Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 26 June 2008, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday 26 June 2008
__________

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

The President read the Prayers.

PETITIONS

Herons Creek Power Plant

Petition calling on the Minister for Planning to listen to community concerns and extend the public consultation process on the proposed Herons Creek power plant, received from the Hon. Melinda Pavey.

Cooma Hospital Kidney Dialysis Service

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Withdrawal of Business

Private Members' Business item No. 125 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Don Harwin.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Precedence of Business

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.03 a.m.]: I move:

Detailed discussions have taken place concerning the budget estimates schedule for the week commencing 13 October and an agreed position has now been reached. This is the last opportunity for the House to implement that schedule before the Parliament rises for the winter recess. Therefore, the motion is urgent and should now proceed.

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

Motion agreed to.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:

That Private Member's Business item No. 130 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES

Budget Estimates 2008-2009: Portfolios and Hearing Dates

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.08 a.m.]: I move:

Day One: Monday 13 October 2008

Day Two: Tuesday 14 October 2008

Day Three: Wednesday 15 October 2008

Day Four: Thursday 16 October 2008

Day Five: Friday 17 October 2008

As honourable members are aware, the House has resolved that budget estimates hearings conducted by general purpose standing committees will be held during the week commencing 13 October this year. The House made that decision last December. The House also made decisions about which committees would meet on particular days and the times budget estimates hearings would take place—that is, between 9.15 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. The motion addresses all those constraints in outlining the budget estimates schedule proposed.

The Government has requested a change to the order of business for day two, Tuesday 14 October 2008, so that arrangements relating to Cabinet are not affected. The Leader of the House has made that request to the Opposition. There is now an agreed position and my colleague the Hon. Melinda Pavey will move an amendment to that effect shortly. I thank all members of the crossbench for the good faith in which they have entered these discussions and, in recent times, the Government. In particular, I thank the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox and the Hon. Melinda Pavey for their assistance. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [11.11 a.m.]: I move:

Day Two: Tuesday 14 October 2008

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

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT

Reference

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [11.12 a.m.]: In accordance with paragraph 6 (2) of the resolution establishing the standing committees, I inform the House that this day the Standing Committee on State Development resolved to inquire into the following terms of reference from the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Frank Sartor:

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.13 a.m.]: I move:

The motion is urgent because this is the last sitting day before the commencement of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games on 8 August 2008. The motion extends best wishes to both the Australian Olympic team and the Australian Paralympic team. This is the last opportunity we have to send that message.

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

Motion agreed to.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio agreed to:

BEIJING OLYMPIC GAMES

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.14 a.m.]: I move:

In support of the motion, I draw to the attention of honourable members that the main Olympic stadium and the swimming stadium for the Beijing Olympic Games are architecturally innovative projects. In light of the recent earthquake in China it is worthwhile noting that great care has been taken to ensure that these sporting facilities have been constructed in such a way as to be earthquake resistant. The Chinese Government should be commended for constructing such wonderful facilities. More importantly, I would like to wish the Australian Olympic team, especially the Australian Paralympic team, every success.

It is a pity that we do not concentrate enough on the Paralympic team and the Paralympics, which are held immediately after the Summer Olympics. The level of support and assistance often given to our Paralympic competitors is not as great as that given to members of the Australian Olympic team. It is for that reason that we should make special reference to the Australian Paralympics team. I am sure I can safely say that everybody in this House wishes both teams every success. I hope they come home victorious from the Beijing Olympics.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.16 a.m.]: I put on record my support for the motion that this House congratulates China on its preparations for the twenty-ninth Summer Olympic Games. I look forward to celebrating in China the world's greatest sporting event from 8 August 2008. I commend China on its construction of world-class and innovative sporting facilities in time for the Olympics. I wish the Australian Olympic team and the Australian Paralympic team a safe journey and every success at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. I thank the Hon. Amanda Fazio for moving the motion congratulating China on its preparations. These preparations have brought a number of benefits not only for Beijing and China but also for the region. At the end of the Sydney Olympic Games I had the great pleasure of accompanying former Premier Bob Carr to Beijing, where we offered to share our experience of the "Green Olympics" and China accepted our suggestions straightaway.

Improving the environment is one of the three concepts of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. The Chinese capital has made efforts to improve the quality of its environment. Last Monday half of the government's motor vehicles were kept off the roads, in line with the traffic ban issued by the Beijing Municipal Government. According to the Xinhua News Agency, the ban is among the most recent pre-Olympic efforts to ease the Chinese capital's traffic congestion and, more importantly, to improve air quality. Other traffic bans include an even-odd system based on license plate numbers that will keep equals off the road on alternate days between 20 July and 20 September. That means that Olympians, such as the Australians, can go to Beijing and enjoy a wonderful environment to allow fair competition.

Another issue of concern is that various communities in China, such as religious groups, get a fair go. The promotion of cultural understanding and harmony is a second benefit of the Chinese Olympic Games. The concept of the Beijing Olympics is that it is the "People's Olympics" and it aims to spread the Olympic spirit and share the culture of China's multicultural communities with the world. The Beijing Olympic Games on 8 to 24 August, followed by the Paralympics on 6 to 17 September, are expected to attract half a million foreign visitors. As the Hon. Amanda Fazio noted in her motion, the Olympic Games are the greatest sporting event in the world.

The Beijing Olympics represent an excellent opportunity to promote Chinese culture not only to foreign tourists but also to the rest of the world, with an expected worldwide television audience of four billion people. China is also opening its doors to a large number of international journalists, and those journalists will focus not only on the Olympic Games but also on the Chinese way of life. The theme for the Beijing Olympics—"One World One Dream"—reflects the universal values of the Olympic spirit. These Olympics are not just China's Olympic Games, they are the world's Olympic Games. They are about unity, friendship, progress, harmony and participation, and the dream of all young athletes to do the best they can. Despite differences in language and race, we all share the joy of the Olympic Games. We belong to the same world and we share the same aspirations.

The international community often talks about the transparency of the Chinese Government. As the Hon. Amanda Fazio said, China has allowed open tenders for international companies in relation to its Olympic facilities and other projects. Australian business and expertise have assisted in the preparation of the Games. Another benefit of Beijing hosting the Olympic Games is the city's expanding public transport network. China now has a great transport system. According to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme, Beijing has recently installed 16 kilometres of bus rapid transport lines, giving the system a total passenger capacity of 100,000 people per day. Two more bus rapid transport lines are under construction. Beijing is also expanding surface and underground rail lines, with four completed and four more to come, including the Olympic line that is currently under construction. The eight lines will have a capacity to carry nearly four million people per day. The organisers of the Beijing Games will offer free rides on public transport to spectators holding Olympic event tickets. That is most appropriate, given the soaring price of oil. The Games have motivated China to focus on public transport, rather than the manufacture of more cars.

As I said, another benefit of the Olympic Games is the increased openness and transparency of the Chinese Government. The Games, which are expected to bring thousands of foreign journalists to China, have been an important factor in the relaxation of reporting rules for foreign journalists. Even though the relaxed rules for foreign media are due to end in October 2008, some observers believe it will be difficult to reverse the trend of openness. Greater transparency is apparent in other areas as well. For example, the Beijing Government has included foreigners in a 12-member expert panel on air quality to ensure transparency in air quality monitoring and forecasting during the Olympics. Another good example of transparency has been the Chinese Government's openness in allowing foreign media and international organisations into the country in the aftermath of the Sichuan earthquake on 12 May. I would like to inform the House that two weeks ago the Chinese community hosted a fundraising event in Sydney's Chinatown, raising thousands of dollars for the Australian Olympians. Our hearts are one, we are all Australians, and we all want our Australian Olympians to win gold, gold, gold! I commend the Hon. Amanda Fazio for moving the motion, and I am pleased that the House supports it.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.24 a.m.]: I speak with concern to this motion. I am concerned that the motion, which contains four points, was placed on the Notice Paper a few days ago. The first three paragraphs of the motion state:

I separate those three paragraphs from the fourth paragraph. As to the fourth paragraph, the Greens and others in the community wish the Australian Olympic team and the Australian Paralympics team a safe journey and every success at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. I am concerned that the motion has been placed on the Notice Paper in a four-point form, yet the Hon. Amanda Fazio sent a note to members seeking support for the motion to be dealt with as formal business to wish the Australian Olympics team and Paralympics team every success at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. I acknowledge that this is the last sitting day, but the note stated that the motion wishes the Olympians every success. I certainly support that. The note does not say anything about the other points, such as congratulating China on its preparations.

There is a great deal of concern about the role of China in these Olympics. I am very concerned when I hear members talk in the House about the positive outcomes of the Olympics in terms of China's openness to the rest of the world. I am concerned when I hear that China is stopping car transport and industrial activities during the Olympics to create a clean air scenario. That does not take away from the fact that China has a massive pollution problem because of its rapid industrial development, which goes hand in hand with many human rights abuses that have occurred and are still occurring in China. Many people, including me, had hoped that the Olympics would bring a new spirit of transparency and openness towards the West.

But we have seen the farce of the Olympic torch being paraded around the world, despite protests everywhere except in Tibet, where the Chinese authorities imposed a lockdown and shortened the route so that people did not have an opportunity for dissent. That is a clearer message that nothing has changed in the People's Republic of China, despite the supposed openness in the upcoming Olympics. We saw the Tibetan riots and the cruelty shown to the people involved. Those people have legitimate concerns they want to express. Any democratic society would allow them to do so. It is clear from the crackdown by the Chinese authorities that they were not allowed to do so. There were bloody riots in Tibet and a massive crackdown, but very little has been said by politicians of the major political parties. They do not want to rock the boat because of our economic dependence on trade with China. We all acknowledge that fact, but serious human rights issues are occurring in China.

I had the pleasure and honour of hosting a representative of the Uighur Muslim minorities in north-west China—an area where China has much of its atomic activities and nuclear power plants. Rebiya Kadeer came to Australia to talk about issues involving the Chinese central government. This wealthy and successful businesswoman has been jailed and her children and family have suffered a great deal because of her activism representing her people. She told us harrowing stories, particularly of young women being taken from their area and sent to Shanghai to be sold in prostitution. These are the sorts of things that are occurring to minorities in China. We have heard about the suffering of Christian minorities in China, who have to practise their religion in secrecy. Christian practices are unacceptable in China, except for limited activities.

This situation is abominable. In Taiwan—an area that China does not recognise as being a separate State—some 23 million people are living in fear of being taken over by the People's Republic of China, and there are many other issues. People who practise Falun Gong have been incarcerated and tortured. How many people are in the gulag of China—even in this day and age—while the supine governments of the West, including the New South Wales Government and the Australian Government, who are so keen to do business with China, ignore significant human rights abuses that have occurred under the centralised Chinese Government. Massive atrocities are being perpetrated against the terribly impoverished people of Chinese client States, such as Burma. Burmese and Chinese authorities were slow to react to the disastrous tsunami that hit recently and as a result people are suffering terribly. The authorities have made it difficult for people to deliver appropriate relief to the people of Burma. This is another human atrocity perpetrated by a very powerful centralised government in China. Yet, the motion seeks to support China!

Let us not forget Darfur and the role that China plays in stopping the international community from giving constructive assistance to those who are in great need of support. Whatever one thinks of the religious activities of the Tibetan representative, the Dalai Lama, he is held in very high regard in the West and has a vast following from within his own people. He advocates peace and non-violence as a way forward. I know a number of members visited him when he was last in Sydney. He is a man of peace and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Prior to the Dalai Lama coming to our country to visit our State I got a letter from the Consulate-General of the People's Republic of China regarding his visit to Australia—I know other members did as well.

The Consulate-General made a great effort to convince members of Parliament not to meet with this man of peace; not to meet with the leader of a people of this planet; not to meet with a person whose religious conviction quite clearly and continually says that he wants a peaceful resolution to the problems that face his people, his society, that is now being overtaken by China. The letter from the Consulate-General claims that the Dalai Lama's "middle way", which is a Buddhist concept, "is just a scheme from the British colonialists early last century in their notorious plan to carve up China". The letter further states:

That comment is just so far removed from the Dalai Lama's approach to trying to find a peaceful resolution to the situation. The letter continues:

These are the things that representatives of the People's Republic of China are saying to members of Parliament. The diplomacy portrayed by the Chinese Government in its letter is very clumsy. It seems as though the Chinese people do not have the ability to understand the nuances of diplomacy. They have somehow lost their great history of diplomacy and wonderful tradition of philosophy in the years since the Communist Government takeover—the Cultural Revolution. But they know all about strength, they know all about power, and they know all about overtaking people. The letter further states:

But the Central Government is refusing, at this point, to meet with him before the Olympics. The final paragraph of the letter states:

They are kindly advising me, as I am sure they kindly advised other members of this House—

That letter was not signed by anyone, but obviously it came from the Chinese Government—that is its way—via the Consulate-General of the People's Republic of China in Sydney. A great part of the motion moved today by the Hon. Amanda Fazio is inappropriate. Certainly I support the Australian team having great success, and in particular the Australian Paralympic team. I support their having a safe journey and every success at the 2008 Olympics, but I am heartily sickened by the attitude of the New South Wales Government and its supine relationship with this emerging Chinese economic superpower that has left democracy far behind. In fact, it does not seem to be moving in that direction at all, despite the fact that it has been given an ideal opportunity: to host the Olympic Games. So far, all we have seen is further repression of minorities. I oppose the motion.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [11.36 a.m.]: I support the motion of the Hon. Amanda Fazio that this House:

I have just listened to the concerns of Mr Ian Cohen. However, I do not believe that this motion reflects his concerns. China is one of the great nations of the world and a very complex one. I believe that one of the great fears is the fear of the unknown. If we do not know each other we are more likely to see each rather than seek to understand each other: why nations operate in a certain way and why people from different cultures think in a different way. One of the great bridges of understanding is sport. In days past we tried to impose our wills on other nations, or nations have tried to impose their wills on others, through politics or through the extension of politics—war—at the cost of millions of lives. I hope that sport is the battlefield of the future where the best and the finest can get together in an atmosphere of peace.

Dr John Kaye: Did you support a boycott of the Moscow Games?

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: No, I did not. China is a big nation. It is an essential part of the global village. It has a great role to play, one it has played for generations. I never learnt much about China when I was growing up and going to a small country school. But when I lived in Singapore for a couple of years I befriended a fellow by the name of George Nah. One day he explained to me that when the Chinese settle in a country, they are already thinking three or four generations ahead. They are thinking about what they can build and their descendants. They are not thinking about sending all their assets back to China and then going back there to live and retire. They settle in a country, such as ours, and make it their home. They were the great global pioneers centuries ago. I have walked tracks in Papua New Guinea for days and come to villages where I have had the feeling that surely I was the first white man to visit. Invariably I look around and see a small hut that belongs to a Chinese trader who has been there for generations and who is part of that community. They are part of this nation and they are part of what has made ours the great nation it is today.

Christine Wang, a former employee of mine, who, to my regret, is now an employee of the Hon. Ian Macdonald—that was his gain and my loss—came to Australia thinking generations ahead for her son Guang, whom the Hon. Ian Macdonald also knows well. We have watched that young fellow grow. Christine focused on Guang's education; it was everything. He is a classical pianist and a cricketer. A couple of years ago he was the runner-up in the New South Wales spelling competition. He said he could have won, but he had a lapse of concentration when dealing with one word that had more letters in it than the alphabet—a word I have never heard. He was wrong on one letter. Despite that, his career path will lead him to Oxford and he will reach the top of whatever profession he chooses to enter. So talented is this young man that he was identified by talent scouts to act in a great film that I understand is screening in Sydney now. The latest issue of Film Ink contains a review of the film that states:

Children of the Silk Road

The Hon. Ian Macdonald—probably prodded by the Hon. Henry Tsang—was smart enough to head hunt Christine Wang from me. She is now working for New South Wales to attract business from China. She is doing an outstanding job, and will continue to do so. I congratulate the Minister on that. As I said, his gain is my loss, but this State is benefiting. I know from when Christine worked for me that she had an academic career planned for Guang, and the fact that he has now moved into the arts and acting is causing some concern.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: He has just made a second movie.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Right. As I said, this young man will rise to the top of whatever profession he enters. People like Christine Wang, Guang Li and the Hon. Henry Tsang come to this country and become part of our culture. They are our global ambassadors. They are Australian, but they should never forget and should always maintain their Chinese heritage. It is important that all migrants maintain their traditions, culture and language. Their contribution is what makes ours the great nation it is today. We seek to understand how others think through our daily conversations with these great people.

Everyone acknowledges the difficulties involved in governing a nation as large as China. It is a communist country coming to terms with being a great power in a free-enterprise world. The required transition in thinking will take generations. However, it will not be helped if we pick on small issues, and knock and criticise. Of course we should identify those issues and engage in dialogue, but that communication will also emerge in the sporting and arts arenas.

Mr Ian Cohen: That does not take away from the human rights issues.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I agree, but the focus in this debate is on the good things, and in this case it is the Olympic Games. The Chinese Government has made an enormous effort to showcase China, just as we showcased Sydney in 2000. People will visit China and begin to understand. One of the great proverbs states: "Seek to understand before being understood."

Sport is a celebration of human excellence. I hope that sports fields are the battlefields of the future; that is where we should settle our differences, compete against each other and establish great dialogue. Our young Olympians and Paralympians will be our ambassadors in August. They will share the heritage of all nations, but they are going to China to represent Australia and they will do us proud. This is a great motion and the Opposition fully supports it.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.46 a.m.]: I support the motion despite the criticism it has attracted. The motion states:

The Greens have said that they oppose the motion, and I assume that they will vote against it. It is a pity that all members cannot support it because it is fair and reasonable. My prayer is that the preparation for the Games and the Games themselves will be a further step towards China's becoming a more democratic nation. Some remarkable changes have already occurred in China, and they are primarily the result of the prosperity that has followed the growth of capitalism in that country. The Olympic Games will assist that process, which is why we should not do anything to undermine them or to hinder their success.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [11.48 a.m.]: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile was clear and his is the perspective that guides me and the New South Wales Government in our approach to this State's relationship with China. That perspective is echoed in the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Charlie Lynn.

Some of the things that Mr Ian Cohen said today are well and truly over the top. I guess that is characteristic of his approach to these issues. The New South Wales Government is not supine in relation to China. It believes in enhancing the relationship and concentrating on the things that bring us together rather than the things that divide us. The human rights issues will take time to work out. China has a population of at least 1.2 billion: it is an enormous country and it has many deep-seated problems. In the 1500s and 1600s it was the most powerful and advanced country in the world, but it sank to being the most backward within a few generations. It suffered under the domination of the Mongols in the 1200s and later the Manchurians. The Tibetans, the Kitans and other groups on China's western borders have invaded it.

Cults in China, such as the white turbans, the Lotus groups, the groups in the Boxer Rebellion and the Taipan Rebellion, in which an estimated 20 million people were killed, have a history of tumultuous uprisings. China has a history of violent revolts and uprisings. It is not surprising that the primary focus of concern for both imperial governments for approximately 2,000 years and the current government has been how to run such a large country with so many difficulties—the standard of living, poverty and health services. It defies imagination that Mr Ian Cohen would come into this place and think he was being positive by trying to wipe out that history.

Mr Ian Cohen referred to Tibet and Taiwan, which were incorporated into China in 1751 during the Ming dynasty and have been a part of China ever since. That fact was acknowledged in 1949. When the Kuomintang escaped to Taiwan it did not try to establish a separate State. It said Taiwan was part of China, and the Kuomintang believed they were the rulers of China. They sat in the United Nations for a number of years with American and European support as the Republic of China and the Government of many parts of China. It is very negative and dangerous to make glib analyses of centuries of Chinese history and centuries of Chinese thought.

We have to work with China on its economy, social interaction and cultural interaction. We also have to put our views on progress towards a more free and open society. When I started going to China—I was very fortunate, I went as a student 32 years ago—it was a society characterised by widespread poverty. You could not move around China without encountering massive endemic poverty. In the past couple of decades, through China's gradual opening up of its economy and society—its opening up to the world—the conditions of hundreds of millions of people have changed massively; in the shortest time in history their level of poverty has reduced greatly. Progress has been made on a range of other issues, including institutional change. I believe that through positive interaction with China further changes will occur. The concerns expressed by a number of people must be addressed.

I support this motion. I believe the Olympic Games is a terrific opportunity for people to go to China, to relate to China and to see how this powerhouse of 1.3 billion people is progressing, and how we can, over time and through further interaction, discuss with them some of the issues and attitudes within China that concern people. But change must be incremental. It cannot be a revolutionary change. It cannot be a change that challenges the stability of China dramatically. Anything along those lines will lead to chaos within China and will send China back to the society it had in the 1840s, the 1850s and the 1860s, after the decline of its imperial dynasties.

[Interruption]

Mr Ian Cohen has no idea of the history of China. For him to make these types of allegations shows he has no idea or understanding of the Chinese people. We should encourage further globalisation within the Chinese people.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.54 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who spoke in support of this motion. However, I take particular exception to the comments made by Mr Ian Cohen. To get a lecture from Mr Ian Cohen on the nuances of diplomacy is pretty rich, given his sledgehammer-like approach to anything that does not conform to his simplistic way of thinking. His anti-Chinese diatribe was predictable, because he has such a one-eyed and one-sided view about the Chinese and Tibetan situation. As the Hon. Ian Macdonald stated, this is a complex situation, and having a simple, one-sided view, and refusing to accept that other people have alternative views, is typical of the narrow-minded and arrogant view taken by Mr Ian Cohen. He spoke at length about the Dalai Lama being a religious leader. As I have said in this House before: yes, the Dalai Lama is a religious leader. He is also the leader of the Tibetan Government in exile. He wears two hats, and that is why it is misleading for Mr Ian Cohen to praise all his actions on the basis of his being simply a religious leader.

Mr Ian Cohen claimed that I misled members by asking to have the motion dealt with as formal business today. What I put in that email was quite simple. I stated that I wanted the motion dealt with today because this is the last sitting day before the Beijing Olympics. It is the last chance for this House to express best wishes to the Australian Olympic team and the Paralympic team. At no point did I attempt to say that was the entire motion. Mr Ian Cohen can carry on all he likes. He is wrong on this issue. I did not attempt to mislead anybody. My intention was to make sure that we could extend our congratulations to the Australian participants in the Summer Olympics and the Paralympics in Beijing today because it is the last opportunity we will get to do so.

It would be remiss of me not to mention that among our Olympic and Paralympic teams are shooters. Our record of winning medals in shooting at the Olympics is very good. But we would not have a shooting team at the Summer Olympics or the Paralympics if the Greens had their way and banned recreational shooting. That shows once again why they are completely out of touch when it comes to these issues. I thank the Hon. Henry Tsang, the Hon. Charlie Lynn, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Ian Macdonald for their contributions. I urge members to ignore the comments of Mr Ian Cohen. I hope we will carry this motion today to provide support to the Australian participants at the Summer Olympics and the Paralympics in Beijing.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 34

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

Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Macdonald
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Ms Robertson

Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr Smith
Mr Tsang
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Noes, 4

Ms Hale
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Dr Kaye

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
__________

HUNTER BULGA METHANE GAS EXPLORATORY PROJECT

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development. Is the Minister aware of concerns of the Hunter-Bulga Gas Action Group in relation to the proposal by Sydney Gas Ltd for the Hunter-Bulga Methane Gas Exploratory project? Is the Minister aware this action group has expressed concerns about the failure of Sydney Gas to consult with local communities? Why has the department failed to respond when these concerns were raised with them? Is the Minister aware that approval was given in early May for five core holes to be drilled without a meeting of the Bulga Coal Bed Methane Exploration Community Consultative Community being held since, and the next meeting is not scheduled until late next month? What action is the department taking to ensure that local communities are consulted in relation to this project?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question. I think that is the first I have ever received from him, and that is pretty good.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It won't be the last.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is good. In relation to this particular exploration effort by Sydney Gas, I have had both representations and a number of meetings with community groups. In fact, Mr David Clarke, former chairman of Macquarie Bank, who was a member of the community group, has been to see me.

[Interruption]

No, not the Hon. David Clarke; David Clarke from the Macquarie Bank, the powerful one—more powerful than the other Mr Clarke I have met. Mr Clarke and some community members have been to see me. In response to that, I have put some proposals about the consultative committee. I am unaware of the proposal for five core holes to be drilled without a meeting of the consultative committee.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It looks like you are not being told everything that is happening within your staff or they are not responding.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not think I am required to know every piece of information that occurs across this grand State. We have set up the process in relation to this. We are very aware of these types of community campaigns, following Yarramalong Valley and the difficulties experienced there by the former Sydney Gas Company. A process is in place. I will see what has actually happened and the Leader of the Opposition can tell Mr Clarke—not the Hon. David Clarke, the other Mr Clarke—and members of the community that I am happy to meet with them on any occasion, as I have in the past.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION INITIATIVES

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on the Government's initiatives to prevent unlawful discrimination?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Last year marked the thirtieth anniversary of the introduction of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act. Since 1977 the Act has played a key role in supporting, maintaining and expanding the most fundamental of Australian values: fairness, equality, and the right to a fair go. When the Act first commenced, New South Wales was one of the first jurisdictions in Australia to enact comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. At that time the Act was groundbreaking in making it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their sex, their race, or their marital status.

Since then, the Anti-Discrimination Board has played a key role in advocating, enforcing and educating the public about these provisions. In fact, in 30 years of operation, the board has investigated and settled an average of 1,000 cases every year. It has also provided educative services to an average of 8,000 people every year in workplaces and in the community. However, after 30 years the New South Wales anti-discrimination complaints system is in need of reform. In particular, there is a need to reduce red tape and complexity for individuals and businesses making or responding to a complaint of discrimination.

As I outlined to the House earlier this year, anti-discrimination is one of the few areas in which both State and Federal laws apply simultaneously. There are a number of inconsistencies between the two systems, and that causes confusion and encourages forum shopping. To help address this issue I have proposed through the Standing Committee of Attorneys General that all States and Territories and the Commonwealth move towards the harmonisation of anti-discrimination laws. A working group has now been formed to get the initiative started. However, in the mean time, the Government will get on with the job of promoting consistency within its own laws.

One of the key inconsistencies in the New South Wales system is the relatively low cap on damages that can be awarded by the Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The damages cap in New South Wales is below that of most other jurisdictions in Australia. As such, the Government has determined that it will increase the cap on damages for discrimination matters to $100,000. The increase will allow the tribunal to make compensation awards that reflect the seriousness of the consequences of unlawful discrimination. The proposed change will also mean that the tribunal can make compensation awards that are more with those of other Australian jurisdictions.

The Law Reform Commission recommended the cap increase in its review of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act. The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board and members of the tribunal have also recommended the change, as have stakeholders, including the President of the New South Wales Bar Association and the President of the Law Society of New South Wales, both of whom have been consulted on the cap increase. All stakeholders consulted have thus far supported the change.

For 30 years New South Wales has led the way in implementing a fair and balanced system for resolving complaints of unlawful discrimination. Throughout this time, the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act and the Anti-Discrimination Board have played key roles in protecting the right of people to live their lives free from prejudice and bigotry. By increasing the cap in damages available to individuals who have been unlawfully discriminated against, the Government is demonstrating its strong commitment to promoting consistency in the State's anti-discrimination complaints system and guaranteeing the right of all people in this State to a fair go.

ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Given the problems the Minister has had this week with chaos on our roads and a lack of coordinated plans, is the leaking to the media of the carpeting of poor Les Wielinga just another attempt to shift the blame away from the Minister and the Premier? Why is the Minister trying to change the message, rather than taking responsibility?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Sydney road network is a challenging road network. Sydney is Australia's only global city—

[Interruption]

Opposition members ask questions but they never want to listen to the answers. It has been a challenging week. For example, in relation to the M5 East Tunnel we had a catastrophic computer server crash. We have a fail-safe system that should have kicked in, but that also crashed. We built a new temporary server and the new server was installed into the tunnel after midnight last night. I am advised that the traffic is now flowing well on the M5 East. We have had a number of other challenges this week. For example, earlier in the week a 32-tonne crane fell off the back of a truck on Southern Cross Drive and it took some time for it to be removed. It is a challenge to remove a 32-tonne crane from any place on the road network. In another incident, a truck carrying fruit overturned on the Pacific Highway, and that had to be cleared.

Let me assure the House that I have absolutely every confidence in Les Wielinga as the Chief Executive Officer of the Roads and Traffic Authority. He is a dedicated man who takes his service to the people of New South Wales very seriously. I have every confidence in Les and his team. That is why we have commissioned an audit of the most important parts of the Sydney road network, to check all the systems. Clearly, when we have a failure of a computer server the backup server should kick in, but it did not. It is appropriate that we have professionals independently assess the computer server crash and the reason the temporary server did not kick in. At the same time, it is appropriate to reassure the motorists of this State that we have the systems in place on the other tunnels and bridges to ensure that in future when we have technical and mechanical problems they are addressed and temporary systems will kick in. We are a global city—

[Interruption]

For the benefit of members opposite—if they will stop barking for a moment—each year around 45,000 accidents occur in New South Wales, so there are always accidents on the network. What is critical is that the accidents are dealt with in a professional manner and cleared as quickly as possible. We know that the peak hours are getting longer and that people are commuting further. That is why we have a record roads budget for New South Wales of $4 billion and a record public transport budget of $5.9 billion. This funding will address the challenges of the road network and at the same time improve public transport. We have a $100 million pinch point program that identifies choke points on the network and fixes them. We also have a $100 million bus priority strategy, which is improving bus commuting times right around the network. We are committed to both improving the road network and improving public transport, and that is the way forward in keeping Sydney moving.

LENNOX HEAD RIP CURL INTERNATIONAL SURFING EVENT

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands. Is the Minister aware of local public disquiet over a proposed international surfing contest at Lennox Head? Have the Minister or the Department of Lands entered into discussions with the Marine Park Authority, the Cape Byron Marine Park Advisory Committee or professional surfing organisations about the proposed Rip Curl International Surfing Competition at Lennox Head? If the department or the Minister has had such discussions, what was the content of them and was the issue of the potential impacts on the sanctuary zone of the Cape Byron Marine Park canvassed? Can the Minister guarantee that specific measures will be adopted to ensure that any international surfing contest at Lennox National Surfing Reserve adheres to the principle of "share, respect and preserve the reserve"?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Earlier this year I announced the declaration of the Lennox National Surfing Reserve, on the North Coast of New South Wales. The reserve covers some 400 hectares and stretches from Flat Rock to Lennox Point. I am aware that Rip Curl may be interested in conducting one of its famous international surfing events at Lennox. Such events are held over three days using the best surfing conditions within a two-week period. Events of this nature cost between $1 million and $2 million to stage, and can realise between $3 million and $10 million for the local economy.

No formal approach has been made as yet. However, given the obvious benefits, any approach that is made will be seriously considered by the Department of Lands. The event would require development consent from Ballina Shire Council, and a licence to use and occupy the affected Crown land. Any approval will be conditional on the proponent managing the licensed area in the best interests of the community, minimising environmental impacts and restoring the site to the condition that previously existed.

TREASURY STAFF SALARIES

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is he aware that whilst Treasury's staff numbers are forecast to rise from 1,470 in 2007-08 to 1,492 in 2008-09, a minuscule increase, employee costs are forecast to rise from $119.3 million to $132.7 million, an increase of 11.18 per cent? Is the Treasurer breaching the 2.5 per cent wage increase rule he is applying elsewhere? If not, where are the balancing savings?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Government is not breaching the Government's wages policy.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Where are the savings?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The two things are not related.

NEW SOUTH WALES COMPETITIVENESS REPORT 2008

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Minister for State Development. Will the Minister inform the House about the New South Wales Competitiveness Report 2008?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: We all know that the New South Wales economy is dynamic and competitive but honourable members should also be aware that our economy is the largest and most diverse in Australia, with strengths in the knowledge-based business services and creative industries; that New South Wales attracts the highest levels of business investment of all the States, amounting to $39 billion or 25 per cent of the nation's business investment; and that in 2006-07, New South Wales exported goods and services worth $47 billion or 7 per cent more in current price terms than the previous year.

These facts, and many more, are contained in the New South Wales Competitiveness Report 2008, which is a publication produced by the Department of State and Regional Development. The report provides valuable information on Sydney and New South Wales. It brings together economic, trade and other data from a range of respected Australian and international sources to compare business locations within Australia, the Asia Pacific, North America and Europe. The report aims to attract new business, investment and skilled workers to our shores, to help drive the New South Wales economy and create more high quality jobs. It identifies the strengths that make Sydney and New South Wales a leading choice for business investment, and is used as a resource to attract investment, both locally and internationally.

The Competitiveness Report focuses on five key areas of the New South Wales economy: the economic and business climate; quality of life; people, skills and education; trade and investment; and infrastructure and business costs. I will now give just a couple of examples of the key strengths of New South Wales in each of these areas. In terms of the economic and business climate, New South Wales is the largest State economy in Australia, surpassing many national economies in the Asia Pacific, including all of those in South-East Asia with the exception of Indonesia. Sydney is Australia's finance and business hub, with the State accounting for over 40 per cent of national gross domestic product in the finance, property and business services industries.

In terms of quality of life, Sydney has got it all. It is a truly global city that boasts an enviable lifestyle. Sydney has maintained its status as the number one city rated by travellers, and as having the strongest city "brand" in the world, according to the 2007 Anhalt City Brands Index. In terms of people, skills and education, Sydney and New South Wales are among the most culturally diverse locations in the world. More than 1.3 million New South Wales residents spoke a language other than English at home in 2006, most of these people living in Sydney. In fact, almost a third of people living in Sydney speak a non-English language at home. Our workforce is highly educated, with almost 55 per cent of the New South Wales working-age population holding a tertiary qualification—the highest proportion among Australian States.

In terms of trade and investment, our exports of goods and services rose almost 7 per cent to $47 billion in 2006-07. The largest export sector in New South Wales was services, which accounted for more than 40 per cent of total exports. Mining is Australia's largest industry for exports, comprising over a third of the national total, and one fifth of the exports of New South Wales. In terms of infrastructure and business costs, capital values for prime industrial property in Sydney are among the most competitive in the Asia Pacific.

Despite the strong appreciation of the Australian dollar, prospective owner-occupiers can purchase prime floor space at significantly lower prices in Sydney's industrial market, than in major business centres such as Tokyo. Industrial property in Sydney is available across all categories, including prime grade properties, high technology parks and distribution centres, with most located to take full advantage of transport infrastructure. As you can see by this brief snapshot, the New South Wales Competitiveness Report 2008 is a wealth of valuable information to help sell our strengths to national and international markets. The report is available on the Department of State and Regional Development's website, where it is regularly updated. I encourage members to take a look at this valuable document.

M5 EAST FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Yesterday the Minister said that the M5 East Tunnel fire protection and air circulation systems are computer dependent and that computer failure, including the failure of the backup server, led to the closure of that tunnel. Are the safety systems completely computer dependent? Is there no manual mechanical fire safety system that can be activated in the case of fire? If electricity supplied to the tunnel were interrupted for any length of time, would this make it possible to activate fire safety measures such as sprinklers or rapid deluge systems?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: All road tunnels in New South Wales have extensive safety systems in place. It is important to explain to members of the House that these systems are all interconnected. When we talk about fire protection systems, particularly in the M5 East Tunnel, a number of different systems are in place. There are systems that identify heat and smoke, there is a deluge system that can be both manually and automatically automated, and there are CCTV cameras. All those systems work together. In the event of a fire, or detection of heat or smoke, automatic systems come into place, which are supervised by the operators in the control room via CCTV cameras, and they can activate any length of deluge within a tunnel. The issue of the deluge systems in our tunnel is very important. Anyone who knows the history of road tunnels—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We sure do.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No. Look at the burning incident in Victoria and the recent incident in the United States where they had fires in tunnels. Temperatures in tunnel fires can get up to over 1,000 Celsius if the fire protection is not activated immediately. That is why they have both automatic and manual systems in place. If the operators identify a fire in the tunnel they can activate the deluge. They will often activate it even if they believe they have seen smoke.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Why don't you have an emergency breakdown lane?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: That is why we have these complicated systems in place. Clearly if there is a loss of power to the tunnel, processes kick into place to immediately close the tunnel and evacuate those people who are in it.

GREATER WESTERN SYDNEY ECONOMIC GROWTH

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Development. Minister, how is the New South Wales Government supporting economic growth in Western Sydney?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The New South Wales Government is keen to support economic growth in Greater Western Sydney. The region makes a significant contribution to the State's economy. With an estimated economic output of $71 billion in 2004-05, Western Sydney is the largest manufacturing base in Australia. If an item carries the tag "Australian made" then the chances are that it is made in Western Sydney.

The manufacturing, property and business services, and finance and insurance industries, also contribute significantly to the Greater Western Sydney economy. Other growing industries include advanced manufacturing, information and communication technology, biotechnology, business services and retail trade. With such an important role in driving the State's economy, and so many opportunities for businesses to grow and expand, the development of effective economic profiling for the region is vital.

The New South Wales Government is providing $10,500 to the Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board to help fund the development of the publication of the 2008 economic profile for the region. The profile will provide a comprehensive analysis of the economic and business conditions in the region. It will also include the economic and demographic profile of the region and its 14 local government areas. This will help businesses to make sound investment decisions about expanding in or relocating to Greater Western Sydney.

I would also like to advise the House of the new appointments to the Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board. The board plays an important role in supporting the economic development of the region and gaining commitment for local and regional initiatives. The new appointments are: Mr David Puckeridge, Ms Yvonne Howie, Ms Susan Hartigan, Ms Pamela Smith, Mr Alan Pendleton, Mr Frank Oliveri and Ms Meg Oates. Those new appointees will join current board members Mr Paul Ogilvy and Professor Chung Tong Wu on the Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board.

In Greater Western Sydney, the New South Wales Government also helps eligible businesses through its payroll tax incentive scheme. The scheme is a key element of the Government's approach to assisting established firms in specific locations, by providing a payroll tax rebate for genuine increased employment or wages growth. To date, 27 companies in greater Western Sydney have been accepted into the scheme, representing company investment of $30 million and the creation of more than 230 jobs over five years. The Iemma Government understands the value of greater Western Sydney to the New South Wales economy. That is why the Iemma Government is committed to supporting the business entrepreneurs of Western Sydney. This will help drive jobs and investment for the prosperity of those living in Western Sydney.

As I am speaking about the economy, on behalf of the Catholic community of Australia I thank Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Greens for promoting World Youth Day. Their promotion will greatly assist in making World Youth Day a fantastic event and a great success. On behalf of the Catholic Church, to show our appreciation for the promotion, I present each of the Greens with a World Youth Day cap.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: I draw attention to Standing Order 91, which stipulates that all imputations or improper motives and all personal reflections are disorderly. That standing order would relate to stunts, particularly one that shows the Government still fails to recognise the community's growing unease with the level of public money being directed to World Youth Day.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order, but do not require the member to return the cap.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY PRIVATISATION

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Is the credit ratings agency Standard and Poor's simply wrong to claim that the sub-prime driven credit squeeze and uncertainty over greenhouse policy is constraining what bidders can pay for assets in the New South Wales electricity privatisation? Is the banking source quoted in today's Australian Financial Review as saying, "You couldn't pick a worse time to sell it"—"it" being the electricity industry—simply wrong, or does the Treasurer know more than the banking industry?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I agree with the last component; I probably do know more about some of these things than the banking industry does. I remind the member that there are different types of banks. There is a savings bank, with tellers. Dr John Kaye has probably been getting his advice from the automatic teller machine! There are investment bankers, quite a number of whom the Government has on the payroll to advise us on these issues. Indeed, a Greens notice of motion seeks information about their remuneration. The Government is taking professional advice on these issues, and that professional advice is very clear.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Bucketloads of advice.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Many former Liberal Ministers and Liberal Premiers have gone off to work for investment banks.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Do you mean Bob Carr?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I mean Nick Greiner. The Government takes professional advice on these issues. Current market conditions are difficult. As has been said on many occasions, there are unique aspects to the national electricity market that require those who have an exposure in one sector of the market to look at their position within the New South Wales market as we go forward. That mitigates against the other pressures in the marketplace. As to speculation about values, I have seen a lot of uninformed speculation—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Your own last December was uninformed when you said you had seen figures in excess of $15 billion.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes, I said I had seen figures in excess of $15 billion. They were in the Australian Financial Review. I was asked if I had seen other figures, and I said that I had seen other figures. I said all along that the advice we had was net $10 billion. That was the advice. There were certainly figures around of $15 billion. Dr John Kaye has quoted one such figure—$15 billion. I certainly did see figures.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: The Treasurer is misleading the House. I have never quoted a figure of $15 billion—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will resume his seat. That is a debating point, not a point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Dr John Kaye obviously did not read in full today's article in the Australian Financial Review, because the banker he quotes used that $15 billion figure. The Government's position has been consistent. We have said $10 billion all along. That is based on the Owen inquiry. Certainly there has been market speculation of higher figures. There is no doubt about that.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have been speculating higher figures.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Find the document in which I said it would be worth more than that.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Look for support from your backbench.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not need to find support from the backbench. I need the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to find where I said $15 billion. I said I saw figures of $15 billion but I never said the Government said $15 billion. The Opposition obviously does not understand the distinction. Professor Owen has said $10 billion all along. There has been market speculation of $15 billion but it has never been the Government's assumption that there would be $15 billion proceeds. That distortion has been put by the Opposition as it has tried to undermine the Government's sale process. The Opposition is confused. The Nationals stand on this is interesting. Half of them do not want to support it and the other half are confused and want to support it. The Liberal Party has a different position altogether. If there is anyone who is confused about this, it is the Opposition. That is why it has taken them so long— [Time expired.]

BEECHWOOD HOMES

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Minister for Commerce, and Acting Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware that hundreds of Beechwood Homes contractors were left millions of dollars out of pocket after the Beechwood demise on 14 May 2008? What steps is the Minister and his department taking to ensure the rights of contractors, who are unsecured creditors, are protected during the sales process? Given that the mistake by the Office of Fair Trading in renewing Larry King's building licence has directly contributed to their losses, what action is the Minister taking to ensure that the New South Wales Government accepts liability for its mistakes and compensation is paid to these contractors?

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: As an experienced member of the House the Hon. Catherine Cusack would be familiar with Standing Order 65 (1) (b), which states that questions are not to contain argument. Her question clearly contained argument, and I ask that it be ruled out of order.

The Hon. Don Harwin: To the point of order: It could not be said at all the question contained argument. It was clearly based on facts.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As I have made clear on a number of occasions, if I applied Standing Order 65 (1) strictly, about 50 per cent of all questions would be ruled out of order, including a number of questions asked by Government members. Accordingly I allow, as have previous Presidents, the maximum latitude with regard to the form of questions, and I allow this question to be asked on that basis. However, I urge members to make themselves as familiar as the Government Whip obviously is with Standing Order 65 (1) and precedent to assist them in the formulation of their questions.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I will refer the question to the Minister for an appropriate response.

ROAD RULES

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Will the Minister update the House on the new road rules being introduced on 1 July?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for his question and interest in this important matter. I am pleased to remind members of the important changes to the New South Wales road rules that will be introduced on 1 July to bring the State's rules in line with national rules. There are changes to 33 existing rules and seven new rules, and they all come into effect on 1 July. Most of the changes tighten up existing rules to make them clearer for people to understand. I will outline some of the changes. To protect pedestrians and improve road safety it will now be illegal to enter a children's crossing, marked foot crossing or pedestrian crossing while the road beyond the crossing is blocked. The offence carries a penalty of two demerit points, or three demerit points in a school zone, and a $189 fine, or $243 in a school zone.

In relation to the age of motorbike passengers, any passenger on a motorbike must be eight years or older. Children under eight can be carried in the sidecar of a motorbike but only if they are safely seated and wearing an approved helmet. The penalty for breaching that provision will be three demerit points and a $243 fine. Driving with a person or animal in your lap will now carry a penalty of three demerit points, or four in a school zone, and a $324 fine, or $405 in a school zone. The rule also covers motorcyclists, who will not be allowed to ride with an animal on their fuel tank unless they are travelling less than 500 metres for farming purposes. Mobility Parking Permit holders will now be able to stop for up to five minutes—it was previously two minutes—to pick up or set down passengers in a no parking zone. All other drivers can remain for two minutes only. The penalty for exceeding that time limit is an $81 fine, or $135 in a school zone, and two demerit points.

These changes make it clear that stupid and reckless behaviour on our roads is unacceptable. Driving with a pet on your lap is just plain silly and puts your life at risk, the lives of your passengers at risk as well as the lives of people around you. The proposal to make the law clearer was raised by police because they had observed more and more people travelling with animals and people on their laps or in front of them on a motorbike, whereby drivers did not have proper control of their vehicle and their view of the vehicle's instruments, such as the speedometer, was obstructed.

These changes have been agreed to nationally to improve road safety and to make it easier for people when travelling interstate. It means the same road rules will apply from State to State, and that will make them easier for people to follow and understand. The changes have already been introduced in a number of other States and their introduction in New South Wales will ensure that motorists and other road users in this State have the same level of certainty and protection as other motorists in Australia.

The Roads and Traffic Authority has been running a community education campaign to inform people about the changes, which include metro and regional advertising, inserts in registration renewal letters, and messages on Roads and Traffic Authority electronic signs in key locations across New South Wales and on the website of the Roads and Traffic Authority. For those members who are interested, the full set of amended New South Wales road rules is available online via the Roads and Traffic Authority's website at www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadrules.

DR ANOOP RASTOGI AND COSMETIC SURGERY REGULATION

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: My question is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Fair Trading. Is the Minister aware that the welfare and safety of women and girls are being placed at risk by the lack of stricter government regulation with regard to cosmetic surgery, an industry prevalent with serious dangers and abuses of many kinds? Is the Minister aware of the false and misleading promotional activities of Sydney-based self-styled cosmetic surgeon Dr Anoop Rastogi, who is known for his strong Internet presence and television appearances on Mornings with Kerri-Anne? In particular, is the Minister aware that Dr Rastogi is not a plastic surgeon and has no Australian Medical Council accredited qualification above general practitioner status, whereas plastic surgeons have to undertake eight years of postgraduate surgical training and be a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons? Can the Minister indicate what measures will be implemented to ensure the welfare and safety of patients who go under the knife— [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This is not a question that should be directed to the Minister for Fair Trading, but rather to the Minister for Health, whom I also represent. I recall this issue being raised when I was Minister for Health and I made some comments about it at that time. I will refer the question to the Minister for Health and obtain an answer for the honourable member.

M5 EAST TUNNEL

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. In view of the chaos caused by the failure of the computer system in the M5 tunnel yesterday, will the Minister now admit that the construction of the M5 tunnel was based on a flawed plan by the Labor Government and will he now apologise to the working families of south-western Sydney for the daily disruption and frustration the Government causes to their working lives? Will the Minister also advise what money has been allocated in next year's budget to ameliorate the daily logjam on the M5?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I certainly understand the frustrations that motorists and the travelling public have experienced in relation to the delays in the M5 tunnel yesterday. I apologise to the motorists and members of the public who were caught up in those delays. The Government is taking action to audit what happened yesterday to prevent a recurrence. We will identify the reasons that the computer server crashed and take appropriate action to ensure that in future the systems operate the way they should.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I wish to ask a supplementary question: Will the Minister also advise what money has been allocated in next year's budget to ameliorate the daily logjam on the M5. How much money is in the budget this year specifically for the M5?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: If the member wants details from the budget, I suggest he looks them up himself; I am not about to do his research for him. The Government is commissioning, with the Federal Government, a review of needs in that transport corridor and the potential to duplicate the M5 East. We have a record Roads budget of $4 billion. If we are going to talk about the challenge of the Sydney road network—and I think we should be talking about that—and about the challenge of congestion, we cannot go past the Opposition's policy announced recently by the shadow Roads spokesperson, who said that the Opposition would support a congestion tax. The only other policy announced by the Opposition is the removal of cashback from the M4 and the M5. The Government remains committed to cashback, we remain committed to improving the road network, and we will never impose a congestion tax on the people of this State while we have high interest rates and high petrol prices.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Point of order: I asked a specific question about how much money has been allocated. I have looked in the budget papers and there is nothing in them about it. Will the Minister confirm that there is no money allocated for the M5 in this year's budget?

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

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: As I was saying, in a time of high petrol prices and high interest rates, the Opposition's plan to introduce a congestion tax is not the way to go for Sydney, and this Government will never introduce such a tax.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES SOUTH-EAST ASIA COLLABORATION

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Will the Minister please inform the House of recent collaborations between the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services and other jurisdictions?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the Hon. Kayee Griffin for this important question. It is vital that New South Wales contributes to Australia's regional engagement with our neighbours in South-East Asia. Recognising this, I am pleased to inform the House that the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services has forged partnerships with correctional institutions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore. On 5 June the department took part in a one-day national workshop in Jakarta on the international transfer of sentenced prisoners. Attendees included members of the Indonesian Parliament, law enforcement officials, members of the judiciary and academics. New South Wales Department of Corrective Services Assistant Commissioner Luke Grant provided a comprehensive overview of the New South Wales experience to date in regard to the transfer of prisoners. Following this presentation, an Indonesian corrections delegation visited New South Wales from 11 to 22 June, where it received a comprehensive overview of the management of offenders in custody in the community.

The New South Wales Department of Corrective Services has been developing its relationship with the Director General of Corrections, Indonesia, over recent years. The focus has been on exchanging ideas and information about corrections management and leadership issues. Indonesia has significant problems with jail overcrowding, the management of inmates with drug and mental health issues, the management of high-risk offenders and the management of offenders in the community. I understand the Indonesian delegation aims to return to New South Wales to assess the parole system, the role of community offender services and the treatment of violent offenders.

I recently advised the House of our strengthening relationship with Malaysia on corrections matters. I am pleased to advise further developments. Members of the new Malaysian Parole Board visited Sydney from 16 to 20 June to be briefed in the detail and procedures used in New South Wales to determine the parole of offenders. The members gained an understanding of the material provided to the State Parole Authority. They were able to observe State Parole Authority sittings and they undertook three simulated sessions of the Malaysian Parole Board with our assistance. From the feedback received, this program was highly effective and is likely to generate a demand for further such assistance after the Malaysian parole system commences operation. With regard to developments in Singapore, the Singapore Prison Service sent a four-person delegation to New South Wales from 3 to 14 March 2008 for a detailed briefing on offender management, both in custody and in the community.

Another neighbouring country we are working with is Thailand. We are now in the third year of receiving Thai corrections staff on secondment to the Brush Farm Corrective Services Academy in Eastwood. Staff from both custodial and parole backgrounds have been included, with two or three officers participating at any one time for periods of up to 22 weeks. During these secondments, the participants undertake a number of courses, including the primary training given to New South Wales correctional officers. They also undertake work placements and field visits to correctional centres and community offender services offices across New South Wales. The Department of Corrective Services will continue to contribute to stability in our region by building on these partnerships, and I look forward to providing the House with more updates over the coming months.

This very important exchange is made possible by the sophisticated nature of our own Brush Farm Academy, which provides some of the most highly respected correctional training in the world. The academy is an integral part of the Government's plan to provide a correctional system that is recognised for its excellence. The management of the academy works with universities and other educational institutions to provide training that prepares officers for the very specialised challenges of the custodial environment. Some of the nationally accredited training provided at the academy includes courses in executive management and leadership, offender management, first aid, occupational health and safety, workplace training and assessment and computer training. I look forward to providing updates to the House in the future on the success of our training programs and our assistance to authorities overseas.

WORLD YOUTH DAY

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I direct my question to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Ageing, who is the Minister responsible for World Youth Day. What will be the economic, tourism, employment and moral benefits of World Youth Day events in July 2008, which are centred on the historic visit of Pope Benedict, the leader of more than one billion members of the Catholic Church? What action will the Government take to ensure large protests by the condom, abortion and homosexual lobbies do not damage these important community events or cause any violence to the peaceful pilgrims when they seek to distribute condoms?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I heard the Minister espouse the benefits of World Youth Day on the radio this morning, and she did a very good job. Most members, whether they are Catholic or otherwise, support this very important event—of course, with the exception of the Greens. They interjected a moment ago when I was talking about antidiscrimination laws, but they are happy to discriminate against anything a church provides or any church-based activities. They are happy for that sort of discrimination to run rampant in our society.

[Interruption]

The Greens reek with hypocrisy on this issue. Just a moment ago we heard a spirited defence of the Dalai Lama and Buddhism. I might add that I am somewhat sympathetic to that defence. However, to offer such a defence on one hand and on the other ask a barrage of questions attacking this event and its organisation does the Greens no good at all. It simply exposes their hypocrisy. I congratulate and make special mention of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile because he has been a great supporter of the event. The conservative estimate is that this event will deliver $150 million worth of economic benefit to New South Wales; the Sydney Chamber of Commerce estimates that it will bring in about $231 million in benefits.

Of course, appropriate security will be provided for that event. But I understand that another event will be taking place in the Hunter Valley at the same time. Apparently considerable security resources will be required to protect people against orchestrated attacks at that other event. The Greens trumpet on their website that they will be engaging in arrestable and non-arrestable activities outside correctional institutions in the Hunter. They are advocating that people be arrested. They will set them up to be arrested and then they will protest about their release outside the facility in which they are being held. That anarchy is being promoted by the Greens. They have taken an extraordinarily hypocritical position with regard to World Youth Day.

ABORIGINAL CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice. What does he intend to do to address continuing patterns of child sexual abuse in indigenous communities with revelations two years after the Breaking the Silence report and two years into this Government's five-year State Plan that Aboriginal children are still being raped, children younger than five years old are acting out sexualised behaviour and schoolchildren are being treated for sexually transmitted diseases? What hope for the future can he give indigenous communities that continue to live in fear of sexual predators?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I do not know whether the Opposition is running out of questions, but if the member had bothered to do the research she would know that this question—

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: But I value your opinion.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: That is very kind of the member; so she should. The member is a very wise woman. If the member had done some research, she would know that the coordinated government response has been under the auspices of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. However, because she is a nice person—and because she was put up to asking this question by someone else, who no doubt thought that I would lose my temper when answering it—I will restrain myself and provide a detailed answer.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Have you had anger management counselling?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: No. Lots of things have been suggested for me, but that is not one of them—except when it comes to dealing with the Greens. I am being distracted, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Attorney General will address the question.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: New South Wales has an extensive child protection system. The Government has invested a great deal of time, effort and funding to ensure that any child at immediate risk of harm can be assisted by the relevant agencies. However, it has recognised that it is futile having systems in place if communities are reluctant to report these terrible crimes. That is one of the reasons that the Government established the Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce. It wanted Aboriginal communities to speak out about abuse and tell us how we can best work together to improve the system. There was a strong response from Aboriginal communities, who made it clear that they want to stop violence against children.

The taskforce report was released in July 2006. The New South Wales Government's comprehensive response to the report's recommendations was released in January 2007 in the New South Wales' 2006-2011 interagency plan to tackle child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities. The 88-point, five-year plan is designed to ensure that Aboriginal people have better access to services and to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse, disadvantage and dysfunction in Aboriginal communities. There is no easy solution to the terrible scourge of child sexual abuse, so the response in each location will be different and will require a balance of law enforcement, child protection, community leadership, early intervention and prevention initiatives.

The Attorney General's Department has progressed a number of significant initiatives arising from the taskforce report. I am advised that all of the Attorney General's key responsibilities under the plan are on track to be completed within the agreed time frames. Legislative reforms have included the reform of apprehended violence order laws to increase the safety of victims of domestic, family violence and sexual assault; laws to create a new offence of domestic violence; the introduction of an offence of grooming and procuring children for sexual assault with a maximum penalty of 10 years; and allowing victims to provide evidence via alternative methods such as closed circuit television or behind screens.

The Government is also improving the court process for victims of child sexual assault by providing Aboriginal cultural training to 100 prosecutors and witness assistance officers who support children and their families through the court process; providing better protection to victims and families by encouraging prosecutors to seek to place restriction orders as part of bail to restrict the movements of the accused; and undertaking a $12-million capital works project to ensure that the majority of courts in New South Wales have access to remote witness facilities so that children do not have to see their abuser in court. The Government is also working hard to improve services to Aboriginal victims— [Time expired.]

CLIMATE CHANGE AND EMISSIONS TRADING RESEARCH

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. What steps has the State Government taken to ensure that the agriculture sector has the latest climate change information and science to help secure its future?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Unlike those opposite, the Government is committed to ensuring that our $10-billion agriculture sector is not left behind in the climate change debate. We want to help ensure that agriculture has a bright future and that the 73,000 people it directly employs remain in jobs. Only this week we saw how out of touch The Nationals are with agricultural issues when they voted against an urgency motion in the lower House to debate the topic of mulesing. Today, those opposite should pay full attention and listen to what this Government is doing on another important issue—climate change and emissions trading.

The Government is leading the way in helping the State's farmers respond to the challenges and opportunities posed by managing greenhouse gasses. We have already made significant progress in helping to ensure that the State's agriculture sector enjoys a bright long-term future. We are doing that by focussing the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries' climate change research and extension programs on three key areas. These are consistent with the New South Wales greenhouse plan. The key areas are, firstly, how to assess the impacts of climate change on farming systems; secondly, how to adapt to climate change impacts; and, thirdly, how farmers can reduce emissions and store carbon. Our farmers must not be left behind in the wake of this debate and the formation of a national emissions trading scheme. It is about preparing for this scheme, which will be in place by 2010.

That is why the department is working to ensure that New South Wales has access to the latest research and information so that agriculture can be part of the solution to reducing greenhouse emissions. Our work focuses on developing tools, information and policies that will help the farming sector make informed decisions on its future and its involvement in emissions trading. I can tell the House today that the State Government, through the Department of Primary Industries, and in conjunction with the University of New England, will employ an Associate Professor in Climate Mitigation. This important position will be based at the National Centre for Greenhouse Gas Research, formerly known as the Office of Rural Greenhouse Studies, at Armidale.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Not the weatherman from Channel 9?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: He is a very good bloke.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Who is?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Mike Bailey. This very important position will spearhead the research effort on climate change mitigation and help attract additional funding.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What does his CV say—Labor candidate?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is not a sin; that is very good. Teams across the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries are working with collaborators including the University of New England, various cooperative research centres and rural research development corporations on more than 100 projects addressing these areas. These include a project worth $3 million exploring the interaction between genetics, food and feed efficiency to establish which animals and feed types release the least amount of methane; the rollout of 15 regional forums in conjunction with catchment management authorities which were attended by over 1,500 people seeking the latest information on climate variability; a project attracting $3 million in funding to quantify the hydrological impacts of different land uses likely to be impacted by climate variability—and this includes cropping, pastures and forestry; and more than 30 Farmers Guide to Climate Risk Management PROfarm workshops, to be attended by more than 500 participants across New South Wales.

We also have economists working to provide estimates of the expected impacts of climate variability on various agricultural production systems. Our scientists are looking to support plant breeding programs to improve sustainability of key crops under variable rainfall and hotter temperatures. A $350,000 breeding program focuses on elite new species of eucalyptus trees to bolster forestry and carbon sequestration in farming systems. The development of second-generation biofuels and breaking down woody biomass into sugars to create ethanol is being explored. A $1 million research project will quantify soil carbon sequestration under a range of agricultural production systems. [Time expired.]

THE HON. JOHN DELLA BOSCA, MLC: IGUANAS WATERFRONT RESTAURANT INCIDENT

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Treasurer, representing the Premier. Have the police taken a statement from the member for Terrigal in relation to his role in the Iguanas restaurant matter of 6 June? Have the police requested that Mr Hartcher provide his telephone records to verify his claim that there was no contact between the member and Iguanas restaurant management on the evening of Friday 6 June or on the morning of 7 June? Have police sought to interview any witnesses in relation to claims from reported eyewitnesses on radio 2GB and 2UE that Mr Hartcher personally attended Iguanas nightspot late on the evening of 6 June or the morning of 7 June? Are police, as part of their investigation, examining that Mr Hartcher contradicted his staff person Mr Chris Spence, as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 18 June, as to the time they made contact on the evening of 6 June?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not think it should be the role of Parliament to be interfering in police investigations. I know from my experience as police Minister that the police are competent to undertake such matters. I am sure they will make the appropriate inquiries.

WORLD YOUTH DAY STATE FUNDING

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for the Hunter, and Acting Leader of the Government. Why is the Treasurer continuing to foster uncertainty regarding the forthcoming World Youth Day when neither he nor John Watkins will stand by the figure of $86 million being the total cost of this event to the Government?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This question has been answered on a number of occasions.

In light of the time, I suggest that if members have other questions, they put them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.06 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled, pursuant to the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies Act) 1984, the report of Charles Sturt University for the year ended 30 June 2007, Volumes 1 and 2.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Report

The Hon. Kayee Griffin, as Chair, tabled report No. 45, entitled "Further Draft Constitution (Disclosures by Members) Amendment Regulation 2008", dated June 2008.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Kayee Griffin.

HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Report: Report on the Investigations by the Health Care Complaints Commission into the Complaints made against Mr Graeme Reeves

The Hon. Helen Westwood, as Chair, tabled report No. 3/54, entitled "Report on the Investigations by the Health Care Complaints Commission into the Complaints made against Mr Graeme Reeves", dated June 2008.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Helen Westwood.

Motion by the Hon. Helen Westwood agreed to:

I am pleased to table the report by the joint parliamentary Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission on the conduct of the investigation by the commission into complaints made against deregistered medical practitioner Graeme Reeves. Members of the House will be aware of the allegations of misconduct against Mr Reeves in the conduct of his practice of obstetrics in the Bega district. Whilst the committee is aware that aspects of these allegations are being investigated by the Garling special commission of inquiry and by New South Wales Police Force Strike Force Tarella, when serious allegations came to the committee's attention earlier this year, committee members felt that it was important to report to Parliament under section 65 (1) (b) of the Health Care Complaints Commission Act 1993 on the role of the Health Care Complaints Commission in this unfortunate affair.

The committee also felt that it was important that the report be made to the Parliament as soon as possible. I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in this House the Hon. David Clarke and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, together with our committee colleagues in the other place, for their hard work in ensuring that this report was tabled in this parliamentary session. Although I will speak to the report in detail at a later date, I advise members in summary that the committee concluded that the commission failed to adequately discharge its statutory responsibilities in respect of complaints made against Reeves.

However, having examined the changes to the policies and practice of the commission, the New South Wales Medical Board and the Department of Health generally, and bearing in mind subsequent amendments to the Health Care Complaints Commission Act 1993 and the Medical Practice Act 1992, the committee also concluded that the systems failings that led to the mishandling of the complaints against Reeves have been largely rectified. Nonetheless, in this report the committee has made a series of recommendations aimed at avoiding a repetition of this serious failure to protect the health and safety of the people of New South Wales.

The report notes that mistakes were made but, as in any field of human endeavour, this will always be the case. The committee's aim is to assist both health care users and the hardworking health care professionals of New South Wales in ensuring that these mistakes are few and far between. I commend this report to the House and I urge honourable members to make themselves fully conversant with its contents and recommendations in the interests of boosting public confidence in the world-class health system of New South Wales.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Helen Westwood and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 23 September 2008 at 2.30 p.m. unless the President, or if the President is unable to act on account of illness or other cause, the Chair of Committees, prior to that date by communication addressed to each member of the House, fixes an alternative date or hour of meeting.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 2

Reference

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [2.20 p.m.]: In accordance with paragraph 2 of the resolution of the House establishing general purpose standing committees, I inform the House that today General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 resolved to adopt the following terms of reference:

SUCCESSION AMENDMENT (FAMILY PROVISION) BILL 2008

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

Second Reading

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Acting Minister for Education and Training [2.21 p.m.]: I move:

This bill is the next step for New South Wales in implementing the recommendations of the uniform succession laws project, a project initiated by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General [SCAG] aimed at developing model laws to be used as the basis for reform of succession law in all Australian States and Territories. Consistent succession laws across jurisdictions will have a number of benefits, including simplifying or lowering the costs of administering the estates of people who have moved between, or held assets in, different jurisdictions. The National Committee for Uniform Succession Laws project was established to examine four discrete areas of succession law: the law of wills, family provision, intestacy, and the administration of estates, and to prepare model bills.

The first of the national committee reports, on the law of wills, was implemented in New South Wales in 2006 with the enactment of the Succession Act 2006. This bill will become chapter three of the Succession Act. As the rest of the national committee's reports are implemented, they will be included in the Succession Act. The national committee produced two reports on family provision, which were considered and endorsed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in 1997 and 2004. The 2004 report included model legislation prepared by the New South Wales Parliamentary Counsel's Office. The national committee chose to make the existing New South Wales Family Provision Act 1982 the basis of the model family provision bill, as the New South Wales Act was considered the most comprehensive and recent legislation in the area of family provision.

The Succession Amendment (Family Provision) Bill 2008 repeals the Family Provision Act and implements the model bill endorsed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Some changes have been made to take into account the specific policy concerns of the New South Wales Government, and suggestions made by an expert committee, which the Government established to provide advice on the reforms to succession law. The committee comprised: Justice Young, Chief Judge in Equity; Justice Windeyer; the Probate Registrar of the Supreme Court; the Public Trustee; representatives for the Law Society and Bar Association; Ross Ellis, representing the Trustee Corporations Association of Australia; Les Handler, the co-author of the loose-leaf service on succession law; and a representative from the Guardianship Tribunal. I thank the committee members for the valuable advice and assistance that they have provided in relation to the bill.

I do not propose to go through each clause of the bill, as the national committee's report on family provision law, and its comments on the model bill, are comprehensive. I will, however, outline the aspects of the New South Wales bill, which depart from the model bill. First, the model bill did not adopt the eligibility requirements for an application for family provision that are currently in place in New South Wales. Currently the Family Provision Act provides that the following people are automatically entitled to apply for provision: the spouse of the deceased; a person with whom the deceased was living in a domestic relationship; and the adult or non-adult child of the deceased. Former spouses of the deceased and other dependents, including grandchildren, are also entitled to apply, but the Act requires the court to determine whether there are factors that warrant the making of the application before going on to consider an application.

The model bill restricts the list of those who are automatically entitled to make an application for provision to spouses, de facto partners and non-adult children of the deceased. It contains a "catch-all" category of claimant permitting anyone to whom the deceased owed a responsibility to provide maintenance, education or advancement in life to apply to the court for a family provision order. Such a change may lead to a flood of new claims being made on estates from people who are not currently entitled to apply in New South Wales. Adult children would also be forced to demonstrate the requirement of the deceased's responsibility to them. This may lead to more lengthy and expensive litigation, as adult children seek to prove they meet this requirement.

The bill, therefore, does not adopt the model bill eligibility provisions. It retains the approach taken in the current Act with one modification: the current Act provides that those living in a domestic relationship with the deceased are automatically entitled to eligibility. The model bills restriction of this entitlement to de facto partners is sensible and thus the bill replaces "domestic relationship" with "de facto relationship" and creates a new category of "applicant": a person in a close personal relationship with the deceased. This applicant has to meet the same requirements imposed on former spouses and other dependents before being entitled to have the application considered by the court.

The bill addresses widely held concerns about the increasing and disproportionate costs of family provision proceedings. The bill seeks to prevent people from making unmeritorious claims and accessing money from the deceased's estate to fund their legal costs without any restriction. There are numerous instances of cost blowouts in family provision proceedings in New South Wales. For instance, a case in which the legal costs reached $605,000 for a relatively modest estate. The judge commented that the legal costs were far greater than the amount that any of the claimants could have hoped to receive in a family provision order and called the case "a dark stain on the administration of justice". Another was a case in which costs approached $100,000 for an estate valued at less than $400,000. In that case, the applicant tried to appeal after failure in the first instance. The applicant's appeal was dismissed both because it was without merit and because further litigation might have left a beneficiary of the estate without her home. Another was a case regarding an estate of $412,000, which occupied a half-day hearing, where the costs were $90,000. The judge quite rightly described the costs as "excessive".

The majority of lawyers work hard to achieve a fair outcome for their clients. There is, however, a minority of practitioners who exploit the highly emotionally charged nature of these cases to their own benefit, on the assumption that all costs are paid out of the estate. The Supreme Court has recognised this problem and is currently implementing its own strategies, including intensive case management, the introduction of a new practice note for family provision, and a more restrictive approach to the recovery of costs.

The bill gives the court specific rule-making powers to: make rules in relation to costs, including the costs payable out of the estate and, specifically, the costs in relation to estates worth less than $750,000; make rules relating to the use of expert witnesses and other means of proof of medical reports, valuations, et cetera—these items are sometimes the most expensive component of the costs of a case; and make rules relating to applications that can be dealt with on the papers, which will allow the court to cut costs by determining simple cases without a hearing.

The bill gives the Government the potential to build on these strategies. The bill contains a regulation-making power that enables regulations to be made with to respect costs in family provision proceedings, including the fixing of maximum costs that can be paid out of the estate or notional estate. The bill also contains the power to make regulations regarding advertising of legal services in connection with proceedings for family provision: advertising that is often aggressive, unrealistic and seeks to exploit the vulnerable.

As to mediation, new section 98 makes it clear that the Government's objective is to encourage settlement of family provision matters before they go to a hearing, if possible. The court will be required to refer all matters to mediation before making an order unless there are special reasons why the matter should not be mediated. Mediation would not be advisable in circumstances where there is a threat of violence or a power imbalance between the parties. In relation to additional provision, new section 59 (3) reflects the model bill by providing that the court may order an additional provision for a previously successful applicant for a family provision order when it can be demonstrated either that there has been a substantial detrimental change in that eligible persons circumstances since a family provision order was last made in that eligible person's favour—section 59 (3) (a)—or that when the family provision order was made the evidence about the nature and extent of the deceased person's estate did not reveal the existence of certain property and the court would have considered the estate to be substantially greater in value if the property's existence were known—section 59 (3) (b).

The bill also provides the court with power to make a family provision order in favour of a person who was unsuccessful in his or her application for provision only if it can be demonstrated that the second condition I outlined has been satisfied, that is, that when the family provision order was made there was substantial property in the estate that was not disclosed to the court. This change recognises the fact that the bill requires the court to have regard to the nature and extent of the estate when determining eligibility for an order, whether an order should be made and the nature of such an order. If substantial property is overlooked, it could mean that persons otherwise deserving a provision would not be successful simply because there is not enough estate for provision to be made to all deserving applicants.

As to evidence of statements made by the deceased, the model bill does not include a provision based on section 32 of the current Act. New section 32 clarifies the circumstances in which evidence can be adduced about statements that were made by the deceased during his or her lifetime. For example, the deceased might have stated that a child was being left less in the deceased's will because the child had already been given his or her share of the estate. This evidence could be extremely useful in ascertaining the testator's reasons for making the will in the way that it was made. The bill re-enacts section 32 in new section 101. The court will continue to be able to make interim family provision orders if, for example, there is a pressing need for financial support. The bill modernises the law of family provision in New South Wales and makes a number of changes to protect family estates from being whittled away by unmeritorious litigation and to encourage settlement. It is also another step towards enhanced consistency in succession law across Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT—SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL 2008

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

Second Reading

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Acting Minister for Education and Training) [2.33 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Crimes Amendment (Cognitive Impairment—Sexual Offences) Bill 2008. Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons states:

It is therefore important that any reforms in the area of sexual assault as it relates to people with a cognitive impairment should be based on the principle that individual autonomy should be respected to the highest possible degree. It is accepted that the law should not deny people with a cognitive impairment the freedom to participate in consensual sexual relationships. However, the law must also serve to protect vulnerable members of society from sexual exploitation. This bill is another step in the Government's ongoing legal reforms in the area of sexual assault arising out of the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Sexual Offences Taskforce and, in particular, a continuation of the recent reforms that provide greater protections for cognitively impaired people in the criminal justice system.

A number of government and non-government organisations were represented on the task force, including the Attorney General's Department, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Office for Women, judicial officers from the Supreme Court, District Court and Local Court, as well as the Judicial Commission, the New South Wales Women's Legal Service, the Crown Advocate, senior academics, the Law Society, the Department of Community Services, Victims Services, the Violence Against Women Specialist Unit, the New South Wales Police Force, the Legal Aid Commission, the Public Defender's Office, the New South Wales Bar Association, the New South Wales Department of Health and the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre. The task force report contained 70 recommendations, which not only focused on the law and procedures affecting the prosecution of sexual assault matters but also gave rise to more general concerns in respect of the protection of vulnerable witnesses within the criminal justice system.

The task force recognised that people who have an intellectual disability or other cognitive impairment can be more vulnerable to sexual assault, particularly when they require assistance with their daily life activities. This was the rationale that was reflected in the original introduction of section 66F of the Crimes Act 1900, which criminalises sexual intercourse with intellectually disabled persons when the offender is the carer of the impaired person or is taking advantage of the person's impairment. The task force report highlighted the need to increase the protection that is provided to people with intellectual disabilities and other cognitive impairments, as such people are more vulnerable to sexual assault and abuse due to the nature of their impairment and because they depend on others for assistance with daily life. Other factors that are likely to increase vulnerability to criminal victimisation are their impaired judgement, deficits in adaptive behaviour, accompanying physical disabilities which may inhibit the person conveying sexual victimisation, the high-risk environments in which they live and work, their lack of knowledge about their rights, and the attraction of some abusers to environments in which they will encounter vulnerable victims.

Of all the crimes recorded against intellectually disabled people, the most frequent crimes are sexual and physical assault. Most sexual assaults of intellectually disabled people occur in the victim's place of residence, and in many cases the abuser is someone known to the victim. A discussion paper on this issue and draft consultation bill were published and circulated in June 2007 by the Criminal Law Review Division of my department. Several submissions were received from a wide range of community organisations and authorities, including the Intellectual Disability Rights Service, the Office of the Public Guardian, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, the Victims Advisory Board, the New South Wales Police Force, the Legal Aid Commission, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and a number of magistrates and judges. The extensive consultation was of great assistance to the policy and drafting process.

At present the Crimes Act 1900 sets out sexual offences in divisions 10 and 10A of part 3. Section 66F provides for specific sexual assault offences against victims with an intellectual disability. Consent is not a defence to these offences, as they are designed to capture people taking advantage of the victim's intellectual disability and inherent vulnerability to sexual exploitation. The offences are also designed to capture carers who take advantage of their charge's disability and vulnerability to sexual exploitation. To enliven the application of the current section 66F, the victim must have an intellectual disability defined only as "an appreciably below average general intellectual function that results in the person requiring supervision or social habilitation in connection with their daily life activities".

Serious intellectual disability is also an aggravating feature that increases the maximum penalty of a number of sexual assault offences in the Crimes Act 1900, such as, sexual assault, indecent assault and sexual servitude. "Serious intellectual disability" is not defined and the concept of "serious" is left open to interpretation. The task force recommended that all these occurrences of the term "intellectual disability" in divisions 10 and 10A of part 3 of the Crimes Act 1900 be replaced with an updated term and definition that will reflect a more contemporary understanding of the nature of such disabilities and impairments. This was supported by the submissions received in response to the discussion paper and draft consultation bill. A new definition would also provide greater protection to people with a cognitive impairment by addressing the gap between the existing definition and a wide range of people who are vulnerable to such exploitation but are not currently captured by the existing narrow definition of intellectual disability.

The amendments in the bill seek to clarify and extend the nature of sexual offences committed against persons who have a cognitive impairment. The bill replaces the term "intellectual disability" with the term "cognitive impairment" and provides for an updated definition. A person has a cognitive impairment if a person has:

The extensive consultation conducted by the Criminal Law Review Division was of great assistance in formulating an appropriate definition. It was generally submitted that cognitive impairment was a preferable catch-all term, with intellectual disability as a category therein. The new definition covers all impairments of cognitive capacity, whether a disability, disorder, illness or injury. The additional threshold of supervision or social habilitation in connection with daily life activities, which has been retained from the original section 66F, excludes minor impairments. Further, it was agreed that this new definition should replace the term "serious intellectual disability" as an aggravating feature of the other sexual assault offences, because the requirement for supervision or social habilitation in connection with daily life activities makes the level of impairment sufficiently serious to meet the requirements of those sections.

The bill also seeks to reform section 66F, which sets out the offence of sexual intercourse with a cognitively impaired person. Currently section 66F only covers the offence of sexual intercourse, but does not refer to indecent assaults or acts of indecency. The taskforce report recommended that this omission be rectified, and this was supported in the consultation process. In order to achieve this, it was decided to insert an additional subsection which states that consent is not a factor in the existing indecent assault offences and acts of indecency when committed against cognitively impaired victims, where it can be established that the person was responsible for the care of that person, whether generally or at the time of the offence, or where the accused engaged in the conduct constituting the offence with the intention of taking advantage of the person's cognitive impairment. The penalties also fall in line with the existing indecency offences.

The task force report, and submissions received, also recommended that the concept of carer in section 66F be extended to include home-based and volunteer carers beyond the current definition, and that only refers to being under the authority of the person in connection with any facility or program providing services to persons with intellectual disabilities. The bill achieves the effect of this recommendation by replacing the existing definition with the broader concept of "person responsible for care". A person is responsible for the care of a person with a cognitive impairment if the person provides care to that person at a facility at which persons with a cognitive impairment are detained, reside or attend, or at the home of that person in the course of a program under which any such facility or other government or community organisation provides care to persons with a cognitive impairment.

The care of a person with a cognitive impairment includes voluntary care, health professional care, education, home care and supervision. This new definition will capture those that provide care or supervision outside of a formal institutional setting, and those who are not paid for the services they provide to cognitively impaired persons. It is important to note that the fact that the care or supervision takes place in a facility or at home does not mean that the offence must also take place in that particular setting. An accused person will be considered a person responsible for care if they provide that care or supervision in a facility or at home, even if the offence is committed outside either of those settings—for example, in an outdoor setting, another location, or in a vehicle. The new provision also makes it clear that the care in question includes not only care provided by health professionals, but also unpaid care, as well as education services, home care services, and general supervision.

A particular concern of the task force—and this appeared in submissions received in response to the discussion paper—was that there were adequate defences available for persons in a genuine relationship with a cognitively impaired person, and also a defence for a person such as a carer conducting medical or hygienic procedures. This bill therefore amends section 66F to insert a specific defence for accused persons who are married to, or in a de facto relationship with, the cognitively impaired person. It also includes a specific defence for procedures done by carers that are for medical and hygienic purposes.

Finally, the bill also amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to insert the new definition of "cognitive impairment". The Government introduced a number of reforms in early 2007 to assist vulnerable witnesses in giving their evidence in the criminal justice system. These amendments required a new definition of "intellectual impairment". However, the extensive consultation process conducted by the Criminal Law Review Division in respect of the current amendments had not yet been completed. In order to have these beneficial vulnerable witness provisions available to all those in need at the earliest opportunity, it was agreed that those amendments would progress, with a view to clarifying the definition of "intellectual impairment" after the consultation process, in conjunction with this current bill.

Therefore, the existing definition of "intellectual impairment" in the vulnerable witnesses provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 will be replaced by the more appropriate term and definition "cognitive impairment". A "cognitive impairment" includes any of the following: an intellectual disability; a developmental disorder, including an autistic spectrum disorder; a neurological disorder; dementia; a severe mental illness; or a brain injury. The additional threshold of requiring supervision or social habilitation in connection with daily life activities does not apply here. This is because these provisions are beneficial in nature and seek to provide support to vulnerable witnesses in giving their evidence, rather than grounding the basis for an investigation and prosecution on the basis that the victim had a serious impairment.

I now turn to the detail of the bill. Schedule 1 amends the Crimes Act 1900. Item [1] of schedule 1 amends section 61H of the Crimes Act 1900 by replacing the term "intellectual disability" with "cognitive impairment" and an extended definition. A person has a cognitive impairment if the person has an intellectual disability, a developmental disorder—including an autistic spectrum disorder—a neurological disorder, dementia, a severe mental illness, or a brain injury that results in the person requiring supervision or social habilitation in connection with daily life activities.

Item [2] of schedule 1 replaces the term "serious intellectual disability" with the term "cognitive impairment" as an aggravating feature that raises the maximum penalty for a number of sexual offences in the Crimes Act 1900. These are section 61J—aggravated sexual assault; section 61M—aggravated indecent assault; section 61O—aggravated act of indecency; section 66C—sexual assault of a child between 10 and 16; and section 80A—sexual assault by forced self-manipulation.

Item [3] of schedule 1 amends the alternative verdict provisions in section 61Q regarding the question of consent and cognitive impairment. Essentially, this provision enables a jury in a trial for an offence of non-consensual sexual intercourse with a cognitively impaired person under sections 61J or 61JA to bring an alternative verdict under section 66F of sexual intercourse with intent to take advantage of the person's cognitive impairment, in cases where the jury is not satisfied that there was no consent.

Item [4] of schedule 1 replaces the old section 66F with a new provision that reflects the new definition of "cognitive impairment" in section 61H. The offences and penalties effectively remain the same as the old provision; however, they are set out slightly differently. The maximum penalty for sexual intercourse with a cognitively impaired person, where the offender is taking advantage of the victim's cognitive impairment, is eight years. This penalty increases to 10 years where the offender is the person responsible for the care of the cognitively impaired person. As before, consent is not an element of these offences, therefore the penalties are much lower than those available for non-consensual sexual intercourse with a cognitively impaired person under section 61J, which is 20 years.

The new subsection (1) outlines the meaning of "person responsible for care" as it relates to sexual offences of cognitively impaired people. For the purposes of the new section 66F, a person is responsible for the care of a person who has a cognitive impairment if the person provides care to that person at a facility at which persons with a cognitive impairment are detained, reside or attend, or at the home of that person in the course of a program under which any such facility or other government or community organisation provides care to persons with a cognitive impairment.

It must be pointed out that this section does not confine the offence to taking place either at a facility or in the home. This section clarifies the class of people captured by the provisions, rather than the location of the offence. As long as the accused falls within the definition of a person responsible for care of a cognitively impaired person, it does not matter whether the offence was committed in the facility or home, or in another location such as an outdoor setting, another home or venue, or a vehicle. The section also clarifies that the care of a person with a cognitive impairment includes not only care provided by health professionals, but also unpaid care, as well as education services, home care services, and general supervision.

The new subsection (5) of section 66F extends the existing regime by making it an offence to commit an indecent assault or act of indecency with a cognitively impaired person. It states that consent will be no defence to a charge of indecent assault or act of indecency where the accused was responsible for the care of that person, whether generally or at the time of the offence, or the accused engaged in conduct constituting the offence with the intention of taking advantage of that person's cognitive impairment.

The range of penalties will now be seven years for the indecent assault of a cognitively impaired person, as opposed to five years for the indecent assault of a non-impaired person; five years for an act of indecency towards a cognitively impaired child under 16, as opposed to two years for an act of indecency towards a non-impaired child under 16; and three years for an act of indecency towards a cognitively impaired adult, as opposed to 18 months for a non-impaired adult.

Proposed new subsection (6) sets out defences for persons who are married or in a de facto relationship with the cognitively impaired person, or persons who perform acts for medical or hygienic purposes. The current defence for an accused who was not aware the other person was cognitively impaired is retained. Item [5] of schedule 1 amends section 80C—sexual servitude—by replacing the term "serious intellectual disability" with the phrase "cognitive impairment" within the meaning in division 10. This imports the new definition inserted into the sexual assault offences in division 10 of part 3 of the Crimes Act 1900, into the sexual servitude offences contained in division 10A. The effect of this amendment is identical to those made by items [1] and [2].

Item [6] of schedule 1 contains savings and transitional provision for the Crimes Act 1900. Schedule 2 sets out amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Items [1] to [6], [8] to [10] and [12] replace the term "intellectually impaired persons" with the term "cognitively impaired persons" in the following provisions: section 76—recordings of interviews with vulnerable persons; section 91—witnesses may be directed to attend; section 185—recordings of interviews with vulnerable persons; section 306M(1)—definitions; section 306P—application of part; section 306R—evidence to which this division applies; and Section 306ZK—vulnerable persons have a right to the presence of a supportive person when giving evidence.

Item [7] replaces section 306M(2)—Definitions—by inserting the new definition of "cognitive impairment". A cognitive impairment includes any of the following: an intellectual disability; a developmental disorder, including an autistic spectrum disorder; a neurological disorder; dementia; a severe mental illness; or a brain injury. Item [11] similarly amends section 306T—wishes of vulnerable person to be taken into account—by replacing subsection (1)(b) with references to cognitive impairment, rather than intellectual impairment. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 133 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the protection of whistleblower employees, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 133 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

INQUIRY INTO THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC SECTOR WHISTLEBLOWER EMPLOYEES

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [2.57 p.m.]: I move:

3. That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, at any meeting of the committee, any four members of the committee will constitute a quorum.

4. That the committee report by the first sitting day in September 2008.

I note the very considerable cooperation I have received from all crossbenchers, particularly from the Hon. Robert Brown, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Greens. They have all shown great insight with regard to this matter. Reverend the Hon. Nile will move amendments to the motion, and I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose those amendments.

The motion seeks to establish a select committee charged with the task of examining how, why and when the current system has failed to protect whistleblower employees. Time and again the people of New South Wales have seen an unwillingness on the part of potential public service whistleblowers to come forward because they are afraid that such action will have a negative impact on their career and life. It is clear that on occasion whistleblowers have suffered, or they believe they have suffered, as a result of exposing certain matters to the public. The inadequacy of the current legislation can be demonstrated by reference to four areas of government employment: New South Wales Health, the State Rail Authority, the Department of Education and Training and the Ambulance Service of New South Wales. Members might know of instances in other agencies, but they can be left to another day.

Parliamentary committees conducting inquiries into health services in New South Wales have heard evidence from nurses who feared retribution if they made allegations. In fact, some nurses have asked to give evidence in camera because of their fears. It is not simply a matter of obtaining salacious evidence. The evidence of those nurses is important because that fear might prevent them from speaking up and that could result in severe harm to the public. If their evidence is not heard, people might be unable to receive treatment or adequate treatment. People could die or, in some cases, suffer permanent psychological damage as a result of distress arising from lack of or inadequate treatment. We all know of cases in which that has happened in recent times, including at Royal North Shore Hospital. Plainly, whistleblower legislation that protects the nursing profession from fear of retribution will not only result in better treatment but it will also ensure that the public is treated properly.

Systemic corruption has existed for years in some parts of the State Rail Authority. Of course, not all employees of the authority have willingly condoned that corruption. Indeed, the reverse is true. We know that many employees, having witnessed corruption, have been tortured by what they have seen but have been unwilling to disclose it. That is another demonstration that this State's whistleblower legislation is not tough enough or adequate to ensure that such people are encouraged to come forward and that poor service delivery and corruption are stamped out. There have been other examples in the State Rail Authority of people being aware of inadequate service but not being prepared to disclose it.

Two of those examples have led to great tragedies: the terrible rail accidents that occurred on the Blue Mountains line and at Waterfall. Both of those tragedies were not spontaneous accidents but the result of endemic problems in the operation of State Rail—endemic problems that were known to many people within the organisation, yet those people were unwilling to come forward. Sadly, that resulted in great tragedy, loss of life and permanent injury to many people. That style of accident, that style of inadequacy of service that has existed, that style of failure of good, hardworking people within State Rail to come forward will be reduced if we have appropriate and effective whistleblower legislation.

In the education field time and again members of our teaching profession, principals in our schools, know of the inadequacy of the infrastructure that exists in our schools, of poor staffing levels, of maintenance backlogs and of other difficulties. Yet they too have felt a fear, an unwillingness to come forward because of a concern that to do so would result in negative impacts upon their careers and futures, as well as significant stress and depression as a result of overzealous inquiries. Those few examples, I would submit, demonstrate the appropriateness of an inquiry taking place at this stage.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.01 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Trevor Khan for his diligence in pursuing this important issue of setting up a select committee to look into the effectiveness of the current laws to protect whistleblowers. He has given some examples where the legislation does not appear to be giving comfort to potential whistleblowers. I encountered this when I chaired the inquiry into the Royal North Shore Hospital. There were nurses who finally agreed to give evidence but they insisted that the evidence be given in camera. I understand some nurses were not even prepared to give evidence in camera. There were references to some individuals at the hospital who employed bullying tactics towards the nurses, which we hope has now been rectified. Those attitudes can intimidate public servants into not appearing before committees or, in their normal duties, prevent them from reporting matters that should be reported, thus making them whistleblowers—without using that word in any way critical of the person giving the information. There is a culture in Australia that looks down on whistleblowers—you don't dob in a mate—but in these serious cases employees have no option but to make a report against an individual, a department or whatever it is that is not carrying out its role efficiently.

A public servant contacted me and said that a lot of heavy equipment belonging to a government department had been sitting in a paddock for two years, as though it had been forgotten. He sent me the information, which I passed on, on a sheet of paper by which he could be identified. He rang me and said, "Please make sure you remove any identification from that piece of paper", in case someone saw it and could work out who the employee was. People have this fear. Whether it is justified in every circumstance, we do not know, we are not in their shoes. The motion of the Hon. Trevor Khan seeks to set up a select committee to determine whether the current system is working.

As honourable members know, we have the Protected Disclosures Act. When considering the honourable member's motion for a select committee, I remembered I was a member of the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which conducted a review of the legislation in 2006. The committee prepared a report and a number of recommendations. The Government is still considering some of those recommendations and has implemented others. We noted that the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 endeavours to provide this protection for public officials. I am not sure whether all public officials understand its powers. It is intended to protect public sector employees who make allegations against public authorities or public officials. The penalty for someone who takes detrimental action against a whistleblower is a fine of $5,500 or one year in jail or both.

Whistleblowers can also be awarded damages for unfair dismissal or can take action at common law. All government agencies are expected to comply with the provisions of this Act but we know with human nature breakdowns occur. There is also the provision that if someone is not happy with the way they have been treated they can make a complaint to the Ombudsman or they can pursue legal action. However, I assume that most public servants would be reluctant to engage in such action because of the tremendous expenditure that would be required. The Protected Disclosures Act 1994 requires that there be reviews of the Act. That is one of the roles of the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which it endeavours to carry through.

The motion moved by the Hon. Trevor Khan is a re-drafted motion. As members know, we have had two or three motions in the past dealing with this issue, and now we have what has become a pretty simple, straightforward motion. It now comes down to an inquiry into the whistleblower protection legislation for employees who wish to make allegations against government officials, members of Parliament and any others who are involved in their employment. As a member of the joint parliamentary Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, I believe it would be more effective for such an inquiry to be conducted not by a select committee but by our joint committee, which has as one of its roles to review the protected disclosures legislation.

Members on both sides of the House and members of the crossbench are anxious that there be an inquiry. Having served on the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption for many years, I am aware that it is one of the most efficient committees and has a very experienced secretariat. A new select committee will need a whole new secretariat to serve that committee. We already have an experienced secretariat that handles the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The committee is also made up of members of both Houses of Parliament and is already very experienced in considering whistleblower legislation. Therefore, I move:

Paragraph (2) of the amendment will remove from the motion the restriction relating to the Legislative Assembly. The committee is a joint committee with members from both Houses of Parliament. Keeping the restriction would require the wording to state that it could not affect the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council. The simplest way is to remove reference to the Legislative Assembly. As the committee is a joint committee, this House has to agree and then a message must be sent to the Legislative Assembly asking it to agree to the resolution.

I have discussed the matter at length with the Hon. Tony Kelly, as the Leader of the Government in this place. He has given me an assurance that if the amended motion is carried, it will immediately proceed to and through the other House before it rises—it will not be delayed—so that the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption can consider the reference and take the necessary action to implement the resolution. The amendment will meet the concerns of members of the House.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.11 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Trevor Khan on his work. The Shooters Party agrees with the tenor of the motion. I thank Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for his ability yet again to draft an amendment in line with everyone's wishes. Finally, I repeat the comment made by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile about the agreement given by the Leader of the Government and will endorse it so that the inquiry can go ahead. I assure all honourable members that the Shooters Party will watch with avid interest as this develops. We hope there are good outcomes to improving the confidence of the people who may wish to come forward with information. We hope that their employment and health can be safeguarded by the legislation being effective. I commend the amendment and the motion to the House.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.12 p.m.]: I support the motion and congratulate the Hon. Trevor Khan on moving it. Whistleblowing is important and has existed for a long time. The fact that we have given it a name over the past two decades and have institutionalised it within both legislation and the culture of society has been to the benefit of public life and the conduct of government throughout those nations where whistleblowing has become a protected activity. There are three key reasons why societies seek to protect whistleblowing. The first is simply a matter of justice—that is, protecting those who seek to do the right thing from unfair retribution. There is a long and dishonourable history of people speaking out against wrongdoing in both public and private undertakings and then suffering appalling consequences, ranging from physical violence, exclusion from employment, victimisation of their families, social ostracism through to removal from societies entirely. It is simply unjust behaviour. Somebody who seeks to do the right thing should enjoy the protection of society from adverse responses.

The second reason is that obvious benefits flow to society from having malfeasants exposed in this way. I give the example of the space shuttle and exposure of shoddy engineering practices by contractors on the space shuttle that cost five lives in the Challenger disaster and the way in which the engineering processes of the space shuttle from then on were cleaned up. This resulted from two or three whistleblowers who had the courage to stand up. There are direct and measurable benefits associated with individuals having the courage to stand up and speak out. The third social reason for supporting whistleblowing is by way of creating a culture of openness within society. Whistleblowing is an inoculation against malfeasance, where somebody acting to cut a corner or in a way that will have adverse consequences seeks to do so. However, if they know they are being watched and that their co-workers could turn around and say, "You have acted against the public interest", they will be less likely to do so. It is not just about creating a climate of fear; it is about changing the culture of public and private enterprise undertakings to one of openness. It is where the idea of dumping that container of toxic waste, cutting corners on an engineering contract or ripping off a client ceases to exist because of a culture of openness.

There are still far too many examples of bullying against those who seek to expose wrongdoing. Previous speakers have already mentioned a number of examples and the existence of those examples warrants an investigation. I have doubts about using the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption as an inquiry body. It has some complexities associated with it. The role of the committee is to overview the actions of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. We seek to extend its function to overview legislation.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is already part of its function.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: We have already done that.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I stand corrected on that and I withdraw that statement. The Greens will not oppose the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.17 p.m.]: The Government will support the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.18 p.m.]: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Again, it has been a productive exercise. The degree of, dare I say, comity on this issue is inspiring.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.18 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. 142 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to a reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 regarding coalmining, be called on forthwith.

It is urgent that the House debates this matter today as the inquiry needs to be set up immediately given that there are a growing number of reports of people living in coalmining areas suffering health complications. The responsible action for this House to take would be to support this urgency motion. There are certain groups at risk from living in close proximity to coalmines—pregnant women, the young, the elderly and the chronically ill—and that is another reason why this is a matter of urgency. The urgency of this matter has been shown by a survey of the people in the Gloucester area living near coalmining areas. The survey contains compelling information that is relevant to this debate. It found that 48 per cent of people said their health had been adversely affected by mining, 39 per cent cited psychological problems and 18 per cent had physical problems. Fifty-four per cent of those surveyed complained of coal dust in the air.

This motion needs to be debated today because there is an urgent need to monitor the health status of communities before and after a mining project commences. This is a matter of urgency because preliminary data from Lithgow has revealed significantly high mortality and morbidity figures across a number of local areas, with double the State average admission rates for asthma. The motion is urgent as it would be highly irresponsible to delay consideration of a motion that would open up for investigation the fact that communities in coalmining areas may suffer higher incidences of various diseases.

This matter needs to be dealt with today so the House can determine whether an inquiry should be set up that would consider whether undue influence has been placed on area health services not to publicise the adverse health statistics that have been collected in some coalmining communities. Surely reports that residents in coalmining communities are at an increased risk of developing chronic heart, lung and kidney diseases highlights to members the need for this matter to be considered today. It is vital that the House today has the opportunity to debate the need for an inquiry into the health consequences for people living near coalmining areas given that the issue is under-researched, especially with respect to the role of heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium and lead, and also with regard to the health consequences of noise from mining operations.

This matter needs to be considered today so the House can consider the merits of establishing an inquiry into mining and health that could consider the health consequences of uncovered rail wagons travelling through rural communities. There is an urgent need for the House to discuss the merits of establishing an inquiry that could investigate the health consequences for people living near coalmines, including disorders associated with exposure to low-frequency noise and infrasound—which are part of the noise pollution from open-cut coalmines but which are not recognised by the New South Wales industrial noise policy that allows industry and government to ignore the more harmful part of the noise spectrum.

There is an urgent need for the House to consider establishing an inquiry into the adequacy of regulations and legislation governing exposure to air, noise and water pollution associated with coalmining. The House also needs to consider the availability of accurate diagnoses and medical services for those whose health is adversely affected by coalmining. We need to have debate on this motion today so the House can consider the need to set up an inquiry into the financial and social burden when the health of people suffers as a result of coalmining practices. The House also needs to consider the availability of accurate records on the nature and extent of illness, disability and death caused by coalmining. There are increasing reports that such data has been collected over the years in coalmining communities around the State but that the data has been kept secret and is not available to the general public.

The motion needs to be debated today so the House can consider access to compensation, the limitations in seeking legal redress, and alternative models of financial support for affected individuals and their families. We need to have this debate today because coal companies are clearly reckless with people's health, and therefore the New South Wales Government has to accept much of the responsibility for the tonnes of dust that is dumped on coalmining communities, particularly in the Hunter and the western coalfields.

The motion needs to be debated today because no government studies have been conducted regarding people living in coalmining communities who are at most risk of adverse health effects caused by coalmining. The matter needs to be considered today because the consent conditions are laid down, which involve a level of health risk that is a low level of risk to the physical health of most people. This low-level of risk, however, can be too high for those whose physical state is already compromised, such as the chronically ill. The most damaging dust particles, the smallest ones, PM2.5, are not routinely measured, despite studies showing their direct association with increased asthma levels, increased cancer levels, decreased birth rates and a shorter life expectancy. All this information needs to be urgently considered by an inquiry. I urge members to consider supporting this urgency motion so the House can debate setting up such an inquiry.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.25 p.m.]: The Government does not support urgency in respect of this motion. Although Ms Lee Rhiannon makes a lot of claims about why there should be an inquiry into the issue, we are talking about urgency here. The motion is obviously not terribly urgent, because of 142 items listed as private members' business items it is No. 142. Clearly, the motion has only just gone on the Notice Paper. I contend that there are at least 141 private members' business items that some members of this House believe are more urgent. The Government will not support urgency.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.25 p.m.]: For the same reasons, the Opposition also will not support urgency.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.25 p.m.]: Mr President—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Just sit down and let someone else have a go!

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are taking up everyone else's opportunity to speak! You are a so selfish! Don't expect any more support if you are going to behave like that!

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: Interjections are clearly out of order. These are the people who last week supported the changes to the gun laws when there was not a word of protest—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Ms Lee Rhiannon will resume her seat. The standing orders provide that members are entitled to speak in debate. If Ms Sylvia Hale wishes to speak, she may do so, provided she addresses the issue of the suspension of standing orders.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.26 p.m.]: Mr President, it was not my intention to speak in this debate, but the words of the Hon. Tony Kelly have prompted me to do so. It is totally spurious to suggest that the motion is not urgent because it has just appeared on the Notice Paper. The Greens have continually spoken about the health impacts of coalmining. Indeed, on a number of occasions I have spoken about the issue, particularly when I was in Muswellbrook and I was talking to people whose children have been affected by rare forms of cancer which can be attributed only to the coal dust they are breathing in. The motion is incredibly urgent. Many people are suffering the ill effects of coalmining practices, and it is wrong to delay an inquiry into the issue any longer.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 4

Mr Cohen
Ms Rhiannon

Tellers,
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye

Noes, 28

Mr Ajaka
Mr Brown
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Fazio
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gay
Ms Griffin
Mr Kelly

Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Macdonald
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe

Mr Smith
Mr Tsang
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

SHOP TRADING BILL 2008

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.34 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Michael Costa: I move:

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

Leave granted.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [3.35 p.m.]: I am pleased to lead on behalf for the Opposition on the Shop Trading Bill 2008. The bill will deregulate shop trading hours whilst restricting trading on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, Boxing Day and up to 1.00 p.m. on Anzac Day. It was the Greiner Government that first allowed Sunday shop trading by exemption. Initially, these exemptions were mainly in holiday and coastal communities where the demand for Sunday trading was greatest. Over the intervening years the scope of Sunday trading has increased to such an extent that the time has finally come for businesses throughout the State to open when they wish, except for the declared restricted trading days. In November 2002 this House debated the Bank Holidays Legislation Amendment Bill, which enabled banks to trade on Saturdays and Sundays. Some eight months before the Parliament finally saw the legislation, the Government had lived up to its standard practice and pre-placed a story in the Sunday Telegraph that proclaimed:

Major banks in Sydney will open on Saturdays for the first time in 90 years by the end of this year.

While the paper got the 90-years claim wrong, the passage of that bill was supposed to bring a whole new era to busy consumers. We were all supposed to be able to go to the bank of our choice on a Saturday or a Sunday to conduct our business. Saturday trading occurs on an ad hoc basis; it is certainly still not a blanket policy. Sunday trading is all but unheard of, except for a few banks. Some members may recall that banks were open on Saturdays for 50 years from 1912 to 1962. In 1962, the then Heffron Labor Government, as part of a deal with the union movement to try to bring an end to Saturday morning shopping, also agreed that banks should close on Saturday mornings. It has taken another 40 years for the general public to get back what the Labor Government took away: the ability to go to a bank on a Saturday. Sunday bank trading is so rare that in November last year the Commonwealth Bank put out a press release saying it was offering "a new State of convenience with New South Wales Sunday trading." It was very happy to tell its customers and the public that it had secured a licence to trade on Sunday. The Commonwealth Bank was to compete with only the ANZ bank and BankWest in trading on Sundays.

The bill will enable certain shops exempted from trading restrictions to trade on restricted trading days. These include shops in markets conducted for charitable or public fundraising purposes, bookshops, chemists, newsagencies, music shops, souvenir shops and shops ancillary to venues for playing sport or other physical recreation. The bill will also enable the Director General of the Department of Commerce to exempt other shops from trading restrictions. On 5 June the Shopping Centre Council of Australia released a statement welcoming the decision, stating it would remove costly red tape from businesses. As it pointed out, only Western Australia and South Australia have more restrictive trading hours than New South Wales. Even with the changes proposed in the bill New South Wales will continue to have more limited trading hours than Melbourne, Canberra, Hobart and Darwin.

Perhaps controversially, the Shopping Centre Council has called for total deregulation of trading hours. As legislators, we have to be cognisant of the impact of this legislation on small business owners. For some, the changes the legislation will bring will not be welcome. Small business owners in small centres may have to open under the conditions of their lease. Alternatively, they may face stiff competition, which means they will have to open for longer hours on weekends to survive.

I have had personal experience of the former. The current business my wife and family operate in Queanbeyan is in a building away from a shopping centre, but I have had experience of owning businesses in major shopping centres in Canberra and the Canberra region. I can say from first-hand experience that significant pressure is applied to small business owners by shopping centre owners to open their businesses on a Sunday. There may be some flexibility, depending on the landlord, but some small business owners are required to open their businesses on a Sunday. It can be difficult to manage a small business. However, over the past 10 years there has been a massive increase in the popularity of Sunday shopping and that must be acknowledged. It is about getting the balance right and I think the bill does that. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.39 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the Shop Trading Bill 2008, although we express concerns about the potential impacts on half a million workers in New South Wales shops and other retail outlets. It is important to ensure that they are not forced to work when others have a day off or a holiday. It is important to protect their rights—the right to a full life beyond employment to enjoy family, friends, culture, recreation and rest; the right to enjoy celebrations on special days with the rest of the community, friends and family; and the right to time off on Sundays in sync with family and friends to celebrate in each other's company. These hard-won rights, which were fought for by generations of working people, should not be surrendered lightly. We must ensure that when retail workers are forced to work when others are resting they are remunerated appropriately for the denial of participation in collective family and community celebrations.

Inevitably there is a trade-off between the rights of workers and the ability of working households to buy daily necessities and items. This is more than just a convenience. For many households that comprise adult employed people, extended trading hours are a matter of household survival. Another dimension is the generation of employment within the retail industry. Extended trading hours will probably increase employment opportunities for relatively low-skilled workers. That is a highly desirable outcome, given the low rates of employment particularly among younger people. Clearly, sensitivity is required in resolving the trade-off by protecting shop workers' rights to community celebration, properly remunerating shop workers who forgo that right, and ensuring that no retail sector employee is forced to work on public holidays or Sundays when he or she does not want to.

The bill repeals the current legislation, the Shops and Industries Act 1962, which restricts retail trading on Sundays and public holidays. In doing so, the bill removes restrictions on Sunday retail trading and on all public holidays, apart from the five protected public holidays—Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day morning, Christmas Day and Boxing Day. Although trade is restricted on those five protected public holidays, the Director General of the Department of Commerce is able to grant exemptions. Clause 13 of the bill provides that shops must be staffed by workers who have freely elected to work on those days without any coercion or intimidation. Although I have concerns as to how that provision will be implemented and policed, at least the intention is in the bill. Pursuant to the Shops and Industries Act, the director general usually grants exemptions to the massive retail stores, such as Coles and Myer, to open on Sundays and some public holidays. The current practice for such exemptions is widespread. About 70 per cent of shops in local government areas enjoy these exemptions. The bill clarifies and formalises the current trading arrangements.

The bill will result in a substantial increase in the number of retailers that open on public holidays that are no longer restricted trading days. The Minister has given an undertaking in the agreement in principle speech in the lower House that the industrial entitlements of workers on public holidays, such as penalty rates, will not be affected by the passage of this bill. Unfortunately, this protection for workers does not extend to Sundays, for which employers no longer will have to apply for an exemption to trade. The Greens are concerned that employers will be able to compel workers against their will to work on a Sunday, which will have unacceptable impacts on their family lives, relationships, relaxation and stress levels. These potential impacts should be carefully monitored. The Greens are concerned that the bill will enshrine some of the worst features of the Federal Coalition's WorkChoices law.

The Government has promoted this bill as a way of cutting red tape. The bill does relieve an administrative burden on retail businesses by removing the need to apply for an exemption. However, all too often the rhetoric of cutting red tape becomes an excuse for reducing protections for employees, consumers and the environment. Often, it is more a statement of anti-regulatory ideology than a genuine concern to reduce costs. An outstanding example has been the dismal failure of the deregulation of banks, which promised to deliver benefits to consumers but has turned into an orgy of profit taking by the large banks and the slashing of working conditions of bank employees. The supposed benefits of banking deregulation and administrative cost cutting have come at the expense of employees and consumers. It is important that similar outcomes do not occur in the retail sector as a result of this legislation. The benefits must flow to both consumers and employees.

Clause 26 of the bill requires the Minister to review the Act after five years and table a report in both Houses within a further 12 months. The review will provide an opportunity to assess the impact of the legislation on the rights of employees. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox and the member for Ballina, Mr Don Page, in the lower House referred to the impacts on shop owners who are tenants in shopping centres in small and mid-size country towns. Despite a relatively low Sunday turnover, their lease may require those shop owners to trade when the shopping centre is open. This impact, which could adversely affect the viability of small shops, should be assessed. The Greens do not oppose the bill. I am interested in the position the Christian Democratic Party will take on this bill, given its commitment to the fourth commandment. In some religions it is the third commandment, depending on which side of the Reformation one stands.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Which side do you stand on?

Dr JOHN KAYE: I stand right on top of it.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Not very successfully.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the theological comment from the Hon. Greg Donnelly and remind him of the importance of the separation of church and State. I will be interested to hear how the Christian Democratic Party resolves its commitment to the fourth commandment, the injunction for rest on the Sabbath, and its commitment to assisting the Government.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: If you will just be quiet, I will help you.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I look forward to that. The Greens do not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.47 p.m.]: The Shop Trading Bill 2008 deregulates shop trading hours while still restricting trading on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day morning, Christmas Day and Boxing Day. The bill provides exemptions even for the restricted trading days for certain small shops, repeals the Shops and Industries Act 1962 and transfers provisions relating to weekday and weekend trading by banks to other Acts. In 1855, when a bill restricting Sunday trading was being considered by the English Parliament, the working classes rioted. They were furious that their prized one day off per week, when they could shop and attend entertaining events, was going to be taken away from them. It was an apparent effort on the part of the establishment to force them to attend church services. They pointed out that the wealthy classes, which passed the bill, were not affected and could do whatever they wanted with their Sundays.

The English rioters would have appreciated this bill, which seeks to keep shops open, rather than closed, on Sundays. Times change. The bill deregulates almost all the old restrictions that control when shops can open. Supporters claim that the bill will get rid of needless red tape and allow retailers to set hours in accordance with market demand, except for the most significant traditional public holidays. They argue that exemptions to trading restrictions have been granted for shops in almost 70 per cent of the New South Wales local government areas, and that the bill reflects the change in society over the past 50 years since the Shops and Industries Act 1962 came into effect. Almost every organised human society has had regular days off. Today societies all over the world have a day that perhaps was originally reserved for religious observance but now is set aside to help structure shared social life. Whether it is Fridays throughout the entire Muslim world, Saturdays in the Jewish world or Sundays in the Christian world, there have always been days set aside when the demands of the marketplace do not make a valid claim on us. The weekly observance of the Christian Sunday may no longer be shared by many in the multicultural Australian community, but the need for a shared day away from the demands of business to spend with the family still exists.

We are not asking people to "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy"—which, the previous speaker will note, was one of the Jewish commandments as well as historically being part of the Christian tradition, especially among Scottish Christians, or Presbyterians—but something from the same world view that applies to everybody. The need for humans to have opportunity for rest and recreation, as was argued so well by the Australian Labor Party in its historic eight hour day legislation, is still valid today. With the stress of modern life, it is more important than ever to hang on to every opportunity for rest and relaxation. We are asking that human beings not be defined as consumers, businesses, or individuals whose every desire demands instant gratification, and that the wording does not try to make it sound reasonable by terming it "choice". We reject that world view and the definition of humans as merely economic units.

We believe, rather, that our Creator makes us for the purpose of relationships: relationships with our community, with our nuclear and extended families, with His creation, and with Him. We meet the demands of the external world on five or six days of the week with duty and responsibility—where do people think the term "Protestant Work Ethic" comes from? But the seventh day belongs to us, to our families and to whatever meaning we wish to give it—away from the demands of the outer world. Whether we want to attend worship services, take our family to the zoo, play sport, see a play or visit our relatives, that time is our own. We must acknowledge and respect the basic human rhythm. People can give and give, but then they need the time to recharge and rest. Human beings are not machines: we are not running in the same gear 24/7—we are vulnerable creatures. Society and the marketplace seem to have lost sight of, and respect for, that basic human need.

When people demand choice about when they are able to shop, I ask "whose choice"? Is it the person who has to work on a Sunday who would rather be home with his or her family, but cannot afford to say no? It should be remembered that we are discussing an issue concerning the least skilled and least specialised workers: those who are required to work in shops on Sunday. Is there a social justice aspect to the question that we have not considered? Do such workers desperate for part-time hours have the right or ability to turn down work on Sundays? We are not talking about judges, lawyers, surgeons or scientists; we are talking about shop clerks. These jobs are filled mostly by working-class women who are helping their husbands support their young families, young people, and people either at the beginning of their working lives or at the end of their working lives. These are not people at the upper end of the social ladder.

I note that the bill provides for staff to be employed on Sundays supposedly without coercion, harassment, threat or intimidation by the owner or occupier of the shop or lessees in a shopping complex. But who is fooling whom? When the power imbalance is so striking, what employee or lessee would be foolish enough to say no? Kevin Rudd's Labor Party was voted into Federal Government on the strength of its pitch to the voters of being committed to "helping working families". How does this legislation contribute to that promise? If mothers and fathers cannot spend the weekends with each other and their families because of their conflicting work schedules that is a serious step backward for the working families of New South Wales.

For decades there has been increasing concern about the loss of community in our modern society being one reason for the rise in shocking antisocial behaviour. One aspect of community is people having the same days off to share activities and have the opportunity to participate in celebrations of shared values. Such occasions help to create and cement bonds and to reinforce our interdependence; they are opportunities to make our communal life more harmonious. If we are all to go our separate ways 24 hours a day, 7 days a week there will be no time for communal sharing of anything. This would be a huge loss psychologically, socially and emotionally, and to our sense of belonging to a society. If we share nothing of value we are not a functional society or people. Changing the rhythms and structures of society is very serious, and it must be reflected upon.

If Sunday is just the same as any other day, would members of this House be willing to come to work on a Sunday? It would seem to make more sense than working until 3.30 in the morning during the week. If members accept this principle, why not work on Sunday? A large number of bills and private members' business items are currently before the House. Are we prepared to work on those on a Sunday? Why do we not all come back this Sunday, for example, and discuss the urgent business of Parliament? I guess not many of us would like that idea. And why not? Because we are not shop clerks; we are not the pushed around and poor people within the community. We believe we deserve a day of rest: a day when we can put our private lives and our families ahead of our work and the time we spend in this Chamber—a well earned day away from here. Everyone else who has a job deserves that right too. After all, the Jewish Old Testament records that even our Creator rested on the seventh day after six days of work. Because of the negative impact of the bill on the community, working families and individuals, I cannot in good faith support it.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.55 p.m.]: I support the comments of my colleague Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. I also do not support the Shop Trading Bill 2008 in principle. For many years there has been a big battle over Sunday trading. Usually the churches are very vocal in their support for preserving Sunday as not only a day of rest but also a day of worship for those who wish to worship. Obviously, going to church has always been voluntary and no-one insists that people go to church on Sunday. But human beings need time to rest and to get out of the rat-race. I believe that was God's intention when he said that one day in seven should be a day of rest, and that was the seventh day. However, after the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ, the early Christians started worshipping on the first day of the week to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the emphasis swung from religious activities on the seventh day to the first day of the week.

The churches then regarded the first day of the week as the Sabbath. One of the Ten Commandments says to keep the seventh day the Sabbath, and Sunday became the Sabbath. In fact, there are still Presbyterian churches that talk about Sabbath school, which is a Sunday school for children. Many churches transferred the Sabbath—the seventh day—to the first day of the week. That caused tensions because in the Jewish Old Testament there were many restrictions on what people could do on the Sabbath, and that still applies today in Israel. Apparently there is considerable conflict between the very committed Jewish groups, who insist on the observance of the Sabbath in line with the Old Testament, and the more secular Jewish residents in Israel.

But, in the main, Christians have come to recognise that Sunday is not the Sabbath and that the Jewish law should not be applied to the first day of the week—Sunday. However, Christians in general still want to have Sunday treated differently to the other six days of the week; they want it be a day of rest as far as possible in a modern, complex, commercial society where everybody wants to have access to shop seven days a week. People have been able to shop on a Sunday but the bill will take away any pretence of a special recognition of Sunday, which it has had historically. Shopping on Sunday has been limited until now. The bill will remove the current prohibition on Sunday trading by general retail shops. However, I commend the Government for retaining the prohibition on shops opening on Anzac Day before 1.00 p.m. and also on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

The prohibition will apply to the actual holiday, not the day on which the public holiday is observed. I sincerely mean it when I thank the Government for retaining this practice because some have asked why, in a modern society, these Christian festivals should get special recognition. There may even be some Christians who do not support that recognition by the State. I personally have no problem with that. Australia is a Christian country in its culture, conventions and heritage. I am not suggesting that everyone in Australia is a Christian. The census indicates that about 67 per cent of the population acknowledges an affiliation with one or other of the Christian denominations. However, I do not believe that non-Christians would object to those Christian festivals being observed as they have been traditionally. I respect the Government for retaining the observance of such days as Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day and the strange one we call Boxing Day.

I have said in debates on industrial relations legislation that the State's law should recognise the right of Jews to observe Saturday and the Muslims to observe Friday as their day of worship or rest. A huge proportion of our population are newcomers or first-generation Australians, and I am pleased to note that many of them are Christians, be they from Egypt, Lebanon, the Arab States, Korea, China, Vietnam or Cambodia. They have no problem with our society observing Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Christmas Day, and I am sure that they are keen for that observation to be retained. Some migrants have come from Communist countries, which do not recognise religious festivals. I know that many ethnic groups are very pleased that this country recognises its Christian heritage. Once again, I commend the Government for retaining that observance. However, I would still like to take the pressure off shop assistants and the owners of small shops who will feel obliged to open their doors on Sunday. They will be denied the opportunity to have a day of rest, even if they do not go to church.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.05 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to this debate. I will first reiterate the business case for this legislation and then respond to some of the issues raised during the second reading debate. The Iemma Government is listening to businesses in New South Wales, and it has heard loud and clear what they have said about red tape. The Government is strongly committed to improving the economic environment for business in this State by cutting red tape, and cutting it severely. That is one of the key priorities in the State Plan commitment to growing prosperity across New South Wales.

The Government is working to implement the 74 recommendations that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal made about reducing the burden of regulation in New South Wales. The first progress report shows that the Government has completed reforms for 23 of the 74 recommendations, 43 are on track to be delivered and eight are undergoing analysis. The amendment of shop trading hours regulation will fulfil another of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal's recommendations.

I note that members are concerned about a pattern across the State, particularly in service industries and shops. However, we should reflect honestly about what has happened, the changing nature of work in our community and the fact that patterns of work have changed. The Shops and Industries Act was enacted in 1962 and has been gradually amended by successive governments over the years to keep up with changing work patterns and contemporary lifestyles. For example, in contrast to 40 years ago, many women now work during the week and, unless things change with regard to women bearing the burden of shopping and household duties, they must shop for their families on Saturdays and Sundays. The Government has been granting exemptions to businesses that apply to trade on Sundays. Exemptions are largely available to any shopkeeper who wants one, although the preparation of an application can involve thousands of dollars in administrative costs. Removing the Sunday trading prohibition is expected to only slightly increase the number of shops trading on Sundays, because exemptions are so common and easy to obtain. Sunday trading is already ubiquitous in New South Wales.

In response to Dr John Kaye's comments about employee entitlements, I point out that this bill does not affect employees' terms and conditions of employment. It is simply about saying that on particular days of special community significance larger retail shops must close. As the High Court's WorkChoices decision confirmed, the terms and conditions under which most retail employees are employed are now governed primarily by Commonwealth rather than State law. Section 612 of the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act provides that employees are entitled to a day off on a public holiday and can refuse to work on a public holiday if they have reasonable grounds for doing so. The new Rudd Government has recently confirmed that a right to public holidays will be part of the minimum safety net standards for employees.

The Government believes that retail workers will not be greatly impacted upon by these reforms. The reality is that many value the flexibility of working over the weekend and having time off during the week. This is particularly the case for young women and parents who are studying or caring for children. These days also attract significant penalty rates and many use them to better manage their work/life balance. Working these days suits many parents, students and people with second jobs. This reform is not about putting extra pressure on workers. Workers still have the same rights; nothing has changed. Simply bringing shop trading legislation into practice will not affect employees. I thank members for their contributions and commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 30

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

Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe

Mr Smith
Mr Tsang
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Noes, 3

Reverend Nile

Tellers,
Mr Brown
Reverend Dr Moyes

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: I announce the presence in the gallery of Mr Yi, President of China Railway Resource Co. Ltd, along with his delegation, whom I welcome to the New South Wales Parliament.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 2 to 5 postponed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe.

SPORTING VENUES AUTHORITIES BILL 2008

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.16 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Ian Macdonald: I move:

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

Leave granted.

Sporting Venues Authorities Bill 2008

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [4.16 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Sporting Venues Authorities Bill 2008. I wish to pay tribute to a number of individuals who have contributed significantly over the years to the provision of sporting facilities in the Hunter, in particular in Newcastle. The bill will repeal the Sporting Venues Management Act 2002 as well as dissolve the Newcastle International Sports Centre Trust and the Newcastle Showground and Entertainment Centre Trust and establish the Sporting Venues Authority. The bill gives the Minister the power to establish regional sporting venue authorities. The State Sporting Venues Authority will be a New South Wales Government agency, and the bill will require the Minister to manage it.

The provisions of the bill are not controversial but it is worth noting that they will consolidate two trusts that exist side by side, geographically, in the city of Newcastle: the Newcastle Showground and Entertainment Centre Trust and the Newcastle International Sports Centre Trust. Members are well aware that Energy Australia Stadium and neighbouring sporting grounds are the home of champion rugby league team the Newcastle Knights and the reigning soccer champions of the Hyundai Premier League and the Australian League, the Newcastle Jets. Members will also acknowledge the contribution that those two sporting organisations have made to the lives of people interested in sport in Newcastle, in the Hunter, and throughout New South Wales.

I particularly congratulate Ted Aitchison and fellow Newcastle International Sports Centre Trust members for the time they have given, and the contributions they have made, to the development of Energy Australia Stadium. Many years ago as a very young school student I had the opportunity to play soccer on a field at what was known at the time as the Newcastle International Sports Centre. Over the years the ground has developed into a world-class stadium. It really is something to behold, and its reputation as a sporting venue will continue to grow. Much of the kudos for that can be attributed to the dedicated work of the members of the International Sports Centre Trust who did not give up when doubts were expressed about the future of the stadium. Individuals fought long and hard with both State and Federal governments to ensure the stadium got the recognition it deserved, and we have all witnessed the resultant progressive development of the site.

In April 2002, with John Brogden, who was then the Leader of the Liberal Party, and former Senator John Tierney, I met with Ted and members of the trust in the centre of what is now EnergyAustralia Stadium. The Liberal Party of New South Wales was the first to commit State funding to develop the stadium and the playing arena. This was well before former Premier Bob Carr was forced, because of public concern about the quality of accommodation for players and fans, to travel to Newcastle with a cheque to develop the eastern stand of the EnergyAustralia Stadium. Locals were frustrated that not enough was being done in this regard so John Brogden, Senator Tierney and I met with the trust and made that commitment.

The Liberal Party also defended the playing surface of that arena when the International Rugby Board, prior to the 2003 World Cup, suggested that the ground and facilities were not up to standard to host World Cup Rugby events. I said then—and I say now—that is absolute rubbish. If they were good enough for one of the best rugby league teams in the world—the Newcastle Knights—they would have been good enough for some of the fledgling nations to play there in 2003. In 2002 the Coalition called on the Premier and the Minister for Sport and Recreation to play an active role in any negotiations with the Australian Rugby Union to have World Cup rugby matches played at that arena in Newcastle. Sadly, those calls fell upon deaf ears and nothing eventuated.

It would have been fantastic for the people of Newcastle if the second dimension of rugby—rugby union—had played in that stadium. True it is that overwhelmingly the people of Newcastle are diehard supporters of the local rugby league team, the Newcastle Knights, but I am sure, as I was then, that if World Cup Rugby events had been played at that stadium at that time, the locals would have packed it to the rafters. They would have showed up in the thousands. Novocastrians would have welcomed the players of any international team as if they were locals, and it would have been an excellent opportunity to showcase the city of Newcastle to a worldwide audience.

The development of EnergyAustralia Stadium is a testament to the work of people like Ted and his committee. Some years ago before the eastern stand was constructed—an outstanding facility—there was talk about relocating the stadium, home of the Newcastle Knights and the famous Newcastle Jets, to the existing showground site because of the showground's proximity to Broadmeadow railway station. I acknowledge that that suggestion made a lot of sense; people could have travelled from any part of New South Wales either by bus, because of the proposed bus interchange, or rail, direct to that venue and thereby reducing the need for people to drive their cars. However, that debate is academic. Considerable thought was put into the proposal but it did not proceed. The outcome is EnergyAustralia Stadium, which is a wonderful facility from which to view all sports, but in particular, soccer and rugby league.

The proposal to consolidate the two trusts will not see the end of sports being played at the existing Newcastle showground site. This represents a new chapter in its development. I look forward to continuing to play a role, as a member of this House, in showcasing Newcastle and the contributions to the Hunter region of individuals such as the members of these two trusts.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.25 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the Sporting Venues Authorities Bill 2008, which repeals the Sporting Venues Management Act 2002 and continues the corporation sole constituted under that Act with the name "Minister administering the Sporting Venues Management Act 2002" as the State Sporting Venues Authority. The State Sporting Venue Authority will have key functions including the management of sporting groups, sporting facilities and recreational facilities to maximise community use and access to sporting facilities. The bill allows for the establishment of regional sporting venue authorities and the constitution of these authorities as bodies corporate upon listing in schedule 1 of the proposed Act. These authorities will have the opportunity to enter into arrangements whereby the regional authority can exercise functions of the State authority in relation to the control and management of sporting grounds and land.

Clauses 9 and 21, which set out the functions of the State Sporting Venues Authority and regional sporting venues authorities respectively, require that the State and regional authorities "make all reasonable attempts to ensure that any new development carried out on the authority's land accords with best practice environmental and planning standards". It is interesting to note that subclauses of clauses 9 and 21 impute obligations and duties on State and regional venue authorities regardless of whether or not the authority is vested with the land.

From Government briefings and my reading of the bill it is clear that there still remains a general duty of care, control and management for sporting facilities on land not vested in the State Sporting Venue Authority. The Government briefings and Legislative Review Committee acknowledge this, and instance the Sydney International Shooting Centre, the care, control and management of which remains with the Department of Sport and Recreation. Given the obligation of care and management, it appears contradictory that clause 9 (g) and clause 2l (g) apply only to land vested in the authority. Members may recall that ecological sporting venue management and development was referred to in debate on the National Parks and Wildlife (Adjustment of Areas) Act 2006, which revoked land within the Bargo State Conservation Area for the purpose of building the Sydney International Shooting Centre. In that debate a number of concerns were raised about lead contamination.

Clause 30, which is also of concern, allows a State or regional sport venue authority to manage and develop a venue that is not in compliance with a grant, reservation or dedication to which the land is or was subject to under any Act or law as long as it is managed in accordance with the proposed Sporting Venues Authorities Act. My office has sought further information from the Minister's office with respect to this provision and other associated matters, but I have received no further guidance or advice. Therefore, I ask the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to clarify in reply to this debate the scope of this provision, because it appears to have wide-ranging implications beyond individual contracts for land management.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.28 p.m.]: I speak on the Sporting Venues Authorities Bill 2008 and the effect that the bill will have on two trusts in the Hunter region. The bill will consolidate the administration of the Newcastle showground, the entertainment centre and the adjacent Hunter International Sport Centre, which has had various names over time. EnergyAustralia Stadium is the most colloquial name. The bill will establish the Hunter Region Sporting Venues Authority, into which the two trusts will be merged. I acknowledge over many years the fantastic work and commitment to the two facilities of many volunteers, in particular Ted Aitchison, and others, who have been persistent—some would say parochial—in their support of these two venues. They are important to the Hunter but not just to the Newcastle Knights and the Newcastle Jets, the two predominant sporting teams in the Hunter. These venues are used to host regional sporting and other entertainment events because of their proximity to the railway station and other public transport. I, like most people in the Hunter, have spent many freezing afternoons sitting in the stand watching rugby league and have benefited from the improvements that have taken place over the past few years.

The other thing I am particularly delighted about is that the bill's provisions will allow the Newcastle Show to continue at the Newcastle Showground. The Newcastle Show has had difficult times over the last few years. For the most part the show is run by volunteers, and it is a tradition that I hope will continue. At this year's show around 60,000 people went through the turnstiles. Although the Newcastle Show is a somewhat old-fashioned tradition, it is still very popular. I hope the bill assists, as I am sure it will, with the efficient management of these two valuable facilities. I look forward to assisting them in any way I can in the future. The Opposition supports the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.31 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the State Sporting Venues Authorities Bill 2008, an administrative bill that will dissolve the Newcastle International Sports Centre Trust and the Newcastle Showground and Entertainment Centre Trust, as well as repeal the Sporting Venues Management Act 2002. The bill will establish the State Sporting Venues Authority and allow regional sporting venues authorities to be established. The State Sporting Venues Authority is a New South Wales Government agency, and the bill provides for the Minister to manage the authority.

The bill proposes to consolidate the administration of the Newcastle Showground and Entertainment Centre and the adjacent Hunter International Sports Centre through the establishment of a Hunter Region Sporting Venues Authority. The new authority will take over the responsibilities of two Crown lands trusts, the Newcastle International Sports Centre Trust and the Newcastle Showground and Exhibition Centre Trust, while guaranteeing the Newcastle Show Society continued access to the site to hold the annual show. It will be far more efficient to have a single authority. I spent some years in the Newcastle area when I lived at Mayfield and was in charge of a church there. Newcastle people are very keen on their sport, and it is important that these sporting centres be well provided for, maintained and modernised so they can continue to meet the needs of the large population of Newcastle. We support the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.33 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Sporting Venues Authorities Bill 2008. Mr Ian Cohen raised concerns about clause 30, which deals with reservations, dedications and original grants of land. The provision is very similar to the provisions already set out in the Sporting Venues Management Act and the Crown Lands Act. The concerns raised by the honourable member are a little unfounded. 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.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Reference

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

That the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which is a joint statutory committee, inquire into and report on the effectiveness of current laws, practices and procedures in protecting whistleblower employees who make allegations against officials and members of Parliament.

Richard Torbay

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.35 p.m.]: I move:

STATE PLAN

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [4.35 p.m.]: I wish to respond to recent comments made by the Hon. Melinda Pavey regarding State Plan progress and performance reporting. The New South Wales State Plan has driven an evidence-based approach to decision making in New South Wales. In selecting performance measures and targets, the Government has favoured measures that provide robust comparative information, are independently collected, and provide an existing baseline against which to assess performance. The Cabinet Committee on State Plan Performance reviews progress across all State Plan priorities every quarter. The committee identifies where performance is off track and, in consultation with the lead Minister, identifies strategies to help achieve our targets.

In December 2007 the New South Wales Government released a 12-month report on progress across all priorities. Information included a performance dashboard that reflected both positive and negative results. While it is still early days in the Government's 10-year commitment, I am advised that 9 of our 14 key goals are showing measurable progress towards achieving the State Plan targets, even at this early stage. This result has driven a renewed focus on the less well-performing areas, particularly to improve outcomes for Aboriginal people. State Plan Priority F1 is about strengthening Aboriginal communities. The State Plan Priority F1 targets have been expanded to five areas that will reduce the gap in wellbeing between Aboriginal communities and the total population of New South Wales.

As our State Plan target is to "reduce the gap" in wellbeing between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations, the Government reports the most current comparative data available. The 2007 State Plan Performance Dashboard, released on 10 December 2007, included the following information about environmental health measures for Aboriginal communities. In 2006 the admission rate for gastrointestinal infections was 14 per cent higher for Aboriginal children than for non-Aboriginal children. At the time the report was released this was the current comparative data available. As members would be aware, the Hon. Melinda Pavey recently referred to the increase in hospital admission rates for gastroenteritis. The "Two Ways Together Report on Indicators", released on 22 April 2008, states:

Both the State Plan and the "Two Ways Together" report draw on the same data collections. One of the reasons for the change in rates is an international change in the classification of diseases that took effect in New South Wales in 1995-96. This is not to excuse the gap, but it certainly demonstrates that the facts are not being hidden and the Government is not shying away from the hard work we need to undertake to improve environmental health for Aboriginal communities. One of the Government's incentives to achieve this is to reform the budget process to allocate resources to deliver State Plan priorities. The announcements made as part of the 2008-09 State budget brought down on 3 June demonstrate the results from the new budget reprioritisation process. Importantly, the State budget delivered funding for initiatives that will significantly take forward State Plan Priority F1 and other priorities relevant to Aboriginal people.

The 2008-09 budget included a joint investment by the New South Wales Government and the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council of $205 million over 25 years for a significant water and sewerage upgrade and maintenance program in more than 60 discrete Aboriginal communities. The program will build on the Government's investment of $16.4 million in water and sewerage infrastructure under its 10-year Aboriginal Communities Development Program, and will provide for ongoing and effective monitoring and maintenance. The 2008-09 budget also included an initial commitment of $6.3 million over three years to build water and sewerage infrastructure in 22 communities, and $29.9 million over four years to provide ongoing support for the operation, maintenance and monitoring of water and sewerage systems through this program.

During question time today the Attorney General gave an extensive response concerning the New South Wales Interagency Plan to Tackle Child Sexual Assault. I have been advised that $22.9 million over four years was announced in this year's budget to extend the local-level implementation of the New South Wales Interagency Plan to five further locations in western New South Wales under an expansion of the Safe Families Program. This is in addition to the $960,000 in funding over four years for community engagement officers in the original four locations of the Safe Families Program. In addition, funding of $200,000 over four years is being allocated in these four locations to help build community capacity. These investments are in addition to the $30 million that has been provided from the existing budgets of New South Wales Government agencies for the implementation of the interagency plan.

New South Wales is providing a range of other programs and services to close the gap for Aboriginal people in New South Wales. Over four years $19.1 million will be provided through NSW Health to build strong foundations for Aboriginal children, families and community strategy. This strategy will extend services already provided under the Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Strategy to ensure that all Aboriginal families in New South Wales with young children have quality access to early childhood health services. Contrary to claims made by the Opposition, and in particular the Hon. Melinda Pavey, the New South Wales Government has been providing substantial funding aimed at strengthening Aboriginal communities and improving outcomes for Aboriginal people.

STATE AND TERRITORY GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY 2006

Dr JOHN KAYE [4.40 p.m.]: The release this week of the State and Territory Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006 sounds the alarm bell on the failure of the current energy policies of the New South Wales Government and warns of the disastrous consequences of privatisation of the electricity industry. The inventory shows escalating emissions from the New South Wales electricity industry. Over the period 1990 to 2005 emissions grew at an annual average rate of just 1.7 per cent. In 2005-06—the last period for which reported data is available—emissions grew at a shocking 2.6 per cent. An additional 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide poured from the smokestacks of the coal-fired generators in New South Wales, standing as a testament to the failure of the Iemma Government's ability to control greenhouse gas emissions. At this rate, greenhouse gas emissions from electricity alone will double in just 37 years.

At a time when the State should be reducing its contribution to global warming, the Iemma Government has lost control of greenhouse gas emissions. The Minister for Energy, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, has told us that the Government's greenhouse gas abatement scheme has saved 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. The inventory puts paid to that piece of propaganda. Any emissions trading scheme that fails to reduce emissions is of no value whatsoever. The greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme is now on its last legs and is soon to be replaced by a national emissions trading scheme.

There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the failure of the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme to contain greenhouse gas emissions from the State's electricity generators. The first lesson is that its so-called benchmark schemes that trade in variations around a nominal level of emissions do not procure real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The second lesson, which was pointed out by Sir Nicholas Stern in his benchmark report, is that market mechanisms on their own simply will not be adequate to the task of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Whilst putting a price on carbon entering the atmosphere is essential, it alone will not work without additional regulatory measures.

Containing New South Wales breakout in carbon dioxide emissions will require action both on the supply and demand side of the electricity industry. Energy-efficiency standards on buildings, consumer products and industrial processes, and in particular on water heating, will be essential to end the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. We must end the sale of devices that waste energy. On the supply side of the industry, it is time that the New South Wales Government sent a strong signal saying that there will not be any new coal-fired power stations in New South Wales. The Government has invested heavily in promoting renewable energy to the point where it has become the dominant form of electricity supply in this State, and high-efficiency gas generation is encouraged only when all other zero greenhouse gas measures fail.

We also need to end the arguments about the economic viability of a society that reduces greenhouse gas emissions to a sustainable level. A CSIRO report this week identified increases in employment if we have serious greenhouse gas reduction targets. We are not saying that this will be an easy task. Substantial retooling and retraining of the industry of the State will be required, but the longer we leave it the harder it will be to do. It will be cheaper if we start immediately and, if we do it cleverly, transforming the industry and transforming the labour force can result in real economic, social and demographic gains. Markets will not deliver on their own. The effects of carbon trading will be disastrous on low-income households unless other mechanisms are put in place. It is important to have institutional arrangements that facilitate the protection of low-income households, not only by protecting income but also by ensuring access to capital to transform households to energy efficiency.

Nothing is gained for the environment if emissions trading results purely in a price increase. Reducing quantities consumed not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but also is the key to containing household bills. As bad as greenhouse policies have been in New South Wales, they are now taking a turn for the worse—particularly if privatisation goes ahead. Not only will it create political and financial barriers to phasing out coal-fired power stations, but also the process of trying to privatise industry will undermine the integrity of the emissions trading scheme. Treasurer Costa is today reported in the Australian Financial Review as saying you would have to have rocks in your head if you attempted to secure an emissions trading scheme that does not include free permits for large generators. [Time expired]

PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [4.45 p.m.]: Today I will make some comments about the public education system in New South Wales and, in particular, the disarray, the decline and the general plight of public education in this State under a Labor government. The evidence shows that Labor has been an abysmal failure in delivering for the people of New South Wales. It has failed in health, it has failed in law and order, it has failed in transport and, beyond any doubt, it has failed in providing satisfactory standards for our education system. It has failed in providing proper and adequate infrastructure for education and it has failed in providing a school curriculum that is free of heavy doses of political correctness. It has failed to resist the effects of trendy left elites using our teaching institutions as laboratories for their latest teaching fads. It has even failed to provide a safe environment for teachers and students free from an increasing culture of violence and physical intimidation.

That is why an increasing proportion of parents is opting out of the public education system and sending their children to non-government schools, even though it means shouldering an increased financial burden. Each year the proportion of students in government schools declines and that in non-government schools increases. Between 1996 and 2006 the percentage of students in non-government schools increased by 21.5 per cent, whereas the percentage in government schools increased by only 1.2 per cent. The time is not that far off when the majority of school students in this State will be enrolled in non-government schools, and that is despite the fact that combined State and Federal Government funding per student in government schools is more than twice that spent for each student in non-government schools.

Why are parents increasingly turning to non-government schools? Surveys show that they believe their children will be subject to better discipline. They believe that their children will be exposed to a better philosophy of education, to better teaching methods and to a more traditional academic approach to the curriculum. They believe that their children will not be the target of political correctness or be subject to a climate of escalating violence and school bullying. They believe their children will not be the target of philosophies of life that are the very opposite to the mainstream values by which they seek to raise their children. Yet the State Labor Government does little or nothing to fix the problems, which are resulting in the exodus from public schools.

Let us take, for example, the incidence of violence and public schools. According to figures released by the New South Wales Department of Education and Training, 2007 saw 252 official reports of assaults or serious threats. Almost daily the media carries reports of incidence of serious and horrific violence. At least 10 per cent of State schools had such incidents in the six months to September of 2007. These figures do not include the substantial number of incidents that are never reported because of fear and intimidation. Yet despite this epidemic of violence the number of pupils expelled for misbehaving actually declined for the year by 15 per cent.

Clearly the Government is at a loss at how to deal with the problem. It has allowed its response to the problem to be infected with trendy theories of discipline, which have proved to be a failure overseas wherever they have been tried. Public school teachers complain of underfunding for suspension centres to handle the more than 13,000 long suspensions handed out last year. No wonder there is a widespread, but unfortunately true, perception that discipline and order has collapsed in so many government schools. There is also a growing concern that the full extent of drug use and bullying of both students and teachers is being understated as a result of new reporting procedures. This is a matter that the President of the New South Teachers Federation, Maree O'Halloran, has expressed concerned about.

Why would teachers want to keep teaching in public school, and parents send their children there, when their safety cannot be guaranteed? The Government has no resolve to deal with these problems. It has no plan to deal with these problems. It fails to make available the resources to deal with these problems. The Labor Government in New South Wales is losing the support and confidence of parents of children in both government and non-government schools. Parents of public school students are upset that sufficient infrastructure and resources are not being made available to public schools. They are upset that standards are declining—education is being dumbed down by failed trendy and faddish theories of education—and school violence is increasing.

Parents of non-government school students are not enamoured with the New South Wales Labor Government, or indeed any Labor government. They know that the Labor Party has always harboured a sizeable element within its ranks that is the enemy of choice in education, an element that would starve non-government schools of funding if it could, and an element that would gut and dismantle the entire non-government education sector if given half a chance. These parents well remember that, only a few years ago, a Mark Latham-led Labor Government went to a Federal election on an education policy that had as its centrepiece a hit list of private schools. That was the tip of the iceberg. Had Mark Latham become Prime Minster of this nation, it would have been bleak days for the non-government school sector.

After his defeat Mark Latham had no friends in New South Wales Labor, but when he was the leader they could not sing his praises enough. He was the new messiah. They were happy to embrace him and his policy of confrontation of choice in education. There still exists within Federal and State Labor those who, given half a chance, would wreak havoc on the private school system. What Mark Latham failed to do with head-on confrontation, these elements will seek to achieve through stealth, through the back door and through the Fabian socialist tactic of gradualism. But the days of these people, their policies and their secret hit lists are numbered. In March 2011 they will come to an end when this useless Government is pulled off its pedestal and turfed out. That will be the start of better days for education in this State and for students in both government and non-government schools.

MAHA KRAYEM ABDO, OAM

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [4.50 p.m.]: Last week I attended a celebration for Maha Krayem Abdo, who was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the 2008 Queen's Birthday honours list. Maha received her award for service to Western Sydney's Muslim community, particularly in the area of Muslim women's leadership training, social justice and inter-faith dialogue. Ms Krayem Abdo and her family migrated from Lebanon to Australia in the 1960s. She barely spoke a word of English when her family began their life in Australia in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. They soon moved to Picnic Point, where Maha attended East Hills Girls Technology High School. Today she lives in Revesby with her husband and children.

As an adult Maha saw the many difficulties Muslim women faced not just as members of a minority group but also, for many of them, as refugees who came to Australia from the other side of the world. Those women were attempting to settle into a new life in Australia, with its very different culture and language to those of their homelands. It was these experiences that led Maha to undertake studies that would give her the skills to assist her Muslim sisters settle into their new homeland and to fully participate in Australian society. Maha Krayem Abdo has been involved in the social welfare field for two decades. She has a social work degree and is finalising her Masters in Social Science at the University of Western Sydney. Throughout this time she has managed the Muslim Women's Association and coordinated staff programs and activities of the organisation. She has represented the Muslim community on ministerial advisory committees and served four years as a member of the Premier's Council for Women.

Growing up in Australia Maha observed that the public debate about Islam and Muslims was focused on the negative aspects of Islam. This experience gave her a deep desire to participate in Australian society and take a role in correcting those myths. She certainly has fulfilled that desire, particularly as President of the United Muslim Women's Association where, it is fair to say, Maha became the de facto voice of Muslim women in Australia. Maha has organised young Muslim women's leadership camps on an annual basis for the last 18 years. She continues to work with young Muslim women leaders on various projects and develop partnerships with various government and non-government organisations at a local, State and national level. The result of one of her many projects was the development of a magazine called Reflections, which is widely read by young Muslim women.

Maha has participated in local, national and international forums to foster and promote a better understanding of Australian Muslim women and their status in Islam in today's multicultural and multireligious society, with a focus on celebrating diversity. She continues to be involved in religious dialogues at all levels and aims to provide women with the appropriate skills to ensure they have a voice to participate in Australian society. Maha is the antithesis of the stereotype of Muslim women that is often perpetuated by a hostile media. She has never struck me as oppressed or submissive. To the contrary, Maha has always been willing to speak out, stand up and be counted on issues of social justice. She has publicly debated politicians and media commentators on issues affecting Muslim women.

Speaking out for Muslim women has also meant speaking out against those who have been willing to exploit that very human experience of fear, particularly the fear of difference which allowed Muslims to be stereotyped as terrorists and gang rapists who could not and would not fit into our Australian way of life. I became well aware of the impact that this exploitation of fear had on the Muslim community during my years on Bankstown City Council. Muslim women in particular bore the brunt of this expression of fear and intolerance, as they were easily identifiable as Muslims in their hijabs and traditional robes. They were abused, spat on and harassed during the worst times of this regretful period of Australian history. Maha and her colleagues at the Muslim Women's Association often took calls from women who were distressed by the abuse they received when out in public during this dark period.

Maha is also not afraid to speak out if ethnic communities misinterpret the Islamic religion and women are mistreated. Through the Muslim Women' s Association she works to correct that damaging misinterpretation of Islam. In addition to her work in support of Muslim women, Maha aims to build bridges between the non-Muslim and Muslim communities in Australia by establishing peace forums and fostering dialogue about what it means to live in a peaceful environment. In her typically humble way, when asked about the award Maha said she was delighted but that the honour did not belong to her alone, it belonged to all the women working in the community. Maha Krayem Abdo, OAM, is a woman of great courage, faith, dignity and dedication.

COSMETIC SURGERY REGULATION

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.54 p.m.]: I refer to the valid and pressing concerns of a constituent, Deirdre Nolan, who has contacted members as part of her work to shine a light on the dangers surrounding the burgeoning plastic surgery industry. Ms Nolan has a blog on which she advocates for justice, safety and transparency in the ill-regulated field of cosmetic surgery. I encourage members to look at her blog. It is amazing how much the world has changed in recent years. Plastic surgery, once the domain of movie stars and celebrities, has become so common that reality television shows are devoted to it, and the media provides heart-rending reports of teenagers buying breast enlargements and paying for nose jobs on credit. Even the terminology has changed from "plastic surgery" to the more innocuous sounding "cosmetic surgery".

Quite aside from the troubling implications of society's narcissistic and image-driven obsession, the unquenchable thirst for youth and aesthetic perfection, and the relentless pressure on women to literally reshape their appearances to bring them into line with a certain manufactured image promoted by Hollywood, advertisers and marketing companies, the health dangers are very real, but the dangers are being progressively overlooked as there is a push to normalise these procedures. Not so long ago the concept of injecting a highly poisonous neurotoxin into one's face would have seemed unusual or unacceptable. Now it is considered just another beauty treatment, something to be done between leg waxing and a new hairstyle. The injection of the botulinum toxin—trade name "botox"—can go badly wrong, and not just for those unfortunate celebrities whose frozen grimaces are telltale signs of intervention. There are numerous serious side effects, including recent studies that show it can transfer to the brain, causing disruption to the ability of the nerve cells to communicate and change spinal cord circuitry.

There are numerous other issues with the near infinite array of so-called cosmetic procedures available. Liposuction is implicated in fatalities and several United States jurisdictions are passing new laws, particularly following the death of the mother of high-profile hip-hop artist Kanye West following surgery late last year. In 2000 an American journal called Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery reported on a study that found a death rate as high as 20 in every 100,000 patients who underwent liposuction. That is higher than the death rate for car accidents. Aside from the obvious and very dangerous health issues, many cowboys in the industry are taking advantage of loopholes in the law to operate without proper regulation, controls or oversight. The industry is estimated to be worth about $19 billion in the United States. No accurate numbers are available on this exponentially growing Australian industry. The most recent in-depth investigation in this State came via the 1999 New South Wales Committee of Inquiry into Cosmetic Surgery. Sadly, as with so many well-intentioned inquiries, it seems this one served very little purpose. An article in 2005 quotes Professor Merrilyn Walton, who headed that inquiry, bemoaning the lack of progress. Professor Walton, former head of the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission, said:

Very little has changed.

She then quipped:

It's not true to say nothing: the New South Wales Government has actually prohibited cosmetic surgery being offered as a prize in a lottery.

The article also claimed that six years after the inquiry there was still no basic education or training standards at State level and nothing to prevent a doctor from setting up shop after a weekend course on liposuction in the Bahamas. Furthermore, in many cases the State is bearing the brunt of costs associated with botched jobs here and overseas, especially as the vogue for cut-price Asian plastic surgery holidays grows. These procedures can end disastrously—for example, according to media reports, one young Australian woman has a two-centimetre bald strip across the top of her scalp after a botched eyebrow lift in Thailand, and another returned home from an overseas breast enlargement operation with no cleavage as a result of a surgical error.

I realise that many highly trained and competent plastic surgeons work in difficult circumstances to deal with long waiting lists for reconstructive surgery. Further, I am aware of the work the medical board is doing to establish standards and regulations. But the Government must do more. It must act on the recommendations of the 1990 inquiry, enact appropriate laws and establish an education program. It is a complex issue to educate people, particularly women, about body image and how they perceive themselves. But, clearly the two issues are linked and it is time the Government acted.

BEECHWOOD HOMES

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.59 p.m.]: Many honourable members will remember Professor Julius Sumner Miller's science program on ABC TV when he would demonstrate some baffling feat of science, then lean forward to the cameras and address his youthful audience with the immortal words, "Why is it so?" In considering the problems the Office of Fair Trading is experiencing with the dysfunctional building licence system and home warranty problems, which have resulted in so many victims losing their savings, their jobs, their families and even their homes, and with no way out of their crisis, I have stepped back and wondered how can any system in a democratic country like Australia be so impervious to their plight and so resistant to reform.

Since the Carr Government introduced its privatised home warranty scheme in New South Wales in 1995 there have been about 30 inquiries nationally into this and similar schemes. All have failed to convince the New South Wales Government to effect meaningful reform. So I ask myself: Why is it so? Why is it that Minister Burney continues to defy the weight of evidence from these inquiries and from consumers, Parliament, builders, the media and the Opposition? Why does she continue to argue that New South Wales has "a very good scheme of home warranty insurance"?
The collapse of Beechwood with around 1,000 consumer victims and possibly another 1,000 contractor and supplier victims, many of whom also face the loss of their homes, has blown the lid off how bad this insurance scheme is. On 13 June I was flabbergasted when the Minister issued a media release headed "Consumers Support Home Warranty Insurance Scheme". What absolute baloney. Nobody supports this scheme except the insurance companies, which are reaping super profits. The Minister's press release states:

This is a grossly misleading statement by the Minister because she fails to make mention in those figures of the estimated $225 million in premiums that have been taken in by the insurance companies, which gives us the calculation of a 7 per cent pay out in claims as a proportion of premiums. That is a shocking reflection on the scheme. How any consumer affairs Minister can defend such a rip-off beggars belief.

Since I last spoke in the House about this matter we have learned more about the Beechwood collapse. Over the past week we have learned that the Office of Fair Trading has renewed Larry King's licence, in defiance of the provisions of the Home Building Act, even though one of his businesses, Written Bloodstock, was in receivership. It is very clear under the Home Building Act that when a builder loses $72 million on his horses, the Office of Fair Trading has a duty to start asking questions. Had those questions been asked and inquiries been made about the liquidity of the builder and his ability to complete contracts at that stage—three years ago—Beechwood would have been sold far earlier, without the need for the company to collapse and work to stop on those projects. This failure by the Office of Fair Trading is absolutely crucial.

On Tuesday on Radio 2GB Minister Burney explained that the Office of Fair Trading allowed Beechwood Homes to keep trading because she said Vero did not tell Fair Trading about Larry King's $72 million loss on his racehorses. That was an absolutely extraordinary attempt to evade her basic ministerial responsibilities. Unfortunately for the Minister, that is not what the Act says. It is her director general who issues the licences, not Vero. It is her director general who has the special powers of inquiry and seizure of confidential financial documents, not Vero. And it is Minister Burney and her department who are responsible for consumer protection in New South Wales, not Vero.

The Minister and the announcement that Vero is really the one to blame for all of this would have come as a great shock to the insurance giant because up until that point Vero had been the Minister's most loyal supporter. It had been working in lock step all the way through this issue to try to present what is a rip-off scheme in a more favourable light than it deserves. Vero adds its name to a long list of other people the Minister has been blaming—the receiver, her department's website, the media, and even the Opposition—for what are, in effect, her own mistakes.

As we go into the winter break, I see a Minister surrounded by the wreckage of failed builders—there have been more in the last week—and devastated human beings who have no pathway out of their problems. I see negative media and consumer and industry critics begging for change, but still the Minister defends the scheme. [Time expired.]

LAKEMBA SERVICES CLUB SIXTIETH ANNIVERSARY

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [5.04 p.m.]: On 6 June I represented the Premier at the Lakemba Services Club's sixtieth anniversary. The Lakemba Services Club's beginnings stretch back to 1918. The first step was the creation of a memorial hall in the late 1920s. When the first moves were made in the early 1940s to bring the organisation together, many obstacles had to be overcome, including overturning the Memorial Hall Trust deed by an Act of Parliament. At the sixtieth anniversary three clubs joined together and I congratulate the club on celebrating such an important milestone.

[Time for debate expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.05 p.m. until Tuesday 23 September 2008 at 2.30 p.m.

_______________

Last modified 29/09/2008 08:55:18 : Update this page