Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 19 June 2008, Corrected Copy)

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

The President read the Prayers.

Motion by Dr John Kaye agreed to:

1. That this House notes:

(a) that 19 June 2008 marks the 63rd birthday of Nobel Laureate and leader of the democracy movement in Burma, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,

(b) that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been held under periods of house arrest since 1989, the most recent continuous period of detention beginning in May 2003,

(c) that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been denied basic civil rights since the election of 1990 at which her party, the National League for Democracy, won an overwhelming majority,

(d) the military dictatorship in Burma has refused to acknowledge the results of the 1990 election, which would have made the National League for Democracy the government and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi a leader of her country, and

(e) Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has refused a number of opportunities to leave Burma, even to visit her dying husband, knowing that she would be denied the right to return and continue the struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma.

2. That this House calls on the military dictatorship of Burma to immediately and unconditionally release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on the occasion of her 63rd birthday and to begin an inclusive and time-bound national reconciliation process for restoring democracy in Burma.

3. That this House sends birthday felicitations to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and congratulates her on standing up to the brutal treatment of her people by the military regime.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, as Chair, tabled a report entitled "Electoral and Political Party Funding in New South Wales", dated June 2008, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, correspondence and answers to questions taken on notice.

Ordered to be printed on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.04 a.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

This report is released at an important stage in this State against a background of allegations of political corruption and problems in Wollongong City Council. The procedure for public funding and donations to political parties in this State requires an urgent resolution. The key message from the committee's inquiry is that significant reform is needed of the New South Wales electoral funding regime and, in particular, to tighten the regulation of political donations. From many of the 189 submissions the committee received it was clear that reforms are needed urgently to restore community confidence in politicians and the political process. The committee's proposed model entails a radical rewriting of the New South Wales electoral funding scheme. Key provisions of the model are: to ban all political donations by corporations and other organisations, not just developers; to cap individual donations to $1,000; to cap election spending; to make disclosure of donations and election spending more timely and transparent; and to introduce greater policing of the electoral funding scheme, and tougher penalties for non-compliance.

It now rests with the Government to respond to this report. I call on the Government to take strong action to demonstrate its commitment to restoring public faith in the electoral finance regime of New South Wales by implementing the committee's proposed model. That would well and truly declare to the sceptical public that the political parties of New South Wales are not up for sale.

Debate adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Petition requesting the provision of a kidney dialysis service for patients in the Cooma region, received from the Hon. Melinda Pavey.

Petition requesting that the House reintroduce the 100 kilometre per hour speed limit between Omega Hill and Fox Ground and immediately upgrade the Princes Highway between Gerringong and Bomaderry, received from the Hon. Don Harwin.

Petition stating that dyslexia should be recognised as a disability and requesting the House pass the Education Support for Dyslexic Children Bill 2007, received from the Hon. Trevor Khan.

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

The Hon. ROY SMITH [11.14 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 115 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008, be called on forthwith.

This matter is clearly not urgent.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Like all yours?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I note the interjection by the Hon. Greg Donnelly. On several occasions I have put my case for suspending standing and sessional orders in order to debate motions that I believed were urgent. But this situation is quite extraordinary. Time and again the Hon. Greg Donnelly and the Hon. Tony Kelly have disputed the urgency of Greens motions. They have pointed out that motions appear in a certain order on the business paper.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: These are our arguments, Lee.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Will the Hon. Greg Donnelly speak to the motion? I am pleased that he has made his position so clear. Last week the House allowed the Hon. Roy Smith to suspend standing and sessional orders, move his motion and introduce the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008. No Government or Opposition members spoke to the motions. It appears that the same thing is about to happen today. The bill introduced by the Shooters Party could remain on the business paper until it is due to be considered in the normal manner. It is interesting that members, particularly Labor members, argue regularly that we must respect the business paper. They say that items appear on the business paper in a certain order and that on Thursday members have the opportunity to discuss private business. On several occasions the Hon. Tony Kelly has told us to respect the agenda in the business paper. The Hon. Lynda Voltz said something similar recently when she disputed a claim of urgency put by the Greens.

I respect the fact that members have argued against Greens motions to discuss numerous issues, which we considered to be urgent. But no-one has made the case why we must consider the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 urgently. No Labor or Coalition member agreed last week that the matter was urgent because more young people should be able to have access to more high-powered weapons, or that we need to wind back the advances made in this area following the incident at Port Arthur. No member said anything like that. It is extraordinary that anyone should argue that firearms legislation should be amended to ensure that more people can own more weapons and fire them more often, with fewer protections in place. The Hon. Roy Smith believes this matter is urgent. I urge members to consider seriously their position on this matter. If they vote for the motion they will be taking the first step in winding back the incredibly important measures that were introduced in the aftermath—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order relates to urgency. Ms Lee Rhiannon is debating the substantive motion, not the reason that she believes the matter is urgent. I ask you to draw her back to the motion before the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members of previous rulings on this point, particularly that of President Johnson, who ruled on 26 February 1987 and on 19 November 1987:

In debating a procedural motion, members should restrict their comments to the terms of the motion and not the substance of the matter.

I could cite a number of other versions of that ruling; however, I trust that Ms Lee Rhiannon understands its intent and will confine her remarks to the urgency of the matter.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Thank you, Mr President. I appreciate your ruling. It is obviously difficult to challenge the urgency of a motion if I cannot explore the issues involved and when the case for urgency has not been established. It was not established by the Hon. Roy Smith in moving the motion nor by members who supported the motion last week—and who I assume will do so again today. I urge members to think carefully about supporting this motion. It is the first step in winding back the important firearm protections introduced by former Prime Minister Howard. [Time expired.]

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.19 a.m.]: I support the remarks of my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon. There are two key issues: first, urgency was not established in the first instance when the second reading was moved last week; and, secondly, there has been no argument for urgency at all. The substance of the bill is about weakening controls on firearms. Nobody in this place has ever argued that if we do not debate the bill today we will be worse off than if we consider it in a week's time, a month's time or when it appears on the Notice Paper in the natural course of events. No argument has been made that the damage being done to our society is so serious that we need to interrupt the order of business of the Parliament to deal with it. On the contrary, I would argue that if we go ahead and debate the bill we run the risk of doing substantial damage to our society, because of the nature of deals that are done around this place. We run the risk of going down the path of Americanisation of our society with respect to gun control.

The second issue associated with the motion is the argument that was put up when my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon was speaking. We were told that we are being inconsistent because we have argued for urgency on a number of occasions and therefore we have no right to argue against urgency on this occasion. That kind of argument is simply facile. When we have argued for urgency it has been driven by events occurring outside the Parliament or by occurrences that mean that if we do not debate the motions in Parliament either they will become irrelevant or substantial damage will be done in the interim before the motion appears on the business paper in the normal course of events.

As for the bill, no argument has been put forward that damage is being done if we maintain the current situation. As I said, if the motion for urgency gets up, the substantial argument is that if the bill goes through we will be doing damage. To that extent, I urge members to think carefully about giving urgency to the second reading of this bill. If we grant urgency we will start a process of debate that we will never be able to rewind. As soon as we give more power to the gun lobby, gun clubs and, more importantly, gun manufacturers, we will not be able to rewind that. It instils itself into society and it becomes almost impossible to undo.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Point of order: My point of order is self-evident. Dr John Kaye is flouting your ruling and arguing the main case.

Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: I am specifically arguing against urgency. I am arguing that not only is the bill not urgent but it is urgent that we do not debate it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member may continue. However, in the short time remaining to him he should take heed of my earlier ruling and refrain from debating the substantive issues.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I understand. My point is that, firstly, the bill is not urgent and, secondly, proceeding with debate on the bill will do substantial damage to society. It is urgent that we do not debate these matters.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.24 a.m.]: I have heard no argument that is remotely persuasive that the matter is urgent. It has been suggested that this is the time when there is a mass renewal of gun licences, but the question of licences is only one small aspect of the bill. There is absolutely no reason to push through a bill that deals predominantly with other issues on the pretext that the question of licence renewals is urgent. I have scratched my head and thought about the real reason the Shooters Party wants this bill debated urgently. The only conclusion I can reach is that the Shooters Party does not trust the Labor Party, having done a deal with the Government to push through the planning laws—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: Ms Sylvia Hale was in the Chamber when Ms Lee Rhiannon and Dr John Kaye presented their position, and she would be well aware of the points of order taken on this matter. As for the motion before the House, Ms Sylvia Hale knows full well that she should focus her attention on the issue of urgency. She is almost cutting loose—she may not have had enough sleep—and launching into a tirade. I ask you to draw her attention to the matter before the House, which is urgency.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: To the point of order: The singular feature of the debate so far is the failure of the Shooters Party to produce adequate reasons for urgency. I think it is perfectly appropriate to surmise about the real reason the Shooters Party want this bill pushed through as a matter of urgency.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: To the point of order: Obviously in these debates it is difficult to argue that something is not urgent when urgency has not been established. This debate would be more useful if the Shooters Party established urgency. In doing that, it might also inform us of any deals they have done in relation to the planning bill or any other matters. It would be useful.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have ruled on numerous occasions when the substantive matters of a proposed bill or motion may or may not be debated. At this time Ms Sylvia Hale may refer only to matters that relate specifically to whether standing and sessional orders should be suspended to allow an item of business to proceed. The member may continue, but in doing so she should not attempt to debate the substantive motion.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: As I said, the failure of the Shooters Party to provide arguments as to why this matter is urgent, other than a reference to the imminent renewal of gun licences, leaves one in the position of having to surmise about the real urgency of the matter. What is the nature of the real urgency? As I was about to say before I was interrupted, it seems that the Shooters Party does not trust the Labor Party. They have done this mephistophelian deal with the Labor Party—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: It is like Back to the Future. Literally only a couple of minutes ago I raised the same point of order and Ms Sylvia Hale is saying exactly the same thing. You gave a comprehensive overview of the position and explained the way Ms Sylvia Hale should address the issue in the time remaining to her. She has failed to do that, and I respectfully request that you draw her back to the issue.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member must not debate the substantive matters that are dealt with in the bill. She must confine her remarks to debating why the procedural motion should or should not be agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I was not talking about the substantive issues in the bill; I was talking about the possible reasons for urgency and trying to establish what they could be. If we look at the behaviour of the Shooters Party, particularly this week—[Time expired.]

Mr IAN COHEN [11.29 a.m.]: I think it is reasonable to argue against urgency in this case. I was listening to the debate in my room and dashed down to the Chamber. I noted that the Shooters Party put no argument forward. There seems to be a sense of compliance on the part of the Government not to listen to any valid or viable arguments on this issue. There is no sense of urgency in relation to this bill. It should come up in the normal course of events unless there is some urgent underlying reason that is known only to the Shooters Party and the Government. There is no urgency about the issue unless we see the need for a proliferation of guns in our society as a matter of urgency.

It is an intervention by the Shooters Party as part of a deal with the Government and it is totally inappropriate to see this as a matter that should be given any degree of urgency. We have raised issues before in this House and the Government has clearly interceded and claimed that the Greens do not have a right to seek urgency. There is a point of disagreement where one party may see urgency and another may not, but here we have a case that goes beyond the point of disagreement. There is no reason for urgency in this case. It is a deal. It is a convenience, not a matter or urgency. I suggest the House vote down this convenient arrangement between a minor party and the Government to put forward other agendas rather than the issue that is before the House, in relation to which there is no urgency.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.31 a.m.]: I am surprised that the Greens—all four of them—oppose this business being brought on. When the Hon. Roy Smith—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: Clearly we need to have urgency established, so could the member establish it?

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is entitled to speak to the motion that is before the House, which seeks the suspension of standing and sessional orders.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Members of the Greens have already elucidated why they believe the Shooters Party believes this business should be brought on now. I am surprised that they did not do that earlier in the process. There was not a squeak from the Greens when this matter was raised as a matter of urgency before my colleague gave his second reading speech. Perhaps they were simply asleep at the wheel. It is a matter of some urgency because of the matters that Ms Sylvia Hale referred to.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.
The Hon. ROY SMITH [11.41 a.m.]: I move:

That Private Members' Business item No. 115 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.41 a.m.]: It is important that members carefully consider whether this is a matter of urgency. The Notice Paper for today lists a large number of motions, and the order in which they are debated is obviously extremely important. Members would be aware of the nature of the bill that the Hon. Roy Smith has brought forward as being urgent. It is disappointing that he has not sought to establish urgency. To assist the House to determine whether this is a matter of urgency, we need to weigh up the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 with the various items listed on the Notice Paper for today. Clearly, we need to make an informed decision about which item is the most urgent.

As members know, Thursday is an important day for crossbench and backbench members because that is when they have an opportunity to bring forward their various bills and motions. Firstly, however, the House needs to consider the items listed in the order of precedence. The first item in the order of precedence listed on today's Notice Paper is the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Liability of Volunteers) Bill 2008. The second is the Smoke-free Environment Amendment (Motor Vehicle Prohibition) Bill 2008, an important bill that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has brought forward. I would be surprised if Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile would want to allow debate on that bill to lapse in favour of a bill that seeks to expand the use of firearms. I am sure Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile would be conscious of the fact that his constituency would be wary about such a change. The third item in the order of precedence is my Peak Oil Response Plan Bill 2008, incredibly important legislation that we need to continue to debate.

The next item in the order of precedence is a motion concerning State emergency services, on which debate has commenced. Again, I would imagine that most members would be well aware of the need for the House to consider the state of our emergency services. Even without having heard the debate, I imagine that many members would agree that debating the importance of the State's emergency services should have priority over considering a bill such as the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008, on which the Hon. Roy Smith delivered the second reading last week. The long title of that bill is "An Act to amend the Firearms Act 1996 and the Firearms Regulation 2006 to make further provision with respect to the regulation and control of firearms, and for other purposes". So we can see that the bill is extremely wide ranging.

I am going through the items listed on today's Notice Paper so that members are in a good position to weigh up which matters are urgent in comparison to the Firearms Amendment Bill. I will continue with the items in the order of precedence, because obviously they are the items that compete for urgency with the Firearms Amendment Bill. The next item listed in the order of precedence is the Hon. David Clarke's motion concerning the Great Ukrainian Famine. I know the Hon. David Clarke does a great deal of work with various communities. I am sure he would be keen to have his motion debated, so he is able to return to the many communities in which he works and advise them that he has brought such a motion before the Parliament.

The next item listed in the order of precedence is a motion of my colleague Dr John Kaye concerning the introduction of the Food Amendment (Trans Fatty Acids and Eradication) Bill, an extremely important bill that would have enormous health consequences. Dr John Kaye has informed me that he is very keen to get debate going on that bill. Item No. 9 in the order of precedence is a motion by my colleague the Hon. Amanda Fazio. I understand the Hon. Amanda Fazio waited a long time to get the motion listed as an item in the order of precedence—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: No, I didn't. It got there because of chook lotto.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the Hon. Amanda Fazio's interjection and thank her for clarifying the position. Perhaps not all members would agree that the Hon. Amanda Fazio's motion is urgent, but she certainly has a right to have the motion considered if it is shown to be urgent. Paragraph (a) of the motion asks the House to welcome the Iemma Government's $6 million package for the expansion of early intervention services for children with autism, which includes an autism-specific childcare centre in Western Sydney. The Hon. Amanda Fazio's motion also asks the House to acknowledge the large amount of money that has been put into such services. I understand that the Hon. Amanda Fazio is keen for debate on the motion to proceed.

The last item listed in the order of precedence is a motion brought forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. As members would be aware, there has been some controversy about some of the motions concerning the Hon. Duncan Gay's work. I would be surprised if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were not extremely keen for debate on his motion to proceed. Indeed, I think he would argue that the motion is urgent and should have a chance to be debated today. Obviously, that would not occur if the Hon. Roy Smith's urgency motion is passed and debate on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 proceeds. There are eight items listed in the order of precedence, some of which, had it not been for the Hon. Roy Smith's urgency motion, the House would have been debating by now. I can understand many members being disappointed that debate on their matters has not yet commenced. As we know, many members view the debates in the Houses through the live telecast shown on the parliamentary website. Members who do so may be surprised that the House has not commenced debate on some of the items listed on the Notice Paper in the order of precedence.

Over the period I have been a member of this place, I think on one occasion the House got through all items listed in the order of precedence, some of which were postponed, and then the House considered items outside the order of precedence. Many members of this place have argued strongly that we should respect the order in which items are listed in the Notice Paper. On 28 February this year I moved an urgency motion concerning the transport of grain by rail. The Greens brought the motion forward as a matter of urgency because there was uncertainty for farmers as to how the grain would be moved. Given that the Hon. Tony Kelly comes from rural New South Wales—he has made a great contribution in his community, and he makes valuable contributions in this place about his work in that area; he is part of Country Labor and is obviously proud of that—I was incredibly surprised that the Minister argued that my motion was not urgent. Indeed, his words were, "This matter should come up in the normal course of events"—meaning that the motion was listed in the Notice Paper and the House would get to it in due course.

The Greens argued that that was not the right way to go because the whole issue needed to be dealt with immediately. If the motion regarding moving the export grain crop by rail had been left to take its course, and this House had done what Mr Kelly wanted and not treated the matter as urgent, the grain would have long rotted. In that case Mr Kelly argued for respect for the Notice Paper. This time, when the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 is the subject of urgency, Mr Kelly remains silent. It would seem he regards this as an urgent matter. I am surprised by what I perceive here: extraordinary inconsistency in approach.

Another motion that I sought to be accorded urgency related to the call for papers on the M4 East. As we know, this House plays a very important role in the release of so-called secret government documents. That has helped to inform public debate and quite significantly improve people's understanding of how the Cross City Tunnel works and how the Lane Cove Tunnel works. The Greens recognised the real need for urgent debate regarding the M4 East motorway. On that occasion I can understand why some people—maybe it is the case with Lynda Voltz, because she argued that it was not a matter of urgency—would think it was not an urgent matter. However, the Greens argued urgency for a number of reasons. One was that people have a right to be informed on these million-dollar government budget items to be spent in the operations of the Roads and Traffic Authority. Another was the implications regarding peak oil, climate change, inner-city congestion and polluted air. People really did have a right to have those documents released.

It is interesting to reflect on the good old days of this House when Michael Egan—probably because of the numbers here—regularly acceded to motions to suspend standing and sessional orders without lengthy debate, and papers were regularly released. It was Lynda Voltz who said then, "The motion sought to be moved is not urgent." I was interested in her argument in that instance, but when it comes to the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 the silence of Liberals, The Nationals and Labor members sends the clear message that members of those parties regard this bill as an urgent matter.

It is extremely interesting to consider the issue of urgency on the next matter on the Notice Paper—an issue that the Greens took up in May. Again it was Mr Kelly who challenged the urgency of the debate. That was most surprising, because the motion I sought to bring on urgently related to the Southern Highlands Regional Shooting Complex at Hilltop. It parallels this Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 because, although it is not directly linked, it appears to be linked tactically. Members would be aware that one of the concerns of the Greens and many others in the community relates to a deal that appears to have been made. The Shooters Party is incredibly effective in getting things from the Government. The Government is considering two things that the shooters want. First, they want their Firearms Amendment Bill debated and passed. Judging by the vote today, one would think it was readied and set to sail through. That is one thing that the Shooters Party has told the Government it wants. The Opposition has rolled over, as it does so often on these things, much to the surprise of some people.

The other thing that the Shooters Party very much wants—and it is sitting on Mr Sartor's desk—is the Southern Highlands Regional Shooting Complex at Hilltop. This is a huge expansion of what is at present a small shooting range in that area. When I sought to bring that matter on as a matter of urgency, again Mr Kelly told us it was not an urgent matter. I find that extraordinarily inconsistent. I am hoping that Mr Kelly will join in the debate and inform us why that shooting issue was not urgent but the one now under consideration is. It seems to be a serious inconsistency. I appreciate that I may not have understood his interpretation, or that there might be a tactical matter that I am missing, but it would certainly be useful to have that debate.

One of the problems we have had here is the failure of members who wish the matter to be debated to argue to establish the urgency of the debate. That is surprising considering that both Mr Smith and Mr Brown did not establish urgency. I really thought that they would have done more work on their argument. Maybe they did not because they were so confident they had the numbers that they were thinking, "Why bother? We've got it all sewn up." I do not think it is respectful of the House not to bother to establish urgency, especially considering the far-reaching nature of the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 and the enormous changes it will make to firearms legislation in this State.

The firearms legislation in New South Wales is not peculiar to this State. Since the tragedy of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 there has been a uniform approach to firearms legislation throughout Australia. This was an achievement of former Prime Minister Mr John Howard, who recognised the need for it, worked with the community and brought in various changes to firearms legislation. I think most would agree that an important aspect of that was the banning of semi-automatic long-arms. Unfortunately, there was no such ban on semi-automatic pistols. Still, that legislation was an importance advance. The bill under consideration winds that back. That is why I hoped that members would have been considering what we are doing here.

We need to consider: Is this bill urgent? And why have our party hierarchies so readily agreed to what the Shooters Party wants? This bill is being brought on as a matter of urgency, rather than being dealt with in the order of precedence, or taking its place outside the order of precedence until it is elevated in our famous chook lotto. Why is the bill being rushed through at a time when there are two crucial pieces of legislation on which the vote of the Shooters Party is vital, including the planning legislation, which went through earlier this week? Two weeks ago, when the planning legislation was first being debated in the House, the Shooters Party was indicating that it would support the legislation being referred to a committee for review. All of a sudden it changed its position. We could get the impression that its members are tough bargainers, and that they may have been pushing hard for a deal with the Labor Government. We do not know any of that—we do not know that at all—but it is important that we share that information and discuss it widely.

We are considering items not only within the order of precedence but outside the order of precedence. I am not sure how many motions members gave notice of today, but there are on the Notice Paper 130 motions outside the order of precedence and 8 matters within the order of precedence. When considering the urgency of this bill, we should be looking at the content of the other motions. Are they more urgent than the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008?

The Hon. Michael Costa: Haven't we voted on this?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge Mr Costa's interjection. Maybe he could inform us about any discussions that have been had about this motion to suspend standing and sessional orders. Obviously, he is keen to sew up the numbers for the electricity privatisation bill. Many people have suggested that there is a link between the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 and the key legislation on which Labor is working so hard to sew up the numbers.

I again refer to the matter of urgency that we are debating today. Let us look closely at what is on the business paper. As I said earlier, there are a large number of motions—130 outside the order of precedence and eight inside the order of precedence. Do all members, apart from the Greens, believe that the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008—a serious and far-reaching piece of legislation that seeks to wind back the national approach to firearms safety measures—

The Hon. Michael Costa: Look at all the kids in the Parliament. They can see how you are abusing the democratic process.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the Treasurer's interjection, which was much milder than his usual interjections.

The Hon. Michael Costa: I said you are abusing the democratic process.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am not abusing the democratic processes. Labor and the Coalition are working with a group that wants to introduce legislation that will damage public safety in this State.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General aware of the 2004 Ombudsman's report which warned of a large backlog in DNA testing and found that it took 288 days for evidence analysis for sexual assault cases? Is the Attorney General aware of the 2006 Ombudsman's report that found that the Division of Analytical Laboratories that analyses DNA samples from police was unable to meet the demand for its services? Is the Attorney General aware that there was a 15-month delay in awarding an outsourcing contract for DNA analysis? Is the Attorney General also aware that it took until May this year for the New South Wales Police Force to close its request for responses from organisations to supply robotic DNA analysis technology—a project that was funded 10 months earlier in the 2007-08 State budget? Given the Government's extensive delay at every stage in addressing the crisis of DNA analysis, which has seen rape victims wait more than five months for test results, how can the community have confidence that the DNA of offenders undertaking the current wave of sex crimes is not sitting in a laboratory waiting to be tested?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Every Australian jurisdiction is dealing with the consequences of the overwhelming success of, and the demand for, this new technology. In part, that has meant that there have been some delays in processing samples. That is mainly because, as the technology and experience have allowed, police have increased the number of samples that they collect from crime scenes. Other jurisdictions have also experienced a shortage of qualified forensic scientists to carry out additional work. However, enhancements in the forensics area generally result in improved police investigations and a greater number of prosecutions. The Government has shown a continued commitment to guaranteeing that police will have the appropriate forensic tools at their disposal.

To that end, we have committed to investing $22.45 million over four years to undertake more DNA tests, speed up the testing, and purchase new and cutting-edge forensic technology for police. That includes $4 million for robotic technology that will automate and speed up DNA analysis. The Government continues to improve the laws relating to DNA sampling to assist in the early detection and prosecution of crime. The House will soon be dealing with a bill relating to that issue. The Government has passed laws to expand the power of police to take DNA samples from people suspected of committing summary offences as well as indictable offences. As we discuss this progress it is also important to reflect on what the Opposition had to say about it.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: I am happy for the Attorney General to talk about what the Opposition had to say, but the main part of my question related to whether the community could be assured that the DNA of offenders undertaking the current wave of sex crimes was not sitting in a laboratory waiting to be tested.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I understand the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I ask the Minister to address that issue first and then to return to the comments that he wanted to make.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition is happy for the Minister to continue. I ask the Minister to be generally relevant.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You can bucket the Opposition afterwards but you should address the question first.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This is what the shadow Attorney General had to say about DNA reforms—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Answer the question relating to the DNA of offenders sitting in test tubes in a laboratory.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: John Hewson said eloquently in the Australian today that the Opposition is pathetic. The shadow Attorney General had this to say about this Government's proposed DNA reforms:

We must be careful not to allow police who perhaps are overzealous to step out of hand.

There may have to be some steps taken to destroy that [DNA] material if the people are acquitted.

The shadow Attorney General does not support our hard-working police officers and he also does not understand this Government's proposals. Two tests have to be met before a police officer can take a DNA sample from a suspect without consent. First, the police officer must reasonably suspect that the person committed an offence and, second, there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the DNA sample might produce evidence tending to confirm or disprove that the suspect committed the offence.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is directed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on the Government's reforms to evidence law and corresponding reforms at the Commonwealth level?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am pleased to inform the House that, in contrast to the inaction and delay of the previous Howard administration, the partnership between the Rudd and Iemma governments, once again, has delivered results for the people of New South Wales. On 24 October last year this Government's landmark Evidence Amendment Bill passed through this Parliament and made New South Wales the first jurisdiction in Australia to implement the new uniform evidence law—a national model law that modernises the way in which the courts deal with witness testimony and other evidence. For the edification of Opposition members, I add that it had the support of the Opposition in this House.

The laws contain important changes to benefit victims of sexual assault, children and indigenous Australians when going through the often anxious and traumatic process of giving evidence in court. It contains provisions that make it easier for witnesses to give their evidence in narrative form, allowing the courts to make orders so that victims can tell their stories directly without being interrupted by questions from barristers. It contains provisions that are aimed, in particular, at vulnerable witnesses, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, children, and victims of sexual assault, that have been called for by victims groups.

The law also clarifies that child witnesses must not be considered inherently less reliable than adult witnesses and that expert evidence about child development and behaviour, especially as victims of sexual assault, is admissible. As well as these significant reforms the law removes technical obstacles for courts hearing evidence of traditional Aboriginal law. Instead, the emphasis will be on whether that evidence is reliable and relevant. There is widespread recognition that these reforms are necessary and, indeed, overdue—widespread, that is, with the exception of the Federal Coalition. Despite the fact that he had commissioned the Law Reform Commission report on which these reforms are based, Philip Ruddock, the former Commonwealth Attorney-General, refused to pass the uniform evidence laws as proposed.

He specifically rejected provisions that facilitate the submission of evidence of Aboriginal customary law, refusing to recognise the significance and relevance of customary law and continuing to make it difficult for courts to accept evidence about it in cases where it is a relevant and appropriate consideration. He rejected provisions that expand the protections for de facto same-sex couples in a court—a decision that perpetuates discrimination and goes against common sense. The Howard Government's attempt to undermine these uniform laws were unsuccessful due to its own indecision, hesitation and delay in introducing the legislation in the Commonwealth Parliament to effect these changes.

In stark contrast, the Rudd Government acted swiftly and decisively in introducing the Evidence Amendment Bill. Last night that bill passed the lower House of the Federal Parliament in a form in which the new Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, had ensured, which included de facto and Aboriginal customary laws that had been excised by the previous Government. The Attorney-General made specific reference to the passage of this State's evidence legislation and said:

The New South Wales government has already passed evidence reform legislation based on the model provisions endorsed by SCAG. Indeed, I received particular representations from the New South Wales Attorney General John Hatzistergos, encouraging the Commonwealth to move in the same direction. I congratulate him and the New South Wales government on that move.

Once the Commonwealth bill is passed and it commences, users in both the State and Federal court systems in New South Wales will have access to a modernised and uniform system of evidence laws. That should occur as soon as possible but the Coalition—it never changes its spots—once again has shown its obstructiveness and its opposition to important and progressive reforms to the legal system by referring the matter to a Senate committee for three months to report later in the year and delay the implementation of the uniform evidence law at the Commonwealth level. That is despite the fact that we have had an election, despite the fact that the Coalition in this House and in the other place supported these uniform reforms, despite the fact a Law Reform Commission report that was commissioned by the former Federal Attorney-General recommended these changes, and despite the fact that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General had agreed to it at a national level. [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Acting Leader of the Government. Glorious leader, when will the Government determine how much New South Wales taxpayers will be required to meet for the cost of World Youth Day? How much is committed in 2006-08, 2007-08 and 2008-09? What agreements pertaining to World Youth Day are still unsigned and when will these agreements be signed? What guarantees, indemnities or other arrangement has the Government entered into for World Youth Day that would further expose New South Wales taxpayers to future liabilities?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am surprised that the Leader of the Nationals has joined the Greens in his concerns about World Youth Day. I am concerned about many things, but one thing I am not concerned about is that we are staging World Youth Day. There will be full accountability and I give a commitment that the final cost will be seen within the Government's documents.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question is addressed to the Minister the Justice. What proportion of prison inmates with sexual assault convictions undertake special prison programs designed to minimise the risk of their reoffending when they return to the community? Are these special programs available at all of the State's prisons that house prisoners with sexual assault convictions?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am not aware of the particular details to which the member refers, but I have had an analysis conducted. I will take that aspect of the member's question on notice. In regard to the location of specific prisoners with sexual assault convictions, it is not necessarily the case that the programs are available in all prisons. Some prisons have specialised sex offender programs that inmates are eligible to attend, depending on the relevant stage of their sentence and their classification. I will come back to the House with an answer to the other aspect of the question.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Can the Minister advise the House of the Iemma Government's plans to rejuvenate the riverside Crown land along the Murrumbidgee River at Wagga?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for his question, but I point out that when anyone mentions Wagga for the first time they must refer to it as Wagga Wagga—unless, of course, that person is a local.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: We're going there next year for our conference.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Nationals are not going to Kirribilli next year? That is just fantastic information. The Nationals are choosing another Liberal seat in which to hold its conference. Last week I announced the Iemma Government's plans to work with Wagga Wagga City Council to improve the Murrumbidgee foreshores at Wagga. I signed a memorandum of understanding with the mayor of Wagga, Kerry Pascoe, to develop a master plan for the riverside precinct. The Wagga community clearly wants better access to and amenities on the Murrumbidgee River, especially where it is readily accessible from the central business district.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: At Wagga Beach?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Including Wagga Beach. With the Department of Lands and council now working together on this important project, the partnership will begin to respond to the community's needs and enhance the community's enjoyment of the Crown reserves along the Murrumbidgee. We intend to develop the cultural, recreational, environmental and commercial potential of this precinct, most of which comprises Crown reserves under trust management by council. The master planning process exercise is a genuine partnership between the Iemma Government and council. Specific details will take shape during the master planning process, and it is our intention that the community will be engaged in this exercise. This will result in a vastly improved community experience along the riverbank and, I believe, will contribute to tourism and growth in the local economy generally.

The Iemma Government has committed an initial $150,000 and will employ a full-time project officer to help bring the Wagga riverside project to reality. Wagga Wagga City Council has agreed to match this funding. The council reports considerable community interest in gaining better access to the river foreshore, especially where it is readily accessible from the central business district. Community surveys over recent years have identified that poor access to the river and its underdeveloped potential are major constraints on the image and marketing of Wagga as a key tourist destination, and on its continued growth. Wagga Wagga City Council approached the Department of Lands to talk about transforming the river into an asset that would support the city's growth. The council agreed to sign a memorandum of understanding, which includes cost sharing and the department's commitment to employ a project officer.

This project is regarded locally as a key economic development initiative for Wagga Wagga. The aim is to provide enhanced opportunities for recreation, cultural interests, tourism, commercial developments and possibly residential development associated with the river. The focus of the project will be on sustainability principles and community involvement. The project has attracted considerable interest and a number of inquiries have been received about its progress. The Department of Lands and council have agreed that extensive community consultation will take place, including the possibility of holding a community workshop. Discussions have been held on the future development of the locality, which might see restaurants, cafes and greater recreational opportunities in the future.

The Iemma Government through the Department of Lands is developing a number of similar projects in coastal regions of the State. Our approach will be similar in Wagga: striving for balance and sustainable outcomes to give residents far greater quality lifestyle at the waterfront and make a contribution to the economy. The project takes in both sides of the river and stretches from Tarcutta Street to the Wiradjuri Reserve. It is a very exciting project for Wagga and I know the community will be involved wholeheartedly.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands, on behalf of the Minister for Local Government. Is the Minister aware of the serious and ongoing proportional reduction in State Government funding for public libraries over the past 25 years from 23.6 per cent of total operating costs of public libraries in 1980 to 7.8 per cent in 2004-05, with further reductions including a massive cut of over $1 million to 4.1 per cent in 2006-07? Is the Minister aware of the shameful fact that New South Wales has the lowest State Government per capita contribution to public libraries of all Australian States and Territories?

Is the Minister aware that the library service in Auburn Council, for example, is a significant and invaluable resource for high school students from disadvantaged backgrounds as well as non-English speaking background migrants with special needs, and that many other public libraries across the State face similar dilemmas? Given that the "Report of the Review of Public Library Funding" was released in April this year, can the Minister indicate what funding policies will be established to ensure that resources are available for our libraries?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He should because he is the former Minister for Local Government who made those cuts.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: No, it was not a former Minister for Local Government who made those cuts. I recall over the past decade that the Labor governments in this State have made significant advances in increased funding for libraries in New South Wales. In fact, in some years I recall that in some areas those increases may have been up to 20 per cent, or a significant amount in any case. Certainly, this Government has looked after many council libraries, though I am aware that issues exist. It is a good question that I will take on notice and give to the responsible Minister.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands, and Acting Minister for the Central Coast. What are the daily duties of Mr Paul Lister, the departmental liaison officer seconded to the office of the Minister for the Central Coast? What is the Minister's understanding of a departmental liaison officer's duties when seconded to the Gosford office of the Minister for the Central Coast? What is the Minister's knowledge and understanding of the New South Wales public service code of conduct? Who directed Mr Lister to attempt to establish links between the Iguanas restaurant complainants and the Liberal Party?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The questions asked by the member touch on some issues that are currently being investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the police. Obviously, on that basis I will not answer them.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister inform the House what action the Government is taking to protect New South Wales consumers from businesses that break food laws in this State?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Government takes food safety very seriously. As a clear demonstration of our commitment to cutting the human and economic toll from food-borne illness, this Government has championed recent amendments to the Food Act that strengthen the food law regulatory regime in New South Wales. These changes give consumers access to food industry compliance information. In just a fortnight, New South Wales will see the full effect of pioneering new name and shame laws that provide consumers with unprecedented access to information about businesses that flout food safety laws. As I have said before, on 1 July food outlets that are issued with penalty notices for serious breaches of food laws will be listed on the New South Wales Food Authority website.

However, the Government is not waiting until then to take action to protect the hardworking families of New South Wales; it is getting on with the business of seeking out food outlets that cut corners, rip off consumers and put their health in jeopardy. When the Government finds these businesses, through regular inspections and audits or via a complaint, they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. In 2007 the Food Authority had a 100 per cent success rate in pursuing cases through the courts, with a total of 70 criminal charges—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Is your Dorothy Dixer file dry? This is the third time you've gone back to this one.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is important that we keep reiterating the message about food safety laws over and over again. I will not walk away from that. A total of $362,000 in fines and legal costs was awarded against offenders.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Repeat it three times?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have not said this before; this is new. I am pleased to report that the Food Authority has continued its unblemished prosecution record this year, with 57 charges successfully pursued so far through the courts and $227,500 in fines and legal costs awarded in its favour. In the past two months alone, the authority has secured successful convictions in two serious cases where food businesses have behaved reprehensibly. The first was a case of a Port Macquarie man who attempted to sell more than 8,000 oysters that were contaminated with E. coli and salmonella bacteria and could have caused serious illness if eaten. The man was convicted of five charges under the Food Act and fined $42,000, which is the highest fine on record for this type of offence.

The second case, which was concluded in the past fortnight, involved the proprietor of a chain of five Sydney poultry meat shops who was successfully convicted of 22 charges relating to a string of food-related offences. This individual was a serial offender so I am pleased that the court has meted out a record penalty totalling $132,000 in fines, legal fees and court costs. The community has every right to be concerned about the details of this case. The business owner's bad practices included unhygienic premises, failure to keep food under temperature control, poor shop maintenance and inadequate monitoring of a food safety program, amongst other things. The list of offences is disturbing and could have had serious health consequences for consumers had the Food Authority not acted to close the business.

In both these cases the offenders have paid dearly not only in terms of heavy fines and legal costs but also by having their reputations tarnished. These two examples and other successful prosecutions by the Food Authority have been publicised on its website since July last year. This information is out there now for the whole community to see. From 1 July, penalty notices will also be published for anyone to see, with very obvious consequences for an erring food business. The Government's view is that consumers have the right to make informed choices about where they eat and where they spend their hard-earned money. If food outlets are not up to scratch, consumers will vote with their feet and their wallets. Those doing the wrong thing will face the consequences of their behaviour, as they should.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Is it a fact that there has been a dramatic increase in illegal hydroponic drug-growing houses in Sydney and in efforts to destroy the evidence by arson following police raids? Is it a fact that the hydroponic cultivation process, which involves internal watering and the often illegal use of lighting, produces an even more dangerous strain of marijuana, which contains increased amounts of THC, a brain-altering chemical? What action is the Government taking to prevent the availability, retail sale and installation of this specialised hydroponic equipment? Will the Government introduce, where necessary, special additional legislation to prevent the sale of this hydroponic equipment for illegal purposes?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: My colleague the Minister for Police largely covers this area, and I will refer the question to him and obtain an answer for the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer stand by his current budget forecast of gross State product growth in 2008-09 of 2 per cent, and of 3.25 per cent in the medium term, noting that the Federal budget anticipates gross domestic product growth of 2.75 per cent next year, which includes buoyant growth in Queensland, Western Australia and even Victoria?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes, we do.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Will the Minister advise the House what steps the Iemma Government is taking to better understand the psychological impact on people following a motor vehicle accident?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the Hon. Henry Tsang for his question and commend him for his ongoing interest in road safety issues. I am pleased to inform the House that the New South Wales Motor Accidents Authority hosted a forum for compulsory third-party and workers compensation regulators in Sydney on 29 and 30 May specifically to address the mental health issues encountered by people following a traumatic accident. The forum—the first of its kind in Australia—was supported by the Australian Centre for Post-Traumatic Mental Health and attended by injury management specialists from government regulatory agencies across Australia.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Take a deep breath, Eric, and speak with your mouth open.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: We can't all be like you, Catherine.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: That is right, Catherine: We can't all be like you. The forum explored the range and impact of mental health issues that can occur following a car crash and identified positive initiatives that health professionals can take to assist people in their recovery. Importantly, the forum was able to focus on issues specific to compensable schemes, including the difficulties of mental health recovery and the role and issues faced by insurers. Experts recognise that the psychological impact of a traumatic injury can last much longer than the physical symptoms because proper diagnosis and treatment may be overlooked.

An estimated 20 per cent of people who experience a traumatic event such as a motor vehicle accident suffer some form of psychological impact, which often hinders their recovery from physical injury and results in huge personal and social costs. Sleeping disturbances, irritability, mood swings, anxiety and lapses of concentration following an accident can result in a deterioration of relationships between a person and the person's family members and friends, and may affect the person's rehabilitation progress and work performance. Recognising and dealing with the mental health outcomes of an accident will promote improved recovery results and assist the people involved to resume their normal lifestyle more quickly.

The forum gave injury management specialists the opportunity to compare approaches with their counterparts from other States and learn from their experiences. As a result, the authority is now better placed to ensure that the motor accidents scheme deals appropriately with mental health issues to improve trauma recovery. I am pleased to report that, armed with improved knowledge following the forum, the Motor Accidents Authority will update its guidelines for insurers and health practitioners dealing with mental health issues experienced by people following a motor vehicle accident. The updating of the guidelines is just one of the ways that the Iemma Government is helping to support people who have suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident. As a consequence of our reforms—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: He's quite a firebrand, isn't he?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: This is a serious matter.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: We can't hear you.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: If you stop chattering amongst yourselves, you will hear about this important issue. As a result of the Government's reforms to the compulsory third party green slip scheme and the establishment of the Lifetime Care Scheme, we can now ensure that catastrophically injured motor accident victims are cared for. As a result of our historic improvements, men, women and children who have received brain or spinal injuries, or a combination of both, now receive the care and support they need for the rest of their lives, regardless of who was at fault in the accident. The Lifetime Care Scheme covers an injured person's medical treatment costs and guarantees day-to-day practical services, including assistance with personal care, such as feeding, drinking and personal hygiene; home and transport modification; child-care services; nursing care; and respite care for the injured person or his or her family.

The new no-fault scheme provides a safety net for the catastrophically injured, who otherwise might be forced to rely on their families to provide a lifetime of care. Before we introduced these reforms, the catastrophically injured relied on their families for support, which was an immense financial and emotional burden for those families and for the victim. In real terms, the cost of green slips in New South Wales has dropped by more than $200 a year, and they now offer benefits not available previously.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer provide the estimate for the cost of the capital works necessary to remediate the new Bathurst Hospital so that it is brought up to a standard that meets Australian health facility guidelines? If so, what is that estimate? What is the estimated time for completion of those works? In bringing the hospital up to standard, do the estimates envisage any reduction in the range of services being provided or planned to be provided when the new hospital was commissioned? If the Treasurer does not have any estimates, when will they be revealed?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: There is no issue about revealing anything. The Government is accountable for its expenditure. Clearly, any costs incurred by the Government are accounted for through the normal processes. The second part of the question about services is a matter for the Minister for Health.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands. Will the Minister report to the House on progress in revitalising the Nelson Bay foreshore?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The recently approved Nelson Bay Foreshore Plan of Management aims to encourage and promote better use of the Crown foreshore and marina precinct while at the same time enhance its unique visual and environmental qualities. Having approved the plan, I recently travelled to Nelson Bay to call for expressions of interest for the rejuvenation of the Nelson Bay boat harbour. Expressions of interest will be accepted up until 25 July 2008. Naturally, proposals for the site will be subject to normal environmental and planning approvals, and will be consistent with the community endorsed plan of management.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Which Country Labor seat is Nelson Bay in?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: A future Country Labor seat! Let me emphasise that any foreshore redevelopment plan will also be subject to community consultation before development approval is sought. The Iemma Government remains committed to delivering jobs, investment and a better environment for living, which leads to sustainable communities. This is consistent with the New South Wales State Plan, which encourages more people to use parks and participate in the arts and cultural activity. The plan of management charts a way forward in revitalising the marina and associated Crown foreshore land to cater for the future needs of Nelson Bay. Delivering improved tourist, business and recreational opportunities while securing environmental outcomes and better linkages between the foreshore and the central business district is central to the plan.

A major achievement of the plan is that it identifies a number of funding strategies, proposing a combination of private and public sector funding to meet the significant cost of upgrading maritime and foreshore infrastructure and improved public facilities. This integrated development approach has been adopted in key tourism areas such as Townsville and Cairns, and has produced significant economic flow-on benefits to these local communities while improving visual amenity and social outcomes. A similar approach has recently been applied at Batemans Bay by the Department of Lands, with the support of the local council, on a marina and foreshore project that will result in an investment of more than $65 million into the local community.

I return to the Nelson Bay plan of management. Its key recommendations include an integrated foreshore redevelopment plan that responds to community needs in terms of shade, shelter, seating, uniformity of style, amenities and safety and security, and improving traffic and parking outcomes to enable better and safer access to the foreshore. To this end, two additional parcels of Crown land are being offered as possible sites for parking in relation to the redevelopment. We are all aware that car parking near the Nelson Bay foreshore is a major issue, particularly in tourist season. This proposal aims to both ease the current load of car parking during peak periods and to relocate car parking from waterfront areas, opening them up for public use.

After extensive community feedback, we are now entering an exciting stage of the redevelopment of the Nelson Bay marina and its surrounds. The Iemma Government is working with Port Stephens Council to ensure that management strategies strike a balance with existing planning controls and council initiatives such as the Nelson Bay 2030 strategy. We will continue to work together with the community to ensure that there is a consistent and integrated approach to the site planning. I look forward to the ongoing rejuvenation of Nelson Bay, securing jobs, investment and better facilities, and ensuring that Nelson Bay remains central to the economic and recreational life of Port Stephens. I congratulate the general manager of Port Stephens Council, who used to work for me in Wellington.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice. I refer to an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald entitled "Too inept to save children". Will the Minister indicate what reasons the Treasurer gave to him, the Hon. Bob Debus and the Hon. Reba Meagher for the refusal of $20 million in additional funds to tackle child sexual assault of indigenous children?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will answer this question as I am entitled to do as the glorious leader. That is one thing that I have learnt in this job.

Mr Ian Cohen: Point of order: I clearly addressed my question to the Attorney General, who is sitting in the House. I am sure he would be capable of answering the question. I am disappointed that I will not get an answer from the Attorney General.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: On the point of order: As the Treasurer is our glorious acting leader, there is no reason he cannot answer any question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Without engaging in the use of epithets, the Leader of the Government can answer questions.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The two premises on which the question is based are false. The first is that the Government does not care about child sexual assault in these communities, and the second is that somehow there were funding cuts. Neither of those propositions is true. I was at the meeting so I am the appropriate person to answer the question. At that meeting it was made clear that the Government would respond to the issues and, in addition, that the resources should be found both from existing resources and from the reallocation of resources from programs that obviously have not worked. If the programs had worked, we would not have such a deplorable situation. When one takes that into account, one sees that overall funding levels have increased.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter. Will the Minister explain why his State infrastructure strategy plan for the next 10 years fails to mention key infrastructure projects in the Hunter region, such as the Swansea Bridge, the Glendale interchange, the F3 to Branxton link road and the Port of Newcastle? Why does the Minister continually short-change the Hunter region when it comes to the provision of key infrastructure projects?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I read the article in the Newcastle Herald on which this question is based. It is another example—

The Hon. Robyn Parker: It's about your failures.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Hon. Robyn Parker has conceded where she got her question. It certainly was not the result of original research by the ever on-top-of-it Opposition. No! It was from the Newcastle Herald. That report was inaccurate. There are massive amounts of money. On budget day the same newspaper stated that we are spending record amounts on infrastructure in the Hunter.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Yes, but just not in the Hunter.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: In the Hunter—the Hon. Robyn Parker is wrong. The Newcastle Herald reported that we are spending record amounts on infrastructure in the Hunter. Obviously, the honourable member is selectively reading the Newcastle Herald and she cannot get even that right. The reality is that the State infrastructure strategy is a document that projects a 10-year horizon but it is updated every two years. We are already on the record as saying that as part of the Government's strategy on electricity additional funds will be made available for specific projects.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister inform the House of the latest news on equine influenza and exactly how the disease escaped quarantine and entered the State's horse population?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: This is a very important question especially for many people in rural New South Wales. It is now more than nine months since the State Government discovered that equine influenza had escaped from the Howard Government's quarantine facility at Eastern Creek—mostly because of the incompetence of successive National Party Ministers. The nature of the disease and the long-term effects it would have on our industries prompted the largest ever exotic disease response in Australia. In New South Wales alone, at the height of the outbreak late last year it was believed that more than 41,000 horses on more than 6,000 properties were infected with the disease. The State Government mustered a workforce of more than 2,000 people to wage war on horse flu. As I have previously reported, we were triumphant. The last positive case of horse flu in New South Wales was recorded on 21 December 2007.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You closed down the State for six months and you call that a triumph?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I closed it down until every last case had gone. All that is needed now to move a horse is a Travelling Horse Statement and all horse events are registered with the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. Horse events such as polocrosse, campdraft and showing have returned, and racing is back. There is no question the industry is finally getting back on its feet. We can thank the old Howard Government's asleep-at-the-wheel management of our important quarantine facilities for letting horse flu escape. We can also thank the old Howard Government for the unnecessary $342 million cost of controlling and conquering equine influenza. We can now thank the Rudd Government for agreeing to pay the bill and not force the horse industry to cough up for the mistakes of the previous Commonwealth Government and its useless, incompetent National Party Ministers.

The findings of the Callinan inquiry are public and they do not paint a pretty picture. In fact, they confirm Australia's worst fear—that our quarantine barrier during the Howard years had more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. The facility we relied on to protect our industries let us down. An article in the Friday 13 June edition of the Sydney Morning Herald entitled "Horse flu report blasts quarantine incompetence" sums up the Callinan inquiry's findings. Mark David, the author of the article, reported:

The quarantine service—responsible for protecting farmers, industry and consumers from exotic diseases and pests—has been castigated for ignorance, inefficiency, incompetence and systematic failure to do its job.

What great reading that was! What appalling behaviour by the Howard Government. On the same day the Daily Telegraph article headlined "Bungles caused horse flu epidemic" was just as uncomplimentary of the quarantine under the previous Federal Coalition Government. It reported:

Mr Callinan condemned Eastern Creek as 'not adequately funded' and 'understaffed', and said facilities there were 'not conducive to effective implementation of biosecurity measures'.

It is now time to roll up our sleeves and work with the Commonwealth to make our quarantine borders first class so that our valuable livestock industries are not jeopardised again by a biosecurity blunder. I am happy to report to the House that Federal agriculture Minister Tony Burke, a former member of this House, has already started work on this and is taking the issue of biosecurity and quarantine much more seriously than his Coalition predecessors, particularly members of the old National Party—the new Kirribilli party.

The Commonwealth has agreed to all 38 of Commissioner Callinan's recommendations and has wasted no time in beginning to implement a raft of changes to raise quarantine standards and processes to where they should be—number one in the world. The recommendations include improved operating procedures for clearance and quarantine of horses, a review of biosecurity policies, and the appointment of a new Inspector General of Horse Importation. [Time expired.]

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Education and Training. What is the Minister's response to the recent report released by the Australian Education Union revealing that this Government's investment in public school facilities is about one-third that spent in private schools? How does the Minister explain to the parents of children in our public school system that in 2005 this Government spent only $426 per student on capital works while private schools spent $1,500 per student? What is this Government doing to address the fact that 125 students are leaving our public system each week with Government school enrolments declining by 13,261 students between 2002 and 2005?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This Government has recognised the need to increase investment in school education infrastructure, and the recent State budget contained record capital expenditure allocations. This year we are continuing our commitment to improve school facilities. In 2008-09 funding has been provided for $648 million in capital works on school infrastructure to construct new facilities and redevelop existing school facilities and to carry out major enhancements of information and communication technology. Sixteen new major school building projects will commence in 2008-09 and works will continue on 42 major school building works.

The 2008-09 budget includes additional funding for the renovation of toilet facilities at 52 schools, 60 new security fences, two new trade schools and the upgrade of eight food technology units. The budget also includes three new schools in 2008-09—public schools at Elderslie and Middleton Grange and a high school at Rouse Hill—which are being delivered through a public-private partnership. These projects will complete the construction component of the second public education public-private partnership program, which includes the provision of 10 new school facilities over three years at an estimated cost of $106 million and facilities management of these schools over 30 years.

Our 2008-09 minor capital works program has an allocation of over $369 million for the upgrading of student and teacher facilities, the continuation of air cooling projects, the purchase of computers for schools and the Commonwealth Government's digital education revolution and trade training centres initiatives. The funding provided in the 2008-09 budget includes additional funding towards the implementation of the election commitments of the Iemma Government. We are continuing to implement the projects in our Building Better Schools initiative, including upgrading science laboratories at 155 schools, enhancing food technology facilities at 31 schools, constructing 27 school halls, building 17 multipurpose gymnasiums, upgrading 200 toilet facilities, and installing security fences at a further 200 schools.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Can the Minister update the House on recent improvements for commuters and motorists along the Epping Road corridor?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am pleased to inform members of the House that the Iemma Government's recent improvements to the Epping Road corridor are delivering real benefits to both motorists and bus commuters. It is no surprise to see figures reported today that public transport use is rising and Sydney has the highest public transport use of any Australian capital city. The north-west of Sydney is no exception to this trend, with demand for bus services continuing to grow along the M2-Epping Road-Lane Cove Tunnel corridor. That is why the Iemma Government yesterday made a major announcement of boosting bus services for north-west Sydney. It is also why the Iemma Government has already spent $35 million on public transport improvements as part of the $1.1 billion Lane Cove Tunnel and expanded Gore Hill Freeway project.

The project was always a road and public transport project. It is now delivering real benefits to motorists and bus commuters. While members opposite continue with their baseless scaremongering about the project, I will let the real figures speak for themselves. Roads and Traffic Authority figures for general traffic along this section of Epping Road show average travel times of around 10 minutes, an improvement on travel times compared with before the tunnel opened. Bus services and motorists using the Lane Cove Tunnel have travel times of around three minutes. Bus travel times on Epping Road, between Mowbray Road West and the Pacific Highway, are an average of seven minutes—again an improvement on travel times compared with before the tunnel opened. These are real benefits for the hardworking families in Sydney's north-west.

I am advised the latest figures show that the Lane Cove Tunnel removes up to 60,000 vehicles from Sydney's surface roads every day. More than 40,000 cars used Epping Road last week—that is more than 40,000 motorists who are enjoying better travel times compared with before the tunnel opened. Improving public transport for the Lane Cove community and commuters from the north-west was also a key objective of the Lane Cove Tunnel project and, as the figures prove, that objective is being met. These improvements have helped to ensure travel times on Sydney's third busiest bus corridor are both efficient and reliable for more than 29,000 bus commuters who travel through the corridor on a typical weekday and for the 900 buses that use the corridor every day. Sydney's north-west is one of the fastest-growing areas of the city and the improved travel times have encouraged more local residents to choose public transport.

To meet the demand, the Minister for Transport announced yesterday that 20 new buses would be purchased to help cater for the growth along the M2 corridor. Local pedestrian facilities have also been improved with a new $5 million interchange and pedestrian bridge equipped with lifts for mobility access. The new interchange is a dedicated off-road facility, meaning groups of buses do not have to queue on the roadway as they wait to pick up passengers. All major work associated with the project has now finished, with the final links in the 7.5 kilometre pedestrian and cycle path from North Ryde to Naremburn close to completion.

Our approach was to introduce all these changes gradually to give motorists and commuters time to adjust, as recommended by the bipartisan parliamentary inquiry into the project, by the Auditor-General and by the Richmond review of motorways. These figures prove that that was the right approach to take and that the project is meeting its objectives and delivering real benefits to the people of New South Wales.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Roads. Considering the price of diesel was 54¢ a litre in 2006 when the Sapphire to Woolgoolga Pacific Highway upgrade was first put forward, and that the price is now about $1.74 a litre, with predictions that it will continue to rise, and that the Roads and Traffic Authority's environmental assessment of the Sapphire to Woolgoolga upgrade estimates that 14 million litres of fuel will be needed for this part of the project, has the Roads and Traffic Authority reassessed the Pacific Highway upgrade plans, and has it discussed with the Abi Group how these rising diesel costs will be factored into the project? What was the projected cost of the Sapphire to Woolgoolga Pacific Highway upgrade when it was put forward in 2006? What is the revised cost of this upgrade in light of the increased cost of diesel?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Pacific Highway remains a priority of the Government. As the member would be well aware, I have spoken many times in the House about the Pacific Highway. We are aware of issues in relation to the increase in fuel costs, which is a problem right across the construction industry, particularly on the eastern seaboard. That increase in fuel costs, including diesel, impacts on a number of other aspects of construction. For instance, two days ago I attended the Australian Road Forum, where there were discussions about the cost of steel, which I understand has risen in the vicinity of 50 per cent in some areas in the past 12 months as a direct result of associated costs and increased fuel expenses. Clearly, such increases are taken into account.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Can the Minister outline what progress has been made by the Department of Primary Industries in developing guidelines to govern when fees should be waived for commercial fishermen operating in inland restricted fisheries? Will these guidelines comply with the industry recommendation that fees be waived when less than four class-A fishermen are active at one particular time? In addition to this, will the guidelines comply with the recommendation that fees be waived when the monetary value of the inland restricted fisheries yabby farm declines to less than $40,000? Can the Minister further advise when these guidelines are to be introduced to relieve those fishing in inland restricted fisheries of the onerous financial burden of licence fees as they continue to suffer the effects of ongoing drought conditions?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The simple answer to the question is that we will be waiving such fees. Currently 26 commercial fishers hold endorsements in the inland restricted fishery to allow them to catch either carp or yabbies, or both. For the information of honourable members, the inland restricted fishery was formed after the removal of native finfish from the inland commercial fishery in 2001, with approximately 50 per cent of fishers at the time accepting a buyout—funded by the Recreational Fishing Trust—and the remainder accepting class-A endorsements for yabby and carp.

I recognise that the inland commercial fishing industry is under financial pressure from the impact of the prolonged drought and broader access issues, and that this has raised questions as to the long-term viability of this fishery. To help ease this financial pressure I have endorsed the necessary legislative amendments to allow for endorsement fees and some licensing fees to be waived during periods of drought. In respect of the longer term, commercial fishers have indicated interest in pursuing a structural adjustment program for the inland restricted fishery. The New South Wales Government is currently considering this matter, in light of Mr Richard Stevens' recommendations for structural adjustment. I also had one of my senior staff and a director from the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries travel to Menindee in April this year to meet with a number of inland commercial fishers to discuss issues they are currently facing.

Some inland commercial fishers expressed an interest in reopening the inland restricted fishery to commercial fishing for native finfish—specifically reopening lakes on the lower Murray Darling River system to commercial fishing for golden perch. As I am sure honourable members appreciate, there are some significant resource sharing and environmental barriers to reopening these lakes to commercial fishing. I have given the matter close consideration, but I cannot commit to this course of action, given the significant environmental implications and the state of river health. In the interim, the Government continues to consider issues raised by fishers in the inland restricted fishery. I urge those businesses facing financial difficulties to utilise the expertise of the New South Wales Rural Financial Counselling Service.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Education and Training. Can the Minister advise the House what the Iemma Government is doing to make the science and technology curriculum more attractive to primary school students?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the honourable member for his question and commend him for his ongoing interest in education and training. New South Wales has a proud history of producing scientists of world renown, including chemist John Warcup Cornforth, winner of the 1975 Nobel Price in Chemistry, for his work on the stereochemistry of enzyme-catalyzed reactions; agriculturalist William James Farrer, who was involved in developing breeds of wheat to withstand disease, especially rust, and harsh Australian conditions; nurse and health administrator Elizabeth Kenny, who developed a new treatment for poliomyelitis during the 1930s; and biochemist Daphne Goulston, who was a Cancer Research Fellow at the University of Sydney, worked at the Radium Institute, London and later became Research Associate in Biochemistry at the University of Sydney. Those people have made profound contributions to our understanding of the world around us and the treatment and prevention of diseases.

To encourage our future generation of scientists, I am pleased to inform the House that the Board of Studies of New South Wales is currently conducting a review and revision of the science and technology syllabus for kindergarten to year 6 students. Young minds have a natural sense of wonder and curiosity about the world around them. The New South Wales science and technology kindergarten to year 6 curriculum is already well regarded because it demonstrates the strong links between the two disciplines. The syllabus is being developed to make the study of science and technology even more interesting and relevant to young minds. It is also being designed to give them knowledge and skills that will fuel their interest in the subjects into high school and beyond. With talk of a shortage of scientists and skilled workers in the technology fields in the future, this is a particularly important initiative.

Under the proposed changes to the primary science and technology syllabus, students gain knowledge, understanding and skills in investigating issues scientifically and designing and producing projects. They also learn about living things, physical phenomena, the Earth and its surrounds; built environments, products, information and communications; and the practice of science and technology in society. The improvements also demonstrate where links can be made to other parts of the primary curriculum such as numeracy and literacy.

Drafting a new syllabus takes extensive development and consultation. The Board of Studies is currently finalising the writing brief that will guide the drafting of the actual science and technology kindergarten to year 6 syllabus. Eleven consultation meetings on the draft writing brief, involving 270 teachers across the State and in Sydney, were completed recently, including in locations such as Dubbo, Ballina, Tamworth, Shellharbour and Albury. Teachers were generally positive about the new directions and have provided feedback for consideration in refining the proposals. Stakeholder and interest groups have provided written submissions on the draft proposals, and the board has received 100 survey responses from individuals. These are all being analysed for consideration in the final writing brief, which will be completed later this year. The new syllabus is expected to be in schools in late 2009.

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Will he reiterate the undertaking he gave to Andrew Clennell, published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 February, that he would resign from Parliament if he failed to privatise key components of the electricity industry?

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: That could be a big incentive for it!

The Hon. Greg Pearce: We would have to declare an interest.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: If I said the opposite, would Opposition members vote for it? That may be good, but it would not suit Dr John Kaye. I do not know what Dr John Kaye is referring to, but his question gives me an opportunity to talk about some of the things I have been referring to this week—that is, the Greens day of action. Do members remember the Greens day of action and their reference to arrestable and non-arrestable roles?

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: I do not mind the Treasurer talking about arrestable and non-arrestable actions and so on, but I want an answer to my question, which relates to a significant issue. The Treasurer gave Andrew Clennell an undertaking and he is now walking away from it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Ministers are required to be generally relevant. The question asked for comments from the Minister in relation to public statements. I assume that the Minister is looking at other public statements by members.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am certainly looking at other public statements by members. Do members remember the Greens Camp for Climate Action—an event that, coincidently, will occur at the same time as World Youth Day? That obviously explains the Greens interest in World Youth Day and their concerns about additional funding and the so-called waste of resources. As I pointed out yesterday, that is complete nonsense, given what they are proposing: the use of police resources and, potentially, emergency service resources. Let me update the House. The Greens also decided that they needed a theme song for this day. A poll has been set out on the Camp for Climate Action website that contains a whole bunch of suggestions. The website states:

What is your choice for the theme song of Newcastle's Camp for Climate Action?

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: I have no difficulty with the Treasurer promoting what I think is an important event, but he is flouting your ruling, which related to public statements in respect of the Treasurer's resignation from Parliament. I refer to an article by Andrew Clennell that carried the headline, "I will quit if power sale blocked vows Costa."

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Treasurer will continue to be generally relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Greens website encourages members of the community to vote for a theme song. Going down the list, the first suggestion is Locomotion by Kylie Minogue. We then have Get up, Get up, Get up, Stand up for your Rights by the John Butler Trio. The next suggested songs are We Didn't Start the Fire by Billy Joel, You're the Voice by John Farnham, and Stop by the Spice Girls. I could see Dr John Kaye dressed up as a Spice Girl. The next suggestion is the Neighbours theme song. Wouldn't that be a beauty for a protest action? The next suggestion is We are the Champions, by Queen.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: There must be a standing order that states that members cannot bring the House into disrepute. What the Treasurer is doing comes very close to him doing just that.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The only relevant standing order is that the Minister must be generally relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Greens referred to arrestable roles on their website, but they have the gall to say that I am bringing this House into disrepute.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Certain rules relating to decorum have to be followed in this Chamber during question time. About three minutes ago the Minister said, "I will not answer this question but I have some other things to which I would like to refer."

The Hon. Michael Costa: I did not say that.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Treasurer certainly said that. This is just an indulgence by the Leader of the Government and he should be brought to order. [Time expired.]

The PRESIDENT: Order! On all occasions the answers of Ministers should be generally relevant to the questions asked of them. I note that the Minister's time to answer the question has expired.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: If members have any further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.

Question without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.03 p.m. The House resumed at 2.00 p.m.]

The Hon. ROY SMITH [2.01 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 115 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008, be called on forthwith.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.02 p.m.]: The Greens oppose this motion. No requirement has been established for this matter to take precedence. The only possible urgency could be that the Shooters Party is keen to increase the numbers of firearms licences, which are due for renewal, because that increase flows directly to the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia and, through its extraordinarily generous donations, to the Shooters Party to swell that party's coffers. There is no other possible reason other than the desire—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: This motion is about urgency. The member is introducing matters that have nothing to do with the motion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Without seeking to belabour the point, I remind members of rulings I gave earlier in which I cited rulings of Presidents Johnson and Burgmann with regard to the debate on procedural motions and motions to suspend standing and sessional orders. Ms Sylvia Hale will bear those rulings in mind as she proceeds.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: As I indicated, the Shooters Party has not stated any reason for urgency on this matter. That poverty of intellectual approach to these issues demonstrates that its members cannot articulate any reason for urgency of this matter. Given the failure of the Shooters Party to even argue the point, it is quite insulting for the House to be expected to determine urgency that would cause other matters inside the order of precedence—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order. Under the standing order of boring and repetitious, the member is not introducing any new material. She has indicated that she believes the Shooters Party has no reason or new material to move urgency. She continues to reiterate the same points. I ask you to rule on that standing order.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: To the point of order. All I have done is basically observe that the Shooters Party has not provided any reasons or suggestions why this matter is urgent. If the House is to treat this matter seriously, it is reasonable to wonder why—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I draw the attention of members to the standing order to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition alluded in his point of order. The Chair is reluctant to declare the contribution of any member boring, tedious or repetitious unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. However, I indicate that a number of members who took part in an earlier debate were skating on very thin ice. The member may proceed.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Obviously it is difficult to conduct a debate when there is such a poverty of material to be debated. I conclude my remarks.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.06 p.m.]: The difficulty with this debate is that the mover of the motion has not established its urgency. The Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 is before the House, but the objects of the bill certainly do not help us understand why we need to wind back achievements in the post-Port Arthur period of consolidating a national approach to gun law reform. It has not been established why we should make it easier for young people to use high-powered firearms or why it should be easier to send firearms through the mail. It has not been established why the matter needs to be considered urgently and cannot remain and be called on in the order of precedence.

The debate has been difficult because supporters have been unwilling to speak to the motion and information supporting urgency has been lacking. It appears that all members of Parliament support this motion, except the four Greens. Surely someone else would have presented some arguments supporting urgency, but that has not occurred. The Greens can only argue why we do not believe this matter is urgent by referring to the bill and presenting the case that this debate should remain on the Notice Paper with all the other motions until it is reached in the usual lottery process to debate motions.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.08 p.m.]: The reasons for urgency to debate this bill have not been established. The onus to establish urgency rests with the mover of the motion. Much has been made of the fact that from time to time the Greens have sought to move urgent motions. On every occasion we have sought to do so we have given the House the reasons that a particular Greens motion is urgent, and we have pointed out the consequences of not agreeing to urgency to debate the motion or bill at that time. That is not what we have heard today. I have not heard a convincing argument establishing urgency for this debate to proceed. That is the first reason for my opposition to this urgency motion. Generally, I believe we should take a reasonably liberal view of urgency. This House is constituted through proportional representation and, as such, we should allow a range of views to be expressed. But the proper process for doing that is through the business paper.

The Hon. Rick Colless: That's the reason for the motion: so the House can decide and get on with it.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am told to let the House get on with it. I thought I would have the opportunity to express my views in relation to this matter. I spent a few moments during lunch examining the bill's specific provisions, and I could find nothing that is so urgent it cannot wait for one month, or even two or three months. It would not make any difference. We can conclude only that the Shooters Party and the Government have made some kind of arrangement. It probably concerns the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008, which we may consider this afternoon. I wish there was some honesty in this debate. Some arrangement has been made, and the Shooters Party—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They don't need the Shooters; if our amendments get up, we're supporting that.
Dr JOHN KAYE: Maybe the arrangement is with respect to other legislation. But if there is some arrangement the House should be told about it. We have not been given any reasons why the bill is urgent. Therefore, we continue to oppose urgency in this matter.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Roy Smith agreed to:

That Private Member's Business item No. 115 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Debate resumed from 5 June 2008.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.19 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008. This bill is urgent because of the issue of licences, and I am sure the House will support it. These new licences were all issued for a period of five years. As a result, the bulk of firearms licences issued to licence holders in New South Wales all fall due for renewal within a single 12-month period within the five-year cycle, creating a 500 per cent increase in the workload of the Firearms Registry. As we know, the Firearms Registry often has problems coping with its role and there are delays. Imagine what the delay would be with a 500 per cent increase in workload! When this peak in the Firearms Registry workload last occurred, it resulted in delays of several months in the processing of licence and permit applications, unnecessarily inconveniencing thousands of legitimate firearms owners throughout New South Wales.

It should be noted that we are not talking about a handful of people; I understand that more than 170,000 people in New South Wales hold firearms licences. This bill is urgent because it deals with a large proportion of the adult population in New South Wales. The current round of licence renewals will peak over the next few months, and although the Firearms Registry has implemented a flat lining program to spread renewals out more evenly over the five-year cycle extensive delays are still expected. The Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 includes amendments to the Firearms Act and regulations that will remove unnecessary waiting periods for licence renewals and some permit applications, and minimise the inconvenience that might otherwise be experienced by licence and permit applicants.

The next peak in the renewal cycle is only a few months away. However, Parliament will rise at the end of next week and not return until September. It is urgent that this matter be dealt with in this parliamentary session so that the legislation can be enacted before the peak in the renewal cycle. The bill also covers a number of what I would regard as administrative matters. This is in no way critical of or rejecting John Howard's strong leadership on the firearms issue. The amendments in this legislation in no way affect the policy that was adopted across Australia. The remaining parts of this legislation deal with minor housekeeping issues that have arisen in previous years, when it was shown that the legislation needed to be amended to rectify those problems. The bill deals with exemptions for antique firearms. Normally, antique firearms cannot be fired and are for display purposes only. They are highly prized collectors items. Surely antique firearms should be dealt with differently to modern pistols and rifles.

The bill also deals with shooting under supervision. Currently, unlicensed persons can shoot at club open days and while participating in an approved firearms safety training course. The bill extends the current exemptions to allow unlicensed persons to shoot under supervision at approved ranges during general club activities as well. That will not have an effect on public safety. The bill also deals with waiting periods. The 28-day waiting period is not changed. It merely raises the issue of someone who has already gone through the process and fulfilled the 28-day waiting period having to wait another 28 days when they add an additional rifle for their purpose, either for shooting at a range or in some other area. Why do people in that position need to go through all the red tape again as if they are a new applicant? Obviously, new applicants must meet all the requirements, but a licensed firearms owner has already gone through stringent checking and should not have to repeat the process.

The bill provides access to category C shotguns for certain target shooters and introduces provisions for penalty notices. It introduces the option of dealing with minor offences under the Act and regulations by way of a penalty notice. The bill clarifies the provisions relating to advertising firearms for sale. The issue of large calibre pistol permits for minors has been raised in the media, which I believe has misrepresented the issue. Juniors are already allowed to use a .38 pistol. This bill will allow them to use a .40 under supervision while participating in shooting competitions at approved ranges. I am not talking about minors taking a gun and shooting in the street or in the bush. The provisions relate to shooting competitions at an approved range. Some competitions require a larger calibre to be used. What can a minor do? If that is the calibre, obviously minors need to have access to that calibre of pistol. That is simply an administrative matter. Finally, many theatrical armourers have had problems complying with the legislation when using weapons in film or theatre productions. Obviously they should be treated as a different category. I support the bill.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [2.26 p.m.]: I support the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008. In particular, I will speak to the provisions that exempt persons from the licensing and registration requirements under the Act in relation to the possession of antique firearms—that is, those manufactured before 1900 that do not take breach-loaded metallic cartridges or for which ammunition is not commercially available. Currently, the exemption for pre-1900 firearms does not allow a person to use such a firearm without a licence or permit. Several years ago I had discussions with antique firearms owners who were concerned about the overregulation of antique firearms. Anything that we can do to improve the regulatory regime for antique firearm collectors is worthwhile. These days nobody would attempt to fire the majority of antique firearms because to do so would probably destroy the weapon and the value of the weapon.

[Interruption]

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is right. In effect, if someone attempted to fire an antique firearm it would explode and cause damage not only to the weapon but to the person attempting to fire it. We need to be careful. Following Port Arthur there was a huge push in the community to crack down on the illegal use of firearms. However, I do not think we looked at the valid reasons that people collect antique firearms and the valid objections of antique firearm collectors to the regime that was put in place, which is onerous. The regime treated antique firearms the same as new guns that are bought from a firearms shop. These changes are important; they will make it a lot easier for antique firearm collectors to buy, sell and trade antique firearms without having to worry about locking them away all the time. At the moment it is difficult to display antique firearms because of the current regulations. This amendment, which is welcomed, will be greatly appreciated by the Antique Firearms Collectors Association and those who value the heritage and history in our country. For that reason I commend the bill to the House.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.30 p.m.]: The Greens oppose the Firearms Amendment Bill. Although some parts of the bill seem innocuous, other aspects of it clearly water down gun laws, especially those provisions regulating acquiring a second gun and allowing unlicensed people to fire guns at firing ranges. The Greens have carefully read the bill and the briefing note provided by the Shooters Party. While some of the amendments relating to historical re-enactments and theatrical armourers seem innocuous, other elements of this bill are worrying. On balance, as a party with a strong stance on gun control, the Greens cannot support it. I thank the National Coalition on Gun Control for advising the Greens on this matter and I will be relying on sections of its analysis during the course of my remarks.

It would be inappropriate not to comment on the sudden appearance of this bill in this place. Perhaps it is best described as the child of a shotgun wedding between the Shooters Party and Labor. In the Greens' view, it is deplorable of the Government to sit down with the Shooters Party and aid in the drafting of this bill because it not only erodes national uniform legislation but also relaxes gun controls and seeks to normalise gun use and gun ownership. The Greens simply do not buy the Shooters' explanation that this bill is necessary and urgent because gun licences are coming up for renewal en masse. We do recognise, however, how important gun licence renewal is to the Shooters Party given the relationship between licence fees and the campaign funds of the Shooters Party, which will be outlined by my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon. Only one aspect of this bill deals with renewal of licences. The bill goes far beyond that. We must remember that the Government has a number of pieces of legislation that it wishes to have passed and when things get desperate the Government is prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure that occurs. If it takes putting people's lives at risk, of what consequence is that compared to Frank Sartor's determination to have his planning laws rammed through and doing a trade-off with the Shooters to obtain that outcome?

The bill seeks to amend the Firearms Act 1996. One of the first things newly elected Prime Minister Howard had to deal with in his first term of office was the Port Arthur massacre perpetrated by Martin Bryant. Although Bryant did not hold a gun licence, the semi-automatic guns he used were legally available in Tasmania. The police Ministers met at the behest of the then Prime Minister. There was a flurry of activity resulting in national uniform legislation. New South Wales's Firearms Bill was introduced into Parliament in June 1996 as a result. The then Minister for Police, Paul Whelan, said at the time:

The bill I am introducing today will make New South Wales a safer place to live. The Carr Government believes that the proposed laws are strict, sensible and fair and will facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms. We want to make New South Wales a safer place as quickly as possible. These laws represent a cultural change for all Australians. They reflect our decision not to go down the United States path. This legislation puts the public right to safety before the privilege of gun ownership.

The Greens agreed with that statement then and we agree with it now. At the time, my colleague Mr Ian Cohen welcomed the 1996 reforms, which were in fact very similar to existing Greens policy. The 1997 gun buyback scheme cost taxpayers $320 million, and 643,000 rifles, shotguns, semi-automatics and automatics were destroyed. Nevertheless, gun-related crime peaked in New South Wales in 2001. In 2002 two people were killed and five injured at Monash University in Victoria by a man who was a licensed shooter and a member of a shooters' club. That led to further laws banning certain handguns and those laws were passed in this Parliament in 2002. Since 2002 the rate of gun-related crime has dropped back to levels nearly comparable with 1994. Multiple-death shooting murders have dropped right back as well.

In New South Wales the use of firearms as homicide weapons has dropped from 21 per cent of the total in 1989-90 to 14 per cent in 2005-06. Shooting with intent to murder incidents peaked in 2001 and the figure has been declining but is now only a little less than in 1995. The proliferation of the total number of guns does influence levels of gun-related crime. I refer members to the study of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research entitled "Firearms and violent crime in New South Wales" by Jacqueline Fitzgerald, Suzanne Briscoe and Don Weatherburn. The authors note:

… the larger the supply of legally owned firearms in the community, the easier it is for firearms to fall into the hands of those willing to use them in the commission of crime.

In a more recent 2007 study, researchers at the Australian National University reported:

There were on average 250 fewer firearm deaths per year after the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement than would have been expected.

The work of the Firearms Trafficking Unit that was set up in 1999 specifically to investigate the supply of illegal firearms in this State has assisted as well. The Greens are of the view that ownership of guns should be severely restricted in all societies. I will not repeat the statistics comparing the rate of gun-related robbery and homicide per hundred thousand people in the United States compared with Australia. The Greens say that more guns make it easier for people to kill more people more often and more quickly.

I now turn to the substance of the bill. The Greens will consider it on its merits, notwithstanding the context of political deals. The definition of "firearms dealer" is expanded to include theatrical armourers. Theatrical armourers provide firearms for film and television productions. As licensed firearms dealers, theatrical armourers when acquiring a firearm will not be required to obtain a permit to acquire the firearm. At the moment theatrical armourers are required to have permits for their weapons. They also borrow weapons, for example, from collectors. This provision will turn them into firearms dealers. Therefore, they will be exempt from the requirement in section 53 to obtain a permit when acquiring a firearm and are not restricted to dealing only in firearms that are registered to them. The National Coalition on Gun Control comments:

This is a drastic proposal just to ensure that theatrical armourers do not have to seek a permit to acquire. The proposal will allow theatrical armourers to deal in firearms and live ammunition. There are other legislative ways to deal with the specific role of theatrical armourers, other than to make them licensed gun dealers.

The bill proposes two new sections, 6A and 6B, to the current section 6, "Application of the Act". These amendments seek to exempt certain firearms from the application of the Act. The Shooters Party bill wants to exempt any firearm manufactured before 1900 that, first, is not capable of discharging breech-loaded metallic cartridges or, second, is a firearm the ammunition for which is determined by the commissioner to be ammunition that is not commercially available. That exempts a pre-1900 firearm that does not work from coming under the Act, presumably for the sake of historical collectors. Even if a firearm is historic there is no reason why a permit should not be necessary as the Act should apply to all firearms kept by private individuals, including historical arms collectors. An old firearm could theoretically be re-activated or used to threaten whether or not it actually fires. The Greens would support a special antique firearms licence for such firearms.

New section 6B will enable unlicensed persons to shoot on approved ranges whilst under supervision and subject to the requirements set out in the regulations. I assume this provision is to allow shooting ranges such as the one proposed for Hilltop to make more money as unlicensed persons will be able to visit and blast away at targets. If this were made law, all you would have to do is turn up to a range, sign a form, and then shoot. The gun club would have no way of checking your criminal history on the spot; therefore your declaration would be meaningless in terms of preventing an incident. In a worst-case scenario, someone bent on murder could wander in and, once they had a gun in their hands, start shooting people, or perpetrate gun theft. The club would have no idea who they were, just their say-so that they were not emotionally or mentally disturbed or did not have a criminal record. Mr Robert Smith claims in the briefing paper he circulated that "This amendment will have no adverse effect on public safety." He has no way of knowing that, and as such the claim cannot be supported. There is no guarantee that harm could not come to others at a shooting range from an individual who should never be allowed to hold a gun. The Greens oppose this amendment.

The suggested amendment to section 11 provides that the mandatory 28-day waiting period for the issuing of a licence does not apply if the application is for the renewal of a licence. Again, this is a potentially dangerous amendment, as police need time to re-check a person when the licence is up for renewal. Circumstances may have changed. Is the person still able to give a valid reason for holding a licence? Have any criminal convictions occurred since their previous licence lapsed? I note that related provisions require that, at least 60 days before the date on which a licence or permit is due to expire, the commissioner is to notify the licence or permit holder in writing that the licence or permit is due to expire on the date specified in the notice. I simply ask: How much would this cost? I also make the comment that one is not reminded when a fishing licence is about to expire.

Members will note that the renewal provisions also allow the addition of a new category to the licence upon renewal, without incurring a 28-day waiting period. This would allow someone with a category A licence to upgrade to a category B licence when renewing his or her licence. Category A licences cover air rifles, rim-fire rifles, other than self-loading rim-fire rifles, and shotguns, other than pump-action or self-loading shotguns, whereas category B licences cover muzzle-loading firearms and centre-fire rifles.

A further amendment would allow more people access to pump-action shotguns, in addition to those affiliated with the Australian Clay Target Association, for target shooting competitions. This again makes it easier for a shooter from a club to get access to a pump-action shotgun. Currently, only members of the Australian Clay Target Association, or clubs affiliated with it, may have access to category C shotguns for competition purposes in New South Wales. Following the Port Arthur massacre, the Government banned all self-loading and pump-action shotguns for a reason: they are dangerous weapons. New South Wales is already breaching the agreement by allowing these guns to be used for clay target shooting. Widening access to category C weapons will simply widen the pool of available category C weapons. In one of the most worrying amendments in the bill, the Shooters Party wants to remove the mandatory 28-day waiting period for the issuing of permits to acquire a firearm if the applicant already has a firearm of that category registered to him or her. In his second reading speech Mr Roy Smith said:

Some people refer to the 28-day waiting period as a cooling-off period, which is intended to minimise the remote possibility of a person acquiring a firearm in the heat of the moment with the intent to harm themselves or others. I will not go into the merits or otherwise of that argument here, other than to point out that neither a waiting period nor a cooling-off period are of any value whatsoever if the applicant already owns another firearm.

On the contrary, I believe that the merits of the argument deserve some attention and note Mr Roy Smith has not justified the need for this change other than to tacitly approve people acquiring more firearms without scrutiny. Why would a person be in such a hurry to buy another gun? Courts can disqualify someone from having a gun in relation to an apprehended violence order. Under this provision people could have their gun confiscated, and could then go out and buy another one before the court paperwork catches up with them. And before you know it, they have shot their ex-partner. The Greens do not support this fast-track purchasing clause. The Greens believe that if someone wants to buy a second or third or fourth gun, it is critical to have the reason for the additional firearm examined, before the permit is issued.

In the case of a licensed shooter who is intent on murder, such as the licensed shooter who killed people at Monash University, the amendment would allow that person to buy a second firearm without having to comply with the 28-day waiting period. Under the amendment someone could buy a second category C, D or H firearm if he or she already held that licence. This is probably the worst provision in the bill, and the Greens are shocked that the Government may have assisted in drafting such a provision, or would contemplate supporting it. The Greens much prefer the status quo, whereby a 28-day waiting period applies for each additional firearm permit application and applicants must show why they need the additional firearm.

Item [10] of schedule 1 relates to the use of mail for sending firearms. The current legislation provides a general prohibition on the use of mail for sending firearms or firearms barrels within New South Wales. However, it provides an exemption in the case of licensed firearms dealers, enabling them to use mail to send firearms or firearms barrels to another licensed firearms dealer in another State or Territory. Schedule 1 [10] amends section 52 of the Act to make it clear that a licensed firearms dealer can send firearms or firearms barrels to another licensed firearms dealer either interstate or within New South Wales by mail provided it is the type of mail that requires delivery in person to the addressee.

What worries the Greens about this amendment is that mail can "go missing" en route, when a firearms dealer is collaborating with criminals and arranges for the mail to be intercepted between points A and B. The proposed Shooters Party amendment includes the words "requires delivery in person"—that is, it must be delivered via registered post, whereas section 53, which relates to sending firearms interstate between firearms dealers, provides that the use of mail is permitted if the firearm or firearm barrel is sent by security mail. This may result in the good work the police have done in stopping the spread of illegal firearms going backwards. The provision is presumably intended to work in tandem with the other provision, which says that firearms dealers do not have to indicate their address. If this were to happen, we will see web-based marketing of firearms with ordering online and delivery anywhere in New South Wales or interstate.

I now turn to the provisions relating to penalty notices for so-called summary or minor offences. Schedule 1 [12] amends the Act to provide for the issuing of penalty notices for certain summary offences under the Act and regulations. The Shooters Party virtually says that requiring people to pay a fine allows them to hang on to their licence if they have breached the Firearms Act. This could be called the "Keep the Shooters out of court" section. There are still serious firearms offences that fall short of indictable offences, such as leaving keys in one's firearms locker. Firearms offences, no matter how minor, are more serious than offences involving littering or failing to buy a train ticket. The bill goes on to say that the regulations may prescribe penalties for different offences or classes of offences. There is no evidence that we need to change the section of the Act that deals with firearms offences.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: What about your friend who you bailed out? Didn't he commit firearms offences, Sylvia? He shot at someone, didn't he?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I acknowledge the Minister's interjection. I find it absolutely despicable. I hope he is not suggesting that I shot anyone. I have never even handled a firearm in my life, let alone shot at anyone. [Time expired.]

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.49 p.m.]: I follow on from Ms Sylvia Hale, who outlined in some detail and with great clarity why the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008 should not be passed by this House. It would most definitely be a setback for public safety. It is a most serious day when Labor, The Nationals and the Liberals come together in support of a piece of amending legislation that will wind back most important legislation that was brought forward under the Government of former Prime Minister John Howard. That legislation increased safety in Australia by restricting opportunities for people to misuse guns. It did not ban guns outright, but it introduced a whole range of measures. Probably the most important of those was the ban on semi-automatic long-arms. It is unfortunate that at that time semi-automatic short-arms, semi-automatic pistols, were not banned; but, still, it was important legislation. Members of this House need to be aware that if they vote for this bill, they take the first step towards dismantling national uniformity, which has been recognised over the past 12 years as being most significant in bringing increased safety to our streets and homes and contributing to a reduction in massacres. Thank heavens, there has not been a repeat of the tragedy at Port Arthur.

It is interesting to examine the relationship between the Shooters Party and Labor. In New South Wales the gains of the Shooters Party have been won with enormous support from New South Wales Labor. I saw this relationship develop most clearly in the aftermath of the 1988 election. The New South Wales Labor Party blamed the defeat of the Unsworth Government on the attempt by the then Premier to tighten up gun laws. It was to the real credit of Premier Unsworth that he did take on the issue of gun law reform, and brought forward some modest but sensible changes. The gun lobby reacted with ferocity. However, to argue that that gun law reform caused the defeat of that Labor Government is to engage in a rewriting of history because in 1988 Labor had been in power for 12 years. The circumstances were something like they are now: a Labor government out of touch and arrogant, incapable of facing up to changes occurring in the community, and not knowing what the key issues of concern were. Issues such as workers compensation and the cost of living were key concerns in a number of regional areas, and these were the issues that in fact led to Labor being thrown out of office.

I was working on the gun control issue at that time, and it seemed to me it became convenient for Labor not to face up to the fact that the party had deserted its traditional base and to say, "We got it wrong on gun laws." That was far from the real reason for the defeat of the Unsworth Government, but the myth has become part of Labor history and has fuelled a long association between the shooters movement and senior Labor leaders. This relationship has resulted in great benefits to shooting organisations. Labor leaders often regarded the benefits as twofold: first, preferences come election time and, second, gaining consistent support in the upper House for its legislative program. What the shooters movement gained in return for that cooperation is a most relevant issue today as this significant bill passes through the Parliament.

A recent win for the Shooters Party was the enormous financial support it received from the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (NSW Inc.) for its 2007 election campaign to elect the party's upper House candidate, Mr Roy Smith, who was also the Executive Officer of SSAA (NSW) at the time that it donated a total of $45,286 to his own Shooters Party election campaign. His name appears on some of the donor forms. The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (NSW) earned the lion's share of its money from the New South Wales firearms licensing scheme, introduced after a series of 1990 gun massacres. The new laws gave responsibility for firearms testing and licensing to shooters organisations, and also required all licensed shooters to be financial members of a shooting organisation. That scheme has poured millions of dollars into shooting organisations. We understand that the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (NSW) is now the largest single recipient of this scheme. The Greens and many community organisations have questioned not just the finances involved there but also the fact that firearms testing and licensing are given over to shooting organisations. But that was one of the deals that were worked out with the shooters movement when the pressure was on in the 1990s to reform the laws.

Other big wins that Labor has delivered to the Shooters Party include establishing the Game Council and with it new laws to allow recreational hunters to shoot feral animals on private land and in State forests. Mr Robert Brown became a member of the New South Wales upper House in May 2006, when he took the place of Mr John Tingle. It is worth reflecting on some of the developments that occurred when Mr Tingle was a member in this place. In April 1997 Premier Carr worked with Mr John Tingle to establish the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Shooting Clubs. The purpose of the committee was to provide a whole-of-government approach to issues affecting shooting clubs, to help clubs obtain Crown land for ranges and finance to develop or redevelop them. It is understood that after the 1999 election Premier Carr regularly met with Mr John Tingle as part of Labor's strategy to win the support of the crossbench members of the upper House. In 1995 there were seven crossbench members in the upper House and, as we know, after the 1999 tablecloth-ballot election their number increased to 13.

From 1999 to 2003 Labor had to work hard in this place to gain the support of the crossbenchers. Shooting organisations made gains in this period on many issues. It appears that a close relationship developed between the Government and Mr John Tingle and, similar to what we see now, when the Government was in a tight spot and needed that one extra vote, so often Mr Tingle was there to help out. From 1998 to 2001 the Shooters Party secured over $5 million in additional funding for shooters clubs. An average 20 clubs per year were given funding ranging from $2,000 to $45,000 for specific projects. Overall, shooting clubs received a huge increase in public funding and several new shooting ranges and regional shooting complexes were built. Mr John Tingle said in his newsletter of 22 June 2001:

Sport and Rec has some $4 million to distribute amongst all sporting bodies in the state, and the demand is heavy. Approximately $100,000 is tagged each year for shooting clubs. I'd like it to be more, but we try to place it where it will do the most good. The fact that we've managed to persuade the Government to allocate well over $2.5 million extra in the last 3 years, in addition to the standard Sport and Rec grants makes up for the shortfall, I believe.

It should be said that one or two anti-gun oriented media persons have grumbled about "so much" money being given to shooting. Let them grumble! I have lobbied the Government very hard for this funding, and I apologise to nobody for getting it.

Certainly, Mr Tingle did well for his constituency but that the handover of money occurred at the same time as so many critical votes took place in this place is a matter for concern. Shooters Party members of Parliament in the upper House have provided reliable support to the Labor Government in times of tight votes to have bills passed, to resist the release of secret government documents, to move government motions and to vote against potentially embarrassing parliamentary inquiries. Shooters members of Parliament have voted to pass crucial government legislation that many crossbenchers did not support—law and order bills, such as the Crimes Act, and the workers compensation legislation, which was a serious disservice to their own constituency considering the majority are blue collar workers. The fact that Shooters Party members voted to gut that legislation was absolutely terrible.

This week the Shooters Party reliably assisted the Government with its planning laws and it helped the Government to dismantle its important Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Part 3A was included in that Act, largely because of the actions of the Shooters Party. It also assisted the Government with its gene technology bill, thus enabling the Government to water down the clear need for a moratorium before such technology is implemented in this State. The Shooters Party was also instrumental in weakening the threatened species legislation. Representatives from the Shooters Party have been appointed to a number of government boards where they have a vested interest, for example, the Pest Animal Management Council, the Animal Welfare Advisory Council and the Non-Indigenous Animals Council. After viewing all the assistance that the Shooters Party has received from the Government it makes me smile when members of that party abuse the Greens because of our work with various environmental groups. Shooters Party members have this State well and truly sewn up. They have a cash flow direct from the Government and their organisations benefit financially. As I said earlier, that funding assists them to become elected to this Parliament and to appoint key representatives to various boards.

The Shooters Party, through the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Shooting Clubs [MACOSC], lobbied for approval and funding of numerous regional shooting complexes. It gained 540 hectares for the Illawarra Shooting Association in the Dharawal Nature Reserve and played a key role in establishing or extending shooting complexes at Cessnock, Emmaville, Inverell-Glen Innes, Mudgee, Bodalla, Port Macquarie, Kempsey, Hilltop and Hornsby. Crown land was obtained for the Far South Coast Hunting Club at Bodalla. We have explored the relationship between Labor and the Shooters Party in New South Wales, but it is worth going a little further afield.

I would like to share with members something that occurred during the last Federal election. There are interesting links between Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the gun lobby. Mr Rudd is a patron of the Queensland Amateur Pistol Shooting Association and he has met with the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia [SSAA]. Mr Rudd is also reported to have close links with the Belmont Shooting Range, which is located in his electorate. He is known as a keen clay target shooter and possibly a keen pistol shooter. The latter statement has not been confirmed but reports have been made to suggest that it is true. Perhaps members of the Shooters Party will enlighten us.

An issue that I find disturbing about this close relationship between the Shooters Party and the major parties in this State is that we are going down the American path, where the National Rifle Association dominates politics at every level in the United States. As the campaign for the presidential election heats up, leading Democrat and Republican contenders have to work out a policy to show that they are not anti guns; that they are there to work with the National Rifle Association; and that they will make pro-gun statements at different times. That is what is happening in Australia. It is insidious and it must be resisted. At the moment we have a problem because both major parties are cooperating with the shooting fraternity.

It is interesting to note the Liberal Party's involvement in firearms testing. The firearms testing scheme was set up in New South Wales in 1991 by Liberal police Minister Ted Pickering. In the years prior to 1991 a series of gun massacres shifted the debate about gun control, which resulted in the New South Wales Government agreeing that shooters should be licensed. At that time the two key organisations to benefit from the Liberal regime were the New South Wales Firearm Safety and Training Council Ltd and the New South Wales Shooting Association Ltd. The New South Wales Shooting Association Ltd received $600,000 in a watertight contract that was never made public to conduct testing and licensing from 1991 until 2006. In 2006 the Labor Government did not renew its contract.

I understand that the New South Wales branch of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia is now the major beneficiary of firearms licensing. I again emphasise how wrong that system is. The testing and licensing process—the entry point for those wishing to engage in legitimate shooting practices—is conducted by shooting bodies. Clearly, responsibility for such testing should be transferred to TAFEs or some independent body. This issue does not involve public safety alone; it also involves money. Over the years it has become a massive cash cow and millions of dollars have flowed into the coffers of firearms organisations that, in turn, has enabled the Shooters Party to fund its expensive election campaigns. The Liberal Party entered into a secret contract in order to establish that regime. The Labor Party tried to dismantle the contract, obtained legal advice to the effect that it was not possible and had to wait until the contract was concluded in 2006—15 years after it was established.

I refer to the interesting comments made earlier by members of the Shooters Party about how law abiding they are, how committed they are to ensuring that guns are managed responsibly in our society, and how all the laws are in place to do that. However, after taking into account their activities in certain areas, it is apparent that they have been lax in following the required laws. The New South Wales division of the Shooters Party has never lodged an annual return with the Australian Electoral Commission. As a State-based party with a registered Federal division it is required to do so. Other minor political parties, such as the Democrats, the Christian Democrats, and the Greens all submit returns from their State divisions to the Australian Electoral Commission.

From 1998-99 to the financial year 2003-04 the Federal division of the Australian Shooters Party was registered and lodged an annual return with the Australian Electoral Commission. We know from its State election returns that the New South Wales division of the Shooters Party accepted many donations—over $105,000 during that period—yet that was not disclosed to the Australian Electoral Commission. The Victorian division of the Shooters Party has also never lodged a return with the Australian Electoral Commission, despite contesting State elections since 1999. The Greens obtained advice from the Australian Electoral Commission that the Shooters Party should have disclosed its State division donations to the Australian Electoral Commission during that period. We also asked the Australian Electoral Commission for advice on whether the various State divisions of the Shooters Party would now be required to submit annual returns to the Australian Electoral Commission for that period and for future years.

The Hon. Robert Brown: You got the wrong advice, as usual.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge Mr Robert Brown's interjection. He said that the Greens got it wrong. We have not got it wrong: that is advice from the Australian Electoral Commission and the records are there to show it. Mr Robert Brown should inform the House why his party did not put in the right disclosures. It would also be useful for him to explain how much money his party takes from shooting organisations and how much it uses for its political campaigns. The Shooters Party accepted large donations from the Sporting Shooters Association (New South Wales) Inc. As I said earlier, Shooters Party member Mr Roy Smith gained more than $400,000 for his own election campaign.

The Hon. Robert Brown: It shows how much he is loved in his constituency.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is an interesting statement. I understand that there are considerable differences and concerns about how much money some of the other candidates have been given from the huge war chest to which the Shooters Party has access, thanks to the Labor Government and with the cooperation of the Opposition. We are aware of these problems because of the arguments referred to on the Shooters Party blog site. A member of the Newcastle branch of the Sporting Shooters Association sought an opinion from senior counsel on the constitutional validity of a $250,000 donation and a $60,000 donation. Senior counsel found that the donations were unconstitutional, as they were approved by the executive and not by a general meeting.

An additional $124,786 worth of donations in kind were made from the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia to the Shooters Party for office expenses, staff and advertising. Were members of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia aware that their organisation gave more than $400,000 to the Shooters Party Roy Smith campaign? As a result of reading the blogs to which I referred earlier, I gained the impression that they were not aware of that. Perhaps it would be useful if the Hon. Roy Smith in his reply discloses how the system operates and who benefits. Clearly, this legislation should not be passed: it is a threat to public safety and will result in serious damage to important national uniformity in gun laws.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.09 p.m.]: As my colleagues Ms Sylvia Hale and Ms Lee Rhiannon have outlined, the Greens oppose this bill. I shall outline three key reasons for that opposition. The first relates to the substance of the bill, the second to the impacts the bill will have on society, and the third is the process by which this bill came into existence and was introduced into this House. I echo the comments of Ms Sylvia Hale and Ms Lee Rhiannon. I should like to add to Ms Sylvia Hale's detailed analysis of the bill, and in doing so I acknowledge the National Coalition for Gun Control for the information it provided and its ongoing analysis of the risks associated with a society that has an excessive number of licensed firearms. It is wonderful that our society has dedicated gun control organisations whose members put in the time and place their lives on the line in order to keep us safe from the adverse effects of increased gun ownership.

Ms Sylvia Hale referred to the provisions relating to penalty notices for so-called summary or minor offences. Item [12] in schedule 1 to the bill provides for the issuing of penalty notices for certain summary offences under the Act and regulation. The Shooters Party says that paying a fine for breaching the Firearms Act will enable shooters to retain their firearm licences. As Ms Sylvia Hale said, this could be called the "keep the shooters out of court" section. There are still serious firearm offences that fall short of indictable offences, such as leaving keys in a firearm locker. Firearm offences, no matter how minor, are more serious than littering or failing to buy a train ticket. Proposed section 85A (6) (c) states that the regulations may prescribe penalties for different offences or classes of offences. The evidence does not exist to require changing the particular section of the Act that deals with offences. Leaving the prescription of penalties in the regulations means that if the bill is passed the Government can sit down with the Shooters Party and the shooting lobby and rewrite penalties.

Currently, it is a condition of the approval of a shooting range under part 8 of the Firearms Regulation 2006 that holders of such approval cause the following information to be recorded: the particulars of the licence of the person, and the category and calibre of the firearm being used. The holder of a shooting range approval also must make such records available for inspection by a police officer or the commissioner. The Shooters Party seeks to replace those conditions with a requirement of mere supervision. Why? More onerous safeguards are required when we refer to firearms licences; therefore, it should be absolutely essential that licence particulars are recorded. Suggested amendments to the current legislation authorising possession of firearms as heirlooms are of great concern.

At present a firearm must be rendered permanently inoperable before a permit may be issued authorising that firearm to be kept as an heirloom. Item [6] of schedule 2 to the bill requires that for a firearm to be kept as an heirloom it must be rendered temporarily inoperable only. This means that the firearm could be made operable at some future time. Item [7] removes the restriction that prevents an heirloom permit from being issued to a person already holding such a permit. Given that the previous amendment suggests some heirloom guns could be made operational, the Greens believe that on safety grounds these amendments pertaining to heirloom firearms should not be supported. If these firearms can be made operable again we must keep track of them.

The amendments relating to non-prohibited firearms used in historical re-enactments will allow people to wield guns other than those for which they have a permit. Other amendments remove an existing requirement to hold an arms fair permit. These amendments reduce the number of licences a person must hold, whether they are a dealer at an expo or an organiser of an historical re-enactment. This requirement may be less stringent and, therefore, it is possible for a firearm to go missing. This could happen at an historical re-enactment if the organiser is required to specify only the types of firearms and not the actual registration number of the particular firearms. The Greens do not consider these amendments as worrisome as others, but will not support them as they could allow firearms to go missing.

Items [18] and [19] in schedule 2 will allow minors who already hold a licence for a small-calibre pistol to upgrade to a larger-calibre pistol in shooting competitions. Not only will this bill allow children as young as 12 years to be encouraged to shoot guns; it will also allow those children to use even bigger guns. It may be said that this type of shooting is only a sport, but the Greens do not think high-calibre handguns should be given to minors, even if other States and Territories believe otherwise. Item [21] in schedule 2 provides that the failure by an approved firearms club to disqualify any member who has been convicted of a firearms offence and who, therefore, is not authorised to possess or use a firearm is no longer a specific ground on which the commissioner may revoke the approval of the club.

It will remain an offence for a range official or any other licensed person to permit an unauthorised person to possess or use a firearm. The Shooters Party always insists that the shooting community is law abiding. The question that must be asked is: Why are they abrogating a club's duty of care? The club must ensure that a convicted person does not gain access to a firearm. Surely this is not an unreasonable obligation. The Greens do not support this amendment as it lets clubs off the hook on such an important issue. Item [30] of schedule 2 seeks to remove the requirement to include the name and address of a firearms dealer in an advertisement for the sale of firearms. We do not see why not listing the address is necessary or desirable. A simple search of the Yellow Pages reveals the name and addresses of dozens of New South Wales guns and ammunition dealers.

One presumes that the removal of this requirement will make it easier for a dealer to market guns online and then post them across New South Wales and/or interstate. This amendment will remove any impediment to selling firearms for anyone based in Dubbo, for instance. I presume the argument is that dealers believe that showing the address may put off the shopper. Item [31] suggests an amendment to clause 127 regarding the inspection of certain firearms so as to require notices of inspection to be served on individual club members. Current arrangements provide that a club member is taken to have been served with a notice of inspection if the secretary or relevant office holder of the club has been served with that notice. We do not identify the reason for this amendment in the briefing note or the second reading speech of Mr Roy Smith.

Overall, not only is this bill a quid pro quo for the Shooters Party's assistance to the Government; it is a bill that waters down gun control. The problem we face, as I have outlined, is that a number of provisions in this bill will make it easier to obtain guns. I refer now to the impact that weakening gun control will have on society by allowing a broader range of firearms ownership. The simple truism is that the greater availability of weapons will lead to a greater incidence of violence involving weapons. The Greens are concerned about the availability of firearms but are more concerned about creating a society based on a weapons culture.

This bill is one step closer towards normalising firearm ownership and creating the situation in the United States of America of widespread firearm ownership. The crime statistics and impact of widespread weapons ownership in the United States will remove any doubts that this is bad legislation: it has created one of the most unsafe societies on the surface of the planet. It is not just a direct impact of people being injured or murdered by firearms; it is a culture of violence that is created by the widespread use of weaponry. It is the idea that when people own weapons they resort to using those weapons. It normalises the use of weapons in society. For a number of years when I was a young student I lived in the United States and I have revisited it as an academic. On every occasion when I stayed for more than three weeks I was shocked by the impact of gun ownership.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: You were shot?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Shocked by the impact of gun ownership. I was shocked not only to see the way gun ownership makes a society less safe, but also by the way it changes people's thinking about personal safety—personal safety becomes an individual item and not a collective item. So people argue that they must own guns for reasons of personal safety rather than pursuing the collective solution of reducing gun ownership to keep all of society safe. The bill seeks to replicate in Australia the American culture of gun ownership and violence.

It is interesting to consider the social dynamics of gun ownership in the United States. Many people have written large volumes on this subject, but it is pretty straightforward. At the top of the pyramid are the gun manufacturers and the gun retailing industry. At the bottom of the pyramid is the widespread availability of guns, which creates not only a culture of gun ownership but a sense of insecurity among those who do not own guns. This drives people to purchase guns. In the middle of the pyramid is the gun lobby. In the United States the gun lobby is headed by the National Rifle Association, which is a conduit for money, political influence and votes. The National Rifle Association has perverted the political system in the United States through campaign donations and influencing members of the United States Congress and State houses. Such organisations are like parasites: they become embedded in the social fabric and are almost impossible to remove. If we allow the culture of gun ownership to take hold in Australia it will be almost impossible to eradicate later.

I direct those members who do not believe me to consider the sad history of attempts to regulate gun ownership in the United States. Consider the number of congressmen and senators whose careers were destroyed because they tried to stand up for sensible gun ownership. They were obliterated by the well-oiled machine that extends from the gun manufacturers and gun retailers to the National Rifle Association and into the communities of the United States. I note that the Shooters Party's website advocates sport shooting in schools. That is classic social engineering: Get them young. The bill is just one step towards fulfilling the Shooters Party's agenda of normalising gun ownership and shooting in society. It is appalling social engineering.

The bill is just the first step in the Shooters Party's detailed program to change the nature of Australian society. Weapons kill people but they also create an atmosphere of violence. They rob people of their fundamental human right to live in society safely and securely, free from fear that someone next to them might go crazy, pull out a gun and shoot them. Anyone who has driven on the Los Angeles freeway network will be familiar with the effect of knowing that there is a greater than 50 per cent chance that the driver in a nearby car is carrying a gun. That has quite an effect on one's personal safety. I invite Opposition members to talk to the Police Association of New South Wales about guns. Ask its members to speak with their American counterparts about the impact of widespread gun ownership and the number of officers who are killed in shootings.

When I lived in California police officers were often shot with legally owned weapons. It happened on a regular basis, and it was a tragedy for the police force and for the officers' families. It appears that Opposition members will support the bill. That is amazing. I wonder how they will front up to the Police Association and their friends in the police force and say, "That's okay; we've supported the next step towards widespread weapons ownership in Australia". Australians value the absence of widespread firearms ownership, and this bill is a step towards denying all Australians a valuable right. In the remainder of my speech I will outline the process through which this bill came into existence—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I thought you were going to say that you were going to turn to the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I have spoken at length about the bill. It beggars belief that this bill enjoys widespread support among Labor members. I have worked on polling booths with Labor Party members, and several of my friends are party members. I have never heard any one of them say anything positive—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Were you a member of the Labor Party?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Before you were born, child. I have never heard a single one of them say anything positive about weakening gun control measures. Every single member of the Labor Party I know is a diehard opponent of weakening gun control. I find it hard to believe that a majority of Labor Party members in this Chamber support the bill in their hearts. It must be a very substantial deal. I congratulate the Shooters Party on its political acumen in manipulating the system to get the Labor Party to support this odious legislation. The power of two in this Chamber is quite extraordinary. Shooters Party members have been able to manipulate the situation by weight of numbers to achieve an outcome that I am sure goes against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Labor members.

My colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon outlined the cash that flows from the Government's coffers to the various shooting organisations. Again, I congratulate the Shooters Party on its political acumen in securing that funding. We live in a society that has a relatively low incidence of gun ownership and gun-related crime. The statistics in both cases are still too high and we have a long way to go, but we have held back the flood. I am not known as being particularly fond of the actions of the Howard Government. However, it had one positive achievement. John Howard did the right thing—I said it at the time, and I have said it ever since—in his response to the Port Arthur massacre. He stood up for the right of every Australian to live in a safe society. It is sad to see Opposition members on the point of rolling over and reversing one of the few positive actions of the Howard Government. It is difficult to understand why we are rolling back the gains we made after Port Arthur. The Port Arthur massacre was an absolute tragedy both for the people involved and for the entire nation. But we learnt some lessons from Port Arthur, and one of them was working towards uniform gun regulation and gun control laws. The House is on the verge of putting a hole through that uniformity and destroying the legacy of Port Arthur—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: They aren't uniform now.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I said that we were working towards uniformity. We are also destroying John Howard's legacy. The bill is the highly unfortunate product of a series of highly unfortunate deals. But it is more than that: It is a step in the wrong direction. It is pointing gun control in New South Wales and throughout Australia in the wrong direction. I know that the majority of members in this place, if they were not caught up in some kind of deal, would have the courage to say that it is wrong. I am sure that this is not the sort of Australia they want to hand to their children. This is not the sort of Australia they want to leave as their parliamentary legacy. It is certainly not the sort of Australia the Greens want as our legacy. We will vote against the bill, and we urge members to have the courage of their convictions and join us in opposing it.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.29 p.m.]: Mr President—

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Oh no, there's more!

Mr IAN COHEN: I am sorry to disappoint members opposite. My humble apology for speaking in favour of gun control. I must be running against the cultural milieu. The Opposition and the Shooters Party, aided and abetted by the Labor Party, are doing something so reasonable and wonderful that I am almost embarrassed to say that I have concerns. I am concerned about the proliferation of guns in society. I am concerned about the deal that was done between the Government and the Shooters Party. I am also concerned about the inept interjections from members opposite who are turning a serious issue into a laughing stock.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Tell us about the shooting gallery!

Mr IAN COHEN: The Hon. Charlie Lynn using the word "shooting" shows a real depth of intellect. He somehow thinks that the proliferation of guns in society is okay. I listened with interest to the contributions of my colleagues Dr John Kaye and Ms Sylvia Hale.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: You're the only one.

Mr IAN COHEN: I may be the only one who listened to their speeches. It is embarrassing that the House can be so superficial about such an important issue, which the former Prime Minister took very seriously. Obviously John Howard and I had many areas of disagreement from the Greens perspective, but what the Federal Government did in terms of gun control after Port Arthur was the action of a statesman. All we hear from members opposite is the Hon. Charlie Lynn bleating on about preferences. A lack of alternatives forced the Greens to support Labor. A lack of alternatives in many areas, as epitomised by the Hon. Charlie Lynn's attitude, makes it difficult for the Greens to support the Coalition in election campaigns. It is the Charlie Lynns of the world who make the Greens cringe with horror and not give preferences to the Coalition. It is the Charlie Lynns of the world who act like a neon sign, saying, "This is what it will really be like if the Coalition gets into power."

Some members opposite show goodwill. Indeed, some members of the shadow frontbench have attempted to bridge that gap, but the recidivist rump of the Liberal Party is still lacking imagination and cannot take the issue of gun control seriously. The Coalition cannot accept that a Columbine massacre could potentially happen here. As Dr John Kaye appropriately said, the proliferation of handguns and pistols has created the current situation in America. Many Americans are afraid of the proliferation of guns in that society.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: And the drugs!

Mr IAN COHEN: Often guns and drugs are combined. As a stand-alone issue, the proliferation of guns in American society must be condemned. What does it say about the culture in Australia when 12-year-olds are able to shoot high-calibre guns? As for guns in schools it is interesting that the Hon. Roy Smith, in his inaugural speech on 30 May 2007, said:

We will pursue the reintroduction of shooting sports and firearms safety programs into public schools sports programs …

The Shooters Party will also continue to push for the reintroduction of shooting sports and firearms safety into the public schools curriculum. Placing guns in schools is a wonderful direction for us to take! One aspect that seems to be grossly ignored is that in some situations a young person, who may be emotionally or mentally destabilised, may think that a gun is a much more effective weapon than a knife, a club or something like that. A gun gives a person enough power beyond their physical capability to cause a degree of carnage. We have seen that happen both in Australia and overseas. Yet there seems to be an unholy alliance between the Government and the Shooters Party, which has an exquisite balance of power, aided and abetted by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, to relinquish a tight gun control regime that is supported and applauded. Interestingly, in supporting the Firearms and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Bill on 12 November 2003, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said:

This year there appears to have been a change of culture concerning the use of handguns. Previously, weapons were not part of our Australian culture, but their use is now far more widespread …

That change of culture is very disturbing and it appears to be more prevalent in New South Wales than in the other States.

Despite those reasonable comments by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, it will not take long for me to guess which way he will vote. It is also interesting that in July 2005 the Shooters Party voted to give extraordinary powers to the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, to determine large developments such as a shooting complex. In 2007 the Shooters Party voted in the New South Wales Parliament to help the Government to avoid a public inquiry into how those laws have delivered the planning system to the big developers who donate millions to the Labor Party. Also, in 2007 Shooters Party votes also stopped the public release of documents relating to the Sydney desalination plant and the proposed M4 East motorway. There is an ongoing supine relationship between the Shooters Party and the Government. Obviously the Shooters Party has called in the debt owed by the Government, as this bill has been given urgent priority. Perhaps I am wrong. I enthusiastically argued against the bill being debated urgently, but obviously it is urgent. Perhaps I was mistaken in the earlier part of the debate.

Obviously, debating this bill fulfils a deal by which the Government has had the largesse of Shooters Party votes on many other issues. The Shooters Party, to its credit, is representing its constituency. It is single-mindedly pursuing legislation that John Tingle attempted but failed to get through with the Government at the time. However, the Shooters Party has been successful in continuing with this bill—so it is payback time. The bill is urgent because if it is not passed now it will disappear into the ether and the Shooters Party will have failed its primary objective in this House. Congratulations! Sadly, we are taking the wrong direction in this debate. We need to pause for a moment and seriously consider the direction being taken, particularly in light of the level of frivolity on this issue.

In the past gun control has separated the Australian culture from the American culture. The significant and effective control of individual gun ownership in Australia is different to that in America. As a result, I think Australia is a much safer place, and we should hold on to that if possible. The deal that has enabled this bill to be driven through the Parliament shows how the New South Wales political system works, aided and abetted by the Opposition. I am interested to see whether members opposite are keen to support the Shooters Party on this bill and the arguments that will be used, not in this House, because they do not want to waste the time of the House, but outside the Parliament. When I say that they do not want to waste the time of the House I mean that they are keen to see this rather embarrassing situation resolved as quickly as possible so we can all forget about it and we can go on our way.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Does that red shirt mean you're having a Commo day today?

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the vacuous interjection of the Hon. Charlie Lynn. If I were to count the number of times that people have commented on my attire it would run into many digits. I cannot quite see the connection. Yes, I choose to wear certain clothes that may make me a target, but not a target for a gun I would like to think, although Charlie Lynn might see it differently. It seems as though he has not been able to shake off his army mentality. I know members on both sides of the House have had experience in that institution. One would have thought that the level of training they received and the level of responsibility they were given as members of the armed forces would make them a little more cautious about aspects of army activity and war. My attitudes to war and the use of guns in various theatres of war have changed. In some ways I have come full circle. Members will not find me in the House condemning soldiers that go to war. They will not find me saying anything against people who risk their lives. They will continue to hear me say plenty about politicians who have directed them in that way.

Similarly, I think it is important to recognise that there is often a cultural change among those who have been to war in that they recognise the horror of war and the horror of facing live bullets and having guns pointed in their direction. Despite the bravery they have displayed, so many people who have been in the army are saying no to the proliferation of guns in our society, because those people have had the experience to which I referred. The member opposite thinks it is a laughing matter but I know that many of his compatriots feel very strongly about the proliferation of guns in our society and a culture that encourages them. Before members attack me in a superficial knee-jerk reaction and say, "Let's have a go at the Greens", they should think about people who have experienced warfare and how they feel about kids as young as 12 getting a taste of guns as a fun thing to do.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Or a taste of drugs.

Mr IAN COHEN: Again I acknowledge the Hon. Charlie Lynn's absolutely inappropriate interjection—vacuous will do, but it is worse than that—that has nothing to do with the debate in the House today. People from all levels of society take this matter very seriously, particularly the protection of young people in light of the school massacres we have seen overseas and in this country. It has been an interesting debate and it certainly highlights the poverty of argument in support of this bill. I understand it is a done deal and that the relationship has been fostered. It works politically in the short term and it will work to get this distasteful legislation through. It will work for people who have one eye on regressive gun law reform and enable them to get what they want and, of course, it works for a government that is purely interested in the power it can accrue. I suggest that after 14 years in power this is an amoral Government.

I turn now to some of the issues arising from the bill. The 28-day waiting period involves the process police use to check whether someone is a danger to the community or a danger to themselves. It is also a time to check whether any circumstances have changed and whether someone satisfies the genuine reasons for owning a firearm. It is essential that this process be carried out upon renewal. Currently a licence is valid for two years. Obviously, in those two years a person's circumstances may have changed. That is, the genuine reasons they had for gaining a firearm licence may no longer be valid. For example, they may no longer live on a property and need to kill vermin, or they may no longer work as a security guard or belong to a shooting club.

After the Port Arthur massacre the Commonwealth banned the importation of all self-loading and pump-action shotguns as Martin Bryant used such weapons to commit the massacre. These firearms are extremely dangerous military-style weapons. Under resolution 1 of the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms all jurisdictions agreed to ban the sale, resale, transfer, ownership, possession, manufacture and use of these firearms other than in exceptional circumstances. Clay target shooting is not considered an exceptional circumstance. New South Wales is already breaching resolution 1 of the national agreement by allowing the use of these weapons for clay target shooting. Expanding the bodies to which an applicant's shooting club may be affiliated will substantially increase the number of people gaining access to these prohibited firearms, which have been used in several massacres.

In the short time remaining I would like to mention an interesting aspect. An effective campaign has been run, not necessarily a centralised campaign, over the past few months. There has been ongoing comment on North Coast radio about a young girl who is a very enthusiastic shooter. I think she is a champion shooter and she has gone to Italy, I think, to compete in a shooting contest. She talks about how she used to follow her father around when he was shooting. The father has been quoted as saying how enthusiastic she was and how she loved to shoot and kill feral animals. That may be reasonable. I have to say that killing feral animals in itself is something I would support, although I would not support people doing that who have not undertaken proper training.

That item was broadcast a number of times. I do not know how widespread the report was but it certainly involved the friendly face of a young shooter encouraging young people to get involved in shooting. I am not addressing this to the Shooters Party because I know they have a strong commitment to this lifestyle and to introducing it to young people and into schools. Nevertheless, it gave a very—dare I say—disarming picture of a young person who was an enthusiastic shooter who did a good job of shooting feral animals and who now is a champion shooter. That may be all very well in the narrow case of that particular successful young person. This message was broadcast to many young people listening to ABC radio. I do not listen to much else when I am on the North Coast.

It disturbed me because it very much put a friendly face to this issue. How many people would want to emulate that path? Of course, Shooters Party representatives would be very keen to see as many as possible. How many in that situation would then be introduced to guns and given skill in working with guns? In a young population how long would it take before we created another Martin Bryant? How long would it take before someone had the opportunity to misuse the expertise that they gained at a very early age but were not old enough to be properly discerning about the massive impact they might have? Then we end up with a situation where once again there is a tragedy. I think this legislation is very much misdirected. I would rather see the time of the House spent on other issues. The Government and the Shooters Party have done a deal, with the acquiescence of the Opposition. I am pleased to stand with the Greens to oppose this legislation. [Time expired.]

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.49 p.m.]: I think it is obvious that I would support the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008, which my colleague the Hon. Roy Smith has introduced. I will not speak in detail to the bill; I will leave that for my colleague's reply. I understand that the Government intends to move some amendments. Obviously, the Shooters Party would not support the Government amendments; however, we will address them when they are moved in Committee. I wish to respond to some of the contributions of members, primarily those of the Greens. In my view, both Ms Sylvia Hale and Ms Lee Rhiannon came perilously close to breaching Standing Order 91 (3) in relation to some of the comments and imputations they made. However, I have thick skin so I do not mind.

Dr John Kaye used the term "collective solution". To all our constituents that would seem to be spot on: it smacks of communism. I note that the Greens have congratulated the Shooters Party on its acumen in dealing with the Government with respect to fundraising. It must be remembered that the Shooters Party came about because of a defensive mechanism: we needed to defend the lifestyle of a couple of hundred thousand people in New South Wales. We hear rhetoric that seeks to describe the American path, we hear talk about the NRA, and all that sort of garbage. When members of this House think about issues such as the cultural heritage of shooting in New South Wales and Australia they might think of the film Smiley Gets a Gun, which starred Chips Rafferty. The film, which was shot in the 1950s, was fairly close to the mark in depicting the interaction between young persons in the 1950s and 1960s regarding firearms. Indeed, the film portrays an extreme safety issue—that is, dealing with every firearm as being loaded.

I turn to the contribution of Mr Ian Cohen. I always find Mr Ian Cohen's contributions in this place far more erudite than those of his colleagues. He is probably closer to the belief system that we support than members on the red wing of his party are. However, it is totally wrong to imply that the Shooters Party is seeking to turn Australia into a United States. In the United States the firearms issue is about rights in the country's bill of rights, whereas the firearms issue in Australia is about people being allowed to conduct their lifestyle as they see fit. Australia is very much a live and let live type of society.

It has been suggested that we are introducing young people to shooting. If Tiger Woods had not learned to swing a golf club at the age of four he would not be doing what he is doing today. Similarly with Michael Diamond, who won two gold medals in two Olympics. Unfortunately, he missed out at the last Olympics, but he might crack it again this time. Michael Diamond started shooting at a very early age. My sons were taught to hunt at an early age and they still hunt, and I am sure they will teach my grandchildren to hunt.

Some of the statistics used in the debate were used loosely. Indeed, I caution the Greens about relying too heavily on the rhetoric that comes from the pen of Roland Brown and Samantha Lee from the Coalition for Gun Control. It is simply rhetoric. This bill is not about turning 12-year-olds into Dirty Harrys. Indeed, under the Firearms Act and Firearms Regulation minors are allowed to compete in centre-fire pistol sports, which are contested at Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games levels. The term "high-calibre" was introduced after the 2003 changes to the laws, to specify calibres above .375 calibre, that is, .40 and .41 calibre. It is obvious that the Greens do not understand the various calibres: they referred to minor and major calibres. It is obvious that the Greens do not understand the technical issues. For the most part, the provisions in the bill relate to minor technical issues.

With regard to the suggestion about the 28-day waiting period, for the Firearms Registry to ascertain whether there are any problems with the re-issuing of a licence to a person it involves a minute, two minutes or three minutes on the computer. The 28-day waiting period is an artificial stopper that was put into the process, and it was a mistake. I agree that a wait of 28 days on the issuing of a firearms licence or the purchase of an initial firearm could be called a cooling-off period—the bill refers to it as a waiting period—but to carry it beyond that is simply bureaucratic idiocy. With regard to the Greens' comments about the fact that debate on the bill has been brought on suddenly, I remind them that since 1996 my predecessor and I, and now the Hon. Roy Smith, have pursued the New South Wales Government relentlessly on this issue. Four Ministers through five ministerships—

Mr Ian Cohen: You have them in your sight?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: No, that is not the right thing to say. I am sure that the staff and senior bureaucrats in the police Ministry would be utterly sick of the sight of the Shooters Party. We have been pushing for amendments to the Act and regulations for a long time, and we will continue to do so. The Firearms Act was created in haste and it is not uniform; indeed, it is far from uniform. Our colleagues in Victoria, if they already have a firearm, can have their permit to acquire issued electronically almost immediately. This is not about some of the things that have been claimed by the Coalition for Gun Control. The bill provides a simple set of amendments to complex legislation—and I dare say there will be more amendments to it in the future. As I said, the Act was created in much haste. I commend the various police Ministers and their ministries for trying to help us come to grips with some of the more difficult and stupid parts of the legislation over the years. As I said, this is nothing new; it has been going on since 1996. We are simply pleased that finally the Government is now starting to see the value of some of the arguments.

Mr Ian Cohen: You've got them agreeing to it by the strength of the arguments?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Actually, by the strength of the responses to a survey I issued to our constituents. The shooters in New South Wales all have problems with the laws, but what they have the biggest problem with is the bureaucracy and the red tape that overtakes their daily lives when they are dealing with the simple act of owning a firearm—and it is a simple act for them; they are law-abiding people. I understand the Government may not have believed the 99.9 per cent agreement we got from our survey, which said that the red tape needed to be stripped away. The Government probably conducted its own survey; however, I do not think it would have yielded the same results. I think the Government has now been made aware that many thousands of shooters in New South Wales believe that they are being set upon by bureaucracy and red tape.

Over a long period now the Government has been seeking to make the Firearms Registry at Murwillumbah more efficient, and the application of the laws and regulations more efficient. The Government has entered into what it calls a flatlining project, in an effort to stagger the renewal dates on licences so that the 150,000 or 170,000 licences are not all renewed within a four-or five-month period. It is ridiculous to employ up to 50 extra temporary staff simply to handle a load on a once-in-five-year cycle. I congratulate the Government, the registry and all those involved in doing that effectively. The amendments outlined in the bill will make it easier and simpler for the registry and the police Ministry to conduct the business of controlling and legislating for firearms in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.58 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of many Christian people who do not approve of this bill. I personally do not approve of shooting as a sport, and I wonder why it is an Olympic Games event. I do not like the concept of the spread of firearms. I do not like the concept of children being trained to shoot. I do not advocate banning guns from the community, but I will not support an extension of their availability, or encourage shooting in any form except within the armed forces. I do support, and have always supported, John Howard's limitations on firearms, and I will not do anything to roll back those limitations. And I will not support the Government's amendment to the bill because I believe that in any form the bill is repugnant.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Minister for Roads, Minister for Commerce, Acting Minister for Industrial Relations, and Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance) [4.00 p.m.]: The issue of firearms, how they are used and how they are obtained, is very important. The Iemma Government recognises that the ownership and use of firearms is a privilege that must be dealt with in a strict, regulated and accountable framework. This includes the way in which people obtain firearms licences, access firearms, trade firearms, and most importantly use firearms. Proposals contained within this bill will be given careful consideration by the Government to ensure they are measured and preserve the public interest. I acknowledge the work that the Shooters Party has done by consulting their constituency to promote the needs of recreational and sporting shooters but also their attempt to understand the broader issues relating to firearms by consulting the Firearms Registry and the Ministry for Police.

The Government makes no apologies for having the toughest firearms laws in the country and the toughest penalties for anyone who is caught in violation of these laws. The public demands high standards and the Government will not back away from its longstanding position on the responsible and practical use of firearms. However, the Government supports aspects of the bill that seek to maintain the fundamental principle and features that hold the use and access of firearms to a strict standard. Many of the proposals put forward aim at providing practical and streamlined processes for firearm licence holders and users as well as firearm dealers and theatrical armourers.

The changes proposed for theatrical armourers would create a consistent regulatory scheme for theatrical armourers. When armourers are hired to provide guns on a television, film or theatre sets they may not have all the required firearms in stock. Currently an armourer is required to obtain a permit to acquire each time he or she wishes to obtain a firearm, and this can cause delays of 28 days or more due to the waiting period. Making theatrical armourers a subset of dealers exempts them from the requirement to obtain a permit to acquire a firearm, so they may immediately source firearms from alternative sources. While this will give armourers greater access to firearms, it will also reduce the need for armourers to stockpile guns as they can obtain what they need quickly and efficiently.

Making armourers a subset of dealers will make them subject to the stricter probity requirements that exist for dealers. For example, armourers will have to supply details of their close business associates so the Firearms Registry can determine whether their business partners are suitable persons to hold a firearms licence as well. While there are currently around 22 theatrical armourers operating in New South Wales, these changes are reasonable changes to reducing regulatory burden and red tape for theatrical armourers.

Another practical change is to reduce the burden that licensed dealers face while trading firearms. This move will bring New South Wales into line with other States. Only licensed firearm dealers will be able to send firearms by a form of post that requires delivery in person to the addressee. Should an individual licence holder want to send a firearm through the mail, for example, to be fixed by a specialist gunsmith, he or she would be required to organise the dispatch via a licensed firearms dealer. Currently there is a total prohibition on sending firearms by mail or registered mail within New South Wales. However, dealers are able to send firearms to another dealer outside New South Wales by registered mail. This is inconsistent with many other jurisdictions. A strong case has been put forward by licensed dealers around New South Wales, who have lobbied for the legislation to be amended to align it with other jurisdictions.

The practical effect of the prohibition is, for example, that a firearms dealer in Griffith can send a firearm through the mail to Townsville but not to Moree, despite the firearm potentially having to travel through Moree in order to reach Townsville. Furthermore, Australia Post raised concerns that as things stand it may be considered an accessory to State and Territory offences relating to transporting, importing or exporting firearms due to the inconsistencies in State and Territory laws for carriage of firearms and firearms parts. This issue has been discussed at the Ministerial Council of Police and Emergency Management—Police [MCPEMP] Senior Officers Group and the Firearms Policy Working Group, where it was determined that the stricter controls in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory were causing difficulties for Australia Post.

The Firearms Policy Working Group believed it would be preferable to have national consistency. This proposal, while giving dealers greater choice in respect of mailing of firearms, may also improve public safety as the use of registered mail ensures that all packages can be accounted for as they remain within the control of Australia Post for the duration of the journey rather than be outsourced to different companies, as is the case for some courier companies. The arrangements proposed mirror those in all the other States.

While the Government supports the reduction of ineffective regulation and red tape, we will not compromise strong principle about who can access particular firearms. Minors are currently restricted from using large calibre handguns to shoot in competitions, and this Government opposes any changes to the practice. The proposal contained within this bill is that minors who have held permits for more than 12 months would be able to use large calibre handguns under supervision in competitions. Currently over 350 minor's permits for handguns are in force and, while it is not known how many of the minors would seek to shoot large calibre handguns if the restriction were removed, the Government does not believe there is a compelling case to change. While no other jurisdiction applies this restriction, the Iemma Government does not support allowing children to have greater access to powerful firearms, even under supervision. In the absence of any compelling evidence that the current provisions represent a significant disadvantage there would seem little reason to change the current provisions.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [4.07 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008, the object of which is to amend the Firearms Act 1996 and the Firearms Regulation 2006 as follows:

(a) to enable theatrical armourers to be treated as firearms dealers under the Act and to be issued with firearms dealer licences instead of theatrical armourer permits under the regulation,

(b) to exempt persons from the licensing and registration requirements under the Act in relation to the possession of antique firearms … that do not take breech-loaded metallic cartridges or for which ammunition is not commercially available,

(c) to provide that the exemption for pre-1900 firearms does not allow a person to use any such firearms without a licence or permit,

(d) to allow unlicensed persons to possess and use firearms on approved shooting ranges while under supervision and to allow unlicensed persons to possess and use firearms while participating in approved firearms safety training courses,

(e) to remove the mandatory 28-day waiting period for issuing a licence if the application is for the renewal of a licence,

(f) to provide that the mandatory 28-day waiting period for issuing a permit to acquire a firearm … does not apply if the applicant already has a firearm of the same kind as the firearm that is the subject of the permit application,

(g) to allow licensed firearms dealers to send and receive firearms by registered post (or other form of certified or security mail),

(h) to remove the need for a licensed person who is participating in an arms fair, or in a historical re-enactment that involves firearms, to have a separate permit authorising the person to participate in the arms fair or the historical re-enactment,

(i) to provide that firearms may be kept under the authority of an heirloom permit if they are rendered temporarily inoperable,

(j) to enable minors who have held a minor's target pistol permit under the Act for at least 12 months to obtain a permit to shoot large calibre pistols in specialised shooting competitions involving those pistols,

(k) to enable penalty notices to be issued for certain summary offences under the Act and the Regulation,

(l) to remove the requirement to include the name and address of a firearms dealer in an advertisement for the sale of a firearm,

(m) to modify certain requirements under the Regulation relating to the provision of information to the Commissioner, and

(n) to make a number of other miscellaneous amendments.

I took the opportunity to identify exactly what the bill proposes because a number of mis-statements have been made about the scope of the bill. At times the response has been hysterical, particularly from the Greens. The Opposition is generally in support of the bill, which proposes some sensible amendments to the firearms legislation in this State and will bring New South Wales legislation more in line with that in a number of other jurisdictions in Australia. I note that items (b) and (c) of the explanatory note relates to antique, muzzle-loaded black powder firearms, which are not usually a law and order problem. An exemption is already in place for long-arm rifles. This amendment will mean that they do not have to become registered, but it does not allow them to be used. Paragraph (d) of the explanatory notes states:

(d) to allow unlicensed persons to possess and use firearms on approved shooting ranges while under supervision ...

This is part of the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals firearms policy. This provision will enable someone to try out the sport without having to obtain a full firearms licence. I believe there have been no firearms-related injuries at approved clubs. Statistically, approved clubs are the safest places in which to use a firearm. It is important to ensure that shooting as a sport has a future. Young people who are interested in firearms and shooting—people who might have had some association with guns through their families—should have an opportunity to go to shooting ranges and use firearms while under supervision. Safety is paramount at shooting ranges, and people can indulge in the sport of shooting and thus determine whether it is an interest that they wish to pursue. Members of the Coalition believe that amendment to be reasonable; we want to encourage the sport of shooting in that way. Shooting is an Olympic and world championship sport and many shooting competitions are held throughout Australia. Provisions of this nature are reasonable and balanced.

Paragraph (e) of the explanatory notes refers to the removal of the mandatory 28-day waiting period for the issuance of a licence if the application is for the renewal of a licence. Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory have all abolished the 28-day waiting period when an applicant already has a licence for a firearm. Again, that provision, which makes eminent sense, forms part of the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals 2007 firearms policy. One must approach all these matters with a sense of soberness and common sense. The bill will amend a very bureaucratic provision. If a person has already gone through the so-called 28-day cooling-off period and has a licensed firearm, why would that person want to go though that again to purchase a further firearm? This outdated provision is incredibly bureaucratic.

I feel sympathy for firearm owners who have had to suffer as a result of that provision. People wishing to licence a firearm sometimes have to wait more than 28 days; often it becomes 40, 50 or 60 days. This provision is bureaucratic beyond belief and should not apply to licensed firearm owners. The Coalition strongly supports that amendment and has done so for a number of years. Dr John Kaye, probably for the first time in his life, applauded a Howard Government initiative—its legacy on gun control. He claimed, however, that this legislation was in some way unravelling or pulling apart the wonderful initiative of the Howard Government, but he does not know what he is talking about. All States have a number of different provisions relating to licensed shooters. The amendments in this legislation will promote uniformity and will promote sensible and sober debate on the provisions, resulting in a commonsense scheme for the regulation of firearms in this State and between the States. The explanatory note to the bill makes reference to exemptions and states:

Under section 17A of the Act, an applicant for a special category C licence (which authorises the person to use a self-loading or pump action shotgun in a recognised clay target shooting competition) must provide a statement to the effect that the applicant is a member of a shooting club which is affiliated with the Australian Clay Target Association.

The amendment simply extends the exemption to all clay target clubs. I note the comments that have been made relating to national uniformity. Western Australia and Queensland have already adopted this amendment. Many of the provisions in this bill form part of the Liberal-Nationals firearms policy 2007. The amendments will not result in any additional firearms becoming available to the general public and, as a result, there will be no increased risk to the public. Most of the amendments are sensible and will simply make life easier for law-abiding firearm owners. As I mentioned earlier, many of these changes bring New South Wales in line with the other States.

The amendments represent simplicity, uniformity, no increased risks to the public and a more streamlined system for the licensing of firearms—a win-win situation across the board. The hysteria that emanated from the Greens is beyond comprehension. We are not going down the American road, and it is fanciful for the Greens to make such a suggestion. The Greens need to have a cold hard look at this legislation. If they wish to speak in debate on legislation of this nature, they must first understand the details, otherwise their credibility will suffer—and that is something that they cannot afford. I do not own a firearm and I have no firearms licence, but I have an understanding of the frustration that firearm owners are experiencing. Many firearm owners—members of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and others—have spoken to me about these issues, as I am a resident of country New South Wales. A number of family members are licensed firearm owners.

Farmers use firearms as a matter of necessity in their everyday lives, and sensible changes along the lines proposed by this bill are most welcome. The Government proposes a total of 10 straightforward amendments. The Opposition will consider each amendment in Committee and adopt, as it has in every aspect of this bill, a commonsense, sober and balanced approach. The Opposition will err on the side of caution to ensure the safety of the public at all times and that this bill results in a win-win situation for all affected parties. The Minister said that the firearms registry, the police, the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and other shooting organisations had debated the legislation and that a sensible and balanced outcome had been achieved. The Opposition does not oppose the broad thrust of the bill, but I will speak in more detail to the Government's proposed amendments in Committee.

The Hon. ROY SMITH [4.17 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to debate on the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008, the object of which is to amend the Firearms Act and the Firearms Regulation 2006 to make further provision with respect to the regulation and control of firearms. This is my first private member's bill seeking amendments to the firearms legislation—but it will not be my last. I recall that when these laws were introduced, Bob Carr happily proclaimed that they were the toughest gun laws in Australia. I will not be happy until I can claim that our gun laws are the most effective in Australia. We all want tough gun laws—especially shooters—but we need gun laws that are tough on criminals, not on legitimate sporting shooters, primary producers and professionals who all have a legitimate need for firearms.

As I indicated in my second reading speech, the proposed amendments to the Act and the regulations will streamline and improve the operation of the licensing and registration systems for firearms by removing some of the unnecessary impediments to legitimate sport shooting, hunting and collecting without any adverse impact on public safety. The bill simply seeks to remove anomalies to bring New South Wales more into line with procedures in other States and will allow people to try the sport of shooting within the safe environment of an approved shooting range whilst under the supervision of a licensed adult. I have listened with great interest to the points that have been made by various speakers. Before I address those issues in detail, I state that many of the claims made by the Greens and their colleagues in the Coalition for Gun Control were as expected—outrageous, misleading, inaccurate and without foundation.

I will respond to some of the points that were made and, in doing so, I will refer in particular to material circulated by the Coalition for Gun Control that contains a number of factual errors and significantly misleading information. With regard to the provision to require club armourers to operate under a dealers licence, the material circulated by the Coalition for Gun Control states:

This is a drastic proposal just to ensure that theatrical armourers do not have to seek a permit to acquire The proposal will allow theatrical armourers to deal in firearms and live ammunition.

Most theatrical armourers already have a firearms dealers' licence and a theatrical armourers permit in order to operate their businesses effectively. All we propose is the removal of red tape and bureaucracy by requiring only one approval for them to conduct their businesses. The police firearms registry and the ministry advise that an appropriate mechanism to achieve that would be to have theatrical armourers operate under a firearms dealer's licence with appropriate conditions.

During debate reference was made to an unlicensed person being able to shoot on approved ranges. The Coalition for Gun Control states that this will allow individuals unlimited access to use and possess a firearm without a licence. Again, that is absolute rubbish. The provision will allow unlicensed persons to access and use a firearm only on an approved range whilst under the supervision of a licensed person. Unlicensed people will not be able to remove or purchase firearms or ammunition from a range; and certainly they will not have unlimited access to use and possess a firearm without a licence. The Coalition for Gun Control expressed concern about removing the 28-day waiting period for renewing a licence. It claims that the 28-day waiting period is essential for the renewal of a firearm licence. We agree that police should conduct all the necessary and appropriate checks for the renewal of a firearm licence, but there should not be a mandatory 28-day waiting period for that renewal.

The Coalition for Gun Control objected to our proposal to extend the access to category C shotguns to clubs other than the Clay Target Association. The Coalition for Gun Control claims that New South Wales already is in breach of the national agreement by allowing shotguns to be used for clay target shooting. Every State allows access to clubs for holders of these firearms at the behest of former Prime Minister Mr Howard, who, after the success of Australian shooters at the Olympic Games, said our clay target shooters should have such access. Every State allows clay target shooters who are affiliated with the Australian Clay Target Association to have access to category C shotguns. Several other States have recognised that it is unreasonable and inequitable to restrict access to members affiliated with the Australian Clay Target Association while giving extended access to other clubs and members who have an appropriate need to use such firearms. Our proposal is to better align New South Wales practices with those of the other States. The Coalition for Gun Control, in response to our amendment to the 28-day waiting period to acquire permits, stated:

If this proposal were to go through it would mean that if someone has a semi-automatic handgun and they wish to purchase another semi-automatic handgun they would not have to go through the above checks.

Again, that is utter rubbish. We do not propose the deletion of the provision that requires a person to obtain a permit for every firearm he or she wishes to acquire. If computers can spit out the necessary information in 12 hours, one or two days, or even a week, to conduct the relevant checks, that is fine, but the permit should not sit on a bureaucrat's desk in the firearms registry for 28 days just because that is the black letter of the law. The Coalition for Gun Control referred to our proposal to remove the current prohibition on New South Wales firearms dealers using registered mail to send firearms to other registered firearms dealers within the State. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal pointed out that current law permits firearms dealers to send firearms to interstate dealers—going right past the doors of New South Wales dealers—but prohibits those same dealers from using registered mail to send firearms to dealers within New South Wales. The amendment will bring New South Wales processes and procedures into line with those of other States. With regard to not requiring firearms dealers and collectors to have a second or personal permit to exhibit guns at an expo or gun show, the Coalition for Gun Control states:

The current permit system ensures that applicants are subject to the proper safety checks and that participants are required to adhere to [stringent] safety regulations. Removing this permit system will compromise the safety of the community.

Absolute rubbish again. The current bureaucratic red-tape process requires the organiser of a gun fair to be a licensed firearms dealer and to apply for a permit to conduct an arms fair. Only licensed dealers and collectors can exhibit or sell at an arms fair, but they too must also obtain another permit. This means that every licensee must have a permit—more bureaucratic red tape. No-one is suggesting the removal of stringent safety regulations; the Shooters Party merely proposes the removal of bureaucratic red tape. The Government opposes our proposal to extend to juniors access to large-calibre handguns. In that regard the Coalition for Gun Control stated:

This proposal will allow children as young as 12 to use high-powered, high calibre, semi-automatic handguns.

Of course, the Coalition for Gun Control does not say that our proposal requires a junior to have held a permit for 12 months. Under the terms proposed, a 12-year-old could not possibly have held a permit for the required 12 months. A junior will have to be at least 13 years of age to obtain access to large-calibre handguns. The Coalition for Gun Control fails to point out also that we propose that juniors have access to such firearms only on an approved range and under the supervision of a licensed adult for the purposes of specialised competitions. The Coalition for Gun Control objects to our proposal to remove the power of the commissioner to revoke a club's licence if it fails to disqualify a member after becoming aware that the member has been convicted of a firearms offence. The coalition states:

All clubs, from firearms to football clubs, have an obligation or a duty of care to ensure it has done all that is reasonably possible to ensure the safety of its members and the public. If someone has been convicted of a firearm offence and the club is aware of this conviction then the club should ensure that person does not gain access to a firearm. This is not an unreasonable obligation.

We do not believe it is unreasonable. However, if an irresponsible club member allows access to a firearm by someone who has been convicted of a firearm offence, the club and perhaps thousands of its members should not be punished for that transgression. By all means punish the person who allowed access, but the club should not be punished. Theoretically hundreds or thousands of members of larger clubs could lose their firearms licences merely because one member or officer of the club did something wrong.

The Coalition for Gun Control commented on our recommendation to remove the need to include in advertisements for the sale of firearms the address of the firearms dealer through which the firearms will be sold. It said that licensed dealers of other goods are required to provide such detail. This recommendation is not aimed at and does not apply to firearms dealers; it refers to the private transaction of firearms. If I wish to sell a firearm, I can legally advertise it provided that when I find a purchaser I conduct the transfer of the ownership of that firearm through a licensed firearms dealer. The provisions of the current legislation require that when I advertise a firearm for sale I identify also the dealer who will conduct the transfer of ownership. If I am lucky enough—or unlucky enough—to locate a purchaser in another part of New South Wales, or perhaps interstate, there would be no benefit to me if I advise in the advertisement that I am going to use a firearms dealer just down the road from my residence.

It must be borne in mind that the same advertisement must also carry my firearms licence number. The Shooters Party does not propose to remove that requirement. The police, the firearms registry or anyone reading an advertisement to sell a firearm can check the firearms licence number and contact details on the advertisement to confirm whether the person seeking to sell the firearm is licensed to possess it. It is bureaucratic nonsense to suggest that the seller would know in advance the location of the ultimate purchaser of the firearm. As I mentioned earlier, the Shooters Party supports tougher gun laws so long as they target the criminal misuse of firearms and do not unreasonably restrict the legitimate activities of sporting shooters, primary producers and collectors. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.38 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 2, lines 5 to 9. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead "This Act commences 3 months after the date of assent to this Act, unless commenced sooner by proclamation.".

The purpose of Government amendment No. 1 is to allow sufficient lead-in time for the Firearms Registry to ready its systems and database for the change.

The Hon. ROY SMITH [4.39 p.m.]: The Shooters Party opposes the Government's amendment on the basis that it wants to get through several sections of the bill shortly. The Government has indicated that it will implement those matters that it can upon proclamation, but we should not have to wait for three months for assent.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.39 p.m.]: The Greens support this amendment. The more time that is taken to consider the implications of the bill, the better. I trust that the Government will, after the three-month period, decide that the bill is not worth proclaiming.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [4.40 p.m.]: The Opposition supports Government amendment No. 1. It is a reasonable amendment to ensure that there is enough time for the transition contemplated by the changes in the bill.

Question—That Government amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Government amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.41 p.m.]: I seek leave to move Government amendments Nos 2 to 10 in globo.

Leave not granted.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.41 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 2 and 3 in globo:

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [3], lines 29 to 31. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) Sections 31, 50 (b) and 51 (1) (b) (ii) and (1A) (ii) do not apply in relation to a firearm to which this section applies.

No. 3 Page 3, schedule 1 [3], lines 35 to 37. Omit all words on those lines.

This provision relates to the exemption for licensing and registration of pre-1900 firearms. Currently, all pre-1900 firearms—rifles and shotguns—do not require licensing or registration under clause 116 of the Firearms Regulation if it is not capable of discharging breech-loaded metallic cartridges or is a firearm for which ammunition is not, in the opinion of the commissioner, commercially available. Moreover, all pre-percussion lock pistols, which means a single-shot muzzle loading pistol that uses black powder to propel a projectile, but does not include any breech-loading pistol with a rotating cylinder or any other breech-loading pistol that accepts metallic cartridges, are exempt from licensing and registration. The proposal of the Shooters Party seeks to broaden the registration exemption so that all pre-1900 firearms, including multiple short muzzle-loading percussion lock pistols be exempt from licensing and registration.

Antique collectors are of the view that antique firearms do not pose any criminal risk and should not be regulated. Moreover, the antique firearm lobby argues that any marking of a firearm, which is a requirement for registration, will significantly devalue the gun. So as not to diminish the value but retain regulatory control over such items, the Government proposes that the licensing requirement exist for pre-1900 handguns that are not already exempted from the requirement for licensing so that owners are subject to probity and criminal checks and must abide by safe storage requirements. Accordingly, the Government proposes that the registration requirements for such items be exempt but all licensing requirements remain. A permit to acquire will not be required to purchase a pre-1900 handgun of this type. This is considered a sensible approach to a longstanding issue of concern to the antique firearms lobby.

Question—That Government amendments Nos 2 and 3 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Government amendments Nos 2 and 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.45 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 4:

No. 4 Pages 10 and 11, schedule 2 [4], line 34 on page 10 to line 6 on page 11. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

[4] Clause 31 Practising at approved ranges

Omit clause 31 (3) (b). Insert instead:
(b) is to cause the name and licence number of the person using the shooting range under this clause to be recorded, and

This clause relates to practising at shooting ranges and prescribes conditions set down by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal in June 2006. These conditions require the range to record the details of non-target shooting persons who use the range for the purpose of sighting in. Rather than omitting the requirement to record conditions altogether, the Government moves to retain the requirement to record a shooter's name and firearms licence number.

Question—That Government amendment No. 4 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Government amendment No. 4 agreed to.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.46 p.m.]: I seek leave to move Government amendments Nos 5 to 10 in globo as they are all similar in nature.

Leave not granted.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.46 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 5:

No. 5 Page 12, schedule 2 [6], lines 22 to 33. Omit all words on those lines.

The amendments proposed by the Shooters Party to render firearms held under an heirloom permit temporarily inoperable rather than permanently inoperable is not supported by the Government. The responsibilities of an heirloom permit holder are slightly less onerous than for a licence holder as it is understood that an inherited firearm may be of sentimental value to a person. However, these items cannot be used as they are rendered permanently inoperable. In effect, this means that a steel rod must be inserted in the barrel and welded to the muzzle and the working components of the firearm must be removed or welded so they cannot be used. It is fairly simple to reactivate a firearm made temporarily inoperable, which is why firearms under an heirloom permit must be rendered permanently inoperable. Accordingly, should a person wish to inherit a firearm and use it, he or she must obtain a full licence.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.48 p.m.]: The Greens support this amendment. Government amendment No. 5 omits the clause in the Shooters Party bill that provides that if heirloom weapons are made temporarily inoperable they are exempt from requiring a permit. The status quo is that they be rendered permanently inoperable. The bill as presented by the Shooters Party proposes two new sections, 6A and 6B, to the current section 6 application of the Act. As I said, the purpose of the amendment is to exempt certain firearms from the application of the Act. The Shooters Party has endeavoured to exempt any firearm manufactured before 1900 that is not capable of discharging breech-loaded metallic cartridges or any firearm for which ammunition is determined by the commissioner not to be commercially available. The suggested amendments to the current legislation authorising possession of a firearm as an heirloom weapon are particularly concerning. At present a firearm must be rendered permanently inoperable. To render it only temporarily inoperable is a particularly worrying provision.

Question—That Government amendment No. 5 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Government amendment No. 5 agreed to.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.49 p.m.]: I seek leave to move Government amendments Nos 6 to 10 in globo.

Leave not granted.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.50 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No 6:

No. 6 Page 15, schedule 2 [18] and [19], lines 1 to 23. Omit all words on those lines.

The Government strongly opposes minors obtaining access to high-calibre firearms. The Firearms Act restricts minors from accessing certain types of firearms and pistols, and community expectations are that young people are prevented from accessing highly powerful weapons. It sends the wrong message to the community should the Government agree to allow children as young as 12 years old access to .45 calibre handguns.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.51 p.m.]: The Shooters Party amendments in schedule 2 would allow minors who already have a licence for a small-calibre pistol for competition shooting to gain an upgrade to large-calibre pistols in shooting competitions. I concede the point that was made by member Mr Roy Smith that this refers to children as young as 13 years—presumably they would have to apply for a permit when they were 12. So it could be argued that children as young as 12 were being encouraged to shoot guns and the amendment proposed by the Shooters Party would allow them to shoot bigger guns. One may say it is only sport, but the Greens do not think high-calibre handguns should be given to minors even if other States and Territories think that is appropriate. We support the Government's amendment.

The Hon. ROY SMITH [4.52 p.m.]: The Shooters Party opposes the Government's amendment. As it pointed out, a number of juniors throughout the State are competing in these events and they are at a competitive disadvantage because they cannot use the same firearms that are used in other States or internationally. Not only that, the unintended consequence that the Greens may not have considered is that a lot of juniors use firearms that belong to their parents. If they cannot legally use the firearms that belong to their parents, then additional firearms will need to be purchased specifically for the juniors, adding more cost for a family to go shooting and, of course, introducing more firearms into the community. The Shooters Party opposes the amendment.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [4.53 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Shooters Party in opposing this amendment. We think this is a reasonable amendment that takes into account, as mentioned by the Hon. Roy Smith, the practical problems that young shooters in New South Wales face when they go interstate or when interstate shooters come here to shoot in competition. In the first instance, they cannot take the firearms with them and in the latter case the Queensland or other interstate shooters are not allowed to use their firearms in New South Wales. One needs to be cognisant of the fact that this is happening in a very controlled environment where safety is paramount. We think it is a reasonable commonsense approach and a sober assessment of the risk.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [4.54 p.m.]: As indicated by my colleague, the Opposition opposes this amendment. I note that the amendment would allow persons of at least 12 years of age to apply for a permit to use large-calibre handguns in certain competition shoots and that this has attracted media interest, particularly from the ABC. This proposal would give minors only very restricted access to large-calibre handguns and under very tightly controlled conditions. It would allow only those minors who held a minor's pistol permit for more than 12 months and were also a member of an approved pistol club to apply for a permit to use large-calibre handguns in either metallic fully racked competition or in single action shooting competition. Such an application must be supported in writing by the club of which the minor is a member. Single action shooting competition is particularly a family affair. Any minor holding such a permit would only be shooting under the immediate supervision of an appropriately licensed adult.

I remember the first time I held a rifle—an old .303. I was in army cadets at school and I was 12 years of age. We were trained over and over again to ensure that every safety feature was adhered to. It was a situation where you were not simply taught but continually instructed to fire the rifle in a safe and proper manner. Safety was paramount. An understanding of the dangers and consequences of any breach of safety was instilled into our consciousness at a very early age. This has remained with me until now. It remained with me for the entire five years I was in the school cadets and when I became an officer and trained the young students. Whether the sport be swimming, football, boxing or firearms shooting, handgun or otherwise, the fact that young people are trained to properly adhere to the safety regulations is paramount. The champions of tomorrow in this sport—it is a sport—should be trained at a young age if we are to compete at world level. I ask members to give serious consideration to opposing this amendment.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.56 p.m.]: I note the remarks of the previous speaker. We have only to look at the saga surrounding the death of Private Kovco and whether it was deliberate or accidental to see that it demonstrates more than adequately that no matter how often safety procedures are drilled into people accidents of some sort will happen. The problem with guns is that those accidents can have fatal consequences. We are particularly concerned that we should be encouraging young people to the view that guns are acceptable, normal and a reasonable source of recreation. From the Greens' point of view we believe that is inappropriate and people should not be encouraged to have guns.

I must say that one of the most barbaric practices I see is those shooters who go out shooting feral pigs or other animals. I do not know how any decent parent can possibly train a child to inflict such terrible cruelty, particularly when one sees the sorts of attack dogs that are often used—the pig-hunting dogs. To encourage that activity in the community and call it recreation is abhorrent.

Question—That Government amendment No. 6 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Government amendment No. 6 agreed to.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.57 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 7 to 10 in globo:

No. 7 Page 15. Insert after line 38:

[22] Clause 92A
Insert after clause 92:
92A Members convicted of disqualifying offences not permitted to take part in club activities involving firearms

If a member of a club is convicted of an offence referred to in clause 5, the person who is the secretary of the club (or, if there is no secretary, the person who occupies the most senior executive position in the club) must, as soon as practicable after the person is made aware of that conviction, take such action as is reasonably within the person's capacity to prevent the club member from participating in any activity of the club that involves the possession or use of firearms.
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

No. 8 Page 16, schedule 2 [26], lines 22 to 32. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 9 Page 18, schedule 2 [27]. Insert after line 18:

(5) Without limiting the operation of subclause (4) (a), if the person concerned has answered "Yes" to any of the questions set out in subclause (2), the club or range official, or the instructor, as the case requires, must prevent the person from possessing or using a firearm at the shooting range or as part of the course.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(6) The club or range official, or the instructor, as the case requires, must ensure that the person who is possessing or using a firearm at the shooting range, or as part of the course, does so only while under direct supervision as required by section 6B (1) of the Act.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

No. 10 Page 19, schedule 2 [30], lines 12 to 19. Omit all words on those lines.

The Shooters Party bill amends the Firearms Regulations by removing the requirement for a club's approval to be revoked if the club does not disqualify a member who has been convicted of a firearms offence. The Government recognises that some licence holders and disqualified licence holders may wish to retain their club membership for reasons other than shooting; for example, for social membership. Accordingly it supports the Shooters Party's amendment No. 7. However, the Government wishes to send a strong message to clubs that allowing a person whose licence has been revoked to shoot will not be tolerated in any way. A heavy penalty of 50 penalty units, which is $5,500, may apply.

I refer to Government amendment No. 8. The Shooters Party wishes to introduce a provision whereby, at the request of a person, the commissioner must remove from the Firearms Register any information relating to a firearm if that firearm is not required to be registered. The Firearms Registry has advised that this may be a fairly costly exercise, with little or no appreciable benefits. Accordingly, it is not supported. I refer to Government amendment No. 9. The Government supports the Shooters Party amendment to enable persons to try out shooting on approved clubs or ranges, or undertaking instructions as part of a firearms course, while under direct supervision of an appropriate licence holder. This is a sensible proposal. However, the Government recognises that it is critical for clubs, ranges and firearm instructors to ensure that only appropriate unlicensed persons gain access to firearms.

Accordingly, such persons must complete a statutory declaration as set out in item [27], new clause 110 of the bill, to determine whether the persons have committed an offence that may preclude them from successfully obtaining a licence should they apply. The Government proposes to introduce an amendment so that the club, range or instructor must prevent persons from possessing or using a firearm if they are not deemed appropriate as a result of the statutory declaration. Moreover, a penalty of 50 penalty units is proposed to emphasise the seriousness of this breach. Also, the Government wishes to call attention to the importance that such persons are appropriately supervised at all times. Accordingly, an offence that attracts a heavy penalty of $5,500 will apply if clubs, ranges or instructors do not exercise appropriate supervision.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.

The House continued to sit.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again at a later hour.

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly, on behalf of the Hon. Michael Costa.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly 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.

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 5 June 2008, documents relating to the 2008-2009 budget received on 19 June 2008 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of the documents.

The Clerk tabled a return identifying those of the documents that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. The Clerk advised that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.

Motion by the Hon. Roy Smith agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 115 outside the Order of Precedent, relating to the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008, be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Roy Smith agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 115 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.


The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.06 p.m.]: I refer to Government amendment No. 10. The Shooters Party wishes to remove the requirement for an advertisement for a firearm to include the name and address of a firearms dealer. In the interests of ensuring the requirement under the National Firearms Agreement that a sale being conducted through a licensed firearms dealer is upheld, the Government wishes this requirement to be retained.

Question—That Government amendments Nos 7 to 10 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Government amendments Nos 7 to 10 agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Motion by the Hon. Roy Smith agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

The Hon. ROY SMITH [5.09 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The House divided.Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Assembly with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald, on behalf of the Hon. Michael Costa.

Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald 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 future day.

The Hon IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [5.19 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Michael Costa: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 is the third bill in a package of legislation concerning the proposed electricity restructuring. The Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 and the Community Infrastructure (Intergenerational) Fund Bill 2008 are already before the House. Over the past 12 months the New South Wales Government has demonstrated an overwhelming willingness to undertake meaningful and genuine negotiations. We have entered into these discussions in good faith to secure the future electricity supplies of this State. We have listened to all sides of this complex and, at times, emotional debate. The Government has undertaken extensive discussions with the trade union movement, which has led to the adoption of the overwhelming majority of the recommendations of the Unsworth committee. The Government has consulted widely in the community and in this Parliament. This bill represents the culmination of those discussions.

With this legislation, the Government will provide additional authority for the Auditor-General to report to the Parliament on the Government's proposed strategy. It will be an accountable and appropriately scrutinised transaction process. The Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 provides for the Auditor-General to undertake a review of the Government's overall strategy for the electricity industry restructuring. This review must be completed and a report presented to Parliament before any assets can be sold or leased to the private sector. The Auditor-General's review will be required to assess the appropriateness of the Government's strategy in terms of maximising financial value for taxpayers. It will review the proposed transaction methods, the sequencing of transactions, the proposed timing—including the impact of external factors such as prevailing debt and equity market conditions—and the proposed emissions trading scheme. It will also review any contingent liabilities that accrue to the State and any other factors that may impact on the sale price of the assets.

After recent discussions between the Government and the Opposition, the following has been agreed. In developing his report, the Government expects the Auditor-General will take into consideration the proposed emissions trading scheme together with the current electricity hedging and coal contracts. Having regard to foreign ownership issues, the Government expects the Auditor-General will also consider the strategy's approach to foreign ownership. The Commonwealth's Foreign Investment Review Board has jurisdiction in this area.

The competition effects of the Government's proposals will be initially assessed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with the benefit of an information memorandum prepared by the Government. This submission will be made available to the Auditor-General. Having regard to the transaction process contained in the strategy, the Auditor-General will be able to engage independent experts to provide him with advice. In the normal course, we expect the Auditor-General would consider issues such as the effect on the net transaction proceeds of the debt levels in the businesses, electricity hedging contracts, coal contracts and incentive payments for the workforce. The review will also assess the financial impact of the Government's proposed community safety net, including the protections that will be put in place for workers, pensioners and low-income earners allowing the Parliament and the community to assess the effectiveness of the Government's policies.

I also take this opportunity to foreshadow that the Government will introduce related amendments to the other electricity bills before the House. Those amendments will further clarify and enhance the Auditor-General's oversight role and will require that the network of Country Energy's customer service centres continues to operate in support of its distribution assets. It will also ensure that a charter for the community infrastructure fund is established to guide its operation and purpose and to set out administrative and governance arrangements. I also inform the House that a rural communities impact statement being prepared by independent experts will be available in the next few weeks.

With this, the Government is delivering lock, stock and barrel on the matters brought to its attention by the leaders of the Liberal Party and The Nationals. Each request has been accepted and acted upon on its merits. The legislation and the amendments to be introduced fulfil each and every request, point by point. The implementation of the Government's plans to secure New South Wales' future energy supplies is the most important economic initiative undertaken in this State in a generation. It will put New South Wales on a path to future prosperity. Every member of this Chamber will bear responsibility for the profound economic consequences if we fail to act. We will all be harshly judged if we bring those consequences down on the people of this State because we, as lawmakers, cannot see past the political melee to act in the greater public interest. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.19 p.m.]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

The House divided.


Question resolved in the negative.

Motion for adjournment of debate negatived.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.26 p.m.]: The Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 is an important step in the process to establish that the Government's electricity industry restructuring plans, as they are called, are in the public interest and, therefore, ought to be supported by the Parliament. Members will be well aware of the history and background to this matter. In short, the Premier and Treasurer announced that they wished to proceed with the restructuring of the electricity industry, which essentially comprises two elements: the sale of the Government's electricity retail businesses, but not the retail distribution companies, and long-term leasing of the Government's generators. I do not propose to take up a great deal of the time of the House to repeat the history of that proposal, but I emphasise that the Opposition at all times has attempted to be positive and helpful in establishing what is in the public interest to facilitate the best outcome for the people of New South Wales, including of course those in rural and regional areas.

Initially the Treasurer and Premier intended to proceed with their plans without introducing legislation. The alternative government took the view that that was not appropriate. The Coalition announced a number of conditions that it considered were fundamental to protecting the public interest and to ensure that if this matter proceeded it would do so properly. Of course, we support private-sector involvement in the delivery of government services, but we considered it important to set out some conditions to protect the public interest.

I will briefly outline the conditions. The first is that all sale and/or lease arrangements be subject to the Auditor-General reporting to Parliament before finalisation of the sale or lease. These arrangements would include—but would not be limited to—timing and price; conditions for workers, pensioners and low-income earners; and price guarantees for consumers. The second condition is the completion, release and adoption of a rural communities impact statement focusing on, among other issues, jobs, prices and service levels. The third public interest guarantee that we sought is the establishment of an independent oversight body comprising the Auditor-General, a community representative and a financial expert to monitor the use of funds realised from the sale. The next safeguard is the establishment of a parliamentary oversight committee to guarantee delivery of improvements in clean, green and renewable energy investment resulting from the sale. Finally, our position includes the retention of the so-called poles and wires business in public ownership, and appropriate safety nets for pensioners, low-income families and employees as determined by the Auditor-General.

Unfortunately, the Premier and the Treasurer caused a great deal of consternation in the community—and, for that matter, unnecessary delay to their plans—by arrogantly refusing to adopt eminently reasonable community safeguards. They were finally forced to introduce this bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Public Finance and Audit Act to provide for the Auditor-General to review and report to Parliament on the Government's overall program for the restructuring of the State's electricity industry. The Government agreed separately to the other safeguards that the Coalition sought. Indeed, I understand that the Government already has initiated the rural communities impact statement process, which will involve genuine statewide consultation. The bill addresses most of the key conditions that the Coalition outlined on 8 May 2008 when we called on the Government to allow the Auditor-General to assess its privatisation plans to ensure that public interest is paramount and to report to Parliament before any sale takes place.

The Coalition's remaining community safeguards have been addressed in correspondence between our leadership and Treasury, and in the Government's Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 and the Community Infrastructure (Intergenerational) Fund Bill 2008, each of which has been introduced in Parliament. The Government withheld its support for the final condition until Monday of this week. It is a great pity that it did not behave more responsibly in relation to these matters. The Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 instructs the Auditor-General to review the appropriateness of the Government's power privatisation strategy to maximise financial value for taxpayers. All aspects of the proposed sale that the Coalition suggested be reviewed by the Auditor-General are outlined in schedule 1A to the bill. These include the model of sale, timing and the impact of external factors, including, for example, the subprime crisis and emissions trading scheme, contingent liabilities such as a carbon indemnity and other factors that may impact on the sale price. These factors may include a carbon tax and market conditions.

The bill was amended in the other place: various words were omitted from Schedule 1 item [2] and subparagraphs (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) were inserted. They appear in the bill before the Chamber. The bill gives the Auditor-General access to information and the resources needed to conduct his review, which will provide details of how much the Government's proposed community safety net will cost, including protection for workers and pensioners. The Auditor-General will report to Parliament on the outcomes of his review as soon as it is completed. If Parliament is not sitting, the report will be presented in the usual manner. The justification and rationale for restructuring is based on two or three fundamental points. The first is that the Premier and the Treasurer have said repeatedly that the restructuring is necessary in order to secure future electricity supplies and to provide a new baseload generator in New South Wales by 2013-14. The Premier and the Treasurer have said many times that they guarantee this will occur as a result of the restructuring. That remains to be seen.

I note that both the Premier and the Treasurer have begun to retreat somewhat from that position. In his comments on 4 June in another place the Premier said that if no such investment—that is, a new generator—occurs by 2013-14, the Government would commission the building of a baseload power station to ensure supply. I asked the Treasurer about the guarantee yesterday. He dissembled in his usual manner—although he did not engage in too much abuse—and refused to reconfirm the guarantee, so I think the Government has a little work to do in that area. As to proceeds, on 11 December last year the Treasurer stated privately that he had heard totals greater than the $15 billion figure that most commentators were citing. This total came from the Owen report, in which Owen said that he had heard a figure of about $10 billion for the generators plus $3 billion or $4 billion for the retailers. In the past month or two the Premier and the Treasurer have retreated from their declarations as to price. That is good reason for us to insist that an independent party such as the Auditor-General examine the proposed deal. We await a figure, and if the expected proceeds do not total $15 billion, we will have to understand the reasons before we support any legislation.

The other major issue is that electricity restructuring is being promoted in the context of the Government's overall budget position. As we all know, the Government has a long history of overspending. The budget blow-out is usually about $1 billion every year. The same thing is happening under Treasurer Costa as occurred with his predecessors. Almost every year the budget has been rescued by windfall revenues, whether they take the form of State taxes, GST or Federal and other funds. At the same time the Government's failure to invest properly in infrastructure has led to a decline in services and crumbling infrastructure. Before the last election the Premier and the Treasurer tried desperately to buy their way out of trouble through their State Infrastructure Plan and by massively increasing the State's debt. The debt splurge continues in the recent budget, which has not yet been debated in this place. Under Premier Iemma and Treasurer Costa, the Government's legislated fiscal targets in the Fiscal Responsibility Act not only have been breached but also are unlikely to be met unless the power sale goes through. One can see that the urgency is partly to ensure that the Treasurer can deliver a form of fiscal responsibility in due course.

On the question of infrastructure, the Treasurer is plonking around trying to buy support by saying that some of the proceeds of the sale will be available for infrastructure projects. Recently, with a great deal of spin and fanfare, the Treasurer announced his new State infrastructure strategy with a so-called $140 billion worth of projects. There was no constraint mentioned in that announcement. The Government did not say, "Here's our infrastructure strategy but by the way guys we can't actually deliver everything we want to deliver unless we sell electricity." It is a little rich for the Treasurer to be running around trying to buy support by suggesting that there is additional infrastructure when the Government has admitted that $140 billion is available and it has chosen what it wants to proceed with.

Finally, I reiterate the Coalition will support the bill. We want the review undertaken as soon as practicable. We want to see the rural communities impact statement before we make a final decision, based on public interest, about whether to support the Government's overall electricity restructuring legislation. By supporting this bill, the Coalition is not indicating that it will support the final legislation. When we see the Auditor-General's report and the rural communities impact statement we will undertake a proper analysis and consultation. I would have thought that the sensible and prudent way to proceed with such a major transaction.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [5.41 p.m.]: The Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill is the third bill in the package of legislation concerning the proposed electricity industry restructuring. The Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill and the Community Infrastructure (Intergenerational) Fund Bill are already before the House. Over the past 12 months the New South Wales Government has demonstrated an overwhelming willingness to undertake meaningful and genuine discussions. We entered into these discussions in good faith in order to secure the future of our energy supplies. We have listened to all sides of a complex and at times emotional debate. The Government has undertaken extensive discussions with the trade union movement, which led to the adoption of the overwhelming majority of the recommendations of the Unsworth committee. The Government has consulted widely in the community and in this Parliament. This bill represents the culmination of these discussions.

With this legislation the Government will provide additional authority for the Auditor-General to report to the Parliament on the Government's proposed strategy. It will be an accountable and appropriately scrutinised transaction process. The Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill provides for the Auditor-General to undertake a review of the Government's overall strategy for the electricity industry restructuring. The review will be required to be completed and a report presented to the Parliament before any assets can be sold or leased to the private sector. The Auditor-General's review will be required to assess the appropriateness of the Government's strategy in terms of maximising financial value for taxpayers. It will review the proposed transaction methods and the sequencing of transactions; the proposed timing, including the impact of external factors such as prevailing debt and equity market conditions; the proposed emissions trading regime; any contingent liabilities to the State; and, finally, any factors that may impact on the sale price of the assets.

After recent discussions between the Government and the Opposition, the following has been agreed. The Government expect the Auditor-General, in developing his report, to take into consideration the proposed emissions trading scheme, together with the current electricity hedging and coal contracts. Having regard to foreign ownership issues, the Government expects the Auditor-General to consider the strategy's approach to foreign ownership. The Commonwealth's Foreign Investment Review Board has jurisdiction in this area. The competition effects of the Government's proposal will be initially assessed by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission, with the benefit of an information memorandum prepared by the Government. This submission will be made available to the Auditor-General.

Having regard to the transaction process contained in the strategy, the Auditor-General will be able to engage independent experts to provide him with advice. In the normal course we expect the Auditor-General to consider issues such as the effect of the net transaction proceeds of the debt levels in the businesses, electricity hedging contracts, coal contracts and incentive payments for the workforce. The review will also assess the financial impact of the Government's proposed community safety net, including the protections that will be put in place for workers, pensioners and low-income earners, allowing the Parliament and the community to assess the effectiveness of the Government's policies.

I take this opportunity to foreshadow that the Government will introduce related amendments to the other electricity bills currently before the House. Those amendments will, first, further clarify and enhance the Auditor-General's oversight role; secondly, enable the network of Country Energy's customer service centres to continue to operate in support of the distribution of assets; and, finally, ensure that a charter for the community infrastructure fund is established to guide its operation and purpose, and set out administrative and governance arrangements. I can also inform the House that the rural communities impact statement being prepared by independent experts will be available in the next few weeks. With this, we deliver lock, stock and barrel on matters brought to the Government's attention by the leaders of the Liberal Party and The Nationals. Each request has on its merits been accepted and acted upon.

The legislation and amendments to be brought before the House fulfil each and every request, point by point. The implementation of the Government's plans to secure New South Wales's future energy supplies is the most important economic initiative undertaken in this State in a generation. It will put New South Wales on a path to future prosperity. Every member of this Chamber will bear responsibility for the profound economic consequences if we fail to act. We will be harshly judged if we bring those consequences down on the people of the State because we as lawmakers cannot see past the political malaise to act in the greater public interest. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [5.47 p.m.]: This bill is vital to the future of New South Wales because it concerns the sale of one of our most valuable assets, the State's electricity retail sector, and the lease of our power generators. This is a big win for the Leader of the Opposition. If it were not for the Leader of the Opposition in the other place the Government would not have come to the table to negotiate terms on behalf of the public. The Coalition has been protecting the public interest and will continue to do so. The Government's lack of consultation with its own members and the union movement, which supports the Government, is an absolute disgrace. The Government has not even explained its strategy to the public. People do not understand what the Government is trying to do and they cannot see any value in it. The Government cannot sell anything; it could not organise a chook raffle if it tried.

Communities across the State are apprehensive even if they support electricity privatisation—I believe that at this stage most of them do not support electricity privatisation. People are apprehensive at the knowledge of the glaring fiscal mismanagement by this Government in just over 13 years. With the list of bungled infrastructure projects and public-private partnerships, it is well known that the Government is not to be trusted with a blank cheque. People see the financial outcomes everywhere: the Cross-City Tunnel, the Lane Cove Tunnel and the Kurnell desalination plant, to name just three.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: A disaster!

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: It is a disaster. At this stage I emphasise, as did the Hon. Greg Pearce and the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, that there is no Coalition agreement to sell the State's power assets. However, the Opposition in this State is determined to put the public first. The sale of the State's electricity industry may be delayed beyond September depending on the outcome of the Auditor-General's report into the sale process. Members should have no doubt that the Coalition has achieved this responsible oversight process. The Auditor-General will report to Parliament before members are asked to vote on the full privatisation package. Important aspects such as carbon trading and foreign ownership and the impact of the increased debt in relation to assets will be examined thoroughly. Given the fragile state of the capital markets and the uncertainties around a national carbon trading regime, the Auditor-General's assessment of the timing of the sale will be vital to the Coalition in examining its final position on the matter on behalf of the public.

What did we hear from the Treasurer following his budget delivering on infrastructure? He said there would need to be a reordering of the Government's infrastructure priorities if the electricity sell-off were derailed. What threatening, provocative and low tactics! There will be no rushed decision, as much as some of the industry groups would like that. The Opposition intends to scrutinise the proposal vigorously. It is commendable that the Leader of the Opposition was able to secure the agreement of this Labor Government to delay the privatisation legislation to meet the Coalition's five community safeguards. The legislation before us today will mean that the New South Wales Auditor-General will provide a report before the final privatisation legislation is presented to the Parliament, along with the other Coalition conditions. A rural and regional communities impact statement will now be completed and released, focusing on those issues of importance to our country citizens—jobs and conditions for country workers, and timing, pricing and levels of service, especially for pensioners and low-income earners. This process will allow genuine community consultation.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: At last!

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: Absolutely. There will be time to debate this very important legislation when Parliament resumes for the next session. The public has been warned that the Government has made no provision for the $15 billion upgrade required to increase baseload electricity to meet our projected consumer and business power demands in the future, according to the Owen inquiry. Why has no provision been made? It is because this Government has badly managed our public assets for so long and squandered the utility dividends across the board—electricity and water—for so many years. The New South Wales public knows that it is now paying the price in State taxes and charges over the long term for the lack of management skills in this Government. They understand that nothing is free and that once the family home and jewels are sold, that is it. They deserve to know what they will have to show for it. The Government has to start explaining it by communicating with the public. The standard of fiscal management of the process will be reflected in people's power bills, just as the doomed desalination plant will add $150 per annum to their water bills in the first year of operation alone. Train fares continue to rise but the service the public gets is abysmal, with overcrowding, lack of trains, and a low level of security and cleanliness.

The public keeps paying for the mismanagement of this Government. New South Wales taxpayers continue to be bombarded by this State Government's tax-funded political advertising masquerading as public service announcements. It is no wonder they are deeply suspicious of the Government's lack of management skills. The public can be assured the Coalition will act in the public interest, not in the interests of Morris Iemma's leadership or that of the union bosses or big business. The Coalition will ensure that in all discussions regarding electricity privatisation the public will have a seat at the table.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [5.53 p.m.]: I am not opposed to this bill because, quite frankly, I think it is a bit of a distraction. Tony Harris, the previous Auditor-General, said in relation to the State Bank:

The law in NSW gives some limitations to the works of auditors-general, and it quite rightly says that auditors-general are not permitted to question the objectives of government policy. That's a sound piece of law, because ministers in their political environment should be able to define the destination that they wish to take the country during their term of office.

My problem is not the process, how we are going to get there or what road we are going to take. My problem is with the objective at the end. My problem is with the Government policy, which I think is bad policy. We should be examining Federal-State government relationships, how States are able to raise revenue and how that can be fixed. At the moment the States are delivering the bulk of the infrastructure and services and the Federal Government is the body charged with raising the revenue. That is my point. I have made a decision about this policy.

I can remember being at a power meeting recently with Dr John Kaye, at which George Souris and Chris Hartcher told me that they were there to deliver a message from the Coalition that it would not be supporting this legislation. I thought from that meeting that the Coalition had actually made a policy decision. But no, here we are being distracted. An Opposition member said earlier that the Coalition is not here to look after unions, but Opposition members were quite happy to quote the unions to us earlier today, if I remember rightly. They can find union statistics convenient when they want them. I have made a decision about this policy. I think it is time we stopped being distracted and let the Auditor-General get on with his job. Let us fix the real problem, which is the ability of the State to raise revenue.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.56 p.m.]: Before I direct my remarks to the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 I want to talk about what just happened in the House. I want to put it on record so that everybody understands very clearly that we were not given a second reading speech. The Minister declined to do so. We were presented with a bill that came out of the lower House shortly before lunch today. We were not given a second reading speech in writing. The Minister has declined to give a second reading speech because he is either too embarrassed or too lazy to deliver it, so we have no idea what the Minister said in the second reading. That it is an outrage. It is a travesty of the democratic process.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: We table second reading speeches every day of the week. You are an idiot.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Excuse me, Minister. The Minister gave up his right to speak in this debate. He had the opportunity to speak but he declined to do so. Now he should keep quiet. It is a fundamental principle of the Westminster system that we are briefed on a bill in the Minister's second reading speech, and things said in those speeches take on legal authority. We do not know what that legal authority is in this instance. As far as process is concerned, yet again the Iemma Government gets a D minus.

[Interruption]

An F for fail—I am sorry. My softy liberal background is coming out. The Government gets an F for fail on process. I now turn to deal with the bill itself. It is cause for huge concern. The bill requires—I emphasise "requires"—the Auditor-General to perform an audit—that is, to review and report—on a Government overall program of so-called authorised restructuring. The key feature of that statement is that it is on the overall program, not the restructuring itself. It is a prospective piece of reviewing. The Auditor-General is being asked to review the Government's intention at the point at which the Government delivers the program to him. It is not what the Government has done or will do but what it is telling the Auditor-General is its current intention.

That raises a major concern with respect to the bill. If the Coalition gives a big tick to the Auditor-General's report, if it says everything is fine, and then the Coalition votes for the electricity industry restructuring bill, nothing in that bill or in the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill will hold the Government to the expressed intention that is audited by the Auditor-General. That means that the Treasurer can then make a decision that is completely different to the Government's expressed intention. If we allow the electricity industry restructuring bill to pass through this Parliament, we would be signing a blank cheque to the Treasurer. I do not know about other members, but I know I am not interested in handing over the future of the electricity industry to the whim and fancy of the Treasurer. I want to enumerate a number of problems with the legislation. First, it states that we are "requiring", not requesting, the Auditor-General to conduct a review—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: He agreed.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile will have his turn in a moment. It does not matter whether the Auditor-General has agreed. I have not heard that from the Auditor-General; the only person I have heard that from is the Treasurer. It is highly unlikely that the Government will then tell us, "Oh, I'm sorry, we had to strongarm the Auditor-General into doing this." The Government will not do that. To believe what the Government says about this would be an act of naivety that would surpass even Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's capacity for naivety.

The bill requires the Auditor-General to conduct the review. When Parliament requires the Auditor-General to do something, the Parliament is undermining the independence of the Auditor-General. We leave the Auditor-General in an invidious situation. He cannot refute Parliament's requirement that he conduct the review, but on the other hand he may not be able to perform it within the professional standards of auditing. At that point, we put the Auditor-General in an invidious position and we put New South Wales in an invidious position.

Secondly, if the Auditor-General conducts the review, having done so, and possibly having given the Government's program a clean bill of health, the Auditor-General will have engaged in what is known in the American literature on this matter as regulatory catch-up. If the Auditor-General gives a big tick to something, it is much more difficult for the Government to then say, "There is something wrong with this." It means that we have undermined the ability of the Auditor-General to give an appropriate and rigorous retrospective analysis of the privatisation process if it goes ahead, which is a dangerous position for us to be in. We are told that the sale will raise $10 billion or $15 billion, which is total nonsense; it is nothing like $10 billion or $15 billion. Optimistically, if the sale goes ahead it is more likely to raise $8 billion, given the impact of carbon trading.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Every day you talk, it goes down.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: You're costing the State money.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It is an extraordinary proposition from both the Minister and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that my talking is costing the State money. If the industry is in such a fragile state—as admitted by the Minister and by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile—that 25 minutes of talking is bringing down the value of the industry, I suggest we are engaging in a very dangerous activity if we are even contemplating selling the electricity industry.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: You take yourself too seriously.

Dr JOHN KAYE: That is okay, because no-one takes you seriously. We are in a position where if we require the Auditor-General to undertake a review of the proposed sale and the sale goes ahead—the Greens hope that it will not—the Auditor-General will be in no position to conduct an audit of the probity of the process because he will have become part of the process. I might take myself too seriously, but one thing the Greens take very seriously is the probity of government relations and the interface between public enterprise and private enterprise.

I note a gesture from the Shooters Party. Perhaps the Shooters Party does not take this seriously. If we are to have $10 billion changing hands, it is absolutely essential that we have the capacity to ensure, after the event, that that money changed hands in accordance with both appropriate accounting standards and probity standards.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Why wouldn't it be?

Dr JOHN KAYE: It might be or it might not be. But we know that there have been problems with previous privatisations. We also know that there have been significant problems concerning relationships between the Government and private enterprise. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has been around long enough to know what some of those problems are. He should know about the problems concerning the Cross City Tunnel, the M2, ticket pricing, and many other arrangements that involved totally inappropriate relations. If we are to have any progress in probity, we must have an Auditor-General who can, after the event, make an independent analysis of what took place.

The third problem with the bill is that it speaks only about privatisation; it does not compare it with the alternative. The bill does not speak about the value of retention. If the Coalition is serious about making a decision on this issue in the public interest, it should conduct an analysis of, on the one hand, the value of retention and, on the other, the value of sale. All this bill speaks about is commanding the Auditor-General to analyse the benefits of sale—not the benefits of retention. It is a one-sided exercise. It is not possible to balance sale with retention. The Coalition needs to do its own analysis of the benefits of retention to the State.

We are not talking about a small beer here. As far as one can tell from the public records, over the years 2006 and 2007 New South Wales made $1.132 billion from the assets that are currently up for sale, that is, the electricity generators and distributors. If the sale goes ahead, we will be giving up $1.132 billion—let alone all the other benefits of public ownership. The question then remains: Is that a good deal in return for $8 billion? I imagine the shadow Treasurer would be better able to do these sorts of calculations than me. But on my calculations the Government would have to get an incredibly high interest rate, given inflation, to match that income. I will speak about that in more detail later.

The analysis that the Auditor-General is being asked to carry out is entirely one-sided; it asks only half the question. The question that needs to be asked is: What are the benefits of keeping the State's electricity industry and what are the benefits of selling it? The bill has been drafted in this way for a reason: Treasurer Michael Costa, Premier Morris Iemma and Minister Macdonald all know that if we did an honest analysis of the economic benefits of sale versus the economic benefits of retention, leaving aside all the other benefits of retention, the balance would tip massively in favour of public ownership. But the Government does not want us to know that. The Government does not want us to have an official document from the Auditor-General that allows the truth to come out.

It is simply voodoo economics to say that selling off an asset will somehow make the Government more money. The people who are going to buy the asset know what it is worth. They know better than Michael Costa, and they know better than me. These people make their living by looking for mug governments that sell off assets at underrated prices. That is what we are competing with, and that is where we will end up if we go ahead with privatisation of the electricity industry.

If the Auditor-General or an independent body were genuinely given the opportunity to analyse that comparison, that is the outcome it would come up with and that would be the end of privatisation. The Treasurer, the Premier, the Minister and those who are pushing for electricity privatisation well know that this is voodoo economics, that this is a bad deal for the people of New South Wales, and that the Government is hiding that fact. Fourthly, as I said earlier, the bill requires the Auditor-General to conduct a review of a program of restructuring. What is a program of restructuring? It is not something that has happened, it is not something that is about to happen, and it is not something that is locked into legislation; it is a letter from the Treasurer to the Auditor-General saying, "Look, I'm thinking maybe this is how I'm going to restructure the industry. Maybe this is how I'm going to sequence the sale, and maybe this is how I'm going to organise the sale in terms of whether it is a trade sale or an IPO."

What we are asking the Auditor-General to audit is just an intention. It may not even be the intention of the Government or the Treasurer; it might be just what they want to tell the Auditor-General. If the Coalition gives a tick and allows the passing of the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill, by the time the privatisation happens the proposal could be completely different to what has been signed off by the Auditor-General. If Coalition members take it that the report of the Auditor-General will say everything is going to be peaches and cream, they will be committing an act of complete blind faith in the honesty of the Treasurer. I do not believe that the Coalition would be silly enough to make that massive mistake.

Fifthly, the bill itself places enormous limits on the capacity of the Auditor-General to conduct a review. The questions that the Auditor-General should be asked, as I have said before, should be about the retention value versus the sale benefits, and they are not in the brief. But we should also be asking about the validity of the underlying assumptions that went into the Owen inquiry. That has never been tested publicly. The Government continually trots out the idea that if we do not do this, the lights will go out; the idea that if we do not do this, somehow or other the people of New South Wales will be at risk of a lower credit rating; the idea that if we do not sell off the electricity industry, there will be no further private investment in the electricity industry in New South Wales. Those assumptions underlie the Owen inquiry, and hence underpin the Government's argument for privatisation. But each and every one of those assumptions is wrong. And each and every one of those assumptions deserves to be exposed. But the Auditor-General's report will not expose those because the Auditor-General will not be looking at those.

This bill limits what the Auditor-General can do. The Greens will be moving amendments to ensure that the Auditor-General does have that capacity. I challenge the Coalition and crossbenchers to join with the Greens in letting the Auditor-General off the leash. If they believe in the Auditor-General process, and if they believe that this is the right strategy for determining the future of New South Wales, then they should let the Auditor-General off the leash, give him broad terms of reference and let us see what comes out of that reference. I have confidence, the Greens have confidence, the union movement has confidence, and the people of New South Wales have confidence that if you ask the right questions you will get the right answer. And the right answer is: You would have to be bats to sell this industry!

The other key failing of the bill is that it does not specify what information is presented to members of Parliament. The Greens argue that if we are to be put into a position of handing over ultimate authority to the Treasurer, we should know exactly what is in the minds of the Treasurer, Credit Suisse and Lazard's, the people who are designing this privatisation. Rather than just a dodgy letter from the Treasurer to the Auditor-General, we should see the whole box and dice; we should have access to the advice that is going from Credit Suisse and Lazard's to the Treasurer and to Treasury. We should know what is going on. If the Coalition is serious about protecting the public interest, it will make sure that all that information is in the public domain.

The Greens are concerned also that this legislation fails to ask the Auditor-General to check his analysis against a variety of assumptions. I will give the House one issue that can vastly change outcomes. It is the issue of discount rates, particularly when we are talking about future income streams and present income streams and trying to compare them. As every first-year economics student knows, and most final-year engineering students know—at least, they would if I had taught them—by changing the discount rate the answer can be changed; and, for any particular answer one wants, one can set the discount rate. If one shops around for discount rates, one can get everything from the no-risk discount rate, which is extremely low, to some very high discount rates. So, depending on the answer one wants, one can change the question.

Finally, the Greens are concerned that the bill will lead to a far less standard of work undertaken by the Auditor-General than would be established under the appropriate auditing standard, and that is AUS 904. Instead of asking the Auditor-General to act under AUS 904, the bill not only undermines the authority of the Auditor-General but undermines the integrity of the Australian Standards for Auditing. It is an extremely bad outcome for the whole business of auditing.

I say parenthetically that, despite everything I have said, I maintain complete confidence in the Auditor-General, Mr Achterstraat, not only in his competence and his integrity but his goodwill and his commitment to get the right answer. Nothing that has been said by me or by any of my colleagues in this debate should in any way be taken to reflect on the Auditor-General, because the blame here lies fairly and squarely with the Government, with the Minister for Primary Industries, with the Treasurer and with those within Government who have embarked on a privatisation at any cost approach. I want to—

[Interruption]

No, I do not want to conclude, and I am not going to conclude. I want to identify what an extraordinary piece of legislation this is. Reverend Nile can feel free to fall asleep again if he wants to.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: That is not an appropriate comment, and you should withdraw it.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I withdraw it; Reverend Nile is not free to fall asleep.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: No.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I withdraw the remark.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: That is not the standard of this House.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am amazed that I am lectured on the standard of this House by the Government, given the behaviour of the Treasurer at question time, but I withdraw the remark. I hope that the standard that is applied to me is also applied to members of the Government, and in particular the Treasurer during question time. But let me return to what is really important—the extraordinary nature of what this bill will do. Our research—confirmed by the Auditor-General's Office—shows that there has only ever been one request or instruction to the Auditor-General to conduct a prospective review. In the entire history of the Audit Office and its predecessors in New South Wales, only once has that office done a prospective review. By prospective review I mean asking the Auditor-General to sign off on something before it has happened.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: That is what the Attorney General wanted. It is what the—

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am sorry, it is not the Attorney General; it is the Auditor-General. Strangely enough, Reverend Nile, I do not answer to the Leader of the Opposition; I answer to the people of New South Wales. I am here because I believe firmly in standards of probity. Let me talk about the one case when this Parliament has requested the Auditor-General to do a prospective review—that is, a review on something before it happens. That was in October 1994, when the Legislative Assembly asked the Auditor-General to review the sale of the State Bank before it was finalised. That was another prospective sale. At that point of prospectivity—and I guess the only other point is at the point of potential disaster, financially—at those two points the similarity between what happened with the State Bank and what we are asking the Auditor-General to do here completely end. They become totally different entities.

Why is that? It is because when the Auditor-General, on 13 October 1994, was asked to conduct an audit into the proposed sale of the State Bank, every single detail about that was known. I will list the details that were known. The preferred terms of sale were established at the beginning of the tender process. For example, they excluded the big four banks; but, otherwise, the State Bank was to be sold by open and fair tender. At the point where the Auditor-General conducted the review of the sale of the State Bank the name of the proposed buyer was known; the gross sale price of $576.5 million was known; the timing of the sale and the timing of the payments were known; and all the terms and conditions of the proposed sale contained in the nine transaction agreements were known. Those nine agreements were the share sale agreement, the memorandum of amendment, the completion loan book deed, the confidentiality release deed, the guaranteed management deed, the procurement deed, the special arrangements deed, the superannuation deed of release and the State Bank Centre documents.

With the complete knowledge, the Auditor-General and his consultants—Credit Suisse, First Boston and Coopers and Lybrand—were allowed to establish the complete scenario for the sale and they were able to construct all the financial details associated with the sale. For example, quoting from the Auditor-General's report, they were able to talk about the anticipated range of costs to be met by the State under the proposed contract of sale resulting from indemnities, warranties and reimbursements of costs, which otherwise would not have been incurred by the State. That information was available to the Auditor-General in October 1994 in respect of the sale of the State Bank. None of that information is available in respect of the sale of the electricity industry and none of that information will be known at the time the Auditor-General prepares his report. It cannot be known, because until we pass the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill the Treasurer cannot create that information. All we have is intention, and even then we will not have the level of detail.

There is no way we can compare what happened in October 1994 with the legislation we are being asked to pass now. That means that we are embarking on a journey into uncharted waters. We are asking the Auditor-General to do something he has never done before and as a Parliament we are sailing out into waters that have never been sailed before. We are letting go of the important security of an independent Auditor-General reporting on known facts and known circumstances and asking for an audit opinion of circumstances and facts, which are not only unknown but are subject to change at the whim of the Treasurer. This bill talks about the proposed electricity industry restructuring. "Restructuring" is a euphemism: this is about a sell-off and privatisation. No doubt the Minister will flap about and say that no assets are being sold. We have heard that from the Treasurer time and again. But it is fascinating when one looks at the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill—it makes a complete and utter farce of the promises made that no infrastructure would be sold, because the bill authorises an initial public offering [IPO] of the electricity assets. Nonetheless, we must remember that the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill gives almost unfettered power to the Treasurer to restructure and sell off the industry.

The Treasurer will be free to restructure the electricity industry into any shape or form he likes after the audit opinion has been delivered. We will get the audit opinion based on one proposal for restructure, but the Treasurer could say, "You have given me the power by voting for the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill, but circumstances have changed. So instead of privatising the five separate entities, I will create a monopoly industry in New South Wales." The Treasurer will be free to choose how to sell the industry, whether he sells parts of it as initial public offerings or as trade sales. He will have complete discretion over that and over the sequence of the sale. We are driving into the dark without headlights if we allow the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill to go ahead.

Once the bill has gone through, there will be no stopping the Treasurer. He will have unlimited power. We are creating the undisputed monarch of the electricity industry. We are allowing him to play out his whims and fantasy with the future of the most important form of energy delivery within New South Wales, and that is significant. Let me talk specifically about the Treasurer's right after the audit report to restructure the industry into any shape he wants it to be. I make it clear that I am now talking from basic microeconomic theory—and you can argue with basic microeconomic theory—but this is the theory that is accepted by the Government. By its own theory there will inevitably be a trade-off between market competitiveness and sale price.

If the Treasurer decides to concentrate market power and, for example, decides to join all the generators and all the retailers together and put them into one entity, they will have far more value because they will exercise enormous market power. What exercising enormous market power really means is that they will be in a position to gouge consumers. They will be in a position to demand prices out of the wholesale and retail industries at whatever level they like. Before the Minister interjects, let me just address the furphy of how we are interconnected. No doubt the Minister in his reply will say, "Dr Kaye doesn't understand. We live in an interconnected electricity industry." The Minister is suffering from the same disease as Paul Keating, the international president of Lazard Carnegie Wylie, one of the key providers of information, when he said in an extraordinary Op-Ed piece in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 May that the other side simply do not understand and that "much of New South Wales's electricity is provided by private generation in other States." If this is the standard of advice that the New South Wales Government is getting from its consultants, then we are in big trouble.

The Owen inquiry, which is so beloved of the Minister and the Premier, makes it very clear that total import over the last financial year was limited to just 10 per cent of the State's electricity consumption because there are constraints on the tie lines that come in from Victoria via the Snowy Scheme and constraints on how much power can be pumped down the line from Queensland. For much of the peak period New South Wales operates as an isolated pricing island. Once those tie lines become constrained during the peak period, particularly where they are constrained on import, then New South Wales becomes a separate entity. An interesting time for the exercise of market power is the peak period when there are constraints on the system and there are real opportunities for the generator sector to gouge the industry. If the Treasurer creates an industry with massive market power it is the consumers who will pay with massively higher electricity bills.

There is no argument that there is real competition interstate, but there is limited competition interstate and limited competition with private generation in New South Wales. If the Treasurer exercises his power following the audit report, under the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill—which if the Coalition deems so will become an Act, but hopefully not—then the real risk to New South Wales is that the Treasurer will go for the cash. He will maximise the sale value by screwing down on competitiveness, because that is what the utility companies and the multinational banks want. They want an industry that will pay premium dollar only if they think they can make a lot of money out of it. That is not a statement of morality: it is a statement of reality. They will seek monopoly power. All private organisations do that. At that point, if the Treasurer succumbs and says, "I've got to rescue this sell-off in the face of rising carbon prices and in the face of an equity market that Betty Con Walker said you would not be able to float a chip wrapper on", they will rescue themselves and there will be a transfer of wealth from the households of New South Wales, present and future, into the slush bucket that the Treasurer wishes to create.

After we receive the audit report the Treasurer will exercise his power to create massive market power. I have no doubt that the Auditor-General, with integrity, will do as professional a job as he can, given the constraints under which he operates. However, we should take what he says with a grain of salt. After the passage through this House of the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill the Treasurer will exercise his power and the Auditor-General's report will become meaningless. When I first saw the Coalition's media release what I had in mind—and I suspect what a lot of people had in mind—was completely different from what has occurred.

What I had in mind was exactly what happened with the State Bank. I thought that the Treasurer would go ahead to the point where all the Government's plans were in place. Those finalised plans would then be locked into place by a piece of legislation that dealt with structure, sale mechanisms and the body to whom the generation infrastructure would be sold. The legislation would then be presented to the House, which would have the final say on how the generation infrastructure would be sold. But that is what not what is happening. My version of events would offer premium protection and would be in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. This bill offers no such protection.

With the passage through this House of the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill we would simply have passed all the power to the Treasurer. It would then be open to the Treasurer to do the following: he could say whatever he liked to the Auditor-General. He could write whatever myth he wanted to write on a piece of paper, call it a program, and hand it over to the Auditor-General. At that point the Auditor-General could give the program a clean bill of health. The limited parameters created by this bill might well be given a clean bill of health. Opposition members might then say, "We will vote for the legislation and it will go through this House." At that point the Treasurer might say, "Thank you very much, suckers. I am now off to sell the electricity industry", and the Coalition would be completely and utterly cut out of the game.

Another aspect of the privatisation debate that is of great concern—it is an issue to which I referred earlier and about which the Greens have been talking throughout this debate—relates to the exact amount of money that would be received as a result of the operation of those components of the electricity industry that are on the chopping block. We are talking, in particular, about electricity generators and retailers. The figures for electricity generators are easy enough to estimate, as they are publicly known. However, if we combine the dividends and tax equivalent payments we find that in 2006-07 the generators delivered $634 million in dividends and tax equivalent payments.

It is easy to establish what those figures will be. However, because of the dodgy accounting standards engaged in by the Iemma Government we cannot separate the amount of money coming from EnergyAustralia, Country Energy and Integral Energy from the money received from electricity retailers and the money received from poles and wires. Despite repeated questioning we have never been given those figures—the best we can do is estimate them. The total electricity business generates a substantial amount of money. According to the Auditor-General, in 2006-07 retailers and distributors generated $598 million. However, we still have to establish how much of that can be attributed to retailers and how much of it can be attributed to distributors. Let us say, for example, that the wires and poles generated about $100 million. After subtracting that amount from the total we are left with about $1.132 billion on the chopping block, but that is only an estimate.

As I said earlier, because of the Government's dodgy accounting standards we are not able to establish an accurate figure. It is important for the Auditor-General to apply appropriate accounting standards and to inform us of the accurate figures. I foreshadow that the Greens will move an amendment in the Committee stage to ensure that that occurs. I hope that the Coalition and members on the crossbenches, for the sake of openness and probity, support that amendment. This bill is part of a much larger issue that has been gripping New South Wales since the Federal election. In reality it is an issue that probably gripped New South Wales well before the March 2007 election, and I am sure that it was in the mind of the Treasurer, the Minister for Primary Industries, and other people engaged in the energy-regulating industry.

I assure all members that we have a long way to go. Some people might think it is all over now that the Coalition has rolled over. I say to those who think that this legislation is just a formality that the Greens will not allow that to occur. I say to the union movement, to the 700 people at the Australian Labor Party State Conference who voted against privatisation on behalf of the good and decent members of the Labor Party in this Chamber who had the courage, the common sense and the decency and who were committed to ensuring that it was in the best interests of the people of New South Wales, that they should say that electricity privatisation is wrong. It is a tragedy for the people of New South Wales that those sensible voices in the Labor Party are being shut out of the debate.

Only a brave government and a brave opposition would ignore the reality of electricity privatisation. Only a brave government and a brave opposition would ignore the 70 per cent to 86 per cent of the population of New South Wales—in particular, those in rural and regional areas—that are diametrically opposed to privatisation. Only a brave government and a brave opposition would turn around at a time when we are heading into carbon trading and ignore the consequences of emissions trading on the privatisation process. I wish to give members three numbers. The first number is the 57 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that is generated by the New South Wales electricity industry every year. The second number is $60 a tonne—the European Union's estimate of the level to which carbon prices will rise in the Australian emissions trading market in the medium term. The third number is $3.4 billion a year in carbon trading costs, and that figure is achieved by multiplying those two numbers together.

If we continue down the road of carbon-intensive electricity generation that money will have to be paid by somebody. Those statistics could be hidden with arguments about clean coal and they could be obfuscated by the suggestion that generators would be exempt from carbon trading. This Government can run and it can hide but, in the end, that $3.4 billion impost will impact on the New South Wales economy. If we do not have a publicly owned electricity industry that can make transitions and adjustments, that amount of $3.4 billion will be passed on to the consumers of New South Wales. That deadweight burden will be passed on to households, industry, the public and the economy. We have to maintain and preserve the benefits of public ownership in a time of rising carbon prices.

Only a brave government and a brave opposition would ignore the impact of privatisation on households, in particular, at a time of rising prices. Despite the Treasurer's comments we have said from the outset that no matter who owns the electricity industry, unit prices of electricity will go up and households will pay greater unit prices. It is essential that the Government work particularly with low-income and disadvantaged households to ensure that at times of rising prices they can reduce their demand for electrical energy. That would protect household finances. The only ownership structure that is guaranteed to deliver that outcome is public ownership. If the Government and the Opposition have any concern for the plight of low and medium-income households when prices are increasing, they will retain both the generators and retailers in public hands.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Well said!

Dr JOHN KAYE: Thank you.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: I thought you had finished.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I will address one other issue and come back with a strong finish. I attended meetings at Muswellbrook and Gosford at which members of The Nationals and a senior member of the Liberal Party put their hands on their heart and said, "Electricity privatisation is a bad deal for the people of New South Wales." We do not want to see senior members of the Coalition eat their words. It was not the Hon. Trevor Khan, the Hon. John Ajaka or the shadow Treasurer. We do not want to see them proved to be liars. We will ensure that those commitments are honoured in the way they should be. They have told the people who have spent their lives keeping the lights on for us that they will protect their industry, and they would be no better than Morris Iemma if they rat on that commitment. That is exactly what Morris Iemma did. He told the unions that he would not sell the industry and he has ratted on that deal. If members of the Opposition want to prove they have a higher standard of probity, they will honour their commitment.

I urge the House to delay the passage of the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill. I appreciate that the Coalition is locked into an audit process, and I have expressed the Greens' concerns about that. The fact that they are locked into that process is their mistake and their problem. However, I urge them not to be taken for suckers by Michael Costa and Morris Iemma. I urge them to demonstrate their sophistication and to delay the passage of this bill while we fix it, and it needs to be fixed. It simply does not pass muster when it comes to protecting the households, the environment and the economy of New South Wales. If we are serious about our duty to this and future generations, we will not take one step towards privatisation. We will ensure that, at the very least, the brief we give the Auditor-General lets him off the leash so that he can give an honest and open account of not only privatisation, or the intention to privatise, but also what will actually happen. We want an honest and open account of how that compares to the option of retaining the assets in public hands. The Greens oppose privatisation and will continue to do so. We will move amendments to the bill in an attempt to improve the audit standard that will be applied.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.46 p.m.]: On behalf the Christian Democratic Party I am pleased to support the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008. I congratulate the Government and the Opposition for their cooperation with regard to the original bill—the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place requested an Auditor-General's evaluation before the sale. I understand that the Government was happy to have the Auditor-General investigate the process and report to the Parliament after the privatisation, and he will probably still do that. However, the Opposition felt—I suppose because of the controversial nature of this proposal—that the Auditor-General should undertake a pre-sale audit, and the Government has acceded. I congratulate the Government for moving so rapidly, and as a result we are dealing with this bill now.

This bill will clear the way for the original bill—the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008. We assume that the Auditor-General will provide a positive report, and I see no reason that that would not occur. However, the Government may change the process after the Auditor-General presents his report. Debates such as this often become a battle of slogans and rhetoric, and "privatisation" becomes a swear word. The original bill states that its objects are:

to provide for the restructuring of part of the State's electricity industry by authorising and facilitating any of the following transfers of assets to the private sector:

(a) the lease of the power stations of an electricity generator and the transfer of the rest of its business,

From memory, I believe it is a 40-year lease. Again, that can be adjusted. The Government will not be handing over the State's electricity assets to the private sector; it will be leasing them and they will revert to public ownership in due course. The objects of the bill continue:

(b) the transfer of the retail business of an electricity distributor,

(c) the transfer by initial public offer of the business of an electricity generator (including power stations).

I know this is not the time to debate the pros and cons of the restructuring, although the Greens attempted to do that. It could be argued that the Government has no choice. As a layperson, I suspect that we will face a crisis in electricity supply in this State and that the Government will have no option but to take this path. A Coalition Government would be in the same situation and would make the same decision. Dr John Kaye said on one occasion that we are "sailing into unknown waters"—I suppose without a paddle—and then later that we are "driving into the darkness without lights" and "the money is going into the slush bucket". That rhetoric and noise is not helpful. We should deal simply with the facts.

The Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill is very thorough and detailed given the time available to prepare it. We should leave the ideological debate to one side and ask: What is the best policy for the people of New South Wales? What is the best policy for the families of New South Wales? What is the best policy—to paraphrase Kevin Rudd—for the working families of New South Wales? That should be the issue. The different views on privatisation have caused tensions in the Labor Party, but we all should ask those questions. As I have said, the bill is very thorough: it calls on the Auditor-General to review and report to Parliament on the Government's overall program for the authorised restructuring. Clause 1 (2) of schedule 1A states:

(2) The review is to be a review of the following:

(a) the appropriateness of the Government's strategy for the transfer of assets to the private sector for maximizing financial value for taxpayers, taking into account the following:

(i) the proposed method of effecting transactions,

(ii) the proposed timing of transactions, including the impact of external factors,

(iii) any contingent liabilities that will accrue to the State,

(iv) the impact of the proposed national emissions trading scheme (including current hedging and coal contracts of State electricity corporations),

(v) the sale price of the assets that is reasonably expected having regard to professional advice and the Government’s preliminary estimates,

(vi) the impact of increased debt over the past 5 years in relation to the assets,

(vii) any relevant Commonwealth legislation regarding competition or foreign ownership,

(viii) any other factors that may impact on the potential sale price of the assets,

(b) the financial impact of the proposed community safety net proposed for the authorised restructuring …

That is the particular area in which I am interested. The Christian Democratic Party has had meetings with electricity industry employees who are union members. I share their concern, particularly for the protection of workers, pensioners and low-income earners, that the review should include an assessment of the consistency of benefits from previous transactions involving the transfer of assets to the private sector. The Auditor-General must take that into account because those critical and essential protections affect the sale price for those in the private sector considering investing in the assets. The community safety net is essential and must be part of the process. Section 1 (3) of schedule 1A states:

The review of the appropriateness of the Government's strategy for the transfer of assets to the private sector is to be conducted on the basis of a statement of that strategy as provided to the Auditor-General by the Treasurer for the purposes of the review.

In regard to the Auditor-General reporting to Parliament, section 2 (1) of schedule 1A states:

The Auditor-General is to report to each House of Parliament on the results of the review conducted by the Auditor-General under this Schedule as soon as practicable after the review is completed.

The bill is transparent and I do not see any reason that a member of this House would oppose it.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.52 p.m.]: I could not help but notice that during his contribution Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile congratulated the Government because the legislation, to use his words, was moving rapidly. This seems to be a keynote for everything in this House. Business moves so rapidly that no time is afforded to provide essential information on which members' decisions should be made. For example, last night we were expected to consider filming protocols that were essential to the Filming Related Legislation Amendment Bill promoted by Frank Sartor. The protocols were missing, yet we were expected to make decisions on legislation that depended totally on what would be influenced by their content. On Tuesday night during debate on the planning bills members were called on to make extraordinary decisions based largely around approximately 18 to 20 codes—perhaps even more because we are unaware of the exact number—the content of which will significantly influence the determination of complying or exempt developments in this State. With the exception of one code, which is in draft form only, members did not have the remaining critical and essential codes before them.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Point of order. The member is not addressing the bill before the Chair.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will address the bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: My concern focuses on section 1 (3) in schedule 1A, which states:

(3) The review of the appropriateness of the Government's strategy for the transfer of assets to the private sector is to be conducted on the basis of a statement of that strategy as provided to the Auditor-General by the Treasurer for the purposes of the review.

This is a critical element of this bill, the details of which we do not have. This proposed legislation provides no guarantee that the details will be made available. I am particularly concerned also with schedule 1A, entitled "Oversight of electricity industry restructuring," because the provisions are based on the assumption that the sale or lease will proceed. No examination of the issues is presented on whether the sale or lease should proceed; the bill is premised on the assumption that it will proceed. I find that extraordinary because obviously over the past few months there has been a considerable amount of public debate. I have had the opportunity to speak at numerous public meetings, I have addressed council meetings and, of course, I have spoken to individuals about this issue. The message, especially from country areas, is the intense opposition to any sale of these assets.

People express complete amazement at what has happened with the Government's desalination program. When the Government pursues a totally unpopular policy it ignores community sentiment and pushes ahead with any deal it has struck. It then turns to the community and says, "By the way, all your water rates will increase." The people fear that will happen with the restructuring of the electricity industry. Regardless of the safeguards that are put in place for a period of time, they consider they inevitably will be the losers in the process. Of course, they feel distrustful and cynical: they believe the Labor Party has betrayed all the principles that caused many of them to become long-term loyalists. No wonder this Government is on the nose. This type of legislation cannot be rushed through without providing members the opportunity to apprise themselves of the second reading speech or consider the provisions and implications in detail. An instantaneous response is not expected but members should have the opportunity to respond. All that was being requested was for members to be given the opportunity over the weekend—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: How did you manage to produce three pages of amendments on a bill you never saw?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I have great respect for Dr John Kaye's ability. It is testament to his ability that he responded so quickly. I believe that the people of New South Wales, media commentators or whoever, deserve the opportunity to peruse the provisions of the proposal. Every night this week the House sat late and now, at the very end of the day, this bill is being rammed through with the threat of even more legislation. I agree with the sentiment of the vast majority of the community that this Government is on the nose and should not be trusted; any legislation it puts through this House is a con job. I thoroughly sympathise with those sentiments. Introducing this bill in the absence of the strategy statement to be provided to the Auditor-General by the Treasurer is entirely remiss of the Government.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.59 p.m.]: The fact that we are debating this bill tonight is testimony to the humiliation of the Treasurer. It was the Treasurer who dismissed the need for the Auditor-General to have any involvement with his beloved electricity privatisation plan. He was blinded by his own arrogance and thought he could ignore and abuse Labor Party and union members. We saw it time and again in the grabs from the Labor Party conference. He appeared to believe he had the numbers. He took for granted he had the numbers and when it suddenly dawned on him that he did not have the numbers, he stated that he had the Coalition in the bag. The common thread is arrogance at every point. The only reason we are debating this legislation is the Treasurer's failure to muster the numbers, his unwillingness to negotiate with members of his own party, his rudeness, and his refusal to engage with key union stakeholders.

The Treasurer said this bill was not necessary, because he believed he could not fail to sell off the electricity industry. I cannot emphasise that enough. Month after month he failed to entertain that there was any possibility the sell-off could fail. This is not the Treasurer's first failure in this recent power sell-off obsession. It is worth remembering how this debate has played out. As we know, the electricity industry in this State can be sold off without legislation. So, why is this legislation before the House? It is not the Treasurer's first option but, again, in his arrogance he has snookered himself. I pay tribute to the work of my colleague Dr John Kaye. He brought forward the no mandate, no sell-off private member's bill, known in this place as the Energy Services Corporations Ownership (Parliamentary Powers) Bill 2008.

The Treasurer was cornered and, rather than give the Greens a win with our legislation, he committed to introducing his own sell-off legislation. Members may remember that various questions were put to him in this House, and his answers became real tools, words that he effectively hanged himself with. His actions helped to firm up the number of members opposed to the privatisation legislation. We have seen this not only in this place but also within the union movement. At the end of last year it was widely believed that there would be a bit of a campaign, that retailers would be sold off and that there would be a bit of argy-bargy about the generators. We were then told that the generators would not be sold. But the arrogance of the Treasurer knows no bounds, and you can only push people so far.

The campaign was a great credit to the union movement, to community groups and to environment groups. Greens and Labor members worked on it as well, and the no sell-off campaign built up. This gave a lot of strength to the Labor members in this place who have indicated their willingness to cross the floor. I congratulate Labor members Lynda Voltz and Ian West on their courage to speak out on this legislation. We know that tremendous pressure is applied in these volatile debates. Political parties are strange creatures. In many ways they are like families. It takes great courage and integrity to take a stand against them. The legislation needs to be seen not only in the context of the bill but also in the tactics that led to its introduction.

I will share with the House some of the comments from Professor Bob Walker and Dr Betty Con Walker. I appreciate that they responded very quickly with some advice on this legislation today. We know it has been rushed through, and once again, in the final weeks of the first half of the year we do not have much time to scrutinise these bills and do the job as thoroughly as one would like. I appreciate that Bob and Betty Con Walker have provided this material. They say quite clearly there is no need for this legislation. They detail how existing laws do not prevent the Auditor-General from undertaking an assignment in terms that are agreed with the client. Australian auditing standards deal directly with such assignments and set out how an auditor should exercise his or her professional responsibilities. The point they then make is interesting and important. They state:

The effect of the legislation is to establish a lesser standard for any work to be undertaken by the Auditor-General than would be established by AUS 904.

That is one of the standards under which auditing is carried out. They go on to say:

That is because Parliament is being asked to approve a Bill that does not establish "agreed procedures".

They also detailed how the bill does not require the Auditor-General to provide Parliament with information that will assist members to form a judgement as to whether to vote for or against any proposal for privatisation. Again, that is a key point. Effectively, that is explaining how this legislation is loaded to get a certain result. The Auditor-General will consider if a long-term lease of generating assets would be regarded as transferring the risks and benefits of ownership to the lessee, and whether such an arrangement would be regarded by Australian accounting standards as being, in substance, a sale. The Walkers go on to state:

In all cases, the assumptions adopted by the Auditor-General should be clearly stated and justified. These assumptions must include but not be limited to the following—

And they said there are a whole number of requirements with regard to the appropriateness of the gearing or capital structure, the choice of discount rates, the choice of price-earnings multiples, the likely costs or cash flows, any liabilities or contingent liabilities, any guarantees, indemnities or risks, and the extent to which foreign or local investment may be affected by competition laws. That is useful advice; advice the Government would have been wise to take on board before it set off along this path. The key point we need to remember in considering this legislation is that the electricity assets in this State should not be privatised. At a time when we have such complex issues to deal with to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the need for quality public services to be maintained across the State, particularly in regional and rural areas that so often miss out, can be most effectively done when they are retained in public hands.

I congratulate the work of everybody involved in this no sell-off campaign. Again, we would not be debating this legislation tonight if the public voice of concern and anger had not been so strong that the Government felt it had to respond in some way. Unfortunately, a close look at the legislation shows us that it is Mickey Mouse legislation so the Government can pretend it is going through the motions of apparently having concerns and responding to the Coalition. This is a last-ditch attempt by the Treasurer, by Minister Macdonald and the Premier to gather support from the only place it can, and that is the Coalition. It is a sad day when the Labor Party is depending on the Coalition for the numbers on legislation that will have such far-reaching implications for this State as we move further into the twenty-first century.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [7.09 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008. I will respond to some of the points that were raised. The question was asked: Has the role of the Auditor-General in relation to the strategy review been confirmed with the Auditor-General? The bill will require, rather than merely authorise, the Auditor-General to review and report to Parliament on the Government's strategy to transfer the State's electricity assets to the private sector. The Auditor-General has been consulted in regard to the strategy review function and has confirmed that he is able to undertake the review in accordance with the proposed amendment. It is not unprecedented for Parliament to enact a law that requires the Auditor-General to undertake a special-purpose review or audit. The Auditor-General has confirmed publicly that he is comfortable with Parliament asking him to undertake this prospective review. In an interview this morning on radio 2BL, the Auditor-General confirmed that he is able to comment on whether the Government's proposed sale strategy is appropriate.

In response to Dr John Kaye, it is not the case that the Treasurer has unlimited power to restructure the electricity industry under the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008. The bill allows only the restructuring set out in clause 4—namely, the sale of the retail businesses, the lease of the generation assets and an initial public offering involving retail or generation assets. The bill does not allow the privatisation of the transmission and distribution businesses. It is at that point that Dr John Kaye repeated the mistake made first by Professor Walker in relation to the dividends. The figure cited was $1.3 billion. The fact of the matter is that figure was calculated including both transmission and distribution businesses. When they are discounted, the real figure is in the order of $640 million. The Government has made it clear that the bill will not allow privatisation of the transmission and distribution businesses. That is the natural monopoly part of the industry, and the bill provides expressly that those assets must remain in public hands.

Dr John Kaye referred continually to auditing "known facts" yet his amendments are full of unknown facts and assumptions. His scare tactics regarding an electricity industry monopoly are ridiculous. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] would not allow it. In addition, the Government is providing to the Auditor-General the commission's memorandum that sets out the Government's transaction strategy. The bill will enable the Auditor-General to conduct a proper review of the process and consider it in detail. He will be able to determine the sorts of standards that he applies. The Auditor-General has extremely high standards in all his work, and I think we can trust him to conduct this review without any assistance from the welter of amendments that Dr John Kaye has foreshadowed he will move in Committee, which seek to force the Auditor-General to make announcements regarding mandatory renewable energy targets, national emission trading certificates and all sorts of matters that are entirely extraneous to the bill.

I know that Dr John Kaye is a very new member but Ministers regularly incorporate the relevant second reading speeches in Hansard when legislation has been dealt with in the other House. I followed the normal practice in this case; it occurs hundreds of times in this Chamber. Of course, I always respond to the various issues that members raise in their contributions to the second reading debate—as I have done this evening. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): The Greens have circulated amendments to schedule 1, which appear on sheet C2008-067A.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Point of order: I have perused the Greens amendments and I listened intently to Dr John Kaye's speech during the second reading debate. He made a number of references to the fact that the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008 will provide for a review—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order—

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Minister is already speaking on a point of order.

Dr John Kaye: The Minister is debating the amendments before I have moved them.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: I am going to ask the Chair to rule the amendments out of order because they are outside the leave of the bill.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I informed the Committee that there were Greens amendments to schedule 1 and I gave the number of the sheet on which those amendments were circulated. The Minister then took a point of order, which I am listening to now. I am quite happy to entertain further argument on the point of order when the Minister has concluded his remarks. The Minister may continue.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Thank you, Madam Chair. As I was saying, on several occasions Dr John Kaye alluded to the fact that the bill provides for a review. The long title states:

An Act to amend the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 to provide for review by the Auditor-General in connection with the restructuring of the State’s electricity industry.

In other words, as Dr John Kaye pointed out several times, the bill does not allow the Auditor-General to review the benefits of retention or maintaining the status quo. That is evident from the bill's long title, which refers to not the "retention" but the "restructuring" of the State's electricity industry. Madam Chair, I ask that you rule all the Greens amendments out of order because they are outside the leave of the bill.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I will now hear arguments on the point of order.

Dr John Kaye: To the point of order: I am quite surprised by the Minister's rather interesting tactic. If the Minister had read the bill—he is probably not very familiar with it—he would know that the word "restructuring" has the same meaning in both this bill and in the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008. In this bill, authorised "restructuring" includes all nature of changes. Retention is a form of restructuring. In the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008—

The Hon. Tony Kelly: It is the status quo.

Dr John Kaye: Not necessarily. Unfortunately, the Minister either has not read or does not understand that legislation. The Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 states clearly that restructuring may include the sell-off of assets or changes to ownership and structure within the industry. It will not necessarily include all those things. So restructuring could include retention, with changes to the structure of the industry. If the Minister were familiar with the rules of logic, he would know that null restructure is an element of the restructure subset. The Minister might not be trained in formal logic, but I assure him that it has always been the case that the null set is an element of the superset of subsets of any set—I think there is even a rule of logic for that. Be that as it may, the Minister's approach is quite ham-fisted. He has called for all Greens amendments—not just one—to be ruled out of order. Not all Greens amendments refer to retention—in fact, I think it is mentioned only in amendment No. 1. But I would argue that retention does not rule out restructuring, and therefore my amendments are within the leave of the bill.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Further to the point of order: Part 2 of the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill 2008 under the heading, "Restructuring of State Electricity Industry" points out that the restructuring entails the lease of the power stations, the transfer of the retail business and the transfer by initial public offer. That is definitely not the status quo.

Dr John Kaye: Further to the point of order: I am at a disadvantage because I do not have a copy of the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill in front of me.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Is that the one you accused me of knowing nothing about?

Dr John Kaye: I know about it; I just do not have a copy of it in front of me. From recollection the bill uses the word "includes". May I have a copy of the bill? The document handed to me by the Minister is not the relevant component.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: Whilst I am not persuaded by his argument, in fairness Dr John Kaye should have a copy of the bill before him to enable him to comment on it.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: I have just given him a copy.

Dr John Kaye: No, you have not. The Minister has given me one page. He does not have a copy of the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill; I do not have a copy of the Electricity Industry Restructuring Bill. In fact, I do not think anyone does because it has not been tabled in this Chamber. I thank the Hon. Greg Pearce, who has just handed me a copy of the bill.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! We will wait for Dr Kaye to peruse the document, at which time he may be desirous of making a further submission on the point of order.

Dr John Kaye: Having read the document more carefully, my initial point stands. It is clearly implicit in the authorisation in part 2 of the bill that the null restructure is included in the meaning of "restructure"—that is, doing nothing is also part of restructuring, or not doing something is part of doing something. When one defines such a broad range of activities—

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What kind of logic is that?

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Chinese logic.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I beg your pardon? I heard Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile say that was Chinese logic. Would he like to explain that? That is quite extraordinary. It would be a very narrow definition of "restructuring" not to include null restructuring. However, I submit that if, Madam Chair, you choose to accept that meaning, as is your prerogative, only my amendment No. 1 would be affected. It would have no impact on my amendments Nos 2 to 5. I would argue that it is a very narrow interpretation of the definition of the leave the bill, and it certainly was not the interpretation given to it by Parliamentary Counsel.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Having read the "Explanatory note" that appeared on the first print of the Auditor-General (Supplementary Powers) Bill 2008, which gives an overview of the bill, I rule Greens amendments Nos 1 to 5 out of order as being outside the leave of the bill.

Dr John Kaye: I am sorry, Madam Chair, but I dissent from your ruling, certainly in respect of amendments Nos 2 to 5.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! If the member wishes to object to my ruling, he must comply with Standing Order 178, which requires that if an objection is taken to a decision of the Chair of Committees, such objection must be stated at once in writing.

Dr John Kaye: As the hour is late and it is absolutely clear that it is the intention of this House to not debate these issues, it is probably better that I withdraw my dissent from your ruling, which I formally do. I wish to put on the record, however, that the people of New South Wales will judge the Iemma Government for this extremely poor tactic.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That the report be now adopted.

Report adopted.
The Hon. Tony KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, Acting Minister for the Central Coast, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [7.27 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 24 June 2008 at 2.30 p.m.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [7.35 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [7.35 p.m.]: Today I bring before the House the ever-increasing concern that I and many Australian families have about the rapid increase of obesity in children and adolescents across New South Wales and Australia. Earlier this year the Obesity Society of Australia estimated that 25 per cent of children are currently overweight or obese. As recently as the late 1960s this figure stood at about 5 per cent, prompting fears of an internal epidemic of childhood obesity that is plaguing the youth of the nation. It is widely documented that overweight children incur double the capacity of healthier children to generate fat cells as an adult, thus making it far more difficult to lose weight upon entering adulthood. The list of health risks associated with obesity is long and daunting, including a much higher relative risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, including coronary heart disease, stroke and hypertension, which in turn causes hypertensive heart disease and arterial disease and osteoarthritis. Let it be noted that this is only a small portion of the health risks associated with obesity.

Early childhood and adolescence are the most crucial periods of development in an individual's life and overshadow all future health and lifestyle trends. Congruently, this formative period moulds a person's character in ways that are more often than not irreversible. All good parents and carers strive for their children to have the best quality of life during childhood and adolescence so that they are equipped with the tools to forge strong, just and caring natures upon entering adulthood. Obesity is one of the primary hindrances in the positive development of a young child. An American study conducted in 2003 by two leading child psychologists found that obesity carries a social stigma in children greater than any physical disability does. Obese children are stereotyped as unhealthy and academically unsuccessful.

In such a seminal period in their life, with all the added pressure of growing up, no child needs to be burdened with such a stigma. It is in these key influential years that obesity needs to be confronted and defeated, not later in life when losing weight becomes far more difficult. It is a well-documented fact that it is far easier to alter the health patterns of a child or adolescent than those of an adult. The increased responsibilities, stresses and workloads associated with adulthood ensure that a comprehensive lifestyle change resulting in successful weight loss is markedly more difficult to achieve. Dr Sue Byrne, a clinical psychologist researching obesity at Oxford University, noted that:

Obesity in adults is very difficult to treat and most obese adults who undertake treatment programs will regain any weight they may have lost. The front line in the battle against obesity must be with children

Earlier this year the New South Wales Government launched its latest initiative designed to tackle childhood obesity, entitled "Live Life Well at School". The program has allocated $6.5 million across four years to be used specifically in the fight against obesity in preschools and primary schools. This works out to be $1.625 million each year—a very small amount. I will compare this figure with the estimated costs of obesity to Australian society. An independent report prepared in 2006 by Access Economics for Diabetes Australia calculated that the financial cost of obesity in 2005 came to $3.767 billion, with $1.7 billion wasted solely on lost productivity. Standing in isolation, this figure massively dwarfs the Government's $6.51 million scheme. Yet on top of this the net cost of lost wellbeing was valued at a further $17.2 billion, bringing the total cost of obesity in 2005 to $21.0 billion.

Suddenly the Government's program appears diminished in stature to the point of non-existence. If the front line of the battle against obesity is with our children then it is all too obvious that we are losing the war. Obesity is perhaps the most burning health issue facing contemporary Australian society, and yet we as a State are failing miserably to take the necessary steps to address the problem. It is estimated that if the current trends continue the number of obese people in New South Wales and Australia will double by 2025. The projected costs to our society are, frankly, astronomical. It is our responsibility as elected officials to seek the greatest good for our constituents, and I see no better way to do this than by offering money and support services for all people to live the most productive lives they can. The New South Wales Government's current program to tackle obesity in its most critical stage, childhood and adolescence, is embarrassingly inadequate. Much more must be done to ensure that the generation that will inherit everything we have worked so hard to achieve can do so with the best chance for health, productivity and happiness that we can possibly give them. We have a responsibility to our children to provide for them in every way we can—a responsibility that, shamefully, the Government is not fulfilling.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [7.40 p.m.]: Recently it was reported that a Palestinian had died because of alleged Israeli inhumanity. However, that was not true, even though the non-government organisation Physicians for Human Rights reported his death. The patient, Mahmoud al-Harrani, had gone to Tel Aviv's medical centre for cancer treatment, and had received that treatment. He told reporters that his family had lied about his death. Even so, Physicians for Human Rights did not correct its report. The Israeli Government told Physicians for Human Rights, "We view these harsh accusations on your part with great severity; not even a minimal inquiry into the facts was conducted." Israel's closures of its border with Gaza are widely reported. However, it is not reported that Israel allows Palestinians to be treated in Israeli hospitals. The Israeli Government meets more than 90 per cent of requests for treatment, and offers transport to Jordan or Egypt for patients who raise serious security concerns. That is very rarely mentioned in the media.

On the sixtieth anniversary of the creation of Israel its population had risen from 806,000 to 7.282 million, according to figures released by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics. The bureau estimates that by 2030 Israel's population with reach 10 million. A survey of the views of Israeli citizens found that 47 per cent of Israel's Jews regard themselves as Jewish first and Israeli second, compared with 39 per cent who view themselves as Israeli first. But 94 per cent agreed that Israeli Jews share the same destiny as the rest of the world's Jews. Of the Israeli Arab respondents surveyed, 45 per cent said they were Arabs, 24 per cent regard themselves as Palestinians, 19 per cent define themselves by their religious affiliation and 12 per cent said they were Israelis. As Israel is a democracy, Jewish citizens and Arabic citizens have the same rights in Israel.

On 29 April 2008 an article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald by Peter Manning and entitled "Redress the Balance on Palestine". In that article he accused the Jewish people of being the main aggressors during the 1948 turmoil when the nation of Israel was established. In support of his article he quoted Professor Benny Morris of Ben Gurion University. Professor Morris had sent a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald disputing both Manning's characterisation of his work and his account of the history of that period. However, as often happens with the Sydney Morning Herald, his letter was not published. In that letter he wrote:

Too often Israel-bashers (like Peter Manning … ) misrepresent my work and, by the way, distort history.

Manning wrote that I have argued "that the period from December 1947 to May 1948 involved a series of [Israeli] massacres designed to terrorise the native [Arab] population into abandoning their homes". In fact, the half-year period—actually from 30 November 1947 on—was characterised by a war launched by the Palestinian Arabs against the Jewish community in Palestine, in defiance of the will of the international community.

On 29 November the UN General Assembly had passed a resolution authorising the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish, the other Arab. The Jews accepted the resolution, the Arabs rejected it—and their militiamen launched hostilities from their villages and towns against their Jewish neighbours.

There was a period of turmoil and there was right and wrong on both sides, which Professor Morris admits in his article. It is a pity that the Sydney Morning Herald did not have the courage and professionalism to publish his letter refuting the false statements by Peter Manning that it had published on 29 April 2008. [Time expired.]

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [7.45 p.m.]: The recent publicity surrounding the case of Madison Giffen and Jessie Mulholland of the Figtree Kangaroos Australian Rules team has once again highlighted the skewed priorities of the Australian Football League's [AFL] community development programs. Rather than focusing on increasing children's, and in particular girls', participation in Aussie rules, the true focus of those programs is boosting fan numbers and increasing the AFL's market share. The league has invested $100 million to accelerate growth in New South Wales and Queensland for 2007-2011. For the five years from 2007 to 2011 the AFL will receive $780 million in television rights revenue from Channel Seven and Channel Nine—some in free advertising, but most in cash. In 2007 $40 million dollars of that was ploughed into so-called development strategies such as Auskick.

In 2007 there was an increase in Aussie rules participation across all sectors—organised competition, interschool championships and community development days. The year 2007 saw a 25 per cent increase in the number of school children engaged in Aussie rules clinics. In 2007 a total of 28,980 young girls took part in the NAB Australian Football League Auskick, making up 18 per cent of all Auskick participants. But the case of Madison and Jessie tells another story: a lack of support and non-existent pathways for further participation. The AFL provides by its own admission nowhere for those girls to go, instead offering them a place in an under-13s competition. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show the sharp drop-off in girls playing Aussie rules between the ages of 12 and 14. The recent study of children's sport and leisure participation shows that in 2006 approximately 6,300 girls between the ages of five and eight were participating in Aussie rules, making a participation rate of 1.2 per cent. In the 12-14 years age group that number had dropped to 1,200—a participation rate of merely 0.3 per cent. To some extent these figures are indicative of a general trend of girls decreasing participation in sports during their teenage years, but one has to question both the AFL's programs and its policies. In comparison, girls' outdoor soccer participation actually increased from 22,900 players between the ages of 5 and 8, to 30,000 players between the ages of 12 and 14 years. This was achieved with negligible television royalties, a minimal development budget and no large-scale school programs.

The Junior Australian Football League Conversion Strategy of 2003-04 shows the explicit courting of junior players from as early as year 2. Yet, despite the well-laid plans for in-school and out-of-school competitions in ages ranging up to 15 years, there is no plan to facilitate the development of female footballers beyond those junior years. A central tenet of the Auskick program is the school-friendly ticketing offers, encouraging children to attend AFL games with their parents. In addition, AFL players regularly attend clinics in a bid to build brand association with clubs. Indeed, this is where the true focus of the AFL's community programs lies—not in increasing participation, but in boosting ticket revenues and swelling fan numbers.

It is time that the school sports program was reviewed to ensure that girls in particular are given every opportunity. We no longer live in an era of boys-only sports. From the 1970s we have been teaching girls that girls can do anything, and it is time to ensure that our school sports program reflects that. Whilst it might be convenient for schools to run AFL programs, we should ask the question: What is the sustainability of these programs? The comparison between the Australian Football League's Auskick programs and its outcomes in terms of a women's competition are startling when compared with the results for soccer. In conclusion, I congratulate the Matildas on their win against Italy in the Peace Cup, a 3 to 0 win. I note again that a surprising lack of media attention was given to the win.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [7.49 p.m.]: I advise the House of a vindictive and unlawful prosecution of a company, Microwave Safety Systems Pty Limited, by the Commissioner of Fair Trading. I understand that after the company had operated for about six months, from January 2007, a director of the company, Ms Rozy Dorizas, contacted the legal department of the Office of Fair Trading to check the propriety of some advertising material the company planned to market. She was directed to a senior investigator, Mr Robert Laughton. During Laughton's inquiries he learnt that Mr Jason Crosson, the husband of Ms Rozy Dorizas, was employed by Microwave Safety Systems Pty Ltd. This was obviously a point of interest to Mr Laughton because Mr Crosson had launched a ministerial complaint against him several years earlier. On 17 April 2007 Robert Laughton applied to the Parramatta Local Court magistrate to obtain and execute a warrant on the premises occupied by Microwave Safety Systems.

On the application for the warrant, and under oath, Mr Laughton made the following claims: that Microwave Safety Systems' website contained a document that provided false and misleading information about the need for the company's services; that he, Laughton, had meetings with a former director and solicitor of Microwave Safety Systems and that they were uncooperative; that the Office of Fair Trading had requested Microwave Safety Systems to produce certain documents but they had refused to do so; and that the advertising material produced by Microwave Safety Systems was misleading and in breach of the Fair Trading Act.

On 19 April 2007 Mr Laughton executed a warrant on the premises of Microwave Safety Systems with 10 officers from the Office of Fair Trading and three armed police officers. Laughton took possession of all the company's computers, their backup disks, invoices, customer contracts, and financial and privileged information between Mr Crosson and his solicitor. As an experienced senior investigator Laughton would have been well aware that his actions would prevent the company from operating. The directors of Microwave Safety Systems commenced legal action against Laughton and the Office of Fair Trading immediately on 24 April 2007. Mr Laughton and a junior investigator, Ms Michelle Sinney, then contacted a number of clients of Microwave Safety Systems and provided them with information that was later found to be false and misleading.

Ms Rozy Dorizas and Mr Jason Crosson then decided to risk their personal assets—their savings and their home—to fight the Office of Fair Trading and Laughton in the Supreme Court. Ms Dorizas contacted me because of a previous case involving Laughton. I attended court with Ms Dorizas. On 5 February 2008, Justice Harrison found that Robert Laughton had misled the Parramatta Local Court magistrate when applying for the warrant; that no such documents as he alleged had ever been placed on the website of Microwave Safety Systems; that a contravention of a provision of the Fair Trading Act 1987 could not have been found at the business premises and Laughton did not act on reasonable grounds that there was evidence of a contravention of a provision of the relevant sections of the Act; and that Microwave Safety Systems did not make false or misleading claims. Costs were awarded against the Office of Fair Trading.

I have previously spoken in this House about the misuse of power exercised by Robert Laughton in his role as an inspector at the Office of Fair Trading. The previous case involved a ruthless and unethical vendetta he waged against a Camden businessman, Mr John Leach, who was a licensee for LJ Hooker. I knew Mr Leach personally and I knew he was a well-respected businessman in the town. Robert Laughton's strategy, using the legal and financial clout of the Office of Fair Trading, was to destroy the credibility of Mr Leach and close his business. During the course of the trial, which I sat through with Mr Leach, it was revealed that the real motivation behind the strategy was to cover the incompetence of the Office of Fair Trading in its dealings with a separate company, Camden Property Marketing, which had nothing to do with Mr Leach. Their strategy was derailed by a solicitor, Mr Peter Richardson, who took the case on a pro bono basis because he regarded it as the greatest miscarriage of justice he had witnessed in his 30 years of practice. Richardson destroyed the case against Mr Leach and exposed Robert Laughton and the other inspectors as a bunch of incompetent and morally corrupt individuals. All charges against Mr Leach were dismissed. He won the case but it cost him his business, career, reputation and marriage. I still find it incredible that this can happen in Australia today.

The current culture within the investigations unit of the Office of Fair Trading is corrupt. They rely on their extensive legal and financial resources to isolate and destroy any small business they seem to pick at random. This is more reminiscent of a system that would have operated behind the Iron Curtain but it is not something that should be tolerated in Australia. I therefore call on the Minister for Fair Trading to, firstly, stand Robert Laughton aside immediately with a view to terminating his employment. In my opinion, he is not a fit and proper person to work on the public payroll in the New South Wales public service. I call on the Minister to, secondly, make a formal apology to the directors of Microwave Safety Systems, Ms Rozy Dorizas and Mr Jason Crosson; thirdly, to accept responsibility for damages, which I believe are in excess of $400,000, and order that they be paid to Microwave Safety Systems without any further delay; and, fourthly, to instruct the legal office of her department to cease any further court actions contesting any costs or damages that have been awarded.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [7.53 p.m.]: Tonight I am pleased to inform the House of another excellent church-based initiative set up to offer practical assistance and friendship to a particularly vulnerable segment of our community—the women who survive by selling themselves on the streets of Sydney, particularly around Kings Cross. I will not try to civilise what they do by calling it "the sex industry". It is not a regular, decent industry with set hours, safe working conditions, sick leave and public holidays. It is a harrowing last resort for desperate people. The New South Wales Parliamentary Select Committee Upon Prostitution, conducted over 20 years ago, found that at that time there were 1,500 to 2,000 women working as sex workers in agencies, brothels and on the streets. A national inquiry in 1998 revealed that many of those women were actually young girls, being teenagers under 18. We can safely assume that the numbers have not decreased over the years since then.

Hope Street, an initiative of urban compassion run since 1983 by the New South Wales Baptist Union and supported at that time by Wesley Mission, of which I was the superintendent at the time, has been operating what it calls "Women's Space" in the Kings Cross area since 1995, when it became aware of the urgent needs of this marginalised group. While providing support to the homeless people in the community, Hope Street staff had observed that women living on the streets regularly experienced abuse and violence from many of their customers and could see no way out of that lifestyle for themselves. These women often exhibit the characteristics of post-traumatic stress disorder and frequently suffer from drug and alcohol addictions, mental stress, emotional instability, poor nutrition, ongoing exposure to communicable diseases, and many other health problems. Most of these women have been trapped in this way of life on the streets since they were teenagers. They think they have no other options, due to limited education, job experience, training and personal resources. Their powerlessness is daily made worse by the sheer struggle for survival. These girls and women genuinely need the compassion and protection offered to them at Hope Street's Women's Space, which is situated in a small terrace house near Kings Cross.

Women's Space offers women on the streets a safe place to come when they want time out. They can relax, get warm and dry and be refreshed. If they choose to, they can discuss any of the issues they face and even learn how they can leave the streets, find suitable housing and have a different life from the one they are currently stuck in. Many of these young women have children and that creates a bigger problem. However, they do not have to interact at all; they can just relax and recharge. Women's Space regularly has 5 to 10 girls and women every day whose ages range from young teenagers to women in their 50s. They are free to come and go as they like and there is no structured program in which they are expected to participate. The drop-in centre is open daily during the week from 8.00 a.m. to 12 noon with a coordinator who can assist with information about legal issues and available drug rehabilitation services. In the afternoon the staff from Women's Space go with the regular visitors to hospital or help support them in court, find a flat, or offer whatever assistance is needed. Lauren McGrow, the coordinator of Women's Space, said:

The changes I have observed in the women's lives have been profound. Just having the confidence now, of knowing someone is really on their side, and will support them emotionally … gives them the boost they need to start to consider other options for themselves; to start thinking about actually doing something else with their lives, and no longer being at the mercy of the streets.

I think few of us would be brave enough or kind enough to offer our friendship, acceptance and compassion to these women on whom society has turned its back. I think it is important for us to be aware of and appreciative of such wonderful initiatives on the part of people of faith in the community—people who believe in the dignity of the human spirit, the possibility of changing lives for the better, of genuine healing of the heart and soul and of giving people a new start, no matter what their past has involved. We believe God expects us to enable people to "choose life, and not death". I want to thank the organisers, supporters and volunteers who help in the work of Women's Space in Kings Cross for the brave work they undertake in providing a safe place and the offer of friendship to those abject street women who are so in need of it. I also congratulate the Baptist Union and the Baptist Inner City Ministry for tackling in a positive manner a dreadful social problem that the rest of society closes its eyes to.

The Hon. IAN WEST [7.58 p.m.]: Child care has become a fact of life for working families in New South Wales. Gone are the days when families could afford to have one parent stay at home—nearly always the mother—and look after the children full time. Unfortunately this reality was ignored by the previous Federal Government, with the tacit support of members opposite, whose policies were designed with the idle rich in mind. As the Howard years dragged on, child care became more and more out of reach for many working-class families. For instance, the ABC reported in 2006 that in the year to September 2005 the price of child care jumped 9 per cent, more than three times the official inflation rate. This was why childcare staff continued to be underpaid and undervalued, resulting in high turnover levels in the industry. With the election of the Rudd Labor Government in December last year there is a fresh impetus to tackle the problems of child care.

Tomorrow the Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union [LHMU], or the childcare industry union, will launch a campaign aimed at delivering high quality child care to all Australian families. The Big Steps in Child Care campaign of the Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union will bring together parents, governments, childcare providers and childcare workers, to nut out a system that reflects cutting edge research on children's development and meets the contemporary needs of working parents, Australian business and childcare sector workers.

The Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union will be working in partnership with Early Childhood Australia; Australia's leading advocate for social justice, equity and quality in the education and care of children from birth to the age of eight years. A key part of the preliminary research for the Big Steps campaign was to identify what parents want from childcare services. The Australian Bureau of Statistics conducted a comprehensive national survey of what parents want from long day care services, the first of its kind in this country. Ninety per cent of respondents' children spent between 7 and 11 hours per day at long day care, with the average time spent at long day care being eight hours. This speaks to the importance of child care in shaping our future generations. Eighty-five per cent of parents were very satisfied with long day care. The main reason for this satisfaction varied amongst respondents: 16 per cent said a good environment; 22 per cent said their child loved the service; and 45 per cent said caring staff, the most important criterion.

It is a tragedy to consider that childcare workers are among the lowest paid and are all too often denied opportunities for advancement. This is not to mention the mismatch between workers' wages and status, compared with the high levels of responsibility and workload demands placed on them. The turnover figures in the industry speak for themselves. At July 2006, the average turnover in Australia was 32 per cent. South Australia had the highest turnover at a whopping 60 per cent, while in New South Wales the turnover was at 26 per cent. Although the figure for New South Wales was the best of all the States and Territories, it is still a figure that needs to be addressed.

The 2006 National Children's Services Workforce Study predicted there would be a shortage of 7,320 childcare workers nationally by 2013. There have been promising noises from the Rudd and State governments in tackling this challenge. The Rudd Government has announced a number of commitments, including ensuring all children have 15 hours of teacher-led early education by the year 2013. This will supplement the existing requirement in New South Wales for all childcare centres with 29 places or more to hire a teacher.

For the new target to be realistic, there needs to be measures to ensure there are sufficient numbers of trained workers. To do this, the Big Steps campaign is focussing on strategies to upskill the current workforce. This means providing the opportunity for childcare workers with TAFE certificates to undertake university- based degree programs to become teachers. The Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union is working with Charles Sturt University, Macquarie University, the Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council, and Sydney University's Workplace Research Centre to develop a best-practice model for this to happen. The Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union is to be congratulated on its initiative and we should all welcome the work being done to ensure all children have the best education as possible in these early years. Tomorrow I will be participating in the launch of the Big Steps campaign at the Mint Building. I congratulate the Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.03 p.m.]: Earlier this week I received an email with the subject heading "Sartor horror—North Eveleigh site". The email began with a reference to:

the cronyistic, arrogant and frankly corrupt debacle that is State Labor these days.

It then continued:

The Redfern Waterloo Authority has just closed its North Eveleigh Concept Plan for comment.

The plan intends to introduce 5,500 new people (residents and workers) into the Wilson St, Darlington, precinct. The plan (including several 12 and 16 storey buildings), in no way respects the low-rise 100 year old terrace house style of the suburb, and will dominate the skyline of what is currently a quiet residential area.

The area is serviced by narrow local streets with a high pedestrial quotient (due to Sydney Uni) with no provision for the volumes of traffic the site will generate—including trucks, to the retail section of the development. This traffic has only two exit options down Wilson St, to Burren St and Charles St, then Erskineville Road, or Shepherd Street onto Cleveland Street, or Queen Street onto King street. In particular, Burren, Charles, Shepherd and Queen Streets are narrow, densely populated residential streets.

The traffic consultants have refused to release their figures (and I have correspondence to show this), so residents cannot assess the impact as predicted by the RWA. However they have described their model, developed specially for the North Eveleigh site and untested and untried on any other development— and is based on one two hour traffic count and a handful of 15 minute traffic counts. Of course we cannot compare their figures with any others gathered by state authorities because they have not been released.

The RWA, formed by Frank Sartor, has submitted its concept plan to the Dept of Planning …

[Time for debate expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.