Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 26 September 2007, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 September 2007
______

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

The President offered the Prayers.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES

Portfolio Responsibilities

Motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca agreed to:

SOMERSBY SAND MINE

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

1. That this House notes:

2. That this House congratulates the Somersby community on their campaign to protect the natural beauty and resources of the area, and the health of their children.

3. That this House commends and endorses the bipartisan approach to the proposal by the local State and Federal members of Parliament, the Hon. Jim Lloyd, member for Robertson, and Ms Marie Andrews, member for Gosford.

SENIOR SERGEANT ROSS PARRY

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That this House:

(a) acknowledges the dedication to the people of New South Wales of Senior Sergeant Ross Parry in a career with the New South Wales Police Force which spanned 47 years,

UNPROCLAIMED LEGISLATION

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 25 September 2007.

PETITIONS

Killalea State Park

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.

Flags Displayed in the Legislative Council Chamber

Petition requesting that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags be displayed along with the New South Wales and Australian flags in the Legislative Council Chamber, received from the Hon. Lynda Voltz.

Same-sex Marriage Legislation

Petition opposing any legislative changes that would violate the basic principles of marriage, and opposing same-sex marriage legislation, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Unborn Child Protection

Petition requesting statistical reporting of abortions, legislative protection of foetuses of 20 weeks gestation, and availability of resources for post-abortion follow-up, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Child Abuse in Indigenous Communities

Petition objecting to the Government's response to child abuse in the indigenous community of New South Wales, urging the Government to reject any proposal to use army personnel in carrying out its child protection responsibilities, and requesting that the House give urgent consideration to implementing the recommendations contained in the report of the New South Wales Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce entitled "Breaking the Silence: Creating the Future", received from the Hon. Helen Westwood.

Greyhound and Harness Racing

Petition objecting to the amalgamation of the Greyhound Racing Authority and Harness Racing New South Wales, calling for the abolition of the current two-board system, and requesting that the House instigate a committee inquiry into the administration of Greyhound Racing New South Wales, received from the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox.

Female Boxing Matches

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.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Committee Reports—Orders of the Day and the Budget Estimates—Take Note Debate postponed on motion by the Hon. John Della Bosca.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL AND POLITICAL PARTY FUNDING

Membership

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the crossbench members have not reached agreement about representation on the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding. The following members have written to the Clerk nominating themselves for membership of the committee:

According to standing orders, I advise that, in the absence of agreement, representation on the committee is to be determined by the House.

Ballot

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.14 a.m.]: I move:

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) [11.15 a.m.], in reply: I am unaware of any precedent that would encourage me to accept the member's amendment.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: That's not an argument.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It may not be an argument but it is information for the benefit of the House. This is without precedent. I do not recollect the House ever allowing members to speak during a ballot. I think members are well aware of the three candidates and their qualities, and are probably in a position to vote. If members have a different view they can vote me down.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.17 a.m.]: I submit myself to the will of the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.17 a.m.]: As there is no precedent for this procedure, I submit myself to the will of the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.18 a.m.]: In setting up inquiries, we obviously look for balance. We see that with this inquiry: two Labor members, two Liberals and two crossbench members. When it comes to the crossbench members, we are not one party. I urge members to consider that we have balance within the crossbench. I also urge members to vote for me as well as one of the other members; otherwise, if Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Robert Brown are successful, we will have two crossbench members from one side of politics, so to speak. For six years the Greens have conducted a major project on political donations. Media people regularly use our data. I have written extensively about donations and the disclosure process.

We have a dedicated website on this issue. I have worked closely with many academics in the area and I look forward to working constructively with other members of this committee to delve into this complex issue of donations and the disclosure to which we all have to submit so that we can improve the current process.
The President informed members of the procedure to be adopted for the conduct of the ballot pursuant to Standing Order 135.

[The ballot was conducted.]

Declaration of Ballot

The President declared the Hon. Robert Brown and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, they having received the greater number of votes in the ballot, as the crossbench members of the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding.

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Report: Citizen's Right of Reply (Mr R. Bailey)

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [11.33 a.m.]: I move:

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.34 a.m.]: I welcome the right of Mr Bailey to respond to a speech I made on 20 June 2007 that contained allegations in respect of Redeemer Baptist Church. I will not oppose the motion to incorporate his response in Hansard. That is totally appropriate and there ought to be debate on this matter. However, I place on record certain facts in relation to this case. On 20 June 2007 in an adjournment speech I alleged that certain irregularities in employment were put in place by the school and by the elders of Redeemer Baptist Church that delivered benefits to teachers and other employees of the school without their declaring an income. Through these arrangements the school, the church and the employees were able to avoid paying tax. Fringe benefits tax was not paid. This arrangement created the eligibility for welfare payments to which those people would not otherwise be entitled.

I estimate that this is costing the Federal Government and the taxpayer $910,000 each year. In his response Mr Bailey makes two substantial points. The first is that I did not contact him. I make the point that I did not need to contact Mr Bailey because I was able to rely on an analysis of documents that are entirely within the public domain and available for scrutiny. The analysis of those documents inescapably led to the conclusion that a tax sham and a welfare fraud are being perpetrated at Redeemer Baptist Church and School. Secondly, Mr Bailey relies on a 2006 Supreme Court judgment in a decision of Redeemer Baptist School Ltd v Graeme Francis Glossop & 5 Ors. He claims that a judgment in this case confirms that members of the ministerial order of Redeemer Baptist Church who contribute as staff members of the school are volunteers.

What Mr Bailey omits to tell us is that that judgment was a defamation matter heard under the Defamation Act of New South Wales. However, for the purpose of fringe benefits tax or income tax liability, which is a matter of interest here, the determination as to whether a person is an employee or a volunteer is not assessed under the Defamation Act of New South Wales. Their status is assessed by the Australian Taxation Office in accordance with the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 and the Tax Administration Act 1953. The Australian Taxation Office then will determine whether teachers, groundsmen, administrators and management staff are receiving fringe benefits from their employer, Redeemer Baptist Church Ltd, as defined under section 136 (1) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986.

Thus, the non-reporting of benefits received by staff to Centrelink in an endeavour to increase family payments, youth allowance, single mother pensions and old age pensions forms a scheme to defraud the Commonwealth Government under part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Numerous tax cases and income tax rulings on such transactions are specified in the reports of N. Panos and Associates, together with a private taxation ruling provided by the Australian Taxation Office simulating the same set of circumstances as specified by the Redeemer Baptist School Ltd. These all imply clearly and unambiguously that these persons are employees and not volunteers and, indeed, are receiving fringe benefits under those pieces of legislation. I stand by what I said on 20 June. Nothing said by Mr Bailey in his statement in any way contradicts or undermines the veracity of the allegations I made, either in detail or in substance.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.38 a.m.]: Mr Bailey has made it quite clear that the allegations made by Dr John Kaye have no basis in fact. Mr Bailey has made it quite clear that the legal status of the staff and school was considered by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Honourable members should not make remarks in this House that cast doubt on the decisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. I believe that is what Dr John Kaye is doing.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the operation of the school and the nature of its relationship with its staff in the case of Redeemer Baptist School Ltd v Graeme Francis Glossop & 5 Ors [2006] NSWSC 1201. The decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was that members of the ministry order who contribute as staff of the Redeemer Baptist School are volunteers. Dr John Kaye may not like people volunteering to serve in schools as staff in that way. It is not an unusual arrangement: It occurs in a number of other schools in New South Wales.

Members of this House should take great care when they launch an attack on an individual without having facts to support their allegations. Dr John Kaye has referred to an opinion of N. Panos and Associates whom he states are specialist tax lawyers. I am not questioning the firm's expertise, but the legal company has never contacted the school nor has it been provided with any of the school's accounts or details of the school's operations. In those circumstances, how can the firm's legal opinion be relied upon when it is based on hearsay rather than fact? I believe those circumstances undermine the whole case outlined by Dr John Kaye in relation to this matter.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Pursuant to standing orders the response of Mr Bailey was incorporated.
______

______

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I welcome to the President's Gallery Florence Naesol, John Taupongi and John Niuman, three staff members of the National Parliament of Solomon Islands, who are on a study tour.

LIQUOR AMENDMENT (SPECIAL EVENTS HOTEL TRADING) BILL 2007

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal.

Motion by the Hon. Eric Roozendaal agreed to:

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

Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.42 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Member's Business item No. 78 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings in Sydney be called on forthwith.

I seek to have this matter debated urgently because the security operation that took place during the recently concluded Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 2007 Business Summit [APEC] was unprecedented, both in scale and expense, but also in its infringement of the civil liberties of thousands of citizens of and visitors to this city. The unprecedented powers given to the police and the way those powers were used have caused serious disquiet among many people in New South Wales, as evidenced by the hundreds of letters published in newspapers and online, the publication of photographs and eye-witness accounts, and the attention given to the issues by prominent journalists, commentators and editorialists. It is urgent that we consider the views that have been expressed by so many of our citizens.

This Parliament established the regime of powers under which the police operated during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 2007 Business Summit, with both Ministers and shadow Ministers assuring the citizens of this State that those powers were appropriate and would not be abused. With many citizens now expressing serious concerns about the extent and use of those powers, it is incumbent upon this Parliament to respond openly and urgently to those concerns. I and other members of this House have been contacted by numerous members of the public who have made quite serious allegations about police actions during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 2007 Business Summit.

The allegations include instances of alleged assaults by police on people involved in peaceful protest activity, alleged wrongful arrest of members of the public, alleged unlawful detainment of hundreds of people in Hyde Park, alleged breach of operational guidelines by police officers, and allegations of police presenting misleading evidence, deliberately or otherwise, to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Many of the allegations are supported by video and photographic evidence, some of which has been broadcast widely. It is important that we debate and inquire into these issues urgently while the allegations are circulating in the community. They are very serious allegations that go to the heart of the conduct of policing in this State.

The Parliament must act urgently on this matter because the relationship of trust that is required between the police and the citizens they are supposed to serve in a free and democratic society has been undermined and, the longer we leave it, the worse the damage with will be. It has been reported that many complaints have been made to the Ombudsman. Some will no doubt argue that it should be left to the Ombudsman to deal with them. I do not believe it is appropriate in this case to do so because the Ombudsman is required to refer complaints about police officers to the New South Wales Police Force for investigation, even when the complaint is made directly to the Ombudsman. A complaint made to the Ombudsman against the police is referred to the police!
That is entirely unsatisfactory in the current circumstance because the Commissioner of Police has already publicly stated his satisfaction with the actions of the police during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 2007 Business Summit. The public can have no confidence that the Commissioner of Police will be objective in investigating his own actions and the actions of those who are following his orders. It is essential that an independent review of police actions be undertaken. The Ombudsman's complaint process does not provide the necessary level of independence. There has been a breakdown of trust between the police and many of this State's citizens. Having the police investigate themselves will do nothing to restore that trust.

There is substantial evidence to demonstrate the extent to which that trust has been undermined and the urgency with which the Parliament must respond. For example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation [ABC] conducted a poll asking Sydney residents what concerned them most about the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Summit and reported:

Recent letters, comments and editorials published in this city's major newspapers have included comments such as, "… a police lockdown resembling the set of a Matrix movie", in the Sydney Morning Herald editorial of 10 September 2007; "... the menacing police regime that ruled Sydney during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum", Mike Carlton in the Sydney Morning Herald Opinion page on 22 September 2007; and this comment by Philip Adams in the Australian Opinion page on 22 September:

While the air was thicker with helicopters than blowies at a barbie, the APEC atmosphere did not echo the conviviality of Australia's most beloved backyard ritual. It was emotions, not sausages, that sizzled. Toss another prawn on the barbie? No, throw another journo to the ground. Throw more protesters into the paddy wagon.

[Time expired.]

Mr IAN COHEN [11.47 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale. A discussion of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 2007 Business Summit and related issues is absolutely vital at this point. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit was a major event and had a significant impact on the people of Sydney and visitors to Sydney. It certainly has had an impact on the fabric of politics in New South Wales. The position of the Government and the actions of the police during the summit are such that many questions remain to be answered to clarify the basic functioning of our democracy. I believe that the matter should be debated urgently because I was a participant in a number of events at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit. I took a keen interest in the reactions of the Minister for Police and the Premier during implementation of the law and order juggernaut, and in the massive expense involved in what I believe to be the misuse of equipment by the Government.

Given the opportunity, I will go into detail about a number of actions that occurred during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference, when Sydney was under lockdown. I will give details about the student demonstration on Thursday, at which I was present. It was an effervescent and extremely peaceful demonstration that was absolutely at odds with the propaganda circulated by the Government and the police as to what could happen. These young people were exercising their democratic rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

In debate I will give greater details about my participation in what was by and large a peaceful demonstration on Saturday morning. The police, the media and the general public made differing crowd estimates, but I would say that somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000 people marched in an extremely theatrical but peaceful manner to protest against many aspects of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference. Given the chance, I will also discuss in detail the financial input in the conference that is quite separate from the losses that inner-city businesses suffered. I remind the House that newspapers carried the front-page story of an accountant who was attacked by police. I also attended a peaceful protest on Friday that simply involved the unveiling of a large climate change banner on the north end of Bondi Beach. A senior inspector and police cameras were present. At huge expense, a police helicopter—we thought at first that it was from a media agency—hovered the entire time over a bunch of people standing on the beach with surfboards unveiling a banner about climate change.
I also took part in an action aimed at the spouses of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders when they visited Bondi Icebergs. I paddled out to sea on a surfboard bearing the word "Lysistrata", which was a reference to the classic Greek play by Aristophanes about the women of Athens who went on a sex strike in an attempt to stop their men from going to war against Sparta. I thought that was an appropriate message to send to the wives of the assembled global diplomats—and I got my message across. It is important to recognise that the police presence at that event was absolute overkill. We cannot let go either of the police reactions, particularly that of newly appointed Commissioner Scipione, to the actions of the Chaser team. What a classic Australian action! It was hilarious and non-violent and revealed the poor nature of the security surrounding this event. I believe we should discuss this motion urgently and in full.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.52 p.m.]: This motion is not urgent. It is clearly designed as an attack on the New South Wales Police Force and its officers, who performed their duties in accordance with the legislation that was passed by this House. It is a most serious matter to reflect upon the decisions of this House, especially those that form the basis of the operations of the New South Wales Police Force. The police do not operate outside the law, and in this case they operated within the terms of the special Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation legislation passed by Parliament.

I believe the motion is in conflict with reality. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference was successful, peaceful and put Sydney on the world map. Why was it successful? Why were there no broken windows? Why were there no attacks upon the United States consulate? It is because the special legislation, which was designed to prevent such violent acts, was successful. That may not please the Greens, who strongly opposed the legislation in the House. If it had been defeated we would have seen broken windows and attacks upon the United States consulate, McDonalds restaurants and other multinational companies, as occurred in other cities and as happened in Melbourne only a few months ago.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.54 a.m.]: This motion is urgent. Democracy is a fragile entity: It survives only because citizens have the right to express dissent. When the state moves against the rights of individuals to express dissent and when the Police Force is used to suppress dissent, we wander into very dangerous territory. We must examine urgently what occurred during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference and at rallies and protests during that time so that we learn from those actions and do not repeat mistakes associated with overpolicing. We must also learn from one of the biggest embarrassments for the New South Wales Government regarding its law and order agenda—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What? That it worked?

Dr JOHN KAYE: It did not work. A group of people travelling in convoy and carrying a piece of paper that said, "Give us admission to the APEC venue and ice cream parlours" was allowed through the security cordon. The Government spent in excess of $300 million on so-called "security" but cars bearing the flag of Canada, with people running alongside carrying papers that requested access to "ice cream parlours" defeated the security arrangements. It made a farce of those security arrangements that were supposed to protect world leaders. That money was clearly misspent. Instead of allocating funds to create a safer environment for world leaders, the Government spent money on overly aggressive policing—

Mr Ian Cohen: Water cannon.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The water cannon was never used. It was paraded through the streets during the protests in a ham-fisted attempt at provocation, which did not work. At one stage phalanxes of police blocked access to the park where a protest was to conclude, causing delays and forcing people to stand in the rain. Relations between citizens and the Police Force were damaged unnecessarily. The Commissioner of Police made very threatening remarks before, during and after the protest. I think there is a strong case for the House to debate these issues urgently. When democracy is at stake there is no room for error. There is no room for allowing the police to investigate themselves. We must not hand this matter to other bodies to investigate. This Chamber must have a genuine and open debate. I urge members to agree to debate the motion even if they intend to vote against it. We must air these important issues.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.57 a.m.]: As I indicated privately to the Greens this morning—and as I put on the record now—the Opposition does not believe this motion is urgent. All members will be aware that a number of serious complaints have been made to the Commissioner of Police through a number of channels, including my office and the office of the Minister for Police. I suspect that they are the subject of very thorough investigation by the New South Wales Police Force, which is oversighted by the New South Wales Ombudsman. Allegations of serious misconduct undoubtedly would fall within the domain of the Police Integrity Commission. A parliamentary inquiry into this matter would interfere with those criminal investigations. Therefore, I do not think this motion is urgent.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Minister for Roads, and Minister for Commerce) [11.58 a.m.]: I have listened intently to the contributions by Greens members, who I believe have not established that the motion is urgent. I noted their comments in relation to freedom of expression and freedom of speech in a democracy. I was perturbed to hear Mr Ian Cohen argue that allowing 10,000 people to assemble and express their views clearly in a peaceful and safe manner was not a genuine expression of freedom of speech. It is important that our democracy is robust. We must protect people's human rights, including their right to dissent and to express their views forcefully if necessary. However, we must also appreciate that the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference was the largest and most significant international meeting ever hosted in Australia. Sydney was showcased to the world, together with the entire nation. It was a very successful event that demonstrated why Sydney is Australia's only international city.

The people of Sydney embraced APEC and embraced taking advantage to enjoy some time out of Sydney. I think that not only the police but also the Roads and Traffic Authority and other organisations, the traffic management centre, which managed a very difficult and extensive leadership meeting in Sydney, did so in a very professional way that demonstrated that we are as good as any other city in the world. I know some issues have been raised in the media and it is appropriate that they are investigated in a full and frank and honest way. I oppose the urgency.

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

_________

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer. Does he recall in January this year saying, "There are lots of inefficiencies in the public service"? Does he also recall in 2005 there were public reports of a meeting about Pacific Power displaced workers in which it was claimed he reportedly stated that 20 per cent of public servants were surplus to requirements? Further, does he recall his Government having drafted the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Displaced Employees) Bill 2005, a bill that would result in displaced public sector employees having their employment terminated? In the light of media reports this week that the Premier has ordered a review of public sector staffing levels, can the Treasurer give an assurance to the State's public sector employees that they will not see legislation similar to this draft bill come before this House in this session or any future session under his Government and, if not, why not?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: What a ridiculous question, but let me firstly place on the record—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You have to ask yourself: How did the Opposition get this legislation?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: You asked me a question; do you want the answer or not? Let me place on the record the Iemma Government's commitment to ensuring that our record expenditure both on capital works and on recurrent services is handled in the most cost-effective manner as the taxpayers of New South Wales expect. I am surprised the Opposition would query or question or criticise any proposal that our record expenditure not be spent in a cost-effective manner. We make no apology for the fact that we have efficiency dividends in our department. Those efficiency dividends are important; they ensure that management, when entrusted with public resources, uses those resources effectively. It is a pity that the Federal Government does not pick up our approach to managing the public service and managing the resources that attract the taxpayers' trust to the Government.

We all know that the Federal Government has been proven to be incompetent in terms of managing its national resources. We know that there has been a blow-out in budget after budget and a massive increase in staffing numbers and there are some questions about whether that can be justified. This Government's wages policy is clear. It has been enunciated in the budget. We are budgeting for a 2.5 per cent wage increase, not a wage decrease, and anything above 2.5 per cent we expect to be met through efficiencies or productivity improvements.

EQUINE INFLUENZA VACCINE

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Can the Minister please inform the House about the arrival and use of vaccine as part of the Iemma Government's current equine influenza response?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question. To put it bluntly, the vaccine cannot arrive in Australia soon enough, and I think even the honourable Rick Colless would agree. Some 2,297 properties and more than 22,000 horses are confirmed infected with equine influenza [EI], or horse flu, as it is commonly known. The first doses of the vaccine will hit Australian shores from France tomorrow at the earliest. The Iemma Government has worked hard to see the vaccine added to our already sizeable arsenal in the fight against this exotic disease. It is just one more weapon we can use to help horse owners struggling with the fall-out of horse flu.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But what have you done except try to blame the Federal Government? You are hopeless, just hopeless. You've done bugger all. You have done nothing.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is a Federal budget. They have allowed this contagious disease to escape at a huge cost to the equine industry. They should be ashamed of themselves. While you were asleep at the wheel you allowed EI into the country.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is misleading the House. He is trying to tell the House he has done something and he has done nothing.

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Obviously the honourable Duncan Gay has been asleep at the wheel like the Federal Government. The Commonwealth will have a lot to explain in the world. It will have to explain why its quarantine facility allowed this insidious disease to escape the walls around Eastern Creek—an unbelievable situation—and these guys opposite have said nothing about the Commonwealth's inability to control an exotic disease. They have not said a word about the Commonwealth's inability to contain the quarantine walls of Eastern Creek and then he jumps up and says we have not done anything.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Well, you haven't. You have been hopeless. You are a failure.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is an insult; that is an absolute insult to the people who have been working on this full-time. If it were not for Eastern Creek we would not have EI in this place. Even Melinda Pavey would agree with that. If Eastern Creek had not been so faulty we would not have had this disease in this country and I look forward to the royal commission because it will expose the faults in Commonwealth facilities in New South Wales, no question. Anyway, as we have seen since 25 August—that is the date on which we organised the standstill at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m.—this is a savagely contagious disease. The vaccine will now allow us to create buffer zones around infected areas and create barriers of immunity.

Today I can tell the House that New South Wales has applied for about 10,000 doses. That is enough for 5,000 horses to receive the two required shots at a 14-day interval. A further 30,000 doses of the vaccine have already been ordered for Australia and we will put in a new request for an additional 100,000 doses, which we believe is currently the entire international stockpile. I assure horse owners that each shot will be used strategically and with precision in controlling this Commonwealth-inspired and let-out disease.

SYDNEY HARBOUR BRIDGE

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware of any plans for an extensive modification of the Sydney Harbour Bridge that are being considered by the Roads and Traffic Authority, Professor David Richmond or the Premier's Department? If so, when will details of the proposal be made public?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The challenge of the New South Wales road network is a daunting one, particularly the Sydney road network. We have a million more vehicles on our roads than 10 years ago and we are continually upgrading the road network to ensure that we can manage the challenges of congestion. Sydney, like any international city, must deal with the challenges of traffic congestion on a daily basis particularly during the peaks, which are going longer. That is why this Government has a record roads budget of $3.6 billion to ensure that we continue to keep people moving in and around Sydney. From time to time they have come with all sorts of strange suggestions about how to improve the road network. I am not aware of any suggestion at this stage being considered to change the shape of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

We have just made the Sydney Harbour Tunnel cashless, which was a great initiative of the Roads and Traffic Authority and the New South Wales Government. Sydney Harbour Tunnel was one of the few places in the world that had a cash toll requirement and it is now fully cashless. That was done very successfully, with the cooperation of Sydney motorists, in a way that has made the Sydney Harbour Tunnel flow better and easier for people. It also demonstrates that, with the completion of the Lane Cove Tunnel and the expanded Gore Hill Freeway, we have completed the Sydney orbital network. We encourage people to take up tags so that they can get around the road network easier.

SYDNEY TRANSPORT

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer's support for scrapping the north-west rail link in favour of a public-private partnership motorway through Sydney's hills district, including a bus transitway, being driven by a self-styled transport expert in Treasury who is hooked on privatised busways as a cheap fix for Sydney's transport congestion? Does his support for motorways over rail line development mean that he does not agree with a peak oil phenomenon? Does this mean that Treasury is not assessing the State's vulnerability to the rising cost of oil?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: How many questions were asked by the member—three or four?

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Three.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The answer to the three questions is no.

OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND CHILI'S RESTAURANTS

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister update the House about the Iemma Government's investigation into allegations about the underpayment of wages to junior staff at the Chili's chain of restaurants?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for her interest in this important matter. Honourable members may recall that in early July allegations surfaced that junior staff at the Chili's restaurant in Wollongong were being underpaid. The New South Wales Office of Industrial Relations took immediate action and started investigating the chain of Chili's restaurants in Wollongong, Penrith, Campbelltown, Shellharbour and Wentworthville. While the Howard Government's Workplace Ombudsman has yet to deliver a finding in this case, inspectors from the New South Wales Office of Industrial Relations have now completed a thorough examination of the employment records of 27 current and former employees from the five Chili's outlets. All employees checked so far have been significantly underpaid in comparison to the relevant State award, with underpayments totalling more than $45,000. Australian Workplace Agreements [AWAs] used by the employers removed award entitlements such as weekend penalty rates, public holiday penalty rates, daily and weekly minimum shift engagements and laundry allowances.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I'd look at every one of those businesses.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Leader of the Opposition has not learned his lesson. The New South Wales Coalition lost the State election because of WorkChoices, and it will lose the only Coalition Government in the Commonwealth because of this. Members opposite should listen to this: Australians do not like it. Joe Hockey has got it wrong. The fairness test is a fraud. WorkChoices is wrong. It will cost John Howard the election. Coalition members have lost the whole of the political agenda because of this. The case clearly demonstrates the unfairness of the Howard Government's WorkChoices laws and how hardworking families have been exploited. Make no mistake: WorkChoices was designed to reduce wages and strip entitlements from workers. That is why the Prime Minister will not commit adequate resources to check Australian workplace agreements and police workplaces across Australia—he simply does not care.
Instead, John Howard and his Federal workplace relations Minister, Joe Hockey, are committing millions of taxpayer dollars to a WorkChoices advertising campaign, except they no longer use the word "WorkChoices" as the terminology is polluted. The Chili's case exposes just how hollow and misleading the Howard Government's WorkChoices advertising campaign truly is. While the Howard Government has conspired to deny workers their rights and entitlements, the Iemma Government has been working hard to address the unfairness of WorkChoices. To address the growing exploitation of young workers under WorkChoices, the Iemma Government has passed laws to protect employees under 18 years of age. Our State laws have replaced the protections removed by WorkChoices, ensuring that young workers, regardless of their work contract, receive wages and conditions that at least match the relevant award.

Importantly, they are also protected from unfair dismissal. These protections are backed by clear guidelines for employers set down by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, ensuring safe and fair workplaces for this vulnerable but important part of our workforce. The Iemma Government's view is crystal clear: there can be no compensation for poor working conditions which compromises a young worker's safety or their future success. In contrast, the Howard Government's so-called fairness test is just a cruel hoax, doing nothing to protect exploited families because it does not apply to the 300,000 Australian workplace agreements currently in the workplace.

The WorkChoices system still lacks an independent umpire and cannot provide fair, inexpensive workplace justice. Importantly, families seeking justice will simply have to resort to costly legal processes through the courts, and this is an avenue that most working families simply cannot afford. A fair, transparent and equitable system is what all New South Wales workers deserve, and the only way to achieve this is to vote Mr Howard and his Coalition Government, including Joe Hockey, out of office.

CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Energy. Will the Minister tell the House how much the State Government is spending on supporting carbon capture and storage research in New South Wales? Given that the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, Mr Phil Koperberg, said on ABC radio on Monday, "… carbon capture or what is sometimes quite strangely known as clean coal, which is almost an oxymoron", what steps does the Government have in place to review its commitment to clean coal as a climate change response?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Let me make it clear: the Government's policy is to support clean coal technologies and storage. That is the Government's position. Indeed, in March of this year the Premier and I announced a contribution of $22 million to clean coal research in New South Wales. Shortly thereafter, the industry, through the Australian Coal Association [ACA] and its levy, allocated up to $400 million for clean coal projects. I am glad this question has been asked because we have a number of projects on the board. We are working with the Australian Coal Association and other agencies to implement a series of clean coal strategies. I look forward to sending the honourable member in the near future some media releases on the latest steps to implement clean coal strategies.

According to Al Gore, the Stern report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change No. 3 [IPCC3], and all the major experts around the world today—numerous countries such as Norway are embarking on this—numerous countries are supporting clean coal technology, carbon capture and storage. That is a clear world strategy to deal with the production of carbon from coalmines. This Government, through the Premier's statements and my statements, has indicated its support in this area. We will continue in this area. I am sure that eventually the Greens will see the error of their ways and will start to support clean coal capture and storage.

DROUGHT ASSISTANCE

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that, as part of the Federal Government's latest dramatic boost to assistance to drought-ravaged farmers and communities, Murray-Darling Basin irrigators will receive up to $20,000 each to help them cope with restricted water allocations? Is it correct that many of those irrigators are struggling under the burden of paying the New South Wales Government's fixed water charges, although water is not available? Will the New South Wales Government waive its charges so that those irrigators do not need to resort to diverting their Federal Government drought assistance income to the New South Wales Government's coffers in this terrible drought? If not, why not?
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: That's too good a question for the Hon. Greg Pearce to have come up with!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Hon. Greg Pearce did not come up with it. Alan Jones was talking about it.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I wasn't speaking to the Treasurer.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Of course the Hon. Amanda Fazio was not speaking to me. I heard the same proposition on the Alan Jones program a couple of days ago.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: That does not make it any less relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, but it is an indication of the honourable member's incompetence and laziness in terms of research. The Minister responsible for this is the Hon. Ian Macdonald.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: No I am not.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: In terms of drought assistance, the Hon. Ian Macdonald is the Minister responsible. Minister Macdonald is diligent in arguing the case for drought assistance. From memory, this Government has spent $350 million on drought assistance.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister obviously did not understand the question. It was not about drought assistance; it was about the New South Wales Government's fixed water charges. The Minister clearly does not understand his own ministerial duty allocation.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member referred to drought assistance. That was the essence of his question. It is because of the drought that he is seeking these changes. He can squirm and squirrel around but the reality is that the question is about drought assistance. This Government has spent over $350 million on drought assistance.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is absolutely pathetic!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said it was absolutely pathetic. That comes from a Federal Government that had to be dragged to qualify exceptional circumstances provisions to enable people to access drought assistance. Only this week, probably four weeks out from an election, the Federal Government decided to make some other changes in relation to drought assistance. This Government has spent over $350 million on drought assistance. On behalf of those who have had to endure this drought I congratulate the Hon. Ian Macdonald on his efforts. He is a great advocate and advocates strongly on behalf of farmers and drought assistance.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are only saying that because he is scared of you.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not think so. This Government has spent $350 million on drought assistance. Our record is very good in this area particularly when it is compared to the record of the Federal Government. That Government, which has been tardy, decided on the eve of a Federal election to make some additional amounts of money available because it is petrified of being devastated in the bush.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Development. How is the New South Wales Government ensuring the availability of telecommunications, including broadband, and other technology services in our rural and regional communities?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for his interest in the provision of telecommunications in regional New South Wales. The New South Wales Government recognises the requirement for both large and small communities in regional New South Wales to be able to access information that will assist in their growth and meet their needs. The availability of telecommunications, including broadband and other technology services, is vital to our rural and regional businesses to help them find new markets, new sources of supplies, and enable them to maintain contact with clients.

The ability of these businesses to compete in the global marketplace will have significant benefits for regional economies and the potential for new jobs to be created. New South Wales is keen to ensure that regional and rural businesses and communities have access to modern and flexible communications. The New South Wales Government Broadband Service is a high-speed data communications network that is progressively interconnecting the State's schools, hospitals, courthouses, police stations and government offices. It enables the Government to improve the delivery of key services, including education, health, police, justice and general government services, especially to residents and businesses in regional New South Wales.

Over time it is expected that all major government agencies will be connected to the service either through their head offices, data centres, or major regional offices. The service will potentially reach about 3,000 locations. The Government Broadband Service consists of a core network, local access services, other access services and Internet access services. A five-year contract has been signed with Soul to implement and operate the core network, utilising both fibre optic and microwave networks supplied by Soul and other carriers.

Government procurement is a major tool in opening up accessibility options for regions and leveraging opportunities more broadly for communities and business. This is yet another example of the practical assistance that the New South Wales Government is providing to businesses in rural and regional areas as an investment in their future. The contrast between this Government and the Howard Government on this issue could not be starker. Members of The Nationals might be interested in listening to this. I know of no government contracts that have been signed on Sunday but, under the cover of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation [APEC] conference, the Federal Government signed a deal with OPEL on a Sunday when the APEC conference was on because it knows that this is a dud deal.

The Federal Government signed a deal with OPEL, a part Singapore-owned company, to provide broadband services only to a narrow strip of regional New South Wales. Members of The Nationals will regret the fact that the Federal Government sold regional Australia down the line. On a Sunday and under the cover of APEC it signed a $958 million deal with OPEL to give people in country areas a second-rate service—one into which they are now locked for the next decade. It is disgusting and it is a disappointing effort by the Federal Government that it has given rural and regional New South Wales a second rate service. This OPEL deal uses a version of WiMax technology where distances, the number of users and transmission interference all impact on service quality and speed.

The deal also ignores the commercial reality that to be competitive we must use global standards. OPEL WiMax is not even included on Intel's chipsets, so it is not part of the international standard. This contract was signed despite a meeting in Cairns only a few weeks ago. Every Minister for regional development in Australia called on the Federal Government not to go ahead and sign that contract, but Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile vetoed that motion.

POKER MACHINES

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that a ban may be lifted concerning the new breed of poker machines in clubs throughout New South Wales, which allows users to switch between 1� and $1 games at the touch of a button? Can the Minister indicate what measures have been taken or are being taken by the New South Wales Government to curb revenue from this new breed of poker machine? What action has the Minister taken in relation to compulsory pop-up messages on poker machines, which tell gamblers when they have gambled for an hour as well as lower the cash limits at automatic teller machines [ATMs] in gaming venues, as recommended by numerous public inquiries?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will refer the honourable member's question to the Minister for consideration.

EQUINE INFLUENZA

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does the Minister recall an email this week from Mr Jeff Ross of Kalidascope Arabians that indicated the total inadequacy of his department's help to the non-thoroughbred breeding industry throughout the equine influenza crisis? Why is he failing to assist all the horse breeders, especially the non-thoroughbred breeders, who are suffering economic hardship due to the equine influenza outbreak? What action will he take to ensure that all the horse breeders who are suffering from the equine influenza outbreak will be looked after?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: When the crisis broke out on 25 August I had organised a response group by about the Monday or Tuesday involving representatives of all the major sectors of the industry, including the recreational horse industry. That group included the Equestrian Association and a number of other groups. Just before question time I met with David Lawrence of the Equestrian Federation of Australia to work out the vaccine protocols for high-value equestrian horses, and specifically Olympic horses. I reject the notion that any group has been left out of this. Some individuals might not have been aware of certain issues—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have just been playing politics. You have put no money out there. You have closed the vet labs.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The honourable member does not understand a thing. The vet labs have nothing to do with this. We process hundreds of cases a day through the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute [EMAI] at Camden. We probably process more than the Australian Animal Health Laboratory [AAHL], the Commonwealth facility in Geelong. In fact, it took the Australian Animal Health Laboratory 3� weeks to identify the strain of virus that we had to deal with in this State, but we were able to confirm the results within hours of cases being sent from Centennial Park to the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute. Let us be realistic about this: we were the ones who first identified it.

I will examine the specific instance with regard to the Arabian horses. However, I advise that we have incorporated recreational horses in all decisions. We have been working with the recreational horse industry and will continue to do so. At the moment the decisions taken by the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Diseases, the National Management Group and the ministerial group—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are good at blaming the Federal Government.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, I am not saying that. All the decisions that have been taken have been implemented in New South Wales. Most of the changes that have been orchestrated by the AUSVETPLAN—the plan set in motion to deal with this exotic disease outbreak—to make the system flexible and to monitor the situation in New South Wales and Queensland were put forward by New South Wales. We have been able to adjust the system to meet a series of competing demands, particularly with regard to the many working horses that are out of action, thereby creating difficult circumstances for their owners. We are helping all the industries. At a major enduro for Arabian horses held up near St Albans we were able to work with 80 or so horse owners, to get the horses all the feed they needed and to get them back to their own properties as soon as possible. We are working with all groups.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We are talking about the non-thoroughbred breeders.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: But we are working with all the groups. In fact, the purple zones allow all to breed in this breeding season regardless of whether they are thoroughbred. So that is not an accurate question.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Not Jeff Ross.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not too sure of his particular situation. There are 500,000 horses in New South Wales, and I do not know the precise circumstance of each one. Nor do I know of every difficulty that has been experienced. But I can tell the House that we will deal with them!

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He sent you an e-mail two days ago.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would send it through to me and stop trying to— [Time expired.]

HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE LABORATORIES

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. Can the Minister outline the progress of the Iemma Government's program to upgrade high school science laboratories?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question and commend him for his ongoing interest in educational matters. The Iemma Government has embarked on a $145 million program to roll out state-of-the-art science laboratories in high schools across New South Wales. This week we launched stage one of that program, a $2.5 million trial of three science laboratory designs. I had the pleasure of announcing the first of those designs at Port Hacking High School, at which I was accompanied by a former Port Hacking High School teacher, the hardworking and diligent member for Miranda, Barry Collier. Barry has been back to Port Hacking High School quite regularly. The school has a new gymnasium, a new performance studio, a new library and new fencing, and kitchen upgrades are on the way. Port Hacking High School's new science lab has been designed in partnership with science teachers so that it meets current and future teaching curriculum requirements.

Each trial lab configuration will include ICT wireless capability; new fume cupboards; safety eye wash stations; upgraded services including gas, power, water and drainage; slip-resistant floors; acid and stain-resistant benchtops; practical and theoretical areas; and infrastructure to support smart boards, videoconferencing and connected learning. Over the next four years the Iemma Government will upgrade 800 science laboratories at 155 schools at a cost of $145 million. We are meeting our commitment to New South Wales families to invest in educational infrastructure and achieve the goals outlined in the State Plan. Investing in science labs for New South Wales high schools will help students reach their full potential.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Where are they?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: They are in New South Wales. Improved science facilities will help to increase the number and quality of students successfully completing studies in science and technology-related areas. The investment will help guarantee Australia's long-term economic prosperity. The three schools taking part in the trials are Port Hacking High School, Kingsgrove High School and Greystanes High School.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What! No country schools?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Department of Education and Training will use feedback from the trial to evaluate the three laboratory designs before rolling them out to 155 schools, including many high schools across regional New South Wales. Science remains a popular choice in New South Wales schools, with almost half of all Higher School Certificate students studying a science course. The Iemma Government again has provided record funding for education and training in New South Wales, investing $11.2 billion this year. Since coming to office Labor has nearly doubled total education spending and more than tripled spending on maintenance. The science laboratory upgrades are part of the $2 billion Building Better Schools Program, the largest capital works program in the history of the New South Wales Department of Education and Training.

Funding from the Building Better Schools Program includes an additional $280 million over four years for upgrades to existing schools, upgrades to food technology facilities at 31 schools at a cost of $20 million, the construction of 27 school halls at a cost of $62 million, the construction of 17 gymnasiums at a cost of $54 million, upgrading 200 toilet block facilities at a cost of $22 million, installing 200 new security fences at a cost of $39 million, and the provision of nine new schools. The Iemma Government is working hard to deliver the improvements to school infrastructure that New South Wales families expect and deserve.

KENO

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, a question without notice. In addition to the current availability of Keno in clubs and poker machines in hotels is it a fact that the Government will allow Keno gaming facilities to operate in all New South Wales hotels? Was a social impact statement conducted before this new policy was adopted similar to that demanded by the Premier with regard to the Clover Moore boutique hotel proposal? Will the Government table the results of any social impact statement relating to the expansion of Keno into New South Wales hotels?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question. I will refer it to the Minister responsible for his consideration.

NORTH WEST RAIL LINK PROJECT FUNDING

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter. What are the Government's funding arrangements and total cost of the North West Rail Link Project, and will the Minister give an assurance that the full project will be completed by 2017 as currently asserted?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Premier made a statement about this yesterday, and I refer the Hon. David Clarke to that statement.

AUSLINK ROADS FUNDING

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Can the Minister please update the House on AusLink2 funding for New South Wales roads?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for her question and commend her for her interest in this matter. It is extraordinary that Canberra would announce $16.8 billion funding for roads and rail infrastructure nationally but refuse to outline what will be made available to New South Wales for this purpose. New South Wales needs to prioritise its roads and rail infrastructure projects but cannot because Canberra refuses to outline its funding commitment under AusLink2. You cannot make a shopping list if you do not know how much you have in your budget! Lists are meaningless without funding. The New South Wales Government has made it clear where its priorities lie under AusLink2.

The Premier has written to the Prime Minister outlining key roads, freight and urban transport projects. I have met with the Deputy Prime Minister to outline the concern of New South Wales regarding AusLink2, especially the Commonwealth's insufficient funding for roads maintenance, the capping of Commonwealth contributions to projects before the final cost of the project is even known, the proposal to set a minimum State contribution on projects, and the level of funds available to New South Wales together with an indication of specific Commonwealth priorities for the AusLink network. It is now up to Canberra to advise how much funding will be allocated to New South Wales.

I shall provide members with examples of how the Commonwealth Government actually treats the people of New South Wales. Canberra sought to unfairly shift the risk burden for the Pambula Bridge project onto New South Wales taxpayers. The Pambula Bridge is about 35 kilometres south of Bega. Originally the project was estimated by State and Federal governments to cost $10 million. In response to community concerns for a higher-level bridge with greater flood immunity the project scope was adjusted. The Government listened and we adjusted the project to provide better benefits to the community. And what happened? We constructed a bridge that will meet a one in 100-year flood event.

That is what the New South Wales Government does: it listens to the local community. But the out-of-touch soon-to-be-out-of-office Federal Coalition Government has shown that it could not care less about the community south of Bega. Because of significant upward input costs and higher tender prices as a result of an overstretched construction industry, the project now is estimated at $17 million. New South Wales taxpayers must now find an extra $7 million because the Howard Government refuses to contribute its fair share. The crux of the matter is that the Howard Government refuses to fund its fair share, but it is interesting to watch members of the Howard Government flail around as they head for election doom.

It is worth making the point that the current overheated construction market is pushing up costs. Why has the construction market overheated? It is the result of years of underinvestment by the Howard Government in skills development. Howard and Costello have been asleep at the wheel as far as the development of skills in the construction industry is concerned. The taxpayers of New South Wales and the people of Australia have paid the price for the incompetence of a sleepy and arrogant Federal Government that is on its way out.

Members of the New South Wales Opposition do not want to hear the truth. As a result of the AusLink agreement, the Federal Government has withdrawn from its longstanding responsibility for fully funding national highways. At a time when highways require significant investment in asset renewal the Howard Government will not even fund national highways any more.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Traditionally, question time can be noisy with members interjecting constantly. However, I ask members to think of the Hansard staff, who are seeking to record the proceedings in order that the public can read what is said by all members.

SNOWY SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development. Has the New South Wales Government received correspondence from the Victorian Government urging the establishment of the Snowy Scientific Committee? If so, when was that correspondence received? What reply, if any, was given? Has the Snowy Scientific Committee been established? If not, why not? If it has been established, who are the New South Wales nominees? When will it meet?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The matter is under considerable discussion.

HAVENLEE SPECIAL SCHOOL

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for the Central Coast, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance. Is he aware of recent vandalism and theft at Havenlee Special School, on the South Coast, that included the smashing of school windows, the theft of students' bags, the destruction of equipment donated by the Variety Club and the theft of a wheelchair for disabled students? Will he explain why there was no funding in the budget for fencing at Havenlee Special School, despite an election commitment by the Premier and the member for Kiama, the Minister for Housing, and Minister for Tourism, that a security fence would be provided by the end of the second school term?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The first part of the question of the Hon. Robyn Parker relates to whether or not the commitments made by the Iemma Government and on behalf of the Iemma Government during the State election campaign will be honoured. As the Treasurer has indicated on many occasions, and as the Premier and I have often repeated when we have had the opportunity, all of the commitments made in good faith during the election are funded fully, in accordance with priorities of the budget.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: There is the qualifier, "in good faith".

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: There is no qualification. I will confirm it, against the suggestion by members opposite that they do not believe we have acted in good faith. That is my response to the first part of the question. The second part of the question referred specifically to Havenlee. I will obtain specific information about the matters to which she refers and make that available to her at the earliest convenience. I will also familiarise myself with the detail.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: When will they get the fence?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: In a general sense, the program of installation and maintenance of security fences is subject to a risk management assessment. Obviously, across the entire department, the commitments that have been made are prioritised—indeed, they have to be—according to objective risk management assessments. That simply means that decisions are made in terms of the likelihood of events occurring such as the ones described by the honourable member.

Of course it is a matter of some regret if those types of events happen at Havenlee. However, I assure the honourable member, and reiterate the comments made by my ministerial colleague the Minister for Housing, and Minister for Tourism, Matt Brown, that there will be a fence built at that school. Of course the events are regrettable, but it is important that the honourable member and the entire House understand that the Department of Education and Training, in reaching decisions on these commitments, prioritises according to the risk management involved on a school-to-school basis.

SEXUAL ASSAULT LEGISLATION REFORM

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice. What are the latest initiatives that the New South Wales Government has taken to help to protect victims of sexual assault?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: First, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Karen Willis, the manager of the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre. I also acknowledge her work and the work of all involved in the sexual assault task force, which as members would be aware, was established in 2004. The Government has acted on recommendations of the task force that were made in 2005. The Government has fundamentally reshaped how investigations and trials are conducted to help to ensure that victims are protected and that the system recognises their interests.
In 2005 the Government introduced a positive duty on all judges to disallow improper questions to help to protect sexual assault victims from aggressive defence barristers. We have also allowed victims to give evidence remotely and to prerecord statements so that they do not have to confront a defendant. The Government also has moved to stop accused persons from directly cross-examining their alleged victims. While we have done much, we recognise that more needs to be done.

One of the troubling aspects of sexual assault cases, as they traditionally have been handled, is the way that the trial process has retraumatised the victim. It is widely acknowledged that in sexual assault trials, victims have felt that they have had to endure a second assault in the witness box as defence counsel attack their credibility and character and question their morals and sexual behaviour. Those complaints are not new. In 1996 the New South Wales Department of Women published a report identifying a number of common lines of questioning. More recently there have been other examples of inappropriate and offensive questioning. I will cite a couple of those examples to the House.

One such case involves a 26-year-old woman giving evidence during a hearing of a sexual assault offence and she was tentative, hesitant and stumbling over her words. The defence asked her, "Is English not your first language?" In another case, a woman had been sexually assaulted and the defence turned its focus to evidence identifying that the woman's children had been removed from her care in previous years. These examples are probably of less severity than others, believe it or not.

While it is important for judges to have a duty to stop questions from being asked that are harassing and demeaning, it would be more suitable if those questions were not asked in the first place. The types of events to which I have referred can have a ripple effect and could dissuade others from reporting assaults and undergoing the trial processes. I make the point that this is not about denying accused people the right to a fair trial. There has to be a cultural change in the behaviour of all persons involved in sexual assault hearings.

To that end, I have written to the New South Wales Bar Association and requested that consideration be given to a number of reforms to the barristers rules to place duties on counsel that mirror those that have been placed on judges. The reforms will create an obligation on barristers, even if asked by their clients, to refrain from improper questioning, and place an obligation on barristers to object to harassing questions asked by other barristers.

I note that the Government's initiatives have been greeted with support from those who have gone through the system. Ms Tegan Wagner is a young victim who has spoken publicly about her ordeal, and she can only be commended for her bravery. She stated in today's newspaper:

Ms Wagner endured three days in the witness box and faced 1,971 questions by defence counsel alone. The Government's initiatives have also received support from various advocacy groups, such as the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre. [Time expired.]

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate the initiatives that the Government has taken?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the Hon. Helen Westwood for giving me the opportunity to do so. New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre Manager, Karen Willis, welcomed the changes. She is reported in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph as saying that barristers should be taught what is humane treatment of people giving evidence and what is not. She said:

PORT MACQUARIE-HASTINGS COUNCIL SECTION 740 INQUIRY

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands, representing the Minister for Local Government. Is the Minister aware of submissions made to the forthcoming section 740 inquiry that he has ordered into the affairs of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council related to the so-called "Glasshouse project"? Is it a fact that Commissioner Willan has received a submission from the Director General of the Department of Local Government, which conducted its own inquiry into the same council recently? Does that submission express the department's concerns about the affairs of the council and does it reiterate some of the findings of the earlier inquiry? Does the Minister consider it appropriate for the Department of Local Government to try to influence the outcome of this inquiry, given that the commissioner is an officer of the same department and will probably find it difficult not to give undue weight to the department's submission?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Hon. Robert Brown for his question. I undertake to pass it on to the Minister responsible and get an appropriate answer.

LANYON DRIVE UPGRADE

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads, and Minister for Commerce. Is the Minister aware that on 10 September the member for Monaro, Steve Whan, the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr K. Rudd, and the Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, promised yet again to commit $7.5 million to upgrade and duplicate Lanyon Drive? Is the Minister aware that the Federal Government allocated $5 million in Roads to Recovery funding to the Australian Capital Territory Government more than a year ago to carry out this upgrade yet still nothing has happened? Is the Minister also aware that during the New South Wales election campaign State Labor promised an $8 million upgrade of Lanyon Drive but only $300,000 has been set aside for the project in the budget? When will the Government stop misleading the people of Jerrabomberra and Queanbeyan and commence work on this important regional infrastructure project?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Because of the detailed nature of the question and Opposition members' long history of misrepresenting the facts, I will check all the claims in the question—particularly with regard to Australian Capital Territory funding. I am pleased that the Opposition is acknowledging the commitments made by Kevin Rudd, this country's next leader. That is surely an admission that the time for Howard and Costello has come and they will be out at the next election. I will provide a more detailed answer at a later time.

DROUGHT ASSISTANCE

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. What is the current drought situation in New South Wales and what is the Iemma Government doing to help farmers and their communities?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There is no doubt that the drought situation in New South Wales remains dire. Some 71 per cent of the State remains in drought, another 15.7 per cent is marginal and only 13.3 per cent is satisfactory. Prospects for winter crops are bleak after one of the driest Augusts on record for the crop belt. And every day that rain does not fall that figure will get worse. The figures speak for themselves: 3.12 million hectares out of the five-million hectare winter crop is in jeopardy. Without rainfall in the next 10 days that figure will get even worse.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So why did you sack the drought support workers?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have not sacked the drought support workers. That is nonsense.

The Hon. Rick Colless: They are gone.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: They are not gone; they are in place and will be funded until the end of the year, when they will be reviewed. They will not be sacked—honest! It shows how little the Opposition knows about how drought support has been conducted over the past few years. Drought support worker positions are reviewed each year in relation to the drought. If there are still drought conditions, they will continue to be drought support workers. We review the situation according to rainfall. We have been doing this for the past five years. Where have Opposition members been?

A common sight across the Murray-Darling Basin is citrus trees that have been cut back to the stump. This might help them to survive with hardly any water but it takes them out of production for up to five years. It is a sad sight, and there are similar stories across other industries.
The Hon. Rick Colless: You got that off the Alan Jones show.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is ridiculous. The area planted to cotton this summer is expected to be the smallest in 30 years.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You got that off the Alan Jones show.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: My friend Alan Jones?

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Point of order—

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The area planted to rice—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: I have quite good hearing, Mr President, but—

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Some wineries have—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Government is speaking on a point of order.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: I am not surprised that my colleague could not hear me trying to take a point of order. It is impossible to hear over the persistent interjections from those on the other side of the House. I ask you to call Opposition members to order.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: I agree with the Leader of the Government. In fact, it was impossible for me to tell the Minister for Primary Industries that he is withdrawing the funding for the financial counsellors from July next year. He claims that he is trying to help farmers yet he is withdrawing funding.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Given the very nature of question time obviously some periods are rowdier than others. However, I ask members to think of the Hansard staff, who are seeking to take down all the proceedings, including the answers of Ministers. These are important matters. The Minister for Primary Industries may continue and I remind members that he should be heard in silence.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Gee, that would be a change.

The PRESIDENT: The Chair lives in hope!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The fact of the matter is that drought support workers are funded. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trying to play stupid politics. Everyone knows that this is all funded.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, it's not.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The support workers are funded.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It stops July next year.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There might not be a drought next year. Let us hope there is not. It will be the end of a great drought. The State's water storage inflows have continued to be among the lowest on record. The continuing dry weather saw the price of wheat— [Time expired.]

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The continuing dry weather saw the price of wheat reach a new high of $492 a tonne on the stock exchange this week. The pork, egg, dairy and horticulture industries are feeling the massive impact of wheat prices and failing crops. I note that on radio earlier this week New South Wales Farmers Association President Jock Laurie described the situation as "quite desperate". That is why the Iemma Government is continuing to stand shoulder to shoulder with farmers and has a range of drought support measures in place. Earlier this month I announced another extension of our transport subsidy scheme for a further three months at a cost of $12.1 million. I will be having another meeting shortly. The scheme will be reviewed again before the end of November.

The Government has committed more than $335 million in drought assistance measures since 2002, and more is sure to come. Make no mistake: Our other drought support programs remain in place despite claims by misguided members of the Opposition who would rather spread alarm amongst farming groups than come up with a coherent strategy. Our program includes the team of drought support workers—whom Opposition members have mentioned today—who are funded. They provide a range of strategic advice, act as an important referral to other forms of support and are often the voice at the end of the telephone or the face on the farm visit. The drought support workers will continue to coordinate farm family gathering events and other information days to ensure that our farmers and their families get the support they need as directly as possible. I also welcome the news of the Federal Government's aid package for farmers. I am bipartisan.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Bipolar!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Hon. Charlie Lynn is bipolar: charming Charlie and nasty Charlie. Last week the Government announced an extension of drought assistance for farmers in 38 exceptional circumstances declared areas, and yesterday we had the announcement of a $714 million package to further help farmers hit by the drought. This bipartisan package was welcomed by the Federal Opposition Leader—and soon to be Prime Minister—Kevin Rudd. [Time expired.]

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP MORATORIUM REVIEW

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. Why are the submissions made to the genetically modified crop moratorium review not being made available for public display on the department's website? Given that a similar review process in Victoria is making submissions publicly available and given the high level of public interest in the issue, with approximately 1,450 submissions being made in New South Wales, does he not think it would be in the public interest to make these documents available? Is he concerned about the attitude of panel member Ian Armstrong in saying, when questioned about the public availability of the submissions by a Sydney Morning Herald journalist, "I'm not interested, to be truthful"? What is the panel or the Minister trying to hide?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I should refer this question to the Hon. Duncan Gay, but I will not. The chair of the review in relation to the Gene Technology (GM Moratorium) Act established in New South Wales chose a few words when he was speaking with an old friend, Matthew Moore I think it was, from the Sydney Morning Herald and he made some statements at that time about whether submissions would be released. I must admit I was not aware that those comments had been made. I certainly had some fun the next day when I read them, but Ian Armstrong has always been a person who has taken very strong stands on most issues around this place—he certainly took one on this occasion. The honourable member can rest assured that when the papers are handed to me, which will be very shortly, I will release all of the submissions. I understand that at least 880 of the submissions are virtually a form letter. I am sure Ian Cohen will be very interested to read them.

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

LANYON DRIVE UPGRADE

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Earlier I was asked a question in relation to Lanyon Drive. I can advise that the New South Wales Government is providing $300,000 in 2007-08 to build a project in association with Roads ACT. A tender was awarded in July 2007 by Roads ACT to undertake a concept and detailed design of Lanyon Drive between Tompsitt Drive and Monaro Highway. Roads ACT will manage the tender with input from the Roads and Traffic Authority.

DEFERRED ANSWERS

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

POST-NATAL DEPRESSION HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING CRISIS ACCOMMODATION

Accommodation is provided for a small number of nights while they make longer-term arrangements. Those clients who require support are referred to accommodation provided under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program.

The Department provides financial assistance to eligible clients to move into accommodation in the private rental market, however the client must find the accommodation themselves.

(2) This fact is not known to the Department. The Palmer Guest House has been removed from the Department's accommodation information sheet.

(3) The Department does not hold a regulatory role in relation to boarding houses.

ARMIDALE POLICE STATION DISABLED ACCESS

SNOWY WATER LICENCE REVIEW

BEE COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER

F6 CORRIDOR RESERVATION

COASTAL COUNCIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT

ISOLATED PATIENTS TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION ASSISTANCE SCHEME

TREASURER'S PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Please refer to the answer provided in the House on 31 May 2007.

POLICE WORKLOAD

GRAINCORP DRIVERS OVERLOADING BREACHES

KANGAROO MEAT INDUSTRY

KANGAROO VALLEY, MOSS VALE ROAD, TREE REMOVAL

RURAL CHRONIC HEART FAILURE MANAGEMENT

CLUBSNSW—POKER MACHINES AND REVENUE DIVERSIFICATION

YOUTH ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

RAILCORP OFFENCE PROSECUTION DELEGATION

COOMA-MONARO LAND DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION CONTROL PLAN

OPERATION RETZ

INTERNET CHILD PROTECTION

KURNELL DESALINATION PLANT

GUN CONTROL

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT

TRANSIENT MANUFACTURING WORKERS TRAINING

KURNELL DESALINATION PLANT

HARRIS PARK CRIME

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION DATABASE

Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000.

STILLBORN BABIES LEGAL STATUS

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD SMITH) AIRPORT TAXI CHARGES

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS

Please refer to the 2007-2008 Budget Speech, provided in the House on 19 June 2007.

HEALTH SERVICES UNION INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

READY-TO-DRINK ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Photo Card

"Be part

it, not out

it"

Crossroads

Supply Means Supply

Your Choice

WELCOME REEF DAM PROPOSAL

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN OUT-OF-HOME CARE

CENTRAL SYDNEY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/mediarelpan/mr_toc_curr_fs.html

REDEEMER BAPTIST SCHOOL

CALLAN PARK

FLOODPLAIN HARVESTING POLICY

ST GEORGE HOSPITAL HOT WATER SUPPLY

PORNOGRAPHY BAN

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.03 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Precedence of Business

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

APEC 2007 SYDNEY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

Ministerial Statement

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Minister for Roads, and Minister for Commerce) [2.31 p.m.]: As honourable members would be aware, the recently hosted Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] forum was one of the biggest international events ever staged in Sydney. For the Roads and Traffic Authority, it meant undertaking the largest traffic management operation in Sydney since the Olympics. From a traffic perspective, the Roads and Traffic Authority not only needed to ensure that the security arrangements for the 21 world leaders were accommodated but also, and just as importantly, its job was to keep the rest of Sydney moving. I am pleased to extend on behalf of the Government congratulations to the Roads and Traffic Authority on a job well done on both fronts.

The planning and preparation that went towards making the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum the success it was is staggering: almost 9,500 hours of planning, more than 900 motorcade movements, more than 150 green light corridors and the installation of more than 12,000 signs for more than 250 kilometres of special event clearways. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum was a massive logistical challenge, and the professionalism demonstrated throughout by the Roads and Traffic Authority staff is a credit to the agency. From the traffic controllers at the Traffic Management Centre to the crews on the ground and the staff who were involved in months of preparation and planning, they all did an outstanding job, and that has been widely recognised.

I especially acknowledge the role of the hardworking Roads and Traffic Authority ground crews. I met many of these people at a barbecue at the Traffic Management Centre last week. These men and women are out on our roads every day, moving obstacles, directing traffic, fixing problems and doing the hundreds of small things necessary to keep traffic moving on our busiest roads. For these people, every morning and afternoon peak is a mini Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. And while their work often goes unnoticed, it is vital and should be acknowledged here. There is another event coming up in July next year—World Youth Day—that will be another big challenge. Again the Roads and Traffic Authority will be asked to keep Sydney moving during a large and logistically complex event. It is a challenge but the Roads and Traffic Authority is already well advanced in its planning, and I am sure it will deliver the same success as it did for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.34 p.m.]: I join the Minister for Roads in applauding the hardworking people from the Roads and Traffic Authority on their great effort during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. As the Minister said, there was a lot of work, a lot of traffic movements and a lot of important people in our city, which was potentially hard to cope with. However, as the Minister also said, from the traffic perspective it was a matter of keeping the rest of Sydney moving at the same time. It was a challenge faced and a challenge achieved. However, although the challenge was faced and conquered during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, on the following Monday it was business as usual—the usual traffic chaos on our roads and the usual parking lots on our major arterial roads.

It is one thing to be able to move people around when there is no traffic—people had moved out of Sydney for the duration of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. It is another thing to keep traffic moving on a daily basis. I suspect that the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum was a traffic camelot for the Minister for Roads. People were away; people had left the city. No-one was on the roads during that time. Even the Minister could run a motorcade properly without resorting to using bus lanes. It is the sort of convoluted logic that allows the Minister to make an announcement today of 400 flashing lights for school crossings over the next four years. That is 100 per year over the next four years. Simple arithmetic tells us that with 11,000 schools in New South Wales that will take 110 years. [Time expired.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.36 p.m.]: I move:

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 4

Ms Hale
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Dr Kaye

Noes, 30

Mr Ajaka
Mr Brown
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Cusack
Ms Fazio
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Mr Gay
Ms Griffin

Mr Kelly
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal
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.

CRIMES AMENDMENT BILL 2007

MOTOR DEALERS AMENDMENT BILL 2007

ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION AMENDMENT (CANCELLATION OF INCORPORATION) BILL 2007

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

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

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Second readings set down as orders of the day for a later hour.

PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

Debate resumed from 10 May 2007.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [2.46 p.m.]: I have great pleasure in continuing my contribution to debate on the public school system. As there has been some delay since I first commenced my contribution to debate on this matter, I would like to refresh the memories of honourable members by referring to the comments made on 2 May this year by Andrew Stoner, the Opposition spokesperson for education or, as the newspapers aptly put it at the time, the Opposition's new spokesman on education. He described New South Wales schools as being "a vehicle for left-wing indoctrination" and said that the State Government needed to "rein in the PC culture" within the Department of Education and Training and the New South Wales Board of Studies. He stated:

Under Labor, up to half the curriculum in some subjects focuses on a purely indigenous perspective, including emotive terms such as "British invasion" as well as "Survival Day" instead of "Australia Day".

He also stated:

Let us get straight exactly what we are talking about. The issue that he raised relating to the funding of educational material for children regarding gay and lesbian parents was part of an anti-bullying campaign introduced through funding by the Crime Division of the New South Wales Attorney General's Department. The projects were funded in 2004 and four books were produced as a teaching resource to help combat bullying in schools. We cannot have it both ways, which is what Andrew Stoner seems to think. Two months later, on 2 July 2007, he said:

School discipline policy lacks teeth at a local level. We are hearing more and more serious reports of bullying not only of students but of teachers.

Andrew Stoner claims that he is concerned about bullying in schools, yet he attacks a program in our schools that is used selectively in areas where it might become an issue to say that children who come from same-sex parent families should not be discriminated against in the school place. They have as valuable a role to play in the school system as any other children. The general school population must understand that they should respect children, regardless of their family circumstances, their religion, their ethnicity and their race.

This is the sort of program that Andrew Stoner thinks is okay to attack. He has claimed that there is too much political correctness in the school curriculum. When teaching controversial issues in New South Wales teachers are given explicit directions to the Department of Education and Training's code of conduct and controversial issues in schools policy. The code sets out expected behaviour, ethics and activities for departmental staff. The policy gives direction for the management of controversial issues in schools whether by the use of teaching and learning materials or by views expressed by teachers or visiting speakers. All syllabuses are decided in consultation with parents, teachers, and many professional and community experts. The consultation includes a wide range of social and political views. As a result, the syllabuses are well accepted and have been successfully taught for nearly a decade.

This extensive consultation process ensures that New South Wales syllabuses are not captured by educational fads or narrow perspectives. Classrooms are neutral grounds for rational discussion and objective studies. Schools are places where students are prepared for informed and reasoned involvement in community life by the calm and cooperative study of social issues. While the New South Wales Department of Education and Training assists by reviewing some teaching resources, it is the schools, in consultation with parents and the wider school community, that are best placed to choose resources and learning experiences for their children. Not surprisingly, issues within the school curriculum sometimes are sensitive or controversial, which can include dealing with race, religion, sexuality and political persuasion. Teachers are aware of their students' learning needs and interests, and the things that are important to their parents and local community.

Schools are strongly encouraged to collaborate with parents about the content and nature of their curriculum programs. Parents are welcome to talk with teachers if they wish to discuss some matters. Teachers are trained and are best placed to use their professional judgment to select resources that will support the teaching of syllabus content and present an age-appropriate and balanced view on issues being studied. The New South Wales curriculum is regarded widely as the nation's best. Its rigorous and traditional teaching of Australian history, geography and civics is envied in other States and in part is responsible for our students' world-class performance in literacy and numeracy.

The discussion of controversial issues is not banned from New South Wales government classrooms, but there are clear principles that must be complied with. These principles are made explicit in a policy which, while first promulgated in 1977, is regularly reviewed and revised to serve contemporary circumstances. The policy was most recently reviewed and released in June 2007. Among other things, it makes clear that schools are neutral grounds for rational discourse and objective studythey are not arenas for opposing political views or ideologies. Discussion of controversial issues is acceptable only when it clearly serves the educational purpose and is consistent with curriculum objectives.

Such discussion is not intended to advance the interests of any group, political or otherwise. The school, through the principal, is accountable for that part of the educative process that it initiates or that is conducted in school time. Material presented to students as part of the teaching and learning process, including films and live performances, should be age appropriate, relevant to curriculum aims and objectives, and consistent with the values of public education. Material of an overtly political nature or which is considered by the principal to be inconsistent with the values of public education or the school's purpose and goals must not be distributed on the school site.

Schools are places where students are preparing for informed and reasoned involvement in community life, including its politics, by a calm and co-operative study of social issues. Schools are not places for recruiting into partisan groups. Teachers and visiting presenters to schools have a privileged position: they have the opportunity, denied to many other concerned people, to influence students. Therefore, they have a special responsibility to maintain objectivity, to avoid distortion of discussions, and to acknowledge the rights of students and parents to hold a different viewpoint. I believe that is the real crux of the issue: Recognising that people have different viewpoints is okay.

New South Wales schools make reading material available and have items in the curriculum that recognise that families can be of a different make-up. In New South Wales we understand that indigenous Australians might have a different perspective on European settlement in this country compared to those of European origin who are attending school. The Goodness and Kindness Campaign, which involves Jewish, Islamic and Christian visitors meeting children in schools, combats prejudice and promotes harmony. The Goodness and Kindness Campaign has reached a large proportion of schoolchildren. It won the grand award in the 2004 National Multicultural Marketing Awards organised by the Community Relations Commission. The campaign has received funding from the Community Relations Commission and it is now an approved educational resource in New South Wales schools. We should be promoting initiatives such as the Goodness and Kindness Campaign. Instead, we have the mean-spirited, nasty, narrow-minded bigotry from people such as Andrew Stoner.

I refer to some of the material to which Andrew Stoner has taken great exception. Unlike him, I have taken the time and effort to obtain some of the publications he has denigrated. The material does not promote the gay and lesbian lifestyle. It recognises that some schoolchildren might have two mothers and others might have two fathers. The material depicts the children in these families participating in school activities and doing lots of other normal things that lots of other children do. I will read onto the record this dangerous and damaging publication which, according to Andrew Stoner, is designed to brainwash children in New South Wales public schools. It is called Koalas on Parade and is written by Brenna and Vicki Harding. The book is in the easy to read seriesso it is surprising that Andrew Stoner had not been able to read it for himself! It commences:

I suppose he sees a conspiracy in there. The story continues:

Somehow this is seen as being something that is so subversive—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Catherine Cusack will desist from constantly interjecting.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: These publications can hardly be called subversive. They are in fact simply books that will be used—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Or intellectual.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Well, they might be intellectual for members of The Nationals! Five-year-olds are the target audience. I am sure that they are pretty much age appropriate! These books simply are used in some schools for children from single sex parent families who might be subject to bullying. It is about getting children to recognise that they should be tolerant, that they should not make value judgments about other children at school and that they should accept children regardless of their race, family make-up, religion, ethnicity, et cetera.

It is about encouraging children who are the product of the New South Wales public schools system to be tolerant and accepting. It is not propaganda. It is not the type of material that the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, would use on a slow news day to beat up the New South Wales education system. It is not the type of material that dedicated and talented professionals who work in the New South Wales education system would use in any improper manner. As I have said, it is up to principals to decide which of the approved educational materials are used in their schools.

I have heard a few redneck hoots from Opposition members asking where the publications are used. Many of them are used in inner-city schools, but that simply reflects the population make-up in the school's area. The comments made by the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, were insulting to professional education workers in New South Wales. He took a very cheap shot at people who work in the education system and his comments show a completely inadequate understanding on the part of someone who claims to be an appropriate person to be in charge of the education system in New South Wales. The Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, simply is not an appropriate person to hold that position.

I conclude my remarks by concurring with comments made by the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. John Della Bosca, who said, in response to those outrageous allegations and insults, that Mr Stoner had been highly selective in his use of examples from the curriculum and that his strong views about Aboriginal history and sexuality should be a case study as to why a Nationals politician who is desperate for votes should not write the primary school syllabus. The Minister went on to state:

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is a good reason to say that if The Nationals and the Coalition in New South Wales have any integrity, they would not have a person of this nature, with these bigoted and biased views, holding such a sensitive shadow portfolio.

I reiterate that the syllabus is designed in consultation to be in the best interests of children in New South Wales. People bemoan the fact that young people do not have respect, do not understand and are badly behaved. The issue addressed by the publication is the type of issue that is being addressed not only in public schools but also in private schools. The Independent, which is the newsletter of the Association of Independent Schools of New South Wales Limited, refers to the aim of children who graduate from independent schools having exactly the values espoused in the material—care and compassion, respect, integrity, understanding and a sense of responsibility, as well as a tolerant and inclusive attitude toward other people in the community. That is what the Government thinks New South Wales public schools should be doing, and public schools are doing so by using educational materials and resources of the type referred to during this debate.

Educational materials and resources assist people to understand the disaffection that exists within the indigenous community regarding events such as Australia Day. We should be supporting all possible efforts to ensure that children who graduate from the public school system have all the qualities I have referred to. We should be supporting teachers to inculcate those values in students. We should support people involved in the consultation process and who assist in devising the curriculum that is part of the public school system. Conversely, we should condemn people such as the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, and ask him to apologise to the educational professionals in New South Wales for his appalling comments and for his cheap political shot.

Members of this House should support the motion because public education in New South Wales is a very valuable resource. Unfortunately, it is continually under attack from the Opposition, which criticises the content of education, the results achieved by school children and the physical environment of New South Wales public schools. It is about time the Opposition talked up public education instead of talking it down.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.03 p.m.]: It is absolutely extraordinary for the Hon. Amanda Fazio to argue against herself by moving this motion. She exhorts values, standards and ideals, and they are all ideals that the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, was espousing. They are all the values that the Opposition wants to include in public education. The Leader of The Nationals was advocating for a balanced approach to public education. The right sorts of values need to be taught in public schools.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: He does not talk about balance.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: There has been no denigration of public school teachers by the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner. He is simply saying that teachers, parents and students deserve a balanced approach and they need to know that the public education system that is offered in this State is the best in Australia. It is far from the best, and that is not the fault of schoolteachers. Despite the wonderful work schoolteachers do, the public education system in this State is far from the best because the Labor Government refuses to direct resources to areas where they are most needed and refuses to back up or support parents and teachers by providing an environment that is conducive to good education. The comments made by the Leader of The Nationals were about the Government's failure to provide the right sort of environment that should exist in the public schools system.

New South Wales public education should be the best in Australia or in the world, but that is far from the case. It is extraordinary that the Hon. Amanda Fazio has argued against herself during this debate. The policies espoused by the Opposition are the values we would like to see inherent in public education, and that is what the Leader of The Nationals was saying. The timing of this debate is also extraordinary because the need to keep schools free from politics has been referred to. What about the current campaign by the Teachers Federation in the lead-up to the Federal election? That would be approved by the Labor Government, despite the fact that talkback radio has been inundated with calls from members of the public who report that students are receiving political propaganda. That is a direct result of the forthcoming Federal election. The Teachers Federation is campaigning against the Howard Government.

In response to the motion that has been moved, I point out that schools are a community asset. The New South Wales Coalition values all New South Wales schools. Parents are entitled to express their views on education, the administration of schools and the values that are taught in schools. Businesses and corporations discuss values and they know what consumers and employers are looking for. They promote the values that their businesses stand for. If we put together a list of the qualities we want in our studentssuch as integrity, responsibility, respect, citizenship, courage and compassion, as referred to by the Hon. Amanda Faziothey are exactly the types of values that the Coalition wants in the school environment in New South Wales. They are exactly the types of values that the Leader of The Nationals was espousing on behalf of the Coalition.

New South Wales is blessed with outstanding schools and outstanding principals and teachers. Recently I visited some fantastic schools in the South Coast and Bega electorates. I met students and staff at the Bateman's Bay Public School. The school community is organising a trip to Uluru next year. I also visited the Havenlee school, where I met dedicated teachers and parents who are committed to providing quality education for special students in an appropriate environment. Those teachers and parents have been let down by this Labor Government. They were told that the school would have a security fence within the second school term, but no security fence has been provided. They have been let down by the Labor Government and the Minister for Education and Training. The Government talks about safety, security and protection, and balancing the rights of children with sound public education values in schools. However, parents and teachers of the Havenlee school have been let down by this Labor Government.
The handful of people who are smearing the good reputation of public schools in this State are those who seek to use schools as propaganda against the Howard Government. Earlier this month on Radio 2GB, Ray Hadley broadcast a series of calls from members of the community who were concerned that students had received political leaflets. Callers were concerned that children were being used to spread political propaganda and about where, and from whom, the children had received the material. On 12 September Ray Hadley interviewed the Director General of the Department of Education and Training, Michael Coutts-Trotter, about these instances. He said, "There is no place in our schools for political propaganda of any kind." He went on to say:

There is almost a sacred relationship between a teacher [and student] that should not be compromised with the introduction of political views, partisan political views, of any kind.

On 12 September Ray Hadley read on air a statement issued by the director general to schools:

I must admit that I had many concerns about the appointment of Michael Coutts-Trotter. Unlike the directors general of education in other States, he has no background in education. In South Australia the chief executive has 20 years experience in education and training. The director general in Queensland, Rachel Hunter, started out as a TAFE teacher and went on to hold positions such as director general of Queensland's largest training provider and chair of TAFE Queensland. The director general of education in the Australian Capital Territory started out as a teacher and went on to have senior roles with the Department of Education, including director general of school education services. As I said, I was concerned initially about Mr Coutts-Trotter's appointment but I must admit that, despite his political background, he is correct on this occasion. Unfortunately, the Minister for Education and Training is in complete denial about the issue. On 5 December he said on the ABC:

On the one hand, the Minister for Education and Training is saying that nothing is going on while, on the other hand, the Director General of the Department of Education and Training is issuing a warning to schools about the inappropriate distribution of political material to students. That is another Labor contradiction. How can parents have any confidence in the public school system?

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Do you want to go back to the 1950s?

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: It is outrageous to assume that students can be used as a postal service for unions in the lead-up to an election.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: There were more kids in public education then.

The PRESIDENT: Order! All members will cease interjecting. The Hon. Robyn Parker should be allowed to continue her contribution in silence.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: This is not the only occasion when politics has been brought into the classroom. The Minister waited until the eleventh hour before attempting to dissuade students from taking part in protests against the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] meeting. But the horse had already bolted—in this case the horse did not have equine flu. It was a clayton's attempt to stop students from being involved in political protests and to discourage politics from entering New South Wales schools during school hours. When the Minister for Education and Training is in denial about political propaganda in schools while the director general admits that there is no place for such campaigns in schools, how can anyone take this Government seriously? I remind honourable members of the memorandum that the department circulated earlier this year, which bears repeating. It states:

That is exactly what Andrew Stoner said. Unfortunately, Davidson High School was in the limelight earlier this year for all the wrong reasons as a result of a Rock Eisteddfod performance that was given at around the time of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting. That also raised questions about bringing politics into the classroom. We need a balance. Teachers, who often leave an indelible impression on their students, must also have their students' respect.

It must be noted during this debate that there is a movement of students from government to non-government schools. Parents are voting with their feet when it comes to where they send their children to school. In 2006 there were 739,307 full-time students in New South Wales public schools. Students are now leaving public schools at a rate of 125 students each week. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] figures on schools in Australia reveal that not only is the number of students who attend public schools decreasing but the number of students attending non-government schools has increased substantially over the past 10 years. Since 1996 the number of full-time students attending non-government schools has increased by 21.5 per cent. That is a huge increase over the past decade that mirrors the availability of choice for parents and families. The Australian Bureau of Statistics report found that the number of full-time students attending government schools decreased from 70.7 per cent in 1996 to 66.8 per cent in 2006. Why has that happened? It is because this Government's policies are ripping the heart out of education in this State and parents are showing their disapproval by sending their children to non-government schools.

Government schools are falling apart. The maintenance backlog is unbelievable. When I visit schools teachers and parents tell me that they are most concerned about maintenance and the school environment. But the Government has failed to back them. Why would parents support the education policies of this Government? For example, in New South Wales schools the teacher-student ratio is the worst in Australia. One in four year 7 students in New South Wales fails to obtain the national benchmark standards for numeracy. Government schoolteachers are not receiving adequate mentoring and support. Some 17 per cent of teachers resign in their first five years of teaching and 26 per cent resign in their first 10 years. The criticisms that the Hon. Amanda Fazio had the audacity to make should be levelled at her Government. She endorsed the comments of Andrew Stoner in her contribution.

Impartiality and balance are vital to education values. Schools have a major influence in shaping young minds and parents have the right to say whether they like the values that their children are taught. I cannot conclude my remarks without mentioning the Australian Education Union [AEU]. Last year Kevin Donnelly wrote in the Australian:

He continued:

Even Professor Tony Vinson wrote in his report on New South Wales public schools:

Parents do not want unions dictating what their children learn in what should be an academic, as opposed to a political, environment. It is not the job of teachers to espouse a union doctrine to their students. Teachers are there to teach our kids the curriculum—and many of them are doing an outstanding job.

Parents also want to know that their children are safe and that their school environment is secure. Earlier this year it was reported in the Daily Telegraph that police were called to schools 108 times in a 20-week period. There have been several cases of violence and threats of violence in State schools. There are examples in today's newspaper of children whom the public system is letting down. Children are shifting schools because of bullying, which the department cannot resolve effectively. Teachers are taking out apprehended violence orders [AVOs] for protection. It is certainly not a safe environment, and it highlights the failure of the State Labor Government to resource New South Wales schools properly.

So what is the Government's strategy? Its strategy is to go on the attack and sweep the problems under the carpet. In some schools I have visited it is not possible to sweep anything under the carpet: the carpet is threadbare! It might be possible to poke things through the holes in the carpet. In New South Wales the Teachers Federation has called for 700 school counsellors. On the one hand we have the Hon. Amanda Fazio suggesting that we ought to have the right values taught in schools, and on the other hand we have the Teachers Federation acknowledging that there is a need for more counsellors and admitting that teachers are not being supported by this Government, that they are being let down.

What a contradiction. The Government is hiding because it knows that it is not providing the right environment, the sort of environment that Andrew Stoner is talking about and that would certainly be provided by a Coalition government. Education was certainly better before this Government came to office. It has failed to resource and support teachers, parents and students in the education environment.

The timing of this motion could not be more inappropriate. The director general has admitted that politics has entered the classrooms. The Minister has his head stuck in the sand and is still denying that this has happened. He is denying the existence of campaigns by the Labor Party and the Teachers Federation. That is okay for the moment, of course, because we are in the lead-up to a Federal election, and State and Federal Labor will do whatever it takes rather than provide an education environment that is free from political influence, that is balanced, that has the right sort of values, and, as Andrew Stoner says, that parents want to send their children along to. That is what Andrew Stoner has been saying, and that is exactly what would be provided under a Coalition government.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio cannot have it both ways. It is time this Government was held accountable. It is time this Government supported teachers, parents, children and the public education system, and provided the type of environment that we know our children deserve.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.22 p.m.]: I support the motion of the Hon. Amanda Fazio. The fact is that two-thirds of New South Wales students are currently educated in public schools. Many of our public schools are experiencing rapid increases in enrolments. Many of the most rapid rises are in the early years and in areas where very successful senior colleges are located. This is despite the array of schooling options available to parents and the constant attempts by Mr Stoner and his conservative colleagues in the Federal Government to downgrade the value of public schools.

Despite the Coalition's continued attacks on public education, the vast majority of parents in New South Wales understand that public education can offer their children a firm foundation for their future development. State schools are great schools for the precise reason that they, and only they, can offer children a firm grounding in basic skills and at the same time provide them with a broad perspective on the world in all its increasing complexity.

The Leader of The Nationals continues to demonstrate a zero commitment to public education. His ideological rantings of the so-called left-wing indoctrination and politically correct culture demonstrate how little he understands about the great work that is happening across New South Wales. One of the constant refrains of the Leader of The Nationals is the tired line about "black armband" of history. I do not believe that acknowledging the impact of white colonisation of Australia on the Aboriginal owners supports a black armband view. It is a perspective that speaks to the truth and seeks to advance understanding of the impact on Aboriginal people, something of which we hope all our children have some understanding.

As an example, at Darlington Public School, where kindergarten enrolments have recently doubled and many of the children are indigenous, a willingness to teach Australian history from an indigenous perspective is undoubtedly a strength. Given the great difficulties that we face ensuring that indigenous students attend school and achieve good outcomes, it is important that teachers are able to present subjects to indigenous students in ways that are appealing rather than alienating. If schools succeed in doing this by including indigenous perspectives in their teaching of history, they should be applauded, not berated.

Principals and teachers in New South Wales public schools are trained and supported to teach subjects from a diverse range of perspectives in ways that are sensitive to their pupils' varying ages and to the varying expectations of the diverse local communities that they serve. That is the point of public schooling. That is one of its many strengths and is not a weakness. Recent reforms to staffing arrangements in schools help to ensure that schools continue to reflect the needs and expectations of their local communities. It is a fact that since reformed staffing agreements were introduced in 2005, 72 per cent of principal positions have been filled by candidates chosen by a local selection panel that includes community representation. It is Andrew Stoner who is out of touch with the community, not public schools.

It is also completely misinformed to imply that teaching subjects from a range of perspectives is done solely in the interests of so-called "minorities", whether they be Aborigines, recent immigrants, gay parents, or that minority that is actually a majority: women and girls. In fact, teaching subjects from a range of perspectives is of great benefit to all students.

The political founder of public education in New South Wales, the great statesman Henry Parkes, believed that public education would strengthen democracies because it would help people make informed choices. He also believed that a general education would help lift people out of poverty by preparing them for whatever career they chose to pursue in later life. He believed, in other words, that public education would benefit the State because it would help people to think, and to think laterally and critically in whatever situations they found themselves and about whatever choices with which they were confronted. That was true in the late nineteenth century and it is even more critical now in the early twenty-first century.

Mr Stoner may not have noticed that we live in a rapidly changing globalised world and our children will be confronted by a world that is even more complex and less certain than our own, a world in which anyone who thinks that there is only one way of thinking, one way of doing things, will be in for a very rude awakening. If we bring up our children to believe that there is only one view of history, they will struggle to survive, let alone thrive, into the future. As John Raulston Saul commented at the recent Cornerstones Conference:

If ever there was a time for the expansion of a humanist approach towards education filled with questioning, with doubting and thinking, this is the time for it. That is the right preparation for the kind of society our kids are going into.

Mr Stoner might prefer the comfortable certainties of a white picket world, circa 1950, but such certainties are now obsolete and I, for one, am glad that my children's education will not be predicated on them. I am also proud that my daughter goes to the public school where the very books that the Hon. Amanda Fazio was talking about were developed by a young girl who, in year 2, realised that she needed to have books that reflected her family circumstance.

Another great fallacy is that teaching alternative perspectives is a distraction; that it somehow prevents teachers from focusing on their core business: teaching children basic skills. This fallacy is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the curriculum works, especially in the early years of schooling. In fact, the teaching of basic skills is integrated throughout the curriculum. Put simply, learning to spell "indigenous" is just as important and useful as learning to spell any other word. Public schools teach a rich and dynamic curriculum at all levels, one that is able to meet the needs and hold the interest of a very diverse range of students.

At the same time, our public schools produce literacy and numeracy outcomes that, despite the scaremongering of the Federal Government, are among the best in the world. Such outcomes are possible only because of the dedication of public school teachers, supported by a State government that is committed to public education. The recent report of the productivity commission on government services confirms that the New South Wales Labor Government has boosted investment in education by significantly more than the national average. In fact we have almost doubled the investment per student. It is this investment that ensures that the public school system will continue to meet the needs of all students in a rapidly changing world. Investment is needed to fund new technologies, to upgrade buildings and facilities, to expand numeracy and literacy programs, to review and develop curriculum, to reduce staff to student ratios and to support professional development of teachers. We also provide targeted programs for struggling students, for gifted children, for disabled students and for disadvantaged school communities.

Instead of denigrating public schools and the people who work in them, the Federal Government should be trying to invest in them. Unlike the State Government, the Howard Government has a record of chronically underfunding public education. If it really cared about the future of public schools, the Howard Government would put its money where its mouth is and be more generous in its funding allocation.

One last great falsehood is constantly perpetuated by conservatives and members on the other side of the House about public schooling: the belief that, if it were not for public school teachers and if it were not for classrooms, parents could protect their children from unorthodox ideas and alternative lifestyles. Well, schools have playgrounds as well as classrooms and children have classmates as well as teachers. It is a truism that you cannot stop children talking, and neither should we want them to stop talking. In public schools at least, children come from all kinds of households, all kinds of families, all kinds of religious backgrounds, with all kinds of more or less openly held political views. This is one of the great strengths of public education and one of the ways in which children prepare for the broader world. There are children in public schools whose parents are atheists, environmentalists, Christians, Muslims, unionists, lesbians and even members of the National Party. Children are insatiably curious. Questions arise and teachers must respond to them.
That is part of the reason the school curriculum is inclusive of a diverse range of experiences and perspectives. That is why our public school teachers build on children's experiences, on their everyday encounters with difference, to teach about diversity, tolerance and acceptance. They are helping our children to live with difference—to see it as an opportunity and not a threat. They teach them that we do not all have to be the same in order to live together. It may be too late for Andrew Stoner to learn how to look at and live in the world in new and better ways, but fortunately it is not too late for the next generation. I commend the motion to the House.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.30 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio. There is much to debate in the administration of public education, from the allocation of funds between the public and private sectors to the amounts of money that go into public education, and from ensuring that there is adequate support for children with special needs to replenishing the teacher workforce as it ages. The maintenance and enrichment of the physical environment of public education also needs to be debated. I am not the first to have been saying over the past 10 years that the Labor Government has not got it all right, that there have been major faults in the way the Labor Government has administered public education and there is a need for the Government to answer for that. Certainly, there is always in any government—and even when the Greens form a government—room for criticism of the performance of government, but all of us who are critics of government education policy walk a fine line because we do not want to talk down public education.

Public education is already under stress from an aggressive private sector and from dealing with increasing educational outcome demands. Public education does not need politicians who talk down the achievements of public education, who launch consistent and persistent attacks on the values of public education, and who launch attacks on the way public education serves the diverse communities of New South Wales. Unfortunately, Mr Stoner has done those three things on more than one occasion. On 2 July 2007 Mr Stoner was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in the following fashion:

That sounds good. The only problem is that it happens to be absolutely wrong!

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Haven't you read today's paper?

Dr JOHN KAYE: If the Hon. Robyn Parker listens, she will learn something. Between 2005 and 2007 public education increased its share of students. Far from parents voting with their feet and deserting public education, the feet of parents were heading back to public education in increasing proportions. It is remarkable that they did so, and it is a tribute to the teachers, parents, students, support staff and public school communities that they did so, because they did so despite huge funding inequalities between the public sector and the private sector. Since the election of the Howard Government hundreds of millions of dollars have poured into private schools that were not there previously. Indeed, between 1995-96 and 2005-06—these figures have been adjusted to 2006 dollar terms—public education received an increase of $1.17 billion from the Howard Government and private education received an increase of $3.18 million from the Howard Government. That is, for every new dollar that went to students in public education, the Howard Government gave $6.34 to students in private education.

Public education is winning back students despite the Howard Government's abolition of the new schools policy. So since 1996 a private school operator has been able to open a private school on the doorstep of a public school. The Howard Government tossed out the window any sense of planned provision of education. Public education is winning back students despite the massive funding to the wealthy private schools. Last year the Howard Government gave $115.8 million to the wealthiest private schools, creating a flagship of wealthy private schools that creates a demand for parents sending their children to private schools. Public education is winning back its share of students despite socioeconomic status funding, which is fuelling the growth of low-cost private schools that compete directly with public education in areas of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

Even with the Howard Government's bias against public education, ever-greater proportions of children are returning to public education. What Andrew Stoner should have done in the pages of the Sydney Morning Herald, which is what I did, is celebrate the success of public education and the ability of teachers in public education to overcome odds and to win back students. The responsible thing to do is to talk up the successes of a system that is under stress. It is the obligation of all education spokespersons to talk up those successes. One thing Andrew Stoner—

[Interruption]

I am about to say something nice about Andrew Stoner, so the Hon. Don Harwin should hold off for a second. I agree with one thing Andrew Stoner said. The Leader of The Nationals said:

that is, the punitive loss of students—

That is one of the few things Andrew Stoner said as education spokesman with which I agree. But that is the minor of the two attacks on public education by Andrew Stoner. The first attack came in May of this year when he totally let fly about the values of public education. He talked about curbing the culture of political correctness within the New South Wales public education system. One might have thought that was a media misrepresentation. So I got my hands on Andrew Stoner's media release of 2 May 2007, in which he talked about public education. He said that public education is "a vehicle for left-wing indoctrination", that public education perpetuates "a black arm band view of Australian history", and that public education uses "emotive terms including 'British invasion'". I made a note of something else but I cannot read my handwriting.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: You should have gone to a private school!

Dr JOHN KAYE: I note the Hon. Charlie Lynn's comment that Andrew Stoner should have gone to a private school. I thank him for putting on record the Opposition's education policy. Andrew Stoner talked about public education promoting gay parenthood—I presume the Hon. Charlie Lynn agrees with him. Andrew Stoner talked about public education increasing the infiltration of left-wing ideology at some schools and the importance of ensuring that the left-wing union movement does not have a disproportionate influence on issues such as syllabus content. Mr Stoner seems to have three complaints about public education. First, he claims that it promotes gay parenthood; second, it has a so-called black armband view of Australian history; and, third—and this is the most outrageous complaint, although all three are incorrect—he accused the Board of Studies of being biased.

I will refer, first, to same-sex parenting. In every community there are same-sex partnerships, and I am sure that includes Mr Stoner's seat of Oxley. I am sure that Mr Stoner would not join with Iranian President, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, in saying that there is no such thing as homosexuality in his bailiwick. It is important for teachers to have access to materials that encourage sensitive treatment of children who come from families with same-sex parents. An important role of public education is that we foster acceptance of all children regardless of the gender of their carers or parents. We must recognise the diversity of lifestyles that makes up the great community of New South Wales.

Every child must be accepted. It is an obligation of public education that every child should be accepted. Although it is not, it should also be an obligation of every private school. Mr Stoner goes on to state that public education is promoting a black armband view of Australian history. Some people call it a black armband view but other people call it speaking the truth. We cannot and should not try to ignore what happened when the British landed in Australia. We should not and cannot ignore the 220-year history of dispossession and abuse that has befallen the Aboriginal people.

To not talk about that or recognise it in schools is to abandon telling the truth and give up on the education project, which is to equip people with an army of facts and understanding that enables them to be citizens, and to hand over to a propagandistic support of a relaxed and comfortable view of the future. I want to quote from a statement by Mr Jeremy Bradley, chairperson of the Hastings Reconciliation Group, reported in the Port Macquarie News of Friday 11 May 2007. Mr Bradley made no apologies for erring on the side of political correctness when it comes to teaching children about Australian history. He said:

Mr Bradley is stating what ought to be obvious to us all: we cannot hide from the fact that we have a history that involves dispossession and abuse of the Aboriginal people. We should not seek to hide our children from reality. They must know where this nation came from and be part of plotting a very different future for it. The third part of Mr Stoner's media release was an attack on the Board of Studies and on the curriculum taught in New South Wales. Mr Stoner was not being original here—he was copying his counterpart, Federal education Minister Julie Bishop, who, in a leaked draft of a speech she had prepared, accused the New South Wales Board of Studies of being infiltrated by Maoists. I note that Ms Bishop did not make that speech in public after there was a public outcry.

It is not only an insult, it is also downright silly to suggest that somehow or other Professor Gordon Stanley, head of the Board of Studies, the teachers who willingly give of their time in curriculum and syllabus development, the educational professionals from universities and other institutions who put their shoulders to the grindstone and who try to create for New South Wales a world-leading curriculum and a world-leading set of things that our kids will be studying, are infiltrated by Maoists, Trotskyites, Stalinists or anybody else. Over the past five years New South Wales has achieved a world-leading set of outcomes in syllabus development. I have not always publicly agreed with Professor Gordon Stanley but I think there are parts of the syllabus—matters that I do not express as a politician but that I would express as a private citizen—that ought to be different.

I place on record my appreciation for the work of Professor Gordon Stanley, the Board of Studies, teachers, educational professionals and volunteers who work damn hard to create a curriculum that reflects the diversity of our community, that reflects where our history has come from and that reflects the incredibly complex needs of our educational future. John Robertson, Secretary of the Camden Haven Teachers Association, when speaking of Mr Stoner, was reported in the Port Macquarie News of Friday 11 May 2007 to say:

Mr Robertson said what everybody of goodwill is saying: we do not want to politicise our curriculum. We want to defend the professionals and teachers who are working damn hard to create good quality outcomes. Mr Stoner owes the teachers, students and parents of public education and the Board of Studies an apology for what he said about them and the work that they do. He stands condemned by his own words.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.45 p.m.]: Many words have been spoken on this subject in the time that has been allotted to debate it, and it is easy to be overwhelmed by the feigned emotion that went into its presentation.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: But underwhelmed by their presentations!

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Charlie Lynn to order for the first time.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Before the commencement of this session and as a demonstration of practical interest in education, upper House Nationals and the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, spent a considerable amount of time meeting with teachers, parents and members of the community in western New South Wales to gauge their views on a variety of matters. It is plain that Mr Stoner's interest is in seeing practical outcomes for the members of our community, not in engaging in feigned rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric itself. Before those meetings he identified plainly—and it remains the case—that, sadly, there are fundamental weaknesses in our education system.

What I say is not in any way an attack upon educators or hardworking teachers; it is an attack upon a system that fails to equip teachers and to provide facilities for children in our schools. I will point to one group in particular rather than give a general spray. How are Aboriginal children performing in our schools? I refer, firstly, to general retention rates in our schools. In 2002, 95.9 per cent of children in years 7 to 10 in schools in New South Wales went on to year 10. Nationally, the figure was slightly better, at 96.9 per cent. How did Aboriginal children fare in the figures produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics? In 2002, 81.6 per cent of Aboriginal children in years 7 to 10 went on to year 10 as opposed to 95.9 per cent of all children in New South Wales in years 7 to 10.

I refer to another set of figures—year 12 retention rates for children who start in high school. For all students the figure is 63.6 per cent, but for members of the Aboriginal community the figure is 29.6 per cent—less than half the retention rate of non-indigenous students, and that is a tragedy and an indictment of this Government. People spend time attacking Andrew Stoner, the shadow Minister for Education, when on the ground we are witnessing a living, breathing tragedy.

What we have is a failure to adequately allocate resources. We have a fundamental neglect of the Aboriginal community. That is plain for all to see, and that is what some members opposite know is happening, yet they sit quietly in support of a motion of fluff—a motion to distract attention. However, let us continue and not talk about retention rates. Let us have another thought and see how our kids go in basic skills tests, for instance. If we look at basic skills tests for year 3, Aboriginal children achieving band 4 or higher in 2006 was 21.1 per cent. How does that compare to the rest of the community or the State average? It was 46.2 per cent. That means our Aboriginal students essentially are achieving at half the level of the balance of the community.

What about for year 5? Unfortunately, again we have the same sort of consistent failure. We have the same shortcomings in all the results. This indicates, regrettably, a failure of our education system to adequately provide for an important sector of our community—one of the most disadvantaged. Again, why is it up to the Opposition to point this out? Is it part of the political correctness with which we are confronted that we will not talk about the shortcomings; that we will sweep under the carpet the failings simply because what we really want to do is to distract and deceive? The reason this motion should be rejected is that it is designed to cover up the shortcomings of this Government.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.51 p.m.]: The motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio is critical of the Opposition education spokesperson, Andrew Stoner. It calls on him to apologise to educators in the public school system for his comments that schools are "a vehicle for left wing indoctrination", and that the Government should "rein in the PC culture" within the Department of Education and Training, and the New South Wales Board of Studies. Obviously, as is happening with this debate, such a motion opens up discussion on education in this State and the various problems that are occurring. I take this opportunity to contribute my thoughts on that matter.

I believe Mr Stoner was seeking to reflect community concerns, and as a member of Parliament he has a responsibility when information comes to his attention to make those views public. Certainly the community belief, whether it is the majority or minority, is that some parents would endorse his comments. So it is a question of whether he or the parents are wrong, or whether he is simply reflecting the views of parents that he meets as he carries out his duties as a member of Parliament, particularly in his role as Opposition education spokesperson.

We must face the reality that there is widespread concern in New South Wales by parents about the education system. One would have to have one's head in the sand not to know that! The supporting evidence is this continuous shift from the public school system to the independent or non-government sector in our State. Without any great publicity campaign and with all the efforts of the education department and the New South Wales Teachers Federation to promote public schools, parents still are moving their children out. I believe it is the responsibility of this House to ask why. Why are parents so unhappy with the State public school system that they are prepared to move out of the State system into a system where they actually have to pay twice? They pay firstly in their taxes and then secondly in school fees. Even in the low-cost Catholic and Anglican schools it is still expensive for the average family, especially working-class families which, I believe in many cases, is the group that is moving into the non-government schools.

This trend is increasing greatly in the western suburbs with many non-government schools that commenced operation in past years maintaining and increasing their student numbers. In fact, I have been surprised sometimes when visiting a non-government Christian school to learn that it has 1,000 to 1,200 students—larger in number than some of the public schools in the area. The Government and members of this House must ask why. Parents must perceive that something is wrong with the public school system to make this decision to move their children to independent schools. I believe we have to be realistic in examining those issues and not pretend that they do not exist.
One of the concerns I have had for many years, which I know would not be accepted by some Government members and certainly not by the Greens, is the overinfluence of the New South Wales Teachers Federation in the running of the State school system in New South Wales. That influence keeps recurring in an almost arrogant manner towards the education department. This happened when the previous Minister, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, introduced the new reporting and marking system as a response to the concern of parents who could not understand school reports when they received them from their children's schools. I believe what the Government introduced on that occasion was a practical and positive move forward, but the New South Wales Teachers Federation said, "Oh no, we do not want that." So, the federation actually issues a directive through its members through the schools to disobey a government policy implemented through the education department! In fact, that is what occurred.

Those developments undermine the confidence of parents and cause unrest amongst them, and parents then become very uneasy about what is happening with the education system in this State. On a number of occasions I have said that although the New South Wales Teachers Federation obviously wants to keep public schools going because they provide employment opportunities for their members, because of its policies public schools lose students and then lose staff. This results in teachers being left in the difficult position of either having to move to another location or not having a permanent position at that particular time.

The challenge is how to change that situation. I am sure the Government spends a great deal of time and thought on how to bring about a solution. However, the reason the Teachers Federation has such strong power is that it is one of the largest, if not the largest, unions in the State. It can threaten the Government and if there is no cooperation from the Government, the federation then can disrupt the whole education system, which would then affect every family and parent. No government wants a disrupted school system, but being faced with that kind of threat places it in a very uncomfortable political position, so the Government caves in to the New South Wales Teachers Federation.

For more than 20 years I have had conflict with recognised sections of the federation that have a very influential role in promoting the teaching of homosexuality within the State system, even to producing and promoting material and encouraging teachers to use it. We can only hope that sensible principals reject that material as it is not official education department material; it is merely material that the federation has produced over the years. I have seen it and I believe it is totally unsuitable to be used in an educative setting, but it has been given tacit support by the Teachers Federation.

The other issue on which the Teachers Federation again was adamant was to have no corporal discipline in State schools. The federation campaigned for that policy and the Government finally adopted it. That same policy now applies also in non-government schools. Instead of a violent or unruly child at least facing the threat of corporal discipline, we now have a complete reversal in this State where teachers are being attacked and threatened, especially female teachers.

That has become a regular occurrence. We hear weekly reports of teachers being intimidated by students. In the most recent development, students have used Internet sites to exhibit defamatory material and to make allegations relating to their teacher's lifestyle and activities. I assume the allegations are not true and have been made simply to damage the reputation of teachers who have maintained strict standards, tried to be a good influence and perhaps have rebuked students. Students are punishing their teachers by the improper use of the Internet.

There has been a noticeable shift in enrolments from the State or public school system to non-government schools, mainly to schools in the religious education system, such as Catholic schools, because parents are seeking to have moral values taught to their children. When Sir Henry Parkes instituted the education system in the 1880s, he set up a system of free secular education. Sadly since Federation, some people have interpreted "secular" to mean non-religious or non-Christian education, and in a sense the term has been used to reject Judeo-Christian values. Sir Henry Parkes had no intention of the term "secular" being interpreted in that way. In the 1880s, the term meant non-denominational. Sir Henry Parkes meant to ensure that the public school system would not be used to promote the beliefs of one particular denomination or church over another. He sought to ensure that neither the Catholic nor Anglican or Presbyterian faith would not be promoted through the public school system.

Obviously mainstream religions have similar core values, but the interpretation of "secular" in the 1880s is completely different from its interpretation in 2007. In the 1880s, the Catholic religion was regarded as separate from the Anglican religion and the Anglican religion was regarded as separate from the Baptist religion. That is why the 1901 Commonwealth Constitution states that the Commonwealth has no power to establish a religion. In that context, the Founding Fathers were thinking particularly of the Church of England, which was the established religion in the United Kingdom, and nobody, except Anglicans, wanted the Church of England to be the established religion in Australia. Any suggestion of that was strongly opposed by the Catholics, the Presbyterians and the Baptists. That is why there is a constitutional prohibition against the Commonwealth establishing a religion.

Unfortunately, that provision has been wrongly interpreted as a bar against the Christian faith. The prohibition had nothing to do with the Christian faith and referred only to a particular religion. The constitutional provision applies to the education system and should be interpreted to mean that the education system should not be used to promote a particular denomination. I agree with that, but that should not be interpreted as a statutory barrier to promoting Christian values, the Judeo-Christian ethic and the teachings of the Ten Commandments—values that are widely accepted throughout our community. Sir Henry Parkes worked around the erroneous interpretation of "secular" by having the Bible used in the public school system virtually as a textbook to instil values while teaching children to read. The Bible, rather than any particular church or denomination, carried Christian values into education.

In the 1880s Sir Henry Parkes permitted religious instruction in the public school system by a visiting representative of each denomination for one hour a day: An Anglican clergyman visited Anglican children and a Catholic priest visited Catholic children. Over time, owing to various religions being challenged by the provision of sufficient teachers, religious instruction was reduced to one period a week in the State school system. I am very pleased that religious instruction has been retained and that it is working very effectively in the great majority of high schools and private schools. I have encountered rare exceptions when a principal has not understood that religious instruction is a legal requirement. Some principals think they have a discretion relating to whether religious instruction or church teaching will be carried out in their schools and have tried to prevent clergymen from visiting their schools. In such instances, I have been able to provide them with information that makes it clear that religious instruction is a legal requirement and outside the discretion exercised by a principal, and that very quickly straightens out misunderstandings.

I do not believe it is right to attack the Leader of The Nationals, Mr Stoner, in the terms of the motion before the House. I believe he was sincerely reflecting the concerns that have been expressed to him by parents. I have had very similar concerns expressed to me by parents, and I believe that where there is smoke, there must be fire. The Government should carry out a thorough examination of the issues to ensure that there is no bias in materials used in State schools that are provided by the Department of Education and Training. I believe that by adopting such a measure, the Government will halt the shift of enrolments from the State school system to the non-government schools system.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [4.05 p.m.]: I agree with some of the comments made by each member who participated in debate on the motion before the House, but the overriding principle of this issue is that public education should be the public's first choice. Over the past decade in New South Wales, that simply has not been the case. I also agree that we should ask ourselves why that is so. The more that families move out of public education, the greater is the stress that is placed on public education. My child, Jack, attends a public education school. I attend the parents and citizens association meetings when possible, or my husband attends. My family is very proud to be a part of the school community. It takes only a brief chat with a principal or people involved in the school community to appreciate the pressures that are causing people to walk away from public education, and those pressures are beginning to show. We have to ask ourselves why that is happening.

Dr John Kaye made the positive point that 2005-06 statistics indicate a trend back to public education. I contend that the reason for that is simply the policies put forward in 2003 by the Brogden-Souris Opposition advocating a reduction in class sizes for kindergarten and years 1 and 2—a policy that was quickly adopted by that very astute reader of political change, Bob Carr. In 2005-06, that policy was in place and parents quite cleverly worked out that it is better to send a child to a public school for kindergarten and years 1 and 2 and have a student to teacher ratio of 1:22 than for their child to attend a private school where the ratio is probably 1:28, 1:30 or 1:32. It should be acknowledged that parents have made a conscious choice and have realised that kindergarten and years 1 and 2 in the public school system is a better investment because of the student to teacher ratio.

The Coalition, led in 2003 by John Brogden and George Souris, devised a landmark policy that subsequently was adopted by Bob Carr for the 2004 election campaign. I cite comments made by Mr Warren Mundine, the President of the Australian Labor Party:

That is a brave statement and it is quite correct because it poses the question: Why are parents prepared to sacrifice between $3,000 and $30,000 a year to send their children to a private school? That is the question that this Government has failed to ask itself.

The Teachers Federation continues to run education in New South Wales. Last year I witnessed that fact when my child came home with a brochure that had been handed out by a teacher as part of the workers rights campaign. I was offended and disappointed—and I was not alone—that the Teachers Federation was prepared to countenance the devaluation of all teachers in the school by allowing some politically motivated teachers to hand out propaganda. That is what is destroying confidence in public education.

There are two issues to consider. First, rightly or wrongly, it is perceived that political correctness is setting agendas at schools that are contrary to families' personal beliefs. That perception should be investigated. The second issue—which I touched on earlier—is that, as a result of the exodus from public education to the private system, predominantly students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds remain in our public schools. I have spoken to teachers about the problems they encounter because of family and relationship breakdowns and single parenting. In socioeconomically disadvantaged areas there are more children with challenges who take up more of their teachers' time. In some cases teachers suffer the added pressure of assuming parental responsibility for their students.

Teachers are an amazing resource in our community. But it is tragic that the Teachers Federation controls many aspects of public education in New South Wales. I give the Department of Education and Training credit for taking one decision that we heard about during our visit to Menindee in western New South Wales. Menindee Central School receives special funding of about $300,000 a year under an Aboriginal program that assists indigenous education. The school had a real victory when it was able to select its principal. We heard about the hoops that the school had to jump through to make that happen. Some officers at senior levels of the Department of Education and Training assisted the school—for the sake of their tenure I will not mention their names. That is a most encouraging development. The Teachers Federation did not win in this instance and Menindee Central School was able to appoint a suitable candidate who was eminently qualified and who is producing real results for the school. The leadership of some schools does not meet community expectations. I do not claim that that is a problem everywhere but I often hear of cases that deserve further investigation.

It is important to point out that over the past 10 years 125 students have left public education every week. This equates to 46,000 students leaving public primary schools and 19,000 leaving public high schools. In 1996 government secondary schools across the State had more than 67 per cent of total student enrolments. Since the Iemma Government has been in power that figure has dropped to 60.8 per cent. That means that 6.2 per cent of students have left public education since the election of the Carr and Iemma Labor governments. That says a lot for the Government's education policies but it also speaks volumes about the sacrifices that families are prepared to make because they have lost confidence in public education. Until the Government examines and resolves the problems in public education and stands up to the Teachers Federation the quality of public education in New South Wales will continue to be diluted.

I do not hold out much hope for the future of public education, and one of the Iemma Government's first major appointments to the New South Wales bureaucracy did not convince me of its ability to address the problems in that sector. The New South Wales Department of Education and Training is one of the largest education departments in the world—I think it is in the top three—and the position of Director General of the Department of Education and Training is by all accounts a most esteemed post. But the New South Wales Labor Government appointed a former press secretary to the position. It appointed an outsider to that strategic post at a time when public education enrolments were falling. That move directly affected public confidence in public education, and it speaks volumes about how the Labor Party regards the education bureaucracy in this State. The Government stands condemned for its decision.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.15 p.m.]: Like the Hon. Melinda Pavey, I have found much to agree and to disagree with in this debate. But I found her contribution something of a curate's egg: good in some parts and appallingly bad in others. Her attack on the New South Wales Teachers Federation—like that launched by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile—was absolutely unwarranted. The federation is a staunch supporter of public education and is prepared to speak out consistently in favour of a system that promotes inclusiveness and that caters to the needs of all children, regardless of their backgrounds, abilities or disabilities. Rather than suffering attacks, the federation deserves great commendation for its preparedness to state that access to quality public education is the right of every child in this State, and indeed in this country.

I believe the division between public and private education and the growth in the private education system have worked to the detriment of our community. That growth has encouraged divisiveness and exclusivity and has worked against the best interests of the community. However, I believe the Hon. Melinda Pavey was correct when she pointed out that any return to public education might be attributable to reduced class sizes in kindergarten and in years 1 and 2. Any move from public education should be attributed to the consistent lack of adequate funding for that sector. The decline in funding began in the 1970s and has continued unabated over the past three to four decades.

The problem has been exacerbated not only by the policies of both State and Federal governments but also by the policies of the Department of Education and Training, which has attempted to close many public schools. About eight years ago it tried to close Ashbury Public School, and Beacon Hill Public School was recently earmarked for closure. Vaucluse and Maroubra public schools were also under threat, and there were attempts to close Dulwich Hill Public School and Hunters Hill High School. That policy was extremely short-sighted because at the same time as the Government was moving to close schools in inner-suburban areas it was pursuing policies of medium-density development and encouraging greater population growth in those same areas. Indeed, families have returned to Sydney's inner suburbs—the flight to the suburbs has been reversed. They wish to send their children to State schools but find that the schools have closed. The public schools that remain open have large class sizes and inadequate equipment, and teachers have an increased workload that leaves them little time to prepare their lessons.

I believe Mr Stoner's comments are totally without substance and should be condemned. But I believe it is equally important to condemn the policies of a State Government that works actively against the interests of public education and that, by default, forces many people to find alternative places for their children in the private education system. Certainly I do not think there is any evidence of the Teachers Federation or teachers within public schools trying to foist particular viewpoints upon children. I think it is perfectly appropriate for teachers to make children aware that there is a diversity of viewpoints on almost any question you can ask. To say that there is only one right and correct view and that that is the view that is to be promoted is an incorrect way to see the role of education in our community. I conclude by saying that whilst I endorse the substance of the motion moved by Ms Amanda Fazio, I have no hesitation in condemning the Department of Education and Training for the practical outcome of many of the policies that it is implementing.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.21 p.m.]: Unlike the Hon. Amanda Fazio, I do not have curriculum materials from the Department of Education and Training to quote to the House so I thought I would put together a short multiple-choice test for the Australian Labor Party. If I said, "Articulate, strong values, community-focused, good-looking, suntanned, fit and surfs", would I be referring to (a) the Minister for Education or (b) the shadow Minister for Education? If I said, "Convicted drug dealer and no teaching qualifications", would I be referring to (a) Schapelle Corby or (b) the director general of school education in New South Wales? If I asked, "Which political party has been putting paedophiles into Parliament", would I be talking about (a) The Nationals, (b) the Liberal Party or (c) the Australian Labor Party? If I talked about dirt, smear, mudslinging, malice and relentless use of this House for personal attacks, would I be talking about (a) Amanda Fazio, (b) Amanda Fazio or (c) both of the above?

[Interruption]

They can dish it out, can't they? But they do not like it when it comes back. I have looked at the Notice Paper and noted that in the last Parliament the Hon. Amanda Fazio proposed three motions against me. One motion referred to my not turning up to a rail corridor meeting on the North Coast and alleged, therefore, that I do not care about the train issue. Another motion she listed on the Notice Paper criticised me for having the temerity to question the effectiveness of people dressing up as cigarettes and bongsin drug costumes. The Notice Paper is littered with other motions attacking individuals. I have looked at what the Hon. Amanda Fazio has on the Notice Paper at the moment. There is this smear against Andrew Stoner and there are two motions attacking the Federal Government. This State faces a housing crisis, a skills and training crisis, a major infrastructure deficit and a huge backlog of maintenance in our education system, and what is the Hon. Amanda Fazio using this House for? Smear, dirt and innuendo.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio has spent a good deal of time attacking Andrew Stoner. She has also attacked The Nationals candidate for the Federal seat of Richmond, Dr Sue Page. The Hon. Amanda Fazio has run around the North Coast saying, "Sue Page can't run for Parliament because she is not really an Australian citizen." That is a fabulous scare campaign. It got page 1 of the local paper. She must have been absolutely delighted with that effort. People are asking me, "Who the hell is Amanda Fazio?" To help them answer this question I have gone through the media coverage the honourable member has received to see what issues she has focussed on and how she has spent her time in the Parliament.

This has assisted me to advise my community where the Hon. Amanda Fazio is coming from: basically, she is a serial mudslinger who runs around the State lobbing accusations to try to bring other people down. I have explained to people in my community that she lives in Sydney's inner westshe has nothing to do with the North Coast. She worked in Labor's head office for seven years and was preselected to the State upper House in 2000. I take as my source the Sydney Morning Herald article called "Housekeeping for the keeper of secrets". I quote from that article:

She is, say some Labor insiders, the woman who knows where the bodies are buried.

The Hon. Ian West: Point of order

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: In 2002 Ms Fazio was pilloried by the media for time wasting in Parliament after a bizarre speech that mentioned the death of a member of a rock band.

The Hon. Ian West: Point of order: I am more than confident that the Hon. Amanda Fazio would not be fazed by what others are saying about her. My point of order relates to relevance. I ask that the Hon. Catherine Cusack debate the motion before the House.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: To the point of order: I think the issue is mudslinging. The motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio is clearly directed towards that end. I am simply evaluating the credibility of the person making the allegations against the leader of The Nationals. Testing that credibility is integral to understanding the motivation of where this motion is coming from.

The ASSISTANT DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The member should speak to the motion rather than become sidetracked.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I question the credibility of the mover of the motion who has made these allegations. I am referring to issues that are potentially more important. This motion is distracting our attention away from them. The mover of this motion tends to spend her time in the House on issues such as the death of a member of the rock band The Ramones. She confessed to the House that she had named her dog Joey, after the dead musician. She has a record of criticising not only the leader of The Nationals; she has also taken a strong stand against many of her Labor colleagues, arguing that they should leave Parliament.

The Hon. Ian West: Point of order: Again, I refer to relevance. As I said earlier, the Hon. Amanda Fazio would have no difficulty rebutting the completely irrelevant information that has been put before us. The Hon. Catherine Cusack should speak to the motion before the House.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: To the point of order: I argue that the Hon. Catherine Cusack is addressing the motion before the Chamber in relation to the mover of the motion and the importance of public education. I think she should be able to continue in that vein.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Further to the point of order: The motion specifically refers to claims that the Leader of The Nationals has said that schools are a vehicle for left-wing indoctrination and that the Government should rein in the politically correct culture within the Department of Education and Training. It refers specifically to Mr Stoner's criticisms of the Labor Party. I am dealing specifically with that culture and with those issues that I know are of enormous concern to the Leader of The Nationals. I again point out that people who like to dish it out ought to be able to stand here and cop a test of their credibility as to where they are coming from in making these allegations against him.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: To the point of order: I have no problem in defending my role in this House. However, according to the standing orders, if the Hon. Catherine Cusack wants to attack me she should have the courage to put a notice of motion on the Notice Paper and not ignore the important issue of public education. She is trying to vilify me with a bitter, twisted and, I would say, quite irrational display. I urge you to uphold the point of order and advise the Hon. Catherine Cusack that she should read the standing orders and work out where it is appropriate to make these comments. If she wants to do that, that is fine.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Which standing order are you referring to?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Mr Assistant Deputy-President, I ask you to make a ruling. I do not have to provide information to other members in the debate.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I have no idea of the standing order to which the Hon. Amanda Fazio is referring. She seems to want to use points of order to give me advice as to what motions I should or should not put on the Notice Paper. I have never put on the Notice Paper motions that personally attack people in the way she has. I have no intention of following that advice. I ask you to find that there is no point of order on the basis that the honourable member could not name the standing order to which she was referring.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: To the point of order: The Hon. Catherine Cusack said that the information she has is already in Hansard.

The ASSISTANT DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The point of order relates to relevance. If a member wishes to cast aspersions or imputations against another member, he or she must do so be way of a substantive motion. The Hon. Catherine Cusack will return to the substantive motion.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I undertake to refer to newspaper articles and quote information that is already on the public record. I will confine my remarks to what is already on the public record in Hansard and in newspapers. In 2002 the honourable member, according to—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order again relates to relevance to the substantive matter before the House. Under the standing orders, the Hon. Catherine Cusack can and is quite free to put on the Notice Paper a motion attacking, criticising or condemning any member of this House or the other House, but she is not free to do so by attacking the mover of a motion that is completely irrelevant to that matter. The motion before the House relates to comments made by the Opposition education spokesman, Andrew Stoner, in a press release. Those comments, which attacked the New South Wales education system, were reported in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The fact that I moved the motion before the House is irrelevant to this debate. If the Hon. Catherine Cusack wishes to make a personal attack on me, whether or not it is based on material that is on the public record, the only way she can do so within the standing orders is to place on the Notice Paper a motion attacking me. Using the guise of saying that this material is already in the public domain is not sufficient to allow her to contribute that material to this debate. I am happy to hear what she has to say in defence of Andrew Stoner and in relation to the public education system. There is a time and a place for all contributions in debate, and I ask you to direct her to make an appropriate contribution in this debate on public education.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The Hon. Amanda Fazio is making a strong personal attack on the Leader of The Nationals. As part of this debate I am simply arguing the merit and the motivation of that attack as part of my defence of the Leader of The Nationals. I need to be able to refer to information that is already on the public record. The Hon. Amanda Fazio is saying that she should be allowed to say whatever she wishes about the Leader of The Nationals but we are not allowed to question where she is coming from and what is the real motivation behind this motion. I do not believe we can mount a free and effective defence of the Leader of The Nationals, as we are entitled to do, if we are not allowed to speak about the motivation behind this motion. It is absolutely integral to what I say, and I think the Leader of The Nationals is entitled to have this matter heard. I am not insinuating or making up anything; I am simply seeking to quote from newspapers that are already on the public record. I note that the Hon. Amanda Fazio has had no difficulty using this tactic against other members on numerous occasions.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Further to the point of order: As I said at the outset, I am not afraid of responding to issues raised about me by the Hon. Catherine Cusack if she complies with the standing orders and puts a substantive motion on the Notice Paper. That is what I have done in terms of my concern about the comments made by Andrew Stoner in May this year. In this debate the Hon. Catherine Cusack is welcome—it is quite proper for her to do so—to comment on what I have said about Andrew Stoner in relation to the motion on the Notice Paper. However, she cannot use this debate as a vehicle to attack me. As I said, if she wants to attack me she can do so by way of a substantive motion.

[Interruption]

For the benefit of the Hon. Robyn Parker, I am saying this twice because it does not seem to be sinking in.

The ASSISTANT DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The Hon. Catherine Cusack will address the motion before the House. The member must not use a newspaper article as a means of casting aspersions against or making imputations about another member.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The Leader of The Nationals is concerned about education funding in New South Wales and the way funding is being misdirected. In some cases, the funding is insufficient, particularly in terms of maintaining government schools. He is concerned that that we are wasting money on inappropriate expenditures around the State. For example, in 2003 the Hon. Amanda Fazio was named in an article in the Australian Financial Review called "More NSW junkets". There was an outcry about the amount of travel by State members of Parliament—it is on the public record—and the system was reformed. However, as the Daily Telegraph reported, "It ain't over until the Fazio lady sings. Ms Fazio courageously defended overseas travel by State MPs and described the reforms as follows: 'This is namby-pamby pampering'—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: On three or four occasions you have directed the Hon. Catherine Cusack to return to the substantive motion and not to use this debate as a vehicle to cast aspersions on the Hon. Amanda Fazio. Your direction to the Hon. Catherine Cusack could not have been any clearer, yet she refuses to accede to your direction. I ask you to direct the honourable member to address the substantive motion and not use this debate as a clever, smart or sneaky way to attack another member of the House.

The ASSISTANT DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The Hon. Catherine Cusack will continue her speech and will confine her remarks to the question before the Chair.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Obviously Government members are not interested in hearing me detail this significant material. I can understand that; it is embarrassing and hypocritical. Maybe we will save this for another time. I do not intend to use my position in Parliament to put on the Notice Paper motions attacking members and others. However, I say to people who like to dish it out: You can dish it out but you cannot take it. That has been made clear in this debate. I feel sorry for the Leader of The Nationals, who has made an enormous contribution. He is a man of integrity, he has a fine reputation and he is a person of ethics and character. Not everybody agrees with what everybody says, but I have no doubt about two things: first, the Leader of The Nationals is a sincere man; and, secondly, he would be a huge boost and improvement if ever he were to have the opportunity to lead education in New South Wales. These smears are merely a distraction from the real issues, which the Leader of The Nationals is addressing.

I feel sorry for other people who have been smeared, such as Dr Sue Page, a former State and Federal President of the Rural Doctors Association. She has directly and indirectly saved hundred of lives, is enormously respected in our community and, without question, has achieved more during her five minutes involvement in public life than the person who smeared her has achieved in a lifetime. I feel sorry for people such as Gary Punch, who was attacked in Parliament for being a wife beater. I feel sorry for people such as Sandra Nori, a former Minister who retired at the election, whom the Hon. Amanda Fazio accused of being a non-performer. The list is endless.

I feel sorry for all the colleagues on the Hon. Amanda Fazio's little list who needed to be removed from Parliament. Most of them have gone now, but there is a pattern of smear, innuendo and dealing in dirt. Each time we have to listen to the Hon. Amanda Fazio read another dirt-casting motion in the House or make disparaging remarks in debate I urge honourable members to bear in mind where it comes from and what the record shows. We are unable to debate the real issues and difficulties confronting the people of this State because the Hon. Amanda Fazio has used her opportunity to debate private members' business to smear the Leader of The Nationals, a fine man who works hard and does his best for the children of this State.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.39 p.m.], in reply: I thank most honourable members who contributed to this debate, in particular those who spoke about this motion. Even though I did not agree with everything that they said it was quite heartening to see an underlying commitment of sorts from everybody who spoke to supporting public education. I would like to make some specific comments on the contributions made by honourable members. The Hon. Robyn Parker seemed to be able to do very little apart from continuing to talk down public school education in New South Wales by highlighting maintenance backlogs and alleged violence at schools. At the same time she lamented the fact that enrolments were dropping in public education. No wonder when Opposition members spend their time talking down and denigrating the public education system in New South Wales.

The Hon. Robyn Parker made no comment and expressed no concern about the impact of the disproportionate Commonwealth funding to public schools verses private schools. Once again she attacked the Teachers Federation and said that we needed more school counsellors in New South Wales, but she made no comment about the fact that the only contribution the Federal Government made was to give schools chaplains. The Hon. Trevor Khan talked about the retention rates of Aboriginal students verses non-Aboriginal students. He spoke about Aboriginal performance rates but he did not talk about the social and economic disadvantages being faced by Aboriginal communities, the fact that many Aboriginal students do not have anywhere to do their homework, and the fact that there are very few employment prospects for young Aboriginal people in remote and rural areas of New South Wales.

It is little wonder that those kids do not see any point in going to school and that they might not feel welcome when any attempt to show a balanced side to Australian history is denigrated by the Opposition's spokesperson on education. Andrew Stoner said that there is too much of black armband history in schools in New South Wales, so it is a contradiction for one of his members to display concern in this House for Aboriginal children at schools. I think the Hon. Trevor Khan should think about that and perhaps talk to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Stoner, who is also the shadow Minister for education. He should talk to him about making the school system much more friendly for Aboriginal children, which might contribute towards increasing retention rates. In general the issue was pretty much a red herring. He said that this motion was designed to cover up State inadequacies. It is not; it is to highlight the excellent curriculum we have in New South Wales that teaches tolerance and harmony in schools.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said that Andrew Stoner was reflecting on the views of parents who have perceptions about some aspects of the education system. My response to that would be to say that some parents have perceptions about a lot of issues that are generally not acceptable in the community. I do not think we should be too swayed by what people tell us as members of Parliament. It is responsible for members of Parliament to filter the information that they are given and come up with a balanced view rather than just uncritically regurgitate it to people. We have a responsibility to take on board the views that we are given by people in the community, but not to accept views that would be detrimental to other sections of the community.

I think that the tide has turned in private verses public school enrolment. That brings me to the outrageous contribution of the Hon. Melinda Pavey, who somehow tried to claim that the Brogden-Souris Opposition was responsible for the turnaround in enrolment trends in schools in New South Wales. I think that was one of the better examples of drawing a long-bow that I have seen in some time, but it was completely unsubstantiated by fact, statistics or anything else. However, I give the Hon. Melinda Pavey five stars for trying. She said that political correctness policies are contrary to parent beliefs and she thinks that is an issue. A lot of things that are now considered mainstream and generally acceptable in the community were regarded as politically correct a little while ago—things such as equal opportunities for women, not having any racism in schools, not segregating people with different religions or whatever else in the school system. Those things used to be politically correct.

Community and education policies and community attitudes are continually evolving and we must take that into account. I do not concur with her statement that parents have lost confidence in public education. I think that was another cheap shot. From her comments I wonder whether she intends to send her child to a State school from kindergarten to year 2. Ms Sylvia Hale's contribution was typical. She wanted to condemn not only Andrew Stoner but also the State Government, which is the norm. I will say no more about her contribution. I refer now to the contribution of the Hon. Catherine Cusack. When I first spoke in debate on this motion she continually interjected and seemed to be of the belief that if we believed it was appropriate to teach the Aboriginal viewpoint of Australian history in schools somehow that automatically meant we did not want to celebrate Australia Day, that we wanted it changed and renamed invasion day. That is typical of the logic we have had from this member.
I think her contribution to the debate shows appalling judgment. Her multiple-choice test, probably one of the worst examples of mud-slinging that I have seen in this House, is typical of the crazy contributions from this person. She did not address in any way, shape or form the serious issue that is in front of us. She showed again that she is very thin-skinned. She is an example of a shadow Minister in the current Opposition which demonstrates yet again why it is clearly unfit to govern and why it was rejected so resoundingly by the people of New South Wales at the State election held in March.

I want to examine the comments and the values of the judgment of the person we are talking about. The shadow Minister for Education and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition demonstrated that he is unfit to hold such a responsible position as shadow Minister for Education. He has demonstrated exceedingly poor judgements for many years, not just since entering Parliament. One case in point is his behaviour while manager of the social security office in Mount Isa. He tried to introduce compulsory prayer meetings every morning for all staff. There is nothing wrong with prayer meetings, but not compulsory prayer meetings for everyone, and certainly not when they are employed in the public sector. He did not just want to hold a prayer meeting for those staff that wanted to attend; he wanted compulsory prayer meetings for public servants.

That ridiculous act did not take long to reach the ears of senior management, who quickly had to relieve Andrew Stoner of his position. He was shuffled off to undertake years of study leave until he finally took the hint and left. He eventually turned up in New South Wales and joined The Nationals, where he continues to demonstrate his lack of commonsense, lack of good judgment and his total unsuitability to be shadow Minister for Education. I hark back to the comments made by the Minister for Education and Training in response to Andrew Stoner's original comments: that they demonstrated clearly why we would not let someone from The Nationals interfere in the curriculum development of New South Wales schools.

The public education system in New South Wales is an excellent system. We could do with more money but we do not even have an agreement from the Commonwealth Government to have a capital works program. The Commonwealth Government has its own funding program, which does not mesh with the State Government's capital works programs in schools. The Commonwealth Government is throwing money around. It is pork barrelling with money that was dudded from the GST distribution to New South Wales. We have a system that is massively overfunding elite private schools and massively underfunding the public education system.

Running parallel with that we have these capital grants programs under which the Commonwealth Government is throwing money around in an uncoordinated fashion. Those who listened carefully to the debate, who have a genuine interest in public education and in ensuring that the children who come out of the public education system have the capacity to be tolerant and to respect others in the community, will say that the motion I moved is quite reasonable and that they will support it. I urge all honourable members to support public education. I urge them to demonstrate that by supporting my motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 21

Mr Catanzariti
Mr Cohen
Mr Costa
Mr Della Bosca
Ms Fazio
Ms Griffin
Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos

Dr Kaye
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang

Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers
Mr Donnelly
Mr Veitch

Noes, 17

Mr Ajaka
Mr Brown
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile

Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Tellers
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Pair

Mr Roozendaal

Mr Clarke

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

CRIMES AMENDMENT BILL 2007

Second Reading

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [5.01 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Replacing 'maliciously' as a fault element

"Every act done of malice, whether against an individual or any corporate body or number of individuals, or done without malice but with indifference to human life or suffering, or with intent to injure some person or persons, or corporate body, in property or otherwise, and in any such case without lawful cause or excuse, or done recklessly or wantonly, shall be taken to have been done maliciously, within the meaning of this Act, and of every indictment and charge where malice is by law an ingredient in the crime."

R v Coleman (1990) 47 ACrimR 306

might

Section 33 Wounding etc with intent to do bodily harm or resist arrest

Safwan

Section 33A Discharging loaded arms with intent

Section 35—Increasing the penalties for recklessly causing Grievous Bodily Harm

Section 35A Causing dog to inflict grievous bodily harm or actual bodily harm

Inflicting a Grievous Bodily Disease

R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23

(c) any grievous bodily disease (in which case a reference to the infliction of grievous bodily harm includes a reference to causing a person to contract a grievous bodily disease).

Sections 39, 40, 41 and 41A – Poisoning Offences

Modernising house breaking offences

"any dwelling-house, or any building within the curtilage of any dwelling-house and occupied therewith but not being part thereof, or any school-house, shop, warehouse, or counting-house, office, store, garage, pavilion, factory, or workshop, or any building belonging to His Majesty or to any Government department, or to any municipal or other public authority".

Modernising Blackmail and Extortion Offences

Other Amendments

Conclusions

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [5.01 p.m.]: The Crimes Amendment Bill 2007 is intended to introduce some amending provisions. The Opposition's concern with this legislation is the rushed manner in which it has been introduced. Basically the Government indicated that the purpose of the bill is to increase penalties for rock throwing incidents. Unfortunately, far too many other amending provisions have been included in the bill, the provisions of which the Opposition has not had adequate time to examine. It goes without saying as a well-accepted principle that people who throw rocks at cars and cause injury should face the full consequences of their actions according to the law. Such outrageous acts, which show no thought having been given to the safety of other people, are completely unacceptable in any society.

I indicate at the outset that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. In the view of the Opposition an increase in penalty for the offence of rock throwing from seven years to ten years imprisonment is inadequate in certain circumstances and should be reviewed. Other amending provisions in the bill are aimed at modernising and simplifying the Crimes Act to remove the element of maliciousness and to replace it with the term "recklessly and intentionally" when appropriate. I urge caution in the consideration of this legislation given the inadequate time that has been allowed for members to examine its provisions in detail. The bill also deals with offences related to inflicting a grievous bodily disease on a person.

The bill contains provisions relating to the repeal of miscellaneous provisions, and amendments and renumberings that are aimed at simplifying and modernising the Act. It provides for the replacement of the term "malicious" with "recklessly and intentionally" when appropriate. Proposed new section 33 provides for a maximum penalty of 25 years for wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent. Currently section 35 of the Act provides a penalty of seven years imprisonment for reckless wounding, and consideration should be given to increasing that penalty. The bill also aims to modernise provisions relating to housebreaking offences, blackmail and extortion. As I stated at the outset, although inadequate time has been allowed for the Opposition to give detailed consideration to its provisions the Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.04 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Crimes Amendment Bill 2007. As the Minister stated in the second reading speech, the need for this legislation arose out of the increase in the incidence of rocks being thrown from bridges and overpass footpaths resulting in serious injuries being caused to passengers in motor vehicles. It is hoped that increased penalties will deter young people and adults who engage in such activities from doing so in the future.

The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill and accepts the Government's reasons for replacing the term "malicious" with "reckless". I note that although the original definition of "malicious" in the Act included the term "reckless", the provisions in the bill will simplify matters and make the legislation more effective in future prosecutions. During discussions with other honourable members, the point has been made that there is not much point increasing penalties unless there is an accompanying education campaign to inform would-be future offenders of the attitude of the Parliament to rock throwing and other malicious offences. I hope that information on the action being taken by the Parliament to deter rock throwing incidents in the future will be conveyed through public institutions such as high schools. I support the bill.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.06 p.m.]: Although the Opposition has indicated its support for the bill, it is worthwhile pointing out a number of aspects that the bill is intended to address. As honourable members are aware, the bill was introduced as a matter of urgency. In the other place, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the reason for introducing the bill was the throwing of rocks causing serious injury. Interestingly, the bill does not refer to the throwing of rocks at all.

It would have been possible to include amending provisions similar to section 32A of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, which deals specifically with the throwing of rocks and missiles. But the Government has chosen not to take that course. Instead it has sought to amend section 33 and section 35 of the Crimes Act. One would have thought that the educative component of the criminal law would dictate the introduction of a provision directing the minds of members of the public to the throwing of rocks, not a section that deals with reckless acts. Remembering that, as most members of the public are not members of the legal profession—fortunately, perhaps—one might find that section 33 and section 35 will not have a great educative effect upon them.

I should also point out that this bill goes well and truly beyond the issue of throwing rocks, as serious as that may be. The bill provides for quite substantial and significant amendments to the Crimes Act that deal with a wide variety of matters. In that context, the Hon. John Ajaka has referred specifically to the removal of the concept of malice. That is not a new issue arising under the Crimes Act. In the other place it was pointed out that in 1955, which was some years ago, the High Court in Mraz v Regina raised the issue of the complex definition of "malice". Apparently it has taken from 1955 till 2007 for the Government to address the issue as a matter of urgency!

At no stage during the preparation of this legislation has there been a proper opportunity for consultation with stakeholders, such as the Law Society of New South Wales and the Bar Association, or for detailed consideration of this legislation. We know that from the very fact that the legislation has been so quickly rushed into both Houses of the Parliament. In essence, if the objective of the Government is to demonstrate an involvement of the community in the preparation of legislation, particularly thoughtful and considered legislation, the exercise on this occasion has fallen far short of that objective.

The bill deals also with blackmail—another issue that could have been addressed on another occasion following proper consideration and consultation with the appropriate stakeholders. This is rushed legislation that did not receive appropriate consideration and thought.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.10 p.m.]: The Greens welcome reforming our criminal laws to bring them into the twenty-first century. But the Crimes Amendment Bill is a grab bag of measures that, in the main, are rushed and ill thought out. Let us consider what is in the bill—even though we have had very little time to examine it thoroughly. The process that led us to this point was entirely inadequate and an insult to good lawmaking. Unfortunately, that is a hallmark of the Iemma Government. It is disappointing that the Attorney General, who has been in the job for a few months, has gone along this approach to making laws for New South Wales.

The Greens have serious reservations about three aspects of the bill. First, we believe the increased penalties for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm are unnecessary and unlikely to achieve the aim of preventing rock throwing at cars. That problem clearly must be addressed, but I do not think any member in this place will argue that this change in the law will achieve that outcome. The second aspect is the failure to include in the bill a specific defence of voluntary acceptance of risk, which could apply if one person caused another to contract a grievous bodily disease. The third aspect is the failure to include specifically the defence of "lawful excuse" in the new scheme in the Crimes Act that abolishes the word " maliciously" and replaces it with the phrase "recklessly and intentionally".

While there is some merit in some of the bill's reforms, such as modernising housebreaking offences, this is not sufficient to exonerate the Government from the offence of lawmaking on the run. Last week and early this week when my staff and I were preparing for the parliamentary sittings we were told that the House would consider private members' business and the bill relating to the extension of hotel opening hours. But then this bill was rushed in suddenly. According to the gossip in the corridors the Government is worried that it does not have the numbers on the hotel bill so it has pulled this bill out of the hat. That is an appalling way to introduce important legislation and to make laws. It certainly makes it very difficult to have a serious, considered debate.

This is a curious bill. It proposes a mix of reforms that have been called for for more than 50 years, such as changing the use of the definition of "maliciously" in the New South Wales criminal law and increasing the penalties that apply to rock throwing offences. The latter measure appears to have been drafted only in the past two months in response to two particularly high-profile incidents. The Attorney General has put his name to this grab-bag bill, which highlights the fact that the Government is quick to jump when there is a media frenzy but it is slow to remedy glaring deficiencies in our legal system that have lingered for decades but which have never reached the front page of a Sydney newspaper. What motivated the Government to introduce this bill? It obviously felt that it had to respond to the media frenzy. But did it pull all the other measures out of the hat in an attempt to appear responsible and to address some of the legislative problems that have been around for a long time? We wonder about the Government's reasoning.

The two recent rock throwing incidents that resulted in very serious injuries were obviously tragic but we know that there have been many other similar incidents. It is clear that throwing rocks at cars can cause death and terrible injury. Tragically, many of those who commit these crimes are young people. Their crimes have a lifelong effect on their families and immediate networks and on their victims and their families. The Greens believe the Government should develop a range of responses rather than rely on the vain hope that jail terms will stop these crimes. It is extremely disappointing that the Government has not offered the range of responses that are needed. In his speech in the other place the Minister for Police said:

There is no need to increase the penalties from 7 to 10 years and from 10 to 14 years for offences committed in company, or to go down the track of the Opposition, which wants to up the ante even more. New South Wales already has criminal laws in place that allow the police and the courts to handle rock-throwing incidents. The Government should have responded to the media attention by reminding the public that tough laws exist already and by signalling its intention to introduce a range of other measures to deal with the terrible rock throwing incidents. The Government should try to get to the bottom of this problem. It should ask questions such as "What is going on with these kids?" and "Why are these incidents happening and how do we stop them?"

The Premier and the shadow Attorney General, Greg Smith, made themselves look rather foolish last week in their haste to up the ante. The Premier proposed a 14-year jail sentence while Mr Smith proposed 25 years imprisonment for the offence of rock throwing. But they were too quick off the mark because we learned later that the kids involved in the incident in question had misled the police. Nobody ended up looking very thorough or professional. Clearly politicians must respond to events in our community, but the kneejerk responses of last week do nothing to deal effectively with or to solve this problem.

As stated earlier, the Greens support replacing reference to the word "maliciously" in the Crimes Act with the phrase "intentionally or recklessly". We understand that the Criminal Law Review Division of the New South Wales Attorney General's Department consulted on this change in 2005 and that the courts have identified for five decades the problems posed to juries by the definition of "malice". Unfortunately, the Criminal Law Review Division ignored the advice of the Law Society of New South Wales, which stated in its submission that the bill should include a specific defence of "lawful excuse". I would like to be able to congratulate the new Attorney General on dealing with an issue that has been hanging around for 50 years.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Please do.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I cannot do that when a grab bag of responses have been dumped into this bill.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: What's a lawful excuse for throwing a rock?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I did not say there was a lawful excuse for that. The Attorney General is trying to divert attention from his mismanagement and the fact that he is cast in the same mould as the Government. He cannot manage his portfolio creatively.

In reforming the law as it applies to one person infecting another person with a disease, the Government has failed to include the important defence of voluntary acceptance of risk, which should apply to two consenting adults in a consensual relationship who may agree to take the risk of contracting a disease such as HIV-AIDS or hepatitis. Obviously a couple in a loving relationship have the right to accept risks to their health from an infectious disease. This is an important defence in a civil and humane society, where people's private lives should be shielded from unnecessary interference from police and the criminal justice system. This defence was called for by organisations such as the AIDS Council of New South Wales and People Living With HIV/AIDS but the Government has ignored their pleas. I look forward to hearing the Attorney General's reply to the debate. He should explain why he has put his name to this hodgepodge of measures and why we were not given more time to have a considered and thorough debate and produce more beneficial legislation.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [5.20 p.m.], in reply: On the issue of urgency, which has been raised by a number of members, the Government is concerned by the recent attention that this issue has gained in the media. There is a possibility that some people might be tempted as a consequence to commit copycat offences and the Government is especially concerned that this might occur during the fast-approaching school holiday period. Many families will be on the road over the next two weeks and the Government is determined to send a clear and strong message that this dangerous and idiotic activity should stop. Members should note that the provisions and the increased penalties for recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm commence on assent and we believe that these amendments should be in place by this weekend.

A number of speakers have made comments in relation to this issue. The Hon. Trevor Khan talked about the need for a specific rock throwing offence. Last week the Premier indicated that the relevant Ministers—me, the Minister for Police and also the Minister for Roads—are considering a stand-alone offence. This proposal is under active consideration, as are further measures to ensure that as far as possible this kind of activity can be avoided in the first place outside of just the criminal law response. The space is not closed simply through these offence provisions that we are debating today.

It is true, as the Hon. Trevor Khan indicated in his contribution, that the issue we are discussing in part has been the subject of discussion in previous cases, in particular in the case of Mraz v the Crown, but that is not the only case. The cases of Regina v Coleman in 1990 and Regina v Livingstone in 2004 have also raised issues in relation to maliciousness. I should make the point that in 2005 the Criminal Law Review Division of the Attorney General's Department issued a discussion paper in relation to this issue, which raised the prospect of replacing the term "maliciousness" throughout the Crimes Act. We sought responses from a variety of stakeholders, including the Chief Magistrate of the Local Court, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is not correct to say that this issue was rushed through without any consultation with relevant stakeholders; it was in fact discussed through the process that I have just indicated. I might add that there was general support amongst all of the respondents for the idea of deleting references to the word "maliciousness" in existing offences and inserting the term "recklessly" or "intentionally or recklessly", as required. It should also be stated for the record that the person who, on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time, responded to that discussion was none other than the member for Epping, the shadow Attorney General, who was then the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions.

The suggestion that somehow this issue has been one that has caught the Opposition by surprise, at least in respect of the definition to which I have just referred, is grossly inaccurate and I am surprised that members opposite have not been properly informed about those issues. I do not know what is bugging Ms Lee Rhiannon in relation to the matter that she raised, but the extraordinary contribution that she made probably speaks for itself and does not require any detailed response from me. The suggestion that somehow you can have a voluntary acceptance of risk for people who are involved in consensual conduct when it involves an infliction of grievous bodily disease is just ludicrous. Maybe that is a reflection of the values that she would like to see the New South Wales Parliament adopt, but they are certainly not the ones that I would support. Her other suggestion that there somehow should be a lawful excuse for grievous bodily harm with an intention to cause injury or death is another ludicrous proposition that might be reflective of her social values, but they are certainly not reflective of mine.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 26

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

Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Reverend Dr Moyes
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

Noes, 4

Mr Cohen
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [5.30 p.m.], by leave: I move:

In doing so, I will correct something I said earlier. In 2005, when the Criminal Law Review Division paper was issued, there were discussions with a range of agencies, which I outlined. However, at the time the response came from the Director of Public Prosecutions the Opposition shadow Attorney General, Mr Greg Smith, was the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, although I understand that he did not put in the submission.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

LIQUOR AMENDMENT (SPECIAL EVENTS HOTEL TRADING) BILL 2007

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.31 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

The 2007 Rugby World Cup is presently being held in France, with selective games also being played in Wales and Scotland. There is a high level of interest in games involving the Wallabies, and many people are also closely watching the fortunes of other teams. The time difference between France and Australia has resulted in match telecasts beginning late at night or in the early morning hours. Many people wish to watch match telecasts in licensed venues, principally hotels and registered clubs. These venues are a traditional Australian social environment for sporting fans. Under the Liquor Act, standard hotel trading is limited to midnight closing on Monday to Saturday and 10.00 p.m. closing on Sundays. Approximately 50 per cent of hotels already have extended trading past midnight on Saturdays approved under the Act. Closing times vary from 1.00 a.m. through to 24-hour operations.

Standard hotel opening times under the Liquor Act are 5.00 a.m. from Monday to Saturday and 10.00 a.m. on Sunday. The Liquor Act allows hotels to apply to the Licensing Court to open from 5.00 a.m. and trade until midnight on Sundays to meet the needs of tourists and tourism, or other special needs. Approximately 30 per cent of New South Wales hotels have taken advantage of this extended trading, while a few hotels in the central Sydney area also have had trading approved beyond midnight on Sunday nights. The hotel industry has asked that standard hotel trading be extended during the Rugby World Cup. The industry pointed out that some matches, particularly those commencing at or after 10.00 p.m. New South Wales time will be part way through when many hotels will be required to close for the evening.

Patrons will be disgruntled if hotels are forced to close part way through matches. Licensees will have problems asking patrons to leave and dispersing them from the immediate surrounds. The forced exit on to the street of large numbers of hotel patrons can also place a significant strain on local transport and security. Unfortunately, it has not been possible for amendments to the liquor laws to be considered in time for pool matches of the Rugby World Cup. Therefore, this bill is limited only to hotel trading hours for finals matches. The bill amends the Liquor Act to provide for special hotel trading on Saturday 6 October 2007 and Sunday 7 October 2007 until 1.00 a.m. on the following day, or until the relevant finals match on each of those days concludes, when a telecast of the match is provided by a hotel.
The bill also provides special hotel trading from 5.00 a.m. on Sunday 7 October 2007, Sunday 14 October 2007 and Sunday 21 October 2007 to cater for finals matches that commence early in the morning. This is a modest but reasonable extension to accommodate finals matches that have already begun during standard trading hours for most hotels, and to allow patrons to view early Sunday morning finals matches. The extension will allow hotels to sell liquor for consumption on licensed premises only. It does not permit takeaway sales to be made. Further, the extension will not overrule any previously imposed trading restrictions or other conditions that apply to an individual hotel licence. Restrictions dealing with neighbourhood disturbance problems that are imposed by the Liquor Administration Board, including lockouts and restricted entry, will continue to apply. Also, the bill will not specifically overrule planning approvals administered by local councils.

As I have already noted, some hotels have extended trading approved under the existing law. This proposal will not restrict the trading rights of those hotels. It is not necessary for the bill to propose extended hotel trading for Rugby World Cup finals matches on 8 October 2007, 15 October 2007 and 20 October 2007 as those matches will be telecast during standard hotel trading hours. This bill applies to hotels only as registered clubs generally have no restrictions on their trading hours under the Registered Clubs Act. The Government does not consider it necessary or desirable for an extension of trading hours to be made available to licensed restaurants or other licensed venues because those venues are generally not used by the public for viewing the telecast of significant sporting events. I advise that the Government will move an amendment to the bill in Committee to remove the regulation-making power from the bill, which would have allowed the responsible Minister to extend hotel trading hours for significant events in the future. There is precedent for this bill. The Liquor Act was amended in 2002 and in 2006 to extend hotel trading for certain games of the FIFA World Cup. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.36 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the bill in the light of the amendment. However, it is interesting to note that this is another bill that has been brought to the House apparently with urgency. We understand that the Rugby World Cup is not an event that has come on suddenly. Indeed, publicity for the event has been going on for about 12 months. This amendment could have been introduced in a considered and sober way that would have allowed proper consideration of the matter in the cold light of day instead of in the smoky halls and bars of this township. The first matter of note is that this demonstrates once again that the Government has introduced legislation more in panic than after considered thought. It must be noted that the Government intends to move an amendment to remove section 24AA.

It is interesting that once again the Government has been brought to book, so to speak, in the cool light of sober judgement after it was made clear that the proposed amendment to section 24AA went well and truly beyond that which was required to meet the interests of the public in allowing an extension of hotel trading hours during the Rugby World Cup. It would seem that, by amending section 24AA, the Government intended to remove from the Parliament the right to give proper consideration to trading hours and instead to place it in the hands of the Minister, that is, remove that right from the purview of Parliament and place it in the hands of the Executive. So with the foreshadowed amendment, the Opposition supports the bill.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.38 p.m.]: The object of the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill is to amend the Liquor Act to extend hotel trading hours on certain dates during the finals of the 2007 Rugby World Cup. I congratulate the Australian rugby team on having gained entry into the 2007 Rugby World Cup, and I join with other honourable members in wishing our team all the best in its endeavours at this special world tournament. I understand that many supporters of the Australian team in the Rugby World Cup attend hotels as a popular venue for the public to view televised events. I understand also that some matches commence after 10.00 p.m. Eastern standard time and that some matches will be televised when many hotels are required to close for the evening.

I believe that the proposed changes to hotel trading hours will be limited to finals matches. I further understand that the proposed extension will allow hotels to sell liquor for consumption on licensed premises only and not permit takeaway sales to be made. The amendment applies strictly to hotels only. I understand that these extensions will not overrule any previously imposed trading restrictions or other conditions that apply to an individual hotel licence or overrule planning approvals administered by local councils.

My support for this bill does not extend beyond its applicability to the 2007 Rugby World Cup. I thank the Government for indicating that it will withdraw from the original bill the regulation-making power included to cover a special event of regional, State or national significance. I believe that such events should be dealt with on their merits, not committing the New South Wales Government in advance of their being held. I acknowledge the support of many others in indicating the removal of the special events powers being granted to the Minister. I conclude by restating my view on the excessive consumption of alcohol, the devastation it causes to the lives of countless people and families, and the social impacts arising from it.

I encourage responsible retailers to limit the sale of alcohol, particularly during the final hours of opening. I do not wish to limit a fan's enjoyment of the international rugby match. Finally, speaking on the question of hotel trading hours being extended for special events is deja vu for me. In 1956 I gave my first public address as a teenager on the theme of the Victorian Government needing to "stick to six in '56". More than half a century later I am approving a bill that will enable the New South Wales Government to extend trading hours, but that is only because of the international rugby match.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.42 p.m.]: This bill does sporting fans a favour, which is fair enough. Obviously people who want to watch a sporting match will enjoy it much more when they are able to get together in a group. Often it can be very convivial when one is at the pub and one is able to watch the big game. However, we must also acknowledge that this legislation does a big favour to pubs. The Greens will move amendments in Committee because we believe that the Government must rein in that big favour to the hotel industry. This Government has gone too far in its enthusiasm to assist the hotel industry. In this case it relates to opening hours.

The hotel industry has been consistently lobbying for an easing of the legislation in that area and that would certainly be the outcome if this legislation were not amended. This legislation is not just about the Rugby World Cup. The Greens will not oppose extending trading hours for the Rugby World Cup, but I am concerned about the more expansive clauses in this bill that will allow hotel trading hours to be extended by the Minister when other special events are held. Under this legislation, the Minister will be able to use his discretion to deem what is a special event and to extend trading hours by way of regulation, which we all know means that debate in the Parliament will not happen immediately.

Scrutiny occurs well down the track. In many cases it would not exist if a special event had already occurred before we had a chance to move disallowance if we did not agree with what the Government had done in extending hours for some so-called special event. When the Greens and other crossbench members were briefed on this bill they were assured that the regulation-making power was temporary only until major amendments to the Liquor Act came through. However, it could be more than a year until the revised Liquor Act and regulations come through. I have just been told that the Government will move an amendment to this legislation. I do not know why it is doing so as it does not have the numbers. The Government never wants to be defeated on the floor of the House. It wants to move an amendment, but it does not have the numbers.

We were also assured that the regulation to extend trading hours would be a disallowable instrument and, therefore, members of Parliament would move to disallow it if they did not agree to extend trading hours for the event. The glaring problem with this is that a regulation can be disallowed only if Parliament is sitting. I foreshadowed earlier that the Greens would move an amendment in Committee. It appears as though the Government amendment will be moved first, but the important thing is that we have been able to wind back the Government in an area where it regularly delivers for the hotel industry.

At the briefing we were told that the Government has not listed any specific events because it could not think of any, which is extraordinary. We know what is happening. We have the Olympics next year and the F�d�ration Internationale de Football Association [FIFA] cup in a few years time and, clearly, there will be a requirement for extended hours. Why could the Government not come through with a list of these special events? For some reason it could not come up with a list. I reiterate some of the comments made earlier by other members about the problems relating to extended trading hours.

We must remember and we must always look to mitigate the problems that can arise with extended trading hours, particularly for nearby residents. An extra three hours of noise and mayhem at night can be tough going. Families with young children in particular would be affected because they would be unable to get their young ones to sleep. Domestic violence also increases when there is more drinking, so a lot of other problems are associated with an increased consumption of alcohol. I place on the record in this debate the responsibility that hotels must carry at this time when extended hours are granted. They must be much more thorough in ensuring the responsible serving of alcohol.

We continually hear stories that many hotels overlook their responsibility. They must establish how to ensure that their patrons move on as quickly as possible so there is much less noise and disturbance for local residents. As I said earlier, the Greens support extending trading hours for specific events. However, hotels must be responsible about how that is carried out. I am pleased the Government came to its senses and is pulling that part of the Act that went too far in delivering for the hotel industry.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.47 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for the bill and I look forward to moving amendments in Committee.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.48 p.m.]: I move Government amendments Nos 1 and 2:

As I forecast in the second reading speech, the amendments will remove the regulation-making power from the bill, which would have enabled the responsible Minister to extend hotel trading hours for significant events in the future.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.49 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party appreciates the Government moving its amendment No. 1. It would have been difficult for us to support the bill in its current form. The amendment helps the passage of the bill, but its main intention is met.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! As amendments circulated by the Greens and The Nationals are identical to those moved by the Hon. Penny Sharpe, I will not ask for them to be moved

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Title as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and an amended long title.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendments.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.52 p.m.]: I move:

THE NATIONALS ABORIGINAL EDUCATION TOUR

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [5.52 p.m.]: I am pleased to report to the House on a tour conducted by The Nationals through western New South Wales. We examined Aboriginal issues, particularly Aboriginal education. The tour was part of a push to address the inequities in educational outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous students across the State. The Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, was accompanied by the new members for the areas we visited, Kevin Humphreys, the new member for Barwon, and John Williams, the new member for Murray-Darling. The upper House members included the Hon. Trevor Khan, the Hon. Rick Colless and me. The tour was undertaken in August through north-west and western New South Wales.

The Nationals represent approximately 33 per cent of the Aboriginal population in New South Wales in their 13 lower House seats, making the issue particularly relevant to our members and their communities. The impact of the social disadvantage caused through unemployment and lack of hope has led to alcohol and drug abuse and gambling problems within those Aboriginal communities. These outcomes have had an enormous impact on the quality of life in our towns and committees. Education is a key to help overcome the social disparity. We need practical solutions to break the cycle and give children an opportunity for a future that includes a job, a home and a safe and secure family environment.

The key message from the tour was from an education worker in Moree, who said that education is a three-way street between parents, students and the school. We visited the communities of Moree, Walgett, Brewarrina, Bourke, Wilcannia, Broken Hill and Dareton and met with a range of community stakeholders, including representatives from the Department of Education and Training, local teachers and Aboriginal education assistants, along with local Aboriginal elders, community leaders and key service providers in each community. During the week we came across people who shared with us the problems facing indigenous communities, such as drug and alcohol abuse within the home, problem gambling, child sexual abuse, shortages of suitable housing and the shortcomings in providing appropriate standards of health care, all of which evidently are contributing factors in the failure of indigenous students to achieve results on par with their non-indigenous classmates.

We were struck by the frankness with which education stakeholders and community representatives spoke with us. Such discussions throughout the tour have armed us with some ideas and policy outcomes that we will pursue over the next 3� years and which will form part of our policy towards the next State election. Many problems, such as high truancy rates, are having a huge impact on the communities. A large part of the problem is that children who finish year 6 and do not go into year 7 are not traced through the Department of Education and Training. There are poor retention rates. The people of Moree made the strong recommendation that suspended children should be encouraged to stay at school but in a separate environment. They said that the suspension of students from school is not having the desired outcome and that the students should remain within the school environment.

We know that the educational performance of Aboriginal children falls well below New South Wales student averages, but the concern is that the New South Wales indigenous outcomes are at the bottom of the scale when compared with the rest of Australia. This can be attributed to myriad reasons. I believe the overarching message from the communities we visited is that they want more Aboriginal teachers within the system. The pathway to achieving that is through the Aboriginal education assistants. One of the problems is that they are regarded only as casual employees by the department. Normally they are paid on a casual basis, which means they are not paid for the school holiday periods, and they receive payments ranging from $12.13 to $21.42 per hour. Many Aboriginal education assistants also do not want to leave their communities, which makes tertiary study a genuine dilemma for them. Some practical and commonsense solutions must be sourced to deal with that problem. Aboriginal assistants and teachers understand the concerns and cultural sensitivities of these communities so there are better outcomes.

In conclusion, two weeks after The Nationals western New South Wales tour concluded the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Paul Lynch, asked the upper House Standing Committee on Social Issues to hold an inquiry into closing the gap to overcome indigenous disadvantage. After 12 years of Labor's shameful neglect of its policies that have failed Aboriginal people, there is growing awareness in the wider community that in New South Wales there are as many societal issues facing Aboriginal people as there are in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The Government's failure to address— [Time expired.]

ROSEVILLE FIREARMS SPORTS STORE

The Hon. ROY SMITH [5.57 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the total overreaction by some local residents to the proposal to establish a sports store that will sell firearms in Roseville. I do not believe I have ever heard a more irrational debate on any issue. Of particular concern to legitimate firearm owners in New South Wales has been the reaction of the two major parties to the NIMBY uproar. Both parties again have shown their preparedness to sacrifice the rights of legitimate firearm owners and businesses on the altar of populist policy and political expediency. On behalf of firearm owners in New South Wales and in support of them continuing to have ready access to retail facilities essential to their activities, the Shooters Party has asked the Minister for Planning, Mr Sartor, to clarify the situation for gun shops around the State.

We fear that what happened in Roseville might spread elsewhere and that other councils dominated or controlled by people not properly informed about firearms also might attempt to restrict the legitimate activities of sporting shooters and firearms dealers. During the controversy in Roseville Mr Sartor worryingly expressed a willingness to consider reclassifying gun shops as restricted premises, making it harder for them to receive planning approval from local councils. We need to know the Government's future intention in this regard. Indeed, we call on the Government to provide any examples of genuine problematic planning issues involving gun shops.

In particular, we would like to see any evidence showing that gun shops pose any more risk to their local communities than do other retailers, such as hotels, bottle shops, pharmacies or Totalizator Agency Boards [TABs]. So far we have received no response from Minister Sartor, but we are hopeful that we will hear from him soon and that he will put an end to this outbreak of hoplophobia—before other politically-motivated opportunists seek to jump on the anti gun shop bandwagon!

While we have been disappointed with Minister Sartor's handling of this matter, I must point out that the response from the Liberal camp has upset sporting shooters even more. Quick to score a few political points, the Liberal shadow planning Minister, Mr Brad Hazzard, claimed that laws were needed to remove gun shops from city and urban areas. He suggested that gun shops needed to be moved to discreet premises and that they had to be out of sight. It seems to us that the Liberals are putting sports stores that sell firearms in the same categories as brothels, adult bookshops, methadone clinics and needle exchange galleries. I assure the House that such comments have not been welcomed by hundreds of thousands of legitimate sporting shooters who regard shooting as a sport they can share with their whole family. Firearm owners already are the most tightly controlled, regulated and restricted sportspeople in this country and they do not deserve to be vilified in the way they have been recently.

Despite the hoplophobic hysteria stirred up by the local member for Davidson, Jonathan O'Dea, the proposed gun store at Roseville poses no threat to children who attend the local preschool. I dare say that the six-lane carriageway between the preschool and the shops poses significantly more danger to local children, with tens of thousands of vehicles passing daily. The shop has been through all the local council rules and regulations for approval. It poses no threat to anyone. I again suggest that gun shops pose fewer risks to their local communities than do other businesses, such as hotels, pharmacies and Totalizator Agency Boards. I also suggest that people, especially political leaders, should put the issue into perspective.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS

The Hon. IAN WEST [6.01 p.m.]: During the winter recess I travelled to New Zealand as part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association study program. I had the pleasure of meeting several members of the New Zealand Parliament, including Prime Minister Helen Clark, members of New Zealand's trade union movement and employers in the trucking industry. In many ways New Zealand is close to Australia. Both countries went down the path of so-called deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s, engaging in privatisation of publicly owned businesses, and both made changes to financial and industrial relations regulations.

While there was some moderation in Australia, New Zealand's right-wing government took re-regulation, which is a more accurate way to describe the policies, to the extreme. The cornerstone of re-regulation, the Employment Contracts Act, came into force in New Zealand in 1991. The Act served the same purpose as the Australian Federal Government's WorkChoices laws are intended to serve in Australia—the denial of collective bargaining rights to workers. The Employment Contracts Act was an economic and social disaster for New Zealand. According to New Zealand economist Paul Dalziel wages and productivity suffered after the introduction of that Act. For example, in New Zealand productivity increased by a little more than 5 per cent between 1990 and 1998 whereas in Australia productivity increased by almost 22 per cent. Prior to that time, productivity in both countries had been similar.

The laws also promoted greater inequality, with real wages for some vulnerable workers, particularly unskilled workers and those in the services sector, decreasing by up to 45 per cent. When the results of the laws became clear, the party responsible for their introduction was turfed out and the Act was replaced. The New Zealand experience has busted the myth that the Howard Government and members of the New South Wales Opposition like to peddle about WorkChoices being modern and progressive. The supporters of WorkChoices in Australia did not catch up to changes in thinking that occurred since the 1980s and 1990s when those types of policies, which have been around since before the 1800s and even longer, underwent a renaissance in Western countries—yet WorkChoices was being peddled as a new idea!

While I was in New Zealand the University of Sydney's workplace research centre sponsored a visit by Professor Richard Freeman, who pointed out that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund had retreated from advocating laws such as WorkChoices and the Employment Contracts Act. The 2004 edition of OECD Employment Outlook is sceptical about the Howard Government's line that employment protection laws and high wages hinder employment. The report states that the evidence of unfair dismissal laws protecting jobs while hindering employment is mixed. The report also states that higher wages do not of themselves necessarily discourage employment.

This is a far cry from what similar groups were saying in the 1980s and 1990s and from what the Liberal Party is saying today. In 2004 the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, declared the Washington Consensus, which advocated a WorkChoices style of labour policies, had been "dead for years". In a March 2006 article in the International Monetary Fund's magazine, Finance and Development, the authors stated that the reforms advocated in the 1980s and 1990s had not lived up to expectations. In an honest admission from the International Monetary Fund, which had forced similar reforms in places such as Argentina, the article stated, "… our knowledge of economic growth is extremely incomplete". If true wisdom comes from a person knowing that they know nothing, perhaps members of the International Monetary Fund are on their way to enlightenment!

However, the same cannot be said about the Howard Government and members of the New South Wales Opposition who appear to be ignorant of international developments as they mindlessly drone on about economic mantras from the 1980s. An interesting contrast to the Howard Government's rhetoric was published by the Sydney Morning Herald in an article on 11 August 2007. It pointed out that Denmark breaks every rule in the Howard Government's book—extremely high union density, collective agreements, high minimum wages, generous welfare benefits and high levels of government spending and taxes. Yet, according to the World Economic Forum, it is the fourth most competitive economy in the world behind similar economies such as Switzerland, Finland and Sweden. The United States ranks sixth, but has grossly higher levels of inequality than has Denmark. A report on the findings states:

Although there may be more than one route to economic success, the same may not be true when it comes to inequality.

The real outcome of WorkChoices-style policies is that they change the way the pie is divided rather than increase the size of the pie. That is the reality that everyone knows, yet the Liberal Party cannot publicly admit it.

SOMERSBY SAND MINE

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [6.06 p.m.]: Earlier today the House supported a motion relating to the Sommersby Plateau sand mine proposal. I will endeavour to provide honourable members with additional information so that they may understand exactly what the implications of this sand mine will be. Somersby will be very familiar to many honourable members. It is best recognised by the old Sydneytown site in a nearby area as well as by the landmark Australian Reptile Park. Farther to the north of the park is an area earmarked for the Somersby sand mine.

The mine will have a significant impact on the surrounding area. The site covers approximately 42 hectares. Approximately 450,000 tonnes of sand a year will be mined at the site for approximately 18 years. The mine will be approximately 200 metres from the Somersby Public School. The school's principal, Mr Sean Andrews, has publicly stated that he fully expects school students to leave the school if the mine opens. Given that the school is in an isolated regional area, it is easy to understand concerns related to the operations of the mine because it will mean the death of the local school.

The Somersby Action Group's briefing to members of the public and members of Parliament restates figures provided by the Somersby Fields proponents. The operation of the sand mine will result in the loss of approximately 20,000 tonnes of water per year as a result of wet sand being transported out of the mine; evaporative loss of 8,000 tonnes of water to settle dust within the mine site; a loss of bore water from 59 registered bores within 1,500 metres of the mine on which local farmers and residents rely; a loss of water flow into the Gosford-Wyong water supply in circumstances in which the current water supply is presently at 13 per cent of capacity and level 5 restrictions threaten to account for 12 per cent of capacity; diversion of surface water on the mine site into dams for use in washing sand and consequential losses through evaporation; and the loss of spring-fed dams, creek springs and swampland on surrounding properties.

In 2005 Stateline conducted an investigation and examined the forecasts concerning Somersby. The investigation examined current conditions and conditions that preceded the Carr Government's decision not to proceed with the Kurnell sand mining project. The cheer from the people of Kurnell was in vain when they were told that the sand mining project would not go ahead in their area. At that time, the Government did not have the heart to tell them that it had something special in mind for them in the form of a desalination plant. The Government saved that item for a later day.

But that is an issue for a later day. The sand mine was relocated from Kurnell to Somersby. I am told that the amount of sand required to be mined for Sydney equates to about one utility vehicle load each year for every man, woman and child in Sydney. That puts into perspective the loss in environmental potential and the economic loss that the community will suffer as a result of this proposal. The school could close and health concerns will prompt many residents to leave the area. As the motion states, there are real concerns about the health impact of dust on schoolchildren and other local residents.

The Sydney metropolitan area needs sand so the Government has considered establishing sand mines in several places, including the Wingecarribee shire, Shellharbour, and the Newnes Plateau near Lithgow. Now we have this ill-fated proposal at Somersby. There is strong opposition to the mine. Gosford City Council is opposed to it, as is the member for Gosford, Marie Andrews. Jim Lloyd, the Federal member for Robertson, is a strong supporter of the community group. I congratulate the Somersby Action Group, comprising Richard Weller, Lyn Hawker, Melissa Cahill, Lyn Daniels, Janine Fischer, Beverley Ferrier—who has kept my office up to date about the ongoing lobbying activities—Ruth and Peter Donnelly, Hillary Morris and others. In addition, the Somersby Public School parents and citizens association is fighting the proposal on behalf of present and future students. I offer my thanks to the Mangrove Mountain and Districts Community Group—particularly Russell and Margaret Pontifex—John Asquith and all other members of the Central Coast Environment Network, and Peter Campbell of Calga. I particularly thank the Gosford City councillors and Chris Hartcher, the member for Terrigal, for their fantastic work in support of the action group.

HANGING ROCK SWAMP OAK FOREST

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.11 p.m.]: The hardworking members of Hanging Rock Landcare, together with many other volunteers, have been working on a green corridor extending from one end of Batemans Bay to the other. They have received Commonwealth environment funding for this project. This should be a good news story about the spectacular regeneration of coastal dunes. But Eurobodalla Shire Council has claimed a large portion of the regenerated land for a model car track the size of six netball courts. In 2004 this Landcare group started to care officially for the Hanging Rock Swamp oak forest. It is only a small remnant but is listed by the New South Wales Scientific Committee as an endangered ecological community in part 3 of schedule 1 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Hanging Rock Landcare was granted care of the area in question and received finance and backing from the Federal Government's Envirofund.

The project involved extending the swamp oak forest along the length of Corrigans Beach, creating a green corridor for birds, small mammals and insects. The threatened glossy black cockatoos now had a home since most of their original habitat in Batemans Bay had been destroyed by housing development. Since the first Federal grant in 2004 members of this group have worked hard undertaking eradication of blackberry, bitu bush and a host of other weeds. They followed that up with mulching, fencing and walkway construction. All up, 15 large truckloads of rubbish were removed from the site. Most of the dune area was replanted with swamp oaks and some coastal banksias, lamandras and saltbush. Approximately 800 trees were planted in the first run and later 100 trees were planted with the help of scouts, schoolchildren and many other volunteers. There have been setbacks. For example, many trees were lost in the drought but these were replaced. All this hard work has been recognised, with the project receiving four awards and more Envirofund money in December 2006.

But in April this year survey pegs were found in the middle of the dunes restored with native vegetation. This is how the members of Hanging Rock Landcare and the other hardworking volunteers found out that a remote control car track the size of six netball courts was planned for the Landcare area that they had worked so hard to restore. Eurobodalla council has now approved this project. Greens Councillor Chris Kowal and Councillor Michael Corbin were the only councillors to vote against the project. Mr Kowal attempted to persuade the council to look at alternative sites and detailed the importance of this dune project in providing protection against climate change related coastal storm surges. Jane McBride, Co-ordinator of Long Beach Landcare, was given only five minutes to address the council about the project. Jane told me that she and her colleagues felt that the decision about the project had already been made before she spoke and before the final vote was taken.

The proposed model car track will be a giant slab of concrete. This is vandalism. Restored ecosystems will be smashed. The noise of the model cars will drive away the glossy black cockatoos that at last had a home. Let us be clear: The councillors on Eurobodalla Shire Council except for Chris Kowal and Michael Corbin voted to destroy approved Landcare volunteer work funded by the Commonwealth Envirofund. This has surely set a precedent. The State and Federal governments should stop this council vandalism. Has there not been a breach of contractual arrangements with the Commonwealth Government?

This is not the first time that Eurobodalla council has voted in favour of a proposal that resulted in the destruction of a Landcare project. Only four months ago, in June this year, at Long Beach near Batemans Bay Eurobodalla council ripped up dune care work that locals had received Federal funding to undertake. As with the Hanging Rock project, the locals were awarded for their hard work. Eurobodalla council granted an achievement award on Australia Day for the very project that it later sent in the bulldozers to destroy. Let us ensure that Long Beach does not set a precedent for more vandalism. The model car racing track project has not yet commenced and Hanging Rock Landcare is still fighting to save the restored swamp oak forest ecosystem. I have written to the Minister for Lands, Mr Tony Kelly about this matter. I urge him to meet with members of Hanging Rock Landcare when he visits the South Coast next week and to work with them to ensure that this proposed council vandalism never happens.

MCKELL AWARDS 2007

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.16 p.m.]: Regardless of their political affiliation, people in political parties are on the front line of the contest of ideas in our democracy. The people who join, and are active in, formalised political parties play a very important role in the health and wellbeing of our democracy. They shape the policies of the parties and play a large role in selecting the people who become elected representatives in our Parliaments and local councils. They also help to keep our elected representatives honest.

Tonight I wish to acknowledge and congratulate three people who have dedicated their lives to the support of not just the Australian Labor Party but their local community. Through the Labor Party they have chosen one way to be active in the contest of ideas, and perhaps more importantly their involvement has assisted in the implementation of Labor ideals and social justice both in their local communities and through the election of Labor governments. These three people were recently formally acknowledged by the Labor Party through the annual McKell Awards. The McKell Awards thank members who have excelled in their service to the party and the community.

The first person I wish to mention is Christine Harcourt. Christine was nominated for an award this year by a wide variety of people, including the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party; Tony Pooley, the newly elected Deputy Mayor of Sydney; Tanya Plibersek, the Federal Member for Sydney; the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann, a former President of this place; and Jill Lay, former Deputy Mayor of South Sydney Council and a staunch party activist. This array of supporters reflects the breadth and depth of Christine's work for the party and her community, and the esteem in which she is held. Christine Harcourt has been an integral member of the Surry Hills branch of the Labor Party for more than 33 years, serving as its president, vice-president and secretary. She has also served as the Vice-President of the Sydney Federal Electoral Council of the party and as a delegate to its Bligh and Sydney State Electoral Councils.
Chris continues to work for the Labor cause, most recently as campaign director for the State seat of Sydney. She has a long history of support for community organisations, particularly school parents and citizens associations and the Redfern and South Sydney police and community youth clubs. Christine served as a South Sydney councillor for 13 years, including six years as deputy mayor. She was able to draw on many years of professional experience as a researcher for the Sydney Sexual Health Centre in helping to formulate the council's groundbreaking sex industry policy. The Royal Australian Planning Institute presented the council with its annual Award for Urban Planning Achievement for the policy, which became a model for others.

The next person I wish to mention is Graham Ashton, who was nominated by the Grafton branch of the Australian Labor Party this year but who is known to me though his work for Labor in the State seat of Marrickville. Graham is now an active member of the Warren branch and was a delegate to the Australian Labor Party National Conference this year. He has been a member of the Labor Party since 1969. For many years he lived on the far North Coast, where he was especially active in the party. He served as the president of the Woolgoolga branch, the secretary of the Casino branch and the Casino State Electoral Council, the Assistant Secretary of Richmond Federal Electoral Council and the Secretary of Cowper Federal Electoral Council. His activism embraced union advocacy and community representation. He was the North Coast organiser for the Teachers Federation from July 1976 until December 1982 and the Labor councillor on Casino Council from 1983 until 1987. He has worked tirelessly on local and Labor campaigns for more than 34 years.

I would like to acknowledge George Symes, the President of the Sapphire Coast branch in my duty electorate of Bega. His colleagues in the branch nominated him for a McKell award last year. George is one of those prodigiously active and unwaveringly loyal party activists upon whom every great party depends for its survival. His fellow members in the Sapphire Coast branch readily credit him with reviving the fortunes of their branch and others in Bega. Regardless of the campaign activity, they testify that George can always be relied upon to be on hand before anyone else, he will work hard and will always be the last to leave. He contributes generously of his time and money for fundraisers, represents his branch at most Federal and State Electoral Council meetings and regularly visits frail and elderly branch members in their own homes. He has a particular talent for recruiting new members and regularly door-knocks and runs stalls at local markets and community events to win converts to his chosen cause. George is at the forefront of the campaign to elect Colonel Mike Kelly to the Federal seat of Eden Monaro. I am proud and continue to be humble that I know George, Graham and Christine. Their selfless promotion of Labor's ideals reflects their unswerving commitment to the welfare of ordinary people. I congratulate them on their McKell awards and thank them for their continued activism.

In the time I have remaining to speak in this debate I wish to acknowledge the passing of Keith Phipps, the President of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who died after a long illness with cancer this year. He has been a strong advocate for gay men and lesbians, particularly their families, and has supported many families across Sydney, in particular Western Sydney. I ask the House to note his passing with sadness.

Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6.21 p.m. until Thursday 27 September 2007 at 11.00 a.m.

Last modified 16/07/2008 12:20:08 : Update this page