW public.

Amendment No. 1 inserts new paragraph (b) in proposed section 34H (2). The amendment requires the Government to establish a publicly contestable and transparent process for the awarding of grants for climate change projects, as allowed for in the objectives of the fund. Without such a process the Government may allocate moneys on an ad hoc and secretive basis. Clearly that would be undesirable and would not, in all likelihood, lead to the best possible proposals being funded. The amendment also involves some bureaucratic administration other than that required for the proper expending of public monies, and that is a well-recognised and acceptable process in modern public administration. In the absence of transparent processes there will be bureaucratic costs involved in responding to estimates questions, and in any case there must be costs involved in administering any allocation of public moneys to non-government agencies.

Amendment No. 2 will add a new section 34J relating to the annual review of projects, grants and programs. In that regard there is nothing in the bill that requires the Government to report to Parliament on the project, grants and programs under the fund or in its budget. It is clearly a desirable objective that the allocation of any public moneys to projects of this nature should be properly reported back to the Parliament.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.31 p.m.], by leave: I move Christian Democratic Party Amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 5, schedule 1 [3]. Insert before line 1:
(b) approve the funding of community grants from the Fund, being grants awarded on the basis of their merit in advancing one or more of the purposes referred to in section 34F, established through a competitive selection process, and

No. 2 Page 5, schedule 1 [3]. Insert after line 13:

(3) The Minister is to produce an annual report detailing fund allocations and programs and anticipated benefits, by reference to key performance indicators, to be achieved in advancing any one or more of the purposes referred to in section 34F.

(4) The annual report is to include an evaluation of the effectiveness of each program as it is completed under the Fund.

(5) The annual report is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 6 months after the end of the financial year to which it relates.

(6) The Minister is to publish each annual report so as to promote, to the NSW public, schemes, technologies and processes that address climate change and to inform the NSW public about consumer choices and procurement decisions.

The amendment I move covers the same area as that covered by the Opposition's amendments. I believe this a simpler way to approach this very important provision: the approval of community grants. My first amendment will achieve a similar aim more simply. The Opposition's amendment talks about featuring public contestability for funding. The competitive selection processes are clearer, as is the requirement on the Minister to table an annual report within six months that includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of each program. The Minister must publish each annual report to promote the New South Wales public schemes, technologies and processes that address climate change, and to inform the New South Wales public about consumer choices and procurement decisions. I believe that amendment achieves its purposes. We will vote against the Opposition amendments.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [3.32 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendments moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile but we will not support the amendments moved by the Opposition, despite the fact that they are somewhat similar to those of the Christian Democratic Party. The Opposition's amendments are fairly complex. The amendments of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile will, on balance, deliver better value. The report will now include an assessment of the effectiveness of programs as they are completed. It will also focus on providing information that can help the public make better choices about how they can contribute to addressing climate change.

The first amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile provides that the Minister will be able to use fund moneys for community grants. The grants will be awarded on merit in a competitive selection process, with potential projects assessed against selection criteria related to the objectives of the fund. These types of grants will deliver practical solutions on the ground at the community level.

The second amendment is consistent with the transparent reporting arrangements the Government was proposing to implement once the Climate Change Fund was established. The effect of the amendment is that there will be a report to Parliament annually on how moneys have been allocated under the fund and what outcomes are being achieved, measured against key performance indicators. In addition, as programs are completed under the fund they will be evaluated for their effectiveness in delivering real outcomes. The report will also be released publicly to promote schemes, technologies and processes that address climate change. This will help us all make better choices about what we can do to help address climate change.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.34 p.m.]: Madam Chair, I seek your guidance on how we can vote on these amendments seriatim rather than in globo. No doubt somebody will correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that both sets of amendments will achieve the same outcome. I cannot see a different outcome. However, I think Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's first amendment is probably more easily understood. Opposition amendment No. 2, however, is more powerful in that it requires the carrying out of a review rather than just producing an annual report.

I have a question to ask the Minister about both sets of amendments, and this relates to a matter of semantics rather than policy. However, the Minister is a man of great facility with the English language and will be able to give us the benefit of his enormous wisdom on this matter.

[ Interruption]
That is called irony. I do not know whether the Hon. Charlie Lynn is trained in that.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Hansard does not show irony, it just shows crawling.

The CHAIR: Order! I remind all members that interjections are disorderly and they should cease.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The amendment contains the words "The Minister may". Does that mean that the entire funds of the scheme will be used for the purposes described in paragraph (b)? Does it mean that a portion, the size of which will be determined by the Minister, will be directed into such a fund?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD [3.36 p.m.]: It is not a question of whether Dr John Kaye is crawling or being sarcastic. The plain fact of the matter is that I did not draft the amendment. If the member has a question to ask about it, I suggest he address it to the person who moved it.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I thank the Minister for his guidance. Can I direct the question to the mover of Opposition's amendment No. 1?

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Question time concluded two hours ago!

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.37 p.m.]: I think these are important amendments, and it is worthwhile to try to get them right. That was my understanding of what debate is all about—but maybe I am wrong. Can the Hon. Rick Colless explain to us whether the intention of part (b) of Opposition amendment No. 1 is that the entire monies of the fund will be directed into such a scheme, or only some proportion to be determined by the Minister?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.38 p.m.]: I am a little unsure what the honourable member has been dreaming about. In fact, I am not sure I even understand what he is talking about. Perhaps he could talk with me privately about this while the debate continues.

The CHAIR: Order! Standing Order 102 (4) states that a member may request that amendments that have more than one part be dealt with sequentially. I propose to accede to the request of Dr John Kaye.

Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 negatived.

Question—That Christian Democratic Party amendment Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 1 and 2 agreed to.

Question—That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly requesting its concurrence in the amendments.

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that, according to the resolution of the House of Thursday 10 May 2007, the following members have been nominated as Chairs and Deputy Chairs of the Legislative Council Standing Committees:

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1
Chair: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile
Deputy Chair: The Hon. Kayee Griffin

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2
Chair: The Hon. Robyn Parker
Deputy Chair: The Hon. Christine Robertson

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3
Chair: The Hon. Amanda Fazio
Deputy Chair: The Hon. John Ajaka

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4
Chair: The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner
Deputy Chair: The Hon. Lynda Voltz

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5
Chair: Mr Ian Cohen
Deputy Chair: The Hon. Rick Colless

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 2 and 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.44 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Local Court Process Reforms) Bill 2007. The bill reforms the processes concerning the service of briefs of evidence in criminal matters dealt with in the Local Court. The aim of the amendments is to reduce the amount of time police spend on paperwork and at court for matters in which the defendant ultimately pleads guilty. Since becoming Minister for Police I have been told time and time again that police want to spend less time behind a desk and more time on the front line. By reducing that paperwork police can be deployed back into front-line policing.

The reduction of crime in New South Wales is a key priority for this Government, particularly violent crime. We are committed to ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of police available to fight crime and to achieve our State Plan targets to make New South Wales as safe as possible. In 1997 the Justices Amendment (Briefs of Evidence) Act 1997 introduced for the first time the requirement for the prosecution to serve a full brief of evidence on the defence in advance of a summary hearing. Prior to this the defence relied upon a charge sheet and facts sheet.

Some police prosecutors had adopted the practice of providing the police brief, or part of it, to the defence on the morning of the hearing, but there was no requirement to do so. The New South Wales Police Force has advised that what benefits have come to pass since the introduction of the brief service requirement have come at a cost. They have come at the cost of New South Wales police having to do significantly more work on brief preparation, keeping police behind desks preparing statements and compiling briefs rather than engaged in front-line policing. There is a concern that a large volume of front-line police time is spent in preparing thousands of briefs of evidence. Yet often those briefs are not used because a defendant pleads guilty. This means hours of police time have been wasted.

For example, in 2005 there were 18,500 Local Court hearings for offences and Police Legal Services estimate that police prepared about 55,000 briefs of evidence during the same period. In July 2006 the Premier launched the proactive policing initiative. The aim of this initiative is to identify improvements to police processes that could potentially represent significant savings in police time. In late August 2006 the Premier's Delivery Unit [PDU] completed its report entitled "From Paperwork to Proactive Policing: Redtape Reduction in the Charge-to-Finalisation Process". That report proposed a number of reforms to the summary jurisdiction. The report expresses concern about the disproportionate amount of work that goes into preparing briefs of evidence i For example, in 2005 there were 18,500 Local Court hearings for offences and Police Legal Services estimate that police prepared about 55,000 briefs of evidence during the same period. In July 2006 the Premier launched the proactive policing initiative. The aim of this initiative is to identify improvements to police processes that could potentially represent significant savings in police time. In late August 2006 the Premier's Delivery Unit [PDU] completed its report entitled "From Paperwork to Proactive Policing: Redtape Reduction in the Charge-to-Finalisation Process". That report proposed a number of reforms to the summary jurisdiction. The report expresses concern about the disproportionate amount of work that goes into preparing briefs of evidence in some minor matters.

The Premier's Delivery Unit and police estimate that the whole process from charge to finalisation, even for charges ultimately resulting in a guilty plea, can take up to 135 hours of police time. The bill is a result of consultation between the Attorney General's Department, the Ministry for Police, the Premier's Delivery Unit and the New South Wales Police Force. The bill will improve the charge-to-court process and save police time by increasing the range of summary matters in which a brief of evidence does not have to be served. The 12­month trial will operate statewide but will be limited to the following offences: all driving with prescribed concentration of alcohol [PCA] offences; driving under the influence of alcohol or any drug; offensive conduct; and all summary matters in which a brief is currently required that attract a maximum penalty of a fine only.

The bill will also encourage early pleas through improved statements of fact and the early provision of primary evidence material at the time of charging and shortly thereafter. An independent evaluator will assess the 12-month trial. The evaluation will not only look at whether the reform being trialled is working but also whether there should be further reforms to increase efficiency. It should be noted that a no brief scheme currently operates in relation to penalty notice offences, which account for thousands of Local Court hearings annually. The trial as proposed by the Attorney will extend the scheme to other specific summary matters.

Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research data indicates that offences in relation to which the trial will be conducted accounted for over 3,000 Local Court hearings in 2005. During the same period Police Legal Services estimate that police prepare 9,350 briefs in table 1 matters. Comprehensive template facts sheets will be developed within the New South Wales Police Force to assist police officers in charge of a prosecution to draft clearer, more consistent facts sheets that address the essential proofs of each offence alleged. In addition, it is also proposed to annex copies of original police evidence such as witness statements or closed­circuit television [CCTV] footage, available at the time of charging, to facts sheets and provide them to defendants.

The aim of these reforms is to save police time in drafting the facts sheet and increase the number of early guilty pleas by providing the defendant at an early time with material that answers the question: On the evidence, how strong is the prosecution case against me? If the original evidence is annexed to an improved facts sheet at the time of charging, a practitioner should be able to give accurate advice to his or her client prior to the first mention date about the likelihood of successfully defending the matter and the wisdom of attempting to do so.

Early results from the current domestic violence court trial, being conducted through the Crime Prevention Division of the Attorney General's Department, indicate that the practice of annexing witness statements and other salient evidence to facts sheets, at the time of charging for domestic violence offences, has had a substantial positive effect in inducing a greater rate of guilty pleas. This system would promote the listing for hearing of only those matters where it is likely that the defendant will continue to defend the charge until conclusion. These reforms could have significant positive flow-through effects on the court system as a whole.

Offences such as escaping from lawful custody are deemed to be more serious than a strictly summary offence. These offences are indictable offences. However, under certain circumstances they may be dealt with summarily, that is, in the Local Court. These offences are contained within table 1 at the end of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, and are commonly referred to as "table 1 offences". If a person is charged with a table 1 offence both the prosecution and the defence can elect to have the matter dealt with on trial in the District Court rather than heard in the Local Court.

Under section 265 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 full briefs of evidence are currently required to be served on the defendant before they elect whether to have the matter dealt with on indictment in the District Court. In practice less than 1 per cent of defendants elect to have table 1 matters tried before a jury in the District Court. The bill provides that a defendant in a table 1 matter will have to make the decision about whether he or she wishes to go to trial based on the statement of facts and before a full brief of evidence is given.

It is important to clarify that this amendment will not mean that a defendant will always be denied a brief of evidence. If there is an election to the District Court by either party and irrespective of which plea is entered, a brief will be served in accordance with chapter 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1987. If, on the other hand, no election is made but the defendant pleads not guilty and the matter proceeds to hearing in the Local Court, a brief is still required to be served, as chapters 4 and 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act will apply. This amendment is aimed at those defendants who do not elect to plead guilty and proceed straight to sentence in the Local Court. This will save time and money with respect to unnecessary brief preparation.

I turn now to the detail of the bill. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the proposed Act on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation. Clause 3 is a formal provision that gives effect to the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 set out in schedule 1. Clause 4 is a formal provision that gives effect to the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2005 set out in schedule 2. Schedule 1 [1] omits subsections (2) to (4) from section 265 of the principal Act and inserts proposed new subsections (2) and (3). Section 265 (2) of the Act currently provides that a person charged with a table 1 offence must be served with a copy of the brief of evidence and a copy of his or her criminal record before the time fixed by the Local Court for the making of an election in respect of the offence.

Section 265 (2A) to (4) of the Act currently provides the detail of what documents must be served and what powers the court has to adjourn proceedings when there has been a failure to serve the necessary documents. The amendments to section 265 remove the requirement that a person charged with a table 1 offence must be served with a brief of evidence before the time fixed by the court for the making of an election. The current section 183 will still require the service of briefs of evidence in proceedings for offences that are to be dealt with summarily, but only if the defendant has pleaded not guilty. The current section 75 will still require the service of briefs of evidence in all proceedings for offences that are to be tried on indictment.

Schedule 1 [2] amends schedule 2 to the principal Act to enable regulations of a savings or transitional nature to be made as a consequence of the enactment of the proposed Act. Schedule 1 [3] amends schedule 2 to the principal Act to make it clear that the proposed amendments made by schedule 1 [1] do not extend to any proceedings commenced prior to the commencement of the amendments. Section 187 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that proceedings of a kind prescribed by the regulations do not require a prosecutor to serve a brief of evidence.

Schedule 2 amends the Criminal Procedure Regulation by replacing clause 24 of schedule 2 to the Act. New clause 24 (1) expands the list of prescribed proceedings under section 187 (5) of the Act. New clause 24 (2) makes it clear that the prescription of the additional proceedings in clause 24 (1) has effect for 12 months only and does not extend to any proceedings commenced prior to the commencement of the subclause. This Government has prioritised reducing crime in New South Wales. The New South Wales State Plan has clearly stated as an objective the reduction in rates of crime, particularly violent crime. One of the identified strategies for achieving that priority is reducing the bureaucratic burden on police to free up time for front-line activities. The initiatives outlined in this bill will help to reduce the time police spend on paperwork and at court and increase their time doing active policing work. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [3.45 p.m.]: The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Local Court Process Reforms) Bill 2007, if passed, will amend the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to remove the requirement that a brief of evidence in proceedings for an indictable offence triable summarily, commonly referred to as table one offences, will be served on defendants before they elect to have matters dealt with on indictment in the District Court or summarily in the Local Court. It will also amend the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2005 to expand, on a 12-month trial basis, the prescribed list of proceedings for which a brief of evidence does not need to be served.

The aim of the bill is to reform the process concerning the service of briefs of evidence in criminal matters dealt with in the Local Court in order to reduce the time that police spend on paperwork and at court. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. The bill has been introduced following recommendations set out in the report "From Paperwork to Proactive Policy: Redtape Reduction in the Charge-to-Finalisation Process", which expressed concern about the amount of work that police put into preparing briefs of evidence. The aim of the reforms contained in the bill is to save police time and allow them to be relieved of paperwork to serve on the front line.

Table one offences, as detailed in schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, enable the defendant or the prosecution to elect to have the matter dealt with on trial in the District Court or heard by a magistrate in the Local Court. Currently under section 265 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 full briefs of evidence can be served on defendants before they elect whether to have matters dealt with on indictment or summarily. The bill provides that defendants in table one matters will have to make decisions whether they wish to go to trial without a full brief of evidence. Indeed, according to the Government, decisions will be made based on fact sheets with the essential proofs of each offence alleged and annexed copies of original police evidence, as opposed to the full brief of evidence that is currently provided.

It is important to note that if there is an election by either the prosecution or defence that the matter be tried in the District Court, a full brief of evidence will be served in accordance with chapter 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The bill also seeks to expand the prescribed list of proceedings currently set out in the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2005 for which a brief of evidence does not need to be served. This would be on a 12-month trial basis. The new offences for which a brief of evidence would not need to be served are: first, proceedings for an offence under section 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988, namely, offensive conduct; second, proceedings for an offence under section 9 of the Road Transport Safety and Traffic Management Act 1999, namely, driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol in a person's blood; third, proceedings for an offence under section 12 of the Road Transport Safety and Traffic Management Act 1999, namely, the use or attempted use of a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or any other drug; and, fourth, proceedings for a summary offence for which there is a monitoring penalty only.

Police will no longer be required to serve the defendant with a brief of evidence for these additional offences. Instead, according to the Government, police will be required to provide the defendant with a facts sheet with the essential proofs of each offence alleged and annexed copies of original police evidence. The Government also argues that the bill will increase the number of guilty pleas by providing defendants with original police evidence showing how strong the prosecution is against them. The bill provides for an independent evaluator to assess the 12-month trial, looking at whether the reform being trialled is working and whether there should be further reforms to increase efficiency. I shall deal with this more comprehensively later in my contribution.

Essentially, the intention of the bill is to reduce the time police spend preparing briefs of evidence so that they can spend more time on the front line. On face value this appears to be a noble intention but it should not cover up the fact that the reason police are struggling to deal with their workload is because of the Labor Government's chronic failure to fully resource our hardworking police officers. If this Government is serious about addressing law and order issues in New South Wales it should better resource our criminal justice system. The bill, instead of providing police with the additional resources they need to do their jobs, merely serves to relieve them of some of their duties.

This brings me to the criticisms of the bill by the Law Society of New South Wales and the Bar Association. I draw the attention of honourable members to these criticisms, both as the Parliamentary Secretary to the shadow Attorney General and as a lawyer who has defended many people charged with criminal matters in the Local Court. The Law Society argues that the bill will, first, lead to an increase in the number of defended hearings in the Local Court; second, not result in any decrease in the requirement to prepare briefs of evidence for table 1 matters; third, lead to an increase in court time set aside for defended hearings; fourth, lead to the requirement for police and witnesses to unnecessarily attend court to give evidence; and, fifth, lead to an increase in the number of pleas of guilty on the hearing date. I would like to take a moment to address each of the concerns raised by the Law Society.

The bill will amend section 265 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, removing the requirement to serve a brief of evidence on the defendant prior to election for table 1 matters. The police argue this is an important cost-saving measure and will allow them to return to the front line. The Law Society refutes the claims of the police, arguing that an accused person has the right to know the charge against him or her and be provided with the particulars of it. The Law Society is concerned that the bill would make it inappropriate for a lawyer to advise an accused person to enter a guilty plea without seeing all of the relevant evidence. This could in turn lead to an increase in the number of not guilty pleas—as the brief is the only way an accused person will be able to ascertain the strength of the prosecution's case—and therefore result in an increased number of defended hearings in the Local Court. If this is the case, it may result in police spending more time than currently in the courts, as opposed to being on the front line protecting the community.

Having defended many people in criminal matters I can understand the concerns the Law Society has raised. Of greatest concern to me is that this bill may result in a shift of workload from the Police Force to the courts, or even result in police spending more time than they currently do in the courts rather than on front line policing. This is not desirable, as in the long term an underresourced criminal justice system will do little to address law and order issues in New South Wales.

The Law Society also raised concerns with the bill's amendment to clause 24 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2005. The bill will allow for a 12-month trial in which it will no longer be necessary to serve a brief of evidence for offensive conduct, all prescribed concentration of alcohol matters, all offences relating to driving under the influence of a drug or alcohol, and all summary matters for which there is a monetary penalty only.

Offensive conduct matters often involve complex matters of fact and law. The service of a brief of evidence often saves time and resources. This bill removes the requirement of a brief of evidence for such matters, and according to the Government—but, it is important to note at this stage, it is not set out in the legislation—the brief of evidence will be replaced by a facts sheet that addresses the essential proofs of each offence alleged and an annexed copy of police evidence.

I am sure that in assessing the 12-month trial of this legislation the independent evaluator will consider whether the amendments have resulted in a saving of court time and resources, and whether police hours were lost due to extra court attendances. I also implore the independent evaluator to examine whether defendants are provided with a facts sheet that addresses the essential proofs of each offence alleged and an annexed copy of the police evidence, in each case, despite not being required to do so in the legislation.

The bill marks a significant reform of the Local Court process. In another place the Government alluded to the possibility of further reforms to increase efficiency. Such reforms should not come at the price of justice. In 1997 this House passed the Justice Amendment (Briefs of Evidence) Bill 1997, which provided for the prosecution to serve the defendant with briefs of evidence in proceedings dealt with summarily. The bill was passed with the support of both the Opposition and the Government. When the bill was being debated, the Hon. John Hannaford MLC remarked that the reforms would result in significant benefits to the criminal justice system. I again state that as a lawyer who has tried criminal cases in the Local Court, I concur with the sentiments of the Hon. John Hannaford, MLC.

My Liberal Party colleague the Hon. Michael Gallacher spoke in support of the 1997 bill. He said the reforms would improve the integrity of the system and benefit defendants who are not sure of what is available to them in the system. He also raised concerns about the impact the bill would have on police. When speaking on the bill my colleague the Hon. Michael Gallacher asked the then Attorney General to trial the reforms for 12 months. The Government did not accept that request.

The impact that the Justice Amendment (Briefs of Evidence) Bill 1997 had on the Police Force appears to be the reason behind the introduction of this bill. Unfortunately the Government did not choose to address the concerns raised by the Hon. Michael Gallacher in 1997. It should have given the police the increased resources needed to implement reforms requiring the service of a brief of evidence for defendants in matters to be tried summarily. Instead, the Government chose to ignore the calls of the Police Association for the additional resources that are needed.

I urge the Government to acknowledge the potential implications that this bill will have on our already strained and chronically under-resourced criminal justice system. The Law Society is concerned that the bill may lead to an increase in the number of defended hearings in the Local Court and lead to an increase in court time set aside for defended hearings. If the Law Society's concerns come to fruition this will be a significant burden on an already overstretched criminal justice system.

The best way for the Government to relieve that burden is to better resource the courts and their officials and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was disappointing that this year's budget did little to address these concerns, but I will continue to urge the Government to give the criminal justice system the resources and funding it desperately needs to keep our communities safe and ensure justice is swiftly upheld.

Having outlined the concerns of the Law Society and the Bar Association, as well as my own concerns, about the underresourcing of the criminal justice system, I repeat that the Opposition does not oppose the bill. I am glad the Government has agreed to trial for 12 months the reforms that the bill will implement and then have an independent evaluator assess them. The bill attempts to streamline the system and thereby save police significant time and money. It is important to have our hardworking police officers on the beat, protecting our community, and I support efforts to do so. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.56 p.m.]: The Greens oppose the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Local Court Process Reforms) Bill 2007. The bill removes the requirement that a brief of evidence be served for certain indictable offences. In doing so, the bill undermines the basic legal principle of procedural fairness, which is paramount to anyone accused of a criminal offence. Defendants are entitled as a matter of procedural fairness to know the case against them—to know the case they need to meet in order to enter a plea. When receiving legal advice from a legal practitioner both the defendant and their legal practitioner need to be aware of all the evidence and the full facts of the allegations made against the defendant. This is "legal principles 101" in anybody's book. Clearly it is a key foundation of our legal system.

The police Minister, David Campbell, argued in the lower House that the bill is needed to reduce paperwork for police and free up police time. He referred to briefs of evidence as a "bureaucratic burden" that must be removed to make police more available for front-line policing matters. One should say to Mr Campbell, "Sorry, this is not a zero sum game. If there is an issue with under-resourcing of New South Wales police, the answer surely is better resourcing. The answer is not to dismiss basic principles of our legal system as needless bureaucracy and sweep those requirements under the carpet." If passed, the bill could have the opposite effect: it could backfire in the Government's face. A more likely outcome is that public confidence in the legal system is diminished and that police end up having to spend more time in court giving evidence to compensate for the flaws in the legislation. The Government postures that the bill responsive to the needs of police, but it is not responsive to the needs of the people of this State and it will only increase the workload of police and the courts.

I have consulted with the Law Society on this matter. That organisation strongly opposes the bill and warns that it will lead to an increase in the number of defended hearings in the Local Court and an increase in the amount of time police officers will spend in court giving evidence on defended hearings. It is concerned that the bill will not result in any decrease in the requirement to prepare briefs of evidence for table 1 matters. It believes that the bill will lead to an increase in court time set aside for defended hearings, lead to the requirement for police to give evidence and, further, lead to an increase in the number of guilty pleas on the hearing date.

The Justice Amendment (Briefs of Evidence) Bill 1997 introduced the need for police to serve copies of briefs of evidence in proceedings for offences dealt with summarily. Former Attorney General Mr Shaw outlined the benefits of reforms in his second reading speech. He stated that the reforms would allow defendants to be in a better position to provide instructions to their lawyers and would "simplify and clarify defended proceedings". He said that briefs would mean shorter and more focused hearings and would save time and money for all parties.

These reasons are still as relevant today as they were 10 years ago when Mr Shaw made that important speech. For unrepresented defendants, this bill will mean that defendants have to decide how they will plead without knowing the case they need to meet. Without having knowledge of the court system, a defendant may not be aware they are entitled to a brief if they decide to plead not guilty. They may enter a plea without knowing the case they have to meet. They may have difficulty accessing legal representation without knowing the full facts of the case.

In the agreement in principle speech the Minister for Police said that the New South Wales Police Force would develop comprehensive template fact sheets that address the essential proofs of each alleged offence. However, there is no mention of these proposed requirements in the bill. Nor is there any mention of what will happen to any original evidence that is not available at the time of charging and whether the defendant would be entitled to receive such evidence. Is there any evidence that the proposed amendments will actually result in an ease of paperwork and an improvement in court processes? I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to respond to that question in her reply. It goes to the argument that the Government uses to justify this change in the legislation.

I note that there is a proposed 12-months trial period of the amendment, to monitor the quality and quantity of court processes. How is this amendment to be measured and monitored? What recourse do defendants who are being tried within this system for the next 12 months have if they believe there has been a lack of procedural fairness? The Greens oppose this bill. The result of it will be to unfairly disadvantage defendants and to lead to an increase in court time set aside for defended hearings. Procedural fairness and the citizens of New South Wales should not bear the brunt of a lack of policing.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.02 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Local Court Process Reforms) Bill 2007. The bill will eliminate the need to provide a brief in every case. Proposed section 24 (1) deals with the offences for which briefs are not required, as follows:

(a) proceedings for an offence for which a penalty notice may be issued,

(b) proceedings for an offence under section 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988,

(c) proceedings for an offence under section 9 or 12 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999,

(d) proceedings for a summary offence for which there is a monetary penalty only.

Therefore, briefs of evidence would not be required for relatively minor offences, compared with the serious category of offences. The main argument in favour of the bill, which we support, is that police are tied up for hours preparing briefs that may not be necessary. With the current oversight of police activities, police officers spend considerable time preparing briefs and making sure they are correct. They cannot take the risk of an error in a brief, because their proficiency will be questioned.

The bill will reduce some unnecessary pressure that is placed on police officers and allow them to get on with their main policing duties, which is not office work but being on the streets protecting the citizens of New South Wales. Any problems that occur as a result of the bill can be ascertained during the review period at the end of 12 months. Despite the Law Society's criticism of the proposal, it should be given a trial. The Government likes trials; let us have a trial.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.04 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. First I will deal with some of the matters that have been raised in the debate. In response to concerns raised about police spending more time in court, the reforms to cut red tape for police have been the result of extensive research by the Government through the Premier's delivery unit, the Ministry of Police and the Attorney General's Department, which shows that these reforms will result in major savings in police time. To ensure that these savings are made and that police will not spend more time in court, an extensive 12 months evaluation of the pilot elements in the bill will be undertaken.

As to procedural fairness, the "no brief" aspect of the reform will apply only to a small number of summary offences. Defendants will still be provided with a comprehensive statement of facts that will address each element of the offence. The reforms are limited to offences such as prescribed content of alcohol matters, and defendants will still be provided with evidence of their alcohol content reading. As to table 1 matters, a brief will still be provided unless there is a plea and the matter is dealt with in the Local Court.

Ms Lee Rhiannon referred to the Hon. Jeff Shaw's 1997 reforms. The introduction of the requirement to serve briefs in most summary matters through legislative amendment in 1997 has not been the subject of an evaluation. Therefore we have little reliable evidence at this stage to draw any conclusions as to the benefits or otherwise of that reform to the New South Wales justice system. Anecdotally, police have found that defendants enter pleas of not guilty at a greater rate than pre-1997 in order to take advantage of having a brief of evidence served on them by the prosecution. Further, more matters that do result in a plea of guilty do so later in the process than occurred in 1997.

Again, this issue will be looked at closely in the evaluation. Given the concerns raised in the debate, it is important to put on the record what we expect to occur in the evaluation process. One of the important parts of these reforms is the evaluation of the pilot scheme to end the use of briefs of evidence in certain summary offences. This evaluation will help determine which parts of the reforms work and which do not. An independent evaluator will be appointed to work with the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research in undertaking a 12-months evaluation of the operation of the reforms with a view to a subsequent decision being made as to whether, one, the reforms being trialled should be made permanent and, two, whether the reforms aimed at increasing efficiency should be rolled out.

The evaluation will monitor the quantitative impact of the reforms on police time spent in the court process, including brief preparations; court efficiency, that is, the net period taken to process matters, the number of hearings conducted and the stage in the process at which defendants plead guilty; the impact on the number of convictions secured in affected matters; the impact on unrepresented and Aboriginal defendants; the impact on the functioning of the Children's Court; and the costs to the Legal Aid Commission and other defence representatives.

In particular, the evaluator will be asked to attempt to quantify the discrete effects of each of the reforms to determine whether all reforms or only some contribute to greater Local Court efficiencies. The evaluation will also consider qualitative elements of the process to indicate the effect of the changes on the quality of justice dispensed in Local Courts.

When the Government introduced the State Plan, one of its priorities was the reduction of crime rates, especially violent crime. This bill assists in that aim. It will allow police to get back to the front line rather than being behind a desk completing paperwork. It is important to ensure that the scheme is effective and is achieving the expected results, without impacting unduly on the rights of the individual. It is for that this reason that an evaluation of the scheme will be undertaken to review and report on the impact of the reforms. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Mr Ajaka Mr Brown Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Ms Fazio Ms Ficarra Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Ms Griffin

Mr Kelly Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr Mason-Cox Reverend Nile Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Robertson Ms Sharpe Mr Smith

Mr Tsang Mr Veitch Ms Voltz Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Harwin

Mr Cohen Dr Kaye Tellers, Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

The PRESIDENT: Earlier this afternoon Ms Lee Rhiannon moved that standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved that Private Members' Business item No. 68 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment (MPs Fair Wages) Bill, be called on forthwith. The motion was defeated on division. However, as I indicated at the time, I had concerns that the bill that was the subject of the notice of motion may be a money bill, which would have ramifications for its introduction in this House. Private Members' Business item No. 68 provides:

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an Act to amend the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989 to limit pay rises for MPs in the New South Wales Parliament to Consumer Price Index.

(Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment (MPs Fair Wages) Bill)

Section 5 of the Constitution Act 1902 provides in part:

all bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any new rate, tax or impost, shall originate in the Legislative Assembly.

Although I have not seen the bill itself, the long title is clear in its intent. In seeking to amend the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989, the bill clearly deals with appropriation from the public revenue. Accordingly, the bill may not be introduced in the Legislative Council, and I direct the Clerks to remove the notice from the notice paper. However, nothing in section 5 of the Constitution Act 1902 limits the power of the House to deal with the bill if it is introduced in the Legislative Assembly and forwarded to this House from the Legislative Assembly.

Government Business Order of the Day No. 5 postponed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.19 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: 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.

Earlier this year the Government announced the introduction of amendments to the Judicial Officers Act 1986 to enable the appointment of two community representatives, one of whom will sit on each inquiry by a Conduct Division into judicial misconduct. The Judicial Officers Amendment Bill 2007 gives effect to the Government's commitment in the most open way possible, by providing that the two community representatives will be nominated by Parliament. The amendment will ensure greater transparency and accountability in the process for dealing with complaints and matters involving the impairment of judicial officers.

Under part 6 of the Judicial Officers Act any person may complain to the Judicial Commission about matters that concern or may concern the ability or behaviour of a judicial officer. As an initial step the commission conducts a preliminary examination of a complaint received. If the commission does not dismiss a complaint or refer it to the head of jurisdiction it must be referred to a Conduct Division for further investigation. A Conduct Division is currently constituted by a panel of three serving judicial officers, or two serving judicial officers and a retired judicial officer. A separate Conduct Division is established for each complaint referred by the Judicial Commission.

Under the proposed amendments a community representative will replace one of the judicial officer positions on the Conduct Division. Community representatives will be nominated by resolution of the Legislative Assembly, with the concurrence of the Legislative Council. Where the Legislative Council rejects a nomination by the lower House, it may nominate another person as a community representative. If, in turn, the Assembly rejects the upper House nomination or it fails to offer an alternative nomination within three sitting days, the Assembly may insist on its original nomination, in which case the nominee is confirmed, or nominate another person as a community representative, whereupon the original nomination process resumes.

Community representatives nominated by Parliament must be people of high standing in the community. To ensure that a different perspective is brought to bear on judicial misconduct matters, people who are legally qualified or members of the Judicial Commission will be barred from being nominated. The community representatives will sit on a Conduct Division on a rotating basis, subject to their availability for appointment on the occasion concerned. The bill makes provision for the expiry of a nomination, including where the person resigns, becomes legally qualified, is replaced by Parliament, or following a State election.

The proposed reform builds upon recent changes to the Judicial Officers Act introduced by the Government. Those reforms updated and streamlined complaints handling by the Judicial Commission and provided for mechanisms to deal with a judicial officer who may be suffering an impairment. This amendment will strengthen public confidence in the process for dealing with complaints relating to judicial officers and in our legal system. The Government has consulted the Chief Justice, the Hon. Mr Justice Spigelman, AC, who is also the chairperson of the Judicial Commission, regarding the proposed amendments to the Act. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [4.20 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Judicial Officers Amendment Bill 2007, which amends the Judicial Officers Act 1986 to provide for the appointment of non­legally qualified community representatives, nominated by Parliament, to the Conduct Division of the Judicial Commission. The bill arose from a situation involving Magistrate Pat O'Shane. In early January this year Ms O'Shane came under fire for showing alleged bias against police after she acquitted a person who had been accused of spitting at two rail transit officers. The Premier responded to the public outcry following this matter by announcing, on 21 January 2007, that he would appoint community representatives to the Conduct Division of the New South Wales Judicial Commission. At the time the Opposition held a similar view.

Magistrate O'Shane was again criticised on 24 January 2007 by the New South Wales Court of Appeal for having badly handled a matter and showing bias towards a litigant. The Judicial Commission exonerated her after investigating the matter, and came under fire for that. There is a community belief that the judiciary is not in an ivory tower and that broader community expectations should be taken into account in the assessment of the judiciary. As it currently stands, the Conduct Division of the Judicial Commission has the function of dealing with complaints about the ability or behaviour of judicial officers and with formal requests concerning the suspected impairment of judicial officers.

The bill seeks to better facilitate the consideration of community expectations when appraising the judiciary. It will achieve this by ensuring that, of the panel of three persons to be appointed, two are to be judicial officers and one is to be a community representative, being a person of high standing in the community who is not legally qualified or a member of the commission. The community representative is to be nominated with the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

I am concerned that the bill, and the agreement in principle speech made in the other place, fail to define what is meant by the phrase "high standing in the community". This is an important term that needs to be carefully considered as it could be used inappropriately by the Government to exclude members of the community who do not share the views held by the Executive. If such a situation were to arise it would strike at the fundamental principles of justice.
I refer briefly to the criticism by Chief Justice Spigelman of the policy the bill seeks to implement. On 29 January 2007 the Chief Justice delivered a speech marking the opening of the new law term. In that speech he warned that the policy could jeopardise judicial independence and fail to recognise the constitutional role of the judiciary as a distinct arm of government, thereby jeopardising freedoms and social stability. The Chief Justice said:

Judicial independence is not a privilege of judges which we acquire as a perk of office. Judicial independence is a fundamental right of citizens. It is one of the rights that is enshrined as a constitutional principle.

He went on:

Furthermore, democracy depends on the courts enforcing what the Parliament had intended, not what the executive wants.

These strong criticisms serve as a reminder to us as parliamentarians about the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The Government agreed to consult the Judicial Commission before it introduced the bill. In the other place it was indicated that the Government consulted the Chief Justice, James Spigelman, AC, who is also the chair of the Judicial Commission, regarding the proposed bill. Unfortunately, however, the Government has failed to detail the substance of those consultations.

The Opposition opposes any suggestions that the judiciary should no longer be independent, as this would strike at the cornerstone of our judicial system. It is extremely important not only that judicial independence be maintained but that the independence of other statutory officers is maintained also. It is not tenable that judges, prosecutors, defenders and statutory officers are fearful that they will not be reappointed if they make decisions and conduct their cases in a manner that does not please the Government. I urge all members of this honourable place to remember the importance of maintaining judicial independence. As I indicated, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [4.24 p.m.]: The Judicial Officers Amendment Bill 2007 provides for the appointment of community representatives to the Conduct Division of the New South Wales Judicial Commission. The Greens oppose the bill. The bill cannot be viewed in isolation. Rather, it is part of a concerted Government trend to undermine the independence of the judiciary. The bill seeks to appoint two community representatives to sit on the Judicial Commission's Conduct Division, which investigates serious complaints against judges. It arose out of a very public attack against Magistrate Pat O'Shane launched by the New South Wales Government in the lead-up to the last election.

It is worth recalling this issue and how it played out in the media. Then Minister for Police John Watkins whipped up a media frenzy by criticising Pat O'Shane's handling of the Garry Rose case, in which Pat O'Shane acquitted a person who had been accused of spitting at two rail transit officers. Minister Watkins said Pat O'Shane is a "serial offender when it comes to people in uniform," and that she demonstrates "on an ongoing basis a prejudice against the police of this State". The Minister then called on the Judicial Commission to investigate Pat 0'Shane for alleged bias against police in this and all Pat O'Shane's past rulings.

Ms Lee Rhiannon, as the Greens justice spokesperson, commented at the time that election fever must have given Minister Watkins a rush of blood to the head, causing him to forget the principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers. It is inappropriate in the extreme for a Minister to hurl insults at members of the judiciary and comment on their judgments without being privy to all the evidence. The Iemma Government—in agreement with the Coalition—has been using magistrates as political footballs in its tough on law and order game, and the bill is a result of that ugly tussle. The bill jeopardises judicial independence. The Government engages in doublespeak when it says that the bill will strengthen public confidence in the judiciary.

Mr Barry Collier, who introduced the bill in the lower House, advised that the Government had consulted Chief Justice Jim Spigelman regarding the proposed amendments to the Act. It is revealing indeed that Mr Collier was silent about the feedback received from Justice Spigelman. In an opinion piece written by Justice Spigelman published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 January 2007 he clearly objected to the amendments in the bill. Justice Spigelman clearly objects to a change that would see membership of the Conduct Division determined by politicians. He wrote:

It would be wrong and contrary to constitutional principle if an appointment to a conduct division were to be made by the executive branch of government. Judicial independence is not a privilege of judges which we acquire as a perk of office. Judicial independence is a fundamental right of citizens. It is one of the rights that is enshrined in Australia as a constitutional principle.

Justice Spigelman also comments on the Government's tendency to treat judges like public servants who must be subject to a list of bureaucratic key performance indicators enforced and overseen by the Government. This approach fails to recognise the constitutional role of the judiciary as a distinct and separate institution from government. To maintain judicial independence, the judiciary must be insulated against pressure or interference by the executive branch of government. I conclude with a final quote from Justice Spigelman. In his speech at the opening of the law term dinner in January this year Justice Spigelman said:

Citizens are entitled to protection from the exercise of the power that others are able to exercise over their lives. Our society cannot be governed by the rule of the law without an institutionalised arrangement for the independence of the judiciary. Furthermore democracy depends on the courts enforcing what the Parliament intended, not what the executive wants. We tinker with this institutional arrangementat our peril.

The Greens oppose the bill, and we will continue to oppose attempts by the Labor Government and the Coalition to score political points in the media by hurling insults at judges and other members of the judiciary who bring down decisions that may be seen as unpopular.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.29 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Judicial Officers Amendment Bill 2007 but we have some concerns about its provisions. The bill amends the Judicial Officers Act 1986 to provide for the appointment of non-legally qualified community representatives, nominated by Parliament, to the Conduct Division of the Judicial Commission. The Conduct Division has the function of dealing with complaints about the ability or behaviour of judicial officers and with formal requests concerning the suspected impairment of judicial officers.

There has been an increase in complaints about the behaviour of some judges in this State. In one famous case a judge was even required to appear before this House, stand at the bar and defend himself against a vote from both Houses to discharge him from his position. That was quite a historic occasion, but quite emotional for the judge in that position. Hopefully, this arrangement might remove the necessity for that to happen.

The bill lays down how it will operate: Of the panel of three persons so appointed, two are to be judicial officers and one is to be a community representative. A member of the Conduct Division who is a community representative will be paid such remuneration as the Minister may from time to time determine. The difficulty is that the community representative—and there will be two nominated, with the appointment of one of those to a panel being made in rotation—is nominated by Parliament. Parliament is involved in the process. The Legislative Assembly, by resolution, nominates a community representative and the nomination then comes to the Legislative Council for its concurrence. If we concur, that person is then duly nominated as the community representative.

If the Legislative Council rejects a nomination made by the other place the Legislative Council, by message to the other place, may nominate another person as the community representative. If the other place agrees, the nominated person will become the community representative. However, if the other place rejects the nomination made by the Legislative Council we then have a real dilemma. The bill states that the Legislative Assembly may, by message to the Legislative Council, insist on its original nomination, in which case the person nominated by the Legislative Assembly is duly nominated as the community representative. That means the Legislative Assembly can in the end overrule the will of the Legislative Council.

Members of the Legislative Council may have good reasons for not supporting that nomination, reasons perhaps that do not carry the same weight with the Legislative Assembly. The challenge is: How does one find two community representatives who genuinely represent the wider community? One person might be supportive of law and order and have reservations about persons charged with criminal offences getting bail easily and so on—a conservative community representative—and another person might be a civil libertarian with very trendy views who does not believe anyone should be sent to prison.

How will the community representatives be selected? Will there be advertisements? If so, a number of candidates will apply. They would have to be assessed and a short list would have to be drawn up. Someone would then have to decide which names would be sent to the Legislative Assembly for nomination. I am not against the procedure; I believe we should have community input, and this is what the Government is seeking to do, but the question is whether this is the right process to achieve that. If the bill is passed its practical aspects will have to be assessed. A further amendment might be required in 6 or 12 months time if the arrangement is found to be unworkable. We support the bill.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support of the Judicial Officers Amendment Bill 2007. The amendments to the Judicial Officers Act provide for the nomination of two community representatives by Parliament, one of whom will sit on a Conduct Division as required. Judicial independence will not be compromised by the proposed amendments, which are designed to provide a fair and open appointments process. The inclusion of a community representative on Conduct Divisions will ensure greater transparency and boost public confidence in the complaints handling process.

To answer the question of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, where the Legislative Council rejects a nomination by the lower House it may nominate another person as a community representative. If in turn the Legislative Assembly rejects the upper House nomination or the Legislative Council fails to offer an alternative nomination within three sitting days the Legislative Assembly may insist on its original nomination—in which case the nominee is confirmed—or nominate another person as a community representative, whereupon the original nomination process resumes. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

Government Business Order of the Day No. 7 postponed on motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.37 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Publication of Names) Bill, which proposes two amendments to section 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act. The first is to allow certain family members, other than the defendant, of deceased children to waive the right to non­publication. The second is to clarify that the section was not intended to operate retrospectively. Section 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 provides that the name of certain persons—namely, children and persons who were children at the relevant time—must not be published or broadcast in a way that connects them with specified criminal proceedings.

For example, the prohibition relates to the following persons: first, a person who was a child when a witness to, or victim of, an offence; secondly, a person who is or was mentioned in criminal proceedings in relation to something that occurred when the person was a child; thirdly, a person who was involved in criminal proceedings when a child; and, fourthly, a brother or sister of a victim of an offence, where that brother or sister and the victim were both children when the offence was committed.

The prohibition applies into the future even after the proceedings have been finalised and the person concerned becomes an adult. The material covered by these provisions includes the name and any other information—for instance a picture—that may lead to the identification of the child. There are some exceptions to the prohibition. For instance, a name can be broadcast or published with the consent of the person if they are over 16 years.

In 2001 section 11 was amended to make it clear that the prohibition applied even if the person concerned was no longer a child at the time of the publication or broadcast. The section was again amended in 2004 to make it clear that the prohibition also extended to children who were deceased. Since those amendments it has become apparent that in order to continue to balance the rights of victims and their families and the principle of open justice, a number of further amendments need to be made. The first amendment will allow a parent or a senior available next of kin to consent to the name of the deceased child being published or broadcast. The giving of consent is, however, subject to a number of conditions.

For instance, a senior available next of kin may not give the consent or object to the giving of consent if that person is charged with, or is convicted of, an offence in the criminal proceedings that gave rise to the prohibition. For example, a parent charged with his or her child's murder would not be able to give consent. Nor can a senior available next of kin give such a consent to the publication or broadcasting of the name of a deceased child if it appears, after making such inquiries as are reasonable in the circumstances, that another senior available next of kin objects to the publication or broadcasting of the name. For example, if one parent objects, the other parent cannot give consent.

When a parent or senior available next of kin is considering whether to give consent to the publication or broadcasting of the name of a deceased child, reasonable efforts must be made to obtain and take into account the views of the deceased child's siblings and what impact it might have on them where those children are also protected by the Act. The aim of this amendment is to give a sense of empowerment to the victim's family. They will be able to make a decision about whether they wish the name of their child to be released in the media rather than having to go through the process of making an application to the court.

The second amendment is in regard to retrospective application and will make it clear that the prohibition on the publication or broadcasting of persons' names does not apply if that child's name had been lawfully broadcast or published in the past. When initially enacted in 1987 the section was ambiguous and was interpreted as protecting children only up to the time when they became adults, after which time they could be named. This meant that a child could be publicly named upon reaching adulthood. In 2001 the Government introduced an amendment to section 11 clarifying that the protection continued even when the child became an adult.

In 2004 another amendment was made to clarify that the section applied also to deceased children. It was ambiguous as to whether these amendments were intended to have retrospective effect. A consequence of the amendments meant that the name of a child, which had been in the public domain for years, could technically not be lawfully published or broadcast. The proposed amendments will clarify that there is no breach for subsequently publishing the names of children connected to criminal proceedings when those names have already been published lawfully.

I turn now to the detail of the bill. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the proposed Act on the date of assent to the proposed Act. Clause 3 is a formal provision that gives effect to the amendments to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 as set out in Schedule 1. Schedule 1 [2] to [4] to the bill amend section 11 of the Act to provide that the prohibition on publication and broadcasting does not apply to the publication or broadcasting of the name of a deceased child when a senior available next of kin of the child has given consent to the publication or broadcasting.

Schedule 1 [2] to the bill provides that a senior available next of kin cannot give such a consent to the publication or broadcasting of the name of a deceased child if it appears, after making such inquiries as are reasonable in the circumstances, that another senior available next of kin objects to the publication or broadcasting of the name. For example, if one parent objects, the other parent cannot give consent. Schedule 1 [3] to the bill provides that a senior available next of kin who is charged with, or is convicted of, an offence to which the criminal proceedings concerned relate cannot give consent, or object, to the publication or broadcasting of the name of a deceased child. For example, a parent charged with his or her child's murder could not give consent, or object to the child's other parent giving consent, to the publication or broadcasting of the name of the murdered child.

At present, section 11 (1) (d) of the Act provides that the name of a brother or sister of a victim of an offence to which criminal proceedings relate—when the brother or sister and the victim were both children when the offence was committed—must not be published or broadcast in a way that connects the brother or sister with the criminal proceedings concerned. Schedule 1 [3] to the bill inserts proposed section 11 (4G) into the Act. That subsection provides that, when considering whether to give consent to the publication or broadcasting of the name of a deceased child, a senior available next of kin must, if the publication or broadcasting of the name of a brother or sister of the deceased child is also prohibited:

(a) make such inquiries as are reasonable in the circumstances to obtain the views of that brother or sister regarding the publication or broadcasting of the name of the deceased child, and

(b) take into account the impact of such a publication or broadcasting on that brother or sister.

Schedule 1 [4] to the bill defines "senior available next of kin of a deceased child" as:

(a) a parent of the child, or

(b) if the parents of the child are dead, cannot be found, or for some other reason cannot exercise their parental responsibilities to the child:

(i) a person who, immediately before the death of the child, had parental responsibility (within the meaning of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998) for the child, or

(ii) in the case of a child who was in the care of the Director General of the Department of Community Services immediately before his or her death—the Director-General.

In the past, a person having parental responsibility for a child would have been described as the child's guardian or the person who has custody of the child. This terminology is no longer commonly used in family law. Schedule 1 [6] to the bill inserts clause 18 into Schedule 2 (Savings and transitional provisions) to the Act to provide that section 11 does not apply to the publication or broadcasting of the following names in connection with criminal proceedings:

(a) the name of a person that had been published or broadcast before 21 December 2001 (the date of commencement of the Criminal Legislation Amendment Act 2001), being a person who was not a child at the time of the publication or broadcast,

(b) the name of a person that had been published or broadcast before 24 March 2004 (the date of commencement of the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2004), being a person who was deceased at the time of the publication or broadcast.

Schedule 1 [6] to the bill also amends Schedule 2 to the Act to enact a savings and transitional provision as a consequence of the enactment of the proposed Act. The amendment provides that section 11, as amended by the proposed Act, applies in relation to proceedings whether commenced before or after the commencement of the proposed Act.

Schedule 2 makes a consequential amendment to section 105 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 to make it clear that that section does not apply in relation to criminal proceedings. The amendment inserts an editorial note to direct the reader to section 11 of the Act, which does apply to criminal proceedings. The bill maintains a balance between the rights of victims and the principle of open justice. It provides for a parent or a senior next of kin to allow for the name of their deceased child to be published, but retains several safeguards to ensure that the protection that children ordinarily enjoy is not waived without proper consideration being given to the relevant issues. The amendments are important in order to provide certainty to both families and media organisations. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [4.37 p.m.]: The Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Publication of Names) Bill 2007 amends section 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. The purpose of the amendments is, first, to allow the parents of a deceased child, or other senior available next of kin, to consent to the publication or broadcast of the deceased child's name; secondly, to provide that the prohibition does not apply to the publication or broadcast of names that have previously been published or broadcast before the clarifying amendments commenced in 2001 and 2004. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Section 11 of the Act provides that the names of children and persons who were children at the relevant time must not be published or broadcast in any way that connects them with specified criminal proceedings. The prohibition continues into the future, even after the proceedings are complete and the person becomes an adult. There are some exceptions to this prohibition, including publication with the consent of the child if the child is over 16 and publication with the consent of the court concerned. The consent of the court is often given in matters involving a serious indictable offence and where the court is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to allow publication of the child's identification.

In 2001 section 11 of the Act was amended to make it clear that prohibition applied even if the person concerned was no longer a child at the time of the publication or broadcast. In 2004 section 11 of the Act was again amended to make it clear that the prohibition also extended to children who were deceased. The publication or broadcasting of the name of any person the publication or broadcasting of which is prohibited is an offence, punishable by a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units in the case of a corporation or 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both, in any other case. It is clear that the intention of the legislation in the past was to prohibit, in most circumstances, the publication of a child's identity. In recent times it has become apparent that there is a need to balance the rights of victims and their families and the principle of open justice. In order to do so this bill seeks to expand the circumstances in which the publication of a child's name is allowed.

The bill will allow the parents of a deceased child, or other senior available next of kin, to consent to the publication or broadcast of the deceased child's name. The term "senior next of kin" aligns the terminology in the Act with terminology commonly used in family law. For the purpose of the bill a "senior next of kin" refers: first, to a parent of the child; second, if the parents of the child are deceased, cannot be found, or for whatever reason cannot exercise their parental responsibilities, to a person who, immediately before the death of the child, had parental responsibility for the child; and, third, in the case of a child in the care of the Department of Community Services, immediately before his or her death, the director general of the department.

I draw the attention of the House to some important restrictions on the giving of consent contained within the bill. The senior next of kin cannot give consent for the publication of the name of the deceased child if another senior next of kin does not give permission. This may be the case if one parent wanted to grant consent and the other did not. The senior next of kin cannot give consent for the publication of the name of the deceased child if they were charged with, or are convicted of, an offence to which the criminal proceedings relate. This will provide an important protection in cases of domestic violence or sexual assault within the home.

The senior next of kin, when considering whether to give consent to the publication of the name of a deceased child, must make inquiries of siblings and take into account the impact the publication or broadcasting may have on these siblings. This part of the bill does concern me, as the mere inquiry and consideration of the impact the publication of the deceased child's name would have on a sibling may not be an adequate safeguard for the care, protection and emotional wellbeing of these family members.

The second part of the bill is intended to correct any ambiguity that may have existed following the 2001 and 2004 amendments to the Act in that it is unclear whether these amendments were intended to have a retrospective effect. This bill should remove that ambiguity by providing that the prohibition does not apply to the publication or broadcast of names that had previously been published or broadcast before the clarifying amendments commenced in 2001 and 2004.

Finally, I draw the attention of the House to schedule 2 to the bill, which amends section 105 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 to make it clear that the section does not apply in relation to criminal proceedings. The bill serves the important purpose of empowering families to determine whether the name of a deceased child is published, whilst providing important safeguards to this disclosure. The bill also importantly removes any ambiguities that previously existed in the Act in relation to whether the 2001 and 2004 amendments were to act retrospectively. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.43 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Publication of Names) Bill 2007. The bill is moving in the right direction with respect to the publication of the names of children under 18 years of age if certain conditions are met. The object of the bill is to amend the principal Act to enable parents of a deceased child or other senior available next of kin to consent to the publication or broadcast of the deceased child's name. The bill also provides that the prohibition does not apply to the publication or broadcast of names that had previously been published or broadcast before the clarifying amendments commenced in 2001 and 2004.

Previously there were strict prohibitions stating that names could not be published if the person was a child when a witness to, or victim of, an offence; a person who is mentioned in criminal proceedings in relation to something that occurred when the person was a child; a person who was involved in criminal proceedings when a child; or a brother or sister of a victim of an offence, where that brother or sister and the victim were both children when the offence was committed. This bill amends the existing situation and will allow for the names to be published or broadcast in the case of the deceased child but it must be with the consent of the senior available next of kin if it appears to the senior available next of kin, after making reasonable inquiries, that no other senior available next of kin objects to the publication or broadcasting of the name.

The bill defines the available next of kin, which includes a parent of a child, and, if the parents are deceased or cannot be found, people who are in this category of next of kin are those with parental responsibility or, in the case of a child who is in the care of the Department of Community Services immediately before his or her death, the director general. Something that has concerned me and has been often raised in the community over recent years is the recognition that age has changed. Years ago the law recognised a child as being someone under the age of 21 and that was then reduced to 18. I believe the law should acknowledge an adult as someone aged 16 and over, which is the age of consent. People can obtain a driver's licence when they are 16. I believe that young people are adults both mentally and physically at 16. Young people are stronger and taller nowadays, perhaps through exercise and food. Someone under 18 may commit a murder. He may be strongly built, yet he receives all the protections of a child. He is not a child; he is an adult in every sense. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill and urges the Government to give consideration to allowing the publishing or broadcasting of the name of a person of 16 years and over.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.47 p.m.]: The Greens support the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Publication of Names) Bill 2007. The bill seeks to provide a better balance between the rights of victims and their families and the principle of open justice. Section 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 provides that the names of children and people who were children at the relevant time must not be published or broadcast in a way that connects them with specified criminal proceedings; for example, a person who was a child when a victim of an offence, or a brother or sister of the victim of an offence where that brother or sister and the victim were both children when the offence was committed.

The prohibition applies both during and after the proceedings have been finalised and the person concerned becomes an adult. There are some exceptions. For example, a name can be broadcast or published with the consent of the person if they are over 16 years. In 2001 section 11 was amended to make it clear that the prohibition applied even if the person concerned was no longer a child at the time of the publication or broadcast. In 2004 the section was further amended to clarify that the prohibition should also extend to children who were deceased. The object of the bill is firstly to enable the parents of the deceased child, or other senior available next of kin, to consent to the publication or broadcast of the deceased child's name and, secondly, to provide that the prohibition does not apply to the publication or broadcast of names that had previously been published or broadcast before the previous amendments to the Act commenced in 2001 and 2004.

The bill contains some safeguards that seek to protect the interests of other family members. For example, a parent charged with his or her child's murder would not be able to give consent. A senior available next of kin cannot give consent if another senior available next of kin objects to the publication or broadcasting of the name. For example, if one parent objects, the other parent cannot give consent.

When a parent or senior available next of kin is considering whether to give consent to the publication or broadcasting of the name of the deceased child, reasonable efforts must be made to obtain and take into account the views of the deceased child's siblings and what impact it might have on them, where those children are also protected by the Act. While the Greens acknowledge that these safeguards provide protection for family members who are not the senior available next of kin, we note that the bill does not allow siblings of the deceased child the opportunity to refuse consent. The bill gives them the right to be consulted and to have the effect of publication on them taken into account, but not a right to deny it consent. In most circumstances a senior next of kin will act in good faith and genuinely consider the interests of the siblings, but there may be a small number of circumstances in which that is not the case, and the bill does not need to address such a situation. We consider this to be a potential weakness in the bill but not of sufficient significance to lead us to oppose it.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.50 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The Government has always given priority to the protection of children involved in criminal proceedings and to the families of those children. However, at the same time it is vital to ensure that the well-established principle of open justice is maintained. Section 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 attempts to provide that balance by generally prohibiting the publication or broadcasting of the name of any child connected to criminal proceedings but providing for exceptions to that rule.

The Government recognises that there will be times when the name of the child should be published, and the legislation allows for that in certain instances. For example, where a child has been convicted of a serious children's indictable offence, the court may order the publication of the child's name if satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so and the prejudice of the person arising from the publication or broadcasting of the person's name does not outweigh those interests.

The bill introduces another important exception and recognises the need for parents to be able to consent to the publication of their child's name where that child is deceased. It is empowering to the victim's family and allows them to take on an active role in the decision-making process. The Hon. John Ajaka raised the question of ambiguity on the second amendment. I refer the honourable member to the speech in reply to the agreement in principle debate in the other place for that answer. The second amendment clarifies the section to ensure that there is no doubt about the legality of publishing the name of the child, whether victim or offender, where that name has already been lawfully published in the past. This amendment is also important in order to provide certainty to both families and media organisations about what can and cannot be published. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.
Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 9 and 10 postponed on motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang.

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

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Crimes Administration of Sentences Amendment (Assistance in Foreign Criminal Matters) Bill 2007 introduces machinery provisions to complement the Commonwealth Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, which provides that the Commonwealth Attorney-General may make arrangements for the travel of an offender to a foreign country for the purpose of giving evidence at a proceeding or giving assistance in relation to an investigation relating to a criminal matter. The bill amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 by establishing an approval process that allows an offender to travel to a foreign country pursuant to a request made by the Commonwealth Attorney-General under the Commonwealth Act. During his second reading speech on the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill on 30 April 1987, Mr Lionel Bowen said:

The bill will provide a legislative basis for Australia to enter into arrangements with other countries whereby it can request and grant assistance in criminal matters. The assistance will relate to both the investigation and prosecution of crime. This Bill represents a significant initiative of this Government in its fight against organised and international crime.

The Commonwealth Act has several objects outlined in section 5, the relevant ones for the purpose of this bill being to regulate the provision by Australia of international assistance in criminal matters when a request is made by a foreign country for any of the following: first, the taking of evidence, or the production of any document or other article for the purposes of a proceeding in a foreign country; second, to facilitate provision by Australia of international assistance in criminal matters when a request is made by a foreign country for the making of arrangements for a person who is in Australia to travel to the foreign country to give evidence in a proceeding or to give assistance in relation to an investigation; and, third, to facilitate the obtaining by Australia of international assistance in criminal matters. I seek the leave of the House to incorporate the remainder of the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Division 2 of the Commonwealth Act relates to requests by foreign countries, namely, requests for the giving of evidence at proceedings in foreign countries and requests for assistance in relation to criminal investigations in foreign countries. Under the scheme created by the Commonwealth Act, a foreign country may request the attendance of a Federal inmate or parolee or a State inmate or parolee who is in Australia, whether or not in custody, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the inmate is capable of giving evidence relevant to a proceeding or assistance in relation to an investigation and the inmate has consented to do so. If the foreign country has given adequate undertakings concerning the inmate or parolee, the Commonwealth Attorney­General may make arrangements for the travel of the inmate or parolee to the foreign country in the custody of a police officer or a prison officer for the requested purpose.

If the offender is a Federal inmate or Federal parolee, the Commonwealth Attorney-General may make the international arrangements and direct the transfer of the offender under the Commonwealth Act without recourse to State legislation. If, however, the offender is a State inmate or parolee, or both a State inmate or parolee and a Federal inmate or parolee, the Commonwealth Act requires that the Commonwealth Attorney­General obtain approval from the relevant State authority for the inmate to be released for the purpose of travelling to the foreign country. To grant such approval requires complementary State­based legislation to be enacted for the "making or giving of any necessary directions or approvals in relation to the release of the prisoner". The explanatory memoranda to the bill that introduced the Commonwealth Act states "complementary State legislation will be required to facilitate the transfer of joint Federal-State prisoners and State prisoners".

The Commonwealth Act refers to "a prisoner who is being held in custody" being "released from prison for the purpose of travelling to the foreign country". Legislative authority for any release from custody of an inmate is required except for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy or release from custody pursuant to a court order, such as, habeas corpus or completion of sentence or release to parole or release under the Bail Act 1978. The person having custody of an inmate is required to maintain that custody in accordance with the order remitting the person to custody or applicable legislation.

This bill will not release an inmate from custody. Whilst he may be physically transferred from the confines of a New South Wales correctional centre for a limited time, he will continue to be in custody for the period of his absence. He will be in the custody of a police officer or correctional officer appointed by the Commonwealth Attorney-General under the Commonwealth Act. On the completion of the arrangement he will be returned to a New South Wales correctional centre, unless his sentence expires in the interim. The bill confers authority on the Commissioner of Corrective Services to grant approval, by order in writing, for an inmate or periodic detainee to travel to a foreign country for the purpose of the Commonwealth Act upon request from the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The bill also confers similar authority on the State Parole Authority in relation to an offender released to parole or subject to a home detention order.

The Commonwealth Act contains provisions relating to undertakings that must be given by a foreign country in relation to offenders transferred under the Act—particularly the making of appropriate arrangements for the keeping of an inmate in custody in the foreign country, an undertaking that an inmate will not be released The Commonwealth Act contains provisions relating to undertakings that must be given by a foreign country in relation to offenders transferred under the Act—particularly the making of appropriate arrangements for the keeping of an inmate in custody in the foreign country, an undertaking that an inmate will not be released from custody in the foreign country unless entitled to be released from custody under Australian law, and that the offender will be returned to Australia at the completion of the proceedings or the investigation, as the case may be.

The Commonwealth Act also provides that the foreign country must undertake that the offender will not be detained, prosecuted or punished for any offence alleged to have been committed in that foreign country before their departure from Australia or be subject to any civil suit in the foreign country that they would not otherwise be subject to outside the foreign country. Most importantly, the arrangement with the Commonwealth Attorney-General under the Commonwealth Act contains the essential requirement that an inmate be returned to pre-existing custody upon return from the foreign country.

I now turn to the detail of the bill. Item [5] of schedule 1 inserts a new section 255A into the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. The proposed section allows the Commissioner of Corrective Services or, in the case of an offender who is on release on parole or is subject to a home detention order, the State Parole Authority to grant approval to a request from the Commonwealth Attorney-General for an offender to be authorised to travel to a foreign country for the purpose of giving evidence in a proceeding or giving assistance in relation to an investigation relating to a criminal matter. The proposed section also provides that an offender who is the subject of such an approval is exempt from the requirements made by or under the principal Act or any other Act that would prevent the offender from travelling to the foreign country—for example, reporting to a probation and parole officer or reporting for community service work. Items [1] to [4] of schedule 1 make consequential amendments. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [4.57 p.m.]: The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Assistance in Foreign Criminal Matters) Bill 2007 is not opposed by the Opposition. Its purpose is to amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to complement the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 by establishing an approval process that allows an offender to travel to a foreign country pursuant to a request made by the Commonwealth Attorney-General under the Commonwealth Act. Under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act the Commonwealth Attorney-General may make arrangements for the travel of an offender to a foreign country for the purpose of giving evidence at a proceeding or giving assistance in relation to an investigation relating to a criminal matter.

Pursuant to the bill before us the Commissioner of Corrective Services or, in the case of an offender who is on release on parole or is subject to a home detention order, the State Parole Authority will be authorised to grant approval to a request from the Commonwealth Attorney-General for an offender to be authorised to travel to a foreign country for the purpose of giving evidence in a proceeding or giving assistance in relation to an investigation relating to a criminal matter. Under the Commonwealth legislation a foreign country may request the attendance of a Federal or State inmate or parolee, whether or not in custody, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that such a person could be of assistance in relation to an overseas investigation and such a person has given consent.

In such circumstances the Commonwealth Attorney-General may make appropriate arrangements for individuals encompassed by Commonwealth legislation to be transferred to assist the investigation in the requesting country or, in the case of individuals covered by State legislation, obtain approval from the relevant State authority. The bill before us allows the relevant State authority to provide that approval and appropriate assistance. All the relevant safeguards contained in the Commonwealth Act to ensure that any individuals transferred remain in custody and will be returned to the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority concerned remain in place and will apply to individuals covered by the bill before us. This is an important bill in this day and age, where crime has become international in character and knows no borders. This is especially so in respect to terrorism and the illicit drug trade.

By assistance and cooperation with law enforcement agencies in other countries in detecting crime and bringing criminals to justice, we not only assist these countries, we assist ourselves. We assist ourselves, firstly, because crime detected and solved in other countries very often leads to the detection and solving of crime in Australia and, secondly, because arrangements such as those incorporated in the Commonwealth Act and complementary State legislation are invariably applied on a reciprocal basis with other countries. The opportunity to bring inmates from overseas jurisdictions to give evidence in Australia is of great value and benefit to the people of Australia and New South Wales. For these reasons, the bill is not opposed by the Opposition.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [5.01 p.m.]: The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Assistance in Foreign Criminal Matters) Bill 2007 amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to complement the Commonwealth Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987. The bill will establish an approval process that allows an offender to travel to a foreign country pursuant to a request made by the Commonwealth Attorney-General under the Commonwealth Act. As previously noted by the Hon. David Clarke, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. In the last 50 years the process of globalisation has broken down many international barriers and allowed for the rapid transfer of information and transportation of people throughout the world. This has resulted in the internationalisation of criminal matters, as suspected criminals and witnesses are able to travel between nations at a rapid speed. It is important with criminal cases that transcend national boundaries that Australia be allowed to take evidence in other countries and that Australia and the States cooperate with foreign nations requesting that a prisoner be allowed to travel overseas to give evidence or assist in the investigation of a criminal matter.

The Commonwealth Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 allows Australia to enter into arrangements with other countries to provide assistance in criminal matters. The Commonwealth Act provides that an offender will be returned to Australia after having assisted in a foreign criminal matter. Where a person is being held in custody in Australia, appropriate arrangements for the person to be held in custody in a foreign country will include a provision that the inmate not be released from custody in the foreign country unless the Commonwealth Attorney-General notifies the foreign authority that the person is entitled to be released from custody under Australian law. Importantly, the Commonwealth Act provides that any evidence given by the person in the proceedings will be inadmissible in the prosecution of the person for any offence under the law of the foreign country except the offence of perjury committed during the course of the giving of evidence in the matter.

The bill is important in that it complements the Commonwealth Act, facilitating New South Wales to meet its international obligations to provide assistance in criminal matters. Schedule 1 to the bill will insert section 255A into the principal Act. The proposed section allows the Commissioner of Corrective Services or, in the case of an offender who is on release on parole or is subject to a home detention order, the State Parole Authority, to grant approval to a request from the Commonwealth Attorney-General for an offender to be authorised to travel to a foreign country for the purpose of giving evidence in a proceeding, or giving assistance in relation to an investigation relating to a criminal matter. The proposed section also provides that an offender who is the subject of such an approval is exempt from any requirement imposed by or under the principal Act or any other Act that would prevent the offender from travelling to the foreign country. It is important that extreme care is exercised in the transportation of an offender. The chances of escape are ever present and significantly increased when conducting an international transfer. I implore the Government to ensure that the appropriate cautions are taken when transporting offenders. The bill is an important piece of legislation and it will complement the Commonwealth Act and ensure New South Wales meets its international obligations. The amendments will assist in the prosecution of criminal matters and will improve the safety of the international community. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.04 p.m.]: The Commonwealth Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 provides that the Commonwealth Attorney-General may make arrangements for the travel of an offender to a foreign country for the purpose of giving evidence at a proceeding or giving assistance in relation to an investigation relating to a criminal matter. The object of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Assistance in Foreign Criminal Matters) Bill is to amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, which is the principal Act, to complement the Commonwealth Act by establishing an approval process that allows an offender to travel to a foreign country pursuant to a request made by the Commonwealth Attorney­General under the Commonwealth Act. The Greens support the bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.05 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Assistance in Foreign Criminal Matters) Bill complements the Commonwealth Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 by establishing an approval process for inmates and community-based offenders to travel overseas for the purpose of the Commonwealth Act. As such, it will be available, if required, to assist the administration of justice throughout the world in relation to all sorts of criminal matters, such as genocide, drug importation, transnational fraud and other organised international crime and individual criminal acts. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.07 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the agreement in principle speech delivered in the other place in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Mobile Phones in Places of Detention) Bill 2007 amends the Summary Offences Act 1988, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001 to make it an offence for an inmate to use a mobile phone in a place of detention—that is, a correctional centre, correctional complex or periodic detention centre within the meaning of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. Mobile phones represent a serious threat to the security, good order and discipline of a correctional centre. An inmate can use a mobile phone to contact and intimidate correctional centre staff and their families, to contact and intimidate prosecution witnesses, or to organise an escape from custody. In addition to correctional centre-related concerns, an inmate can use a mobile phone to organise or otherwise engage in criminal activity inside or outside a correctional centre.

Mobile phones continue to be trafficked into New South Wales correctional centres despite the fact that the Summary Offences Act 1988 provides significant disincentives to people possessing mobiles in places of detention, as well as bringing, or attempting to bring, them into places of detention. Section 27DA of the Summary Offences Act 1988 states that an inmate must not, without reasonable excuse—proof of which lies with the inmate—have in his or her possession in a place of detention a mobile phone or any part of it, a mobile phone system integrated module [SIM] card or any part of it, or a mobile phone charger or any part of it. It provides for a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years or 50 penalty units, or both. Under section 27E (2) of that Act a person also faces the same maximum penalty if found guilty of bringing, or attempting to bring, anything into a place of detention when he or she does not have lawful authority to do so.

However, in many instances when a mobile is discovered in a correctional centre, the phone is found in a common area of the centre. This means that any number of inmates may have had access to the one phone and may have operated it using their SIM card. Mobile phones are deliberately placed in common areas by inmates to make it difficult to determine to whom the phone actually belongs. Therefore, the Act makes it difficult to prove a charge of possession. The need to expand the possession offence to also prohibit an inmate from using a mobile phone is illustrated by the example of an inmate contacting a person outside the correctional system at 7.00 p.m. when the inmate was locked in his cell, without access to the centre's controlled telephone system.

The assumption in this case was that the phone call was made by the inmate using an unauthorised mobile phone. When the person who received the phone call from the inmate contacted the Department of Corrective Services to advise of the telephone call from the inmate, no charges could be brought against the inmate under the current legislative provisions because no mobile phone was found in the inmate's possession. It is plausible that an inmate may contact a witness or a victim in a similar manner.

I now turn to the detail of the bill. This bill amends section 27DA of the Summary Offences Act 1988 to enable an inmate to be charged with a criminal offence for the use of a mobile phone, a mobile phone SIM card, a mobile phone charger, or any part of any of those things. The bill amends section 56A of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and clause 113B of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001 to enable an inmate to be charged with a correctional centre offence for the use of a mobile phone, a mobile phone SIM card, a mobile phone charger, or any part of any of those things

The bill now means an inmate must not, without reasonable excuse, use a mobile phone in a place of detention. This covers the use of a mobile phone, a SIM card or any part of it, and a mobile phone charger or any part of it. In other words, the bill provides that it is no longer necessary to prove possession by an inmate of a mobile phone or part thereof to prove the offence. It is now sufficient to establish that the inmate has used a mobile phone or part thereof which has been found within a place of detention for the inmate to be guilty of the offence. The penalty for the criminal offence of use of a mobile phone or part thereof in places of detention will be the same as the penalty for the existing offence of possession under section 27DA of the Summary Offences Act 1988, that is, an additional custodial penalty of two years or 50 penalty units, or both.

The penalty that a visiting magistrate or general manager of a correctional centre can impose for the correctional centre offence of use of a mobile phone or part thereof will be the same as the penalty for the existing correctional centre offence of possession under section 56A of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, that is, an inmate may be deprived of withdrawable privileges for up to six months. The expanded offence prohibiting inmates from using mobile phones in places of detention created by the bill will strengthen efforts to reduce the trafficking of mobile phones and contraband into New South Wales correctional centres, thereby improving the security of the New South Wales correctional system. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [5.07 p.m.]: The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Mobile Phones in Places of Detention) Bill 2007 will amend section 27DA of the Summary Offences Act 1988, section 56A of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, and clause 113B of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001. The purpose of the bill is to make it an offence for an inmate to use a mobile phone in a place of detention. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. The bill is important because mobile phones represent a serious threat to the security, good order and discipline of a correctional facility. There have been recent reports of mobile phones being used to intimidate correctional centre staff and witnesses and to coordinate crimes. It is most disturbing to think that mobile phones could be used to organise a prison escape.

As the legislation currently stands it is an offence for an inmate to have a mobile phone, a mobile phone SIM card or a mobile phone charger in his or her possession. In order to prove such an offence it is necessary to prove possession. It is, therefore, possible for an inmate to make a mobile phone call using an unauthorised mobile phone and for the inmate to leave the phone in a common area of the prison. If a mobile phone is left in a common area of the prison, possession is very difficult to prove. If the inmate is not caught in possession of the phone, he or she is not guilty of an offence under the current legislative provisions.

The bill seeks to amend the legislation to enable an inmate to be charged with a criminal offence for the use of a mobile phone, a mobile phone SIM card or a mobile phone charger. This amendment will insert the term "use or" before "possession" in the relevant legislation, thereby broadening the offence to include both the use and possession of a mobile phone, a mobile phone SIM card or a mobile phone charger, by an inmate in a place of detention. Essentially, the bill means that an inmate must not, without reasonable excuse, use a mobile phone in a place of detention. The bill will therefore make it easier to succeed in prosecutions related to the unauthorised use of mobile phones in correctional centres because it will not be necessary to prove possession; it will suffice to prove the inmate used the mobile phone.

It is important to note that the bill does not increase the penalties for the unauthorised use of a mobile phone. The penalty for the criminal offence of use of a mobile phone in places of detention will be the same as the penalty for the existing offence of possession under section 27DA of the Summary Offences Act 1988; that is, an additional custodial penalty of two years or 50 penalty units, or both. The penalty that a visiting magistrate or general manager of a correctional centre can impose for the correctional centre offence of use of a mobile phone or part thereof will be the same as the penalty for the existing correctional centre offence of possession under section 56A of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999; that is, an inmate may be deprived of privileges for up to six months.

Put simply, the bill is about improving security in the State's correctional system. This can be achieved by making it easier to prosecute those who use unauthorised mobile phones in correctional facilities. The Opposition supports moves that will improve the security of the State's correctional facilities and thereby improve the security of our communities. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.12 p.m.]: The Greens support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Mobile Phones in Places of Detention) Bill, which extends the prohibitions on mobile phones in the possession of inmates in correctional centres. We understand that this extends the ability to track down anyone who had a phone in his or her possession if a mobile phone is found in a common area rather than in direct possession of an inmate. To get around the current law, inmates have been secreting phones in common areas to avoid being caught with one in their possession. The bill provides that an inmate must not, without reasonable excuse, use a mobile phone in a place of detention. It is now sufficient to establish that the inmate has used rather than actually possesses a mobile phone or part thereof in a place of detention. The usual rules of evidence apply. Clearly it is important to restrict the use of mobile phones because they can be used to contact or intimidate correctional centre staff and their families or prosecution witnesses, or to organise an escape from custody.

Inmates can make a limited number of phone calls. I have been advised by a person who worked in the corrections system that on arrival at a correctional centre inmates are able to set up a phone account and can transfer money from their inmate account into their phone account any time they like. To do this they have to fill out a form, sign it and have it approved by their area manager. This then goes to the accounts department, the money is transferred, and they can make as many calls as they like to numbers listed on their phone card and approved by the intelligence officer. Obviously, they would not have numbers of previous criminal associates approved, but their lawyer's number or numbers of family members would presumably be approved. Sentenced inmates who do not have money in their phone account receive 35¢ a week so they can make one local call. Unsentenced inmates receive $1.05 a week, or the cost of three local calls or one very brief mobile phone call.

This is a problem for inmates from overseas who have no-one in Australia to put money into their inmate account. It is also a problem for inmates, whether they have been sentenced or are on remand, who are in centres a long way from family support. That clearly works to the disadvantage of those individuals. While the Greens support this bill, we call on the Government to consider these issues and see whether a fairer regime can be established.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.16 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the debate. The possession and use of mobile phones by prison inmates has been identified by correctional authorities as a growing problem. Mobile phones remain a significant issue in the management of correctional centres because they represent a serious threat to security, good order and discipline. Inmates can use a mobile phone to plot escapes, organise criminal activity, and intimidate correctional staff and their families. Indeed, one inmate was convicted of conspiring to murder a prosecution witness using a mobile phone from behind bars. That is why this amendment strengthens ongoing efforts to crackdown on the use of mobile phones by inmates and contributes to the good order and security of places of detention. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.17 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 Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007.

The bill introduces an amendment to the Fair Trading Act 1987 to provide an information standard for funeral products and services to be prescribed.

The Government has been concerned about aspects of the funeral industry for some time. Not because of the level of complaints it receives which is very low but rather by concerns that people organising the funerals of loved ones are often in a vulnerable state and may not be in a position to uphold their rights.

The Government believes that on the whole the funeral industry is run by professional people who are committed to providing an excellent and caring service.

However, research by the Office of Fair Trading has shown that while the majority of consumers were generally satisfied with funeral services, almost half had concerns about money issues. In particular, there were concerns around being billed for unexpected charges or unauthorised services or being refused a breakdown of various charges.

When a person is organising a funeral he or she is likely to be under the twin pressures of bereavement and limited time. The person might also feel that it is disrespectful to compare prices of funerals when organising the funeral of a loved one.

The Government believes that at this difficult time consumers are entitled to be given sufficient information to make an informed choice. In fact, it can be argued that when people are feeling vulnerable and distressed it is even more important that they be given clear information on the products and services they are purchasing, including pricing information, as this information is likely to make the decision process easier.

Members may recall that the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues conducted an Inquiry into the Funeral Industry in 2005. The Government welcomed the Inquiry and provided a whole-of-Government response to the Inquiry Report which supported many of the Inquiry's recommendations.

The Inquiry examined, among other matters, the issue of transparency of costs of funerals. In providing evidence to the Inquiry, many people noted the need for clear explanations of the costs involved and a more detailed breakdown in the bill for services. In particular, consumers were concerned that the funeral director's professional fee, which was usually the most expensive item, was not itemised or clearly defined.

The Committee concluded that clearly displayed prices for regular products and services used in funerals, including the funeral director's professional fee, would be beneficial to consumers.

To achieve this goal the Inquiry Report recommended the introduction of an information standard for funerals.

The Government supported this recommendation.

It is clear from the Government's research and the Inquiry Report that there are problems within the industry in regard to the type of information that is given to consumers when organising a funeral.

I believe that most funeral directors in New South Wales are extremely professional and want to do the best for their clients. However, there seems to be a small minority who may not provide information about the costs and services of the funeral in a transparent manner.

I understand there have been cases of funeral directors in New South Wales refusing to provide written quotes and providing final invoices that are not itemised.

There also appears to be a lack of consistency across the industry about the definition of items that are part of the funeral service. This is especially the case with regard to the funeral director's professional fee. This can mean that it is impossible for consumers to compare the products and services provided by different funeral directors.

This bill provides for an information standard which will ensure funeral directors provide all the necessary pricing information in a format that is easily understood and will allow for comparisons between products and services provided by different funeral directors.

To develop an information standard for funeral products and services it is necessary to amend the Fair Trading Act 1987 as the Act presently only allows for the prescription of information standards about goods. There is currently no power to prescribe an information standard about services.

In effect this means only the coffin or casket would be covered by a standard made under the current Act. Funeral services such as the transportation of the body to the cemetery or crematorium or the funeral director's professional fees would not be covered. An amendment to the Act is needed so that an information standard can deal with both funeral goods and services.

The bill will therefore amend to Act to allow an information standard to be prescribed for funeral goods and services. The information standard will stipulate the type and form of information to be provided to the consumer and the way in which the information is to be communicated.

The details of the information standard are still to be finalised, and will be included in a draft regulation which will undergo a Regulatory Impact Statement process involving extensive consultation. The Office of Fair Trading has already done some preliminary consultation with the industry and consumer groups about the kinds of matters that need to be included in the regulation.

Under the proposed information standard the funeral director will need to provide certain information to consumer.

Although the details haven't been finalised, I can give an overview of what is being proposed, based on the consultation so far. For example, when a consumer first comes to see a funeral director to make an inquiry, the funeral director will have to give them written information about a basic funeral if they offer that service. A basic funeral is a simple, dignified funeral that provides a relatively low cost option for consumers.

This information will need to include a definition of a basic funeral as well as a definition of each component that makes up a basic funeral including the funeral director's professional fee.

The funeral director will need to provide the consumer with information on the components, and the fees for each component of a basic funeral, as well as the total cost of the basic funeral.
In addition to these details, a funeral director will need to provide the consumer with a list of the coffins or caskets that the funeral director has for sale and their prices.

If the consumer does not want a basic funeral, the funeral director will need to provide the consumer written information on the cost of all components of the funeral that is proposed to be supplied and a description of what each component covers. A total cost of the funeral must also be included.

The information on the funeral service is to be given to the consumer in the form of a written quote. The written quote is to be given to the consumer at the first meeting between the consumer and the funeral director.

Once the funeral service has been supplied, the funeral director will need to issue the consumer with a final invoice detailing the separate cost of all components and a total price.

The details of the information standard I have just described are the ones we have identified as being the most important to consumers in giving them enough information to make an informed choice. However, other information requirements may be considered after the consultation process on the draft Regulation.

It is important to highlight that the information standard will include information on the cost and make-up of a basic funeral.

I know that consumer groups such as the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants are very supportive of the proposal that the information standard include a basic funeral. I understand that the Legislative Council Inquiry also recommended that the basic funeral be included in the information standard. The industry has advised that it also supports this proposal.

It is clear there are many people in NSW who want to provide their loved one with a dignified funeral but are concerned about the possible cost.

There has been much debate and confusion as to what constitutes a basic funeral as until now there has not been an agreed definition within the industry or the community.

The Government has worked hard with the funeral industry and consumer groups to reach consensus on what constitutes a basic funeral and I am pleased to say that agreement has been reached.

A basic funeral would consist of a single service at the point of internment, whether this is at the cemetery or the crematorium. Charges would include the funeral director's professional services fee, the cost of basic transportation and mortuary services, all necessary legal disbursements, such as a death certificate, and the cheapest coffin the funeral director has for sale.

There is no intention to compel the funeral industry to provide a basic funeral. The Government's view is that this approach would be an unnecessary overregulation of the market. I understand that most funeral directors in NSW do provide a basic funeral option.

However, as I have previously mentioned, under the proposed regulation a funeral director that offers a basic funeral service will now have to provide information to consumer about the service, whether the consumer asks about it or not.

The information standard will assist consumers by clearly defining a basic funeral. It will also ensure that funeral directors provide detailed information on the cost of the basic funeral they provide, allowing consumers to compare prices.

I now turn to matters of remedies and enforcement provisions of the bill.

It will be an offence for a funeral director when supply funeral goods and services to fail to comply with information standard.

Many of the current enforcement and remedy provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1987 will apply to the supply of funeral goods and services. This means, for example, that funeral directors who do not comply with the information standard can be liable to penalty of up to 1000 penalty units (currently worth $110,000) if they are a body corporate or 200 penalty units (which is currently $22,000) for an individual.

The Office of Fair Trading can also apply to the Court for an injunction against a funeral director which could result in the funeral director not being allowed to trade for a period of time or only under specific conditions.

Clearly these actions would not be taken lightly and action by Government to impose these penalties would depend on the seriousness of the offences.

The bill also allows consumers to make a claim for loss or damage against a funeral director in the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal or the Court if they have suffered a loss as a result of noncompliance with the information standard.

It is also proposed that under the regulation Fair Trading inspectors will be able to issue penalty notices of $550 if a funeral director is found to be not complying with the information standard.

The bill has been developed in consultation with the funeral industry and consumer groups. The Government is committed to continuing to work with stakeholders in further developing the funeral information standard and ensuring compliance by industry.

The Government will also continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that consumers are aware of what they can expect from funeral directors under the information standard.

I would like to thank the funeral industry and consumer groups for their contribution and commitment to the bill and the development of the funeral product and services information standard.

The bill reflects excellent consumer protection policy by providing for an information standard for funeral goods and services that will make sure consumers receive sufficient information to make an informed consumer choice at a time when they are distressed and vulnerable. It will also promote greater choice and competition and transparency within the industry. Importantly, it doesn't burden the funeral industry with too much red tape and overregulation.

Organising a funeral for a loved one is a stressful and difficult situation. The introduction of an information standard as outlined in the bill will help consumers by making sure they have enough information to make informed decisions at a very difficult time and not be subjected to unexpected charges when the final invoice arrives.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [5.17 p.m.]: The funeral Industry in New South Wales has a very positive reputation, and I place on record my appreciation to the two major associations that between them represent virtually all 200 funeral directors in this State. In preparing for debate on this bill I have learnt a great deal about the industry. It has very positive leadership, and it has a great deal of concern for clients and the dignity of their deceased loved ones. This translates into concern for the professional standards and the good name of funeral directors.

Many funeral companies, particularly those in country New South Wales, are family businesses, and many have been operated by successive generations of the same family. In speaking with the President of the Funeral Directors Association of New South Wales, I was very impressed by her empathy and description of her profession as a "calling". This is exactly what we would hope for. I commend the work of both her association and the Australian Funeral Directors Association in striving for high standards at affordable prices for their clients.

The Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007 provides an information standard for describing funeral products and services. It will ensure that consumers have clearer information at the time of arranging funerals, and that the terminology used will be standardised across the industry. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. We have consulted the industry and the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association, which has been the key consumer advocate on the issue. Both business and consumers support greater transparency. I understand the Department of Fair Trading is consulting both the stakeholders and other States to ensure that the terminology can be standardised not only in this State but also across Australia. We certainly support that approach.

The Opposition is not so much concerned by what is in the bill as it is about what is missing from it; that is, provisions that would give effect to the key recommendations of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues inquiry into the funeral industry, which were tabled in 2005. I take this opportunity to remind the House of the work undertaken during that six-month inquiry. Both the report of the committee and its consensus recommendations were hailed by all stakeholders—consumers and industry—when the report was presented. The recommendations have been widely publicised and supported in the media and are strongly supported by the Opposition, but they have been disregarded by the Government in this bill.

That Legislative Council inquiry, which was chaired by Labor's the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, reported in December 2005 with 23 recommendations that had the unanimous support of the all-party committee. Importantly, the recommendations reflected the weight of community submissions to the inquiry and were also welcomed by industry. In the chairman's statement in the report, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods wrote:

The Committee makes strong and positive recommendations aimed at addressing consumer and industry concerns about transparency of funeral costs, a clear complaints mechanism and enforcement of the public health regulations.

To better protect consumers the Committee recommends a comprehensive code of practice, for the funeral industry. It is hoped this code of practice, developed with stakeholders and Government, will cover areas such as complaints handling, funeral bills and quotes, essential service funerals (basic funerals), professional and ethical practices, and be flexible enough to accommodate the funeral of people's choice …

This strong report, with its unanimous recommendations backed by the funeral industry and consumers, charted a way forward to improve service delivery and eliminate the small number of notorious rogue operators who plagued the industry. The ball was in the Government's court to respond to this consensus report. But nothing happened. For a further six months nothing happened. In her agreement in principle speech in the other place Minister Burney said:

Members may recall that in 2005 the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues conducted an inquiry into the funeral industry. The Government welcomed the inquiry and provided a whole-of-government response to the inquiry report, which supported many of the inquiry's recommendations.
This description of the Government's response to the report is, to put it politely, far from accurate. The truth about the Government's response is that it took seven months before the Government tabled a reply in the Parliament. In the Government's reply only four out of 23 recommendations were "supported" without qualification. These included recommendations such as "crematoriums be encouraged as a way for the community to reduce the cost of a funeral" and the Department of Fair Trading be the primary contact point for complaints. These recommendations really require no effort on the part of the Government. In relation to supporting the use of crematoriums no effort has been made, in spite of the Government's claim to support the concept.

The other 19 recommendations contained the substance for reform, and these were the recommendations that did not get the support of Government. Five recommendations were responded to with the following statement: "The Government will consult publicly on this recommendation prior to determining its position on it." Almost two years have elapsed, no consultations have been held and there has been no further response from Government. In other words, all these recommendations have been filed in the bin. Three recommendations were supported "with qualifications", and two received "partial support". The meek and minor bill that is the subject of this debate appears to be the only follow-through on these recommendations.

In addition to squibbing and ignoring those 11 recommendations, a further eight of the 23 recommendations were rejected outright by Minister Beamer. This included the key recommendations 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, which provided for licensing of funeral directors and a mandatory code of conduct. These recommendations were the most substantial and important, but they were all rejected outright. So when Minister Burney tells us that "The Government welcomed the inquiry and … supported many of the inquiry's recommendations", we need to be somewhat cynical about that claim.

Indeed, the bill is something of a slap in the face to this important Legislative Council committee, the fine work undertaken by committee staff and members; the 61 detailed submissions provided by the industry and the community, and the evidence given at six public hearings and two site visits. It really concerns me that such an in-depth and broadly supported finding has been so easily dismissed by the Government. It sends a strong message to us about how poorly the Government regards this place, the scant attention that is given to the committee's work and the contributions of the community. Regardless of how well supported and how professional our work, it can so easily be given the flick by one bureaucrat's advice to a Minister. That is a great shame, because many good ideas are being missed and our community is weary of being so rudely ignored by the Government.

To facilitate a full debate on the core issues of concern to the funeral industry, the Opposition will move amendments that seek to implement the will of this House, which is to give real consumer protection to the bereaved at their time of greatest suffering and support the funeral industry's quest for high ethical standards. The Opposition has consulted the industry, and the consistent response is one of disappointment that the Government continues to permit an environment in which standards can be variable and rogue operators can thrive.

There is no requirement in New South Wales for funeral operators to be licensed. Indeed, there is no licensing system at all. The system is totally unregulated and consumers are shocked to learn that the total deregulation of the industry means anybody can put up a shingle claiming to be a funeral director. The two professional associations representing funeral directors do have codes of conduct. These codes are mandatory for the membership of their associations—but they are not mandatory for the industry. This leads to a situation where an unethical funeral operator can be expelled from membership of a professional association but he or she can continue to operate unimpeded in the industry. I will cite a dramatic example of that in a moment. This is why association-based codes of conduct have failed. They have not failed their membership, but they have failed the industry as a whole because they have not been mandated by government. The codes are mandatory for members but not for the rogues who are not members but are bringing the industry into disrepute.

The Government has accused me of putting forward an inconsistent argument because on the one hand I praise the high standards of the industry but on the other hand I plead with them to regulate to get rid of the rogues. The two positions are not inconsistent; indeed, they go together. The industry wants to meet high standards all the time. And I want that for our consumers. The industry wants to emphasise professionalism, and the code will assist that praiseworthy aim. The handful of operators who are rogues are seriously unethical in their behaviour and they are doing great damage to the industry. Contrary to anything the Government says, the damage and notoriety associated with rogue operators is extremely serious. I will give some examples and quote from media reports to highlight how much damage a small group can cause to a reputable industry.
I cite the sad case of Daisy Jones and Errol Davidson, whose bodies were mixed up by a Five Dock funeral director, Adam James Lee. The case, which received considerable publicity, unfortunately involved the wrong body being cremated. I quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 April 2006:

When she died on October 31, 2001, Daisy Jones was a frail centenarian whose family wanted a cremation. Mr Davidson, 65, died the next day, and his family arranged for a burial. The hearse was to drive past the family home to the Forest Lawns Memorial Gardens and Crematorium, where Mrs Rose Davidson had bought a double plot.

But there was a mix-up at the funeral parlour. Mr Davidson was cremated, wrongly.

Justice Howie said Mrs Jones was placed in Mr Davidson's coffin on November 7, and bricks and pavers were packed in with her to disguise the weight difference. With Mr Davidson's family at the graveside, Mrs Jones was buried in the double plot.

One of the workers at the parlour gave evidence that he was so upset at the deception that he resigned, and contacted the Department of Health.

Unfortunately, that family's suffering was further compounded by having their case come before Magistrate O'Shane, who appears to have made a number of erroneous rulings that have prolonged the matter before the courts. However, that is another story. On 17 February 2007 Sydney Morning Herald's Kelly Burke published an investigative report on Tim Logan of Narrabri. Mr Logan owns a number of businesses, including a Mitre 10 store, a furniture outlet and a motor vehicle dealership. Ms Burke reported on the passing of Albert "Uncle Autry" Dennison, a revered Aboriginal elder. She wrote:

Mr Dennison died in his home at the Toomelah community, an hour's drive north of Narrabri, on the Queensland border, on January 29. But after being transported in Mr Logan's own refrigerated and un-airconditioned panel van to Armidale Hospital 300 kilometres away on a warm evening for a post-mortem examination, then back again the next day in temperatures that average 39 degrees at this time of the year, Mr Dennison's body was unrecognisable.

So advanced was the state of decomposition, says Kathy Mann, a funeral director who was called in by the community to take over, that the body was hissing loudly and the odour was intolerable. "He was cooking from the inside out," Ms Mann said. "I've never seen anything like it, in all my time."

It was Ms Mann, of Abbey Funerals, situated across the Queensland border in the town of Texas, who had to break the news to Mr Dennison's family that an open casket funeral would be not only impossible but also illegal, such was the risk to public health.

The executive secretary of the Funeral Directors Association of NSW, Ken Chapman, has described this latest incident involving Mr Logan's company as disgraceful. And he has questioned why the Government has renewed Logan & Co's three-year contract, worth about $150,000, to handle the transport of all bodies requiring a post-mortem examination, as well as all destitute funerals, within a 300 kilometre stretch north-west of Armidale, despite being expelled from the association in 2003.

This is the point I make. The association has a code of conduct that is mandatory for its members, but Mr Logan was expelled from the association but he was able to continue to operate as a funeral director. Therefore, while the code of conduct is effective for those who are members of the association it has had no effect in stopping this man, who needs to be eliminated from presenting himself as a funeral director. I continue:

Mr Chapman said Mr Logan's blatant violation of public health regulations, including the absence of refrigeration in the long­haul transport of bodies and an unacceptable standard of mortuary in Narrabri, had long been a concern within the industry and among locals. Suspicions were first aroused after a customer at Mr Logan's Mitre 10 business complained he had come across a cadaver on a stretcher in the hardware store's gyprock shed, Mr Chapman said.

A subsequent investigation found Mr Logan's Narrabri mortuary was nothing more than a third-floor shed. But despite his expulsion, complaints to the association kept rolling in.

And in an unregulated industry the State Government says does not even require a mandatory code of conduct, Mr Chapman said the association still has no power to close down such rogue operators.

"Never again" was the comment Claude McGarry, a long-standing Moree council member, made to the Herald when contacted about Logan & Co's handling of the funeral for his brother Ian, whose body was placed sideways in his coffin and the lid taped shut because Mr Logan had failed to order a coffin large enough to accommodate the deceased.

"My brother was a big boy, 36 or 37 stone, but no-one's that big they can't be buried," he said.

In a statutory declaration sighted by the Herald , another Moree resident detailed her experiences when trying to bury her son, the victim of a car crash.

Despite their having taken possession of the body three days earlier, on the morning of the funeral the woman discovered her son's naked, blood encrusted body still lying on the stainless steel slab in Mr Logan's Moree premises. When staff were unable to fit her 152-kilogram son into a standard-size coffin they threatened to call the funeral service off if she did not agree to go ahead with an empty coffin.

"I don't know what would have happened to my son if I hadn't turned up at the mortuary the morning prior," the woman wrote in her statutory declaration. "If they had gone ahead without me knowing, with an empty coffin, I just wonder how they would have disposed of [his] body.

Perhaps most disturbing is the case of the funeral of an 11-year-old girl, whose autopsied body allegedly spilled from its casket after falling from its incorrectly positioned supporting straps at the graveside during the service.

The article continues:

… the Toomelah community have decided to seek legal redress. And they are demanding answers from the State Government as to why as recently as last December Mr Logan's government contract to handle their dead was extended a further 12 months.

Mr Logan is still operating today—not only is he operating in that community but he is operating as the Government contractor, doing work for the police and carrying out pauper funerals. The article concludes:

A Hunter New England Health spokeswoman has confirmed that in 2003 the service received a complaint about Logan & Co but there was insufficient evidence for prosecution.

How can the Government honestly suggest that the existing system is working to even slow down let alone stop these people? The article finishes:

The Department of Fair Trading said it was unaware of specific complaints against Mr Logan. But on Thursday the Department of Commerce spokeswoman confirmed a complaint had been received and said government agencies had been told not to place any further orders with Logan & Co until an investigation was completed.

It is only after offences have been committed against health regulations that New South Wales authorities will intervene, and only then after the offence has been proven. In the cases I have just mentioned they were not able to prove the offences. Having gone through that, and even if the offence is proven, the rogue operator can immediately go back to work again with a new business name claiming to be a funeral director. I believe that is exactly what happened in the Five Dock case. There is no mechanism in place by which the industry or government can rid themselves of these moral criminals.

Consumers are defenceless—and, worst of all, they do not know it. Research shows the community overwhelmingly assumes there is a system in place to maintain professional standards and ensure that operators have proper equipment, including appropriate vehicles and access to a mortuary. I stress I am not saying that every funeral director needs to own a mortuary, but we stand firm that they need to have access to a mortuary or a place that is refrigerated where bodies can be appropriately stored. In fact, nobody in this State can make such assumptions. The Department of Fair Trading says, "buyer beware", but how appropriate is this when newly bereaved clients are suffering significant grief and are at their most vulnerable?

As I said, the funeral industry is very reputable in New South Wales. Last year there were 45,000 funerals and I am advised there were only 25 complaints to the Department of Fair Trading. Of these, half related to prepaid funeral funds. There are very few complaints about service and a very small number of rogue operators, and because ethical and committed businesses value their reputations they want to get rid of these rogues. That is why they are pleading with us to introduce a mandatory code of conduct.

I will just quote some remarks from the two main associations. First, Ken Chapman, the Executive Secretary of the Funeral Directors Association of New South Wales, writes:

The Association does not oppose the proposed legislation but regards it as being useless in rectifying the operations of back yard operators in the industry…

The Association wants to see the general public become aware of the presence of legitimate operators and be able to identify the back yard, so-called funeral directors. A mandatory Code of Conduct would be the best way to achieve this objective and would be the best measure of protection for the Public.

The Australian Funeral Directors Association has forwarded research undertaken in Victoria that shows that 81 per cent of consumers believe licensing should be mandatory. A majority would be willing to pay a levy to meet the costs of regulation. In the survey the association conducted it asked participants if they would pay a $50 levy for a funeral—a substantial fee. The participants responded that they regarded that as acceptable, which I believe reflects the extraordinary strength of feeling on the part of the public that the industry ought to be licensed and regulated and people are willing to contribute towards it.

Mr Chapman suggests that, in practice, a suitable scheme could operate in New South Wales for as little as $2 per funeral, a minimal cost to consumers and no cost to Government. All they are asking the Government to do is to let it happen. In its editorial on the subject dated 1 March 2007 the Sydney Morning Herald said:

To expect market forces to keep it (the funeral industry) in check as the New South Wales Government does, is ludicrous. Bereaved relatives do not have the ability to "shop around" for quality and service, and in country areas there is often no choice. What the public deserves is reassurance that every funeral director is required to meet professional standards. A mandatory code of conduct, backed by meaningful penalties will go a long way to protecting the dignity of our dead.

Why is this Government so intransient in its opposition to allowing greater consumer protection in the funeral industry? I find it very strange. Ms Mary Reid of the Cemeteries and Crematoria Association has said that her organisation supports the bill, but she asked a number of questions, which we put to the Minister in another place. They were not answered. I emailed the questions to the Minister's office earlier today and said we would appreciate answers in the Minister's reply today. Ms Reid asked:

What is the scope of "Funeral Goods and Services" - does it include services & goods offered by cemeteries, cremations authorities and monument masons?We are aware of incidents where consumers have experienced problems under Part 5 which covers undue harassment and coercion in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer or the payment for goods or services by a consumer for the supply of memorials and monuments before the need for a funeral and following the funeral.
Part 5F would also apply as at this time the families are grieving and vulnerable and are easily coerced into agreeing to purchase goods and services without an itemized quotation or contract for supply. In a lot of cases they only have a business card from the Monumental Mason with a price written on it. This commits them to paying for these goods then finding later that the monumental mason does not supply certain items or goods or has failed to inform the family of changes to the goods including the quality of the workmanship of the structure or even fails to supply the goods or services at all. There have been recent complaints documented by the Dept. of Fair Trading to support this information.

How, if at all, will it affect those members already operating under other acts & regulations, for example the "Crown Lands Act" and "The Local Government Act".

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address these questions in her reply. In conclusion, the Opposition thanks the funeral industry for its assistance in framing its response to the bill. We also thank the industry for its wonderful work in assisting families and friends of deceased at a time of great sensitivity and vulnerability. The record shows that our funeral industry has much to be proud of. It is only a tiny number of rogue operators who cause anxiety and distress. The industry is right in its desire to want to close the door on these disgraceful shonks.

We also thank Mr Paul Versteege of the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association and Michelle Burrell, who actually retires tomorrow as the director of the Council of Social Service of New South Wales. When I move amendments in Committee I will refer to the views of those organisations; I certainly thank them for their input on the bill. We support the bill. We have no problem with what it contains, but we have major problems with what has been omitted.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.40 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I support the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007, which amends the Fair Trading Act 1987 to enable the regulations to prescribe an information standard to require the provision of information to consumers about funeral goods and services by the providers of those goods and services. Basically, the bill introduces an information standard that will lead to honest quoting. There seems to be 100 per cent consensus about the need for such a standard. I have yet to hear an argument against the content of the bill.

The price of funerals has increased substantially and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales reports that a basic funeral package can now cost more than $5000, often placing a huge strain on families who are mourning their loved ones but seek to provide a funeral that respects the lives that were lived. The bill stems from evidence given by the Council of Social Service and the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association to the 2005 inquiry conducted by the Standing Committee on Social Issues. To that extent the bill is commendable and worthy of support.

However, the Greens echo the concerns raised by the Hon. Catherine Cusack, specifically, that the bill does not go far enough because it does not include the most important recommendations of the 2005 report, particularly the regulation of the funeral industry and introducing a licensing and regulation code for the funeral industry. It is interesting that the Coalition argues for regulation while the Labor Government argues against regulation. It is unavoidable in this instance for the Greens not to support the Coalition; indeed, we urge other crossbench members to support the Coalition in introducing a standard.
We accept the need for a mandatory code of practice for the funeral industry. The Government has put up four key arguments against such a code—and we are open-minded to more; indeed we have sought more but have not received them. The first is that a mandatory code of practice would increase the cost of funerals. This can only be so if it is true that the cost of funerals is being driven down by dodgy practices. I doubt that, because where there are dodgy practices in the industry and savings are made by sub-standard activities, those savings are almost always taken by the dodgy operators as profit, not handed on to consumers. I find it hard to accept that giving the industry a minimum code of practice would push up the cost of funerals.

The second argument is that the mandatory code could be anti-competitive and result in funeral business closures, particularly in rural areas. I believe the opposite would be the case. I echo the comments of Ms Cusack that the overwhelming majority of funeral operators are highly responsible, caring, sensitive and committed to delivering a high-quality service to people who come to them in time of bereavement. All of us have been through a bereavement and will remember the caring concern shown by the funeral operators. We are not talking about the majority, not even the minority; we are talking about a tiny minority of operators. However, low-quality operators who seek to exploit the vulnerable position of their clients put downward pressure on the standards of the industry and responsible operators lose out.

By setting a benchmark we create a competitive industry. We see this time and again across industry. A mandatory code of practice allows for fairer and more responsible competition. The third argument is that few complaints have been made about the funeral industry. We have been told that in 2004-05 only 22 complaints were made, 12 of which were about prepaid funerals, which were regulated by the Funeral Funds Act. In 2003 By setting a benchmark we create a competitive industry. We see this time and again across industry. A mandatory code of practice allows for fairer and more responsible competition. The third argument is that few complaints have been made about the funeral industry. We have been told that in 2004-05 only 22 complaints were made, 12 of which were about prepaid funerals, which were regulated by the Funeral Funds Act. In 2003­04 only seven complaints were made. To put it crudely, "You only bury granny once." People who are burying a loved one and end up with a dodgy operator do not get a second chance. Funeral operators and directors have said to me that there is no room for error in the industry. If they make a mistake, it leaves an indelible mark on the lives of the people who suffer from that mistake.

Although the numbers appear to be small, the consequence of every single complaint is horrendous. I do not usually rely on personal experience but I will in this case. There is enormous internal pressure not to want to confront a bad experience at a funeral. People want to believe that they gave their loved one a reasonable send-off, one that respected the life of their loved one. To lodge complaints means going through a series of barriers. Friends who have been the victims of dodgy operators have told me they did not want to lodge a complaint; they wanted to forget about the problem, get over it and move on with their lives. Therefore it is unfair to rely on data that reports relatively few bad episodes. A large number of episodes will not be reported.

The fourth argument is that a mandatory code is unnecessary because regulatory instruments, such as public health regulations, are already in place, as well as the proposed information standards. The Greens suggest that funerals are more than about public health and the price of the funeral. Funeral directors deal with sensitive, difficult and troubling issues for many people. To suggest that they can be dealt with by the health regulations and information standards is simply inappropriate and beyond reality. To suggest there is not a problem does not reflect the evidence from the industry nor the complaints received. The Greens support the bill and we will also support the Opposition's foreshadowed amendments because we believe they will deliver for people who need the services of a funeral director.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [5.50 p.m.]: The Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007 will amend the Fair Trading Act 1987 to prescribe an information standard to consumers about funeral goods and services by the providers of those goods and services. As indicated by my colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. In 2005 the Standing Committee on Social Issues conducted an inquiry into the funeral industry. The committee tabled a substantial report, which contained 23 recommendations to better regulate the funeral industry. The recommendations were unanimously supported by the committee. The chairperson of the committee was the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, a Government member.

The bill will implement one of the recommendations by standardising funeral industry billing terminology. This will have the advantage of improving consumer information, thereby avoiding distress and confusion concerning the cost of funerals. This is an important first step towards regulating the funeral industry. As clearly indicated by my colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack, there are substantial shortfalls in the bill and it is on these that I wish to speak.

I am disappointed that the Government has taken so little action to date. The bill has failed to incorporate many of the recommendations of the 2005 inquiry, and of central concern is the failure to have a mandatory code of practice and a licensing scheme for the funeral industry. I speak not only as a member of this House but also as a long-serving lawyer, and it is from this background I wish to approach the bill. In order to become a lawyer a series of qualifications need to be met. A strict code of practice regulates our profession. Countless professions and trades also require qualifications or licences. These include those of plumbers, electricians, accountants, hairdressers, and so on.

I was surprised to learn that funeral directors in New South Wales are not licensed. I first became aware of this when I was confronted with the bill. What chance does an ordinary citizen have? It is astonishing that an electrician or a plumber who undertakes work for me needs to be licensed—and rightly so—but a funeral director does not. The lack of a mandatory code of conduct means anyone can be a funeral director in New South Wales, with no qualifications whatsoever. This is extraordinary. When members of a family have to undertake the unfortunate task of organising a funeral they are grieving. They are in no state to shop around for a bargain or for the best deal. They expect, and reasonably so, that funeral operators would adhere to a certain standard, a certain code of conduct.

It is our responsibility as policy makers to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place to protect consumers in times of vulnerability. Accordingly, I urge the Government to heed calls from the funeral industry, calls from the community and calls from its own members who contributed to the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquiry into the funeral industry, which recommended the establishment of a mandatory code of conduct for the industry. The bill takes one small step in improving the regulation of the funeral industry, and for this reason, as indicated by my colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack, the Opposition does not oppose it. However, to ensure the protection of consumers and the integrity of the funeral industry it is important that the Government support moves to develop a mandatory code of conduct for the funeral industry, based on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission guidelines and in conjunction with appropriate stakeholders. Again, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [5.54 p.m.]: I, too, support the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill and I wish to add my comments as I was a member of the Standing Committee on Social Issuesthat inquired into the funeral industry. I support the comments of my colleagues the Hon. Catherine Cusack and the Hon. John Ajaka, and Dr John Kaye in voicing disappointment about what has been left out of the bill while supporting what is init. We note the excellent work of the social issues committee, whose members unanimously agreed on a number of recommendations which would strengthen this bill if they were included. I look forward to the Hon. Catherine Cusack's amendments, because they go much further than what is currently in the bill.

This has become standard practice for this Government. We had some outstanding inquiries, presenting great information, and the community participated in the inquiries in a spirit of goodwill. Very often the committee reached consensus, doing the work of the Legislative Council at great expense to taxpayers, yet the Government ignored it. In the past few weeks I have thought of a number of reports on which the Government could have acted on all the recommendations—for example, the inquiry into the Inebriates Act, which came out of the Alcohol Summit. Not only did the Government ignore that inquiry, it took 18 months before it reported. When legislation came forward it responded to only a minuscule part of that inquiry's recommendations. The Government could have adopted nearly every one of those recommendations. Other inquiries have been completely ignored.

This inquiry was conducted at the same time as inquiries in other States. There was an inquiry in Victoria, and the committee travelled to Melbourne and worked with the Victorian Parliament's similar committee's inquiry so we would come up with similar outcomes and legislation. The Victorian Government has acted on those recommendations yet the New South Wales Government is only taking up a small number of the recommendations.

By way of background, the inquiry was established because a number of organisations, in particular the Combined Pensioners Association, were concerned about the cost of funerals. They were not concerned about the quality of funeral services but the cost and a lack of identificationin billing—and this bill goes to that—in that bereaved relatives were having difficulty understanding exactly what they were being charged for. There were recommendations to have a standard low-cost funeral. There were recommendations about standards of coffins. We investigated a variety of environmentally friendly coffins and a variety of cheaper coffins—biodegradable and timber coffins. We also investigated at length, and in considerable detail, the lack of available land for burial and for crematoria and how we could maximise the land that was available. I will talk more about that in a moment.
The overwhelming support to come out of this inquiry was for a mandatory code of conduct. That came from the industry and consumers. Plumbers and other tradespersons who come to one's house have to be licensed and they operate under a code of conduct. However, if someone passes away you can rock up to the hospital in your ute, pick up Bernie and put him in the front seat, take him out for the weekend, put him in an Hawaiian shirt, take him to the beach, tow him behind your boat, do whatever you like—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: That is covered by the Public Health Act.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: It is not covered by the Public Health Act. It is not covered by anything. You can put him in a garbage bag later and bury him. You can put up your shingle and say you are a funeral director—without having refrigeration, without having any of the requirements that an average person would expect. That is why there needs to be a code of conduct. The industry is asking for a code of conduct. Clearly, good operators do not want to be lumped in with the few shonky operators. By and large, the funeral directors I met are wonderful people who do a job that many of us would not want to do. I certainly would not want to do it. They undertake their duties with a great deal of respect, care and compassion. They do a fantastic job at a time when family members are very upset and they deal with them in a compassionate and caring way. They are concerned about the practices of shonky operators and call for a code of conduct.

Both funeral industry associations are asking for a code of conduct together with the legislation and licensing regulations to make sure that shonky operators can be pushed out and they can all hold their heads high. That is the reason we need to introduce a code of conduct. It is disappointing that the Government has not gone that far. Our inquiry had unanimous support for a mandatory code of conduct. The Standing Committee on Social Issues was a Government-controlled committee, with the same number of Government members as crossbench and Opposition members combined. The first line of the foreword of the Chair, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, reads:

The committee makes strong and positive recommendations aimed at addressing consumer and industry concerns about transparency of funeral costs, a clear complaints mechanism and enforcement of public health regulations.

Without a code of conduct, those health regulations will not be enforced. A code of conduct will better protect consumers. The committee recommended a comprehensive mandatory code of conduct and a mandatory code of practice for the funeral industry. A code of conduct could be developed by the Government with stakeholders to cover areas such as complaints handling, quotes, ethical practices such as refrigeration, the provision of basic funerals and the cost of cremations. That was our overriding and unanimous position. As the Hon. Catherine Cusack has already explained, that was the committee's position on a number of our recommendations, not just one or two. Other recommendations the Government could have addressed, and should address, related to the space available for burial, encouraging cremations rather than burials because of the lack of available space and the introduction of legislation to include in planning of subdivisions in new areas land for burial grounds.

The Government could have included a code of conduct. It could review the Public Health Act to include regulations for burials. It could tighten the regulations on coffins. It could support the funeral industry and the community by introducing a mandatory code of conduct, working with stakeholders, implementing a licensing process and establishing protocols so that practices such as the Hon. Catherine Cusack described do not happen. Then Uncle Bernie will be handled with care and compassion and at all times receive the respect that we expect from professional operators. I support the bill for the funeral industry as a former member and deputy chair of the committee that conducted the inquiry. I will support the Hon. Catherine Cusack's amendments to strengthen this legislation and look forward to the Government taking note of inquiry reports. Our report involved good solid work. The committee members were proud of it and unanimously supported it.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [6.05 p.m.]: I support the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill. I note the Hon. Catherine Cusack, the Hon. Robyn Parker and Dr John Kaye have put forward strong cases for mandatory codes. I understand the reason for that. I feel the bill could have been stronger. However, the Shooters Party's position is that we are not in favour of mandatory codes unless there is a period in which voluntary codes can be properly assessed. The Christian Democratic Party will move an amendment to insert a review provision in the bill. That may satisfy the Shooters Party's position. It is a horrendous situation for any family to receive a less than satisfactory service in this area. I really did not want to hear some of the examples presented by the Hon. Catherine Cusack, but those practices do take place in the industry.

Although 25 complaints out of 45,000 funerals does not seem to be a large number, perhaps Dr John Kaye's argument had validity: in many cases people would be too traumatised to follow through a complaint that would require them to revisit the circumstances of a poorly run funeral or even a criminal act, as described by the Hon. Catherine Cusack. The Shooters Party supports the bill and the intent of the Government. The Government could have been stronger in developing the bill. We hope the Government will keep a close eye on the operation of the bill. If it does not adequately address concerns in the industry perhaps the Government will agree to revisit the issue.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.07 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007. The object of the bill is to amend the Fair Trading Act 1987 to enable the regulations to prescribe an information standard that requires the provision of information to consumers about funeral goods and services by providers of those goods and services. This bill has come out of the inquiry that was conducted by the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which inquired into and reported on the New South Wales funeral industry. Its report was tabled in Parliament on 19 December 2005. As usually happens, the Government responded to the report. It indicated that a product information standard specific to the funeral industry would be introduced and would include information on a basic funeral.

Funeral directors would be required to provide consumers with certain information and display more accountability and transparency. The committee did not recommend a mandatory code, but recommended the introduction of a code that covered both ethical and unprofessional practices. This bill is the Government's response. I understand that the regulation will be very specific and will require funeral directors to provide consumers with information about the cost and definition of all components of the funeral service and the total cost of the funeral. The funeral director's professional fee must also be specified. That is an important provision that will protect consumers from being ripped off.

Funeral directors must also provide a list of coffins and caskets available for purchase, and their price. Again, that will allow consumers to make an intelligent choice. Most importantly, funeral directors must provide a written quote for a funeral containing details of the costs and components of the funeral to be supplied to the consumer at the first meeting between the consumer and the funeral director. Obviously, in these situations the next of kin and other members of the family of the deceased person are usually very distressed. They may be efficient in their normal life but with the stress of the loss of a loved one they can be very vulnerable to being taken advantage of by a funeral director. That is why the written quote is important. Funeral directors must also provide a final invoice outlining the cost of all components of the funeral service and the final total price. The Christian Democratic Party supports all of those provisions.

In response to the main criticism of this bill the Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment providing for a mandatory code. My amendment provides that after the legislation has been in operation for three years the Minister will review the information provided and the effectiveness of the legislation, which will establish whether a mandatory code is necessary. The review report is to be tabled in Parliament within 12 months of the assessment period. That amendment is sufficient at this time. It is a big leap to requiring a mandatory code. From what I can gather it may be counterproductive in that it could knock out many small operators. Members of the Opposition have suggested that funeral directors should have their own mortuary facilities.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: That is untrue; it is access to appropriate facilities for keeping bodies.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: At the moment they are required to have access. However, some members of the Opposition in the other place proposed that they should own their mortuary.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: No, it is access to a mortuary.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That could be in the mandatory code.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: They have access.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: But it could be in the mandatory code that they have facilities. The problem with the mandatory code is the content.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: The policy is that they need to have access to a facility—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: Mr President, I ask that you direct members to stop interjecting. They have had their chance to speak and they will have an opportunity to explain their position in Committee.
The PRESIDENT: Order! As noted in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice , interjections are contrary to the standing orders and are disorderly at all times. By tradition, the Chair tolerates interjections that are not disruptive, particularly if they facilitate the exchange of views and arguments in debate. However, the Chair will not tolerate disruptive interjections. I ask the member to cease interjecting and allow Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to continue his speech.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: There is an impression that there is no code and that funeral directors can go their own way. However, codes of ethics already exist. The Australian Funeral Directors Association has a code, as does the Funerals Directors Association of New South Wales. All members of both associations must abide by their codes. The codes, which are very similar, both have provisions dealing with complaints. The Australian Funeral Directors Association's code of ethics states that funeral directors must provide access to a clients advisory service and conciliation and arbitration arrangements must be available to help resolve any disputes that arise between clients and members. We should allow the bill to be enacted, and the Minister will review it and the regulations. We will then be able to make a decision about the next step to take.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.17 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to this debate on the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill, which will reform the funeral industry. I will address a number of the issues raised by members. As members are aware, the Government supported many of the recommendations of the upper House inquiry into the funeral industry. The inquiry did not recommend licensing as it would be a disproportionate response to require that of an industry that has such a low level of complaint.

The Government is also aware of the media reports outlined by the Hon. Catherine Cusack regarding the actions of a few funeral directors who at best are unsavoury and at worst have committed terrible breaches of trust. I am advised that the vast majority of the matters raised concern public health issues, in particular the handling and disposal of the deceased. These matters are regulated in New South Wales by the Public Health Act 1991, and specifically the Public Health (Disposal of Bodies) Regulation 2002, which is administered by the Department of Health. I understand that New South Wales environmental health officers act upon complaints with regard to these matters and that the regulation allows for them to issue fines of up to $2,000. I also understand that the regulation is to be reviewed in 2008.

I am advised that Tim Logan and Company funeral service has been taken off the government contract for the removal of deceased persons. I am further advised that government clients have been advised not to use this firm and have been provided with information regarding alternative providers in the area.

The Opposition, supported by the Greens, has proposed the introduction of a mandatory code of practice for the funeral industry. This is an ill-considered position to take and does not reflect best regulatory practice. The Government's initiatives are based on evidence derived from research and independent shadow shopping rather than hearsay. The mandatory code proposal will impose unnecessary red tape on business. It will also increase the cost of funerals, which will be felt by the community, especially some older members who may have limited means and those in rural and remote locations. The Government is committed to reducing red tape and regulatory burdens. That is why it has set up the Better Regulation Office to ensure that any regulation the Government introduces is absolutely necessary. Members opposite might be interested to know what their Coalition colleagues in Victoria said when the mandatory proposal was being debated. In November 2005 Liberal member of Parliament the Hon. David Davis expressed his party's opposition to further regulation of the industry. He said:

Further regulation the Victorian funeral industry will push up the price of funerals for Victorian families and send smaller funeral directors, particularly those in country Victoria, to their grave.

He went on to say that there was "scant justification for further regulation of the industry" as there had been only 53 complaints received by Consumer Affairs Victoria in the past four years and that "this is just another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation". Complaints in New South Wales are at a similar level, as acknowledged by the Hon. Catherine Cusack. Why does the Opposition support added regulation for an industry when all of the evidence does not support that position?

The New South Wales Government does not support the mandatory code of practice because it will increase the cost of funerals. More importantly, the establishment of an independent complaints body, a completely new level of bureaucracy to review complaints, will also cost the industry a great deal. For example, remuneration will need to be paid to the members of this body. Also, there will be costs of setting up the body, including administrative costs such as those associated with staffing and premises.

A mandatory code of practice could lead to the rationalisation and consolidation of the funeral industry. The Government would not like to see legislation put in place that results in reduced consumer choice and competition in the industry. This rationalisation of the funeral industry could have devastating effects on consumer choice in some areas, especially in rural New South Wales. Some of those areas have only one or two funeral directors. If these small operations went out of business, consumers would need to travel hundreds of kilometres to find a funeral director to conduct the funeral.

The Government will accept Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's amendments as moved. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has recognised the importance of developing a balanced approach to this issue. The Government genuinely believes the amendments will help strengthen the industry, providing more information to consumers. However, if there is more to be done, we will have a comprehensive review and consider how best we can refine our regulatory involvement. The amendments proposed in the bill will ensure that consumers have enough information to make an informed choice at a very difficult time without burdening the funeral industry with red tape. It is a well-considered and balanced approach. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [6.23 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 3 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], lines 19–30. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(5) A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply to a consumer of funeral goods or services fail to comply with an information standard prescribed under this section.

(6) In this section, supply includes proposed and prospective supply and offer to supply, and supplier has a corresponding meaning.

60ZA Mandatory funeral industry code of conduct

(1) In this section:

funeral industry code of conduct means a code of conduct established under this section.

supplier of funeral goods and services means a person who is in the business of supplying funeral goods and services to consumers.

(2) The regulations may establish a funeral industry code of conduct that prescribes rules to be observed by suppliers of funeral goods and services in the course of carrying on the business of a supplier of funeral goods and services.

(3) A funeral industry code of conduct may also include provision for or with respect to the registration by the Director-General of suppliers of funeral goods and services, including provision for or with respect to any of the following:

(a) prohibiting a person from supplying funeral goods and services to consumers unless registered in accordance with the regulations,

(b) qualifications for registration,

(c) the imposition of conditions on registration,

(d) the cancellation or suspension of registration (for example, for a contravention of a provision of the funeral industry code of conduct or a condition of registration),

(e) the review by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of decisions made in respect of registration.

(4) A supplier of funeral goods and services must, in trade or commerce, comply with a funeral industry code of conduct.

60ZB Damages

If a person contravenes a provision of this Part in connection with the supply of funeral goods or services by the person and another person suffers loss or damage as a result of the contravention, the person who suffers the loss or damage is deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have suffered it by the supplying of the goods or services.

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [11], line 20. Omit “Part 5F”. Insert instead “Section 60Z”.

No. 3 Page 4, schedule 1 [11], lines 22 and 25. Omit “that Part” wherever occurring. Insert instead “that section”.

First I wish to respond to inaccuracies put forward to the House by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. He indicated that the Standing Committee on Social Issues recommended a code of conduct for the industry, but he qualified that by saying "not a mandatory one". I will refresh his memory by referring to that recommendation of the committee, which is set out in chapter 7 of the report. The committee received more than 60 detailed submissions from the community and its report comprises 151 pages. The report states:

The Committee strongly supports the idea of a code of practice for the funeral industry and acknowledges that industry associations have existing codes of practice. The Committee believes there is great benefit in a code of practice similar to that suggested by FIC.

Recommendation 18 reads:

That the funeral industry develop a mandatory industry-wide code of practice based on the Australian Consumer Complaints Commission guidelines, in conjunction with appropriate stakeholders and government agencies, ensuring that the code is consistent with current consumer and public health recommendations.

A mandatory code was most definitely recommended, after exhaustive consultation. Indeed, it was the key recommendation of the committee's extremely detailed report. The Opposition's position is that people who wish to be funeral directors need to have access to mortuary facilities but they do not need to have ownership of them. I am not certain how the misunderstandings arise. We are concerned about the service standard and believe that standard should be part of a mandatory code of conduct.

Currently, persons can be fined only after breaches of Department of Health regulations have occurred and a successful prosecution has been mounted. However, having been fined, they can come straight back into the industry, as happened in the case of the gentleman in Narrabri. I note the Government's comments that the Narrabri contractor no longer receives government business. However, I ask: If he is not good enough for the Government, why is he good enough for the rest of the community? It is virtually impossible for anyone to compete with an operator who simply picks up a body, puts it in a shed, and incurs no costs.

We will not be able to ensure an acceptable standard of service for the community until that operator is removed from the industry. The fact is that he can continue to operate ad infinitum and there is not a thing anyone can do about it, except feel ashamed and saddened for the families who have been affected and will continue to be affected. The Narrabri case highlights the need for this legislation, as was emphasised repeatedly to the committee. We have been over this ground many times. The industry associations have been asking for a mandatory code of conduct for 10 years. A tremendous amount of work has been undertaken; it is not a new idea simply plucked out of the air. The industry has been arguing for an industry mandatory code of conduct for a decade, as have consumer groups.

I will now put to members the case for a mandatory code of conduct—not in my own words but in the words of those who operate in and understand the industry. First I quote from a letter received from Mrs Jan Phillips, the President of the Funeral Directors Association of New South Wales. She wrote:

I write to request your support of the Opposition amendment to the Funeral Goods and Services Bill 2007, which will give effect to a mandatory code of conduct, a key recommendation of the 2005 Upper House Parliamentary Inquiry.

The Funeral Directors Association of NSW represent over 100 small to medium family-owned businesses throughout New South Wales. This association, along with the AFDA and InvoCare, made submissions to and gave evidence before this inquiry in the hope that some form of regulation would ensue that would protect consumers from the small group of operators who fail to conduct their businesses in the client's best interest.

Since that inquiry we have been included in discussions to formulate the bill currently before the House, which focused on only two of the twenty-fiverecommendations handed down by the committee, the other twenty-three having been ignored.

We have always believed that a mandatory code of conduct for funeral practitioners, which formed part of the committee's recommendations to the Government, should have been included and would better suit public interest.

The overwhelming majority of funeral directors in country towns—who the Government shamelessly claims would be adversely affected by a mandatory code of conduct—know their business and they know what they want. They are saying: Give us a mandatory code of conduct. It is extremely disingenuous for anyone to claim to argue in the name of these people. These are the small family operators who serve their communities so well, and it is an insult to them to misrepresent their views and their interests on this issue. They want a mandatory code of conduct, and they have been saying it clearly, loudly, and for a very long time. But they are being ignored. The Australian Funeral Directors Association wrote:

Dear Member of Parliament,

The Australian Funeral Directors Association thoroughly supports the incorporation of a mandatory funeral industry code of conduct within the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill 2007. We also look forward to being involved in the development of the code.

Unfortunately there are funeral directors who continue to operate, having substandard or even no facilities (in particular mortuary facilities). Those operators conducting themselves in the manner reported in the media recently abuse customer trust and tarnish the professional reputation of those funeral companies who strive for excellence.

Their unacceptable practices, sub-standard premises and lack of education should not be permitted to continue without sanction or penalty. The AFDA believes the public would expect some form of action to be taken to prevent a funeral director from operating in this manner.

The AFDA continues to pursue the important issue of consumer protection through regulations to the funeral industry. At the absolute minimum a mandatory code of practice for all funeral directors should be introduced.

I emphasise that this is the minimalist approach to regulation. We can do nothing less than implement a mandatory code of practice. It is not some full-blown licensing or accreditation scheme for which qualifications have to be obtained; it is not any of those things. This is the most basic minimalist approach to regulation imaginable. The letter continues:

The AFDA is dismayed at the response from the New South Wales Government and the lack of interest in ensuring that funeral directors operate at a minimum adherence to a mandatory code of practice. The association is particularly concerned with the Government's response to Social Issues Committee's Recommendation 18.
Recommendation 18:

That the funeral industry develops a mandatory industry wide code of practice based on the Australian Consumer Complaints Commission guidelines, in conjunction with appropriate stakeholders and government agencies, ensuring thatthe code is consistent with current consumer and public health regulations.

NSW Government's Response:

The development of a mandatory code of practice is not supported. It has not been demonstrated that there has been widespread market failure in the funeral industry.

The AFDA believes that a low number of complaints should not be a deterrent to requiring funeral directors to be licensed, providing minimum standards, having appropriate facilities and education. Alleged incidents and actions of some funeral directors are often quite disturbing. The AFDA's long held position is that, at minimum, funeral directors should adhere to a mandatory industry code of practice and provide appropriate facilitiesand mortuaries for the following reasons:

§ Protect and affirm consumer expectations that funeral directors subscribe to minimum standards;
§ Provide consumer confidence that funeral directors have been appropriately trained;
§ Reassure consumers when seeking funeral directors that the management of the deceased and codes of conduct are already prescribed and that the only choice and decision they need to make is based upon price, service, product options and personal values;
§ Consumers can be confident that when expectations are not met and/or arrangements and practices have failed, they have a professional and regulatory mechanism for assistance and redress.

I read from the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association, who are the advocates for the consumers. We have already heard from the businesses and now we will hear from the key advocate group for those who are accessing the services. That group is also a passionate supporter of a mandatory code of conduct. I do not understand why any person in this place happening upon this bill would think that he or she has knowledge superior to that of groups who have been studying, advocating for and working with this industry for years. I will tell the House what they are saying on behalf of their constituents:

The Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association supports the amendment to the Fair Trading Amendment (Funeral Goods and Services) Bill. The bill in its current form represents a significant improvement over the current situation where rogue behaviour by funeral service providers goes mostly unpunished. However, the introduction of a mandatory code of conduct has the potential to eradicate rogue behaviour.

The CPSA therefore supports the introduction of a mandatory code of conduct for the funeral industry to supplement the introduction of a service information standard for funeral services under the Fair Trading Act. In particular, the regulation of funeral service providers contained in the proposed amendment to the bill has the potential to improve governance and commercial competitive practice in the industry, and this would greatly benefit the people of New South Wales.

I have received also verbal messages from the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and Michelle Burrell, who has asked me on behalf of the council to place on record its very strong support for this amendment and for a mandatory code of conduct. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales is particularly representative of the most vulnerable consumers in the community, and I accept the council's word over the self­interested and unsourced assertions of this Government when the council says that a mandatory code of conduct is the way to go. Unfortunately, these issues have been ventilated extensively in the media—in the print media as well as on television. I conclude by quoting the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 March. It reads:

In 2005 the NSW Fair Trading Minister, Diane Beamer, conceded the public might be surprised to learn funeral directors were not licensed. What should be more surprising is that they are still not licensed, nor subject to a mandatory code of conduct, despite a string of distressing complaints to a state parliamentary inquiry. All it takes to operate a funeral parlour in NSW is a shingle, a phone and a large fridge. To suggest the entire funeral industry is riddled with malpractice would be wrong; many reputable companies provide compassionate and professional services to bereaved families. But what of the rogue operators storing bodies in under sanitary conditions, abusing corpses, mixing up body bags or stuffing carefully chosen funeral suits into closed coffins, instead of dressing the dead? Distraught relatives are caught between at least four government departments which might, or might not, have appropriate jurisdiction to hear them out.

…

To expect market forces to keep it in check, as the NSW Government does, is ludicrous. Bereaved relatives do not have the will to "shop around" for quality and service, and in country areas there is often no choice. What the public deserves is the reassurance that every funeral director is required to meet professional standards. A mandatory code of conduct, backed by meaningful penalties, would go a long way to protecting the dignity of our dead.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.35 p.m.]: As I stated earlier, the Government does not support a mandatory code of conduct for the following reasons. A mandatory code of conduct will increase the cost of funerals. The code suggested by the Opposition would set standards for education, equipment and premises, which would cost the industry a great deal to comply with, and this cost would inevitably be passed on to consumers. We believe also that the mandatory code of conduct could be anti­competitive and result in funeral business closures, especially in rural areas.

The Government believes that a mandatory code of conduct in an environment of few complaints is simply overregulation. The Hon. Catherine Cusack acknowledged that there are very few complaints in the industry. The Department of Fair Trading sought proper information to determine whether these figures represented the true level of complaints about the industry. To allow consumers to share their experiences of arranging a funeral or dealing with a funeral director, the Department of Fair Trading ran a consumer telephone hotline from 27 May 2005 to 3 June 2005. It also ran an online survey, commencing at the same time and closing on 8 July 2005. All up, the department received more than 100 responses.

Sixty per cent of people said they were happy with the service they received from the funeral director. There were very few issues raised about unethical or unprofessional practice. The main issues raised by the hotline were concerned with pricing and billing matters, which will be dealt with by the information standard. The reason that there are very few complaints is that the vast majority of funeral directors in New South Wales belong to either the Australian Funeral Directors Association or the Funeral Directors Association of New South Wales, which have codes of ethics with which all association members must comply. Both codes are very similar.

A mandatory code is unnecessary in that issues surrounding the appropriate disposal of bodies and pricing are already covered by public health regulations and the proposed information standard. I again inform the House that if problems arise with the regulations, they will be dealt with when the regulations are reviewed in 2008. The Government does not support the introduction of a mandatory code of practice because there are very few consumer complaints and a mandatory code will significantly increase the cost of funerals, and that will prove costly for taxpayers. I reiterate, Coalition members of the Parliament of Victoria said:

Further regulations of the Victorian funeral industry will push up the price of funerals for Victorian families and send smaller funeral directors, particularly those in country Victoria, to their grave.
There is scant justification for further regulation over the industry, and these amendments will result in just another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation. The Government does not support the amendments.

Dr JOHN KAYE [6.38 p.m.]: I support the Opposition's amendments. When an industry seeks regulation it would be foolhardy of us to ignore such a request. It would be doubly foolhardy of us if we could not find any opposition to such a request outside the Government itself. It would be foolhardy of us three times over, given that we are dealing with an industry that is involved with people at a time when they are most vulnerable. Clearly somewhere between the inquiry of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, during which we had cross-party support for regulation, and the mandatory standards for the drafting of the legislation something got in the way of commonsense. These amendments seek to undo the damage that was done, and we support them.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.39 p.m.]: I am concerned about the amendments. I accept that the committee recommended a mandatory code, although I understand there were differing opinions among the members of the committee. The Hon. Catherine Cusack referred to the report of the Australian Funeral Directors Association and the suggestion that small operators would not have mortuary facilities. The implication is that a mandatory code could require all funeral directors to have mortuary facilities, and that could cause small family­owned businesses to go out of business, thereby giving greater control to the big companies.

I should have thought that the Greens would have some reservations about large corporations—such as Woolworths or Coles—taking over the funeral industry in Australia. A mandatory code could open the door to one big funeral company—such as InvoCare, whose members belong to the Australian Funeral Directors Association—controlling the funeral industry. InvoCare is already a very large corporation. There could be negative flow-on results if a mandatory code were implemented. I believe that my foreshadowed amendment to review the legislation is the way to go.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [6.41 p.m.]: The Hon. Penny Sharpe referred to the situation in Victoria. I happen to have with me a parliamentary briefing note on the situation in Victoria. The Hon. Penny Sharpe failed to mention that Victoria introduced legislation to provide that a register of funeral providers in Victoria be established "as well as a register of prepaid contracts" and that both were "intended to give consumers greater access to information." The briefing note states that a funeral industry council will be created "which will be responsible for developing a mandatory code of conduct for the industry, amongst other things". Isn't it interesting the things that this Government forgets to mention in debate? That is typical of the standard of ethics that the Government applies to itself.

The Government has been deceitful and misleading, and I do not understand that because I have read to the Committee the view of the small businesses funeral industries association. Small funeral businesses want a mandatory code of conduct. The association knows its members and their interests, and it knows the industry. I am astounded that people can suggest in this place that they know better than the industry and its membership. People in the industry know their businesses, and they are asking for a mandatory code. It is overwhelmingly what everybody wants. The Government has been deceitful and misleading, and I do not understand that because I have read to the Committee the view of the small businesses funeral industries association. Small funeral businesses want a mandatory code of conduct. The association knows its members and their interests, and it knows the industry. I am astounded that people can suggest in this place that they know better than the industry and its membership. People in the industry know their businesses, and they are asking for a mandatory code. It is overwhelmingly what everybody wants.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe said that allowing rogue operators to continue to practise would keep prices down. That is one of the most unacceptable arguments I have ever heard put forward. Her answer with respect to the rogue operator in Narrabri was that the Government is no longer using him. He is operating even though we all know he is a disgrace! He uses a shed with a dirt floor and he has no access to mortuary facilities. Other funeral directors will not be able to offer a service in Narrabri because they will not be able to compete with a man who picks up bodies in a truck and leaves them in non-refrigerated premises. There will never be an acceptable service in Narrabri until the rogue operator is wiped out.

The CHAIR: Order! I remind all members that interjections are disorderly at all times and I ask them to cease.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has suggested that a mandatory code of conduct would allow a monopoly to take over the industry. I say as respectfully as I can that I do not follow that line of argument. That point has not been raised by anyone in the industry nor was it suggested in the decade-long inquiry conducted by a committee of this Chamber. It is not an issue in Victoria. I do not understand where the argument came from, and I have difficulty responding to it. A mandatory code of conduct will not disadvantage any business. It is what small family-owned businesses want because they want the good name of their industry to be protected. They want minimal standards so that rogue operators who charge next to nothing and then provide a disgraceful service to be eliminated from the industry. This issue is not new to the industry. It has been consulted on exhaustively. There is unanimity of opinion on it, and it is almost breathtaking that the Government will not give industry and consumers what they want. I urge all honourable members to support the amendments.

Dr JOHN KAYE [6.45 p.m.]: I respond to the comments of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that we are supporting the monopolisation or growth of large operators at the expense of the survival of small operators. If anybody could produce one scintilla of evidence that this were true, the Greens would reconsider their position. It is just not true. Experience across industries shows that mandatory codes of practice can support and defend the rights of small operators. As Ms Cusack said, without an underlying code of practice, rogue operators can drive reasonable and decent small operators out the business—and that is when large operators move in and take over. A mandatory code will protect small operators and enable them to continue to operate. Small operators in the funeral industry are important. They deliver a personalised service that is culturally appropriate—a service that many find far more meaningful than that provided by large operators. The Greens do not believe that a mandatory code of practice will do anything but protect small operators.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [6.47 p.m.]: I thank honourable members for their contributions and urge them to support the amendments. On 4 January the Sydney Morning Herald reported that a church organisation that operates cemeteries on Crown land increased burial fees by 64 per cent, from around $1,100 to $1,700 for the interment fee, which basically involves digging a hole then filling it in. The Government approved that 64 per cent increase. The Australian Funeral Directors Association said that if the Government were genuine about keeping costs down in the industry, it would not have approved a 64 per cent increase in the cost of digging and filling in a hole.

I question the Government's genuineness. Its wooden-headed refusal to entertain a mandatory code of conduct is breathtaking and bizarre. The tricky way that the Hon. Penny Sharpe has misled members in this debate does her no credit. The Government's position is illogical and is defiant of what consumers and businesses want. It beggars belief. I appeal to honourable members to support the amendments and give effect to what the House has recommended, what industry and consumers want, and what will provide the best services possible to the bereaved.

Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 3 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 17

Mr Ajaka Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Ms Ficarra Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Ms Hale Dr Kaye Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr Mason-Cox

Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Brown Mr Catanzariti Mr Della Bosca Ms Griffin Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Reverend Nile

Mr Obeid Mr Primrose Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Smith Mr Tsang

Ms Voltz Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Veitch

Mr Gallacher	Mr Costa
Mr Pearce	Mr Hatzistergos

Question resolved in the negative.
Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 3 negatived.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.57 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1:

Page 3, schedule1 [1]. Insert after line 30:

60ZB

Review of Part

(1) The Minister is to review the effectiveness of this Part and any information standard prescribed under this Part.

(2) The review is to be undertaken as soon as possible after the period of 3 years from the date of commencement of this Part.

(3) A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the end of the period of 3 years.

One may say this is a transitional amendment. If the review shows a need for a mandatory code it can be considered when there is strong evidence that it would be to the benefit of the whole industry, not to some of the large operators.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [6.58 p.m.]: This is a completely nothing amendment. All it provides for is a review of an information standard, which is the dictionary of terms to be used to describe billing. I do not understand why Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is suggesting that part of this review could be a recommendation for a mandatory code of conduct, because it is irrelevant. The mandatory code of conduct is not in this bill. The Government has played very hard all day with crossbench members on crossbench issues—lots of things go on behind closed doors in this place. There are 200 operators in the funeral industry in New South Wales, good people, performing valuable services—but it seems that what they have been requesting for 10 years means nothing!

I am embarrassed, for the people who have worked on this matter, that the Government denies them the opportunity. The request was not unreasonable; it is something everyone wants. To hold up this amendment as a kind of alternative or substitute for a mandatory code of conduct is deceitful. The amendment is that the Minister will review a couple of dictionary terms in three years. I ask the Government not to present this as an alternative, because it is not.

Dr JOHN KAYE [7.00 p.m.]: The Greens do not support this amendment because it is not only a "do nothing" amendment but a "do bad" amendment. The review will be conducted by proponents of the bill, that is, those opposed to a mandatory code of performance. It is very unlikely that the proponents of the bill will find much wrong with it. It is very unlikely they will find in favour of a need for a mandatory code of conduct. All the review is likely to do is feed the case for leaving the industry at the mercy of the small number of sharks within it. We do not support the amendment.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [7.00 p.m.]: The Government has outlined its position. We support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. We believe it is an important amendment that puts in place a review so that we can revisit this issue in three years. It is an appropriate amendment to this bill.

Question—That Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Question—That schedule 1 as amended be agree to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment.Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Motion by t he Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendment.

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 25 September 2007 at 2.30 p.m.

The PRESIDENT: I report that according to the resolution of 27 June 2007 the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition have nominated in writing the following members to serve on the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding:

Government: The Hon. Amanda Fazio
The Hon. Mick Veitch

Opposition: The Hon. Don Harwin
The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner

Consideration of Legislative Assembly message of 27 June 2007.

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

That this House directs the President to join with the Speaker to make arrangements for the reappointment of Mr Ian Dickson as Parliamentary Ethics Adviser in the terms and conditions contained in the Legislative Assembly's message dated 27 June 2007.

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [7.07 p.m.]:I seek leave to amend Government Business Notice of Motion No. 1, relating to the budget estimates inquiry reference, by omitting paragraph 1 and inserting instead:

1. That the resolution appointing five general purpose standing committees reflecting Government Ministers’ portfolio responsibilities adopted by this House on 10 May 2007 be amended to reflect the changes to Government Ministers’ portfolio responsibilities as follows:

(a) General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1
Premier
Citizenship
Juvenile Justice
Western Sydney
Treasury
Infrastructure
Hunter
The Legislature
Roads
Commerce

(b) General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2
Education and Training
Industrial Relations
Assistant finance
Central Coast
Fair Trading
Youth
Volunteering
Ageing
Disability Services
Health

(c) General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3
Police
Illawarra
Attorney General
Justice
Emergency Services
Water Utilities
Gaming and Racing
Sport and Recreation
Local Government
Aboriginal Affairs

(d) General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4
Transport
Finance
Planning
Redfern Waterloo
Arts
Science and Medical Research
Women
Community Services
Small Business
Regulatory Reform
Ports

(e) General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5
Primary Industries
State Development
Mineral Resources
Energy
Lands
Rural Affairs
Regional Development
Waterways
Housing
Tourism
Climate Change & Environment
Water.

Leave granted.

Accordingly I move:

1. That the resolution appointing five general purpose standing committees reflecting Government Ministers’ portfolio responsibilities adopted by this House on 10 May 2007 be amended to reflect the changes to Government Ministers’ portfolio responsibilities as follows:

(a) General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1
Premier
Citizenship
Juvenile Justice
Western Sydney
Treasury
Infrastructure
Hunter
The Legislature
Roads
Commerce

(b) General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2
Education and Training
Industrial Relations
Assistant finance
Central Coast
Fair Trading
Youth
Volunteering
Ageing
Disability Services
Health

(c) General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3
Police
Illawarra
Attorney General
Justice
Emergency Services
Water Utilities
Gaming and Racing
Sport and Recreation
Local Government
Aboriginal Affairs

(d) General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4
Transport
Finance
Planning
Redfern Waterloo
Arts
Science and Medical Research
Women
Community Services
Small Business
Regulatory Reform
Ports

(e) General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5
Primary Industries
State Development
Mineral Resources
Energy
Lands
Rural Affairs
Regional Development
Waterways
Housing
Tourism
Climate Change & Environment
Water.

2. That the Budget Estimates and related papers for the financial year 2007-2008 presenting the amounts to be appropriated from the Consolidated Fund be referred to the General Purpose Standing Committees for inquiry and report.

3. The committees are to consider the Budget Estimates in accordance with the allocation of portfolios to the committees.

4. The committees must hear evidence in public.

5. Not more than three committees are to hear evidence simultaneously.

6. The committees may ask for explanations from Ministers in the House, or officers of departments, statutory bodies or corporations, relating to the items of proposed expenditure.

7. A daily Hansard record is to be published as soon as practicable after each day’s proceedings.

8. That the Leader of the Government is to provide to each Committee, by Friday 13 July 2007, a schedule outlining the attendance of relevant ministers to appear before each committee, for the committee’s consideration.

9. The committees may hold supplementary hearings as required.

10. The committees are to present a final report to the House by Friday 30 November 2007.

11. Committee members may lodge questions on notice with the Clerk to the committee up to two
days following a hearing.

12. Questions lodged on notice are subject to standing order 67 and will be published in the Questions and Answers Paper.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [7.08 p.m.]: I thank the Government for the changes that are embodied in the amendment that the Leader of the Government has just moved. I acknowledge the work of Mr Ian Cohen in bringing about those sensible amendments. The Opposition supports the amendment, but it has an issue about the resolution. I will be very brief. We believe it is a mistake to have three committees meeting at one time. We note that this is a departure from the practice last year when only two committees met at the one time. The Government is taking a move that will necessarily lead to the House incurring extra costs. There are not enough Hansard reporters to service more than two general purpose standing committees meeting at the same time. It then becomes necessary for the Legislative Council to pay for a reporting contractor. Given the Government's record, these committees tend to sit outside working hours, so that also has an impact on the cost, given that contractors will be required if three committees sit at the same time. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "three" in paragraph 5 and inserting instead "two".

In the context of the financial and fiscal stringency this Government has imposed on the Parliament, we should be very careful about what we do that impacts on the budget of the Legislature. I am surprised that the Government has knowingly made a change to arrangements that applied last year, which will impact on the Legislature's budget and will mean there are fewer resources available for other important activities. I commend the amendment to the House.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [7.13 p.m.], in reply: I do not propose to go into great detail in responding to the member's concerns. The operation of the estimates committees has been well canvassed, and he has made some very helpful suggestions about cost control and they have been taken on board. The Treasurer is not in the Chamber. If he were, the Hon. Don Harwin would get a gold star for those remarks. I commend the motion to the House in its original form.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Ajaka Mr Brown Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Ms Ficarra Miss Gardiner Ms Hale

Dr Kaye Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr Mason-Cox Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Ms Rhiannon Mr Smith Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Catanzariti Mr Della Bosca Ms Fazio Ms Griffin Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald

Mr Obeid Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Ms Voltz

Mr West Ms Westwood Tellers, Mr Donnelly Mr Veitch

Mr Gallacher Mr Costa
Mr Gay Mr Hatzistergos

Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.

Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion as amended agreed to.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [7.21 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Michael Costa: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As the second reading speech is lengthy and has already been delivered in the other place, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Brothels Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 will amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Restricted Premises Act 1943 to strengthen enforcement measures to enable local councils and other authorities to more quickly and effectively take action against brothels that are operating unlawfully. Since 1995 the use of premises as a brothel has not been a criminal offence per se. Premises can be lawfully used as a brothel, but only with appropriate planning consent obtained in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The requirement to obtain planning consent ensures that brothels operate only in accordance with relevant planning instruments and conditions of consent. This means that there can be close regulation and supervision by councils of the impact of a brothel on the community. However, the regulation of brothels through the planning regime depends on effective enforcement measures. It is crucial that councils are able to take swift and effective action against brothels which operate without development consent, in contravention of their conditions of consent, or where there is a demonstrated adverse impact on the community. A robust enforcement regime is particularly important where an unlawful brothel operates from premises in a zoned area where brothels should never be permitted, such as near a school.

The measures in this bill are about strengthening these enforcement measures. The bill will amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Restricted Premises Act to overcome some of the difficulties that confront councils when they seek to obtain evidence that premises are being used as a brothel. The bill will amend the definition of "brothel" in the Restricted Premises Act 1943 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The amendments will include clarification that prostitution need not be an habitual use of premises for those premises to constitute a brothel; rather, it will be sufficient for a council to demonstrate that the premises have been used for the purpose of prostitution and that the premises are likely to be used for that purpose in the future.

A new limb will also be added to the definition to mean that premises that are being advertised or represented as being used for the purpose of prostitution and are likely to be used for that purpose will be taken to be a brothel. The bill will also introduce new provisions to make it absolutely clear that in proceedings relating to unlawful or disorderly brothels, courts will be entitled to rely solely on circumstantial evidence. In particular, the bill will insert new provisions to provide that a court may make a finding that premises are being used as a brothel without any direct evidence of prostitution. These amendments will assist in overcoming the complications faced by councils in identifying and gathering evidence to prove the unlawful use of premises as a brothel—complications that have been exploited successfully by some operators.

The bill will also introduce tough enforcement powers against unlawful brothels. The bill provides that orders given by a council to close a brothel operating unlawfully under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will be able to be served on any person involved in the management of the premises, and not solely on the owner or occupier. Non-compliance with such an order will be an offence and penalties will apply. Penalties will also be increased for repeat offenders.

Under the bill a council order against an unlawful brothel will also be able to be used to prohibit the use of the premises for specified related sex uses. This is intended to address the problem where an unlawful brothel is ordered to shut down but is immediately transformed into some other related and unauthorised business, such as a massage parlour. The new provisions will mean that the council will be able to take immediate and effective action without having to start the process over again. The bill will enable the brothel closure orders to be made effective within five working days. The bill will also limit the ability of the courts to adjourn enforcement proceedings brought by a council against an unlawful brothel. This means that unlawful brothel operators will no longer be able to continue operating indefinitely while they go through the motions of applying for development consent.

The bill also will enable a council to apply to a court for an order to cut-off the supply of water, gas and electricity to premises as a last resort when a brothel operator persistently flouts the law. Of course the bill includes safeguards to ensure that such a utilities order does not adversely affect third parties or residential properties. It is also intended to bring forward a regulation to allow the Local Court, as well as the Land and Environment Court, to hear appeals in respect of brothel closure orders. This is being proposed with a view to achieving faster access to the courts and more speedy resolution of disputes.

The bill also strengthens the measures available to councils to close down disorderly brothels under the Restricted Premises Act. That Act enables councils to apply for an order from the Land and Environment Court to close down a brothel that is having an adverse effect on the neighbourhood. That Act complements the enforcement regime under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This bill will strengthen the powers under that Act in a number of ways, including expansion of the definition of brothel and clarifying the ability of the court to rely on circumstantial evidence.

The bill will also clarify the circumstances in which a council can apply for a closure order under the Restricted Premises Act. The bill expands the classes of persons from whom complaints can be received so that councils will also be able to take into account complaints received from people who, or whose children, regularly use facilities in the neighbourhood. Amendments will also ensure that closure orders made under the Restricted Premises Act cannot be circumvented. When making an order, the court will be given the power to suspend for up to six months a development consent that applies to the premises. The amendment will enable the court to crack down on any attempt to evade a closure order by reopening a brothel in the name of another person or company relying upon a pre-existing development consent.

The court will also be able to extend a closure order to other specified related sex uses. Again the purpose of this provision is to deal with the problem of a brothel that is ordered to close down but then reopens as a massage parlour or the like. Another reform introduced by this bill is to extend to other authorised planning and regulatory agencies the powers of local councils to tackle unlawful brothels. The Brothels Legislation Amendment Bill will introduce a tough new regime that targets unlawful brothel operators, especially repeat offenders and those who seek to circumvent the law. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [7.21 p.m.]: It is 12 years since the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995 made the regulation of brothels in our community an issue of local government planning rather than one of morality or criminal law. Reflecting broader community recognition that the presence of a sex industry in our society is inevitable, it is appropriate for the Parliament to prescribe a workable legal framework that protects both the interests of the wider community and the rights of sex workers. It is desirable for the sex industry to be subject to regulations requiring brothels to operate with development consent from local government and appropriate safeguards for workers and clients. Such regulation is good public policy and the industry should remain the object of planning legislation.

The operation of illegal brothels, however, remains a major concern. Brothels that operate without consent also operate outside the regulatory safeguards that protect workers, clients, and the interests of the general community. Illegal brothels are frequently sites of serious antisocial and criminal behaviour. Sex workers in illegal brothels are often exploited and are the victims of violence. The problem of illegal migrants being virtually enslaved by unscrupulous operators using the threat of arrest and deportation has been raised in legislative debate in the past. Such situations are not tolerable.

Male and female sex workers who choose to work in clean, well-ordered and legal venues have a right to a safe workplace and to the protection of the law. It is also in the community's broad health interest that safe sex practices are observed between workers and clients, in prescribed venues that meet basic regulatory standards. Our State is recognised as a world leader in the prevention of sexually transmissible infections in the sex industry, and the regulation and oversight of legal brothels have been any important ingredient in our success.

For many communities, illegal brothels are a serious concern; indeed, in some instances they pose a very real danger. Local government, however, has struggled for many years to combat the issue of brothels operating without consent. Councils have repeatedly pointed to the inadequacies of the existing legislation, but the Government has failed to act. Worse still, the Government has blocked several Coalition attempts to address problems in the legislation. Assertions by Government members on occasions that the legislation in its current form gives councils adequate powers with regard to the closure of illegal brothels have been shown to be unfounded by the presentation of the bill.

As the Coalition has been saying for many years now, the current legislation does not give council enough power to shut down illegal brothels quickly and effectively. The burden on local government, in terms of both proof and cost, is often substantial and onerous. I was recently briefed by Councillor Sally Betts, Leader of the Liberal team on Waverley Council, about the tremendously difficult and expensive experience that that council had with brothels operating illegally in a multi-unit development in Newland Street, Bondi Junction. In a mixed-use building that mainly contained strata residential units, three different brothels operated illegally. The largest, known as Misty's, owned more than 14 separate units. The council spent in excess of $200,000 in legal fees over more than 12 months to shut down these operations. In addition, the council had to pay private investigators to obtain proof that the establishments were indeed trading as brothels. The illegal businesses delayed court action by submitting development applications, and throughout the lengthy legal proceedings each continued to operate. While the cases were before the courts, council was unable to prevent the brothels' activity despite the enormous negative impact on the other residents in the block.
Several times in the past six years the Coalition has proposed simplifying the process of closing down illegal brothels. We have repeatedly advocated making it easier for local government to take action. In 2001, for example, the former member for Pittwater, John Brogden, introduced a bill that proposed tough powers for councils to close down illegal brothels within 48 hours. The bill reversed the onus of proof such that an alleged operator of an alleged illegal brothel would be required to prove either that it was not providing sexual activities for money or that it was doing so with the required legal authority. The Government defeated that legislation. In the intervening years the Government has failed to take action and has blocked further Coalition attempts to reform the Act.

The Government's refusal to address the shortcomings of the legislation has allowed illegal brothels to flourish and has resulted in councils incurring substantial legal costs. These outcomes could have been avoided if the Government had supported Coalition reforms in the past or had moved promptly to legislate its own solution. As is so often the case with this Government, after years of delay and inaction we have now been presented with hurriedly drafted legislation that is being forced through the Parliament with undue and unseemly haste. There has been insufficient opportunity to adequately discuss the legislation with the Local Government Association, representatives of the sex industry, health professionals or the broader community. As always when legislation is rushed through with insufficient consultation and reflection, there are concerns about unintended consequences of the changes having a negative impact on stakeholders.

The legislation is not as comprehensive as the reforms proposed by the Coalition some years ago. It does not shift the burden of proof from councils to the alleged operators of alleged illegal brothels. Instead, the main thrust of the bill is to allow councils to rely on circumstantial evidence as the basis for issuing an order for closure. In line with this change, it also enables the Land and Environment Court to rely on circumstantial evidence. Subsection (5) of 124AB states:

In any proceedings:

(a) the Court may rely on circumstantial evidence to find that particular premises are used as a brothel, and

(b) the Court may make such a finding without any direct evidence that the particular premises are used as a brothel.

Under this lesser standard of proof the Land and Environment Court will need to determine whether certain evidence is sufficient to verify that the relevant premises are being used illegally as a sex-for-payment venue. The bill outlines some examples of circumstantial evidence that could be presented in such cases. They include: evidence related to persons entering and leaving the premises, including number, gender and frequency, that is consistent with the use of the premises for prostitution; evidence of appointments with persons at the premises for the purpose of prostitution that are made through the use of telephone numbers or other contact details that are publicly advertised; evidence of information in books and accounts that is consistent with the use of the premises for prostitution; and evidence of the arrangement of, or other matters relating to, the premises, or the furniture, equipment or articles in the premises, that is consistent with the use of the premises for prostitution.

This incremental change to the legislation reduces the burden of proof that councils will need to present in action forcing the closure of illegal brothels. The onus, however, remains with councils to accumulate evidence. The current practice of council officers or private investigators observing and attending premises will remain a part of the process. Local governments will continue to be subject to legal costs associated with contested cases. Councils will, however, benefit from new limits on adjournments in the Land and Environment Court provided in this bill. Often legal proceedings to force the closure of illegal brothels are dragged out because operators submit retrospective development applications. The bill provides that:

The Court may not adjourn proceedings under section 124 (3) unless it is of the opinion the adjournment is justified because of the exceptional circumstances of the case … The fact that it is intended to lodge a development application, or that a development application has been made, is not by itself an exceptional circumstance.

This aspect of the bill will enable council action in the courts to be expedited, presumably with reduced cost and a faster resolution for the community. Honourable members may have read correspondence about this bill from concerned health groups such as the AIDS Council of New South Wales [ACON], and sex industry representatives and advocacy bodies such as the Sex Workers Outreach Program [SWOP] and the Scarlet Alliance. These groups have noted that the proposed reforms appear to have been drafted with regard to council action against large commercial operations rather than the single home-based sex workers in home occupation brothels. Despite appearing to recognise the distinction in the legislation—in the section relating to utilities orders, for example—these groups are concerned that the changes will impact adversely on individually operating home-based sex workers whose presence is usually discreet and whose impact is relatively less intrusive. Such operators are often unnoticed by their community.

As a result of this legislation it almost certainly will be easier to shut down home occupation brothels that do not have development approval, just as it will be possible to close down all brothels that operate without the required local government consent. However, it should also be noted that this bill will not alter the ability of councils to permit or reject home occupation brothels. Local councils, which are elected by residents, must have the right to define the character of the suburbs and towns in their area through the determination and regulation of land uses. This includes where brothels will operate.

The new member for Pittwater, Rob Stokes, in his thoughtful contribution to the debate in the other place, drew attention to the fact that since the legalisation of sex services premises in 1995 the New South Wales Government has offered very little guidance to local councils as to how best to use their planning powers regarding such premises. Although a sex industry policy document recommending best practice models was promised, the Government has failed to deliver such a document. Guidelines were drafted by the Sex Services Premises Planning Advisory Panel in 2004, but these were not government policy, as the then Minister for Planning stated in an answer to a question on notice last year. The Scarlet Alliance has stated:

Councils have not yet been given the appropriate resources or education to implement the laws.

Clearly, Mr Stokes's point is well made. Both councils and the sex industry would benefit from better State Government leadership in this area. The bill will make it easier for local government to address non-compliance with planning requirements in regard to sex services premises. The Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, it notes that the legislation could go further. The Government could be giving councils and stakeholders better guidance, and a better opportunity for consultation would have benefited both the debate and the legislative outcome.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Before giving Ms Sylvia Hale the call, I inform members that I have been advised by Ms Sylvia Hale that she has difficulty speaking. She has indicated that she will endeavour to give her speech. However, I have concurred in her request that should her voice give out she may hand over her speech to another member to complete. There being no objection to that course, the member may proceed.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [7.33 p.m.]: The Greens are very concerned about the Brothels Legislation Amendment Bill, which we believe to be inherently retrogressive. It has a number of, perhaps unintended, consequences such as negative impacts on public health, increased opportunities for corruption of local council officers, victimisation of sex workers who work from home, a cementing of council policies that undermine the intention of the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995, a recriminalisation of brothels and the delivery of an unfair competitive advantage to the operators of large, commercial brothels. I will deal with each of these considerations in turn.

This bill has the potential to impact negatively on public health as well the capacity of sexual health service providers to deliver services to the sex workers in New South Wales. Any changes to the way that councils regulate the sex industry have the potential to influence, either positively or negatively, the health of sex workers, their clients and the broader community. New South Wales is recognised as a world leader in the prevention of sexually transmissible infections in the sex industry. There has not been a recorded case of transmission of HIV in a New South Wales sex industry setting. This is due in large part to the work of the Sex Workers Outreach Project [SWOP], which is a non-government service established in 1990 and funded by NSW Health. The primary purpose of the Sex Workers Outreach Project is the promotion of the health, safety and wellbeing of sex industry workers in New South Wales. Services are delivered within a framework of health promotion, harm reduction and occupational health and safety for the sex industry. The Sex Workers Outreach Project has a high level of access to all sectors of the New South Wales sex industry and makes no distinction in delivering services to workplaces, whether authorised, unauthorised or illegal.

The ability of the Sex Workers Outreach Project to deliver vital sexual health services to sex workers and their clients can be jeopardised by poor planning decisions that force sex services underground. Sex workers and businesses are highly mobile. Some premises have moved also to escort or "out call" services where no sex workers or clients are on site, making it extremely difficult for the Sex Workers Outreach Project to deliver services to them. The New South Wales Government has implemented occupational health and safety programs aimed at the indoor sex industry through WorkCover New South Wales. Health education programs continue to be delivered by the Sex Workers Outreach Project and the sexual health services. When sex workers' workplaces are difficult to identify or locate, or when sex workers are dispersed outdoors, service delivery becomes more complex and health outcomes are compromised. In particular, the proposed measures that would allow essential utilities such as water, gas and electricity to be cut are intolerable on the grounds of public safety and occupational health and safety. Yet that is what is proposed in the bill.

In the mid-1990s, just prior to decriminalisation, Newcastle police cracked down on brothels, creating an immediate increase in street sex work. When sex workers' workplaces are closed they continue to work, but in less supported or less safe environments. The health and safety of street-based sex workers and their clients is significantly compromised in comparison with indoor-based sex workers. As up to 85 per cent of the New South Wales sex industry remains unable to be authorised and is possibly illegal, depending on the council's local environment plan, the AIDS Council of New South Wales, the Sex Workers Outreach Project, the Scarlet Alliance and the Australian Sex Workers Association are concerned that the proposed laws will simply push the sex industry underground and into new, less recognisable forms, with a consequent reduction in the ability to deliver appropriate services. Of particular concern in this regard is the provision in the bill that permits the issuing of orders to cut electricity, gas and water supplies to illegal brothels. This would pose serious public healt h and occupational health and safety issues for sex workers, their clients and others.

Sex workers are the priority population in the New South Wales Government's HIV-AIDS strategy and its sexually transmissible infections strategy. The Sex Workers Outreach Project shares a lead agency role with NSW Health to monitor the impact of legislation and local government policy on sex workers. Since decriminalisation of brothels, extensive monitoring and consultation processes relating to sex industry regulation have been resourced by the New South Wales Government, including the Intergovernmental Brothels Task Force, which reported in 2001, and the Sex Services Premises Planning Advisory Panel that was in force from 2002 until 2005.

NSW Health was represented on both those advisory bodies, and the Local Government and Shires Associations and local councils were represented on the planning advisory panel, which was administered by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. The reports found significant areas of concern and made a number of recommendations to the New South Wales Government. Among these were recommendations to provide guidance to councils on best practice implementation of planning policies so that the health and safety of sex workers was upheld and the effectiveness of the 1995 reforms could be maximised. In particular, it was noted that the inability of legal brothels to be established due to poor planning regulations was undesirable.

Due in part to inappropriate local council planning policies, less than 15 per cent, that is 125, of the approximately 850 sex services premises to which the Sex Workers Outreach Project provides services have development consent. So 85 per cent of the industry lacks development approval. With the majority of premises remaining unauthorised or illegal, it appears that the majority of councils have not adopted reasonable planning controls. Indeed, many authorised brothels were initially refused consent by councils and had to go through costly appeals against councils' decisions in order to gain consent at the Land and Environment Court. The difficulty in gaining council approval has discouraged other operators from even applying for approval.

The requirement that an application for development approval be advertised has resulted in a moral panic where brothels that have been operating discreetly for many years are suddenly subject to public attention and to campaigns whose sole purpose is to prevent them from being approved. When I was on Marrickville council an application came in for a brothel that had been operating for years without anybody's knowledge. It was actually very close to where I lived and I did not know that it was operating, yet there was an outcry, "Goodness gracious, how could this exist?" Because council did not decide on the application in time it went to the Land and Environment Court and the court granted the application. When establishments are clearly operating in a way that does not affect the amenity or the safety of the local community in any way—when they are well-run institutions—it is not desirable that they should be so discouraged from applying for council approval.

The proposed legislative changes in the bill are clearly directed at commercial-scale premises. It is clear that the changes will also impact on the 4,000 individual private sex workers in New South Wales and their homes. The definition in the bill of a brothel should be amended to ensure that these workers are not inadvertently caught by its provisions. In fact, I will move an amendment to that effect. The debate on the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act in 1995 indicates that sex service premises in residential areas were not intended to be the subject of council powers or regulations. It also indicates that sex services premises in residential areas were to be tolerated unless they caused adverse amenity impacts. However, home occupation sex services fall within the definition of a brothel and so become the subject of these proposed measures.
With only a few exceptions councils have prepared their local environmental plans and their development control plans with only commercial-scale brothels in mind. It follows then that brothels are generally not permissible and, therefore, illegal in residential areas. Home occupation sex services premises are then unable to be authorised and are technically illegal, despite their low amenity impact and their discreet conduct. Local councils do not receive complaints about private sex workers amenity impacts. These businesses, by their very nature, are discreet and cannot afford to be known widely as a brothel if they wish to keep their clients. It is the very discretion of their operation that attracts many of their clients. For this reason they operate with low or no amenity impacts and, in general, their neighbours do not know the nature of their business or, if they do, they generally have no objections.

A number of councils have targeted home occupation sex services for routine compliance actions, actions that are not based on complaints about impacts on amenity. The Sex Workers Outreach Project collects information relating to council compliance actions. Compliance officers have targeted home occupations for closure without complaint in at least four council areas. Where councils use this approach the risk of corruption increases rapidly. There are opportunities then for individual officers to become corrupted in carrying out their duties, involving either commercial brothel operators or implicating the private workers themselves. Counsel assisting the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry unto Operation Pelion, which is currently investigating alleged corrupt practices by a compliance officer of Parramatta City Council, made some relevant observations in this regard on 14 May this year. He said:

Most of the history of New South Wales brothels have been illegal, and prostitution has been an unlawful activity. In the past, operating relatively clandestinely and mostly in cash, the continued operation of brothels has always depended on the authorities, whether it be the police or local authorities failing to take action to investigate or prosecute.

That inaction has no doubt frequently been the result of those engaging in the unlawful provision of sexual services being able to provide ongoing bribes to those charged with enforcement of the law and the preparedness of the corrupt to accept those bribes or to extort payment where not offered to protect the activity. The corruption of individual public officers in this area has no doubt been a significant factor in their corruption in other areas to the more general harm of the community.

Being paid to turn a blind eye to the operation of a brothel can readily be extended to ignoring sexual servitude or the use or sale of prohibited drugs on those premises. Those who are prepared to engage in one criminal activity are frequently prepared to engage in other criminal activities. The past acceptances of bribes or engagement in extortion provides a powerful lever. In recent times the community has taken a more enlightened and reasonable view of the sexual service industry. The provision of sexual services and the use of premises for brothels are now permitted within the limits of legislative acceptance and compliance with any conditions of consent.

The brothel industry has now largely fallen within the control of local councils which are able to consent to development applications for the use of premises as brothels, providing that the application meets any local environment plan such as to location or any other relevant factor such as parking provisions, noise or operating hours, to name but some. Approval is only matter of time, money, and overcoming any local objection.

It is highly probable that these changes have led to the significant diminishing or removal of what has been, while the activity was illegal, a major cause of corruption within the police service.

However, it is clear that the provision of sexual services from unapproved premises has continued and is also provided at premises approved only for the provision of genuine massage.

The detection and prevention of such operations now lies almost entirely in the hands of local councils, and there are probably few, if any, which do not have ongoing difficulties in this regard. Brothels do not always want to operate in areas, such as industrial zones, where local councils may grant approval or to meet the capital investment necessary to gain approval because such areas are not where the potential clients are or the investment required is too great.

Counsel for the Independent Commission Against Corruption has clearly indicated the appalling impacts if we seek to prevent brothels being authorised, provided they comply with reasonable conditions. The Independent Commission Against Corruption investigated allegations that a Parramatta City Council officer received bribes, sexual favours and money in return for not policing council's policy. The negative attitudes of many councils in regard to various scales and types of sex services premises and their operators has greatly contributed to enabling an environment that is conducive to corrupt conduct by council staff and other persons. This premise is evidenced by consecutive, prohibitive and overly restrictive zoning provisions and development standards within most local environment plans drafted since 1995.

For example, sex services premises in the Parramatta City Council local government area are currently regulated under the Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2001 as amended. Home-based sex workers premises and commercial sex services premises are collectively defined as brothels. All brothels are prohibited in residential zones, and other prohibitive locational and development restrictions apply within limited commercial zones. It is effectively impossible in Parramatta to gain authorisation to either conduct a home-based sex service or establish a commercial brothel. It is no wonder that Parramatta is the subject of the investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The New South Wales Ministerial Taskforce on Brothels, which delivered its final report in 2001, clearly identified that policies that do not allow home-based sex workers to operate in residential zones forces this sector of the sex industry to operate illegally. This leaves them:

… vulnerable to corrupt conduct by council officers (as they were vulnerable to corrupt conduct by police before the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act), and illegal operators are less likely to access occupational health and safety programs.

This was one of the unintended but, I suggest, eminently foreseeable results of this bill. One of the recommendations of the Ministerial Taskforce on Brothels was the establishment of the New South Wales Sex Service Premises Planning Advisory Panel in 2002. The panel was given the task of assisting local government to create better practice planning policies for the regulation of all scales and types of sex services premises. In December 2004 the panel finally delivered comprehensively researched planning guidelines to the Minister for Planning for publication and distribution to all local councils in New South Wales to assist them to make informed decisions when creating policies for sex services premises.

It is unfortunate that although the report and guidelines were released in 2004, it is only in the past few months that they have been made publicly available. The department kept them hidden, and it has been almost impossible to find a copy of them, let alone for councils to use the guidelines to make informed decisions. I suggest this is the reason for many of the ill-informed decisions that many councils have made. The guidelines recommend that the best way to reduce the number of illegal sex services premises within a local government area is to create planning policies "that enable operators to conduct well-run premises within a reasonable choice of localities" and to advise that this approach "is widely accepted by the New South Wales Government and was recommended in the report of the Brothels Task Force in 2001". From this bill one would not believe that the approach was widely accepted by the Government.

The current Parramatta policy regime has the effect of prohibiting home-based sex work. This leaves home-based sex workers unnecessarily vulnerable to the sorts of corrupt conduct demonstrated by its compliance officer. Other sectors of the sex industry also report difficulties in meeting the onerous locational and development standards within the Parramatta policy framework, leading many of them to operate underground. Like private sex workers, many home-based sex workers become highly vulnerable to corrupt conduct by council officers, people posing as council officers, and others who may become aware of their unauthorised activities.

The policies of Parramatta City Council have also increased the likelihood of commercial sex services premises masquerading as other businesses in order to gain development consent. Obtaining an authorised status under false pretences does not provide sex services premises operators with any protection against the corrupt conduct of council staff. When private workers are closed down by council, they lose contact with their peers and do not benefit from the safe sex education provided by more experienced workers. It also has the potential to rupture the extensive, yet fragile, network of support that exists between private workers and that contributes to their excellent health record in New South Wales.

The Brothels Task Force suggested a solution to allow home occupation sex work without consent across the State, through an amendment to State environmental planning policy No. 4. Such a solution removes the political hot potato of home occupation from the local government arena, whilst providing an equitable, and already tolerable, outcome for the whole community. Despite this advice provided to Government, the standard instrument, local environmental plan 2006, does not treat home occupations involving sex services equitably in that it provides only a voluntary option to include sex services—home occupation—and it applies a cap of two residents. As councils adopt the standard template, this may remove existing equality, and legality, for sex services—home occupation—in a range of local government areas where they are currently regulated equally to other home occupations, such as graphic designers, solicitors, or accountants. This is within a context, of course, in which the virtues of working at home are being extolled by so many people.

Removing sex services—home occupation—from the compulsory definitions and matrix table in the standard instrument local environmental plans means that they become an illegal land use. This brings the potential for negative health and safety impacts. In addition, such a ban serves no practical purpose in planning controls, as there is no evidence base of amenity impacts upon which to base a prohibition. Government policy enacted through the standard instrument local environmental plans now inherently supports a bias towards commercial sex services premises as they are a compulsory definition. This, in effect, limits legal workplace options for sex workers, forcing many of them into bigger brothels or out to escort or street work if they wish to work legally. I suggest that this gives an unfair advantage to the very large commercial operators. Sex workers would have fewer choices and less control of their workplace by way of the sexual services offered and the volume of hours and type of work they undertake.

Their options could be restricted if they were forced to work for other people. It is simply unfair and unreasonable to discriminate against individuals in this manner. We know that private sex workers are incredibly discreet, with very few clients. They do not cause adverse amenity impacts even though they operate throughout the State.

The bill contains a strong anti-competitive component. If it is passed, it will be possible for the operator of a commercial brothel simply to pick up the telephone, lodge a complaint with the council and have a private sex worker put out of business. Private sex workers will not want to expose themselves to the processes of appealing the order in court, so they will simply close and move. The loss of natural justice is a human rights abuse that should not be tolerated in New South Wales. It is totally discriminatory and wrong in principle.

If the bill is passed, numbers of sex workers will be forced to relocate constantly. They will be denied social inclusion due to fear and discrimination. Such individuals were never the problem yet they will bear the brunt of the impact of this bill. In addition, women in New South Wales should also see the possible implications of the bill, as any sexually active person may be the target of a single complaint that triggers an order requiring them to defend their lifestyle, reputation and home in the Local Court. The bill's provisions could be used in a very malicious manner. The definition of "brothel" in the bill should be amended so that home occupation sex services are not included. This would fulfil the intentions of the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995. It is essential that the Government ensure that councils receive guidance and support so that they may play their regulatory role in an appropriate, non-discriminatory manner.

I turn now to the provision in the bill that makes owning or operating an illegal brothel a criminal offence. This provision undermines the decriminalisation principal that is embodied in the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act. Unlike every other State in Australia and most countries in the world, New South Wales has regulated the sex industry through a raft of measures that treat the industry like any other business. As a result, compliance is high when regulation is appropriate and lower when councils fail to make responsible and appropriate planning policies. To date, health and safety outcomes indicate that decriminalisation has been highly successful. To recriminalise an industry that has endured an inappropriate regulatory response is unjust and may reverse the gains made for sex workers in New South Wales. No other lawful business operator is subject to criminal sanctions for being in breach of council planning regulations. I emphasise that latter point for the benefit of Opposition members.

The Greens have grave concerns about the impact of criminalisation on individuals, particularly individual sex workers, who could be charged under the proposed law. New South Wales does not protect sex workers under antidiscrimination legislation, so exposure through criminal proceedings for operating a brothel may result in serious social, economic and health impacts for an individual. In addition, the removal of natural justice principles in court proceedings is completely at odds with a range of recommendations made in relation to HIV-AIDS and the law in Australia. The principle of natural justice should apply to anyone charged with a criminal offence. Removing this procedural requirement may, at minimum, enable unscrupulous so-called "illegal" operators to pick off any competition and, at worst, lead to a witch-hunt against sex workers by the wider community. This is at odds with the pragmatic, evidence-based approach taken on this issue to date and is clearly at odds with the whole notion of decriminalising the sex industry, which is the backdrop against which these legislative amendments are occurring.

The prohibition on private sex workers throughout local government areas has led to the inevitable and predictable outcome of considerable non-compliance by the local sex industry, which has opened the floodgates to corruption—as evidenced by the recent Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry into the misconduct of a council compliance officer. By failing to fulfil its responsibility to create sensible, appropriate and workable planning regulations for the local sex industry, Parramatta City Council appears to have created an environment that is right for corruption.

The final report of the Sex Services Premises Planning Advisory Panel to the Minister for Planning included advice to assist in implementing the guidelines. Although 2½ years have passed since that advice was delivered to the Minister, there is little evidence that the Minister has acted upon it. However, the following five recommendations remain particularly relevant to the problem of private workers being classified as illegal brothel workers. The recommendations are as follows. First, the Minister for Planning should seek to amend the definition of a brothe The final report of the Sex Services Premises Planning Advisory Panel to the Minister for Planning included advice to assist in implementing the guidelines. Although 2½ years have passed since that advice was delivered to the Minister, there is little evidence that the Minister has acted upon it. However, the following five recommendations remain particularly relevant to the problem of private workers being classified as illegal brothel workers. The recommendations are as follows. First, the Minister for Planning should seek to amend the definition of a brothel in the State Restricted Premises Act 1943 to differentiate between commercial and home­based sex services premises. Second, the Government should develop a statewide policy to treat all home occupations equitably on the basis of amenity impacts. Third, the definitions from the guidelines should be included in the standard local environmental plan template. Fourth, the Minister for Planning should establish a small panel to assist and/or advise councils in applying the guidelines. Fifth, resources should be made available to enable training workshops for councils. I foreshadow that the Greens will move a number of amendments to the bill in Committee. However, the bill is inherently flawed and may have consequences that were not considered during its drafting. Parliament will be taking an extraordinarily backward step if it decides to pass the bill.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [8.06 p.m.]: The purpose of the Brothels Legislation Amendment Bill is to enact amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Restricted Premises Act 1943 to implement measures for the more effective closure of illegal brothels. The Disorderly Houses Act 1995 made it illegal to operate a brothel in New South Wales unless development consent had first been obtained from the respective local council. This moved planning control from the State Government to councils, and a number of deficiencies became evident, including councils having difficulty distinguishing between escort agencies and brothels. These difficulties forced council officers to hire private detectives to disguise themselves as clients in order to get proof of the true nature of the illegal business being conducted on the premises.

In November 2001 the Brothel Review Task Force report identified a number of issues of concern regarding the practice of local councils restricting brothels to industrial areas: it compromised the safety of sex workers; most small illegal brothels with one or two prostitutes locate mainly in residential areas; and some councils do not have industrial or commercial areas for brothels to locate in. The task force found that the continuation of illegal brothels and the inability of legal brothels to be established was undesirable because it may encourage street sex work, the amenity impacts are not controlled through development consent provisions, illegal operators are vulnerable to corrupt conduct by council officials—that has been mentioned tonight; and, prior to the 1995 reforms, it would have been police officers—and illegal operators are less likely to access occupational health and safety programs.

Despite having development control plans in place that avoid schools, churches and family homes, councils still cannot control the location of brothels when the operators defy the rules. Under the current system, applicants can still use State environmental planning policy No. 1 to avoid council's planning decisions, with ongoing court costs to ratepayers. There are dangers under the current system of exploitation of sex workers in these illegal brothels especially concerning underage prostitutes, street prostitution and illegal migrants.

This bill will assist local councils to prove the existence of an illegal brothel. It enables councils to use circumstantial evidence. It will facilitate the capacity of the Land and Environment Court to make orders to shut down brothels or impede their operation via orders to shut down gas, electricity and water, achieving the same end result. Council orders to close illegal brothels would be effective within five working days. This bill will widen the definition of "brothel" in both Acts from a premise used for the purposes of prostitution to include premises advertised for prostitution. Loopholes by which an illegal brothel owner could avoid prosecution by selling or transferring a lease would also be closed. The loopholes in the current legislation, which was introduced by the Labor Party in 1995, have been creating problems for local councils. This bill will now target those illegal operators who look for ways to avoid prosecution or closure of their operations. A new offence is created for failing to comply with an order to close down an illegal brothel and financial penalties will be increased for repeat offenders. Court procedures will be streamlined so that local councils and residents can trigger swifter action when an illegal brothel is detected.

I have been a councillor, mayor and deputy mayor of Hurstville City Council for 16 years and I have served on the Australian Local Government Women's Association for many years as its president and now life member. I can attest to the anger of councils in representing their powerless residents whilst fighting losing battles against shady brothel operators who would rent out units and homes in false names and set up "massage parlours", pull up stumps once complaints mounted, only to move elsewhere and start up all over again. We need to give families back their neighbourhoods. Mothers should feel safe about allowing their children to play outdoors in their neighbourhood. Mothers should not be anxious about their children seeing illegal trading occurring next door or in a suburban block of units.

The bill will restore some control to the owners of strata title properties as to what goes on in their buildings when persons try to operate an illegal brothel out of one of the units in their block. The bill will restore control to councils over what goes on in their area, without costing ratepayers a bundle in legal costs due to councils being forced into many months of litigation under present laws to prove that a brothel is illegal and not an escort agency. The bill will give some protection to young women and men who can be vulnerable to unscrupulous illegal brothel operators offering homeless young persons a roof over their heads at an enormous human cost.

The Coalition has long argued the necessity to improve legislative capacity to close illegal brothels. Residents affected by such illegal brothels have been most concerned about the adverse impact of these illegal operations on the amenity of their neighbourhoods, particularly from the point of view of increased risk of higher crime rates. Previously the Coalition has presented similar bills to the one before us today. In 2001 John Brogden introduced the Community Protection (Illegal Brothels) Bill and in 2003 Peta Seaton introduced the Community Protection (Closure of Illegal Brothels) Bill. However, in the past this Government repeatedly voted against all Coalition efforts to strengthen laws to close down illegal brothels. This Labor Government has previously rejected all attempts to close the loopholes. The Government voted against the current Speaker of the other place, Richard Torbay, when he introduced his private member's bill in 2001. It was very similar to the one before us today. It is ironic that this Government, after 12 years of resistance, has finally woken up to community concerns and taken action. Although it is 12 years too late, we are happy it is here.

Local councils' capacity to rely on circumstantial evidence will lessen the reliance that councils have had in the past of paying private investigators to go into premises suspected to be operating as brothels and gather evidence—such as having sexual intercourse with prostitutes—to give in court of the brothel's existence. The reliance on circumstantial evidence will now facilitate prosecutions and court orders to shut premises and/or shut off utilities. Such measures will reduce unnecessary costs for local councils associated with their past reliance on private investigators and the costs associated with prolonged or failed court proceedings.

The New South Wales Government has in the past introduced reforms under the Disorderly Houses Amendment Act 1995 to uphold the health and safety of sex workers and their clients and to reduce potential corruption in the control of prostitution. Sex workers have had their rights strengthened under the occupational health and safety laws to ensure a safe and legal workplace. Legislators have been responsible for protecting the rights of these users and employees of brothels in New South Wales. It is now time to protect residents and local environments adversely affected by illegal brothels. Many hundreds of premises are operating under the cover of the law and the required local government controls.

Sex service premises have been decriminalised and have been able to operate as legitimate businesses in New South Wales for 12 years. They exist in almost all local government areas in New South Wales. It is estimated that around 750 brothels are known to authorities across New South Wales. However, only approximately 125 of these premises have development consent, with the majority of brothels remaining unauthorised or illegal. Councils have had a difficult time in regulating these illegal brothels. In a lot of instances the operators of such brothels keep on the move, using rental accommodation to keep a step ahead of council inspectors and police officers.

Brothels are a reality and have been throughout history. The best way to ensure they operate correctly is to regulate them under ever-improving New South Wales legislation and to enable local councils to do their job properly. The bill will give the much-needed powers to councils. The Local Government Association and many individual councils have been lobbying for such changes for many years, both before and after legislation was introduced in 1995. The New South Wales sex industry is regulated by local councils via planning and health controls, WorkCover New South Wales for occupational health and safety aspects, and NSW Health for the public health management of employees and clients. The report of the Brothels Task Force in 2001 noted:

The reforms allow brothels to be regulated in much the same way as any other business. This enables proper control over their impact on communities, through locational and management requirements, as well as enhancing proper health and safety practices.

These reforms came about because it was well recognised that prohibition drives brothels underground, making it impossible to regulate their location, ensure health and safety standards, and provide a rational response to community concerns. When brothels operate illegally it makes implementing effective HIV and other sexually transmitted disease prevention strategies and ensuring health and safety standards very difficult. Despite the myths about decimalisation, the number of brothels and the effective regulation of the sex industry have not changed substantially since decriminalisation. There remain issues of concern with regard to the control of prostitution in this State ¾ namely, street prostitution and sex slavery involving illegal immigrants. These issues need further attention as police enforcement alone has not solved the problem. A broad range of cooperative measures are needed.
The bill, as has been the case with the Coalition private members' bills that were debated and rejected by this Government in 2001 and 2003, will restore powers to local councils to more effectively and swiftly close down illegal brothels in New South Wales. It will help to minimise the legal costs to ratepayers associated with such necessary action. It will do much to restore neighbourhood security for families. It will lessen the adverse impact on local amenities and property values by the operation of illegal brothels in this State. The Coalition does not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.18 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Brothels Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. I congratulate the Government on introducing this bill to fill the holes that occurred in the original Disorderly Houses Act of 1995, which was badly drafted and has caused many problems. Basically, the Government threw the hot potato of brothels into the lap of councils without giving councils the power to deal with it. That is why we have had all this controversy and anger in many councils over the past 12 years. The bill has been long overdue.

As honourable members know, during my time in this Parliament I have actively opposed brothels because I believe many are linked with organised crime and involve exploitation of the women who work in them. I recall a lady who was obviously upset ringing me and saying she was a prostitute in a Hurstville brothel—perhaps one of those referred to by the Hon. Marie Ficarra. She told me she was being intimidated by the men running that establishment. I said, "Do you want help?" She said, "Yes, but not for me ¾ for my 16­year-old daughter. She is being forced to work in the brothel with me." We hear of these ugly stories about some brothels—perhaps not all, but some.

Another case I was following up involved a George Street brothel that was exploiting Asian women. They were basically locked in the building. Though they had access to the roof, they were not allowed to leave the building at all. This continued until immigration authorities eventually caught up with the operator and took action. This State needs legislation dealing with brothels because councils that tried to close brothels under the 1995 Act found that almost impossible. They had to go through lengthy court cases and incur heavy legal expenses, sometimes costing ratepayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. So there has been an urgent need for this sort of legislation to enable councils to take action to close illegal brothels ¾ that is, brothels they have not approved.

What will this bill do? We already have a number of pieces of legislation that we have debated over the years. This bill will not deal with all types of prostitution, such as street prostitution, which is also legal in New South Wales. That is dealt with in other Acts of Parliament. The bill being discussed tonight deals with the regulation of brothels and, where necessary, how to close illegal brothels. The Brothels Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 will enable brothel closure orders to commence after five working days. It makes additional provision in relation to the enforcement of brothel closure orders and other breaches relating to brothels, including limiting adjournments. This is important because lawyers representing brothels have used every legal tactic they can to delay court action and therefore keep a brothel operating, until finally the brothel owner reluctantly moves the operation to another location.

The bill makes clear that the Land and Environment Court may rely on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence, of the use of premises when determining whether there is a breach of a requirement relating to brothels. We know of past reports that have been very embarrassing for councils that had to employ private investigators, who themselves or their representatives paid for the services of prostitutes so that they could give evidence in a court that premises are brothels. That was a very degrading process, and I am pleased it will no longer be necessary.

What is "circumstantial evidence"? That has not been spelt out in the bill. There are various levels of circumstantial evidence. It could be evidence that queues of men have been going into a particular building. The definition of "circumstantial evidence" needs to be spelt out, because my years of involvement with the issue tell me that illegal brothel operators will pay expensive lawyers to find loopholes in this legislation if they can. I imagine that the regulations will spell out what sort of evidence will be proper circumstantial evidence under this bill.

The bill has a unique provision. A council that is having trouble closing an illegal brothel can seek utilities orders prohibiting the supply of water, electricity or gas to brothel premises. I had previously asked the Government—because councils do not control such utilities, which are operated by private companies—what machinery could be put in place to enable a council to order, for example, Integral Energy not to supply an electricity service to customers. That could cause legal problems in the future. I would prefer that councils have absolute powers to approve brothels or to close illegal brothels, rather than having to go to the Land and Environment Court at all. As court proceedings are expensive, why not entrust local government with powers to control this activity?

The bill expands the definition of a brothel that may be subject to an order under the Restricted Premises Act 1943 to include premises that have been advertised or represented to be used for prostitution and are likely to be used for that purpose. Originally, it was hoped that any premises advertising prostitution would be regarded as brothels and therefore could be closed. Brothel owners cleverly framed advertisements to make it clear that they were providing sexual services and that women were available to provide those services, but included with the advertisement "no prostitution". Though the advertisement made it clear that prostitution services were being offered, that was a way of circumventing the prohibition on advertising.

I do not normally study brothel advertisements in newspapers, but today's Daily Telegraph has two or three pages of advertisements which, to me as a layman, appear to indicate that those establishments are operating as brothels. Sydney's Golden Apple, Liaisons and Victoria's Secrets have quite large advertisements in the Daily Telegraph , along with Impressions, Black Cat, Cleopatra's and so on. Those brothels are openly advertising in a major Sydney tabloid which members are supplied by the Parliament. I believe strong action should be taken.

I do not know the solution to this problem. If it is a legal establishment, the advertisement could carry a notation that it is a legal brothel, along with legal provision that only legal brothels may advertise. All of the brothels advertised in the Daily Telegraph might be legal, but I very much doubt that because there are so many of them, and I understand there are a relatively small number of legal brothels in the Sydney area. I am pleased that the Government has introduced this legislation. Hopefully, it will prove to be effective. We will have to monitor its operation.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [8.28 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the Brothels Legislation Amendment Bill. I note the general support for the overall provisions. I shall make a number of points in reply. The bill is about giving local government and other planning authorities powers to properly regulate the activities of brothels. I think that is one point on which there was consensus in the lengthy narratives of Ms Sylvia Hale and the Hon. Marie Ficarra. That is what the bill proposes. It seeks to clarify and strengthen the general policy position that the activities of brothels are no longer to be regulated under the criminal and moral codes, but rather purely on issues around planning and amenity. That reflects what I think is a move towards community consensus on this issue.

Both the honourable members I mentioned gave considered and lengthy accounts of the bill. I became confused at one stage. All of the contributions did not seem to relate to the bill; rather, they related to matters tangential to the bill, such as local government corruption. Those matters have now been placed on the record and I am sure the relevant Minister will consider them in detail at an appropriate time. I disagree with one statement made by Ms Sylvia Hale. Every business that operates in New South Wales is subject to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and criminal sanction. That is a general public policy position which, in the normal course of events, is enthusiastically supported by the Greens. I do not understand her comment in that respect or its implications for this bill.

I repeat the general position that local government has the usual planning and other powers in relation to the sex industry and brothels. I make it clear that the Government is not of a mind to introduce draconian provisions such as those Ms Sylvia Hale argued had an implication for people operating single home-based sex industry activities. The Government will consider amendments when they are moved in Committee. I make the point that although the Government does not support draconian provisions in relation to brothels operating as home-based businesses, home-based businesses are subject to local government regulatory activity regardless of the activity that is conducted. To say that the industry should be completely unregulated is to almost flip the argument on its head. It seems to be a political point pushed for its own sake. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.34 p.m.], by leave: I move Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], lines 6 and 7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

brothel means a brothel within the meaning of the Restricted Premises Act 1943 , other than premises used or likely to be used for the purposes of prostitution by no more than one prostitute.

No. 2 Page 6, schedule 1 [3], proposed section 124AB (1), line 30. Insert "Subsections (5) and (6) extend to any such proceedings in relation to all brothels within the meaning of the Restricted Premises Act 1943." after "brothel.".

These amendments clarify the definition of "brothel" to make it clear in this legislation, as distinct from referring to the Restricted Premises Act 1943. It simply includes a consistent definition of "brothel".

Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.35 p.m.]: I have an amendment similar to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's amendment No. 2. If the amendments moved by the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile pass, they will preclude me moving my amendment. I ask that they be dealt with at the same time. The definition in the amendments of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile refers to only one person, whereas my amendment provides that premises do not constitute a brothel if operated by no more than two.

The CHAIR: Order! The Committee can deal with Greens amendment No. 3 later. Even if the Christian Democratic Party amendments are agreed to, the Committee would not be precluded from agreeing to an amendment that is inconsistent with another amendment that has already been agreed to. The member could not, however, move an amendment that is in conflict with an amendment that has been agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.36 p.m.]: I seek clarification. If a brothel is defined as having one operator as opposed to two operators, that would be inconsistent. In any event, I will speak briefly on the amendments moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. I would be very unhappy with a provision whereby only one sex worker is provided for in the definition. In terms of safety of the operators, it is beneficial to have a second person on the premises. A worker would not feel secure inviting a person onto their premises if they were by themselves. I do not believe that two sex workers working from the same premises would necessarily have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood. Clearly, as I said in my earlier remarks, discretion is the essence of a sex worker operating from a home. It is highly desirable that the number of sex workers engaging in occupational home-based sex work should be two, rather than one.

The CHAIR: To clarify the matter, Ms Sylvia Hale may, with the leave of the Committee, move Greens amendment No. 3 so that both amendments, although inconsistent, are before the Committee.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.41 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 9, schedule 2 [1], lines 17 and 18. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

Premises do not constitute a brothel if used by no more than 2 prostitutes whose earnings from prostitution are not shared with any other person who acts as an agent or procurer.

The amendment relates to the Restricted Premises Act and the definition contained therein. The wording of the amendment is based on legislation in Tasmania and New Zealand. My understanding is that restricting it to one sex worker is based on the fear that if you allow more than one, a pimp could be involved. The Government was anxious to prevent that from happening. I will outline the benefits of the definition in the amendment, which will address a number of issues.

First, it will reduce the number of unauthorised or illegal brothels. Second, it will prevent commercial brothels from masquerading as the homes of private sex workers. Third, it will remove the potential for third party involvement, for example pimps. Fourth, council powers to close the homes of private sex workers will come under a new definition. Fifth, it will eliminate the potential for corrupt conduct in relation to private sex workers. Sixth, the amendment is in line with the Premier's pre-election promise.

I will expand on each of the six points, and in doing so I acknowledge the assistance of the Scarlet Alliance, which represents a number of sex worker organisations. First, Greens amendment No. 3 will reduce the number of unauthorised or illegal brothels by up to 40 per cent if the homes of private sex workers are removed from the definition of a brothel. This can be promoted as one of the ways in which the Government is addressing community concerns about brothels. It will allow councils to use their resources to more effectively address genuine community concerns about commercial, unauthorised or illegal brothels—the big commercial ones.

Second, one of the chief benefits of the amendment is that it will affect industry employers who abuse the system by setting up a number of employees in individual premises. The amendment will prevent apartment blocks from being seconded for commercial operation under the guise of use by individual sex workers. For the first time, councils will be able to take effective action against such operators. This is covered in the definition, which provides that premises are not a brothel if the earnings from prostitution are not shared with any other person who acts as an agent or a procurer.

Third, pimps are not a feature of the Australian sex industry. However, control over individual sex workers by a third party is often raised as a concern in the development of sex industry regulations. In 2003 the New Zealand Government introduced the proviso "retain control over his or her individual earnings" as a way to reduce the potential for the involvement of a third party. Fourth, council closure powers would be enhanced. Council already has a number of regulatory options to address impacts on the amenity of the area.

The new definitions will apply to all home occupations and private sector sex workers. They include the power of council to investigate the complaint, contact the subject of the complaint to address the concern and seek a change in the work practices to alleviate the impact on the amenity of the area. If council receives further or continued complaints about the premises having significantly diverse impacts on the amenity of the area it can order the person to cease operation or work in a restricted manner, or require the person to apply for development approval. It does not restrict councils' powers in any respect.

Fifth, as indicated earlier, the Independent Commission Against Corruption is investigating allegations of corrupt council conduct in relation to the sex industry. By removing individual sex workers from the definition of a brothel, one reduces the potential for corruption. If it is a one-to-one situation there is no possibility of people having evidence validated by another person. As I indicated earlier, the final report of the task force identified policies that do not allow home-based sex workers to operate in residential zones and forces this sector of the sex industry to operate illegally. As Marie Ficarra said, this leaves them vulnerable to corrupt conduct by council officers.

Sixth, to adopt the amendment is not contrary to the pre-election promise made by the Premier. The amendment is not a step back from his promise to give councils further powers to take action against unauthorised brothels. Instead, the amendment makes a logical distinction between commercial brothels and private sex workers. This distinction is in line with the community's general understanding of the term "brothel".

When most people think of brothel they think of an undertaking involving a number of workers. They do not think of someone operating privately from his or her home. The definition, particularly as it permits no more than two people to work, is advantageous because it closes a loophole in the legislation that would allow a large commercial operator to set up a bogus operation whereby a whole apartment block is filled with individual workers whose earnings are funnelled to the commercial brothel operator. Green's amendment No. 3 closes the loopholes. It does not leave the system open to be taken advantage of in a way that is not envisaged, as I understand, by the Premier or the Parliament.

The CHAIR: Order! I realise that the members of the public in the gallery have been waiting quite some time for this debate to come on. However, it is not in order for people in the public gallery to participate in debate in any way either by verbal contribution or by clapping. Such interruptions do not facilitate the efficient consideration of the bill.

Question—That Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 1 and 2 agreed to.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 3 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendment No. 3 negatived.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.53 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 121ZR (2), lines 29–35. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 121ZR (5), lines 12–16. Omit all words on those lines.

The first amendment omits from schedule 1 subsection 121ZR (2), which is headed "natural justice requirements not applicable". It exempts the persons who would issue orders from certain requirements that currently apply under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The requirements are listed in sections 121G to 121K of the Act and they refer to orders that "make or are likely to make residents homeless". Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act councils cannot seek an order that would force people onto the street. That is surely the ultimate sanction in any society. In fact, as far as I know, to be able to render people homeless is in definite contravention of our international obligations under any number of treaties. This is an extraordinarily draconian provision. It not only has the potential to render people homeless but also to strip them of their livelihood. This is an unconscionable provision.

The second of the requirements that will not be applicable is that the person to whom the order is to be issued is to be given notice of a proposed order. Anyone who is familiar with council orders would know that people are usually given notice and have time to respond and to make representations and then those representations can be heard and a decision made. If members believe in any system of justice, the basis of it would be that people be given notice and the chance to put their case and to be heard. In fact, these provisions dispense with the need to give notice and the ability of the person on whom the notice is served to make representations. They also dispense with any need even to consider those representations.

What would happen in the case where a competitor or a person with malicious intent selects someone who is sexually active, who has a number of partners and who is operating from their house or unit, for some reason that has nothing to do with the activities going on and makes a complaint to council and council issues an order? The person against whom that order is issued will not have the opportunity to dispute what could be a wrong, ill-informed, ignorant or false accusation. They have been stripped of that power. That is incredibly unfair and contrary to basic principles of justice. The provisions also dispense with the appropriate procedures after the hearing and consideration of representations. It is obviously a very poor provision.

The second amendment allows brothels to revert to the status quo. It provides that a brothel would receive reasonable notice of an order just like any other business operating without development approval. The bill specifies only five days notice. The Greens seek to amend the legislation to revert to 28 days notice, which is the usual requirement. I commend the Greens amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [8.57 p.m.]: The Government does not support the Greens' amendments. Some of the scenarios described by Ms Hale would not occur in practice because the requirement to be served is retained. All of the normal procedures that would otherwise be involved still apply. I commend the provisions to the Committee.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.58 p.m.]: The schedule clearly states that natural justice requirements are not applicable; it clearly removes those provisions in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that protect those procedures. The Minister is wrong in his assertion. This legislation deliberately states that the provisions relating to making residents homeless, notice being given of a proposed order and requiring representations do not apply. The purpose of this legislation is to repeal those provisions in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the title suggests that it is a denial of natural justice.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [8.59 p.m.]: That was not the point I was making. The issue I canvassed is the point made by Ms Hale. It is not uncommon for this kind of legislation to contain statutory provisions that ensure notice is given and so on. As I said, the notice must still be served. It is not uncommon for statutory provisions to replace the normal processes of natural justice in legislation.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.59 p.m.]: If that is the case, why are they being deliberately excluded by the provisions of the bill? If the Minister is saying that the provisions of natural justice will apply, why is the bill deliberately excluding them?
Question—That Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 negatived.

Question—That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [9.01 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 4:

No. 4 Page 10, schedule 2 [4] and [5], lines 16–21. Omit all words on those lines.

The purpose of this amendment is to try to remove the possibility of a single complaint giving rise to an order. As the legislation is worded it is possible for just one complaint, no matter how unwarranted, unfounded or incorrect, to give rise to an order. I believe the very existence of that power opens the potential for corruption. By stipulating a minimal requirement that may have implications for women, particularly married women, and for men as well, the bill makes them incredibly vulnerable. Their entire livelihood is at stake and it rests upon the whim of a council officer or the deliberate intent of a competitor, such as a large commercial operator, or even a single sex worker or a neighbour. The provision has the potential to deprive someone of their livelihood and their home.

If the Greens amendment is passed and the provision is deleted, the status quo of sufficient complaints relating to a brothel being the basis for issuing an order will remain in force. In the context that the bill is likely to be passed, that seems to me to be a far safer provision than allowing the process of issuing an order to be triggered by the making of only one complaint.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.04 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 10, schedule 2 [4], lines 16–19. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

[4] Section 17 (2A)

Insert after section 17 (2):

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), one complaint may be sufficient to warrant the making of an application in the case of a brothel used or likely to be used for the purposes of prostitution by 2 or more prostitutes.

This amendment is intended to clarify the complaints procedure that should be followed. If the amendment is passed, it will mean that in the case of a single prostitute, the council will need sufficient complaints, a term that is referred to in other legislation, such as the Restricted Premises Act. The procedure is based not on one complaint, but on multiple complaints, and the council is required to make an assessment of whether the complaints justify the taking of action. My amendment provides that if two or more complaints are received, only one complaint would be required.

The amendment is intended to prevent the making of malicious or vindictive complaints by one person against a single woman or a sole female parent who is living in a unit and has been accused of being a prostitute. If the council takes action and orders the woman to move out of the unit or house in five days, she would have to go to court to defend the action. That would not be fair or just. I asked the Committee to support my amendment.

CHAIR: Because the amendments conflict, I will first put the Christian Democratic Party amendment. If that is carried, the first part of the Greens amendment, to delete lines 16 to 19, will lapse. I will then put the second part of the Greens amendment, which seeks to delete lines 20 and 21.

Question—That Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 3 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 3 agreed to.

CHAIR: The first part of Greens amendment No. 4, to delete lines 16 to 19, is redundant. I will, however, put the question on the second part of the Greens amendment, which seeks to delete lines 20 and 21.
Question—That Greens amendment No. 4 (to delete lines 20 and 21) be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendment No. 4 (to delete lines 20 and 21) negatived.

Question—That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendments.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.10 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.

This bill will amend the Constitution Act 1902 to enable the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to participate in debates and discussions and to enable the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to cast a deliberative vote when another Member is presiding.

The Constitution Act does not currently contain any express provision which would permit a Speaker to take a position during debate or to exercise a deliberative vote on matters which come before the House.

That includes matters which specifically affect the Speaker's electorate.

While the Speaker is able to exercise a casting vote in the event of an equality of votes, the instances where this occurs are rare. As such, the Speaker is generally unable to reflect the views of his electorate.

This issue has been highlighted by the decision of the Legislative Assembly to elect an independent Member of this House as Speaker.

Further, the issue is now of even greater importance given the recent adoption of new Standing Orders for the Legislative Assembly, which have dispensed with the Committee of the Whole procedure.

Under the previous Standing Orders, amendments to bills were debated by the Committee of the Whole. The Committee was presided over by the Chairman of Committees.

The Speaker was able to participate in debates and cast a deliberative vote in Committee.

This bill will amend the Constitution Act to ensure that. if a matter arises upon which the Speaker needs to take a position in the interests of his or her electorate the Speaker will be able to do so.

The Speaker like every other Member of this House represents a particular electorate. It is important for the Speaker to be able to give a voice to that electorate.

This is especially critical where the Speaker is not affiliated with a political party which has other representatives in the House.

Where matters come before the House which particularly affect the Speaker's electorate the Speaker should be able to relinquish the Chair in order to participate in debates and to exercise a deliberative vote.

The amendments proposed in this bill will not undermine the status or role of the Speaker. Nor will they affect the Speaker's ability to perform the functions of a presiding officer in a fair and proper manner.

Clearly, confidence in the impartial exercise of functions by the Speaker is essential for the effective working of the Parliament.

However, the Speaker also has responsibilities to the electorate which elected him or her.

The Speaker needs to be able to perform and balance both responsibilities: as fair and impartial presiding officer and as the representative of a particular electorate.

Experience demonstrates that the ability of a Member to discharge the duties as a presiding officer with fairness and impartiality is not affected by the fact that the Member may have taken a position on a particular issue during debate.

Further, allowing the Speaker to vote when not presiding should not affect his or her capacity to exercise the functions of a presiding officer at other times.

Deputy and acting speakers already do this. The Speaker also used to be able to do this under the previous arrangements, which allowed the Speaker to participate in proceedings in the Committee of the Whole.

I turn now to the particular provisions of the bill.

Item 1 of the schedule amends section 31 of the Constitution Act by inserting a new sub-section (4). The new sub-section provides that the Speaker may take part in any debate or discussion and vote on any question in the Legislative Assembly, when he or she is not presiding.

It is noted that a new Standing Order may be required to provide for the circumstances in which the Speaker may relinquish the Chair in order to participate in debates and vote.

Item 2 of the schedule amends section 32(1) of the Constitution Act to clarify that it is the presiding Member whether that be the Speaker or another Member who is excluded for the purposes of determining whether there is a quorum.

If the Speaker is present in the House, but is not presiding, then the Speaker will be counted for the purposes of determining whether there is a quorum.

Item 3 of the schedule amends section 32(2) of the Constitution Act to clarify that it is the presiding Member again whether that be the Speaker or another Member who is precluded from casting a deliberative vote, but who has a casting vote in the event of an equality of votes.

I note that this bill does not expressly or by implication amend any of the provisions of the Constitution Act relating to the proceedings in the Legislative Council.

The bill is not intended to affect or change in any way the position or powers of the President of that House.

This bill is consistent with the democratic principles of this House. It is about ensuring that the constituents of every electorate in New South Wales are properly represented.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [9.10 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Constitution Amendment (Speaker) Bill 2007. Given that it was debated at some length in the other place, as one can imagine, and given that it concerns the presiding officer of that place, I propose to speak only briefly to it. However, I encourage interested members to read the debate in the other place. Even though it is a matter to do with the Constitution Act, which theoretically this House could amend, once the other House has made a decision about a matter so important to it, that is where the matter should rest. I reiterate that the Opposition will not oppose the bill or support amendments to it in this House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.11 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Constitution Amendment (Speaker) Bill 2007, which will enable the Speaker, when not presiding in the Legislative Assembly, to take part in debate and discussion and to vote. As the Hon. Don Harwin said, the bill solely affects the other place, but under the Constitution it has to be passed by this House. I believe that both Houses should respect each other, that the decisions we make in this place are the province of this House and the decisions the other place makes are its province, and therefore we should fully concur with that House's decision.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.12 p.m.]: This bill enables the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to participate in parliamentary debates and discussions and to cast a deliberative vote when not presiding in the House. We recognise that the current context for this bill—having an independent Speaker in the Legislative Assembly—is unique. The Greens welcome having Mr Torbay in the role of Speaker in that House. It is a step forward to share positions between the various parties and the Independents, rather than have a Government monopoly on parliamentary positions. I congratulate the Government on this move. We rarely see independent, creative and visionary thinking by the Government, but in this case it has made a good move. It is a reminder that the Government could do so much more.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: We could have an Independent too.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The last thing you are is independent. Come on, Fred. Let us be honest about it. We also recognise that, as an Independent, Mr Torbay is elected to represent the views and interests of his constituents. In the case of a Speaker aligned with a major party, the assumption has been that the Speaker can absent himself or herself from parliamentary debate and decision making because other members of the political party can pick up the slack. As an Independent, Mr Torbay does not have this luxury.

The bill goes some way to address that problem for Mr Torbay, and for future Speakers who are Independents or in smaller parties. However, the Greens are concerned that the bill is not drafted tightly enough to maintain independence in the Speaker. Confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Speaker is essential for the effective working of Parliament. Speakers in the Westminster system are meant to be independent, regardless of whether they are aligned with a major party. This is why Speakers have not been able to speak or vote on bills. Their role is to be independent and to rule on debate. I have done research on this issue and have found that Speakers in parliaments in South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia and in the Federal Parliament do not as a general rule participate in debate. This lack of precedent should itself ring a cautionary bell, to ensure that the bill is very carefully drafted and considered.

I raise two concerns in particular. Firstly, how will the House judge which matters are deemed to affect the Speaker's electorate? Surely an argument can be mounted that almost any issue is important to an electorate. Public education and health, for example, are of interest to each electorate, as are political donations, public transport, water, and climate change. In a minority government, where those final few votes matter greatly, this could make the Speaker's discretion about whether to vote very important—and, indeed, the situation could be open to abuse and influence.

My second concern is that the bill goes beyond Mr Torbay and this parliamentary term. I question what would happen in the case of a minority government, as occurred during the Greiner years. Would the government in nominal power appoint a government member to Speaker and then pull back the Speaker's vote for very important pieces of legislation, forcing a non-government back-up Speaker into the role and tipping the numbers in the House? These are the scenarios that we should work through before voting on the bill.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I commend the visitors in the public gallery for the respect they have shown to this debate. I would ask people in the President's Gallery to show the same respect and to desist from conversing loudly while Ms Lee Rhiannon and other members are speaking.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Traditions and protocols drip from the walls in this place. We should not stick to a formula simply because it is a tradition. If we did that, as a woman, I would not be standing in this place. The Greens welcome Mr Torbay's appointment as Speaker and we wish him well for his term. We want to support legislation that makes it easier for parliamentary positions to be shared beyond government members; however, we have lingering concerns about the width of the cracks in the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.17 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.17 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [9.17 p.m.]: The next general local government elections are scheduled for September 2008, about 15 months from now. It is an opportune time, therefore, to undertake some necessary reform of the voting system. The current voting system involves two forms of voting: optional preferential voting for electing a mayor or in a ward where up to two councillors are to be elected; and proportional voting in a ward where more than two councillors are to be elected. These two systems are set out in schedules 4 and 5 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. In the proportional system candidates need to obtain a quota in order to be elected. The quota is determined by dividing the total number of first preference votes by one more than the number of candidates to be elected, and increasing the quotient by one.

Under the optional preferential system, in order to be elected a candidate requires a majority of 50 per cent plus one of the formal votes in the count. Under the preferential system, if no candidate receives more than half of the first preference votes the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and those votes are distributed to the remaining candidates according to the next preference shown on each ballot paper. This process of elimination continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes and is elected.

In multi-member electorates, when a first candidate is elected that candidate is excluded and all of that candidate's votes are redistributed according to the second preference until a second candidate gains a majority. The effect of this counting process, when combined with the ability to vote for groups as well as for individual candidates, is that voters can elect a first preference candidate and then have their vote transferred, at full value, to their second preference candidate, most commonly the next person in the same group. This means that in wards where two candidates are elected the counting system virtually ensures a winner-takes-all outcome rather than a genuine reflection of the level of support for each candidate or group.

To illustrate, I have compared the voting figures from the 2004 local government general elections for two councils: Shellharbour City Council, which has two councillors elected from each of its six wards using the optional preferential system, and Rockdale City Council, which has three councillors elected from each of its five wards using the proportional system. In five of Shellharbour's six wards both councillors were elected from the same group. Despite the primary vote for the winning group in each ward varying from as low as 29 per cent to no higher than 55.3 per cent, the winning group took 100 per cent of the elected positions. Most strikingly, in ward B, one group won both the elected positions after receiving only 29 per cent of the primary vote, whereas another group with 34.5 per cent of the primary vote gained no elected position.

In contrast, Rockdale's five wards all elected a councillor from each of three different groups. I would argue that the outcome in Shellharbour is less democratic than that in Rockdale. This can be demonstrated by comparing in both sets of results the disparity between the proportion of the primary vote won by the winning group in each ward and the proportion of the elected positions in each ward won by that group. In Shellharbour the disparity ranges from a low of 3.2, in a ward where 53.2 per cent of the vote delivered 50 per cent of the elected positions, to a maximum of 71 in the ward where 29 per cent of the primary vote delivered 100 per cent of the elected positions. The average disparity across all wards was 39.
In Rockdale the disparity ranged from a low of 1.3 to a high of 18.3. The average disparity across all wards was 9.9, a quarter of the average disparity in Shellharbour. If the purpose of a democratic voting system is to accurately reflect the views of the public, I would argue that the proportional system used in Rockdale proved to be four times more democratic than that used in Shellharbour. The optional preferential system makes sense only where there is a single candidate to be elected. The result in Shellharbour's ward B, where a group won both of the available positions, despite more than seven out of every ten voters giving their first preference to someone else, illustrates the perverse and undemocratic outcomes that result from using a preferential system in a multi-member electorate.

Where more than one candidate is to be elected, the proportional system clearly delivers a result that reflects much more accurately the will of the people. That is why both the Federal and the State electoral systems use preferential voting in single-member lower House electorates and the proportional system in multi­member upper House electorates. Similarly, the local government voting system should use optional preferential voting only in those contests where a single candidate is to be elected. In all other contests the proportional system delivers a far more democratic outcome.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.21 p.m.]: New South Wales is a State of abundant wealth—in our environment, in our people, in our diversity and in our spirit. We are able to care for all our citizens; that we do not is a burning injustice. Too many people live in poverty; too many experience violence; too many experience a society where they have no place. All our people deserve the opportunity to live with dignity and all our people deserve to be treated with respect. None of our citizens should be shut out of our State's prosperity. With that in mind I pay tribute to the social and community workers in New South Wales.

Community workers in this State are the people that we turn to when things are not going well. Our neighbourhood centres, refuges, disability services, drug and alcohol services, family support services and employment services are the first port of call to people who need help. Community services are the lifeline to those in our community who are shut out of our prosperity. The workers in those services are professionals who dedicate their working lives to making New South Wales a place that can assist and support all regardless of their circumstances. A strong and well-supported community sector workforce is an essential part of tackling social exclusion in our communities.

The Australian Services Union has recently released an excellent report that sets out how the social and community services sector workforce needs to be supported so that it can continue to play its vital role in supporting our most vulnerable people. The report is called "Building Social Inclusion in Australia: Priorities for the social and community services sector workforce". The report notes that the provision of adequate and appropriate social and community services is essential to Australia's social cohesion and the development of a fair and equitable society. If we are to build a society that is truly inclusive then we must find ways in which we can address the disadvantage of many of our citizens. Community services fulfil the direct needs of individuals and create social cohesion in their communities. That dual role means that the social and community services sector workforce is the key tool to improve the health and wellbeing of all Australians.

Research indicates that communities in which people can access community services have higher levels of social capital. Societies with high levels of social capital tend to have lower crime rates, improved child welfare, better public administration, reduced political corruption and more efficient capital and labour markets. They also have better education performance. The report demonstrates yet again the important role that unions are able to play, a role that contributes not just to the wellbeing of their members but to the wellbeing of our whole society. I commend the Australian Services Union for this important report, which sets out the needs of not only their members but the workforce as a whole.

In New South Wales the Government actively works with the community sector. More than half the budget of the New South Wales Department of Community Services is allocated to the community sector. The Government relies on the community sector to deliver the services that our citizens need. I am pleased that in the recent budget the New South Wales Government demonstrated its commitment to community sector workers by ensuring that their pay rise under the social and community services award was provided for through indexation. I note with concern that the Howard Government continues to fail the community sector by not funding indexation increases for joint funded programs such as the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program and the Home and Community Care Program. To ensure that services in our communities are not cut back, the Howard Government must come to the party and fund these workers appropriately. Social and community workers are the backbone of our community. I will continue to work with the workers and their union to ensure that all of our citizens are able to share in our prosperity.

I also put on the record some information that has come to me as a result of the debate we had about the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. I have changed some of the details so as to not identify the people concerned. A story has been relayed to me about a parent who wishes to pass on her thanks to this Parliament for allowing the injecting centre to remain open. She told the story of her daughter, who has been addicted to heroin since she was 16, and she is now 23. The mother has driven her daughter to the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre for her daughter to inject. The centre has revived her daughter on more than three occasions: the centre has saved her life.

The young woman's family has spent $5,000 to get her a naltrexone implant but that was not successful. The young woman is currently in treatment in a private facility and her mother remains concerned that that will not continue, and currently it is not going well. However, the mother believes that the decision taken by this Parliament is at least giving her daughter a chance to stay alive until she is ready to finally kick the habit, over which he has very little control.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [9.25 p.m.]: I advise the House of the Australian Women's Archive Project, an initiative that I strongly believe deserves the support of the New South Wales Government. The National Foundation for Australian Women's Archives Project began as a community-based organisation's response to a request from the Melbourne feminist, Mary Owen, to help with conserving the records of her long and varied contribution to public life. It has developed into a comprehensive resource that includes entries about the significant contribution of women to various professions and communities across Australia. I encourage all honourable members and the community to access the website at www.womenaustralia.info .

Records relating to suffrage activists and their successor groups, past and present women members of Parliament, the National Council of Women and associated groups, Women's Liberation, Aboriginal women, migrant and refugee women, women and labour organisations, rural and regional women's interest groups, philanthropic organisations and missionaries are also included in the register. In 2004 and 2005 the Government provided financial assistance that enabled the Australian Women's Archives Project to build a virtual exhibition entitled "Putting Skirts on the Sacred Benches", which documented women candidates for the New South Wales Parliament. New South Wales has come a long way since 1925, when Millicent Preston-Stanley became the first woman to serve in the Legislative Assembly, and 1931, when Catherine Green and Ellen Webster first served in the Legislative Council. But we still need more women members of this Parliament and the Federal Parliament.

On 20 June 2007 at the Australian Institute of Sport the Australian Women's Archives Project launched its virtual exhibition entitled "She's Game: Women Making Australian Sporting History", which includes women who have made significant contributions as players, coaches, managers, umpires, referees and administrators in sport. I congratulate Marie Colman, Patricia Ni Ivor, Anne Buttsworth, Ruth Medd, Nikki Henningham and Barbara Lemon and the many other women on all the work that they have done in developing and helping to continue this innovative and exciting project. The Australian Women's Archives Project deserves ongoing funding. For too long the outstanding contribution of women to our society has been ignored. I call upon the Government to provide funding assistance to this organisation, which is doing an excellent job to preserve the place of women in our country's history.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.29 p.m.]: On Wednesday 27 June 2007 the Australian Coal Association announced a $400 million fund for clean coal research. It was also announced simultaneously in this Chamber with great pride by the Minister for Energy, Mr Ian Macdonald. What the Minister did not tell the House was that the $400 million is over a 10-year period. The Minister and the Australian Coal Association are hoping that we do not have the capacity to divide by 10, but indeed we do, and that $400 million is only $40 million per year. Given the scale of the problems confronting clean coal, that is a trivial amount, particularly in an industry with an annual turnover of more than $12 billion in New South Wales alone.

The Minister also omitted to mention that the fund was going to be raised by a levy on coal production of a mere 20¢ per tonne. That 20¢ per tonne is less than 0.3 per cent of the average sale price of coal. In fact, coal producers will hardly notice the levy; it will be buried in the day-to-day fluctuations in price on the stock market. It cannot be termed a serious commitment to cleaning up the coal industry. On 27 June the Australian Coal Association's Mr Mark O'Neill said on ABC radio:

This is a genuine attempt to fix the problem, it's not a public relations exercise. If it is, it's a very expensive one.

Surely Mr O'Neill is being ironic when he says this is not a public relations exercise. Given that the sum involved is a fraction of the industry's