The President (The Hon. Peter Thomas Primrose) took the chair at 10.57 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: Today is Remembrance Day. I ask all members of the House to stand in their places to remember those who made the supreme sacrifice for their country.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places as a mark of respect.

The PRESIDENT: Lest we forget.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

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

The President tabled, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act 1974, a special report of the Ombudsman entitled, "The implementation of the Joint Guarantee of Service for People with Mental Health Problems and Disorders Living in Aboriginal, Community and Public Housing", dated November 2009.

The President announced, pursuant to the Act, that it had been authorised that the report be made public.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Private Members' Business item No. 101 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.03 a.m.]: I move:

(1) That this House notes:

(a) that deriving profits from punishment regimes raises significant ethical issues,

(b) that a 2001 United States Justice Department study reported there are 49 per cent more assaults on staff, and 65 per cent more assaults on prisoners in private prisons,

(c) that a 2008 report from the United Kingdom Prisons Service ranks 10 of the 11 privately-run prisons in England and Wales in the bottom quarter of all prisons on security and maintaining order and control,

(d) that in the United Kingdom, private prison staff earn between 30 and 50 per cent less than officers in state-run prisons and receive lower levels of training,

(e) that in 2000 the privately operated Metropolitan Women's Prison in Victoria was returned to state control after being described by the then Minister of Corrections as presenting a very clear risk to community safety because of repeated operational deficiencies including a failure to implement fundamental security and drug prevention obligations,

(f) that the international experiment in privatised prisons has failed with private prisons in countries including the United States, Canada, Scotland, New Zealand and Australia being returned to state control, and

(g) that there is no conclusive evidence that private prisons deliver genuine economic savings to the community.

(2) That this House calls on the Government not to proceed with any further privatisation of the State's prison system.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Private Members' Business item No. 117, 134, 149, 202, 217 and 226 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

Motion by Dr John Kaye agreed to:

That the resolution of the House of 29 October 2009 relating to papers on agricultural high schools in New South Wales be amended by omitting in paragraph 2 "16 November 2009" and inserting instead "12 November 2009".

Motion by Mr Ian Cohen agreed to:

That this House notes that:

(a) 9 to 15 November 2009 is Spinal Cord Injuries Awareness Week,

(b) spinal cord injuries are physically and psychologically devastating and approximately 10,000 Australians are currently living with spinal cord injuries,

(c) the number of Australians suffering from spinal cord injury is increasing by nearly 400 annually,

(d) the upcoming summer period is when most people sustain an injury, and

(e) Spinal Cord Injuries Australia has launched a program called "Walk On", which provides people with quadriplegia and paraplegia the opportunity to gain a better quality of life, to be more independent, to better control debilitating pain and physical issues associated with a spinal cord injury and increasing their chances of being able to walk again through intensive exercise and physiotherapy.

The Hon. John Robertson tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 10 November 2009.

Petition requesting that the Parliament reject any proposed legislation or amendments to adoption laws that would take away the fundamental human right of adopted children to be raised by both a mother and a father, received from the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox.

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Roy Smith.

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. 229 outside the Order of Precedence relating to an order for papers regarding Dalwood Assessment Centre be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 229 outside the Order of Precedence relating to an order for papers regarding Dalwood Assessment Centre be called on forthwith.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.20 a.m.]: I thank members for their support. I move:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Education and Training, Department of Education and Training, the Minister for Health, NSW Health, Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service, the Treasurer, NSW Treasury, the Premier, or the Department of Premier and Cabinet, relating to the pending closure of the Dalwood Assessment Centre and Palm Avenue School at Seaforth:

(a) any correspondence created since 2000 relating to the pending closure of the Dalwood Assessment Centre and Palm Avenue School at Seaforth,

(b) any document which refers or relates to details of New South Wales Government funding or Commonwealth Government funding awarded to the Dalwood Assessment Centre and Palm Avenue School at Seaforth since 1992,

(c) any briefings provided to the Premier or Government members of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council regarding the pending closure of the Dalwood Assessment Centre and Palm Avenue School at Seaforth,

(d) the final and any draft copies of the June 2009 Review of Palm Avenue School/Dalwood Assessment Centre,

(e) a copy of the complete financial records including but not limited to annual revenue, expenditure and financial liabilities of Dalwood Assessment Centre and Palm Avenue School at Seaforth created since 1992,

(f) any document which shows the modelling and research behind the proposed future program that will replace the existing program at Dalwood Assessment Centre and Palm Avenue School at Seaforth,

(g) a copy of the most recent land valuation for the Dalwood Assessment Centre and Palm Avenue School at Seaforth, and

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

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.21 a.m.]: I move:

That the question be amended as follows:

(1) Insert "or WorkCover Authority" after "the Department of Premier and Cabinet".

(2) Insert after paragraph (g):

(h) any documents relating to any occupational health and safety assessments, investigations or orders relating to Dalwood Assessment Centre and Palm Avenue School at Seaforth created since 1992, and

The purpose of the amendment is to broaden slightly the call for papers to address the issues related to allegations that there are occupational health and safety matters relating to the Dalwood Assessment Centre and Palm Avenue School sites.

Question—That the amendment of Dr John Kaye be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment of Dr John Kaye agreed to.

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

Motion as amended agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.23 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 210 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the Save the Graythwaite Estate Bill be called on forthwith.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 210 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.32 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am proud to introduce the Save the Graythwaite Estate Bill 2009 on behalf of the Greens today. The purpose of this bill is to provide the legal protection necessary to preserve the Graythwaite Estate in public hands for future generations. It is fitting that this bill is introduced on 11 November, Armistice Day. The historical significance of the Graythwaite Estate dates back to World War I. The Friends of Graythwaite describe the property as "a living link to Gallipoli and all that means to our national identity". Sir Thomas Dibbs generously entrusted the Graythwaite Estate to the State of New South Wales in June 1915, in the immediate aftermath of the terrible losses Australian troops suffered at Gallipoli. Stories from that time tell of the coming together—the solidarity and sympathy—felt throughout this country for the young troops who lost their lives and for their families.

At that moment in history Sir Thomas Dibbs gifted Graythwaite Estate to the State Government as a convalescent home for sick and wounded soldiers and sailors and, if not needed for that purpose, as a convalescent home in perpetuity for distressed subjects of the British Empire. I acknowledge the tireless work of the local community group the Friends of Graythwaite. This group, formed in 2005, has led the campaign to keep the Graythwaite Estate in public hands. I have relied a lot on the wealth of knowledge held by the Friends of Graythwaite in outlining the history and significance of this estate. I also acknowledge the work of North Sydney Council in advocating for the preservation of the Graythwaite Estate and the construction division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union for placing a green ban over the site since August this year.

The importance of the Graythwaite Estate cannot be underestimated. It is unbelievable that the New South Wales Government would consider selling this precious piece of land, seemingly for the sake of a cash grab. Graythwaite Estate occupies an important place in the modern history of Australia and in Sydney's urban landscape. The Graythwaite Estate is located at 50 Union Street, North Sydney. It is the only remaining large area of parkland close to North Sydney's central business district [CBD]. Anyone who has visited its six acres of landscaped gardens could attest to its beautiful lawns, towering 130-year-old fig trees, rainforest glades and peaceful seclusion. In the hustle and bustle of the crowded North Sydney CBD it is a magical gem, and I urge people to visit it. Within the grounds is the historic three-storey Victorian sandstone mansion, and there are all these wonders to behold.

The Graythwaite Estate is currently listed on the State Heritage Register, the Register of the National Estate and with the National Trust of Australia. Following Sir Thomas Dibbs' instructions that the site was to be used as a convalescent home for sick and wounded soldiers and sailors the Red Cross ran the estate as a convalescent home from 1916 to 1980. In 1980 the Graythwaite Estate was taken over by the Department of Health to be run as a nursing home. Since then one would have to describe the estate as having seen better days. Indeed, the Friends of Graythwaite describe the estate as being in a state of almost criminal neglect since the Department of Health took it over. In 1994 the Department of Health initiated a process to sell off Graythwaite for development. A major community campaign at the time saw plans temporarily shelved. The plans were shelved but they were certainly not forgotten—not forgotten by the people who feel so passionate about saving this estate for the public or by Mr Dibbs's family.

In 2001 the Department of Health again started making moves to sell off the Graythwaite Estate. In March 2006 the North Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service started action in the Supreme Court to enable it to sell the estate for development. In August 2008 the Supreme Court found that the current use of Graythwaite as a nursing home for patients with no prospect of recovery was not consistent with the use for which Sir Thomas Dibbs gave the Graythwaite Estate—for convalescence. As a consequence, the court found that the Graythwaite Estate had failed in its responsibilities. A second round of court proceedings then began to determine the best use for Graythwaite Estate. Two schemes were proposed to the court. Firstly, the Department of Health proposed that Graythwaite Estate be sold and the proceeds be used for a rehabilitation facility at Ryde Hospital.

Secondly, it was proposed that Graythwaite Trust be filled by a Commonwealth grant of $15 million to the Returned Services League [RSL] for the provision of care services to veterans and that the grounds of Graythwaite Estate be leased for a peppercorn rent to North Sydney Council for use as a regional park for North Sydney's CBD. This proposal also included that the Commonwealth provide $5 million for restoration of the Graythwaite mansion, and that St Vincent's Hospital and Mater hospital construct a new rehabilitation facility adjacent to the Graythwaite mansion. The Commonwealth Government, the RSL, North Sydney Council, St Vincent's Hospital and Mater hospital, and the Friends of Graythwaite supported this proposal. In November 2008 the court found in favour of the scheme proposed by the Department of Health on the basis that it would help more distressed citizens. This was despite the fact that the proposal would not create one additional rehabilitation bed.

Keen to get on with the cash grab, the Department of Health announced a tender process for the Graythwaite Estate this year, and on 19 October the Minister for Health, Carmel Tebbutt, announced that the Graythwaite Estate would be sold to the Sydney Church of England Grammar School—Shore—for $35.2 million. The close community around this estate has been put through all this trouble over $35.2 million. As I will outline, the Federal Government offered a similar amount. We have been told that proceeds from the sale will go to the Graythwaite Trust to build a new rehabilitation centre at Ryde Hospital. I understand that not one new rehabilitation bed will be created in the process. Its seems that the Government chose Shore over a rival bid from the Federal Government's Department of Veterans' Affairs. I understand that its offer was about $25 million with maybe an additional $5 million. Clearly this was an opportunity for the Government to do the right thing and at the same time gain the money that it believed is needed. This could have been a win-win situation but once again this Government put its head in the sand, defied the interest of the community and pushed ahead with a proposal that is extremely destructive.

The principle that guided the Government was clearly who could afford the most money, not the fate of the Graythwaite Estate and not the needs of the local community. The surviving family of Sir Thomas Dibbs maintain that selling the school to Shore will go against the wishes of Sir Thomas Dibbs. The great grandson of Sir Thomas Dibbs, Tim Honnor, said, "I am sure he would be turning in his grave if he knew what was happening today." According to his descendants, Shore was the one organisation that Sir Thomas Dibbs explicitly did not want to own the Graythwaite Estate following a large falling out between the two. It is worth remembering where the wealth of this school comes from, that is, the public purse via a series of State and Federal government grants and from student fees.

Shore will receive an estimated $9.9 million over the four years from 2009-2012 from the Federal Government. It will receive money under the National School Pride Program. In 2007-08, the last year for which figures are available, Shore received $1.65 million from the New South Wales Government. On top of that is the annual recurrent State and Federal funding of more than $4 million. Annual revenue from school fees for the approximately 1,550 Shore students is about $29 million. Friends of Graythwaite wants Graythwaite Estate protected and the estate to stay in public hands, which the Greens strongly support. Both sides of Federal Parliament, North Sydney local council and the local community support this vision. I understand that the Opposition in this House supports this bill, something that is welcomed by the Greens. Local members of Parliament Joe Hockey and Jillian Skinner have added their voice to this campaign over the years.

When the Minister for Health last month announced the Government's plan to sell off the Graythwaite Estate to Shore for $35.2 million it was disappointing that the shadow Minister, Mrs Jillian Skinner, gave notice of motion in the lower House that accepted that sale and called on Shore to commit to keeping the grounds free of development and open to the public. Clearly, total protection is needed. I believe we now have unity to ensure that the whole estate stays in public hands and we honour the memory of Sir Thomas Dibbs and his wishes. The case is quite clear that Shore should never have any role in running the Graythwaite Estate.

Save the Graythwaite Estate Bill sets out to meet the legitimate community aspiration to protect this site. The objects of the bill, as set out in clause 4, are: to retain Graythwaite Estate in public ownership and subject to public control; to preserve areas of open space at the Graythwaite Estate and to allow public access to such areas; to preserve the heritage significance of the Graythwaite Estate; and to impose appropriate controls on the future development of the Graythwaite Estate. The clauses of the bill that enshrine ongoing public ownership of the bill are clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 prohibits the sale or other alienation of the Graythwaite Estate. This clause does allow Graythwaite Estate to be transferred to a statutory body representing the Crown that is subject to the direction and control of a Minister.

Clause 6 provides that any lease or licence over the use of Graythwaite Estate to a person other than a public or local authority must include terms that require the grounds of the Graythwaite Estate to always remain open to the public. The bill also restricts the types of development that may be carried out at the Graythwaite Estate. Clause 7 sets out that development for the purposes of health, educational or community facilities is permitted with the consent of North Sydney Council. Community and educational facilities are defined in the bill as facilities that provide services to the community on a not-for-profit basis. "Health facility" means a building or place used for the medical or surgical treatment of persons, whether public or private. The Greens believe that this section is sufficiently broad to give the Government flexibility as to the type of development that occurs on Graythwaite Estate while still stipulating that the development would be of public benefit to the community. Clause 8 provides that the regulations may set up a community consultation committee for the Graythwaite Estate. The Greens hope that decisions regarding the future and management of Graythwaite Estate will be subject to community involvement and consultation.

I do note that the bill is retrospective in its application to ensure that the purpose of this bill is not overridden by the recent announcement of Minister Tebbutt to sell Graythwaite Estate to Shore. Clause 2 states that the Act is taken to have commenced on 10 September 2009, being the date that I gave notice of the bill in the upper House. Clause 13 states that any sale, transfer or other disposal of the Graythwaite Estate that occurred on or after 10 September 2009 but before the date of assent to the proposed Act and that is contrary to the provisions of the proposed Act is null and void. A contract voided by the clause may be held by a court to be frustrated at common law. As a general principle, the Greens do not support retrospective legislation and I note that the Government, with the Opposition's support, passes numerous pieces of retrospective legislation. The Greens believe that retrospectivity should be applied only in rare circumstances where there is proper justification. We believe Graythwaite Estate is one of those cases.

This bill to keep Graythwaite Estate in public hands was already afoot—I had previously given notice of this bill on the parliamentary Notice Paper when the Government announced that the property was to be sold to Shore. Community voices were growing louder and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU] green ban was firmly in place. There was clearly a strong community campaign and an upcoming bill on the horizon about the future of Graythwaite Estate. The Greens believe that the Government was irresponsible to go ahead and announce a sale, circumventing a strong community campaign and heading off a parliamentary debate on the issue. In this context a clause allowing retrospectivity is justified.

Graythwaite Estate is an important public asset, and one that is much appreciated and cared for by the local community. It marks an important chapter in Australia's modern history and it is a unique green space next to the bustling North Sydney central business district. Graythwaite Estate needs to be kept in public hands—not sold off to the highest bidder. If the State Government is allowed to get away with selling Graythwaite Estate future generations look back and ask why. Again I recognise and congratulate the Friends of Graythwaite for leading an incredibly strong and cohesive community campaign to save the Graythwaite Estate. I also recognise the contribution made by the President of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Construction Division, Peter McClelland, as a green ban is still in place over the grounds of Graythwaite Estate, and Genia McAffery and the North Sydney Council for their work to safeguard Graythwaite Estate. We need to make every effort to maintain this glorious estate in public hands where it belongs. This bill provides the means to achieve that. I urge members to support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Sylvia Hale and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos, on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson.

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

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

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

Government Business Notices of Motions Nos 1 to 9 postponed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, Vice President of the Executive Council) [11.51 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

This bill is being introduced to remove any legal doubts that might otherwise have arisen concerning acts done by Lieutenant-Governors who were appointed in New South Wales after 1986.

As Members will be aware, the New South Wales Constitution Act provides for the appointment of a Lieutenant-Governor who acts when the Governor is not available.

The Constitution Act provides that the appointment of both the Governor and the Lieutenant-Governor is to be made by the Queen. In New South Wales, this has always been the case.

In the last few years, however, South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania have changed their practices so that their Lieutenant-Governors are now appointed by their Governors rather than by the Queen.

Those States have formed the view that the Australia Act, which came into force in March 1986, requires the Lieutenant-Governor to be appointed by the Governor and prevents appointments being made by the Queen unless Her Majesty is personally present in the jurisdiction.

Those States have taken this view despite the fact that in all of them Lieutenant-Governors were still being appointed by the Queen long after the Australia Act commenced.

They also take the view that the Australia Act being a Commonwealth statute overrides any inconsistent State Constitution Act.

If those States are correct, then any Lieutenant-Governor appointed by the Queen in any State since March 1986 was invalidly appointed.

I should emphasise at this point that the New South Wales Government does not necessarily agree with the view that has been taken in those other States.

The application of the Australia Act to the appointment of Lieutenant-Governors is not entirely clear.

While the view taken in other States is arguable, the contrary view is also arguable.

The only way to resolve the ambiguity would be to amend the Australia Act to clarify the required appointment process.

The Australia Act can, however, only be amended with the consent of all States.

For some years now, the New South Wales Government has been discussing with other States the possibility of approaching the Commonwealth Government with a proposal to amend the Australia Act to remove all uncertainty.

Although most States have also endorsed that approach, unanimous agreement has not been achieved.

Pending any possible clarifying amendments being made to the Australia Act, it is prudent to enact this bill to remove the immediate legal uncertainty.

I note that Tasmania last week introduced similar validating legislation, and Victoria is introducing legislation this week.

In New South Wales, the longstanding practice is for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to be appointed as Lieutenant-Governor. This is, of course, currently the case.

Under the Constitution Act, if no Lieutenant-Governor is appointed then the Chief Justice is automatically taken to be the Administrator and is authorised to act for the Governor when the Governor is unavailable.

Accordingly, even if the appointment of the Chief Justice as Lieutenant-Governor were invalid, the Chief Justice would nevertheless clearly be authorised to act as Administrator.

The bill makes this explicit by providing that, if for any reason the appointment of the Chief Justice as Lieutenant-Governor was not legally effective, then the Chief Justice will be taken to have been acting as Administrator.

In this way, there can be no possible legal doubt about the past or future acts of any New South Wales Lieutenant-Governor.

Provided any acts were within the powers of a Lieutenant-Governor, then those acts will also have been within the power of an Administrator.

Accordingly, this bill ensures that the debate concerning the Australia Act is, for New South Wales at least, of purely academic interest only.

Whichever interpretation of the Act one might take, this bill will ensure that there can be no adverse legal consequences for anything that has or will be done in this State.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.52 a.m.]: The Constitution Amendment (Lieutenant-Governor) Bill has come into the House at short notice and yesterday in the Legislative Assembly my colleague, the member for Epping, led for the Coalition when the bill was debated. I refer members to his remarks yesterday in the other place for a fuller outline than I propose to give today of the Opposition's position. I believe he put the position quite fairly. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Constitution Act 1902 in relation to the appointment of the Chief Justice as the Lieutenant-Governor.

By way of background, the longstanding practice in New South Wales is that the Chief Justice is appointed as Lieutenant-Governor. Under part 2A of the Constitution Act the appointment of the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor is made by commission under her Majesty the Queen and indeed Chief Justice Spigelman was appointed as Lieutenant-Governor by the Queen on 18 June 1998. Some members may be aware of the excellent volume that Anne Twomey wrote called the Constitution of New South Wales, which was published some years ago. It was in fact a Sesquicentenary of Responsible Government funded project and certainly one of the best of many books published under that project overseen by a committee of which I was a member. One of the matters covered in that excellent book by Professor Twomey, on pages 672 and 673, concerns the issue of the appointment of the Lieutenant-Governor and whether, as a result of the passage of the Australia Act, and in particular section 7, that is in conflict with section 9B (2) of our Constitution Act, which provides for the appointment of the Lieutenant-Governor by commission under the Queen.

The purpose of the bill is to avoid any doubt about the exercise of the Lieutenant-Governor's functions in New South Wales. The bill deems the Chief Justice to be acting as administrator, which is clearly authorised by the Constitution Act 1902 if for any reason it is subsequently determined that the appointment as Lieutenant-Governor was not legally effective. That is basically what the bill will do as a result of differing views within the legal academic community on the effect of section 7 of the Australia Act. The bill is for abundant caution, as lawyers like to say, and the Opposition has no objection to it. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.55 a.m.]: The Greens support the bill. As the previous speaker said, it is probably best to be cautious in these matters, and the Greens have no problem with the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.55 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Constitution Amendment (Lieutenant-Governor) Bill 2009. It is necessary because there has been a view stated that the Lieutenant-Governor should be appointed by the Governor instead of by the Queen and this has raised debate about the interpretation of the Australia Act as it applies to the appointment of the Lieutenant-Governor. This bill deems the Chief Justice to be acting as administrator, which is clearly authorised by the Constitution Act 1902, if for any reason it is subsequently determined that the appointment as Lieutenant-Governor was not legally effective. It is a safety precaution, which the Christian Democratic Party supports.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, Vice President of the Executive Council) [11.56 a.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contribution to this debate and, moreover, their support for the position that the bill seeks to address. As has been said in another place and by other speakers, it is not clear that there is any inconsistency between the Australia Act and the Constitution Act concerning the manner in which the Lieutenant-Governor should be appointed. Nevertheless, pending a possible amendment to clarify the Australia Act, it is prudent that this bill be enacted to remove any possible doubt.

To this point in time it has not been possible to achieve consensus amongst all of the States that need to consent in order for an amendment to the Australia Act to be enacted and in those circumstances, for abundant caution, this legislation proposes to confirm the acts of not only the current Lieutenant-Governor but also the previous Lieutenant-Governor, both of whom were appointed by her Majesty the Queen subsequent to the Australia Act coming into force. The issue is of significance for the persons involved in the particular offices and, moreover, for the public of New South Wales. It has been the subject of extensive analysis by solicitors-general around the country, who have looked at the issue very carefully.

The Tasmanian Parliament has already introduced legislation. The Victorians have indicated that they will do likewise and it is appropriate that New South Wales follow. I suspect that we will also see legislation in at least one other jurisdiction. It is important that those sorts of issues are not left hanging and that doubt not exist in relation to the acts of persons who have exercised the office of Lieutenant-Governor, and hopefully the clarifying amendment will resolve any impasse that might otherwise exist. 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.

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 12 noon for questions.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. Is the Minister aware that the Tomago Aluminium smelter is one of this State's largest energy consumers and one of the Hunter's largest and safest employers and contributes approximately $850 million each year to the New South Wales economy? When will the Minister meet with the management of Tomago Aluminium to assure them that the future of their energy contract is a priority for his Government?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the member for his question. In fact, I am very familiar with the Tomago Aluminium smelter. In my former role, I had a significant role to play in the construction and in looking after the conditions of those workers as they built that fantastic facility in the Hunter region. As I travelled around New South Wales on a bright orange bus from about 2004 to 2007, I met with those workers on numerous occasions.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I nearly got a lift.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I acknowledge the interjection. It is true that I offered him a lift. He wanted to look inside the bus and I said, "Come on in. The only proviso is that if you get a lift in the bus we have a photo of you standing in the front." I am very much aware of the jobs that are provided by the Tomago Aluminium smelter and I have had the opportunity on numerous occasions to meet those workers. I know the contribution it makes to the Hunter economy. I am very aware of the energy intensity of that organisation. My approach to these issues, as Minister responsible for a whole range of areas, is that if key stakeholders have an issuem, I am more than prepared to meet with them to resolve it. However, I am not aware, and I will stand to be corrected, that an approach has been made to my office as yet. I am more than happy to meet with them and provide them with some certainty.

Jobs are a key issue and a key commitment for this Government. The Rees Labor Government has been committed to maintaining jobs, particularly through the global financial crisis, and the Treasurer stands in this House on a regular basis and talks about the green shoots of recovery. Yesterday he talked about unemployment and what this Government is doing to address it. We will do whatever we can to maintain jobs in industries, particularly in regional areas of New South Wales. It is an important matter that this Government takes seriously when making decisions. Every decision we make is focused on jobs and maintaining jobs. If the management team at the Tomago Aluminium smelter want to meet with me to discuss any issues of concern to them, I am more than happy to meet with them. My door is open.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industries. What is the Government doing to improve safety for beachgoers this summer?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the member for his question; it is an important one. There is no doubt the shark, and fear of shark attack, has a special place in the Australian psyche. This Government has invested significantly in shark research and safety initiatives to keep our coastlines safer for locals and tourists alike. The mainstay of the program remains our beach meshing program, which is the safest and most successful shark attack prevention technique employed in the world today. Since the meshing program commenced in 1937, there has been just one fatal shark attack at a meshed beach. Before the program was introduced, 24 fatalities were recorded in Sydney waters between 1900 and 1937.

This Government's commitment to public safety is also evident through the shark research program and the recently introduced public education campaign, SharkSmart, which has seen 100,000 shark education brochures printed this year. In addition, I am pleased to inform the House that a helicopter aerial surveillance trial will be conducted on key dates this summer. It is part of this Government's ongoing and extensive efforts to improve safety for the swimmers, surfers, divers and other recreational water users at our State's beaches. The 2006 Shark Summit found that while fixed-wing aircraft are virtually useless, helicopter patrols do have some benefits. However, they are very costly and, of course, the Government has had to weigh up the potential benefits.

I should add that despite the hysteria whipped up by some sections of the media and the Opposition, the chance of shark attack is extremely slight. People are far more likely to drown at the beach. There are no 100 per cent guarantees when swimmers enter the ocean, but the Government is doing all it can to minimise the risks and it has been helped this year by the improving economy. That is why, from tomorrow, the Government is seeking expressions of interest from companies interested in conducting a trial helicopter surveillance for sharks. The trial will include the 51 beaches that are currently part of the New South Wales shark meshing program. The shark meshing program covers approximately 202 kilometres of coastline between Newcastle and Wollongong, which includes the most popular and heavily frequented beaches of the Sydney metropolitan area.

The successful provider of the aerial trial will be required to provide timely and detailed records of shark sightings to staff from Industry and Investment NSW and appropriate surf lifesaving organisations such as Surf Life Saving NSW and the Australian Professional Ocean Lifeguards. A secondary aim of the program is to gather photographs of any sharks spotted and gather information on beach usage. The trial will be conducted every weekend and each public holiday between 19 December 2009 and 10 January 2010 as well as the Australia Day long weekend, weather permitting. For optimal effectiveness the patrols will be conducted in the early morning, between 7.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m., and in the afternoon between 3.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m., in order to provide the best opportunities to spot sharks that may potentially pose a threat to bathers.

During the flights, the observer will be required to look for sharks in the water and schools of baitfish that may indicate the presence of sharks. This is a scientific program. Members opposite have no idea. The observer will be required to identify the species of shark, if possible, from the air; capture high-quality aerial photographs that will allow for shark species to be identified and allow the number of beach users to be counted; provide timely and detailed reports of sightings to the designated organisations; observe shark nets in place and report any discrepancies or issues to the Government. [Time expired.]

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I address my question to the Minister for Corrective Services. Although the inmate population of Parklea Correctional Centre has been reduced from 823 inmates to about 500, is it correct that The GEO Group's inability to staff the centre adequately has resulted in Corrective Services senior executive personnel continuing to be deployed at the jail and, rather than four observation towers being staffed as was the case under Corrective Services management, now seven towers are staffed? What are the implications of this for on-ground security?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the member for her question. It presents me with an opportunity to report to the House on the hugely successful transition of Parklea in coming under the operation of The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd. The GEO Group Australia commenced operations at Parklea Correctional Centre at 6.00 a.m. on Saturday, 31 October 2009. Corrective Services New South Wales and GEO worked closely together in the lead up to this date to ensure that appropriate transition arrangements had been put in place. The Government has worked hard to ensure that security is not compromised in any way at Parklea during this period. That is why a small Corrective Services transition team remains in place at the centre and is responsible for oversight of the transition process.

The GEO Group has a team of experienced staff, including correctional officers, welfare officers, and management in place at the centre during this transition period. This team was drawn from GEO's existing operations at Junee Correctional Centre and interstate. These officers will be in place until GEO is able to complete the training of staff at Parklea. It is anticipated that this training will be completed next month and the new staff will then be available for deployment. A small number of casual correctional officers have been seconded from Corrective Services NSW to GEO to staff watchtowers at Parklea.

I reiterate that those officers have been seconded to GEO, which is significantly different from them still working as staff members of the Department of Corrective Services. Those staff members are on secondment to GEO at Parklea. They will staff watchtowers at Parklea that were not staffed under public management. This is an interim arrangement until GEO's complement of staff is fully in place. I am advised that all costs for the staff that GEO has brought to work temporarily at Parklea are the responsibility of the private company under the contract.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware of the public outcry over the decision by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] to drop the speed limit on the Newell Highway from 110 kilometres to 100 kilometres an hour? What is the Minister's view about the fact that the RTA and this Government are refusing to release statistical information that shows the difference between travelling at 100 kilometres an hour and 110 kilometres an hour and how that has contributed to accidents on the Newell Highway? Given that the speed limit has been reduced on the Bells Line of Road, and now on the Newell Highway, on which road will this Government next reduce the speed limit? Will this Government's unilateral decisions become the norm? Why did the Government not convey its decision to the Standing Committee on Road Safety? [Time expired.]

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The member has raised an interesting issue. Anyone who is following the road toll statistics at the moment would be aware that this year's road toll has already exceeded the total road toll for last year. All the research shows that one of the main contributors to fatalities and injuries on our roads is speed—an issue about which drivers in this State should think carefully, as it is obvious that speed is completely their responsibility. Members should be careful not to attempt to score cheap political points from the decisions taken by this Government to reduce road speed limits, because those decisions are made in the interests of safety. However, not having to hand specific information relating to this issue, I am happy to refer it to the Minister and to ask for a full report.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer provide the House with the latest information on the strength of the New South Wales economy?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am aware of the ongoing interest of the Hon. Henry Tsang in this important matter. I am always pleased to inform the House that we are seeing a recovery in both the national economy and the State economy. The New South Wales property sector continues to play a vital part in leading the economy to recovery. Recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data on owner-occupied housing finance commitments shows that New South Wales recorded a 7 per cent increase in September this year compared to the statistics for August. That means that around 20,126 owner-occupier applications were approved in New South Wales by various financial institutions.

Since the worst days of the financial crisis in September 2008—just over a year ago—New South Wales has recorded a 35.3 per cent increase in approvals. That is the second strongest increase amongst all the States and it is 2.6 per cent higher the national average. On the back of this positive data, this morning the Australian Bureau of Statistics released lending finance data showing the continued confidence of both households and businesses. The value of total personal commitments increased by 0.9 per cent in trend terms compared with the figures for August 2009. The value of total commercial finance commitments increased by 0.7 in trend terms in September 2009 compared with the figures for August 2009, and fixed lending commitments rose by about 1.4 per cent.

I am pleased to be able to inform members that another green shoot is emerging in New South Wales, this time in our regional economy. The construction of the Northparkes copper mine project has restarted, employing around 200 people in the Central West of New South Wales. The Northparkes mine, a $280 million project, is jointly owned by Rio and the Sumitomo Group. The restart of construction will result in the expansion of high-grade copper concentrate production from the mine. This project will have significant flow-on effects for the economy of regional New South Wales, with more local jobs at the mine, more tonnes of product to be moved by freight rail to Port Kembla, and more exports from Port Kembla to our trading partners in Japan, China and India.

The restart of construction at Northparkes, which is a vote of confidence in the strength of our regional economy and our export industry, is yet another example of the green shoots emerging in New South Wales as we steer a course out of the global financial crisis. Positives like this are underpinned—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Tell us what you did for Northparkes. You did nothing!

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Yet again we have negativity from Opposition members who are talking down the economy. When Opposition members attack the economy, they attack this State. They cannot cope with the reality that the stimulus strategy of the State and Federal governments has increased business and consumer confidence. I know Opposition members are upset as the green shoots of the economy are beginning to grow. On the Opposition side of politics, we see nothing other than brown shoots. Opposition members have no policies to support the recovery; they just talk down the economy.

We know that Opposition members oppose the stimulus strategy and that Barry O'Farrell sits on the coattails of Malcolm Turnbull. However, Stephen Green, Chairman of the global banking giant HSBC and another person of great stature in the economic world, supports the stimulus strategy. Yesterday in Sydney he urged global leaders to continue their stimulus measures. He also said that withdrawing them too soon would put at risk the fledgling global recovery. Stephen Green knows a bit more about the stimulus strategy than do Opposition members.

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

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Unlike Barry O'Farrell, who just copies what Malcolm Turnbull tells him, Stephen Green knows what he is talking about. His comments reflect orthodox economic opinion that the lesson from the global depression 70 years ago is that the early withdrawal of the Keynesian spending boosts had prolonged the resulting economic collapse well into the following decade. Of course, orthodox economic opinion and the stark lessons of history are lost on Opposition members, who are intent on putting hardworking families in New South Wales out of work. With the same enthusiasm, Opposition members have tried to put out of work some of their own members, which is what is occurring at the moment. They are intent on cutting each other up with their internal factional brawls, which is evident in the battle between Alex Hawke and David Clarke. That is where Opposition members are focusing all their strategies. Let us not forget what Opposition members did to Patricia Forsythe and John Ryan.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: It is called democracy, Eric!

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Marie Ficarra.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: This is question time, not an ancient history lesson. The Minister should be asked to be generally relevant to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will not respond to interjections.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I wish to reflect on the value that Opposition members place on democracy. They are still washing the blood off their hands after booting out a few members who sat in this Chamber only a year or two ago and yet they have the gall to state that that is ancient history. What an insight into the mindset of those opposite! What does that say about Barry O'Farrell, who has done nothing to control the war between Opposition members at karaoke bars? Staff members have been sacked and members of Parliament have been booted out in the name of Liberal Party democracy. That says a lot about Barry O'Farrell, who should do something about what is going on in the Liberal Party.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why don't you come out to Northparkes with me, Eric, and we will see what they really think of you.

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

Dr JOHN KAYE: I ask the Minister for Energy whether he is aware of the evidence in relation to carbon capture and storage used by former Federal Minister Ian Macfarlane when he told the ABC:

The clean coal option has passed us by. Twenty years to wait before the technology is available. Thirty years before it is commercial. We will need to move on to other options by then.

Has the Rees Government dismissed this evidence or is it prepared to continue to squander $100 million on the Clean Coal Council to promote a discredited technology that no longer enjoys the support even of former enthusiasts like Mr Macfarlane?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The Government has made it abundantly clear that when it comes to the sorts of technologies that will evolve in a carbon-constrained economy our eyes are open to a range of issues. Yesterday's announcement on a gross feed-in tariff is an indication that the Government is committed to the solar industry. Yesterday's announcement also included micro-wind turbines. This Government has said all along that we must keep our eyes open to all available technologies, which will also include carbon capture and storage. The Government's eyes are open. We should not rule out the development of any technology that will evolve in a carbon-constrained economy, particularly as we move into an environment where there will be a carbon pollution reduction scheme.

A range of technologies will become more viable; fuel sources will change so that sources like gas will become more competitive and technologies will continue to emerge. This Government is very much committed to looking at every available opportunity to drive down our emissions, looking at technologies as they continue to evolve and making sure that the State continues to be at the forefront when it comes to being the clean green State. I suggest the member refer the matter relating to the Clean Coal Council to the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: I address my question to the Minister for Lands. Can the Minister inform the House on how the Government recognises the dedicated men and women of our regional communities?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Hon. Michael Veitch for his continued interest in rural and regional New South Wales. Reserve trusts are an invaluable part of the Crown land system in New South Wales. The skills, experience and enthusiasm of trust boards are essential for helping government care for and protect our Crown reserves. Trust membership is an interesting and valuable voluntary role for many, with the greatest reward being able to contribute to the community in managing and preserving significant local public assets. In recognition of the great work of our volunteers, and so many others who contribute to our communities, the New South Wales Government has supported the Regional Achievement and Community Awards for over seven years. The Land and Property Management Authority and Industry and Investment NSW have been proud sponsors of these awards. Since their inception we have seen entries from hundreds of quiet achievers, and these awards are a way of saying we appreciate what they are doing—stand up and take a bow.

The Land and Property Management Authority, previously the Department of Lands, has been the sponsor of the Community of the Year Award. Last year the authority introduced a new category, the Crown Reserve Trust Management Award. The Community of the Year Award is presented in two divisions. The winner this year of the Community of the Year Award, population under 15,000, was the Rural Care Link Drought Relief Team at Jindera—a very worthy winner. This team provides a fantastic range of social support programs for the community around Jindera and in the greater Hume shire. Power of Choice, a successful youth driver safety program at Port Macquarie, won the Community of the Year Award, population over 15,000. The Crown Reserve Trust Award also has two categories, one for Crown reserves managed by community volunteers and one for larger reserves managed by councils and other organisations.

The award is part of a broader campaign by the Government to encourage reserve trust service, particularly for those volunteers who are the backbone of so many regional communities. This year's winner of the Crown Reserve Trust Community Award was the Broken Hill Regional Events Centre Reserve Trust, which was named New South Wales' top community trust board for raising $700,000 to help build the event centre. For developing a $10 million Maritime Museum on Crown land at Huskisson on the South Coast, the Lady Denman Management Committee won the Crown Reserve Trust Management Award.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Hear! Hear! Fantastic.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: It is very good. Winner of the Department of Industry and Investment Business Enterprise Award was Brunswick Heads Chamber of Commerce, and the Mungindi Music Festival Committee won the Events and Tourism Award. A number of members know well the worthy recipients of the awards I have listed. However, these awards are not just about winning. The tagline for the reserve trust award could sum up all awards: It only takes a small effort to build a community. When all these efforts are added together, many of them not so small, we can see that the heart of our regional community initiative still beats strong.

All those nominated for awards play a valuable role in reminding us of the strength of our rural communities, even during these times of adversity. I congratulate and thank the winners and, indeed, all entries in the 2009 Regional Achievement and Community Awards on their continued work. I thank also the sponsors and major corporate supporters of the awards, including Prime and the Commonwealth Bank. I know everyone in this House will join with me in congratulating the winners and all the nominees.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I direct my question to the Treasurer. The Auditor-General's audit of the total State sector accounts for the year ended 30 June 2009, tabled in this House on 29 October 2009, indicates that employee-related and other operating expenses exceeded the budget projection by $514 million. Given the Treasurer announced the full year projections in his Budget Speech on 16 June 2009 and the actual results showing the expenses blowout were reported just 14 days later, is this $514 million blowout simply further evidence of his inability to manage the budget, particularly expenses? Is it a continuation of the Government's problem controlling expenses first identified by Stokes and Vertigan in 2006 and repeatedly adversely commented on by Standard and Poor's in subsequent years?

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Come clean, Eric.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: You just wash that blood off your hands, all right? Nervous laughs just do not cut it. If we are to look at the 2009 report on State finances—it was tabled on 29 October in this place—we should not be so selective in what we look at in trying to talk down the State.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Why don't you just get the numbers right?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Shush! Of course, what the member failed to mention—maybe he missed it, maybe he just forgot about it—was that the final audited budget result for 2008-09 was a deficit of $897 million. That is $440 million—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The question is quite specific. The Treasurer is trying to answer a question that he would have liked to have been asked. The question he was asked was quite specific. I ask you to direct the Treasurer back to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Ministers must provide an answer that is generally relevant to the question asked and must not debate the question other than the issue to which it referred.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: What the member failed to notice, of course, was that the final result was $440 million lower than the $1.3 billion deficit projected in the June State budget. Let us contemplate that improvement in the bottom line of our budget projection during the global financial crisis [GFC]. That demonstrates the discipline of this Government and why the Labor Government is best equipped to manage the State economy. Half of that improvement is due to Australian Government grants, which I publicly acknowledge, and that of course will impact on our 2009-10 grants. But the improvement was also partly due to increased stamp duty because of the stronger than expected New South Wales property market. Overall tax receipts were $144 million higher than projected.

We got through the global financial crisis together and we are turning the corner together, but every time we get closer to turning the corner, the Liberal Party tries to hold us back by talking down the State and the economy. Opposition members run their little detectors over every report, looking for one negative to use to try to talk down the State. That is what they are about. They are trying to run the Barry O'Farrell lawnmower over the green shoots of recovery in New South Wales. We will not be part of it.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The question related to $514 million of expenses that on 16 June the Treasurer did not know about.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will be generally relevant.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: All of this has been happening with a record $62.9 billion infrastructure investment supporting 160,000 jobs each year for the next four years and improving our credit rating to stable triple-A in the middle of a global financial crisis.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I direct my question to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that a third of all carers in Australia live in New South Wales and that the largest number of Aboriginal carers also live in New South Wales? In particular, is the Minister aware that carers in regional and remote areas of New South Wales experience higher rates of disability or long-term health conditions and higher rates of unemployment than do non-carers living in the same areas? What programs will be established to ensure that underpaid family carers in rural and remote areas of New South Wales have better access to appropriate support services? Will the Government introduce flexible work arrangements for unpaid carers, allowing them to balance work and care? Will the Government implement programs to cater for the diverse needs of vulnerable care groups in New South Wales, such as young carers and indigenous carers?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Minister for Health, obtain an answer and report it to the House in due course.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development. Given that a month ago he offered a public assurance at the Bathurst 1000 that the proponents of a second Mount Panorama racetrack development could expect an announcement from his office within 10 days in relation to the funding for a feasibility study of the proposed development, can he explain why he has failed to honour this commitment? Is he prepared to now announce State Government financial support for the project? If not, when can stakeholders of the second racetrack development proposal expect to be granted this vital funding?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: One thing that I am not in the habit of doing is making announcements on any matter to suit The Nationals and their occasional visits to rural New South Wales.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Nor to suit the Mount Panorama people. You gave them to understand it would take 10 days.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have the matter well and truly in hand. I will be making the appropriate announcement in the near future.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on two key reform areas by New South Wales—deceptive legal advertising and serious sex offenders—that were discussed at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General last week?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yesterday I informed the House of agreement reached on access to justice-related initiatives at last week's meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. While access to justice was a key theme of the meeting, Attorneys also considered a range of other important issues, a number of which are being driven through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General by the New South Wales Government. In particular, I highlight two areas in which New South Wales is seeking national action to protect some of the most vulnerable members of our community.

The first issue is one that has caused great consternation among the New South Wales public in the wake of allegations about law firms and legal professional conduct. Last week I foreshadowed my intention to ask Attorneys to support a national crackdown on misleading advertising by personal injury lawyers. At the meeting I described some of the worst examples of how some of these firms prey on vulnerable people—people who have suffered injury and trauma, people who do not understand that litigation may result in adverse costs orders, and people with English as a second language.

In New South Wales we moved to ban the advertising of personal-injury legal services, but many firms continue to advertise through third party middlemen and online. Another ploy is to advertise compensation services—"Free compensation advice", they exclaim. These firms are very carefully skirting the boundaries of the law so that they can continue to use predatory and deceptive practices. I am pleased to advise that Ministers agreed to ask the National Legal Profession Reform task force to address the issue of legal advertising, including the option of uniform standards for the content and manner of advertising of personal injury legal services as part of a report to the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] in April 2010.

I do not hold back my distaste for some of the practices that some of the firms and associates engage in. I am hopeful that the task force will recommend strong national initiatives that are designed to redress the excesses of what regrettably is becoming an increasing number of lawyers who are utilising means of advertising to promote their products in ways that can only be described as misleading or deceptive.

Last week's meeting also gave me an opportunity to provide Attorneys with an update of the review that is being carried out of the New South Wales Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006. The New South Wales Government introduced the Act three years ago to ensure the community's safety and protection, and to deal with serious sex offenders by legislating for continuing detention orders and extended supervision orders. Attorneys discussed the important issue of how to manage serious sex offenders who cross State boundaries and Territory borders and how to ensure that the National Child Protection Register and other mechanisms give police the powers they need to adequately monitor offenders.

New South Wales pioneered the National Child Protection Register, which allows police to track and monitor child sex offenders wherever they are. We have one of the toughest serious sex offender regimes in the country and that enables the Government to seek continuing detention orders and extended supervision orders against offenders who continue to pose a risk to the community upon their release. But while those reforms are effective, it is important to ensure that we develop a process of national consistency. The issue of serious sex offenders will be examined in greater detail at a future meeting of Attorneys following the completion of the New South Wales review. New South Wales will continue to take a leading role in national law reform. I look forward to providing the House with further updates in relation to future progress achieved by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I address my question to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Government aware that approximately 70,000 people start smoking each year in Australia at the rate of 190 a day? Is the Government aware that the majority of those people are adolescents who are under the age of 18 years? Is the Government aware that the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores, which includes stores in petrol stations, has called on Australian governments to make it illegal for adolescents under the age of 18 years to purchase and smoke tobacco? Will the Government consider the association's recommendations and introduce legislation similar to restrictions on alcohol consumption to protect teenagers from the harmful and addictive impact of tobacco? Will the Government give police powers to issue cautions, fines or court attendance notices to people under 18 years of age who frequently smoke in public?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the question to the Minister for Health.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands. Is he aware that Fairfield City Council will not renew its lease with the Western Sydney Parklands Trust to keep Fairfield City Farm open and running for the benefit of the community? Is he also aware that Fairfield City Farm has been operating for 20 years and gives children from the city a chance to interact with farm animals and experience farm life? Has Fairfield City Council approached him or his department to request the funds necessary to keep Fairfield City Farm open? What will he do to ensure that Fairfield City Farm stays open?

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Who is the fastest runner, you or Pat?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: It is an interesting question that has the Hon. Charlie Lynn talking about farmers and farms.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: And running!

The Hon. TONY KELLY: And running.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: And photographing The Nationals' participation.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: It is very interesting.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: It is a serious question.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I know it is a serious question. I advise the House that only a few weeks ago when I travelled 55.4 kilometres during a weekend bike ride I went past the farm. After I returned I spoke about the farm to the Mayor of Fairfield City Council, Nick Lalich. I also went to the temple, which is just past the farm at Canley Vale, and saw Nick Lalich's photograph on the wall. People there said he is a very good member.

I know that Fairfield City Farm is well supported. I am aware that Fairfield City Council has concerns about the costs of the farm. The council has indicated that the farm will close on 24 December this year, although the lease runs until about the end of February. The council is having discussions. Only yesterday Nick Lalich and Ninos Khoshaba, the member for Smithfield, spoke to me. Although Ninos Khoshaba is the local member, the farm is located in Fairfield local government area and Nick Lalich is a Fairfield councillor. It is my intention to do with their inquiries the same as I will do with the Hon. Charlie Lynn's inquiry—that is, pass it on to the relevant Minister, David Borger.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, and Minister for Energy. What opportunities will the gross feed-in tariff scheme present for the families of New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the member for her ongoing interest in this important matter. The New South Wales Government has been assessing other small-scale renewable energy technologies for eligibility in our Solar Bonus Scheme. After a comprehensive review of the costs and benefits of adding other technologies, I am pleased to advise the House that the New South Wales Government has decided to include small-scale wind turbines in our Solar Bonus Scheme. Families and small business customers who install wind systems up to 10 kilowatts in size will be eligible for the same gross tariff rate of 60¢ per kilowatt hour for all the electricity they generate. Wind was included on the basis that turbines and solar photovoltaic systems have similar start-up costs and generating capacities.

Including wind technology will provide greater options for people thinking of installing renewable energy technology, particularly in rural areas. It will also encourage a level playing field for two competing renewable energy industries, boosting job opportunities for people with renewable energy skills. As members are aware, the New South Wales Government has been a driving force in promoting renewable energy for our State for many years. Yesterday we announced that we would implement a Solar Bonus Scheme that will pay the most generous tariff rate in Australia. Under our scheme, participants will generate the highest cash payments, regardless of how much electricity they use. Industry and the community have welcomed this move and recognised it as a win for New South Wales families, providing more jobs and investment at home.

Members may recall that a number of months ago the New South Wales Government was instrumental in reopening the Homebush solar manufacturing facility. In particular, the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development played a critical role in this matter. In a press release on 2 November Silex, the company that has taken over the facility, announced the official restart of production at that facility, with the assistance of the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development. The press release stated:

Silex Solar … strongly endorses yesterday's announcement by NSW Premier, Mr Nathan Rees that the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme will be based on a 'Gross Feed-in Tariff', thereby delivering strong incentives for NSW householders to invest in rooftop solar panels such as those manufactured by Silex Solar. This is a great decision for the Australian solar industry, and in particular, Silex Solar—Australia's only domestic manufacturer of solar panels.

This Australian solar panel manufacturer here in Sydney is ready to take advantage of the gross feed-in tariff and create real clean energy jobs in New South Wales. The Clean Energy Council welcomed our "act of leadership on climate change by stepping up the commitment to the use of solar panels in this State". The Australian Conservation Foundation said:

The New South Wales model should set the standard for a national feed-in tariff.

The 4,700 Energy Australia customers and 4,500 Country Energy customers with panels will be much better off under the new arrangements. These users can expect to receive more than $10,000 during the course of the scheme. That is over $3,600 more than under the previously proposed scheme. This is yet another example of the New South Wales Government's commitment to our clean energy policy. The Government has got the balance right with the Solar Bonus Scheme, and it is a demonstration of our commitment to supporting renewable energy. As the Total Environment Centre said yesterday, this is a serious commitment to the green State.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. Is the Minister aware of the significant concern about the environmental impacts of BHP Billiton's proposed Bulli Seam project, currently on public exhibition, which risks cracking and subsidence and could result in a negative impact on 47 streams and 55 upland swamps in the catchment of the Cataract and Woronora dams and the Georges River, and therefore the drinking water of southern Sydney and the Illawarra? What measures will the Minister take to ensure that this proposal is subject to the strictest environmental assessment so that the streams and pools of Dharawal Nature Reserve are not damaged, nor the 530 or more Aboriginal sites in the Holsworthy military training area that are subject to Commonwealth heritage listing? How will the Minister ensure that the project, if approved, will not cause the type of damage that has resulted from other long-wall coalmining projects, such as in the Upper Georges and Cataract rivers, where the river beds cracked and environmental flows were lost? [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: Members will be aware that New South Wales always adopts the highest environmental standards available. This project will be dealt with in the normal processes that occur with all planning matters.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Mineral Resources. Does the Minister remember that on 27 October 2009 I asked him a question about the Namoi catchment water study? Does the Minister remember saying:

I am not writing out any cheque in relation to this matter. The Government has decided, following discussions with Mr Peters and the department on this matter, that it would not be matching the funds provided by the Commonwealth. Just because the Commonwealth has put up $1.5 million for this or any other project does not mean that we should have to follow suit. However, my understanding from discussions in the committee is that adequate funds will be available for that water study.

In light of that answer, will the Minister advise the House of how much the water study is to cost? What communications has the Minister had with the Federal Government to ensure that its $1.5 million commitment is unconditional and will not be withdrawn? How much have BHP and Shenhua each committed to provide to support the funding of the study? How will the Minister ensure that the Namoi Catchment water study is fully funded? [Time expired.]

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I state at the outset that the Government's policy position—it has been the Government's policy position for the past 20 years—is that proponents are required to meet the environmental studies necessary for them to put a development application before the planning process. That is the position we hold in relation to this matter. In relation to the Commonwealth wishing to make a contribution to something that it feels is appropriate, I have nothing further to add. That is the Commonwealth's business. In relation to whether adequate funds will be available, I am assured by the department and in discussions I have had with Mr Peters and with the mining companies in the region that adequate funds will be available. The Hon. Trevor Khan mentioned two companies, Shenhua with the Watermark site and BHP Billiton with the Caroona site.

I can inform the member that a number of other companies are participating in this process. There is Idemitsu at Boggabri, Santos is exploring in the area, and I think Eastern Star Gas is there as well. Two major companies are exploring for gas reserves. I understand that all the companies are involved in discussions about the water study. I am confident that the water study will proceed and will be conducted with the highest integrity. As the member would know, any experts contracted to do this work will come from a panel of experts, to which all proponents and stakeholders will have access. It will be a question of who has the technical capability to do such a complex task.

I am satisfied that the approach that we are taking is the correct and appropriate policy stance. I am sure that in the end the study will be enlightening not only to mining companies but also to landholders and underground water users in the area. I might add that such a study will take some time to complete—in the order of a year to 18 months. It is quite a long process. I guess the end point of the question is: Will there be adequate funds from whatever source available to complete this study? On the information that has been supplied to me, I am satisfied that that is the case.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister inform the House about the new mobile phone text messaging service being offered to irrigation farmers in the Hawkesbury-Nepean area?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The New South Wales Government is constantly working with farmers to help them embrace new technology and to save water across our State. I am pleased to say that the Government's new WaterSmart Farms initiative is giving farmers in the Hawkesbury-Nepean a unique opportunity to do both. The WaterSmart Farms initiative is a free telephone text messaging service being provided in the Sydney Basin under the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Recovery Program. Irrigators can now receive irrigation scheduling recommendations by SMS, with the recommendations tailored to the individual requirements for each property.

Farmers can save money by improving their crop management, reducing the amount of time they run their irrigation pumps and using less water. For consumers and the community water savings can result in cheaper food prices, higher product quality and, of course, a better environment. The text messaging service combines real time satellite remote sensing data with on-ground weather station data with SMS to deliver a simple figure. Large amounts of complex data are analysed using specially developed software tools to produce recommendations for individual properties. Since I announced the introduction of the new SMS service, there have been many inquiries to Industry and Investment New South Wales from farmers keen to use the service.

The initial goal was to have 15 Hawkesbury-Nepean irrigators using the service by the time the trial phase concluded. However, by the time the full service kicked off in late October, 26 fruit, vegetable and turf growers had already signed up. Those growers will receive a daily SMS telling them when they need to irrigate, how much water to apply and how long to run their irrigation systems to achieve optimum water productivity. Satellite images are used to measure plant canopy size. On-ground weather station data is used to calculate specific water requirements for each crop, including taking into account individual irrigation system performance. Growers using the service will also be able to compare their water use against other growers on the Internet.

The service is being managed by Industry and Investment New South Wales, in partnership with the CSIRO and the Co-operative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures. A prototype service was tested for two years in the State's Riverina by a large group of grape growers and it proved to be highly accurate and reliable. In addition, Government researchers are now using SMS messaging in an Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research project in Cambodia, where virtually all farmers have a mobile phone. Market price information is being delivered to Cambodian vegetable growers and researchers are investigating how these farmers learn and how they prefer their information packaged. The popularity of the SMS service is expected to increase significantly over coming months as more and more growers become aware of how modern technologies can be harnessed to deliver information in a simple form, directly to those who need it.

I congratulate farmers in the Hawkesbury-Nepean on their enthusiastic willingness to adopt new technologies. It shows that they are constantly pushing the boundaries to improve their management on their farms. Their enthusiasm has encouraged the New South Wales Government to examine other ways it could use text messages to communicate with farmers. Options being considered include communicating with non-English speaking growers and notifying farmers of pest and disease outbreaks. This Government will continue to work with farmers to help save precious resources and make an already highly productive industry even more efficient. I note in the Hawkesbury-Nepean and the Sydney Basin in general we are talking about a not insignificant industry within the order of $1 billion worth of farm-gate value each year.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority has adopted a position of not taking action or prosecuting wood heater manufacturers who sell units without obtaining a certificate of compliance, in contravention of clause 5 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2002? Why would the Environment Protection Authority compromise the improvements to air quality achieved by the Woodsmoke Reduction Program in 2002-04 and prejudice the considerable government funding for compliance support by not prosecuting offences under the regulation? Will the Minister require the Environment Protection Authority to fine and prosecute wood heater manufacturers and those who are selling wood heaters that have no certificates of compliance with Australian standards? I have information of them.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I am not aware of the specifics raised by the member. For some time I have advocated that enforcement is not the only solution to problems that arise, irrespective of where they might be, but that a period of education is required to ensure that people are not simply beaten with a big stick. People should be presented with the opportunities and information through an education campaign if we are to implement the sorts of changes that are required. A stick is not the only solution—education campaigns are also a critical feature of any program that is rolled out of new regulations.

The Government has the best industrial environmental licensing regime in the country. It has a proud record on pollution regulation and reduction. The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water issues environment protection licences to operators and owners of various premises that potentially pollute land and/or water. Conditions on environment protection licences relate to pollution prevention and monitoring, and cleaner production through recycling, re-use and implementation of best practice. In addition to introducing strict licensing conditions that limit emissions, New South Wales was the first State to implement load base licensing fees. This matter has a significant impact on a whole range of operators of fires that utilise timber products and the like for heating during the year.

Whilst the Government is serious about the way in which to deal with those issues, education is a crucial feature of any reform process. We need to ensure that we educate people and not simply prosecute them. Prosecution alone is an inadequate means to deal with these circumstances. History has shown—and it is certainly my experiences—that education is a crucial factor. In my former role I dealt with issues such as WorkCover. Some people were of the view that the only solution was to go out and prosecute, but there was also a view that education is a much more appropriate alternative for a period of time. I encourage the Environment Protection Authority to go out into these areas and provide information to the people who sell and use these products. It should ensure that people understand their obligations and that compliance is being met in the first instance. An education program may highlight where the deficiencies are before fines are issued.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney aware that under the Local Court of New South Wales Practice Note 1 of 2009 "an application to change the venue to another court less than 100 kilometres from the originating venue will not be granted unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated"? Will the Attorney take action to ensure that this practice note will not adversely affect defendants, particularly the elderly who would otherwise incur higher litigation costs and be forced to travel unreasonable distances to court? Will the Attorney ensure that this practice note will not give certain plaintiffs, in particular corporate plaintiffs who bulk file numerous statements of claim, an unfair advantage over defendants?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Practice notes are issued by the Chief Magistrate. They are done generally in consultation with representatives of the profession and indeed other persons who have an interest in relation to these matters. Generally speaking, I think it is inappropriate for the Government or, indeed, for us generally to be interfering with the way the court manages its business, particularly in relation to issues of venues. The court has significant flexibility in order to ensure that it makes the best use of its resources. If the Hon. John Ajaka has a specific issue in relation to a particular case that has caused him some disquiet, I am happy to look at it and, if necessary, take it up with the Chief Magistrate.

If members have further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Yesterday Mr Ian Cohen asked me a question in relation to spinal cord injury research funding. I acknowledge that it is Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Week. The New South Wales Government is committed to investing in the best possible care for spinal cord injury sufferers, which includes funding research to find better therapies and, ultimately, a cure. In 2003 the Labor Government committed $10.9 million over four years to establish the New South Wales Spinal Cord Injury and Related Neurological Conditions Research Grants Program. In 2007 the Government committed a further $11 million over four years towards spinal cord research and related neurological conditions. The funding for spinal injury research remains in place.

Questions without notice concluded.
The Hon. Tony Kelly tabled the following paper:

Report of the Office of Transport Safety Investigations entitled "Rail Safety Investigation Report: Derailment of CityRail Passenger Service 37-K—Homebush" dated 7 January 2009.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

[The President left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [2.30 p.m.]: In accordance with standing order 71, I seek leave of the House to give notice of a motion relating to the inquiry by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 into Badgerys Creek land dealings and planning decisions.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate on committee reports proceeded with.

Debate resumed from 2 June 2009.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [2.31 p.m.]: I am pleased to commence debate on the thirty-eighth report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, titled "Legislation on Altruistic Surrogacy in NSW". The report was tabled out of session with the Clerk on 27 May this year. The Attorney General, the Hon. John Hatzistergos, MLC, referred this inquiry to the law and justice committee on 22 July 2008. The committee was asked to inquire into and report on whether New South Wales legislation requires amendment to better deal with altruistic surrogacy and related matters. The practice of surrogacy, altruistic or commercial, is a contentious and divisive issue, giving rise to diverse and often irreconcilable views. At the outset I acknowledge this diversity of views and the fact that the committee itself was divided with regard to the views of its individual members. Whatever position the Government takes in relation to regulating the practice of surrogacy, it is unfortunately the case that some parties will disagree.

During the inquiry the committee heard from a range of stakeholders, including the Attorney General's Department, the Department of Community Services, the Department of Health, two major fertility clinics—Sydney IVF and Next Generation Fertility—the Catholic Church and Anglican Church dioceses of Sydney, the Australian Christian Lobby, the Australian Family Association and the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. The committee also heard from support groups and academics. I particularly note the important contribution to the inquiry in the form of submissions and oral evidence from a number of parents of children born through surrogacy arrangements, and I thank them for their contribution.

Following consideration of all the evidence before it, the committee has recommended legislative amendments to improve the process through which parties enter into surrogacy arrangements, and through which the intending parents—that is, the parents who intend to raise the child born through the arrangement—attain legal parentage of their child. In this regard the committee has recommended that parties entering into surrogacy arrangements be required to undergo assessment by a counsellor operating independently of any artificial reproductive technology clinic, and to obtain independent legal advice. In addition, the committee has recommended the establishment of a transferral of parentage mechanism specific to altruistic surrogacy arrangements, allowing intending parents to apply for legal parentage of the child born through the arrangement after six weeks from the birth of the child. This would remedy the considerable disadvantages of the current situation in which intending parents must apply to adopt the child born through the arrangement in order to attain legal parentage, a process that can take some years.

Based on the evidence before it, the committee adopted the principle of minimal government intervention in the practice of altruistic surrogacy, choosing not to recommend specific suitability and eligibility criteria for parties wishing to enter into surrogacy arrangements. Decisions relating to the specific attributes of individuals involved in surrogacy arrangements, and the particular surrogacy arrangement they wish to enter into, are best left in the hands of those with the greatest knowledge and experience in the area; that is, the clinicians and counsellors working in the field of surrogacy.

The committee also reaffirmed the principles underlying the existing prohibition on commercial surrogacy in New South Wales, and has recommended that the definition of commercial surrogacy contained in the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 be clarified. In particular, the definition needs to be expanded to indicate what reasonable expenses can be repaid to the surrogate mother—or birth mother—in an altruistic surrogacy arrangement. Such clarification would assist both in enforcing the prohibition on commercial surrogacy and in allowing parties to participate in altruistic surrogacy arrangements without contravening that prohibition.

The committee recognises the importance of children born through surrogacy arrangements having access to the full picture regarding their parentage and genetic heritage. To this end the committee has recommended that the original birth certificate for a child born through a surrogacy arrangement record the names of all parties to the arrangement, including the birth parents, the intending parents and the gamete donors, where they exist. Then, when parentage is transferred to the intending parents, through the mechanism recommended by the committee, an amended birth certificate should be issued recording the intending parents' names only, but including a notation that an original birth certificate exists.

I will now look in more detail at the issues addressed during the inquiry and the recommendations contained in the committee's report. Part of the backdrop to this inquiry was the concurrent national process in relation to surrogacy laws being undertaken by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General [SCAG]. In November 2006 the then Federal Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, announced that SCAG had agreed to work towards harmonising surrogacy laws in Australia by addressing the inconsistency that existed—and continues to exist—between States and Territories. One consequence of this inconsistency is the practice of parties "forum shopping", or travelling interstate to pursue surrogacy arrangements.

In January 2009 SCAG released a discussion paper titled "A proposal for a national model to harmonise regulation of surrogacy". The paper called for submissions with a view to developing national model law regulating the practice of surrogacy. Some of the proposals in the SCAG paper include that parties must undertake counselling prior to entering into a surrogacy arrangement, that birth mothers be reimbursed for expenses associated with the pregnancy and birth, and that intending parents be allowed to apply for legal parentage of the child born through the arrangement. As foreshadowed in my introduction, these proposals accord with the recommendations the committee has made in this report.

Individual Australian State and Territory jurisdictions have already proceeded down the path of regulating the practice of surrogacy to varying extents. The Australian Capital Territory was the first Australian jurisdiction to enact detailed legislation relating to surrogacy, followed more recently in 2008 by Victoria and Western Australia. These three jurisdictions now formally recognise surrogacy agreements, preserve the presumption of parentage in favour of the birth mother and provide a mechanism for transferring parentage to intending parents following the birth of the child.

In Queensland the practice of surrogacy is still technically illegal. However, a 2008 parliamentary inquiry in that State recommended the practice be decriminalised and that a mechanism be developed to transfer parentage from birth mothers to intending parents. The Queensland Government has responded to these recommendations by stating its intention to have legislation to that effect finalised by the end of 2009. South Australia and Tasmania have also held parliamentary inquiries into the practice of surrogacy and are both moving towards some form of surrogacy-specific legislation that recognises altruistic surrogacy agreements and facilitates the transferral of parentage to the intending parents in the arrangement.

In New South Wales there is currently very limited regulation of the practice of surrogacy. When the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 commences it will prohibit commercial surrogacy, prohibit advertising and brokerage activity in relation to commercial surrogacy, make all surrogacy agreements legally void and unenforceable, and require assisted reproductive technology clinics—or ART clinics—to store genetic information relating to conceptions in a central register.

Other pieces of legislation that impact on the practice of surrogacy in New South Wales include the Status of Children Act 1996, under which there is a presumption of parentage in relation to children born through a "fertilisation procedure" in favour of the birth mother, and the Adoption Act 2000, through which intending parents in a surrogacy arrangement may apply to adopt the child born through the arrangement and thereby become recognised as the legal parents of the child. In addition, the National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] issues guidelines for ART clinics, and individual clinics can develop their own internal guidelines applicable to surrogacy arrangements.

The committee heard a wide range of views on the practice of altruistic surrogacy—from those who supported to it to those who opposed it or believed it should be carefully restricted. As I mentioned earlier, this issue clearly is a contentious and divisive one, giving rise to opposing views that are difficult or impossible to reconcile. These views are often grounded in deeply held convictions relating to reproduction and family formation and to religious and ethical standpoints. Those who supported altruistic surrogacy argued that it presented a viable option for couples experiencing infertility problems to have children. Frequently it is the last option available to these couples, in particular, if their desire is to have a child to whom they are genetically related. Those opposed to altruistic surrogacy argued that it undermined the accepted social constructs of motherhood and family and commodified children by making them the subject of agreements or contracts.

Whilst there was consensus amongst inquiry participants and the committee that the rights, or best interests, of the child were the paramount consideration in the practice of altruistic surrogacy, there was disagreement over when the rights of the child should be asserted. Those arguing that the rights of the child should be asserted prior to conception tended to oppose or to have serious concerns about surrogacy on the grounds that it impacted negatively on the wellbeing of the child to be born through the arrangement. Those who argued that the rights of the child should be asserted post-birth tended to focus on the practicalities of protecting the rights of a child who has been born through a surrogacy arrangement.

In relation to the wellbeing of children born through altruistic surrogacy arrangements, the committee carefully examined a range of concerns raised by inquiry participants. These concerns included that the child could be negatively affected by being removed from the birth mother and raised by non-biological parents, and might experience genealogical bewilderment through not knowing his or her genetic background or by virtue of the complexity of the family structure in which he or she exists. This family structure potentially could include up to six people who could be called a parent to the child—the birth mother and her partner, the intending parents, and gamete donors where donated gametes are used in the conception of the child. In addition, some inquiry participants were concerned that outcomes for children born through surrogacy arrangements were largely unknown, and so the practice represents an unethical form of social experimentation in which the subject of the experiment, the child, does not and cannot give his or her consent.

On the other hand, some inquiry participants argued that the primary effect on a child's wellbeing came not from the form of family in which he or she existed but the functioning of that family; that is, what has most impact on a child's wellbeing is not whether the child is genetically related to the parents raising him or her, or whether the mother raising the child is also the birth mother, but the quality of the relationship that child has with the parents. Concerns were expressed also in relation to the birth mother and her ability to give informed consent to the surrogacy arrangement. Some inquiry participants were concerned that prior to conceiving a woman is unable to predict how she will feel about relinquishing a child she will carry and to which she will give birth. Furthermore, there were concerns that a birth mother could emotionally be coerced into participating in the surrogacy arrangement, particularly in circumstances where she had a close relationship with the intending parents and the pressure of family and friends' expectations could impede her ability to give informed consent.

However, other inquiry participants argued that the available evidence does not support the view that birth mothers have difficulty relinquishing the child born through the surrogacy arrangement and that appropriate counselling assists them in making a clear distinction between a child that is their own and a child they are carrying and to whom they are giving birth for the intending parents. Many of the concerns expressed by inquiry participants about children born through surrogacy arrangements arose from research and anecdotal evidence relating to adopted children and children conceived with donated gametes. However, this research typically seeks to explore the effect on adopted and donor-conceived children of being raised by parents to whom they are not genetically related, and of not having a relationship with those persons to whom they are genetically related. In surrogacy it is frequently the case that the intending parents donate the gametes used, and so they are genetically related to the child born through the arrangement. Therefore, the value of extrapolating from adoption and donor conception scenarios to surrogacy is highly questionable.

Furthermore, the available research that directly relates to surrogacy arrangements indicates that there are no negative outcomes for the children born through these arrangements. At this point in time there are longitudinal shortcomings to these studies in that the children involved in the studies are still at a relatively young age. The committee believes that further longitudinal studies should be undertaken. Whilst a minority of committee members believe there is a clear case against altruistic surrogacy and that the risks and harms outweigh the benefits, a majority of committee members believe there is a clear case in favour of altruistic surrogacy as a valid means of family formation. Ultimately, the committee accepts that children have been, and will continue to be, born through altruistic surrogacy arrangements. The committee believes that its primary obligation is to protect the rights of these children and to remove, where possible, any disadvantage that may exist for them by virtue of being born through a surrogacy arrangement. The committee's focus, therefore, is on how this can be achieved through government regulation.

The committee heard a range of views about the nature and extent of any government regulation that was required for the practice of altruistic surrogacy in New South Wales. Some inquiry participants argued that the only legislation required was that which banned the practice. Others suggested that there should be no legislation, or only minimal additional legislation, and they argued that existing regulations and guidelines were sufficient. Other inquiry participants suggested that more extensive regulation was required, including the establishment of eligibility and suitability criteria for parties wishing to enter into surrogacy arrangements. Having considered the arguments presented to it, the committee adopted the principle of minimal government intervention, and its recommendations reflect this principle. Incidentally, this principle echoes that proposed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in its discussion paper, namely, that "intervention of the law in people's private lives should be kept to a minimum".

I will follow up that issue when I reply to debate on this report. Before I conclude I thank members of the secretariat, under the guidance of Rachel Callinan, for their excellent work in an extremely difficult and sensitive inquiry. The hard work of committee members ensured that we remained calm and that we were able to demonstrate our beliefs fairly and openly. I thank committee members and the secretariat staff for assisting the committee in the production of this report.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [2.46 p.m.]: As Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice I contribute to debate on the committee's report entitled "Legislation on altruistic surrogacy in NSW", which deals with the issue of surrogacy generally and, in particular, the role, if any, that the New South Wales Government should play in regulating altruistic surrogacy arrangements. The Hon. Christine Robertson, chair of the committee, pointed out in the chair's foreword that the issue of surrogacy is a contentious and divisive one that raises an array of medical, ethical and family considerations. As the committee extensively considered those and other matters in its deliberations, I do not propose to traverse those matters again today as the report speaks for itself.

My views on those issues are clear on pages 155 to 167 of the report, which set out my voting record regarding the recommendations in the report and other related matters. However, I make it clear that I identify fully with the dissenting statement of the Hon. Greg Donnelly to be found on pages 171 and 172 of the report. As he rightly pointed out, surrogacy poses real risks for those individuals who are born from such arrangements, those involved in commissioning and participating in the arrangements, and for society as a whole. I believe that the evidence before the committee highlights the lack of information as to the long-term effects on many of the children who are the result of surrogate arrangements. The evidence also confirmed to me that it is the right of children and it is in their best interests, wherever possible, to be born of a biological mother and father who are in a permanent relationship.

I express my concern that the committee rejected a motion supported by the Hon. John Ajaka, the Hon. Greg Donnelly and me that the State Government give consideration to amending the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 to incorporate a conscientious objection provision for practitioners and employees in the assisted reproductive technology industry so that they are not obliged to be involved in procedures and programs to which they object, and that they will not be disadvantaged by exercising their right to conscientious objection. On the whole, this report raises more problems than it solves. My opposition to many of the recommendations is recorded in the report. This report, which is flawed and defective in many of its assertions, assumptions and recommendations, is not in the best interests of children.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [2.49 p.m.]: I support most of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice report entitled "Legislation on altruistic surrogacy in NSW." At the outset I thank the committee secretariat for its detailed work on this matter. The committee heard a range of views, from those who believe surrogacy should not take place at all to those who believe surrogacy should almost be unregulated. I shall respond to the committee's recommendations and then to my dissenting report. The concept of altruistic surrogacy is good as it allows people who otherwise would have little or no opportunity to become parents to fulfil that desire. We have to acknowledge that community expectations have changed. In the past some people accepted that they would remain childless all their life. Now people expect that they will be able to have a child by some means. Initially that was achieved through adoption, but now it can be achieved also through surrogacy and assisted reproductive technology.

I support the committee's recommendation to allow reasonable expenses to be paid to surrogates within the framework of altruistic surrogacy because some unforseen things occur during pregnancy that certainly are known to women and perhaps to some men. For example, the birth mother may need to take extra time off work that was not anticipated. That loss of income should definitely be taken into account in seeking reasonable reimbursement. One disturbing thing in the report and in many attitudes displayed during evidence the committee received was the concept that the birth mother somehow has this unique tie to the child to whom they give birth, even in cases of no genetic link to the child. For someone to agree to be a surrogate and contribute no genetic material to the child they carry, particularly when the genetic material comes from the commissioning mother and father, and then to say at the time of birth they want to keep the child is, in my view, no different from kidnapping or baby snatching.

The report does not reflect that issue because there remains the concept of this intrinsic link between the birth mother and the child. Sometimes in surrogacy there is a genetic link, but in many cases there is not. It is wrong to assume that because a woman has carried somebody else's child she has the right to keep the child. That is no different from snatching a pram outside a shop or going into a nursery in a hospital and stealing a baby out of a crib. I feel very strongly about that. What I found particularly disturbing was that much of the evidence supporting the concept that the birth mother has this unique link with the child came from organisations that seemed to be promoting fathers or from men who gave evidence to the committee—a somewhat overarching paternalistic attitude about how women should feel about giving birth rather than what many women have experienced. I do not often feel as strongly about things, but I must stress my strong objection to this matter.

I refer now to my dissenting report. While evidence from organisations that supported the concept of surrogacy was given a fair degree of scrutiny in its academic rigour and validity of any statistics presented, evidence from other organisations—I draw the attention of members particularly to Family Voice Australia—did not have this academic standing or backup. The comments from Family Voice Australia referred to in paragraph 3.141 did not refer to any reputable research yet were given credibility not deserved, especially in view of how the credentials of other people who gave evidence were taken into account. I do not support the continued presumption of legal parentage being given to the birth mother in respect of children born as a result of surrogacy arrangements.

The committee received a great deal of compelling evidence, but one factor caused the most angst to the parents of children born to surrogacy. Currently such parents must legally adopt their children as if they had no role in the child being brought into existence. Rather than recommending a transfer of parentage mechanism, the committee should have supported my proposal to remove the presumption in favour of birth mothers. I believe also that the committee should have supported my amendment to the report to include a recommendation that the Government amend the Status of Children Act 1996 to remove the presumption of parenthood in relation to children conceived through a surrogacy arrangement from the birth mother and her partner in favour of the commissioning parents.

It is absolutely astounding that the husband or male partner of a birth mother is automatically assumed to be the father of the child in circumstances when there is no genetic link at all to the child. It is one thing for people to push the idea of this bond between a birth mother and a child; but to say that the birth mother's husband or partner should automatically be regarded legally as the father of the child born through the surrogacy arrangement is something we should not countenance in this century. I believe also that we should have deleted the reference in recommendation 8 to preserving the presumption of legal parentage on the birth of a child in favour of the birth mother.

I completely oppose also a matter raised during deliberations but not given due consideration by the committee, that is, information to be contained on the original birth certificate issued to a child born by surrogacy. I completely oppose the inclusion as a requirement outlined in paragraph 6.181 in recommendation 9 that the original birth certificate for a child born to a surrogacy arrangement record the names of all parties to the agreement, including the birth parents, the intending parents and gamete donors where they exist. This position is not compatible with the Regulatory Impact Statement for the proposed Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation 2008 and circumvents the safeguards referred to in the impact statement. Such unregulated and unfettered access to information for children born of surrogacy when they reach 18 years of age has the potential to breach the privacy of many individuals involved and could lead to tragic unforeseen circumstances for the children and the gamete donors.

This should be compared with the way we treat the giving of information to adopted children. They certainly are not just handed a birth certificate when they turn 18 years of age containing all that information. Information made available to adopted children is regulated. The Reunion and Information Register will assist children and adults involved in a surrogacy arrangement to come to terms with that fact should they want to make contact. The committee's recommendation makes no provision for any form of contact veto as exists with adoption registers. The Standing Committee on Social Issues report into adoption is probably 10 years old but remains relevant as members will acknowledge the problems that have arisen through people breaching the guidelines for adoption contact registers.

The recommendation in the current report perhaps in some way was trying to make altruistic surrogacy unpalatable to people so that they would not become involved. Perhaps I am being guilty of being a conspiracy theorist, which is an insult I throw around to so many others. In general, I recommend the report with my comments. Altruistic surrogacy is the sort of personal sacrifice in which only people with a really good heart can get involved. I commend the bulk of the report.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [2.59 p.m.]: I join my colleagues of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice in debate on the committee's report No. 38 relating to legislation concerning altruistic surrogacy in New South Wales. I thank the Chair, the Hon. Christine Robertson, and commend the committee staff for the efficient and professional manner in which the hearings were conducted.

My contribution to the debate focuses principally on four key issues which were, in my view, central to the inquiry: firstly, the need to put aside the contention surrounding the ethics of altruistic surrogacy, to recognise it as a practical reality, and to adopt a reactive approach to its regulation in New South Wales; secondly, the importance of legislating to define the legal status of children conceived through assisted reproductive technology [ART] treatment; thirdly, the disclosure requirements to be applied to birth registration, in accordance with prevailing social values as regards the legal distinction between "birth" and "genetic" parents; and, fourthly, the establishment of appropriate oversight and review mechanisms to gauge the effectiveness of any legislative amendment or policy change.

Turning to the first of these matters, I note that a number of inquiry participants, informed by their personal views on reproduction, the family unit, religion, ethics and notions of parenthood, expressed clear and uncompromising opposition to the practice of altruistic surrogacy. Some took the view that altruistic surrogacy arrangements amount to a legal and cultural deconstruction of parenthood. I take the view that the most effective response to a altruistic surrogacy in New South Wales is not to blindly implement a blanket prohibition, but to acknowledge that the practice is real, is occurring and is giving rise to difficult, and hitherto largely unanswered, legal questions.

In terms of the incidence of artistic surrogacy in the State, it is important to point out, first, that the committee did not hear submissions from all assisted reproductive technology clinics facilitating surrogacy arrangements in New South Wales and, second, an unknown number of surrogacy arrangements are implemented without the use of a formal assisted reproductive technology procedure. Therefore, it was impossible to determine with any certainty how many arrangements are concluded in New South Wales although it has been estimated that there are fewer than 100 each year. The occurrences are not so few and far between as to justify dismissing a practice as marginal; rather, these are real instances giving rise to practical difficulties and must be addressed across medical and legal spheres.

The committee's approach was to consider a series of foundational questions that provide a compass for a reform agenda, taking as its starting point a number of theoretical issues concerning the regulatory role of a government, such as the appropriate level of state intervention in private decisions about family formation; whether a government should have a role in restricting access to assisted reproductive technology or establishing criteria for entering into a surrogacy arrangement; and whether the distinction between government regulating surrogacy and government endorsing surrogacy is artificial.

Several inquiry participants, including a New South Wales Health spokesperson and a spokesperson from the family issues committee of the Law Society of New South Wales, favoured a minimalist model for reform along the lines of the Australian Capital Territory's Parentage Act 2004 rather than a prescriptive framework that is akin to the Victorian model. In a discussion paper released in January this year, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General recommended strongly that any move to implement a national model to harmonise regulation of surrogacy should be developed on the basis that intervention by the law into people's private lives should be kept to a minimum.

Indeed, throughout the course of the inquiry a clear line was drawn between private clinical decision-making processes on the one hand and the legal ambiguity arising from conception of the child through assisted reproductive technology on the other. While the former's role of private autonomy and medical practice arguably neither requires nor invites government interference, the latter has been identified as an area that would benefit from greater regulation in terms of formalising family arrangements and protecting the rights of assisted reproductive technology children as well as birth and genetic parents. At present, the National Health and Medical Research Council's ethical guidelines and the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee's code of practice for assisted reproductive technology procedures set boundaries to prevent exploitative practices in the provision of medical birth technologies.

Underpinning each of those considerations throughout the inquiry hearings was a general acknowledgement of the universally accepted proposition that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration. There is an unavoidable degree of ambiguity inherent in this concept. Accordingly, the committee has taken the position that any criteria to be applied to all parties to a surrogacy arrangement should be based on generally accepted and non-contentious safeguards, such as the need to seek counselling and legal advice as reflected in recommendations 1 and 3.

In my view it is particularly important for prospective parents and other persons involved in assisted reproductive technology procedures to undertake counselling so that they can discuss the personal implications of assisted reproductive technology conception, provide emotional support for one another, and obtain advice about additional services and support networks. Legal advice is an important part of the process in terms of ensuring that the parties are aware of their rights—and particularly important, given the ill-defined nature of the parties' rights and status both in entering into a surrogacy arrangement and upon the conception of children.

Turning now to the second issue of defining the legal status of children conceived through assisted reproductive technology treatment, I note that, at present, there is a limited legislative framework regulating the practice of surrogacy in New South Wales. The New South Wales Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 prohibits commercial surrogacy and renders altruistic surrogacy agreements legally unenforceable. The Status of Children Act 1996 creates, in respect of children conceived through a "fertilisation procedure", a presumption of parentage in favour of the birth mother.

At the Commonwealth level, section 60HB of the Family Law Act 1975, which was enacted last year, provides that if a court has made an order under prescribed law of a State or Territory to the effect that a child is the child of one or more persons, or each of one or more persons is a parent of a child, then for the purposes of the Family Law Act, the child is a child of each of those persons. The provision operates to ensure that any transfer of parentage arising from a surrogacy arrangement at a State or Territory level is recognised under the Commonwealth regime.

However, the New South Wales legislation as it currently stands provides few alternative arrangements to prospective parents who are concerned with the protection of their children in the instance of the death, separation or incapacity of parents. For instance, intending parents in a surrogacy arrangement can be recognised as the legal parents of the child only through adoption, or they may apply to the Family Court of Australia or the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia for a parenting order that will outline custody and day-to-day care arrangements.

A number of inquiry participants made complaints about the limited parentage status conferred by a parenting order. For example, the orders expire when the child turns 18 years of age, can be challenged at any time, and confer parental status only for the purposes of the Family Law Act and in relation to no other Federal legislation. The other primary complaint was directed towards the significant delays involved in the adoption process. Indeed, a number of adoptive parents who participated in the inquiry expressed a high degree of anxiety over the uncertainty surrounding the adoption application process.

Another obstacle identified throughout the hearings was that in New South Wales private adoption is permitted only if one of the adopting parents is a relative of the child, and that will not be the case in all surrogacy arrangements. I feel that all of those issues loom large in the debate over policy and regulatory reform and remain largely unresolved. In relation to delineating the legal rights of key stakeholders, in my view the importance of defining the legal status of children conceived through assisted reproductive technology lies in the need to give legal recognition to their rights in relation to matters such as their living arrangements, education, health care and recognised relationship with persons they consider to be their parents, for the purposes of intestacy, wills, compensation and other important entitlements. I also highlight the importance of formulating a clear definition of surrogacy and assisted reproductive technology-facilitated conception. For those reasons, I support the committee's recommendation 7.

Turning now to the third matter of disclosure surrogacy arrangements on a child's birth registration, it is my position that the commissioning parents should be named on the birth certificate only subject to the added qualification that the child should be notified of his/her right to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate with complete details of birth, genetic and adoptive parents. I support the committee's recommendations in this regard, in particular recommendation 8 and recommendation 10. It is my position that the availability of genetic information is important for two primary reasons: first, every person has a right to know their roots and genetic origins; and, second, for more objective and practical medical reasons, such as ascertaining blood type and ensuring compatibility in organ donation procedures. I stand wholeheartedly in support of the committee's recommendation that the register of genetic information established by the New South Wales Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 should serve as a central register for the storage of information regarding all births utilising assisted reproductive technology, including surrogacy arrangements.

Finally, in relation to the fourth issue of oversight in mapping a path forward, I cannot give enough emphasis to the importance of establishing an independent guiding body to monitor the success with which reforms are meeting their stated objectives. Oversight and review mechanisms are a vital means of benchmarking and gauging the efficacy of any legislative amendment or policy change. For those reasons, I stand by the committee's recommendations 5 and 6. The committee members were split on the question of whether the rights and responsibilities of parties to surrogacy arrangements, particularly in relation to medical decisions made during pregnancy, should be left in the hands of specialist lawyers or should be regulated by the Government. It is my view that these matters are more appropriately dealt with by the parties seeking independent legal advice and that legal practitioners would be better placed to make determinations of that nature in line with the needs and desires of the individuals concerned. I also support recommendation 6.

I stand in support of the almost unanimous opposition to commercial surrogacy among inquiry participants. I agree with the committee's conclusion that the New South Wales Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 requires amendment to clarify and define the distinction between commercial surrogacy and the reimbursement of "reasonable expenses" to the birth mother in an altruistic surrogacy arrangement. I join with the majority of my colleagues in supporting the committee's reform recommendations. Accordingly, I commend the recommendations to the House.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.09 p.m.]: I commend the report to the House. The report is considered and moderate in its recommendations, and attempts to balance in many ways the genuine concerns of people who have perhaps diametrically opposed views on many issues. In general, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice is one of the more interesting committees of this Parliament. It inevitably throws up issues for committee members to consider that involve deep moral and ethical considerations and how the law should be brought to bear on those considerations.

For the most part, whether it is a report on the naming and shaming of children, the adoption of children by same-sex couples or indeed altruistic surrogacy, it is extraordinarily interesting and challenging to try to find a path through the issues and to act in a way that is consistent with one's moral compass but also has relevance to life as it is lived. Usually, the committee deals with matters that are taking place, such as altruistic surrogacy, but that have not been covered by a panoply of laws. Then there is the question of whether one should even bother to attempt to legislate.

I particularly commend the role of the committee chair, the Hon. Christine Robertson, who attempted to accommodate all views. I commend also the officers of the committee, led by Rachel Callinan, who had an extraordinarily difficult job and had to exercise the wisdom of Solomon to try not to reconcile but to accommodate such a diversity of viewpoints. I am prompted to address my remarks to the issues raised by the Hon. Amanda Fazio. I thought her reference to a birth mother who was not genetically related to the child but who chose to retain that child as being guilty of kidnapping or baby snatching was excessive, to say the least. She seemed to suggest that the role of these women is purely as baby incubators, which is an interesting proposition.

Members would probably agree that thousands, if not millions, of children have been born over time whose fathers might confidently believe that they are genetically related to the child born by the mother, but the mother may be of a different view. Regardless of that fact, it is equally possibly that thousands, and possibly millions, of those fathers have great attachment to the children they rear. Equally, it is possible for a woman who has no genetic relationship to a child to form an attachment over the child's gestation period. After all, she is expected to nurture the child, look after her own health as well as that of the child, and care for the child, and she has the extraordinary physical burden of carrying the child for nine months.

It does not strike me as extraordinary in any way; indeed, the reverse is the case. It is not unusual to think that a woman would become extraordinarily attached to the child after carrying the child for nine months. I speak as a person who has raised two children, one who is genetically related to me and one who is not, and it is possible for me to feel deeply attached to both of those children. The genetic origins are almost irrelevant when it comes to the context of the relationship that is established with children throughout their lives.

It is appropriate that a woman has the right to determine, at the end of the process, to retain the child as a child she has borne, and it would be extraordinarily inappropriate to pressure the woman in any way to give up that child. Over the past several centuries, but particularly in the last century, we have seen the effects when single women who have conceived children have been pressured to have those children adopted. We have seen the appalling consequences not only for the children themselves as they wonder about their birth mother, but also for the mothers who have surrendered those children. It is reasonable for the mother to retain that right up until the end, and when she surrenders the child she should not be pressured in any way. For that reason, to say somehow that she has entered into a contract without actually entering into such a contract is an inappropriate way to proceed.

We must remember that we are dealing with altruistic surrogacy—that is, surrogacy where the birth mother has no financial incentive to indulge in the process. She does it presumably for the best of intentions, often to assist someone who is unable, whether by accident of birth or as a result of medical misfortune, to carry a child. I believe those women are motivated by the best of all possible intentions. I think that women who surrender a child at the end of the process come to that conclusion after a process of searching; after all, they entered into the process hoping to give joy, pleasure and fulfilment to other people. We should acknowledge the right of women to make that decision in the full knowledge and awareness of what they are doing after the child is born.

As I said, the report's recommendations are temperate and considered. The recommendations relating to a register of counsellors who are qualified to assess the suitability of parties wishing to implement surrogacy arrangements are eminently sensible. As a number of members have observed, we must face reality. Whether we outlaw altruistic surrogacy or whether we say it is criminal, clearly with the advent of technology it will occur, whether we like it or not. We should acknowledge that and try to set up circumstances that provide the best conditions under which people can engage in surrogacy. A register of counsellors who can advise the parties fully of the pitfalls and problems is an excellent idea. Recommendation 3 states that the parties entering into a surrogacy arrangement should obtain independent legal advice. Clearly, the bearing and subsequent raising of the child has numerous legal ramifications.

Recommendation 7 states that the Government seek to amend part 4 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 to clarify the definition of "commercial surrogacy" and provide a clear indication of what reasonable expenses may be legally reimbursed to the mother in an altruistic surrogacy arrangement, and for other issues. That recommendation is eminently sensible, as are recommendations 8 and 9 relating to paperwork. In particular, recommendation 9 relates to the issuing of an appropriate birth certificate. All those recommendations are suitable.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.19 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their reasoned and thoughtful contributions to this debate. The principle that intervention of the law in people's private lives should be kept to a minimum was made for the following reasons: The decision to enter into a surrogacy arrangement is a highly personal and private one for the parties involved and people beginning down the path of surrogacy already have an extremely challenging time ahead of them. The State is not well placed and possibly does not have a right to make the surrogacy process more difficult by imposing a particular view of reproduction and family formation.

Legislating eligibility and suitability criteria for individuals wishing to enter into surrogacy arrangements could potentially be seen as discriminatory treatment by the Government of infertile couples since the Government does not, and cannot, impose such criteria on couples who have the opportunity to conceive traditionally. Many factors must be considered in determining the eligibility and suitability of parties for the particular surrogacy arrangement they wish to enter into including but not limited to the psychological preparedness of parties, the relationship between the birth mother and the intending parents, and the genetic connection, if any, the child to be born through the arrangement may have with the birth mother or intending parents.

These decisions are beyond the expertise of the State and any prescriptive regulation will most certainly be inappropriate in certain individual cases. These decisions are best left to clinicians and counsellors with expertise and experience to make with regard to the particular individuals involved and the particular surrogacy arrangement they wish to enter into. The National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] guidelines, in combination with internal guidelines developed by individual clinics, have operated well to this point. The NHRMRC guidelines titled "Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research" detail the requirements Assisted Reproductive Technology [ART] clinics throughout Australia must adhere to if they are to be accredited by the reproductive technology accreditation committee.

Monitors from the Fertility Society of Australia have until recently conducted three yearly audits of ART clinics to ensure the guidelines were being adhered to. This regime has recently been made stricter with a joint accreditation system of Australia and New Zealand now conducting yearly audits. In terms of preparing parties for surrogacy arrangements the NHMRC guidelines require ART clinics to provide readily accessible services from accredited counsellors to support participants in making decisions about their treatment before, during and after the procedures.

During the inquiry the committee had the opportunity to read the internal guidelines developed by Sydney IVF, one of the major providers of ART procedures to facilitate surrogacy arrangements in New South Wales. These guidelines state that parties applying to Sydney IVF for an ART procedure to facilitate a surrogacy arrangement must be assessed by an independent psychiatrist—that is, one who is not the treating psychiatrist of any of the parties involved—who assesses the mental health of the parties. In addition, a psychiatrist external to Sydney IVF must conduct a bio-social assessment of all the parties, including any children of the adult parties who are over the age of four. For the above reasons, the committee believes a minimalist approach to regulating the practice of surrogacy in New South Wales is appropriate.

The other issue that must be addressed in relation to New South Wales enacting legislation relating to altruistic surrogacy is the concurrent process being conducted at a national level by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General [SCAG], of which the discussion paper that I mentioned earlier is a part. One approach for New South Wales would be to do nothing at this stage, and simply await the outcome of the SCAG process. However, there is no guarantee that a national model law would be the outcome of that process. Furthermore, the path to uniform national laws around surrogacy is likely to be a very lengthy one, not least of all due to the fact that several Australian jurisdictions have already enacted their own surrogacy legislation. Therefore, to await the outcome of the SCAG process would be to prolong for an indeterminate period of time any weakness in the surrogacy process in New South Wales and any disadvantage to children born through surrogacy arrangements in New South Wales that the Law and Justice committee's inquiry has identified.

Couples who appeared before the committee spoke about their difficulties in relation to birth certificates, legal issues and actual parenting issues that required fairly urgent attention. There has since been a court case because the issue has not been resolved and they have had further difficulty and a huge amount of expense. It is incredibly urgent that this issue be addressed. Consequently, the committee is of the view that any identified need for regulation of the practice of surrogacy in New South Wales should be acted upon in advance of the SCAG process. Whilst choosing not to recommend specific eligibility and suitability criteria for parties to surrogacy arrangements, the committee has nevertheless identified some areas where the process through which parties enter into surrogacy arrangements could be improved—namely, through independent counselling and obtaining independent legal advice.

In regards to counselling, it should be noted that there is a distinction between, on the one hand, counselling aimed at providing information, assisting decision-making and providing support and, on the other hand, counselling aimed at assessing the suitability of parties to enter into the surrogacy arrangement. The committee also heard witnesses say that at the moment this process is incredibly detailed and difficult and certainly ensures that those who are not totally committed are not involved in the process in the long term. Whilst the evidence presented to the committee indicates that the current practice is for this assessment counselling to be provided independently of the ART clinic, the committee had some reservations that this requirement is not made explicit in the NHMRC guidelines. Therefore, the committee has made a recommendation in relation to that matter.

Another important component of the pre-treatment preparation of parties to surrogacy arrangements is that they fully comprehend the legal implications. At the moment the system appears to be one of independent legal advice; the committee perceived that it was important to reinforce that throughout the report. The committee agreed with the almost unanimous opposition from inquiry participants to commercial surrogacy, while supporting the reimbursement of reasonable expenses to the birth mother, the importance of which other speakers have spoken. At the moment there is to be no fee or reward and the definition is not good enough to describe what the report has recommended.

The committee has included a specific recommendation in relation to that while still reinforcing the belief that prohibition on commercial surrogacy is very important. Therefore, the committee has recommended the New South Wales Government seek a further amendment to the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 to clarify the definition of "commercial surrogacy" and provide a clear indication of what constitutes reasonable expenses. The committee had a lot of discussion about the difficulty of that but it perceived that it must be surmounted in order to remove the question mark.

The Status of Children Act 1996 establishes a presumption of parenthood in relation to children born through a fertilisation procedure in favour of the birth mother. Some members have addressed that issue, so I will not go into it in great detail. But the committee's decision was that that should remain and that the processes within the Adoption Amendment Act should be addressed to ensure that people who undergo surrogacy have a surety for their future. The committee heard examples that have been quoted in this debate of families where definitely the father had no genetic or physical relationship with the child but became the father on the birth certificate, something that can cause incredible difficulties in the minute complexities of the Parenting Act, which the committee thought it was important to resolve.

The committee recommended that the New South Wales Government pursue legislation to establish a transferral of parentage mechanism specifically for surrogacy arrangements, preserving the presumption of parentage in favour of the birth parents and allowing intending parents to apply to the Supreme Court for full legal parentage of the child born through the arrangement after six weeks from the birth of the child. At the moment they can apply after years, and still some cases have not been resolved in court. There was considerable debate about, and a lot of input into, the decision about genetic information and birth certificates. The committee came forward with several different proposals and the report contains the recommendation. The decision was that it was important in the long term for people to have some relationship with their genetic history.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio put forward recommendations in her contribution about that process to occur at the age of 18, something that could well be taken on board by the Attorney General when he is considering this issue. There could well be problems for both persons if suddenly they were fronted at age 18 with these issues. I thank all those who participated in this inquiry by making submissions and presenting oral evidence. Their experience and expertise greatly assisted the committee in addressing the terms of reference. Again, I thank the committee secretariat and staff for their assistance during the inquiry. It was not an easy inquiry, we all thought differently, but the result is a credit to the committee.

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 28 October 2009.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [3.29 p.m.]: I wish to add my comments to the report of the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 on the privatisation of prisons. I begin by thanking the chair, the Hon. Amanda Fazio. The honourable member always chairs these meetings and hearings in a very fair and balanced way and is very professional in the way that she carries out all of her responsibilities in that position. I acknowledge my fellow committee members. This certainly is a very significant area of public policy and it was excellent to see the interest that all members of the committee demonstrated in the inquiry, ensuring that everyone attended the meetings and took on board the evidence via submissions and witnesses who appeared at the hearings. In her address the Hon. Amanda Fazio referred to the number of reports—

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate on budget estimates proceeded with.

Debate resumed from 28 October 2009.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.31 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to draw attention to the litany of problems with the hospital system in New South Wales, one of which is the revolving door in relation to Ministers for Health under this wretched Government. One has to feel sorry for the latest Minister for Health, who has inherited many problems across the State. I will not go through them all, but will mention a few of the issues.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: You wouldn't have time to mention them all.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: That is right. There is a time limit on this debate and we would need a couple of weeks to get through the problems with the New South Wales hospital system. In the Central West and southern slopes, for example, there are a number of problems. Last week there was a huge rally in Grenfell. The Hon. Michael Veitch sent his apologies I understand, but 800 people turned up in the town of Grenfell to express their great concern about the failure of the area health service to finalise a contract with a visiting medical officer—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Did any of the members turn up?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Our colleague Katrina Hodgkinson, the member for Burrinjuck, was present. It was heard at the rally that the area health service would not even meet with the local council to discuss the matter. It is a rather extraordinary thing when 800 people attend a public health rally in Grenfell. Nearby, at Young District Hospital, there is the problem with dialysis facilities.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Michael Veitch has a lot on his hands. Maybe he should be the Parliamentary Secretary for Health. The lack of dialysis facilities, which were not listed in the New South Wales Health strategic plan for 2008 to 2010, is a matter of great concern in the Young district. The Cessnock Hospital, which the Hon. Trevor Khan monitors all the time, has no maternity services and no paediatric ward. That is an ongoing matter of great concern to everybody in the Cessnock electorate and there does not seem to be any resolution in sight. This week, on the North Coast, a meeting was held with the relatively new Minister for Health in relation to Grafton Base Hospital.

Grafton is a community that has been waiting for a very long time for its new operating theatres and, whilst the Federal Government in its last campaign committed $18 million, there is still a query about the State Government's component to make sure the project is delivered in full. Hopefully this week's meeting between the member for Clarence and the Minister will result in some resolution because, after years of promises, the State Government has been dragged, kicking and screaming, since the last Federal election, to do its bit for Grafton. I think all Labor Ministers for Health have made promises about this project and, so far, nothing has come to fruition.

There is an ongoing issue with the Lourdes hospital in Dubbo, which is a very important institution providing certain services to complement services in other hospitals. In January the New South Wales Government said it would commit $12.8 million, but the State budget contains no such allocation. There are ongoing issues and questions about the upgrade of Dubbo Base Hospital, which is not mentioned in the budget. There is no funding or time line. As with other major hospitals around New South Wales, the whole matter has been deferred.

Parkes—not too far from Dubbo—is another place where former Premier Iemma stated that construction would start in 2007. The Parkes community is wondering why—with another Premier and a couple of health Ministers having come and gone—they are still waiting. In the election campaign in 2007 there were commitments made in relation to a whole raft of hospitals, including the Tamworth Base Hospital. Whilst some planning work has commenced there, The Nationals are dedicated to keeping on the pressure to ensure that time lines are met and that serious work on construction of the hospital gets underway sooner rather than later.

Wagga Wagga and the Riverina have been waiting for many years for the redevelopment of the base hospital. This week a meeting was held with Minister Tebbutt about that. Unfortunately, the Minister gave no time frame for the hospital redevelopment and no commitment as to sources of funding, so that is another big question mark right in the middle of the State. I was in the Riverina area a few days ago and certainly it was the number one issue. Forbes District Hospital is also long overdue for redevelopment. Last week I was in Bathurst with my colleague the Hon. Rick Colless, following on from Health budget estimates in which I ascertained that there was, according to the budget figures supplied by the then Minister, $6.3 million to remediate the completely stuffed-up building of the hospital there.

That is $6.3 million that could have been spent on building a small hospital elsewhere. As members know, the Prime Minister was in Bathurst at the end of last week and heard a tirade from the Bathurst Health Council about the lack of specialists in Bathurst, which is developing into a serious problem. Patients from the Bathurst district have to travel to Orange. There is a major and long-running transport issue, particularly with older patients being sent to Orange for diagnostic and treatment purposes, and then not having any transport to get home.

There are problems in Bathurst and there is a certain underlying uneasiness about the future of Bathurst Base Hospital, particularly when the new Orange hospital comes on stream. Last week I took the opportunity to visit the extremely large building site for the new Orange hospital at Bloomfield. Certainly that will be a tremendous addition to the health infrastructure in the Central West when it comes on line. I trust it will come on line and start taking patients by the end of 2010 or early in 2011. The dry weather in the Central West has helped with the building timetable. I was pleased that the project is steaming ahead, although there are a number of questions surrounding it as well. Griffith Base Hospital has also run into some problems with its 20-bed mental health unit, which was promised to begin in 2009. That $6 million project has been postponed until 2010. It is very disappointing for people in the area because in many electorates mental health is the biggest issue.

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

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 2 to 8 postponed on motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.41 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Tony Kelly: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

I am pleased to introduce the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009.

The object of this bill is to amend the Fire Brigades Act 1989, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, the Rural Fires Act 1997 and the State Emergency Service Act 1989 in relation to the funding scheme for NSW Fire Brigades, the NSW Rural Fire Service and the NSW State Emergency Service from contributions by insurance companies, local councils and the State Government.

As the House may be aware, last year the House passed the State Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Act 2008 (Schedule 6). This bill amended the three Emergency Services Acts to include the State Emergency Service as part of the contributory system that had previously applied only to the NSW Fire Brigades and the NSW Rural Fire Service.

The amendments also standardised the provisions over the three Acts to allow for the contributions to be collected centrally by one agency—Emergency Management NSW. This streamlined the processes and made it more user-friendly for the contributors to the funding model—insurance companies and local governments.

Today I rise to put before the House for a second time a bill to further amend the Acts governing the emergency services.

The Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009 seeks to clarify the funding arrangements, and to address a number of anomalies detected following the implementation of the previous legislation.

The anomalies only became apparent following the commencement of the new funding provisions this year.

So, to make the process even more straightforward, the bill I am presenting today provides for relatively minor changes to the way by which contributions are calculated, ensuring that the correct amounts are collected from contributors and in the simplest manner.

Under this new bill, assessment notices will be issued each year to local councils and insurance companies that are required to make contributions. These assessments will state the amount payable and any amounts that are already paid, are to be paid or to be credited.

Instalment notices will be issued each quarter and will specify the amount payable for that quarter and the date by which it must be paid.

In addition, the three emergency services Acts presently prescribe an unsuitable means of determining the amount to be collected from local government and insurance companies.

Specifically, as the legislation currently stands, the contributions of insurers and local government made prior to the beginning of any financial year may be taken into account in determining the agencies' surplus or deficit.

This new bill seeks to amend the method by which estimates of annual expenditure are adjusted to so as to include surpluses or deficits in the recurrent expenditure account only and not the capital account.

I think we can all agree that unexpended capital funds should not be taken into account when determining the surplus or deficit of contributions during any respective financial year.

The change will provide the flexibility to exclude such amounts from the calculation, thus avoiding any confusion in future financial years.

Further matters being addressed in this Bill are due dates and penalty provisions.

As they currently stand, there are some inconsistencies in the Acts in relation to when contributions due and payable.

The proposed changes will ensure that contributors pay their invoices on time, the previous penalty of 50 penalty points for late payments which was previously included in the Fire Brigades Act, is also being reinstated and replicated across all the respective Acts.

This makes it an offence for a council or an insurance company to pay a contribution instalment after the due date, instead of the 10 per cent late fee that is currently the case.

Supporting our emergency services is one of the most important priorities of this House.

Our emergency services workers, whether paid or volunteer, are among the best trained, and most professional in the world.

Our RFS and SES volunteers give up their own time to assist their communities in times of flood, fire or other emergencies.

As I have outlined previously there is some urgency to securing the passage of this legislation.

Assessments are being prepared for the third quarter of the 2009/10 financial year.

Correcting these anomalies before those third quarter assessments are distributed will provide certainty for funding to the emergency service agencies, as well as providing both certainty and stability to the funding contributors.

The amendments I put before House fix the anomalies that appeared under the previous revisions of the emergency services Acts.

They ensure that the funding provided for our emergency services is appropriate and does not adversely impact on the arrangements we have with our contributors.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [3.44 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in the upper House and as the shadow Minister for Emergency Services.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: In very safe hands.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I note that interjection. At the outset I advise that the Opposition will not oppose the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009. This bill came to the attention of the Opposition in Parliament only yesterday. Minister Steve Whan rushed it into the Legislative Assembly. It had been intended to deal with this bill yesterday, but it is before us now. The Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009 is designed to amend the Fire Brigades Act 1989, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, the Rural Fires Act 1997 and the State Emergency Service Act 1989 in relation to the funding scheme for the New South Wales Fire Brigades, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service and the New South Wales State Emergency Service [SES]. In November last year the Government quite rightly announced that the New South Wales State Emergency Service would come under the funding formula of the Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service. The Opposition supported that at the time because the State Emergency Service is a magnificent organisation that keeps our community safe, particularly in times of flood and storm.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Such as Coffs Harbour recently.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Yes. I note the interjection by the Hon. Mick Veitch. Coffs Harbour has had its fair share of storms—too many, in fact. As many of us who live there understand, the topography of the region is very much to blame for the storms on the mid North Coast and in particular around Coffs Harbour. It is the only place on the east coast of Australia where the Great Dividing Range meets the ocean. If one goes over Macauleys Headland near the Big Banana, that is the Great Dividing Range. Because of that, there is a very small area of floodplain. There are mountains, a little bit of land and then the ocean.

Mr Ian Cohen: There's a nice left-hand surf break at Macauleys.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Yes, I agree with Mr Ian Cohen on that. It is an area of very heavy rain cells and rain depressions, which can cause absolute chaos. Our community has been hit too many times, as has the entire mid North Coast. Let us not forget Bellingen. I think Dorrigo has had something like five metres of rain this year. That is an extraordinary amount. I was driving back from Port Macquarie on Friday night through the storms—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Via Dorrigo?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: No, not through Dorrigo, but when we got to Urunga it was very heavy and the rain at Coffs Harbour was incredible. It received half a metre of rain within seven hours. It has happened too many times this year and the State Emergency Service volunteers had 400 calls over the weekend. The member for Coffs Harbour, Andrew Fraser, recorded in his speech in the Legislative Assembly yesterday that the State Emergency Service has performed 45 rescues this year.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: He is a very dedicated local member.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I acknowledge that interjection. The member is right; he is a very dedicated local member. His own office was flooded again for the second time this year.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Flooded with support.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Flooded with support but also flooded with water, as were too many businesses in the community, and it was very sad to drive around on Saturday and see that the Conservatorium of Music was shut for the second time this year because water had infiltrated the building. There are issues with flood mitigation and one of the good things that came out of the Ken Moroney report was a clear direction that the State Emergency Service deals with flood mitigation. The member for Coffs Harbour has also made some sensible comments in relation to flood mitigation in Coffs Harbour and the fact that there needs to be focus on better stormwater management in the region. That applies to the whole of the North Coast and other parts of New South Wales. The State Emergency Service is in a unique position to take strong leadership on that front. In a recent freedom of information document that I received from the State Emergency Service the service faces some genuine challenges in managing the effects of storms and global climate change. It is anticipated there will be more such events and a greater call on volunteers.

I return to the leave of the bill. There is a genuine need for the State Emergency Service to come under a proper funding mechanism, which is why this legislation is before us today. We support the State Emergency Service being put on the same funding basis as the Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service. However, we are concerned about a very clear impression that the Government gave in November last year when the mini-budget was brought down. The Hon. Tony Kelly was the Minister at that time. There was a glimmer of hope for local government that its contributions to the State Government would fall as a result of the new administrative arrangements to do with the collection of the levy from local government.

When the Treasurer announced the mini-budget in November 2008 the Government made a commitment to local government and said that despite the SES coming into the funding pool it would save the State Government $40 million a year because there was a cost shift to insurance taxes. However, there was also an expectation by local government that its financial contributions would fall, despite the additional cost impact on the SES under the new system. Minister Kelly, the Minister responsible for emergency services at the time, said:

In recognition of the continuing support of the emergency services the Government has reduced the Local Government's contribution to emergency services funding to 11.7 %—from the existing 12.3 % and 13.3 % to the NSW Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service respectively.

The Minister was tidying up this area and reducing local government's percentage commitment to the State Government—a welcome move as it meant a smaller cost impost on local government.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Was this after Tony's meeting with the Insurance Council?

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I am not sure about the timing of those commitments and that famous meeting with the Insurance Council of Australia. At that time Minister Kelly also said:

The change will provide an estimated $39 million in the first year of the new system. Streamlining and simplifying back-office administrative processes such as ordering, purchasing and invoicing, will also produce efficiencies among the services, which in turn lead to additional cost savings.

There was an expectation that local government would contribute less and that the Government would save $40 million by putting an additional tax on insurance levies to make savings within the mini-budget. Lo and behold, almost one year later, what was reported and what was promised at the time were not forthcoming. Yesterday, in my briefings with the Office of Emergency Management, I sought information about the levy system. This bill seeks to formalise quarterly invoices.

Earlier this year the Office of Emergency Management was confronted with a problem. In June, before the commencement of the financial year, invoices were sent out to all local government bodies for their quarterly payments and the Government quickly received $143 million that month. However, the problem was that the money was received in the wrong financial year. The Government sought advice from the Auditor-General, which confirmed that it needed to do something to fix up this anomaly, as it was not right for it to collect $143 million in the wrong financial year.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: It is a shame that the State Government does not pay its bills so quickly.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is a shame. The Minister for Health should immediately address the payment of bills to small business. The Government received its money extremely quickly but it was collected in the wrong financial year. This legislation is about tidying up that process. When I asked the Office of Emergency Management how we were going with invoices for the next two quarters I was told that invoices would go out in December and in February. That is the information I received from the Office of Emergency Management during my verbal briefing. I was given no paperwork; it was a verbal briefing. Given the Government's commitment in November last year, it will be receiving less from local government. Yesterday, in his agreement in principle speech, Minister Steve Whan said:

The Government made a commitment that in the first year of implementation they would not pay any more overall than they had in contributions in the previous year to the Fire Brigades and Rural Fire Service. The Government was able to make that commitment because of the lowering of the contribution percentage for local governments to 11.7 per cent. The contributions this year were governed by that commitment not to exceed the contribution of the previous year.

Nothing was said publicly about that. The Government gave local government the impression that the contributions would be less and that local government would not pay any more overall. Yesterday the information I received from the Office of Emergency Management revealed that the number of invoices would increase because of the increased costs involved in running NSW Fire Brigades and the additional bushfire mitigation program costs for the Rural Fire Service. In his agreement in principle speech the Minister said that there would be no additional costs for local government. However, at my briefing yesterday I was informed by the Office of Emergency Management that there would be additional invoices to cover increasing management costs for the NSW Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service.

I hope that that is not the case and that the Minister's statement is correct. However, during my briefing yesterday I gained the impression that local government would be paying higher costs by the end of this financial year. I, and I am sure local government, seek clarification of that issue. Local government is constantly informing members of the Liberal-Nationals Coalition who travel around New South Wales that it is sick and tired of the cost shifting and extra burdens imposed on it as a result of decisions made by this Labor Government. Many SES branches have expressed concern about local government having to contribute around $6 million to local SES brigades. When these changes were introduced, Minister Kelly said that that type of funding would continue. However, the feedback I am receiving from councils and local brigades is that their contribution is being picked up by the levy and that their contribution will no longer be available in the future.

Another issue that must be addressed is the $6 million in direct funding to local brigades across New South Wales. Is that still occurring, or does the Government hope that it will continue? When the Parliamentary Secretary replies to debate on the second reading I hope that he addresses that issue. Another issue that was raised by stakeholders relates to the speed with which this legislation was introduced. There was no consultation with stakeholders. I accept that the Government needed to do something quickly as both Houses will not be sitting for much longer and it is important to tidy up these issues this financial year. However, as we are almost halfway through this financial year the legislation could have been introduced earlier. The Government's failure to do so demonstrates that it is in utter disarray.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] conducted an important inquiry into management issues relating to NSW Fire Brigades. Stakeholders said to me that it would have been sensible for the Government to have seen that ICAC report before this legislation was introduced as the ICAC made many recommendations that this Government could have adopted. The Government missed yet another opportunity to discuss this issue and to consult with stakeholders in this important industry. I refer, next, to cost savings and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to inform me whether the $39 million cost savings promoted by Minister Kelly last year during the mini-budget have been achieved. I would be interested to hear what the Government has to say about that.

The Insurance Council of Australia made a valid point about recurrent and capital works funding as this bill completely separates recurrent funding from capital works expenditure. There is some sense in that as capital works funding should not be raided to pay wages and salaries because of cost blowouts, wage rises or other issues. The Insurance Council of Australia made the point that capital works expenditure is often announced but sometimes it takes more than a financial year in which to expend that money. In the past the Government has been able to tap into capital works funding to pay for unexpected recurrent expenditure.

For example, in this year's budget estimates hearings we discovered that New South Wales Fire Brigades was $10 million over expenditure for job payouts. Fire Brigades either sought a supplement from Treasury or said it would take the $10 million and pay it back next year. Perhaps consideration should have been given to tapping into capital works funding not expended to pay for that budget overrun. The Insurance Council of Australia does not want another levy imposed for recurrent expenditure when a large pool of money may be available in capital expenses.

The Government's haste to introduce this legislation, brief members, commence the second reading debate and have it completed 24 hours later contradicts its tortoise-like pace in dealing with legislation about the management of the State Emergency Service and about tsunamis, which has been before this House since 17 June 2009. Important legislation has just been sitting around waiting. The Government knows it does not have the support of all crossbench members on the decision to stop State Emergency Service controllers being local councillors, about which many communities and many people within the State Emergency Service are concerned.

The Opposition has made clear its intention to amend the legislation. I can only speculate that the Government has not introduced the bill because the crossbench will support our amendments. Legislation dealing with tsunami planning and management was introduced almost six months ago, but the Government keeps running away from it. The Coalition does not oppose the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009 from a practical point of view. It is more sensible to send one invoice for three agencies. In the past New South Wales Fire Brigades sent an invoice to local government and then the Rural Fire Service sent an invoice to local government. The sending of one quarterly invoice to local government agencies is sensible and probably should have happened sooner. I am interested to hear the explanations from local government for the total cost invoice. From my understanding, the Minister says one thing and the department clearly says another. I look forward to the Government's contribution. We will not oppose this bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [4.02 p.m.]: I support the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009. Over the past 14 years the Labor Government has allocated nearly $8 billion in funding for emergency services, including $483 million to the State Emergency Service. Since 2003 a number of Commonwealth-State-local government grant programs were introduced to mitigate against natural disasters. The schemes included the Natural Disaster Risk Management Studies Program, the Natural Disasters Mitigation Program, Working Together to Manage Emergencies and the National Emergency Volunteer Support Fund. Collectively, hundreds of projects have been approved since then at a total cost of around $100 million. These programs reduce the impact of natural disasters on the community and consequent insurance claims.

The insurance industry was a significant beneficiary of these mitigation programs to which it did not contribute. With climate change impacts becoming more and more evident, as mentioned by the Hon. Melinda Pavey, with more extreme storm events, such as those at Coffs Harbour, which the Hon. Melinda Pavey also spoke about, it was time for the industry that benefits most from volunteers' efforts to share the State Emergency Service funding costs with the State's taxpayers. Last year pursuant to schedule 6 to the State Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Act 2008 the State Emergency Service was brought under the same funding system for New South Wales Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service. Bringing the State Emergency Service in line with this funding system was a tribute to the swift response of State Emergency Service volunteers—particularly after major storms—and recognised that their work significantly reduces the extent of damage and subsequent insurance claims.

This model now provides a flexible and sustainable funding base for the State Emergency Service into the future. However, as the Minister has pointed out, some minor anomalies have come to light since this legislation came into force. These anomalies, while not critical, could have the effect of leaving a shortfall in funding to our emergency services if not corrected. This House cannot leave our dedicated, professional and highly trained emergency services personnel in such a situation. The Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009 addresses those anomalies and provides the stability that our emergency services and funding contributors need and deserve. The amendments contained in this bill are clear and straightforward.

The first corrects the method by which estimates of annual expenditure are adjusted to ensure that surpluses and deficits are included in the recurrent expenditure account only. The second change clarifies the process by which contributions are determined and collected. Assessment notices will be issued each year to contributors clearly stating the amount payable. This will be followed by instalment notices each quarter specifying the amount payable for that quarter and the date by which it must be paid. This will simplify matters and bring a much better level of certainty to local government and the insurance industry, which will know what is required of them each year and when they will be required to lodge their contributions.

The third change will make it an offence for a council or an insurance company to pay their contribution after the due date. This replaces the current 10 per cent late fee charge and will ensure that all contributions are made on time, thereby providing our emergency services with security of funding. The final change will provide that the New South Wales Fire Brigades Fund and the New South Wales State Emergency Service Fund will each consist of a recurrent account and a capital account. This will ensure that the provisions of the first change are implemented effectively. The changes proposed in the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009 are a suitable and straightforward way to address the anomalies detected since the passage of the State Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Act 2008.

These changes will provide certainty and clarity to the funding scheme contributors while at the same time ensuring that our dedicated and selfless emergency services workers have the funds they need to do their great service to the community. The Hon. Melinda Pavey and others have reminded us of the importance of our emergency service volunteers. I commend the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009 to the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [4.07 p.m.]: In following the fine contribution of my colleague the Hon. Melinda Pavey I refer to an event held last Monday night recognising emergency service personnel on the Central Coast. I acknowledge that the debate on the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009 is wideranging as it covers funding for emergency service personnel. However, I believe it is appropriate that I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the excellent function that was held in recognition of emergency service personnel on the Central Coast. The event was organised by the Wyong Rotary Club and was called the Unsung Heroes Night.

It recognised four emergency service personnel: Senior Constable Paul Baird from Wyong police station, Captain Grant Foster from Wyong Fire Brigade, intensive-care paramedic Dale McClenahan from the Ambulance Service of New South Wales Central Coast Sector, and clinical nurse Kellie McLachlan from the emergency department of Wyong Hospital. All four individuals were recognised not only for their contributions to emergency services on the Central Coast and to the community but also for the organisations they represent. The function was attended also by the Wyong State Emergency Service controller Mr Gary Whittaker, who is known to some members in this Chamber particularly in his past role on Hornsby Council.

It is important that as representatives of the community in this House we keep a watchful eye on funding for emergency service personnel not just for today but for the future. Reference has been made to recent floods in the Bellingen-Coffs Harbour area. Last Monday night on the Central Coast a great deal of discussion centred on the floods that occurred in 2007. Most people would recall that the Pasha Bulker ran aground in Newcastle in 2007. The people who live in the Wyong shire recall not only flooding and ferocious seas but particularly the winds that lashed the Dooralong Valley, Jilliby and Yarramalong Valley areas of the Central Coast.

All of the individuals to whom I have referred who were recognised for service above self by Wyong Rotary were awarded plaques in recognition of the community's support and gratitude for the contribution each has made. It is extremely important that individual members of the House take every opportunity to state for the record their support for members of emergency services who, with the support of their families, perform tasks upon which communities so heavily rely to keep our society safe. We should take every opportunity to thank them, congratulate them and ensure that, irrespective of which party forms government, sufficient financial resources are available to enable them to continue doing their remarkable job.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.11 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I join in debate on the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009. At the outset I indicate that the Greens will not oppose the bill. The Greens strongly support the work of the New South Wales emergency services. I appreciate comments made on behalf of The Nationals by the Hon. Melinda Pavey, who preceded me in this debate, recognising impacts of climate change, particularly the effects in her home region of Coffs Harbour. I know the topography of the area well and expect that the region will experience even more severe climatic events in future. Coffs Harbour, Lismore and other areas have central business districts located in low-lying areas, so the region will experience problem after problem with flooding that is becoming almost seasonal.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Historical records reflect that.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection. Flooding is a historical trend and a major problem in those areas, and I suggest that the problems will intensify in the future, largely due to the challenges presented by climate change. As we move into an era of challenging climate events resulting from climate change our emergency services will become our front-line fighters against adverse climate impacts. We must ensure that emergency services are supported by sufficient funding and adequate resources.

I will confine my comments to a brief contribution during debate on the bill because some of the funding arrangement issues that are inherent in the bill will be discussed during debate on the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill 2009. It is somewhat disappointing that this bill is being rushed through the House and that we will not have an adequate opportunity to examine its provisions. However, I acknowledge the need to resolve accounting anomalies in State Emergency Service, Rural Fire Service and New South Wales Fire Brigades funding by local government, the State Government and insurance companies as a matter of priority.

The crux of this amending bill is finding a way to address the problem of reconciling contribution accounts and calculating contributions at the commencement of each financial year. The current anomaly is that estimates of annual expenditures are adjusted to include account surpluses or deficits based on the recurrent expenditure account and the capital account. The bill seeks to exclude funds in the capital account in the calculation of account surpluses or deficits. The Greens think this is a fair and sensible amendment to accounting contributions and is consistent with the original intentions of the reform enacted by the State Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Act 2008.

The legislation also reinstates the penalty for late payment of contributions. The bill changes the penalty, which was previously a 10 per cent late fee, to an offence attracting a fine of 50 penalty units. I have reservations about imposing a $5,500 fine on local councils for late payment of instalments because there may be legitimate problems and difficulties faced by local councils. I hope there will be a sensible application of the penalty provision. I would appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary informing the House during his reply of average insurance company and local government contributions, and whether the 50 penalty units offence represents a significant increase compared with the 10 per cent late fee.

I acknowledge the discussion in the other place about the most equitable way to fund our emergency services. The contribution by insurance companies is set at 73.7 per cent and insurance companies source their contribution by levying policyholders. It should be remembered that not all landholders who receive assistance from emergency services are insurance policyholders, and we should be mindful of the need to preserve equity. Having made these comments, I state that the Greens will support the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.15 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009. The object of the bill is to amend the Fire Brigades Act 1989, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, the Rural Fires Act 1997 and the State Emergency Service Act 1989 in relation to funding a scheme for the New South Wales Fire Brigades, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service and the State Emergency Service from contributions made by insurance companies, local councils and the State Government. I add my congratulations to those of other members in respect of volunteers, particularly those who work in the Rural Fire Service and the State Emergency Service.

As members know, recently I moved to Kogarah Bay. As my home backs onto Carss Park, where the Kogarah State Emergency Service unit is located, I know firsthand of the unit's training programs and simulation exercises that are used to train members of the unit to deal with various emergency situations they may encounter and to ensure that new members in particular are proficient in the use of complicated equipment. I am most impressed at the way they give up their spare time and time that would otherwise be spent with their families to be involved in training activities in the interests of safeguarding not only their own families but the wider community as well as serving the State. I hope I will not have occasion to call on them but if I do at least assistance will be right at my back door.

The legislation is simple and amends emergency services legislation to include the State Emergency Service as part of the contributory system that previously applied to the New South Wales Fire Brigades and the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. This amending bill also standardises provisions over three Acts to enable contributions to be collected centrally by one agency. A decision had to be made for billing and collection of funds from insurance companies and local councils to be undertaken centrally by Emergency Management New South Wales. The major concern relates to the process involved in arriving at the amount that is deemed to be either excess or deficient in contributions collected from insurance companies and local councils in a particular financial year.

The new arrangement that will be set in place by this legislation will provide for greater efficiency in the collection of contributions and will enable greater efficiency in the operation of emergency service organisations. For those reasons the Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.19 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions. The Hon. Melinda Pavey referred to local government contributions. The Government reduced the percentage contribution by local government. We said at the time that should the budgets remain the same the contributions would be the same or less. In his letter the Minister made this clear to all local councils. Naturally, budgets increase at least by the consumer price index percentage. The Opposition expects the Government to cap the budgets of vital emergency services. It is unreasonable to expect the Government to cap emergency services budgets. Why has it taken the Opposition four months to read the budget papers? The Government is proud to further support local government by making available extra grants for vehicle and building subsidies, which have continued and increased from previous years.

All recommendations by ICAC relating to New South Wales Fire Brigades have already been, or are being, implemented. The savings outlined by the Minister in the mini-budget by seeking contributions from other sources are realised by the contribution of the Government, that is, 14.6 per cent from the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, we have saved that amount. As for the issue raised by Mr Ian Cohen, the contributions vary as they reflect the market share of the insurance companies. For local government broadly, the contributions differ depending on the emergency services in the area. For this reason an average contribution would not be an effective indicator of the adequacy of penalties.

I thank members for their support for the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009, which is now before the House. The bill amends the Fire Brigades Act 1989, the Rural Fires Act 1997, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the State Emergency Service Act 1989 in relation to the funding scheme for New South Wales Fire Brigades, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service and the State Emergency Service from contributions by insurance companies, local councils and the State Government. The Emergency Services Legislation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2009 will clarify the funding arrangements and address the anomalies that have been identified following the implementation of previous legislation.

The bill makes the process of funding our emergency services even more straightforward and provides for relatively minor changes to the way by which contributions are calculated, ensuring that the correct amounts are collected from contributors and in the simplest manner. Under this bill assessment notices will be issued each year to local government. These assessments will state the amount payable and that any amounts that are already paid are to be paid or credited. Instalment notices will be issued each quarter and will specify the amount payable for that quarter and the date by which it must be paid. Currently the three emergency services Acts prescribe an unsuitable means of determining the amount to be collected from local government and insurance companies.

At the moment the contributions of insurer companies and local government, or lack thereof, made prior to the beginning of any financial year may be taken into account in determining the agencies' surplus or deficit. This new bill amends the method by which estimates of annual expenditure are adjusted so as to include surpluses or deficits in the recurrent expenditure account only and not the capital account. Also covered by these changes are due dates and penalty provisions. The proposed changes will ensure that contributors pay their invoices on time. The previous penalty of 50 penalty points for late payments, which was previously included in the Fire Brigades Act, is being reinstated and replicated across all the respective Acts. This makes it an offence for a council or an insurance company to pay a contribution instalment after the due date, whereas there is currently a 10 per cent late fee.

Supporting our emergency services is one of the most important priorities of this House and there is some urgency to securing the passage of this legislation. Assessments are being prepared for the third quarter of the 2009-10 financial year. If the required changes are not enacted this could lead to potential underfunding and a subsequent impact on emergency services. Correcting these anomalies will provide certainty of funding to emergency services agencies as well as providing both certainty and stability to funding contributors. This new bill fixes the anomalies that appeared under the previous revisions of the emergency services Acts. They ensure that the funding provided for our emergency services is appropriate and does not adversely impact on the current arrangements with our contributors. 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.

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.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe tabled, pursuant to the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984, the report of the New South Wales Treasury Corporation for the year ended 30 June 2009.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.26 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

This bill implements the agreement made by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on 29 November 2008 to enable the exchange of information between all jurisdictions about the criminal history of people working with children.

To protect the most vulnerable members of our communities, Governments across Australia have established Working with Children Checks to screen people working in child-related employment.

For these Checks to be effective, we need access to complete and reliable criminal history information.

Currently, the variations in legislative arrangements in Australian States and Territories mean that jurisdictions cannot release full criminal histories to one another for their Working with Children Checks.

COAG has agreed that all jurisdictions will remove legislative barriers to facilitate the release of full criminal history information for Working with Children Checks.

COAG also agreed that jurisdictions should provide to each other, on a one-year trial basis, background information about relevant criminal history information so that Working with Children Check screening units can better assess the risk presented by a person with a criminal record.

New South Wales needs to make some minor amendments to the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 and Criminal Records Act 1991 to make sure we can release criminal history information to all jurisdictions for the Working with Children Checks.

This bill will amend the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 to allow for the inter-jurisdictional exchange of the following criminal history information for Working with Children Checks:

· convictions, including pardoned, quashed and spent convictions;

· pending charges and non-conviction charges, including acquittals and withdrawn charges; and

· on a one-year trial basis, "circumstances information" including details about all charges and convictions, that is held by police.

The consequent amendment to the Criminal Records Act 1991 proposed by this bill allows other jurisdictions to receive criminal history information from New South Wales for their Working With Children Checks.

Despite the range of information being exchanged, the Working with Children Checks in all jurisdictions are subject to stringent safeguards to ensure that the information is dealt with appropriately and to limit any potential misuse of the information.

Furthermore, participation in the information exchange will be governed by an intergovernmental agreement between the States, Territories and the Commonwealth. Only screening agencies that meet these stringent participation requirements can receive information through this exchange.

These participation requirements will ensure that New South Wales Police can only release extended criminal history information to an interstate screening agency if that screening agency:

· is authorised by the Government of the State or Territory in which they operate to conduct Working With Children Checks;

· has a legislative basis for screening that prohibits further release or use of the information;

· complies with the relevant privacy, human rights and records management legislation;

· has policies that reflect principles of natural justice; and

· has evidence-based risk assessment frameworks and appropriately skilled staff to assess the risks to children.

This bill is part of an information exchange between all jurisdictions. The participation of New South Wales in this exchange will strengthen our current Working With Children Checks system. This will mean that employers can make more informed decisions about employing the right person in child-related employment.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.27 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition supports the Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Bill, which will enable the exchange of information between the States and Territories about the criminal history of people who work or want to work with children. While we support the bill, the Opposition is concerned that the bill lacks a definition of "stringent requirements". Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, in her speech in reply, can outline exactly what that means. The requirements on screening agencies, including those in New South Wales, will determine the strength of this legislation. Legislation that covers many jurisdictions is only as good as the weakest link. Therefore, we are keen to have a definition of "stringent requirements".

The existing legislation refers to screening agencies approved by the Minister without offering further detail on what the requirements might be for a national scheme in terms of approval and how that might be established. It should also be noted that the intergovernmental agreement establishing the initiative has not yet been finalised. The Commonwealth legislation is not yet in place, and to my knowledge the legislation that lists approved screening units has not yet been introduced. By way of background, members will no doubt be aware that each day across Australia children come into contact with any number of organisations—schools, childcare centres, medical centres, sporting bodies and other groups—and the development of a policy with legislation relating to the screening of adults who work, in a voluntary or paid capacity, with children in any sort of related field is important.

I am sure all members would support the need for a screening process to take place, and it is important that we ensure that the process is as stringent as possible. There will be times when people fall through the cracks. However, this legislation will close some loopholes in terms of people who move from State to State. There will be a wide variety of checks on people who work with children. This legislation is about a national framework. It talks about the requirement of obtaining working with children checks or police checks. Each State and Territory has its own procedures and it is necessary to fulfil the requirements within the jurisdiction in which one is working.

Most States and Territories have introduced legislation that provides for child-related employment pre-screening and, if not, they are working towards it. The legislation defines broad categories of child-related work. It is important to note that employers must fulfil requirements within New South Wales. There are differences between jurisdictions about what records are checked and who is required to undergo screening. In New South Wales the system is employer driven in that it is mandatory for employers in relevant fields to carry out background checks on prospective employees or volunteers. Those systems provide a point-in-time background check whereby individuals must undergo screening each time they enter into a child-related position. However, other States have different processes, such as certification that is valid for a period of time and differing ways in which there is or is not ongoing monitoring, so there is a need to bring it into line.

It is important to identify the difference between a police check and a working with children check. Police checks identify and release relevant criminal history information relating to convictions, findings of guilt or pending court proceedings. However, due to spent convictions, non-disclosure legislation and information release policies, there are limitations on a police check and what can be provided. For example, the Spent Convictions Scheme stipulates that prior convictions are not to be disclosed when 10 years have passed from the date of conviction. The object of the working with children check is to make an assessment of the level of risk an individual poses to children's safety. Working with children checks, however, are far more extensive and more targeted than police checks. For example, a working with children check draws together information from various sources that might include a primary focus on certain types of offences such as sexual offences and offences relating to harm or mistreatment of a child.

In general, working with children checks give consideration to convictions, whether they have been spent or committed by a juvenile; apprehended violence orders; charges, including when a conviction has not been recorded, or when a proceeding has not been heard or finalised by a court, or when charges have been dismissed or withdrawn; any relevant allegations or police investigations involving the individual; and relevant employment proceedings and disciplinary information from professional organisations such as those associated with teachers, child care service providers, foster carers and health practitioners. When one looks at those requirements and their importance one can see it is a balancing act in respect of the rights of individuals who have been convicted, or might even have been pardoned, or whose conviction has been quashed, and the rights of those children we seek to protect. In every case the scales are tipped more in favour of the children we seek to protect. The balance might not always be right but that is in essence what this legislation seeks to do. The aim of this legislation is to make sure that across all States we have consistency and harm minimisation.

I am a member of the Legislative Review Committee. It is noted in our report that the intention of the bill is to protect children through ensuring that complete and reliable criminal history information is available across jurisdictions through the working with children check. However, the committee questioned whether the bill strikes the right balance between the personal rights of the individual and, in particular, the right to privacy and the interests of the community. Members can wrestle with their own assessment when they read this bill. The bill provides that a wide range of information may be provided to interstate screening agencies, as I have already mentioned.

Not having a legal background, I seek clarification about the sharing of information regarding people who have been pardoned, for example, or who have had their convictions quashed. Does that mean information on people who do not have convictions recorded against their name will be passed on? What is that legality? What is the standing of those people? Are they termed criminals in the justice system? It may be that I have not read that section clearly enough. However, I would like clarification if it is possible.

The Legislative Review Committee was also of the view that proposed amendments to extend the application of the one-year trial period of proposed section 38A and the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 could be more appropriately made by an amending Act rather than through regulations. It also considered whether proposed section 38A (4) is an appropriate delegation of legislative power. This bill will give effect to a Council of Australian Governments [COAG] decision and it enables the Commissioner of Police to disclose information relating to criminal histories to Commonwealth and interstate law enforcement agencies. As I said, there are a number of variations. Last year COAG agreed to enable a full and consistent exchange of information. We look forward to other States and Territories getting their act together quickly so that this can work across the country and all jurisdictions.

I note that New South Wales has been working efficiently with the Children and Young People Commission and our checks on children and young people, but those checks are only as strong as the agency checking people's criminal backgrounds and their behaviour. So this legislation will only be as strong as the checks and balances, how often they are updated and maintained, and whether they are mandatory and employer driven or agency driven. However, having worked in the child and family services sector for many years, I know how much those checks and balances are needed and how important for employers it is to check on employees or volunteers.

Obviously I know how important it is for every child and family to make sure that they have confidence that there is a system in place to protect them from any harmful contact from people who have a history that is dangerous and abusive towards children. It is a system that we need. We must protect the children in our society and do whatever we can to create a safe environment for children throughout our community so parents know that their children are in safe and qualified hands. I commend the bill to the House. I encourage other members to support it.

The Hon. IAN WEST [4.39 p.m.]: I support the Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Bill 2009, which seeks to amend the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 and the Criminal Records Act 1991. Safeguarding children and young people from sexual, physical and other harm is a key priority for all Australian Governments. The New South Wales Government has demonstrated its commitment to the safety and wellbeing of children and young people by, amongst other things, establishing the New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People in 1999. One of the important functions of the commission is to undertake the working with children check, an essential part of a broader strategy for managing risks to the safety and wellbeing of children and young people.

Back in 2000 New South Wales was the first State to introduce a working with children check. Since then most States and Territories have implemented their own screening for child-related employment. The criminal history information considered by child-related employment screening agencies, such as those in New South Wales, is extensive when sourced from within New South Wales. However, access to comprehensive criminal history information between jurisdictions is limited. Typically, only unspent convictions are shared between jurisdictions. The Council of Australian Governments [COAG] agreement of 29 November 2008 requires all States, Territories and the Federal Government to introduce legislative amendments to facilitate a more comprehensive and consistent exchange of criminal history information for working with children checks.

The legislative amendments being made across Australian jurisdictions will allow for the exchange of an extended range of convictions and charges as well as information about the circumstances of offences. It should be noted that the COAG agreement has stipulated strict safeguards so that this sensitive information is dealt with appropriately. These safeguards will be incorporated into an intergovernmental agreement. A key safeguard is the requirement that the extended information being released can be used only to assess a person's risk to children. It cannot be used for general employment suitability or probity checks. Other jurisdictions are currently working on legislation that will allow for the release of an extended range of criminal history information to child-related employment screening agencies in New South Wales.

In New South Wales screening agencies include the Commission for Children and Young People and the approved screening agencies, the Department of Education and Training, New South Wales Health, the Division of Sport and Recreation in Communities New South Wales and the Catholic Commission for Employment Relations. A working group, chaired by the New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People, comprising representatives of these screening agencies and the New South Wales Police Force, will facilitate the implementation of the exchange. Participation in the exchange will allow the New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People and New South Wales screening agencies to undertake the working with children check more effectively. As a result New South Wales children and young people will be better protected while at the same time the criminal history information of individuals will not be subject to misuse. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.43 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. I do not think any member spoke against the Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Bill 2009. However, some very important issues have been raised during debate and I would like to respond to them. In relation to the issues raised by the Hon. Robyn Parker, I can advise that the intergovernmental agreement is expected to be signed by participating jurisdictions following a meeting of relevant officers on 18 November this year and it is due to commence on 30 November, so it is very close.

I am advised that the relevant Commonwealth bill has been introduced and a bill has been introduced in Queensland. All jurisdictions have indicated that they are ready to participate in information exchange, so the timing is quite good. Questions were raised about stringent requirements for use of the information. The Government believes that there are very stringent requirements to guard against the misuse of criminal history information. The intergovernmental agreement that governs the exchange is the memorandum of understanding. All jurisdictions participating in the information exchange are required to enter into and adhere to this.

The memorandum of understanding reflects the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] agreed requirements and ensures that screening agencies can receive sensitive criminal history information only if they demonstrate that, firstly, they are authorised to conduct working with children checks by the government of the State or territory in which they operate; secondly, they have a legislative basis for screening that prohibits further release or use of the information; thirdly, they comply with applicable privacy, human rights and records management legislation; fourthly, they have policies that reflect principles of natural justice; and, fifthly, they have evidence-based risk assessment frameworks and appropriately skilled staff to assess the risks to children.

In addition, the extended criminal history information being exchanged can be used only to assess a person's suitability to work with children. The information cannot be used for general employment suitability or probity checks. Proposed section 38A (1) clearly stipulates that New South Wales police will release the extended information to interstate screening agencies only for the purpose of working with children checks. The bill reflects the strict safeguards agreed to by COAG by allowing release of information.

In relation to the question about quashed convictions and pardons, the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 provides that all relevant criminal records—including quashed convictions, pardoned convictions and verdicts of not guilty—are considered in the working with children check. This puts the interests of children ahead of the interests of all employers and applicants for child-related employment. The working with children check is there to protect children from the risk of harm. It is a separate process from determining guilt in a court. The fact that a person has subsequently had a conviction quashed, received a pardon or been found not guilty does not mean that the person no longer presents a risk to children.

In relation to the use of the regulation, the provision proposed in section 38A (4) (b) for extension by regulation is consistent with the COAG agreement because it will allow New South Wales to continue the exchange of circumstances information if endorsed by COAG after the review of the 12-month trial period. The regulations will only prescribe such further period or periods for release of this circumstances information by New South Wales as they are endorsed by COAG. It would be impractical to provide for an extension of this period by way of an amendment to the Act. The delay could significantly affect the information exchange program.

Proposed section 38A (4) allows for the flexibility needed to ensure that New South Wales' release of this category of information remains consistent with release by other jurisdictions following the COAG review in 12 months. This is not a significant regulation-making power. The legislative framework for the disclosure of circumstances information will be set by Parliament through the amending Act. This is not a vague or overly broad power. It very clearly allows for the making of a specific regulatory provision to extend the period for inter-jurisdictional release of circumstance information. I again thank members for their contribution to the debate. The bill gives us the opportunity to further extend protection for children in New South Wales across State borders. 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.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.48 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.48 p.m.]: I take the opportunity to put on the record the support of the Christian Democratic Party for this very important bill, the Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Bill 2009. The bill will give effect to the decision of the Council of Australian Governments—that is, the Federal and State governments—to enable the exchange of information between States and Territories about the criminal history of persons who work or wish to work with children. It will enable the Commissioner of Police to disclose information relating to criminal histories to Commonwealth and State law enforcement agencies and employment screening agencies of other States and Territories.

I was involved on the upper House Select Committee on Children and Young People. We spent a great deal of time discussing the issue of vetting people's records when they wish to work with children and the problem that arises of how to get information about people when they move interstate. They may have a record in one State but not in the State to which they have moved. I think this bill will fill that gap in transmitting very important information concerning a person's criminal history.

The other night on Four Corners Dennis Ferguson explained his attitude to children. One comment he made struck me. He said no-one need fear because he only went after children whom he knew and with whom he had some sort of relationship. Some people said that was not so bad as he was not going to go after children who were strangers. In fact, it is a modus operandi of paedophiles to go for children they know. That often comes about by their deliberately building up a friendship with a family or with the mother of the children by pretending to have a personal interest in the mother, whereas the only desire is to have access to a child. I pass on a warning that people should not underestimate the cunning way in which some of these individuals operate in getting access to children by moving interstate.

In fact, Dennis Ferguson moved to Queensland with three children from New South Wales and abused the children there. Whether it was his intention to confuse the police investigation, if there was one, so that he would not be detected, is unclear. Perhaps he did. Now there will be no advantage in moving interstate because all information will be available across State borders to State authorities, so I am very pleased to support this bill.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe, on behalf of the Hon. Tony Kelly.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.53 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It is both satisfying and timely to be introducing the Swimming Pools Amendment Bill 2009. With the summer season almost upon us, it is important to reflect that drowning is a leading cause of accidental death in very young children and that drowning deaths occur quickly and silently. While backyard swimming pools are places for fun with family and friends, they are also potentially lethal to the very young who lack the ability to deal with the dangers swimming pools can present. Although the average number of toddlers drowning per year in New South Wales has reduced since pool fencing laws were introduced in the early 1990s, recently we have seen a spike in drowning figures. Reports indicate that eight children under five years drowned in private swimming pools in New South Wales in 2007-08.

Notwithstanding the figures, even one child drowning is one too many. Every death and serious injury resulting from a backyard pool drowning is a tragedy for parents, family, friends and the broader community. Our role as legislators is to protect young children—among the most vulnerable members of our community—and to give them the best chance of growing up safely to lead full and active lives. While no laws can replace vigilant adult supervision at all times, this bill provides a key element to help minimise the risks to toddlers posed by backyard pools. The object of the bill is to provide the legislative framework to bring about a consistent and high standard of four-sided pool barrier fencing to surround all newly constructed backyard pools in New South Wales. The bill also aims to ensure that local councils regulate and promote awareness of the requirements in the most appropriate way, including through the use of appropriate compliance mechanisms.

I will now move on to the detail of the bill to strengthen swimming pool barrier requirements and to increase compliance. It is a sad fact that many backyard toddler drownings occur in pools that have some form of barrier in place. Behavioural factors such as a momentary lapse in supervision or propping open a pool gate can often lead to the ultimate tragedy: the death or severe brain injury of a young child. While the recent spike in toddler drownings is of concern, it is important to note that statistics cannot show the number of young lives that have been saved since the general requirement for four-sided barriers to surround pools was introduced in the early 1990s. Recent research into the type of barrier around private pools and its condition—or absence—has found that the risk of toddler drownings is significantly less in pools with stronger barrier requirements.

This bill seeks to amend the Swimming Pools Act to remove automatic exemptions that currently allow some pools to be directly accessed from the house through so-called "child-resistant" doors. All pools regardless of their location or the size of the property on which they are situated should be isolated from the house on the property, as well as from adjoining properties and public spaces. The bill proposes that the automatic exemptions in the Act for new pools to be built on very small properties, which are less than 230 square metres; large properties, which are two hectares and over; and waterfront properties be removed. This will ensure that all newly constructed pools are surrounded by a four-sided barrier, that a self-closing, self-latching gate is installed and maintained to the Australian standard, and that the pool is separated from the house and adjoining properties and public spaces at all times. Sensibly, especially for pools on small properties, owners will still be able to use boundary fences and house walls as part of the swimming pool barrier, as long as they meet the legislative requirements and the Australian standard.

Of course, there are also specific circumstances, such as the need for disability access, that justify a special exemption being granted by the local council under section 22 of the existing Act. In such cases pool owners will still have the option of applying to their local council for a special exemption if they believe the barrier requirements are impracticable or unreasonable. These provisions will not change. The bill also allows for a delayed commencement period for these provisions of 1 July 2010—or six months after commencement of the legislation—to allow for automatic exemptions to still apply to pools on these properties where a development application has been submitted or construction has commenced.

This bill also proposes amendments that will strengthen compliance with barrier and other requirements under the Swimming Pools Act. One way to manage non-compliance is an increase to the maximum court-imposed penalty amounts for most offences under the Act from $1,100 to $5,500, as well as a consequent increase to penalty notice amounts prescribed by regulation from $220 to $550. Current penalty amounts have been in place for over 19 years and are lower than many offences under other New South Wales legislation of a similar nature. Penalties under the Act include failure to provide and maintain a swimming pool barrier to standard and failure to keep gates securely closed when not in use. These have been increased to bring them into line with the magnitude of the offences and the significant risks they pose to young children.

While breaches of the Act are serious, we also recognise that many pool owners and occupiers may be genuinely unaware that their pool may not comply. The bill has therefore introduced a warning system so that pool owners are usually issued with at least 14 days notice prior to being formally ordered to fix a deficient barrier. This approach puts the focus firmly on compliance rather than punishment and will serve the bill's ultimate aim of keeping swimming pools safe. To further strengthen compliance, the bill also proposes that councils be required to investigate complaints that they receive about possible non-compliance with barrier and other requirements under the Act. While most councils already investigate and resolve such complaints promptly, the bill mandates that all councils must do so within a reasonable time frame.

The bill proposes that councils must commence investigation of a complaint received in writing within 72 hours, where practicable. This time frame balances the need for councils to investigate complaints as quickly as possible while allowing for weekend interruptions and urgent priorities that may compete for attention. It should be noted, however, that where councils assess a complaint to be frivolous, vexatious or lacking in substance, the bill gives the council the ability to decline its investigation. Another proposal to increase compliance is to give councils optional powers to enter property and undertake remedial work to rectify deficient pool barriers in situations where non-action poses a significant risk to public safety, and where the owner refuses, or is unable, to do the work.

I expect this power to be used infrequently and to be limited strictly to situations where non-action poses a significant risk to public safety. Further, before any work is done, the council must provide notice of intention to do the work. The costs may be recovered through court from the owner or occupier. The bill provides other minor amendments to clarify the intent of the Act, the role of local authorities, and to make it more consistent with other legislation. It abolishes the Pool Fencing Advisory Committee, the functions of which are now undertaken by the New South Wales Water Safety Advisory Council. The bill provides for the delegation of functions under the Act and makes a number of minor and statute law revision amendments.

It is important to note that the amendments in the bill to strengthen pool barrier requirements deal with pools to be built in the future, not with pools that are now in existence. These include pools built prior to 1 August 1990, as well as pools built after this date on small, large and waterfront properties, including right up until 1 July 2010. The risk to young people posed by these pools will only increase over time and we need to address this risk sooner rather than later. To this end, consultation with a view to making further amendments to the Swimming Pools Act to deal with exemptions for existing pools is currently underway. While regulation is important we need to strike the right balance between the responsibilities of State local councils and individuals.

Ultimately, responsibility for child safety around backyard swimming pools lies with pool owners and occupiers. The Government recognises that education is fundamental to promoting awareness of the barrier standard, as well as backyard pool safety. Accordingly, in tandem with these legislative amendments, additional initiatives to get key pool safety messages across to pool owners and parents are under active consideration. In summary, this bill will enhance the safety of children aged zero to four years old around backyard swimming pools in New South Wales by strengthening swimming pool barrier requirements and encouraging compliance.

Importantly, these reforms have been developed in close consultation with water safety advocate groups, such as the Royal Life Saving Society of New South Wales, the local government sector, State government agencies and other interested industry organisations and individuals, including pool owners. The Swimming Pools Amendment Regulation, together with other information as required, will support the bill. This may include guidelines to assist councils with the implementation of the proposed amendments. The bill represents the most significant reforms to swimming pool legislation in New South Wales in 17 years. In tandem with backyard pool safety education, these reforms provide a balanced and sensible approach to backyard swimming pool safety in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

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

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

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.05 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Trustee Companies Amendment Bill 2009 will amend the Trustees Companies Act 1964 to facilitate the regulation of trustee companies by the Commonwealth and for other purposes. Currently, State and Territory legislation authorises trustee companies to administer deceased estates, something that historically only a person could do. Trustee companies also provide other traditional trustee company services, such as acting as a trustee for other estates, or under a power of attorney granted to the trustee company. In 2008 the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] agreed that the Commonwealth would assume responsibility for the regulation of trustee companies and that the necessary legislation for this would be in place by the end of 2009. In October 2009 the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Services Modernisation) Bill 2009, which provides for Commonwealth regulation of trustee companies. Under this legislation there will be a single licensing and reporting regime for trustee companies administered by a single regulator—the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

Trustee companies will be required to have a trustee company Australian financial services licence. There will be many benefits from the single national regulatory scheme. It will eliminate the unnecessary regulatory burden on trustee companies arising from duplicate licensing and reporting requirements in each State and Territory, removing barriers to entry and improving competition in the trustee company market. It will also apply the consumer protection regime for financial services from the Corporations Act to trustee companies, which will have to comply with the conduct, disclosure, advice, dispute resolution and compensation requirements of that Act. This will provide better consumer protection and access to a more cost-effective and timely alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

The Trustee Companies Amendment Bill 2009 will ensure a smooth transition to Commonwealth regulation of trustee companies and ensure that New South Wales meets its obligations under the COAG agreement. The bill will amend the Trustee Companies Act 1964 so that companies will no longer be authorised to be trustee companies by being listed in a schedule to that Act. Instead, the Act will recognise licensed trustee companies under chapter 5D of the Commonwealth's Corporations Act 2001. The bill also repeals sections of the Trustee Companies Act 1964 that will be unnecessary or inconsistent when Commonwealth regulation takes effect. In particular, the bill will repeal provisions relating to: the fees that may be charged by trustee companies; the provision of accounts by trustee companies; the duties of officers and employees of trustee companies; restrictions on the ownership or control of trustee companies; the provision of company financial statements to the Government; and minimum capital requirements, indemnity insurance and common funds.

The Trustee Companies Amendment Bill 2009 also facilitates the transfer of a trustee company's business to another licensed trustee company if its licence is cancelled. The bill also amends the Trustee Companies Regulation 2005 to prescribe certain matters in relation to the filing of elections to administer small deceased estates. Most of the provisions of the Trustee Companies Amendment Bill 2009 will commence on proclamation and the intention is to commence them when the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Act are commenced.

I understand that the Commonwealth is currently aiming to commence its provisions on 1 January 2010. This bill will facilitate the transition to a single licensing and reporting regime administered by a single national regulator. This will avoid unnecessary duplication in licensing and reporting and remove barriers to entry, benefiting trustee companies, companies wishing to enter the trustee company market, and consumers. Consumers will benefit also from enhanced consumer protection, which includes disclosure requirements and an external dispute resolution scheme. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe, on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.09 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Trade Measurement Repeal Bill 2009. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the repeal of the Trade Measurement Act 1989 and the Trade Measurement Administration Act 1989 on 1 July 2010, and for the necessary transitional arrangements for the regulation of trade measurement to transfer from New South Wales to the Commonwealth. This is the result of the agreement made by the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] in April 2007 for the Commonwealth to assume full responsibility for national trade measurement from 1 July 2010. Currently, the New South Wales trade measurement legislation is subject to the Agreement for Uniform Trade Measurement Legislation and Administration, for which Queensland is the lead jurisdiction. From 1 July 2010 trade measurement will be regulated in every jurisdiction by the Commonwealth through the National Measurement Institute under the National Measurement Act 1960. This Act has been amended by the Commonwealth to include the trade measurement requirements that were provided for in the uniform legislation.

Before summarising the main provisions of the bill, I shall outline some matters to assist members with their consideration of this bill, including the aim of trade measurement, the main functions and services provided for in the New South Wales uniform legislation, and informal consultation between the jurisdictions on the development of the proposed transition bills. The aim of the New South Wales trade measurement legislation is to ensure a fair market for both traders and consumers of goods sold by measurement. Consumers should get what they paid for and traders should supply no more or less than they are paid for. The New South Wales trade measurement requirements create a level playing field for both consumers and industry, and provide them with confidence in the accuracy of measurements, reduced disputation, and protection of consumers and other market participants from fraud.

New South Wales was the first State in Australia to introduce trade measurement legislation in the form of the 1832 Weights and Measures Act. One hundred and seventy-seven years later, trade measurement continues to impact on the day-to-day lives of the consumers and businesses of New South Wales. Government inspectors and private licensees continue to check the accuracy of measuring instruments, such as the shop scales used at the corner store, petrol bowsers or beverage dispensers used at the local pub. It is estimated that in a modern national economy the annual value of goods sold by measurement is about 50 per cent of gross domestic product [GDP]. For the 2007-08 year this represented about $172 billion of New South Wales gross State product, which is equivalent to the gross domestic product measure, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The current New South Wales uniform legislation makes arrangements for the approval and use of measuring instruments for trade; labelling and measurement requirements for pre-packaged products, for example, those in supermarkets or hardware stores; requirements for the sale of goods by measurement, for instance, requirements for the sale of firewood by volume; licensing public weighbridges and the businesses that certify, service and repair measuring instruments used for trade; offences, penalties and government inspectors who check that the trade measurement requirements are complied with; the maintenance and verification of the reference standards of measurement, for example, length, weight and volume held by New South Wales Fair Trading; and the use of those reference standards to check the measurement standards used by the inspectors, certifiers and industry.

I advise members of the House that arrangements have been made to ensure that trade measurement services in New South Wales will be maintained after the transfer to the Commonwealth national system. As part of the Council of Australian Governments' April 2007 agreement the Commonwealth made a commitment to ensure the maintenance of existing service standards under the new national system. The Commonwealth has worked with representatives from all jurisdictions to develop an agreed set of indicators and statistics to monitor service levels before and after the transition date to ensure that high-level services are maintained. The Commonwealth's trade measurement legislation is ready for the commencement of Commonwealth administration on 1 July 2010. This means the Commonwealth now has the legal capacity to provide the service continuity to all jurisdictions from that date.

The Commonwealth legislation also deals with certain transitional issues under schedule 2 of the Commonwealth's National Measurement Amendment Act. This will allow for continuity in the transition from New South Wales and other jurisdictions to the Commonwealth national system. For example, part 3 of that schedule enables the Commonwealth to recognise verification marks made by an inspector or servicing licensee, under the New South Wales uniform legislation, on a measuring instrument before the transition date. With this background in place, I now outline the main provisions of the bill.

In dealing with the transition arrangements for the New South Wales uniform legislation, the provisions of the bill aim to achieve five outcomes. The bill provides for the repeal of the New South Wales legislation, as the Commonwealth trade measurement legislation will replace it. The bill deals with continuing matters and offences. These are matters that have arisen under the administration of the New South Wales legislation, before the commencement of the Commonwealth legislation, and are required to be dealt with under the New South Wales legislation. The bill includes a definition of "continuing matters", which covers penalty notices, disciplinary action against licensees, a person's right of appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for the review of a decision made by the licensing authority, anything seized under the legislation, such as a measuring instrument or pre-packaged product, and fees or charges or issuing of a search warrant in relation to an investigation of an alleged offence under the legislation.

The bill makes arrangements for the disclosure or provision of information to the Commonwealth in relation to a "continuing matter" or other matter in connection with the administration of the New South Wales legislation. The bill provides for consequential amendments to other legislation arising from the repeal of the New South Wales legislation. The bill proposes some minor amendments to section 9A of the Fair Trading Act, which deals with arrangements for information sharing between agencies. These amendments aim to ensure the section 9A arrangements can be used to facilitate information sharing between agencies under the Council of Australian Governments national reforms, which involve New South Wales Fair Trading, such as the national trade measurement reforms.

The Commonwealth has indicated that it regards this information transfer and other transitional arrangements as critical to the establishment of the Commonwealth national system. The Commonwealth has requested that States and Territories provide this information by March 2010 in order for systems to be put in place for the commencement and operation of their legislation on 1 July. The amendments to the Fair Trading Act would allow the necessary information to be provided to the Commonwealth in time to ensure the continuity of the trade measurement regulation in New South Wales. I remind members also that any information provided to the Commonwealth would be subject to confidentiality and the Commonwealth privacy laws. While the bill will commence when the Commonwealth legislation starts on 1 July 2010, the provisions, which relate to information disclosure and supply arrangements, and the section 9A amendments will commence on the date of assent to assist the Commonwealth system set-up.

Finally, I acknowledge the trade measurement services that have been provided to New South Wales by the staff of the Measurement and Technical Branch of New South Wales Fair Trading, together with the regional inspectors and all other officers in Fair Trading who have assisted with the regulation of trade measurement and its transfer to the Commonwealth. Their work continues a fine tradition of government officials delivering these services, dating back to the First Fleet. I add that in 2008 the Fair Trading Measurement Standards Laboratory was accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities, which accreditation is recognised internationally. The laboratory's functions include the maintenance of the measurement standards for New South Wales and ensuring the accuracy of the standards used by inspectors and licensees when checking measuring instruments such as shop scales.

The Commonwealth has also recognised that the technical expertise and experience of trade measurement staff in New South Wales and the other jurisdictions is crucial to the successful operation of the new national system. It is for that reason that the Commonwealth has provided an offer of employment to all existing trade measurement staff in all the jurisdictions to transfer to the National Measurement Institute to help maintain the continuity of services. The bill before the House is part of the legislative arrangements that will facilitate the move to the new national system and a continuity of trade measurement services for consumers, businesses and government in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

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

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

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.20 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 2009 continues the established statute law revision program that is recognised as a cost-effective and efficient method for dealing with amendments of the kind included in the bill. The form of the bill is similar to that of previous bills in the statute law revision program. Schedule 1 contains policy changes of a minor and non-controversial nature that the Minister responsible for the legislation, which will be amended, considers to be too inconsequential to warrant the introduction of a separate amending bill. That schedule contains amendments to 20 Acts. I will mention some of the amendments to give members an indication of the kind of amendments that are included in the schedule for this session.

Schedule 1 amends the definition of child-related employment in the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998. Currently the definition includes employment in juvenile detention centres. Schedule 1 extends the definition to include employment in juvenile correctional centres in which children also may be detained. As a result, the provisions of that Act, which prohibit certain persons from engaging in child-related employment and require background checks to be carried out, will now also apply to employment in juvenile correctional centres.

Schedule 1 also makes a number of amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that largely are consequential on recent changes to plan-making procedures under the Act. These include extending the current statutory exemption from liability for planning authorities, which are acting in good faith in relation to contaminated land, to the recently amended procedures for preparing or making planning instruments, and processing and determining applications to carry out major infrastructure and similar projects in relation to contaminated land. Schedule 1 makes a similar amendment to the Local Government Act 1993 to extend the current statutory exemption from liability of local councils in relation to flooding or coastal hazards to the recently amended procedures under the Act for preparing or making planning proposals in relation to those matters.

The Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act 2008 is amended by schedule 1 to include police officers as authorised officers for the purposes of that Act and to enable them to exercise the same general powers under that Act as authorised officers appointed by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. The amendments to that Act will also allow the appointment of a class of persons as authorised officers for the purposes of that Act rather than only an individual person, as at present. Amendments made by schedule 1 to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 will ensure that the former managers of statutory bodies that have ceased to exist, in addition to preparing and submitting the last financial report for the body, may prepare and submit a required statement about the accuracy of the report to the Auditor-General. These amendments also will allow the Auditor-General to recoup his or her costs of audit from Parliament or a Minister, if Parliament or the Minister requests a particular audit or audit-related service.

Schedule 1 amends the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act to provide that the duty under that Act to arrange for certain blood samples to be submitted to a laboratory for analysis is owed by the healthcare worker who took the sample rather than a police officer. This amendment brings the duty into line with like duties imposed under that Act. However, the duties imposed on healthcare workers under that Act to arrange for blood samples to be submitted to a prescribed laboratory for analysis will be discharged if a police officer makes those arrangements instead. The Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act is also amended to confirm the current police practice of conducting roadside oral fluid tests provided under the Act by a driver who has been arrested for failing or refusing to undergo an initial oral fluid test. The purpose of conducting the further more accurate test is to determine whether to issue a direction prohibiting the driver from driving a motor vehicle for a period of 24 hours.

The amendments made by schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1987 extend a provision of that Act to require references to repeal Acts or instruments that have been re-enacted or remade in another jurisdiction to be read as references to Acts or instruments so re-enacted or remade. This will ensure that the provisions will apply when the State refers powers to the Commonwealth and a Commonwealth law replaces a State law. The amendments to that Act also include authorising the Parliamentary Counsel to determine the requirements for lodging instruments required to be notified on the New South Wales legislation website, which is maintained by the Parliamentary Counsel, and the standard technical requirements with respect to the drafting of those instruments for the purpose of facilitating public access to them.

The last schedule 1 matter I will mention is the amendment to the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 concerning orders made by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to reallocate unit entitlements for a strata scheme. The amendment will require the owners corporation for the strata scheme to ensure that a copy of the order is lodged with the Registrar General no more than two years after the order is made to enable the appropriate amendments to the folio of the register to be carried out. Currently there is no requirement that such an order be lodged with the Registrar General once it is made by the tribunal.
Schedule 2 deals with matters of pure statute law revision consisting of minor technical changes to legislation that the Parliamentary Counsel considers are appropriate for inclusion in the bill. Examples of amendments in schedule 2 are those arising out of the enactment or repeal of other legislation, those correcting duplicated numbering, and those updating terminology. Schedule 3 contains amendments that generally relate to the official notification of the making of certain statutory instruments that directly amend Acts on the New South Wales legislation website, which is maintained by the Parliamentary Counsel.

Schedule 4 contains statute law revision amendments that are consequential on the enactment of the Local Court Act 2007. Most of these amendments involve replacing references to local courts with references to the single Local Court that replaced them. Schedule 5 contains statute law revision amendments updating references to liquor, registered clubs and casino legislation consequential on the enactment of the Liquor Act 2007 and the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority Act 2007. Schedule 6 repeals a number of Acts and provisions of Acts that are redundant, or that are of no practical utility. The repeals also extend to provisions of Acts that contain only amendments that have commenced. The Acts and instruments that were amended by the amending Acts, or provisions being repealed, are up to date and are available electronically on the legislation database, which is maintained by the Parliamentary Counsel's office.

Schedule 7 contains general savings, transitional and other provisions. These include provisions dealing with the effect of amendments on amending provisions and savings clauses for the repealed Acts. The schedule also contains, for abundant caution, a power for the Governor to revoke or repeal by proclamation any Act or instrument repealed by the bill. The various amendments are explained in detail in the explanatory notes that are set out beneath the amendments to each of the Acts and the statutory instruments concerned, or at the beginning of the schedule concerned. If any amendment causes concern or requires clarification, it should be brought to the Minister's attention. If necessary, the Minister will arrange for Government advisers to provide additional information on the matters raised. I commend the bill to the House.

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

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

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.31 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The transfer of Throsby Park Historic Site to the Historic Houses Trust will bolster its status as a living heritage place. Throsby Park is located on the outskirts of Moss Vale in the Southern Highlands, about 140 kilometres from Sydney. It is a symbol of early colonial Australia, being one of the first properties in the region, and opened up settlement of the Southern Highlands. Throsby Park contains a Georgian house built in the 1830s and a small cottage furnished with period pieces, many pieces having an association with the house or the family. The property was granted to Dr Throsby in 1819 by Governor Macquarie and developed by his nephew Charles into a large, successful commercial mixed farm that supported virtually every household and building requirement on the property.

The Historic Houses Amendment (Throsby Park Historic Site) Bill 2009 will revoke the site from reservation as a historic site under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and will vest the land with the Historic Houses Trust. It will also amend the Historic Houses Act to prevent the site from being sold without an Act of Parliament, thus ensuring that this significant heritage site will remain in public ownership in perpetuity. This level of protection mirrors that afforded by the National Parks and Wildlife Act. While the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water has a continuing role in the protection of the State's historic heritage, the Historic Houses Trust has a greater range of expertise relevant to the care of historic houses such as Throsby Park and is better placed to manage this site into the future.

The Historic Houses Trust is a statutory authority within the Department of Arts, Sport and Recreation, established in 1980 to manage, conserve and interpret historic buildings and places. It currently manages 14 properties, including houses, public buildings, gardens and parklands, and holds extensive heritage collections. The trust has world-class expertise in areas such as building conservation, architecture, social history research and the management of historic gardens and interiors. The Throsby Park Historic Site was reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act in 1975. At that time the estate was run down and beyond the means of the Throsby family to maintain. The Throsby family donated the site to the Government so that its values could be protected, and it was agreed that one family member, Miss Del Throsby, could remain living on the site.

Since that time, the Heritage Act has commenced and the Historic Houses Trust established. This provides a more appropriate conservation framework for grand historic houses such as Throsby Park. Sadly, Miss Throsby died in 2006. After thorough consideration of a range of possible management approaches, the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and the Historic Houses Trust have agreed that a long-term residential lease would provide the best and most cost-effective management option to conserve the site's State significant heritage values. The trust will manage the site under its Endangered Houses Fund. The Endangered Houses Fund is a revolving fund initiative that is used to acquire historic buildings, then conserve and protect them before putting them on the market, either for sale or as long-term leases, which will be the case for Throsby Park.

To ensure that the public will continue to have the opportunity to appreciate the historic heritage values of the Throsby Park site, the trust will put conditions in the lease to ensure that some form of regular public access is provided as part of any leasing arrangements as determined by the Historic Houses Trust. Throsby Park is listed on the New South Wales Heritage Register and is therefore protected under the terms of the Heritage Act. It should be noted that this is not the first transfer of an historic heritage site. A similar transfer occurred when the Historic Houses Trust was created in 1980. Vaucluse House, now managed by the trust as one of its house museums, was previously reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act as part of Sydney Harbour National Park. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.38 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The New South Wales Government is committed to having best practice revenue laws. This bill is the latest in a series of legislative proposals that improve these laws.

The State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009 makes important amendments to State tax Acts both to protect the revenue and improve compliance and administration.

The bill amends the Payroll Tax Act 2007 and the Duties Act 1997.

I will deal firstly with the amendments to payroll tax.

The bill amends the jurisdictional nexus provisions of the Payroll Tax Act for payments of tax where an employee performs services partly in New South Wales and partly outside New South Wales.

These amendments were agreed to by all State and Territory Commissioners of State Revenue as announced on 16 June 2009.

The new provisions commence from 1 July 2009 for the 2009-10 financial year.

The payroll tax legislation has always contained nexus provisions designed to avoid double taxation on the same wages. Until now, liability has been based on where the services are performed and where the wages are paid.

However, with the growth in electronic funds transfer, it is now common for employees to have their wages paid to more than one account and in jurisdictions other than where they performed services.

These banking processes have made the administration of payroll tax more complex.

The new nexus provisions that I will outline here will apply new principles and tests to counteract this complexity.

The primary nexus test will continue to apply the principles currently used to determine initial liability. That is, if employees provide services wholly in one State or Territory, then payroll tax is payable in that jurisdiction. This test applies to approximately 90 per cent of the workforce in New South Wales.

The new tests apply where employees provide services in more than one jurisdiction, such as interstate truck drivers.

In such cases, a secondary nexus test will apply so that tax will be payable in the jurisdiction where the employee has his or her principal place of residence.

Where an employee does not have an Australian principal place of residence, a tertiary nexus test will apply determined by the ABN registered address of the business. If this does not apply, then further tests relating to the place of payment of the wages will be used.

In order to allow employers to adjust to the new arrangements it will be permissible for anyone facing such transitional issues to make any necessary adjustments without penalty as part of the annual reconciliation process for the 2009-10 assessment year.

These changes will be adopted by all States and Territories in the spirit of payroll tax harmonisation.

The bill also includes amendments to the Duties Act to continue the implementation of landholder duty.

The new landholder duty replaced land rich duty on 1 July 2009 and imposes transfer duty on acquisitions of significant interests in companies and unit trusts which own land in New South Wales with a value of $2 million or more.

The current landholder provisions in New South Wales impose duty only on the acquisition of the legal entitlement to an interest in a landholding entity.

The widespread use of trustees and custodians to hold interests in companies and unit trusts could result in an unintended liability to landholder duty.

The bill addresses this by providing that the interests of certain trustees will be ignored so that landholder duty is only imposed on changes of beneficial ownership in landholding companies and trusts.

The bill also amends the land value threshold test for landholder duty.

The current provisions apply to companies or trusts owning land in New South Wales with an unencumbered or improved value of $2 million or more.

To enable taxpayers to easily determine whether the landholder provisions apply, the bill provides that where the land holdings have a land value for land tax purposes, that unimproved value will be used for the purposes of the $2 million threshold test.

This change will have the effect of significantly raising the threshold at which interests in companies that hold land will have a potential liability to landholder duty.

The bill includes two new revenue protection measures for landholder duty.

The first relates to debt interests. The interest of a creditor such as a mortgagee is not treated as a dutiable interest for the purposes of landholder duty.

This exclusion is being exploited by the creation of interests which give the holder the right to most of the income and distributions from the company or trust, but no entitlement on winding up.

Holders of these interests have an entitlement which is economically equivalent to an equity interest in the landholder.

The bill clarifies the creditor exclusion by applying tests used in the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to distinguish between debt and equity interests to determine which interests are dutiable interests for landholder duty purposes.

The second revenue protection measure relates to the timing rules used to determine when an interest is acquired.

These rules have been abused in some cases by delaying the full payment of the purchase price, sometimes indefinitely, thereby avoiding duty on the acquisition.

The bill clarifies that an agreement for sale of an interest in a landholder is taken to be completed 12 months from the date of the agreement unless it is otherwise completed before that date.

Finally, the bill includes two amendments to the Duties Act which affect the duty on changes of ownership of land regardless of whether by direct or indirect means.

The bill clarifies the types of mining interests that are included as interests inland for duties purposes.

In addition, consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relation, it provides that carbon sequestration rights are not interests in land for the purposes of the Duties Act.

Amendments contained in this bill have been the subject of consultation with professional and industry bodies, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants and CPA Australia, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Property Council of Australia and the Taxation Institute of Australia. I wish to thank those organisations for their assistance in preparing this legislation.

The amendments introduced by this bill will improve State tax Acts by increasing consistency with other States and Territories, while protecting the revenue bases for both payroll tax and landholder duty.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [5.39 p.m.]: It is my pleasure to lead for the Opposition in the debate on the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009. As members would be aware, the bill makes several amendments to the Payroll Tax Act 2007 and the Duties Act 1997 to clarify compliance and administration, including the introduction of a new secondary nexus provision so that payroll tax for employees who work partly in New South Wales and partly interstate is payable based on where the worker resides, rather than where the wages are paid. The bill also increases the threshold for landholder duty payable on acquisitions on interest, rather than outright purchase of land, from $2 million improved to $2 million unimproved land only. It also clarifies the creditor exclusion for landholder duty to distinguish between debt and equity interests to determine which interests are dutiable.

The bill also clarifies an agreement for sale of an interest in a landholder is taken to be completed within 12 months from the date of the agreement, and clarifies the imposition of landholder duty so it is payable on changes of beneficial ownership in land holding companies and trusts. In addition, the bill clarifies that a duty is payable on all transfers of mining leases, and provides that carbon sequestration rights are not interest in land for the purposes of the Duties Act. The bill also makes a minor amendment to the Parking Space Levy Act 2009 No 5 to clarify the imposition of a levy as from 1 July 2009.

There is a range of miscellaneous amendments to these important pieces of legislation that will go some way to clarify some of the obligations on taxpayers, as well as clarify some of the longstanding issues in some of these key areas. I note in particular that the payroll tax measures in the bill are largely a result of a meeting between all State and Territory Commissioners of State Revenue, which was announced on 16 June 2009. Indeed, the need for the new nexus provision derives from the growth of electronic transfer of wages, making the administration of payroll tax more complex. It is common for employees to have their wages paid to more than one account, and in jurisdictions other than where they perform services. It is certainly welcome that this change to the payroll tax provisions clarifies the situation, particularly in relation to cross-border issues that have been a problem for some time, naturally in areas such as the Tweed, Albury and the Australian Capital Territory.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Your home area.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: Exactly, the area I proudly come from and represent in this place. I note the Hon. Michael Veitch comes from the same region and understands some of the cross-border issues that we need to reflect upon and fix with changes to the legislation, as envisaged in this bill. I note in particular that some of the clarification provisions of this bill deal with a number of longstanding issues in relation to stamp duty. Having worked for sometime in the stamp duty area it has become more of an art form as to the lengths that some solicitors go in order to minimise duty. Whilst their practices are within the law, I commend the Government for clarifying some of the issues. The Property Council of Australia says that in relation to the threshold value provision of landholder duty there are some issues in relation to certainty, even in the provisions of this bill. The Property Council of Australia states that the provisions make it unclear and uncertain as to their intent and operation and appears to make it impossible for a person to determine whether they are acquiring an interest, and recommends that some of these clauses be clarified in that regard.

I will be interested to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary says in that regard. Clearly, we need to ensure that amendments clarify the situation completely rather than partially and do not leave some obscure options open. In this regard one always has to be very careful because if there is obscurity it will be exploited. We need to ensure that there is clarity is beyond any doubt, not only so that there is consistency and certainty but also so that the industry of stamp duty avoidance is not encouraged into another avenue. Those things need to be addressed most fully in this bill.

I note in particular some changes to the Parking Space Levy Act 2009. This has been a real problem for this Government. Like many of the changes it made in its mini-budget in November last year, it reflects the way in which this Government hurriedly made amendments to some of these taxing areas. I note in regard to the parking space levy that the Government made the changes without any announcement of the impact of those changes on congestion. We are talking about a near doubling of the parking space levy announced in the mini-budget last year. It has become clear from freedom of information requests that those changes were made without any analysis of the impact of the changes.

Clearly there would be an increase in revenue but the Government did not assess the impact on congestion and businesses affected by the increase in the parking space levy. I encourage the Government to look at the impact of changes it makes. It should not repeat the same sort of mistakes it has made with the parking space levy in other areas when it hurriedly introduces changes to paper over its paper-thin budgetary situation in order to move forward whilst maximising the return of the taxpayer, but without acknowledging the impact that has on legitimate businesses in this State.

The payroll tax issues are well known, as this State is relatively uncompetitive with some other States, particularly in cross-border areas. Clearly, when a business makes a decision about where it will locate, it bases the decision on the whole taxation regime, and larger businesses that are affected by payroll tax will look at that very closely. It is a very serious impost on business. The Opposition welcomes further relief for business in relation to payroll tax. The Coalition's policy is to look at giving relief in the order of a cut of 15 per cent to payroll tax and a further 5 per cent in areas of economic decline or economic challenges. That way it provides a real injection to businesses in an area where they can promote some economic activity, rather than seek to bludgeon them further, particularly when there are difficult employment opportunities.

I note in particular that the payroll tax provisions in the Australian Capital Territory, the Tweed and the Murray River areas from Albury right along towards South Australia provide real distortions in the market for cross-border businesses. Those sorts of things need to be fixed. We need to have more parity in relation to particular measures, such as payroll tax. I note that the Commonwealth has for some time sought to harmonise these and many other State Government taxes. Some inquiries are still proceeding in that regard and we certainly await the Federal Government's review of taxation, particularly as it relates to State Government revenue sources.

I note that the bill clarifies that duty is payable on all transfers of mining leases. In that regard, the relevant stakeholders were not consulted, which is very concerning. Again, I call on the Government when it is making changes of this nature to ensure that it involves consultation with stakeholders and the taking of submissions from people affected. That is the heart of good policy and is something that this Government has consistently failed to do.

I note that the bill does not clarify the impact on revenue. We understand that the changes that affect the revenue will be quite limited and again I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify that in his closing remarks. Given that this bill changes existing legislation and is a revenue bill of this Government, the Opposition will not be opposing it. The Opposition calls on the Government to ensure that in future the impact on taxpayers, as well as businesses, are more fully considered before the introduction of this type of legislation. Again, I call on the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to deal with some of those issues and to clarify some of the provisions to which some stakeholders have drawn attention.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.49 p.m.]: I wish to address, on behalf of the Greens, the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009. The Greens do not oppose the legislation. It contains a number of sensible revenue measures to protect revenue coming in to the State from various tax measures. Nobody likes to pay tax, but everybody wants the services of a State, and protecting the revenue base is an important function of this Parliament to secure the revenue streams required for those services. It is very easy for a politician to stand up and attack individual revenue measures, individual taxation measures, and it is a very popular activity. It is also a highly destructive activity unless it is coupled with equivalent measures that raise revenue in alternative activities or identify services that the State no longer needs to provide. Neither of those tasks is easy, particularly at a time when there is increasing stress on public provision of services and increasing need for many services provided by the State, including education, health and transport.

One of the key provisions of the legislation relates to the harmonisation of payroll tax. Payroll tax is a tax that we ought not need to have. Unfortunately, it is a necessary tax because of the vertical fiscal imbalance between the States and the Commonwealth. There simply is not an appropriate revenue base for the State that does not involve taxing things, such as payroll, to raise sufficient revenue to continue the important functions of the State. Until and unless the State's access to revenue base problem is fixed, there will continue to be a need to tax such things as payroll. It has been argued often that payroll tax is a disincentive to employment. The good feature of the New South Wales payroll tax system is that it does not cut in until corporations reach a certain size. That is a positive feature. Nonetheless, at a time of not only unacceptable unemployment but also unacceptable under-employment, it is not a desirable outcome to be putting an economic impost on employment. That being said, it has to be accepted that we need the source of revenue—it is an important source of revenue to the State and therefore we need to make it work well.

This legislation seeks to stop payroll taxpayers shopping around for different jurisdictions by moving their bank accounts. This has been an available loophole in the legislation, which has been used by employees who spend some of their working life in different jurisdictions—in particular, interstate truck drivers. The legislation sensibly removes that loophole and does so by ensuring that taxpayers are assessed in the State of their principal residence, which means that tax shopping will effectively be stopped. There are significant issues with different levels of payroll tax. It would be desirable to achieve a common rate and process for payroll tax assessment and collection across different States. That has not been achieved and, in the absence of that, these mechanisms are important to stop the State's budget haemorrhaging off in particular to Queensland.

The second set of provisions within the legislation relates to technical improvements to the landholder duty, in particular ensuring that landholder duty is only imposed on charges on beneficial ownership in landholding companies and trusts. This removes some anomalous situations where landholder duty was implied on transactions and ownership that was not necessarily beneficial, which was therefore in many senses a distortion of the process. The third set of provisions within the bill relates to eliminating tax loopholes that had arisen because of the previous practice of not using the Australian Taxation Office method of distinguishing between debt and equity interests in property. By adopting the Australian Taxation Office regime for making that distinction between debt and equity interests in property, New South Wales will close a number of loopholes that ought not exist and protect revenue.

The other key provision in the legislation refers to a minor change to the Parking Space Levy Act of 2009 to clarify the time within which the parking space levy must be paid in order to avoid penalty. This is a technical improvement or technical correction to a piece of legislation that is very important. It has been resoundingly criticised by businesses and by the Opposition. However, a failure to tax parking spaces is a failure to collect revenue from an externality. Taxing externalities, internalising them within the economy, is recognised in almost every form of economics as an important way of removing distortions and ensuring that the impact of, for example, driving and parking in congested areas is internalised within the economy. If that is not done the impact is borne by the entire community, and that is an expense that is avoided by the person incurring the damage and paid by others who have no way of avoiding the damage. By imposing the parking space levy, the economic distortion is corrected and a revenue stream, which is hypothecated to public transport, is collected by the State.

I find it hard to understand how in New South Wales in 2009 anybody could argue against a revenue stream that is hypothecated to public transport. There are many things New South Wales needs more of, but one of them is clearly public transport. One of the key problems with public transport is providing a secure revenue stream that is in proportion to its needs. The parking space levy is not a huge revenue source, but it is a revenue source, and an important revenue source. The Greens support the legislation and look forward to the Government continuing to improve the parking space levy and eliminating other tax loopholes that may exist within the tax system.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.56 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009. The bill contains amendments in a number of areas to complement the legislation passed in the budget session of 2009 and contains measures that maintain and improve aspects of the Payroll Tax Act 2007 and the Duties Act 1997. It will also bring us in line with legislation and administration of other States.

The first area of importance is harmonisation of payroll tax. I am on the record stating over many years that payroll tax should be abolished. It is a tax on jobs. There can be no justification for it and it must certainly discourage employers from increasing the number of employees they have because it would increase their payroll tax. Under the proposed rules, payroll tax would be paid to the jurisdiction where the worker resides rather than where wages are paid, as is currently the case, and this will line-up New South Wales with other States and territories.

The bill also deals with landholder duty, which is another tax on land. Currently there is a $2 million threshold test to determine whether an entity is a landholder and liable to pay tax. The bill raises the threshold by applying it to the unimproved value of land instead of the improved value. My understanding is that most taxes have been applied to unimproved value but, apparently, this area was overlooked because it would be a matter of unfairness for the owner. The bill also eliminates tax loopholes that have been identified. It will use the income tax tests used by the Australian Taxation Office to distinguish between debt and equity interests in property. The legislative change will confirm existing policy, ensuring that genuine creditors are exempt from landholder duty whilst non-genuine creditors are not. For those practical improvements, we support the bill.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [5.59 p.m.]: I support the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009. Landholder legislation imposes duty on changes of ownership of land acquired indirectly through certain companies and trusts. Currently there is a $2 million threshold test to determine whether an entity is a "landholder" and may be liable to pay tax. As other members have noted, the bill effectively raises the threshold by applying it to the unimproved value of land instead of the improved value. As well as providing relief to acquisitions of interests in smaller companies, the change will improve administration of the duty by attracting landholder entities through the Government's land register system.

The bill will also eliminate tax loopholes, as other members have said. The current landholder legislation provides that the interests of creditors, such as mortgagees, are not taken to be interests in a landholder. However, certain investments currently allow an investor to acquire what appears to be the interest of a creditor but in substance it is an economic interest that is tied to rents or profits or other contingency. As a revenue protection measure the bill aligns the meaning of a creditor's interest with the principles in the Income Tax Assessment Act. This will ensure that only genuine creditors receive the benefit of the exemption.

The bill also makes improvements to the Duties Act. Duty is imposed on changes of ownership of land whether acquired directly or indirectly. The types of interests in land that are subject to duty will be clarified in relation to certain mining and petroleum interests. The bill also ensures that carbon sequestration rights are not land for the purposes of the Duties Act, consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations. Finally, the bill makes payroll tax amendments that simplify the rules that apply when an employee works in more than one jurisdiction in a month. All States and Territories have agreed to this amendment to ensure a harmonised approach. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.02 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The Government is committed to having best practice revenue laws. The State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009 involves important reforms to State tax Acts that both protect revenue and improve compliance and administration. The bill involves the amendment of both the Payroll Tax Act 2007 and the Duties Act 1997. As previously indicated, this bill amends the jurisdictional nexus provisions of the Payroll Tax Act for payments of tax where an employee performs services partly in New South Wales and partly outside New South Wales. These amendments were agreed to by all State and Territory commissioners of State revenue and announced on 16 June 2009. The new provisions commence from 1 July 2009, for the 2009-10 financial year.

I will now address some of the issues raised by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox for the Opposition. The Opposition has asked how the new nexus established by this bill will simplify the payroll tax system. I am advised the reforms established by this bill will mean the wages of every employee will be taxed in only one jurisdiction. Under the old nexus employers were required to pay tax in more than one jurisdiction in some cases. For example, every employer is required to make superannuation contributions on behalf of their employees. Most superannuation funds use a single bank account to receive such contributions. If the bank account happens to be in a jurisdiction in which the employer does not operate, the employer will have to pay tax to that jurisdiction instead of to one of the jurisdictions where its employees work.

It is also very difficult for an employer to determine where payment is actually made when wages are paid electronically. For example, credit unions use various bank accounts to manage members' funds but they keep a separate record of individual members' accounts. Such records may be kept on a computer hard drive, which can be physically located anywhere in Australia, while data entry to record a wage payment may be updated from computers located anywhere. Most credit unions have in fact outsourced data entry to specialist agents. In addition, the place of payment bears no relationship to where services are provided or where governments provide services and infrastructure to employees and their families. Basing the nexus on the employee's place of residence will mean that tax is paid to the State that provides the services and infrastructure to the employee.

Payroll tax is another issue that has been well canvassed in this House. We are well aware that payroll tax is paid by less than 10 per cent of New South Wales businesses. The budget has funded a payroll tax cut from 5.75 per cent to 5.65 per cent, commencing from January 2010. This follows the payroll tax cut already delivered in January this year, from 6 per cent. The Government has budgeted to cut payroll tax further, to 5.5 per cent, in 2011. It is worth remembering that the last time the Coalition held office payroll tax in New South Wales was 7 per cent. To further support business the payroll tax threshold was increased to $638,000 from 1 July this year. In fact, New South Wales is the only State to index the tax-free threshold so that businesses do not end up paying more tax due to bracket creep. The reduction of payroll tax rates and indexation of the tax-free threshold mean a business with a $1 million payroll in 2008-09 will save around 20 per cent of its payroll tax bill once our program of tax cuts is fully implemented. This represents an injection of around $2.7 billion into New South Wales business over the five years to 2012-13. Our cuts to payroll tax are permanent and fully budgeted, in contrast to a temporary cut proposed by the Opposition.

The Opposition has once again talked down this State, suggesting New South Wales is uncompetitive from a tax perspective. Let us be clear: New South Wales does not have a high-tax regime. I am advised that New South Wales is expected to have the second lowest total revenue per capita of all the States in 2009-10. I am further advised the estimated total revenue of $7,433 for each person in New South Wales compares with $7,973 for each person in Queensland. This is despite the fact that New South Wales has received the lowest GST grants per capita of any State and Territory in almost every year since the introduction of the GST. In spite of the lower GST grants, New South Wales is not the highest-taxing State. On a per capita basis, New South Wales is third behind the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia. Indeed, I am advised that Commonwealth Grants Commission 2007-08 data confirms that New South Wales is not the highest-taxing State. The New South Wales tax effort is only slightly above that of the Northern Territory and below that of South Australia, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

The bill also makes important amendments to the Duties Act, which continues the implementation of landholder duty. As this House would be aware, the new landholder duty replaced land rich duty on 1 July 2009. The bill makes a number of amendments, including amending the land value threshold test for landholder duty. The current provisions apply to companies or trusts owning land in New South Wales with an unencumbered or improved value of $2 million or more. To enable taxpayers to easily determine whether the landholder provisions apply the bill provides that where the land holdings have a land value for land tax purposes that unimproved value will be used for the purposes of the $2 million threshold test. This change will have the effect of significantly raising the threshold at which interests in companies that hold land will have a potential liability to landholder duty.

The bill includes two new revenue protection measures for landholder duty. The first of these measures relates to debt interests. The bill clarifies the creditor exclusion by applying tests used in the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to distinguish between debt and equity interest to determine which interests are dutiable interests for landholder duty purposes. The second revenue protection measure relates to the timing rules used to determine when an interest is acquired. The bill clarifies that an agreement for sale of an interest in a landholder is taken to be completed 12 months from the date of the agreement unless it is otherwise completed before that date.

The bill includes two amendments to the Duties Act that affect the duty on changes of ownership of land regardless of whether by direct or indirect means. The bill clarifies the types of mining interests that are excluded as interests in land for duty purposes. In addition, consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations, it provides that carbon sequestration rights are not interests in land for the purposes of the Duties Act. The parking space levy has been spoken about at length in this House. We are all aware that the parking space levy seeks to reduce congestion and promote the use of public transport in business areas well serviced by public transport. Under the Parking Space Levy Act the funds collected are used for the construction and maintenance of transport infrastructure that encourages public transport use to the levy areas.

The revenue from the levy areas in Sydney's business districts is put back into public transport infrastructure that supports the transport needs of our community. This includes new buses for Sydney transport users and commuter car parks in western Sydney, the Central Coast, the Blue Mountains and the Illawarra. In conclusion, many issues have been canvassed both in this House and in the other place, not all of which are directly relevant to this bill. The amendments introduced by this bill will improve State tax Acts by increasing consistency with other State and Territories while protecting the revenue bases for both payroll tax and landholder duty. 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.

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.14 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The purpose of the Industrial Relations Further Amendment (Jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission) Bill is to enable Commissioners of the Industrial Relations Commission who are Australian lawyers to handle small claims for the recovery of moneys owed under an industrial instrument. The Bill also makes some minor amendments to the Industrial Relations Amendment (Jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission) Act 2009 that relate to the commencement of the Local Court Act 2007.

This Bill will ensure that the Industrial Court will be able to provide a simple, low-cost regime for Small Claims matters. It will ensure that the simple, quick and cheap regime of the Local Court is reflected in the Industrial Court; and that Commissioners of the Industrial Relations Commission are utilised to their full capacity.

The Bill will improve the efficiency and operation of the Industrial Court upon the commencement of the Industrial Relations Amendment (Jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission) Act 2009. When it commences, this Act will abolish the Industrial Magistrate's Court. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Magistrate's Court will transfer to the Industrial Court (although the Local Court sitting in designated rural and regional places will also be able to exercise the former Industrial Magistrates' jurisdiction).

The Industrial Magistrates Court currently handles a significant number of claims for unpaid entitlements, many of which are Small Claims. As part of the Local Court, the Industrial Magistrate's Court may use Assessors of the Local Court to determine Small Claims. Assessors in the Local Court must be Australian Lawyers but they are not judicial officers.

The Bill will ensure that the Industrial Court is able to use similar procedures when jurisdiction over these matters transfers to it. Procedures for small claims matters in the industrial relations jurisdiction will therefore be similar, regardless of whether the matter is being heard by the Industrial Court or a Local Court sitting in a designated place. The use of Commissioners and Assessors will ensure that Small Claims matters are able to be dealt with quickly and cheaply.

The President of the Industrial Relations Commission recommended that Commissioners who are Australian lawyers be able to exercise the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission over small claims matters when jurisdiction over these matters transfers to the Industrial Court. This recommendation was the subject of consultations held by the Industrial Relations Commission with key stakeholders aimed at preparing the Industrial Court for the commencement of the Industrial Relations Amendment (Jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission) Act 2009.

I thank the President for his advice and I am pleased to implement the recommendation.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [6.14 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not oppose the Industrial Relations Further Amendment (Jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission) Bill 2009, the object of which is to enable commissioners of the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC] who are Australian lawyers to hear small claims matters in the Industrial Court and ensure that they are able to use similar procedures to those currently utilised by the Industrial Magistrates Court when the Industrial Magistrates Court is abolished. The bill amends the Industrial Relations Act and certain other legislation to shift the jurisdiction of Industrial Magistrates to the Industrial Court of New South Wales, except in the case of civil matters outside the Sydney metropolitan area.

Since much of the former work of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission has been transferred to Federal tribunals and excessive unfair dismissal cases have been eliminated, the Government has been trying to rationalise overstaffed industrial tribunals. Under the Industrial Relations Amendment (Jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission) Act 2009, which received royal assent in June 2009, the positions of Chief Industrial Magistrate and Industrial Magistrates will be abolished. Existing Industrial Magistrates will remain as Local Court magistrates, with criminal and civil matters to be transferred to the Industrial Relations Commission, except where civil matters are to be heard in regional areas and, more sensibly, heard by Local Court magistrates.

The President of the Industrial Relations Commission recommended to the Government that commissioners who are Australian lawyers should be able to exercise jurisdiction over small claims for the recovery of moneys owed under an industrial instrument within the Industrial Court. The amendments will give commissioners who are Australian lawyers some additional matters to hear and may ensure that they are more fully utilised than they would otherwise have been. These amendments go some way towards rationalising what is now an excessive industrial institutional system in New South Wales, but they do not deal with other industrial relations matters or the cost of doing business in this State. However, the Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not oppose the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.16 p.m.]: Earlier in the year the Greens supported the Industrial Relations Amendment (Jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission) Bill 2009, which transferred the work of Industrial Magistrates to the Industrial Relations Commission and abolished the positions of Chief Industrial Magistrate and industrial magistrates. As this bill includes further amendments to smooth that transition the Greens likewise support it. Specifically, the purpose of this bill is to enable commissioners of the Industrial Relations Commission who are Australian lawyers to handle small claims for the recovery of moneys owed under an industrial instrument.

Currently the Industrial Magistrates Court handles a significant number of claims for unpaid entitlements. This bill seeks to ensure that the Industrial Court will provide a simple, low-cost regime for small claims matters. The Greens believe that applying the standard civil procedure rules, with some exceptions when the court is in session is an advance and, over time, it will make matters cheaper and ensure that the quicker and cheaper regime of the Local Court is reflected in the Industrial Court. A number of people who work in this area have told me that they are looking forward to the implementation of this legislation.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.17 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Industrial Relations Further Amendment (Jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission) Bill 2009, which will amend the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to enable commissioners who are Australian lawyers to be appointed as assessors in the Industrial Court. These commissioners will be able to determine small claims matters before the court. The small claims jurisdiction of the Industrial Court has a ceiling of $20,000. This bill will ensure that the Industrial Court is able to use similar procedures when jurisdiction over these matters is transferred to it from the Industrial Magistrates Court, which is to be abolished. The use of commissions and assessors will ensure that small claims matters are able to be dealt with quickly and cheaply.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.18 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Industrial Relations Further Amendment (Jurisdiction of Industrial Relations Commission) Bill 2009, which will enable commissioners who are Australian lawyers to handle small claims for the recovery of money under an industrial instrument. The amendments will ensure that there is a simple and low-cost regime for small claims matters in the Industrial Court and that commissioners are utilised to their full capacity. The bill also resolves several minor drafting matters relating to the commencement of the Local Court Act 2007. The bill has been the subject of consultation with the Industrial Relations Commission and its proposals were the subject of consultation by the Industrial Relations Commission with relevant stakeholders. 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.

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

[The President left the chair at 6.20 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

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

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.02 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Tony Kelly: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today the Government introduces the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill 2009 to provide additional legislative recognition of the responsibilities of one of this State's most valuable emergency services and to provide for its ongoing structural reform. The Government also seeks to introduce some further amendments to the bill. The amendments ensure that all relevant sections of the State Emergency Service Act would appropriately recognise the addition of the State Emergency Service [SES] as being the combat agency for tsunamis. All members remember the chilling images that flashed around the world following the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004.

We had not seen a disaster of that magnitude anywhere in the world in modern times. The toll of dead and missing is estimated at more than 200,000 people. Our thoughts and condolences go to the victims, their families and the countless others still suffering in its aftermath. This terrible event was a wake-up call for the international community. In Australia it gave a new impetus to the need for a national tsunami warning system. The Joint Australian Tsunami Warning Centre, operated by Geoscience Australia and the Bureau of Meteorology, now provides around-the-clock seismic monitoring and tsunami detection specifically for Australia. In New South Wales the SES was designated as the combat agency responsible for tsunami, in a logical extension of its expertise in flood planning and response.

The service was responsible for the development of the New South Wales Tsunami Plan, as a sub-plan of the New South Wales Disaster Plan, and has been a consistent and committed participant in the Australian Emergency Management Committee's Australian Tsunami Working Group. As a result of the organisation's efforts, tsunami planning in this State is now well advanced in comparison to many other jurisdictions. The essence of the New South Wales Tsunami Plan, which was endorsed by the State Emergency Management Committee in late 2005, is to provide for the coordinated warning and, where necessary, evacuation of people in low-lying coastal areas of New South Wales and Lord Howe Island. It has since been updated to reflect the links between the SES and the Joint Australian Tsunami Warning Centre.

Under the plan, the roles and responsibilities of the SES in tsunami preparedness, response and recovery include leading the development of tsunami warning systems in New South Wales, providing safety advice to include in New South Wales tsunami warnings issued by the Bureau of Meteorology, developing tsunami education programs, ensuring that SES personnel are appropriately trained, controlling tsunami response operations, directing the dissemination of tsunami warnings and watches at regional and local levels, directing the evacuation of people or communities at risk of inundation, coordinating flood rescue operations and resupply to isolated communities, providing immediate welfare support to evacuees and participating in recovery committees as required.

The April 2007 Solomon Islands tsunami—which thankfully had a negligible impact on our coastline—was the first opportunity to test this plan to any degree and showed the importance of being prepared. The SES worked in concert with the Bureau of Meteorology to provide timely advice for maritime authorities and coastal communities. SES volunteers in coastal regions were placed on high alert and the service worked closely with Surf Life Saving Australia and maritime rescue agencies to ensure they had timely information and were prepared to assist with any required response operation.

The SES continues to work with other government agencies and our community to increase tsunami awareness and preparedness. Working with the Commonwealth Government, the SES has provided a series of briefings to representatives of our other emergency services, Government and non-government agencies and local government over the past four years as part of the Australian Tsunami Warning System project. This included a series of eight briefings and planning exercises in March and April this year, in conjunction with the Bureau and the Department of Environment and Climate Change, updating similar events in 2007.

The service also continues to test and exercise its capabilities in this area. As recently as this week, personnel have continued to refine their operations and procedures. The staff and volunteers of the State Emergency Service are well known for their hard work, dedication and commitment to the people of this State. Their efforts will be crucial to the safety and wellbeing of New South Wales coastal communities either under immediate threat of or impacted by a tsunami. It is clear that the service's role as the lead combat agency for tsunami planning and response should be detailed in legislation, along with its responsibilities in respect of floods, storms and the protection of life and property. The bill amends the State Emergency Service Act to reflect this major combat responsibility.

The second amendment contained in the bill is the move to bring the leadership of the State Emergency Service in line with our other emergency services by replacing the title of director general with that of commissioner. This will also apply to the rank of deputy. This rank and title structure is aligned with our other emergency services, such as the New South Wales Fire Brigades and Rural Fire Service. It also echoes the changes introduced in amendments to the State Emergency Service Act in 2005 when the State Emergency Service operational divisions were renamed as regions, consistent with the organisational arrangements of other emergency services, such as New South Wales Police, the New South Wales Ambulance Service, Fire Brigades and Rural Fire Service, and with the Australian Interagency Incident Management System's incident control system. The new title for the head of the organisation will provide similar consistency across our emergency services and make clear the equivalence and standing of the service.

The third amendment outlined in the bill is in relation to the role of State Emergency Service local and unit controllers or their deputies. Currently there is no employment caveat applied to these appointments. However, it is worth noting that the Rural Fires Act 1997 establishes a limitation under which elected local government councillors, as defined by the Local Government Act 1993, cannot be appointed as fire control officers or their deputies, the equivalent level to State Emergency Service local and unit controllers and their deputies. This limitation is now to be applied to the State Emergency Service as well.

Local government is a strong and committed supporter of the State Emergency Service with local councils responsible under the Act for the provision of accommodation and vehicles for their local State Emergency Service units. The new funding model for the State Emergency Service as detailed in the State Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2008 now means local government contributes to the overall funding of the State Emergency Service as it has to the funding of our fire services, along with the insurance industry and the State Government. This change means that the service's relationship with councils requires a higher degree of transparency and separation of powers.

As a result, elected councillors will not be eligible to be appointed as local controllers, unit controllers or their deputies. Any local or unit controller, or their deputy, who is elected to their local council will cease his or her role as State Emergency Service controller or deputy on a date three months after their election takes effect. The amendment will ensure transparency and probity are addressed and again is consistent with the State's other major volunteer agency, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. These are timely and relevant reforms for one of the State's most valued, reliable and efficient emergency services. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [8.14 p.m.]: Six or so months after the Rees Labor Government introduced the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill I am pleased to finally be able to support many parts of it. The first amendment is to change the title of the head of the State Emergency Service from Director General of the State Emergency Service to Commissioner of the State Emergency Service and to change the title of the deputy director general to deputy commissioner, which is designed to bring the leadership of the State Emergency Service in line with our other emergency service agencies by replacing the title of director general with that of commissioner. Obviously, I support the proposal.

The second amendment is to provide that the State Emergency Service is to act as the combat agency in respect of tsunamis and is to co-ordinate the evacuation and welfare of affected communities. In New South Wales the State Emergency Service was designated as the combat agency responsible for tsunamis, which is legislated in the bill, as a logical extension of its expertise in flood planning and response. The amendments in relation to tsunami management and State Emergency Service operational management are sensible and will allow greater transparency of local government contributions in line with the Rural Fire Service. However, what I believe must be pointed out at this stage is the incompetent Rees Labor Government's decision to delay this bill. The fact is that this bill was introduced in the House on 17 June 2009 and it has taken almost six months for the Government to bring it on for debate. In a recent discussion, Minister Whan's office pointed out that the bill was not going to be debated this week, but that has changed.

The first reason for the delay of this significant legislation was Labor's shutdown of the New South Wales Legislative Council in June, which resulted in New South Wales being left without a lead agency to deal with tsunamis. This must be condemned in light of the fact that our region experienced three tsunamis over the course of the delay: in September there was a tsunami off the Samoan islands, in July there was one off New Zealand and in March there was one off the Tongan islands. These tsunamis are a stark reminder that we need to ensure that the proper mechanisms are put in place for planning and warning systems for future tsunamis. It would appear that Labor has failed to prioritise the safety of people in the face of a tsunami, which is again indicative of its weak leadership and incompetence.

The State Emergency Service asked the Rees Labor Government to formalise the procedures so that the service is recognised as the designated combat agency for tsunamis in New South Wales. However, Labor's closure of Parliament demonstrates how the broken Labor Government has its priorities wrong. What makes matters worse is that in 2005 the New South Wales Labor Government State Emergency Management Committee endorsed the New South Wales tsunami plan to provide a coordinated warning system, yet until now there has been no legislative framework to deal with tsunamis.

The July tsunami response demonstrated that there is still much to be done in terms of a tsunami warning system given that the State Emergency Service had to reissue a warning at 10.34 p.m. because media outlets had decided to take advice from websites of other countries. As honourable members may remember, many people in New South Wales were watching the State of Origin on that evening and I think there were only one or two warnings that came across the television screen on that night, ostensibly because one of the most famous tsunami reporting systems in Hawaii had called off the tsunami warning. That was not an appropriate decision for media outlets in Australia to make because the tsunami still could have had an impact on the coast of New South Wales.

Lord Howe Island was under particular threat. The warnings did get through to Lord Howe Island, but local media outlets decided to pull off the warning, given their advice from Hawaii. Whilst there was no problem in Hawaii, there could very well have been an impact here once the tsunami hit New Zealand. It was a significant event in New Zealand, from memory around 8.3 on the Richter scale, and it is a reminder of how vulnerable all coastal and estuarine communities are with any tsunami event that may transpire.

As I said, this resulted in some media reports that were inaccurate because they called off the tsunami warning before the threat had passed. Through Minister Whan's office I made contact with the then director general, Murray Kear, who will be the commissioner after this legislation is passed, to have a discussion with him. I live in a coastal community and it was a matter of concern to a lot of people. I recollect that there were particular warnings for the southern parts of New South Wales and some people actually moved to higher ground in southern coastal areas to ensure their safety and that of their families.

I draw particular attention to the third amendment outlined in the bill, which precludes councillors within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993 from being appointed as the controller of an SES unit or of all SES units in a local government area. After thorough consultation, the Liberals and The Nationals have decided to try to amend this part of the bill. It relates to the role of SES local units and unit controllers and their deputies. The Liberals and The Nationals do not agree that councillors should be prohibited from being SES controllers. This legislative change would explicitly limit the role of volunteers in the community, especially in smaller regional communities. The Government has been unable to present a strong cogent argument as to why this change is required, except to say that it brings it in line with the RFS arrangements and prevents perceived conflict of interest.

One could argue that maybe it is too strong a measure even for the RFS legislation, but given we are dealing with the SES I am not going to accept an argument by the Government that because this is the way it is with the RFS it should also be the case with the SES. I also point out that today we debated legislation in this House in relation to changing the financial administration arrangements for collecting emergency service levies from local councils across New South Wales. I think that system provides another level of transparency in case there is some perceived conflict of interest.

The Liberals and The Nationals believe it sends a very poor message to SES volunteers in saying that they cannot represent their community in local government and be a unit controller or deputy controller at the same time. My position is supported by the SES Volunteers Association. They are also concerned, although they are pleased the Government has assured volunteers it will not affect those currently working on behalf of their communities in a dual capacity. The President of the SES Volunteers Association, who is at Lightning Ridge, is a case in point. They support our amendment.

There are 232 units across 18 divisions. The process for selecting a controller is through the SES director general asking the local council to nominate a unit controller and deputy controller. They are appointed for a three-year term and after review, if there are no issues, they are reappointed and their term is automatically extended. In the vast majority of circumstances the local unit would hold a meeting and vote on who they wanted as unit controller and deputy controller. That recommendation is passed on to the local council, which formally writes back to the now Commissioner of the SES with the unit's choice. However, there have been some unfortunate situations where that process did not occur.

There was some disruption of the process at Botany and the SES unit was disbanded. As I understand it, the fallout from this decision was severe, with the Botany SES unit being disbanded and at this point still unavailable to service the local community. Volunteers wanting to work in a leadership role for both the SES and their local council should not be prohibited because of this particular instance. In relation to the issue of conflict of interest, the Local Government Act requires anybody with a conflict of interest to absent themselves from a decision that may give them or any group they represent an unfair advantage. It is currently the case that if an issue arises in a meeting in regard to discussion of a budget item or, for example, purchasing a vehicle, councillors who are SES controllers must leave the meeting to avoid any conflict of interest that may arise.

So there is already a legislative framework to ensure that that conflict does not happen. I reiterate the concern in regional communities about getting enough volunteers to work in the RFS or the SES. Precluding local members of the community by saying, "We don't trust you because you might rort the system or try to get too much money from your council for your local SES unit or your RFS unit, so we are going to preclude you by law from having those dual roles", is not an acceptable message to send to volunteers throughout New South Wales. We are not going to stand by and allow that change in the legislation go through without trying to amend it.

We believe the work done by volunteers is beyond value. They do an amazing job. We have only to look at what has happened on the North Coast of New South Wales over the past seven or eight months. We have had five major storms and these people have gone above and beyond the call of duty to protect their communities. If they want to extend their involvement in their local community and be a councillor as well as a controller or deputy controller, we should allow that. It is only decent. If there are any legitimate concerns about transparency, the provisions of the Local Government Act provide the security to ensure there is no abuse of power.

I look forward very much to the contribution from the Parliamentary Secretary, Henry Tsang, to see whether he can put up a cogent argument to dismiss what I have said. To this point the Government has been unable to advance fair and cogent reasons to stop local councillors from being controllers or deputy controllers in future. I accept the changes that the Government originally proposed to ensure that this will affect only future appointments and current positions will remain as they are.

The SES Volunteers Association says there are between 6 and 18 controllers in local government areas across New South Wales. I think the Minister, Steve Whan, said in the Legislative Assembly in debate there were either six or eight. We are talking about communities such as Lightning Ridge where, as I said earlier, David Lane is a councillor on Walgett Shire Council and also a controller. I refer also to the deputy mayor of Central Darling Shire Council at White Cliffs. The Mayor of Inverell, Barry Johnston, has played a very important role in that community in the past as controller of Inverell SES.

As I have pointed out, the Government has said this will not be applied retrospectively, but it creates certain problems in the future, particularly in the western communities where there are challenges presented by population drift. We should not be ruling out anybody who wants to put up their hand and serve their community. It must also be made clear that the argument about there being a conflict of interest is weakened given that the Government has said there will be no flexibility with the amount of funding that local government will provide to the SES. It will be fixed at 11.7 per cent for the Fire Brigades and the RFS. Therefore, the possibility of a councillor affecting funding is rather remote.

The Liberals and The Nationals do not oppose the bill. However, we will attempt to amend the clause that seeks to preclude SES controllers or deputy controllers from being councillors. We welcome the change in the title of director general to commissioner to bring him or her in line with the position in the RFS and the Fire Brigades. We are also very pleased to see that finally we have formal arrangements in respect of tsunami planning and preparation. I acknowledge the work the SES has done in New South Wales in the past in relation to preparing the State for tsunamis. There is still much to be done and more involvement with organisations such as the surf life saving movement, for example, should be planned in future. I have had discussions with the SES and the surf life saving movement about those issues. As I said, we will attempt to amend the legislation in Committee so that members of the community who want to put up their hand and serve are not discriminated against.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [8.28 p.m.]: I support the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill 2009. The State Emergency Service is one of the nation's finest emergency service agencies. The amendments outlined in the bill provide welcome additional legislative recognition of its responsibilities. Before the devastating tsunamis in Papua New Guinea, the Indian Ocean tsunami on Boxing Day 2004 and the recent tsunami in Samoa, the world perhaps underestimated the potential risk of tsunamis. The devastation of these events sometimes defies comprehension. However, the State Emergency Service was conscious of the risks that a tsunami presented. It was prepared and it had undertaken the special planning that was essential to provide an effective and coordinated response to protect this State. Even before the tsunami occurred the State Emergency Service was coordinating, tsunami planning, and putting together a plan.

The Hon. Rick Colless: And it was happy to do so.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: Exactly; I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Rick Colless. The State Emergency Management Committee had already designated the SES as a combat agency for tsunamis and the organisation had begun work on the New South Wales tsunami plan. The plan took time, as there was no specific source of tsunami warnings for Australia. Information from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre served our needs only in a general way. Fortunately, the establishment of the Joint Australian Tsunami Warning Centre, operated by the Bureau of Meteorology and Geoscience, has changed that. Over the past four years the New South Wales SES has been an integral part of the Australian Tsunami Working Group, which has assisted in developing and enhancing the expertise of the New South Wales State Enquiry Centre [SEC] in this field.

Over this time the SEC has worked side by side with other government and non-government agencies. A series of briefings, training exercises and education programs have been undertaken to build awareness of the State's tsunami risk, which, in turn, has enhanced the preparedness and response capabilities of New South Wales. This commitment has placed us in a position of being well advanced in our tsunami planning. It is appropriate that this knowledge, experience and effort are given recognition in legislation. This bill provides support for the important roles of the SES should we suffer the great misfortune of a tsunami hitting our shores.

The additional amendments that are outlined in the bill will modernise the SES and bring it into line with other emergency services, in particular, the NSW Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service. As the Hon. Melinda Pavey said earlier, changing the title of "director general" with "commissioner" will more accurately convey the operational work undertaken by the SES and its leader. This will formalise the title already accorded to the SES commissioner under the Public Sector Employment and Management (Departmental Amalgamations) Order 2009 issued in July this year. The third amendment outlined in this bill relates to the role of SES local and unit controllers or their deputies.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey said earlier that the Opposition would move to delete this amendment—an issue about which I express disappointment, as it is a sensible amendment that would increase transparency between the service and local government, which contributes significant funding to the organisation. This amendment will provide transparency and accentuate the separation of powers as elected councillors will not be eligible to be appointed as local controllers, unit controllers, or their deputies. This is consistent with the State's other major volunteer agency, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service.

I note the earlier comments of the Hon. Melinda Pavey relating to people who are already serving and I state that this provision will not apply retrospectively. Only future appointments of local government councillors would need to resign their position of SES controller or deputy controller within three months. This amendment will not affect local councillors from being volunteers; they can still be active members of their local SES. This amendment will ensure that local councillors are protected from claims or actions of impropriety. I urge Opposition members to support this amendment. Huge amounts of money might not be involved, but the advice that the Government has received highlights the fact that this separation is needed in the interests of probity. I commend the bill to the House.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [8.33 p.m.]: On behalf of Family First I speak briefly in debate on the State Emergency Amendment Bill 2009, the overview of which states:

The object of this Bill is to amend the State Emergency Service Act 1989 (the Principal Act):

(a) to change the title of the head of the State Emergency Service (the SES) from Director-General of the State Emergency Service to the Commissioner of the State Emergency Service and to change the title of the Deputy Director-General to Deputy Commissioner, and

(b) to provide that the SES is to act as the combat agency in respect of tsunamis and is to co-ordinate the evacuation and welfare of affected communities, and

(c) to preclude councillors (within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993) from being appointed as the controller of an SES unit or as the controller of all SES units in a local government area.

According to the Minister's agreement in principle speech, the New South Wales Government considers that the service's role as the lead combat agency for tsunami planning and response should be detailed in legislation, along with its responsibility in respect of floods, storms and the protection of life and property. This bill will amend the State Emergency Act to reflect this major combat responsibility. The SES was responsible for the development of the New South Wales tsunami plan, under the New South Wales disaster plan, and has been a consistent and committed participant in the Australian Emergency Management Committee's Australian Tsunami Working Group.

The amendment to change the former rank and title to commissioner and deputy commissioner is aligned with the State's other emergency services such as New South Wales Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service. The new funding model for the SES now means that local government contributes to the overall funding for the agency, along with the insurance industry and the New South Wales Government. I am sure there is some passing on of costs that ought to be looked at more closely by someone who is much more competent than I am in this switch of financial support. The change in funding model means that the relationship of the SES and local councils requires a higher degree of transparency, accountability and a clear demarcation and separation of powers.

As a result of this change it is proposed that elected councillors will be ineligible to be appointed as local controllers, unit controllers or their deputies. Any local or unit controller or deputy who is elected to a local council will cease his or her role as an SES controller or deputy on a date three months after the election takes place. Only people appointed from this point onwards will be affected. However, as has been pointed out by the Hon. Melinda Pavey, I am sure that the prevention of services by councillors is a wrong solution to a problem of propriety that has already been solved by the implementation of the conflict of interest provisions in the Local Government Act.

I support the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill but raise several issues as a matter of some concern. When the Parliamentary Secretary responds to debate on this bill I look forward to him addressing these issues. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts conducted a Federal inquiry into climate change and environmental impacts on Australian coastal communities. Much of Australia's population and infrastructure are in the coastal zone, therefore increasing our vulnerability to climate change impacts. The growth in population intensification of land use along the coast is further increasing pressure on the environment in many areas.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change puts the projected sea level rise at up to 80 centimetres by 2100. The rule of thumb is that a one-metre rise will move the shoreline back between 50 to 100 metres. According to Dr John Hunter, an oceanographer advising the Federal Government on climate change, there would be a disproportionately large increase in the frequency of flooding levels in the sea because of higher tides and storm surges. To illustrate that point, a sea level rise of 20 centimetres would increase the frequency of extreme events by a factor of about 10. In other words, these floods and storms will happen 10 times more often. With an increase of 50 centimetres there would be an average increase of a factor of about 300.

In April this year, coastal communities from Sydney to Byron Bay experienced flash flooding and damaging surf and gale-force winds on numerous occasions. As we debate this bill tonight there has been a rapid worsening of the flood situation on the State's mid North Coast. The Federal parliamentary committee on coastal communities reported that coastal erosion and coastal flooding costs New South Wales a staggering $200 million a year. I note that one climate change sceptic who ridiculed the rise in ocean levels in this House recently sold his waterfront home and moved to higher ground in suburban Sydney, which is what he informed us earlier today. His actions seem to speak louder than his words.

Recently we have seen vulnerable coastal villages in Samoa hit by an earthquake-generated tsunami that has left over 100 people dead and more than 1,000 people injured. The SES has been working closely with the Commonwealth Government to build a tsunami planning response capability. Recent exercises, such as the Ausnami, have affirmed that the SES has the capacity to plan for, and to respond quickly to, the threat of a tsunami.

The national exercise simulated a magnitude 9.0 earthquake in the Pacific, affecting the east coast of Australia and a similar earthquake off Indonesia, impacting on Western Australia, South Australia and a number of islands. The tests involved all levels of the State Emergency Service, the State network of emergency management committees and a range of other key agencies, including NSW Maritime, port authorities, rescue services and Surf Life Saving Australia. The Federal Attorney-General reported that the tests affirm that in the event of a tsunami the Australian Government is ready to protect the Australian community. We can all rest peacefully in our beds tonight so long as we are on higher ground.

The State Emergency Service Amendment Bill provides additional legislative recognition of the responsibility of this State's most valuable emergency services and provides for its ongoing structural reform. In a time of great vulnerability of coastal areas to climate change impacts, the State Emergency Service must act as the combat agency responsible for disaster recovery planning. My colleague the Hon. Melinda Pavey has addressed adequately cost shifting by the Government. It is for this reason I support the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill 2009 and I commend it to the House.

Mr IAN COHEN [8.40 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill 2009. However, after reviewing information provided by the Hon. Melinda Pavey the Greens have similar concerns about one aspect, which I will outline shortly. This bill makes three key amendments to the State Emergency Service Act. The first is a cosmetic change whereby the Director General of the State Emergency Service will become known as the Commissioner of the State Emergency Service and the deputy director will become the deputy commissioner. The second set of amendments included in schedule 1 [4] and [10] establishes the State Emergency Service as the key agency for managing tsunami preparedness, response and recovery. Considering the State Emergency Service involvement in developing the New South Wales tsunami plan and its experience in flood and storm emergency response, it is the natural choice of agency to manage potential tsunami emergencies. Rapid response to natural disasters is critical to minimising the horrific effect of a tsunami.

As a natural phenomenon, tsunamis bring an unimaginable magnitude of destruction. As stated previously in this House, I have some experience of such destruction because I was on Hikkaduwa Beach in Sri Lanka when the tsunami hit in 2004. A tsunami is a bizarre circumstance. The first thing one sees is the ocean being sucked out—similar to an incredibly low tide—extending out several kilometres in some cases, depending on the terrain. It then returns as one massive wave and, on this occasion, the flood lasted for something like 20 minutes to half an hour—it was difficult to determine the length of time. The most important thing in these situations is to have an early warning system because emergency personnel can do so little at the time the disaster strikes.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: You were on the beach?

Mr IAN COHEN: Yes, I was on the beach waxing my surfboard when the tsunami hit.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: It must have been scary.

Mr IAN COHEN: It was one of those unfortunate experiences. At least I was dressed for the occasion. When faced with a disaster of such magnitude it is impossible for any emergency service to operate. The experience of this phenomenon is out of this world. One can only imagine a similar experience during earthquakes. Of course, the emergency is the aftermath of rescuing people and determining just what happened. At the time the wave hit I had no idea that it was the Indian Ocean tsunami, communications in Sri Lanka at the time were so poor. I heard later that it took 12 hours—it may have been considerably longer, even 16 hours—for the tsunami to travel from its epicentre off Indonesia across the Indian Ocean to India and Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Navy, with its reasonably modern equipment, received information about the movement of the tsunami across the Indian Ocean, so it pulled anchor and went further out to sea—a very wise decision. It forgot to tell other sections of government or the population. The loss of life was extensive; the destruction of property could not have been prevented.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: They could have got their gold or money out.

Mr IAN COHEN: More importantly, some members might recall, the upended train jack-knifed into the air like a Matchbox toy. That was about two kilometres north of where I was. Trains and cars could have been stopped if communication systems were in place. For me the singularly most important thing with the natural disasters is to have an early warning system, together with a regime to effectively inform as many people as possible. I managed okay in the circumstances, but I am a swimmer and surfer and I was dressed for the occasion, even wearing wetsuit booties to go surfing on the reef. However, having arrived only the night before, I was unaware that just down the road at a local market were many hundreds of people, many of them women dressed in saris, and probably 90 per cent of them unable to swim. It was terrible that I did not know about that market as many people drowned in that particular area.

An early warning system is vital when these cataclysmic events strike. It is potluck who survives. The next day when I looked at the area where I was when the tsunami hit, there was a massive crack along the wall. If that wall had collapsed, I would not be standing here today. It is just the luck of the draw in those circumstances. It is fantastic that so much attention has been placed on the impact of a tsunami. After I had experienced and witnessed such massive devastation along the coastal area, it was surreal to walk no more than a kilometre inland over the railway line to find business as usual in an untouched area. The wave did not extend that far, demonstrating another interesting point about topography that protection can be afforded by just a minimal rise in the land.

Another problem on that section of the Sri Lankan coastline is that many of the coral reefs have been broken down and lime from the coral used as building materials. As a result, there was nothing to stop the force of the wave coming in. The impacts of the wave were far greater in that area because of the degradation of the fringing reef, which, if left untouched, would have significantly minimised the impact of the tsunami. As a society we can learn from the many different factors that contribute to such an intense natural disaster and have a degree of preparedness. Obviously, as coastal dwellers, we are prone to suffer greatly from natural destruction. We never really know when such a situation could recur. I am involved with SurfAid International, which has been working off the Mentawai Islands in Indonesia. That organisation gained access by boat to help people. The shifting of the plates that caused recent disasters, including the 2004 tsunami and earthquakes in more recent times, has not been resolved.

This legislation presents an ideal opportunity for creation of a state of preparedness. I hope that that eventuates because dealing with the environmental and human cost after a tsunami is terrible. It is quite clear that, as a natural phenomenon, tsunamis wreak an unimaginable magnitude of destruction. Not having a contingency plan by which to manage the aftermath of a tsunami would be simply irresponsible for a State with such a high density of coastal dwellings. Only recently we witnessed the destruction inflicted by tsunamis on our Pacific friends in Samoa. We should remain vigilant in our preparedness.

This week the Tsunami Research Centre at the University of New South Wales published a report on the potential for an underwater landslide on the continental shelf that would send a tsunami to Sydney and swamp low-lying suburbs, such as Manly, causing damage to more than 1,000 buildings. New South Wales coastal areas must be prepared. Preparedness involves the Government increasing public awareness and running communities through contingency plans. When I experienced the aftermath of a tsunami, I noticed that people were saved simply by running 500 metres inland. It was as simple as that.

The final set of amendments contained in items [6] to [9] of schedule 1 preclude local councillors from being appointed as State Emergency Service local unit controllers, or as deputies to local unit controllers. It is suggested that the necessity of the amendment arises from the increasing financial contribution of local councils to funding the State Emergency Service that resulted from the State Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Act 2008. Subsequently, local councils have been required to contribute 11.7 per cent of the required funding for the State Emergency Service Fund under section 24I of the State Emergency Service Act. The Minister must determine the total amount of the contribution payable by any council. Considering that local councils do not have a direct influence in contributions made to the State Emergency Service Fund, there is no direct financial conflict of interest arising from a State Emergency Service controller being a member of a council.

That is not to say that local councils do not make decisions that affect their local State Emergency Service. Under section 17 (5), a local council must provide training facilities, storage and office accommodation for the local controller to undertake their role. That provision has been in existence since well before recent funding amendments in the mini-budget legislation. Under that prevision, if a councillor was a unit or local controller and did not withdraw from discussion and voting, there would be a conflict of interest.

However, provisions of the Local Government Act and the code of conduct prevent conflicts of interest arising when local councils are making decisions about training facilities and office accommodation because there is an expectation that a councillor who has a dual role would remove himself or herself from the council's decision-making process. Considering the two points I have just mentioned, I cannot agree with the Minister's assertion that the new funding model for the State Emergency Service Fund requires a high degree of separation of powers between a local council and local State Emergency Service units. Considering that the Minister decides individual council contributions to achieve an overall New South Wales local council contribution rate of 11.7 per cent, I cannot see any nexus between the Minister's argument about separation of powers, mini-budget State Emergency Service funding reforms and this amending bill.

While an argument for the amendment, based upon a potential conflict of interest from new funding procedures, is minimal, there are other potential conflicts of interest inherent in the dual roles of councillor and State Emergency Service unit controller. Under section 22A of the State Emergency Service Act, a senior emergency service officer, which includes a State Emergency Service unit or local controller, can be delegated significant responsibilities and powers. This delegation of power gives the unit or local controller a substantial mandate in dealing with emergency service situations, including the power to shut off water, gas, liquid or solids from a pipeline or container, the power to shut off gas or electricity to an emergency area, and the power to remove material that may be dangerous to life or property. This broad legislative power is important in maintaining flexibility in response to dynamic emergency services that threaten the New South Wales people. Similarly, section 21 of the State Emergency Service Act legitimises the authority of local controllers and creates a duty to recognise the authority of State Emergency Service regional or local controllers.

Moreover, under part 2 of division 4 of the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989, unit or local controllers are given significant powers to respond to a state of emergency. Under section 37A the director general can delegate authority to a unit or local controller to undertake important emergency response activities. I have some reservations about a unit or local controller undertaking emergency services actions in a way that is contrary to local council policy. The dual roles of a State Emergency Service unit or local controller and local councillor could give rise to some uncomfortable situations. For example, a local council may be dissatisfied with the decisions made by a State Emergency Service unit or local controller in an emergency situation, or with reference to emergency preparedness actions. While the unit or local controller is not directly answerable to the local council, there may be instances in which a local council seeks to pass judgement on a unit controller's performance.

It comes down to the possibility of the exercise of power under section 22A becoming politicised by a councillor who wields local controller powers to achieve a political or ideological end. If that situation arose, a local council, within the bounds of its legislative authority, could still examine the use of power by a particular unit or local controller, regardless of whether or not the local unit controller is a councillor. In the situation in which the actions of a unit or local controller are to be considered or debated by a local council, and the unit or local controller is a councillor, the code of conduct would require the individual to remove himself or herself from participation. I understand that local councillors are precluded from similar positions in the Rural Fire Service. I acknowledge the Minister's attempt to achieve consistency. However, in balancing the potential conflicts of interest with the potentially adverse impact on small regional communities, at this point in time I think the amendment is unnecessary.

My main concern with that part of that bill is that we are discouraging community leaders from participating at high leadership levels in two very important local community institutions. We have real estate agents and property developers who are members of local councils and who are improperly ignoring the code of conduct by voting on development controls to achieve profit maximisation. Communities across New South Wales have had an absolute gutful of the insidious infiltration of local government by the real estate industry, which is seeking to erode democratic community participation and cash in on moulding local government decisions. If the local average punter in the street was asked whether a real estate agent or a State Emergency Service unit controller caused more concern in terms of conflict of interest on a local council, who do members think they would choose?

The Hon. Robert Brown: The Greens councillor.

Mr IAN COHEN: I note the interjection by the Hon. Robert Brown, whose political organisation does not include any local councillors.

The Hon. Robert Brown: No, it does not.

Mr IAN COHEN: When it does, perhaps we can debate the matter further. Precluding State Emergency Service unit controllers but allowing real estate agents to serve on local councils will create an egregious perversion of equity. The Greens note the necessary amendments in the bill and support the Government in respect to them. We do not wish to oppose the bill. However, we cannot agree with precluding State Emergency Service unit controllers from local councils at this point in time. Other than that particular issue, within the context of the bill I am pleased to note recognition of such an important function within our society.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.57 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill 2009, the main purpose of which is to make the State Emergency Service [SES] the State's combat agency for tsunamis. In 2006 the Minister for Emergency Services and the State emergency management committee endorsed the State Emergency Service taking responsibility for tsunamis. However, currently the Act does not reflect this, so this amending bill will declare the State Emergency Service to be the State's combat agency for tsunamis and formalise the arrangements set out in the State Tsunami Plan, which is a subplan of the State, District and Local Disaster Plans.

Clarification of who is responsible in the event of the occurrence of a tsunami was highlighted by the horrific disaster that occurred on Boxing Day in 2004 when the toll of dead or missing persons was estimated to be more than 200,000. That tsunami sent an urgent message to all nations in the Pacific region, particularly Australia, which has not been impacted by a tsunami. That event made everyone aware of the possibility that a tsunami could occur as a result of an earthquake or volcanic eruption off the coast of New South Wales. As a result of that, the Joint Australian Tsunami Warning Centre, operated by Geoscience Australia and the Bureau of Meteorology, was developed. There is now a 24-hour monitoring service to ensure that no-one will be taken by surprise if a tsunami strikes the coast of New South Wales. Hopefully, it will never happen. This bill will make it clear as to who is responsible in the event of a tsunami.

The State Emergency Management Committee will provide the coordinated warning and, where necessary, the evacuation of people in low-lying coastal areas of New South Wales and Lord Howe Island. The bill also provides for further training and development of the SES in this area. That is important, and I fully support it. One question has arisen in my mind about the need to coordinate with the Police Force. Although the Rural Fire Service and other agencies are involved in bushfires, sometimes it takes a police officer to get people to respond to directions to evacuate. I do not believe it is possible to leave the Police Force out of the planning process. I assume that the Police Force is involved in the planning process and is aware of the requirements. The role of the Police Force should be clear so that there is no confusion.

One thing that came out of the bushfire inquiry in Victoria was the confusion with agencies overlapping and so on, which probably led to increased loss of life. We do not want that to happen in New South Wales. Another aspect of the bill—it is almost a major item—is to preclude local councillors from holding the position of SES local or unit controller or deputy controller. The Government has said that this will improve transparency. However, it would appear that the reverse is the case. I believe that having a local councillor in the position of local unit controller would improve local cooperation, certainly with the council. It would also help local communities to be more involved. So I am not sure why the Government is being so heavy-handed in this regard.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Neither am I.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I can think of some hidden reasons or conspiracy theories but I will not go into those now. The bill will change the title of the SES heads; the director general and deputy director general will become the commissioner and deputy commissioner. That will bring the SES into line with the NSW Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service. I am not against senior officers having uniforms, but I note that commissioners' uniforms are becoming more elaborate. I suppose when we call them commissioner they must now have a commissioner's uniform. It is a strange development but perhaps it gives them a sense of authority in the organisation. I am not critical of that, but I have made that observation in recent years when they have appeared before parliamentary committees to give evidence.

I am pleased to support the bill. However, I must make this comment as Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes often mentions me in his speeches. I think most members know, but apparently Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes does not know, that we moved from a waterfront house on the coast that faced in the direction that hurricanes could come from. However, we did not move because of a fear of tsunamis. As members know, my wife was diagnosed with cancer last year. She was treated at St Vincent's Hospital and thankfully the cancer has been completely eradicated. However, she still has to undergo medical tests regularly, and she said she would like to be near the hospital rather than a two-hour trip away. I was pleased to cooperate in that. There was no question of trying to avoid a tsunami. We had a two-storey unit and we could have retreated to the first storey, but it never occurred to us. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes has a reputation for making statements without checking his facts. Indeed, he has claimed that I live in a waterfront mansion—emphasis on the word "mansion"—and that I have a more expensive car than the Premier. In fact, I have the same make and model of car as Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes.

The Hon. IAN WEST [9.05 p.m.]: I support the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill, which contains sensible administrative reforms to give legislative backing to the State Emergency Service's responsibilities for tsunami planning and response. It will also bring the service's structure into line with that of other emergency services. The SES has been working closely with the Commonwealth Government to build tsunami planning and response capabilities. The SES has proven that it has the capacity to plan for and quickly respond to the threat of tsunami. Earlier this year the Commonwealth coordinated Exercise Ausnami, a comprehensive test of the Australian Tsunami Warning System. The Federal Attorney-General has reported that the success of this exercise reaffirmed that in the event of a tsunami the Australian Government is ready to protect the Australian community.

The aim of this national exercise was to test the effectiveness of the warning system's communications for delivering and managing tsunami warnings by simulating a magnitude 9.0 earthquake in the Pacific. The success of this exercise proved that the SES is able to team effectively with other key agencies, including Geoscience Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Attorney General's Department and other States' emergency management agencies. As other speakers have already outlined, the SES has recognised expertise in flood management, and we are fortunate to be able to capitalise on that knowledge in relation to our tsunami risk. I also welcome the reforms introduced in this bill to the leadership of the SES. It is appropriate that the SES reflects the structure of our other major emergency services—the New South Wales Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service—by changing its leader's rank and title from director general to commissioner. This formalises a title change that took place earlier this year.

At this point I express my sorrow, and I am sure the sorrow of all other members of this House, at the tragic loss of SES Deputy Commissioner Greg Slater in September this year. Mr Slater was appointed the Deputy Commissioner of the SES in 2004 and was instrumental in the development of the agency. During his career Mr Slater was recognised on numerous occasions for his bravery and dedication, and his passing is a terrible loss for the people of New South Wales. It is wonderful that the Minister for Emergency Services has established a $5,000 annual scholarship in memory of late State Emergency Service Deputy Commissioner Greg Slater. This scholarship will be awarded annually to an SES volunteer who demonstrates outstanding leadership characteristics in their work with the service. It befits Mr Slater, who was a champion of the volunteers during his 11 years with the SES.

I note the concerns of members opposite who oppose the Government's proposal to prevent elected local councillors from holding positions as SES local or unit controllers or deputy controllers. As other speakers have mentioned, the Government introduced this measure to bring the SES into line with the Rural Fire Service. We maintain that it is more than just sensible to prevent the perception of a conflict of interest between the roles of local councillor and local or unit controller. It is what responsible governments do. Rather than sitting back and waiting for a problem to arise, it was our intention to put that framework for transparency in place today. Of course, the great irony is that those opposite who vote for amending the bill and removing this important separation of powers will be the same people who complain if an incident were ever to arise. We can but try. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [9.10 p.m.]: I support the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill 2009. Given that flooding results in an average $128 million worth of damage annually in New South Wales, I am certain all members of Parliament join me in stating up-front that the State Emergency Service [SES] and its volunteers are among the State's finest assets. We are very fortunate that the SES is a world leader in public safety relating to flooding and one of the country's most professional volunteer organisations. The dedication of its volunteers is remarkable. On 19 October the Minister for Emergency Services, together with the member for Wollongong, presented 13 Wollongong and Kiama SES volunteers with national medals and long service awards. Between them, those volunteers had contributed an extraordinary 135 years of service to their local community. Across the State more than 1,400 of the service's volunteers have completed 10 or more years of service to the community.

The people of New South Wales know that whenever a flood, storm or other emergency strikes their community they can rely on volunteers from the SES to come to their assistance. As well as flood response, the service's expertise in flood planning preparedness and education is also widely recognised, not only in Australia but also overseas. It is obvious that the service's tsunami planning preparedness and response responsibilities are based on a solid foundation of expertise. In fact, last year the SES won second place in a technology and innovation category of the prestigious International Association of Emergency Managers awards. This was international recognition for an innovative online tool SES staff developed to help businesses manage the impact of floods on their operations and finances.

While the organisation's flood and storm roles have been set out in the State Emergency Service Act, it is appropriate that this bill now amends the Act to reflect this additional and vital responsibility for tsunamis. I hope this expertise is never needed but we cannot let that hope prevent us from being prepared for the worst-case scenario. Every natural disaster that strikes, whether flood, storm or bushfire, reinforces the key lesson of the importance of planning and preparedness. They are fundamental to the work of all our emergency services and this bill is a reassurance that this message has been heeded in terms of this potential risk to our community's safety and wellbeing. I welcome the reform introduced in this bill to the leadership of the SES. It is entirely fitting that, in keeping with the heads of other emergency services, the leader of the SES holds the rank and title of commissioner rather than that of director general. As other speakers, including the Parliamentary Secretary, have noted, this is recognition of the organisation's operational rather than administrative purpose, and it is an important recognition.

Likewise, the amendment to prevent elected local councillors from holding positions as SES local or unit controllers is a sensible step. It is unfortunate that the Opposition refuses to support this element of the bill. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of The Nationals rave about how they are going to bring about clean government, yet at the first test—yes, on a small issue—of a measure designed to guarantee probity the Opposition will move an amendment to remove this provision. It is wise to prevent even the perception of any conflict of interest between those two roles by providing for a proper separation of powers. This is to the benefit of everyone involved. It is unfortunate the Opposition does not share this wisdom. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [9.15 p.m.]: I support the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill 2009. This bill amends the State Emergency Service Act 1989. The amendments will make the State Emergency Service [SES] the State's combat agency for tsunamis and change SES position titles from director general and deputy director general to commissioner and deputy commissioner. I support the Government's sensible proposal to preclude serving local government councillors from being appointed as SES local and/or unit controllers or their deputies. It does not say that local government councillors cannot still actively participate in the SES. I must express my disappointment that those opposite seek to amend this bill to remove this provision, because the Government's proposal is consistent with requirements concerning the State's other major volunteer agency, the Rural Fire Service, that I think all members agree functions extremely effectively and serves our community very well.

It must be emphasised that the Government's proposal would not apply retrospectively: only an SES controller or deputy controller who becomes a councillor in the future would have to resign from the position within three months of becoming a councillor. It is an important measure targeted at improving transparency in an important agency. There has been no better reminder of the importance of the SES than the series of floods experienced this year by communities on the mid North Coast. These days the SES plays a role in regular major functions within our communities. Tamworth, where some members live, holds a major entertainment function once a year causing its population to more than double. The SES is a major active participant in this huge event in control work—not guiding traffic but making sure people are not in dangerous places, an incredibly important component of the job. The SES is designated power and control, and I assure members that no-one disobeys members of the service giving directions. The service makes an incredible difference at that time.

The SES also plays an incredibly important role in our community at AgQuip in Gunnedah when the population of a fairly small rural community suddenly triples or quadruples. It ensures that people are not put in danger. Just yesterday my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services reminded members in the Legislative Assembly of the hard work of SES volunteers in assisting their flood-ravaged communities.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: They have got a big tin shed.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: The Nationals talk about the tin shed at AgQuip. I would like everyone who goes to AgQuip to check on who donated the tin shed. As members would be aware, last weekend the mid North Coast endured its fifth flood since February—the second in a fortnight in the Bellingen and Nambucca districts. More than 4,000 residents were isolated as more than 530 millimetres of rain fell in some areas, resulting in minor to moderate main river flooding and localised flash flooding and again testing the emergency preparations of local communities. Over the mountain in Duri where we were looking for rain we watched the radar. It was horrifying to see what was happening to those communities that weekend. It was frightening although we were not in any danger. About 90 people, including residents and stranded travellers, sheltered in the evacuation centre set up at the Coffs Harbour Services Club.

In ironic timing, this latest flood arrived at the start of National SES Week. Across the State the SES will hold a range of activities to promote awareness of the work that SES members do. As always, the volunteers on the mid North Coast again turned out this week to provide swift, professional and good-spirited assistance to communities in need. More than 100 volunteers took part in this operation, responding to more than 450 calls for assistance, working tirelessly on tasks including filling sandbags, helping with leaking roofs and gutters, evacuating residents at risk from rising waters, working in logistics and performing more than 40 flood rescues. In total, the State Emergency Service performed more than 280 rescues in the Coffs Harbour area alone during this year's floods. Other speakers have already mentioned the expertise of the SES in flood management. We are fortunate that this bill allows us to capitalise on that knowledge in relation to our tsunami risk.

Legislating for the State Emergency Service to be the State's combat agency for tsunamis will formalise the arrangements already set out in the State Tsunami Plan. Of course, the emergency management plans are the overriding plans for the way things operate. This is an important piece of legislation that will formalise a process that is already in place. It is not just in regional New South Wales that State Emergency Service volunteers are working to serve their communities. I understand that last night the Minister for Emergency Services and the member for Rockdale—I stay in the Rockdale electorate when I am in Sydney, so I feel for the Rockdale electorate—officially opened a new garage and store facility and handed over a new vehicle. It is a well-deserved win for the Rockdale State Emergency Service unit. From its earliest days the unit has played a tremendous role in protecting and assisting the community during emergencies.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Tell us about the Botany SES.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: Arncliffe is where I stay, not Botany. The unit has also been at the forefront of emergency operations and flood planning through the efforts of region controller Gary Jones and local controller Sam Zorbas. The community activity in that particular electorate is very high; there is a lot of community goodwill and people work together. The Rockdale State Emergency Service unit has been involved in many other events. In August 2003 a windstorm resulted in almost 300 requests for assistance—it could have involved the Carss Park unit—and as recently as last month the Rockdale unit provided assistance to the Hurstville unit in the storm damage response. This was yet another example of the people of New South Wales turning to the SES when the rain falls, the wind lashes, and trees and powerlines are down.

It is terrific to see that in this bill the head of the State Emergency Service will be formally accorded the title of commissioner. I recognise Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's comments in relation to commissioners, but when working with the State Emergency Service on any issue one can see that the pride amongst the units is just superb, and I think that having a commissioner will increase that pride in the workforce itself. So it is a very valuable move. Unlike the heads of New South Wales Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service, the State Emergency Service head is currently identified through legislation as director general, not commissioner. It is very pleasing to see that, through changing the title from director general to commissioner, the Rees Labor Government recognised the equivalence between the State Emergency Service and other emergency service organisations. The change also fits better within the emergency planning process. The title change enhances the equivalence and standing of the State Emergency Service. It sends an important message to State Emergency Service volunteers and reinforces the message that we have repeated so often: our community values the selfless contribution of State Emergency Service volunteers just as we value the contribution of our firefighters and Rural Fire Service volunteers.

Apart from our volunteers, I pay tribute tonight to those who work behind the scenes to support the volunteers, to those who make it possible for their wife or their husband to respond to an alarm raised in the middle of the night and for those who give their employee the day off when disaster strikes. In country areas it is incredibly important to have supportive employers for any volunteer service, and right across the country I know that is what we have. It has been incredibly good. Many a dinner has been ruined and functions, birthdays and barbecue celebrations postponed because State Emergency Service members respond to the community's need at any time of the day or night. I also thank employers of members who allow them to give up their valuable time and who support members in helping the community. The bill contains sensible administrative reforms to give legislative backing to the State Emergency Service's responsibilities for tsunami planning and response. It will also bring the service's structure in line with that of other emergency services. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.24 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this important debate, which seeks to deliver positive and sensible amendments to the legislation that one of our most vital emergency service agencies operates under. The State Emergency Service Amendment Bill will provide additional legislative recognition of the responsibilities of the State Emergency Service and provide for its ongoing structural reform. Here in New South Wales the State Emergency Service has the assumed responsibility under the New South Wales Tsunami Plan—a sub-plan of the New South Wales Disaster Plan—as the combat agency responsible for tsunamis. This is a logical extension of its professional expertise in flood planning and response. As a result of the State Emergency Service's efforts and initiative, tsunami planning in New South Wales is now well advanced in comparison with many other jurisdictions.

The State Emergency Service continues to work with other government agencies and our community to increase tsunami awareness and preparedness. With the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004 still fresh in our minds and more recently the tragedy felt by our Indonesian and Samoan neighbours, the value of the State Emergency Service role in this regard cannot be underestimated should tsunamis ever impact the New South Wales coastline. It is imperative that the State Emergency Service's role as the lead combat agency for tsunami planning and response be reflected in legislation along with its responsibilities in respect of floods, storms and the protection of life and property. The bill before the House today amends the State Emergency Service Act to reflect this major combat responsibility.

The second amendment contained in this bill is the move to bring the leadership of the State Emergency Service in line with that of our other valued emergency services by replacing the title of director general with that of commissioner. This would also apply to the rank of deputy commissioner. This rank and title structure is aligned with that of our other emergency services, such as the New South Wales Fire Brigades and Rural Fire Service. The third amendment outlined in the bill is in relation to the role of State Emergency Service local and unit controllers or their deputies. Currently there is no employment caveat applied to these appointments. The new funding model for the State Emergency Service, as detailed in the State Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2008, now means local government contributes to the overall funding of the State Emergency Service as it has to the funding of our fire services, along with the insurance industry and the State Government. This change means that the State Emergency Service relationship with councils demands a higher degree of transparency and separation of powers, as is the case with Rural Fire Service arrangements in this regard.

It is very disappointing that the Opposition refuses to support this aspect of the bill. I would have thought that Opposition members would want to ensure that local councillors who have chosen to serve their community as a State Emergency Service local or unit controller or their deputy are protected from claims or actions of impropriety. We should not stand by and wait for problems such as this to arise. We need to install the framework that will provide the transparency, probity and confidence in the proper separation of powers that a professional emergency service agency such as the State Emergency Service requires. It is a great shame that the Opposition does not see this as an important reform for the future of this growing volunteer organisation. As I said earlier, the State Emergency Service Amendment Bill will provide additional legislative recognition of the responsibilities of one of this State's most valuable emergency services and provide for its ongoing structural reform. 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.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.29 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 to 6 in globo:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 2, lines 5–9. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

This Act commences on the date of assent to this Act.

No. 2 Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 18:

[4] Section 8 Functions of Service

Omit "floods and storms" from section 8 (1) (aa).

Insert instead "floods, storms and tsunamis".

No. 3 Page 3, Schedule 1. Insert after line 26:
[6] Section 12 Planning and preparation by Commissioner

Omit "floods and storms" from section 12 (3).

Insert instead "floods, storms and tsunamis".

No. 4 Page 4, Schedule 1. Insert after line 24:
[12] Section 25A Certain damage to be covered by insurance

Insert ", tsunami" after "storm" in section 25A (1) (b).
No. 5 Page 5, Schedule 1 [13], lines 21–33. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 6 Page 6, Schedule 2.2, lines 7–11. Omit all words on those lines.

These amendments will correct some minor drafting errors that were made when the bill was originally drafted. Specifically, these amendments add the word "tsunami" in some places. This bill legislates for the SES to be the State's combat agency for tsunamis. These amendments will ensure that this role is comprehensively enshrined in the State Emergency Service Act.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [9.30 p.m.]: The Liberals and The Nationals accept that this will correct a drafting error in the legislation. Of course, tsunamis need to be dealt with in the legislation so we have absolutely no problem at all with these amendments.

Mr IAN COHEN [9.31 p.m.]: It is appropriate to include the word "tsunami" in the bill. The Greens agree with the amendments.

Question—That Government amendments Nos 1 to 6 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Government amendments Nos 1 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [9.32 p.m.], by leave: I move Nationals amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Pages 3 and 4, Schedule 1, line 27 on page 3 to line 18 on page 4. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 2 Page 5, Schedule 1 [13], lines 10–20. Omit all words on those lines.

As I indicated during the second reading debate, these amendments relate to the issue of SES unit controllers and deputy controllers being allowed to be local government councillors. The arguments were canvassed strongly by the crossbench members and me. Ian Cohen raised a very interesting point about propriety and community expectation. If we want to go down the track of banning leaders within our community from taking up positions, whether they be real estate agents or SES controllers, where does one draw the line? If people want to stand for these positions it is up to the community to decide who should go onto a local council. I have listened with great interest, waiting for the killer argument and the winning point from the Government on this issue, and it has not come.

The Hon. Christine Robertson made an excellent contribution, in which she addressed one of the issues raised by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile in relation to the title of commissioner. She made the point about the SES being an organisation where there is great pride in and respect for the command. The SES volunteers are incredibly proud that they will have a commissioner in future rather than a director general. I have not yet heard the Government put an argument as to why controllers and deputy controllers within the SES should not be local councillors. Why should we stand in the way of anybody wanting to represent the community? Just because it will bring the SES into line with the RFS legislation does not mean the RFS legislation is correct on this point.

In my meetings and discussions with senior RFS personnel, including the commissioner, it was clear that one of the greatest challenges they face is the declining membership of the RFS volunteer base, particularly in western New South Wales. I do not think we should be sending a signal to any volunteers who want to contribute to the community, whether it be the SES or the RFS, that they cannot also serve as a councillor on their local council. Maybe the Labor Party has trouble understanding that not all councils are stacked with political hacks in regional areas and that there are people who are genuinely involved in their communities. Mostly we do not have Labor hacks in our communities. The important issues have been canvassed and I have not heard an argument from the Government in support of this part of the legislation. I seek the support of the crossbench for our amendments.

Mr IAN COHEN [9.35 p.m.]: I concur with the argument put forward by the Hon. Melinda Pavey. This shows that The Nationals representative is in touch with the bush! There is a different culture. The Government is viewing this situation somewhat from the perspective of Macquarie Street.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The drought is over. The bush is becoming green.

Mr IAN COHEN: I could have said that a long time ago, but I agree with the Hon. Duncan Gay. The Hon. Greg Donnelly posed the question of whether unit controllers present the greatest challenge to probity in New South Wales. According to Mr Donnelly, the greatest challenge to probity and transparency in New South Wales local government is the SES unit controllers. I think that really was an unfortunate slight on the SES controllers. This debate raised the issue, as stated by the Hon. Melinda Pavey, of the very high standing these people have in the community.

They are out doing the hard yards when everyone else is fretting or looking after their own. They deserve a great deal of support. I have found that the people I have had the opportunity to be involved with in various ways at meetings, in discussions and such like have their hearts in the right place. There is really no comparison between SES controllers who serve on councils and various people such as real estate industry representatives. The Government would do well to accept a point has been validly made. I support the Opposition's amendments.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.37 p.m.]: It is disappointing that the Opposition has moved to amend the requirement that local councillors cannot also be local SES controllers. The Government's proposal will increase transparency between the SES and local government, which contributes significant funding to the organisation, and accentuate the separation of powers. The Government's proposal is consistent with the situation that applies to the State's other major volunteer agency, the NSW Rural Fire Service. The proposal will not apply retrospectively. Only future local government councillors would need to resign their position as SES controller or deputy controller within three months. It is important to note that local councillors can still be SES volunteers. They just cannot be in control of the SES and on the council.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: I got that!

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! There is too much chatter in the Chamber.

Mr IAN COHEN [9.39 p.m.]: I would like to comment on the statement made by the Hon. Henry Tsang. I appreciate the point he is trying to make, but I think he is missing the fact that very often these people are leaders of their small communities for a multiplicity of good reasons. They will be leaders of the community on the council and in emergencies. To say that they should be volunteers could be a waste of what is quite a rare resource in these small communities. It is important to acknowledge that those people are in leadership positions in a small community where everyone knows one another and where everyone is working together. They do not have the same pool of human resources that would be available in an urban or sub-urban area where population densities are greater.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: To the point of order—

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! There is no point of order before the Committee. As I said, there is too much chatter in the Chamber. Members are having difficulty following the flow of debate. The Hon. Melinda Pavey has the call.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [9.39 p.m.]: I inform the Hon. Henry Tsang that Walgett, a community in far western New South Wales, has many challenges because of the population drift. Walgett incorporates the village of Lightning Ridge—a big opal community—and the local SES controller there is on the local council. This legislation would enable him to continue in that role, but in the future it might prohibit somebody who would like to be on the council and also perform the role of controller. The Government has not put forward a cogent reason as to why that should not continue in the future, which is why the Liberals-Nationals Coalition moved these amendments.

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

Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

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

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

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

The Hon. Penny Sharpe tabled the following paper:

Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Report of Chipping Norton Lake Authority for the year ended 30 June 2009

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.45 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Special Number-Plates) Bill 2009 introduces some minor reforms to facilitate the granting of a concession of the Roads and Traffic Authority's [RTA] special numberplate business. These amendments are consistent with existing Government policy announced in the November 2008 New South Wales mini-budget by the Treasurer, that the lease of the RTA's special numberplate marketing business would be investigated. The special numberplate business currently resides within the RTA, providing personalised numberplates to the public for a fee. While providing a source of revenue to the New South Wales Government, the special numberplate operation within the RTA is currently not an autonomous business, but neither is it a core function of the RTA.

It is expected that a private operator will have specialised abilities beyond those within the RTA to increase the value of the business and therefore revenue from the business, while bearing a level of commercial risk that would be inappropriately taken on by a government agency. The amendments are the result of extensive consultation with the public, government agencies and business representatives with an interest in the regulation of special numberplates. The proposed regulatory approach is minimalist in nature, relying on existing requirements that the RTA issue numberplates upon registering a registrable vehicle, and the existing ability of the RTA to delegate any or all statutory functions or enter into commercial agreements.

The Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997 and the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2007 provide the RTA with the ability to register and deregister vehicles of all classes. Numberplates are a key part of the registration system and the principal identifier of a vehicle and a link to the registered operator of the vehicle. Numberplates are a critical identifier in compliance and enforcement activities for a broad range of road safety rules that govern road usage, driver behaviour and vehicle management. Examples of this include identification of speeding vehicles, monitoring heavy vehicle use for fatigue management, and identification of traffic light offences. Numberplates are also used by third parties to identify vehicles for a range of other purposes.

The bill proposes legislative and regulatory amendments to support and add value to the grant of a concession to operate the special numberplate business. Consultation has been conducted and is ongoing with non-government and government agencies with a potential interest in the special numberplate concession proposal. It is noted that the majority of feedback received in response to the targeted letters related to the potential impacts of expanding the number of characters on numberplates, and visibility of plates to optical recognition technology.

The objectives of creating the special numberplate concession are: to transfer the business risk of the future volatility in business revenues to the private sector while securing a more stable income stream for the RTA; to maximise the long-term value to the Government of its right to issue special numberplates, including beyond the term of the initial concession, subject to mitigating future earnings volatility; to generate additional business growth by the application of private sector marketing and product development resources and skills; to establish a concession structure that fully aligns the Government's interests and those of the concessionaire; to create meaningful financial incentives, and sanctions, on any future operators of the business to maximise long-term value; to deliver both a competitive outcome from offering the initial concession and implement a long-term framework for the issue and management of future concessions; and to separate the policy for and regulation of numberplates from the commercial development and marketing of that product.

One of the Government's key aims for regulation of special numberplates is to ensure that the integrity of the regulatory framework for numberplates continues undiminished. A review of the regulatory regime applicable to numberplates in New South Wales was conducted to ensure that the Government's regulatory aims will be balanced with the objectives of the special numberplate concession through putting in place an appropriate regulatory framework.

The bill contains amendments to the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997 to make explicit the power of the RTA to enter into commercial arrangements for the provision of marketing and other services with respect to special numberplates; provide for the concessionaire to fix fees and charges for special numberplates and related services without a requirement for ministerial approval or gazettal, including allowing the market to fix fees for sale by public auction; broaden the definition of special numberplates to allow the RTA to determine what is a special numberplate, including to convert general issue plates to special numberplates; provide the RTA with powers to issue special numberplates independently of vehicle registration with persons who are not registered operators; provide that "issue" of a numberplate does not constitute physical possession, and includes entering into an agreement for rights to a numberplate that will not be displayed on a vehicle; and require any special numberplate arrangements to include a provision ensuring that a party to the arrangements will be subject to the same restrictions with respect to privacy and personal information protection requirements as the RTA under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.

The risks to the concession are within the control of the RTA and the Government. A clear regulatory framework providing certainty around the expected level of Government and RTA intervention is critical, including a protocol for camera testing of new plate styles and content established between the RTA, the New South Wales Police Force and the State Debt Recovery Office, and rights to issue specific numberplate content will be allocated between the concessionaire and the RTA at the outset of the concession.

Rural communities and families will benefit from the Government having greater budget flexibility to allocate more resources to core services. The provision of online telephone and direct delivery options for numberplates provides rural communities with increased access to services without travelling to urban centres. To maintain equity of access to road use, a selected range of general issue plates will be reserved and remain under the direct management of the Roads and Traffic Authority. These plates will be available, and will continue to be available, as a regulated price option through motor registries at cost-recovery levels. Registration charges will not be affected by any changes to special numberplate fees that occur as a result of the concession. Consumers will in no way be compelled to enter into arrangements for special numberplates.

In summary, the scope of any concession arrangements will exclude supply of special numberplates for vehicles over 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass, general issue numberplates, and regulatory and conditional numberplates. The arrangements will include the potential for the concessionaire to issue plates in future that display seven to 10 characters and numeral-only plates. The arrangements will also include the potential for direct delivery mechanisms. The bill contains amendments to the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997 to support the grant of a concession to the special numberplate business by making explicit the power of the RTA to enter into commercial arrangements for the provision of marketing and other services with respect to special numberplates.

The bill will enable the concessionaire to fix fees and charges for special numberplates and related services without a requirement for ministerial approval or gazettal, including allowing the market to fix fees for sale by public auction. The bill will broaden the definition of special numberplates to allow the RTA to determine what is a special numberplate, including converting general issue plates to special number plates. The bill will provide the RTA with powers to issue special numberplates independently of vehicle registration with persons who are not registered operators, provided that the issue of a numberplate does not constitute physical possession. This includes entering into an agreement for rights to a numberplate that will not be displayed on a vehicle. The bill will require any special numberplate arrangements to include provisions to ensure that a party to the arrangements will be subject to the same restrictions with respect to privacy and personal information protection requirements as the Roads and Traffic Authority under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [9.46 p.m.]: The object of the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Special Number-Plates) Bill 2009 is to amend the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997 to provide for the Roads and Traffic Authority to enter into commercial arrangements to create a concession for the marketing of special numberplates issued by the authority. The bill provides for the Roads and Traffic Authority to determine the design, format or content that is to constitute a special numberplate. The bill also makes various minor amendments to the Act to clarify the powers of the Roads and Traffic Authority and the power to make regulations under the Act in connection with special numberplates.

By way of background, the special numberplate business currently resides within the Roads and Traffic Authority, which provides personalised numbers plates to the public for a fee. During 2007-08 the special numberplate business delivered revenue of slightly in excess of $54 million. During 2008-09 that revenue was in the vicinity of $58 million. In the November 2008 mini-budget the Government announced that the Roads and Traffic Authority special numberplate marketing business lease would be investigated. This bill will grant a concession to a private operator to provide that special numberplate business. It will enable the concessionaire to fix fees and charges for special numberplates and related services without a requirement for ministerial approval or gazettal, including enabling the market to fix fees for sale by public auction.

According to the Roads and Traffic Authority, in future it will also enable the concessionaire to issue plates that display 7 to 10 characters as well as numeral-only plates. Currently, plates have a six-character limit. The Roads and Traffic Authority will continue to manage vehicle registration and the regulation of numberplates. The scope of the concession will exclude the supply of special numberplates for vehicles over 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass, general issue number plates, and regulatory and conditional number plates. Arrangements will include the potential in the future for the concessionaire to issue plates that display 7 to 10 characters. Arrangements will also include the potential for direct delivery mechanisms.

This bill contains amendments to the Roads and Traffic Authority Vehicle Registration Act 1997 to support the grant of a concession to the special numberplate business by making explicit the power of the Roads and Traffic Authority to enter into commercial arrangements for the provision of marketing and other services with respect to special numberplates. The Liberals-Nationals Coalition does not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.49 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Amendment (Special Number-Plates) Bill 2009, which will privatise the special numberplate business of the Roads and Traffic Authority. At an earlier briefing I asked specific questions to establish whether the Government, in enabling a private company to run the special numberplate business, would receive royalties as a result of that activity. I also asked whether there would be some price control so that the company that took over the supply of special numberplates did not exploit people—in particular, young people—who, for various reasons, want a special numberplate.

However, the reply was that the market would set the price. I do not think that necessarily should be the only requirement. The Government should still play some role. The schedule refers to the fixing of fees by the Roads and Traffic Authority to facilitate the charges in connection with the issuing of special numberplates. Even though a private business can be responsible for issuing special numberplates, the Roads and Traffic Authority would have some supervisory role. I have no problem with privatisation. I support smaller government, bigger families. The Christian Democratic Party is happy with the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.51 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to this debate. 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.

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.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.53 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Ian Macdonald: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Poor food handling practices in hospitality businesses cause over a third of food-borne illness outbreaks in New South Wales. No-one is immune as restaurants, takeaways, bakeries, clubs and catered events are the most common places where we eat outside the home. Young children, the elderly, pregnant women and those with compromised immune systems are particularly vulnerable to food-borne illness, but the impact of food-borne illness is felt by all. People can become very ill and in more serious cases face hospitalisation and even death. Businesses suffer losses in productivity; and tarnished reputations impact on the livelihoods of all involved. The direct cost to New South Wales is estimated at $150 million. This places a significant burden on the State's economy and is of increasing concern to the New South Wales Government.

The people of New South Wales care about the safety of the food they eat. It is so topical that a software development company recently linked the name and shame register to a GPS application on the new iPhone. The hospitality industry is overrepresented on the name and shame register. These businesses account for 93 per cent of entries. This is simply unacceptable. Proper food handling will result in fewer penalty notices being published on the name and shame register. This will strengthen consumer confidence in the New South Wales hospitality industry. The hospitality industry is one of the cornerstones of the New South Wales economy. The industry is keen to target food-borne illness and continue to build its reputation. This bill is the next step in realising the New South Wales Government's twin visions of a safe and secure food supply coupled with a strong, profitable hospitality industry.

The bill demonstrates the Government's strong commitment to food safety. It ensures that the right level of intervention is implemented to address food safety risks in this sector. The introduction of mandatory food handler training will reduce food-borne illness by improving food handler skills and knowledge. The scheme will enable a designated and trained person to take a lead role in supervising food safety in a food business. Better compliance with food safety laws will lead to improved food safety outcomes. This will save businesses large amounts of money. Not only will the risk of causing a food-borne illness be minimised, but also businesses will be less likely to be issued with a penalty notice or a costly prohibition order. New South Wales has studied comparable food safety supervisor requirements currently in place in Queensland and Victoria. This initiative builds upon the lessons learnt in these jurisdictions to place New South Wales at the forefront of food safety in Australia.

All food businesses in New South Wales are already required to meet basic food safety and hygiene requirements under the national Food Standards Code. Regulation and enforcement in this area is undertaken by local councils under a partnership arrangement with the New South Wales Food Authority. The Food Standards Code requires that food handlers have adequate skills and knowledge in relation to food safety. This outcome-based approach does not require accredited training and simply does not work effectively. It has been criticised across all jurisdictions, including New South Wales, as being unenforceable.

Mandatory food handler training as required by the bill will address this issue. It will formalise skills and knowledge by requiring completion of accredited training within the national vocational and education and training system. The initiative will also align with the training requirements for a food safety supervisor already prescribed in Queensland and Victoria. This ensures mutual recognition of qualifications for food safety supervisors across the eastern seaboard States. In this highly mobile employment sector, nationally accredited training can only improve individual work prospects and opportunities. The implementation of mandatory training for an industry sector is not a new concept. In 2004 the New South Wales Government mandated responsible service of alcohol training for all staff employed within licensed premises. It is equally important that the safety of people in New South Wales is assured when it comes to food. The majority of the public, including our young children and elderly, regularly consume food prepared outside the home.

The Government is acting to protect consumers from food-borne illness by ensuring that food handlers have the skills and knowledge to handle food properly. In January 2007 the Tables restaurant tragedy brought this issue sharply into focus. The coroner's inquest revealed an inadequate level of food safety knowledge. The Deputy State Coroner subsequently recommended that the New South Wales Food Authority should "consider how to better educate the food industry". The Government takes this recommendation seriously and this bill provides the means to better educate the food industry by implementing mandatory food handler training. In July this year the Sydney Morning Herald poignantly summed up the feelings of the victim's son that if restaurants were made to take greater care in the handling of food his father did not die in vain. Now is the time for action. We must take the next steps towards improving the safety of food in New South Wales, which will benefit both consumers and the State's food industry.

Food handler training is a low cost investment that will generate huge benefits for consumers, food businesses and the Government. It has been demonstrated that the training can be done in one day. The Food Authority has consulted extensively with industry and even conducted a safe food handler pilot. Restaurant and Catering New South Wales delivered the course, based on the same national units of competency that underpin food safety supervisor requirements in Queensland and Victoria. The pilot was well received by participants, who found the course informative and relevant to their businesses. The benefits of food handler training extend beyond the shop front door. One pilot participant even commented, "Food handler training also applies to your own home your own life."

Before I turn to the bill, I acknowledge and thank organisations including the Australian Hotels Association, ClubsNSW, Restaurant and Catering New South Wales and the Australian National Retailers Association, which participated in the Hospitality Sector Co-regulatory Working Group. This group worked collaboratively with the New South Wales Food Authority to develop the key features of the initiative. This ensured that the requirements were developed to operate practically and effectively to target food safety risks. I particularly acknowledge the contribution of Robert Goldman, who recently retired as the Chief Executive Officer of Restaurants and Catering New South Wales. In that capacity he championed the cause of mandatory food handlers for many years, and I extend the Government's thanks. Industry supports the proposals contained within the bill and sees them as a positive intervention.

I turn now to the bill. The New South Wales food industry comprises a range of different business types. Each business is unique in the way food is prepared and sold to the public. Only those businesses conducting defined high-risk food handling activities—namely, the processing of ready to eat, potentially hazardous foods—are covered. Food businesses that sell only pre-packaged food will not be affected. For example, petrol stations and convenience stores that sell pre-packaged sausage rolls and pies will not be required to have a food safety supervisor. As I said earlier, initiatives such as this one can work practically and effectively only if they are developed in close consultation with industry. There are a number of types of businesses that may be required to meet food safety supervisor requirements at some stage in the future. Each of these types of business has different needs, priorities, issues and challenges.

For this reason the bill and underlying regulations enable a staged approach to the implementation of the food safety supervisor requirement by utilising an exemption of power. During stage one of implementation the regulations will be used to exempt not-for-profit community and charitable causes, school canteens, delicatessens who do no more than slice smallgoods, cheeses and processed meats, greengrocers who process fresh fruit and vegetables, seafood retailers who sell only raw seafood and childcare centres. The food safety supervisor requirement may be extended to these in future stages if consultation and evaluation of other schemes support this. In addition, businesses licensed by the New South Wales Food Authority will be exempt because they are already subject to specific food safety management requirements.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.53 p.m.]: The Food Amendment (Food Safety Supervisors) Bill 2009 will amend the Food Act 2003 to require businesses to appoint trained food safety supervisors and to allow the Food Authority to approve registered training organisations to issue food safety supervisor certificates to persons who have the prescribed qualifications. It seems innocuous, but I assure the House that members of the Liberal-Nationals have huge concerns with this bill. In the other place our colleagues opposed the bill because of their concern with the regulatory impact on small businesses and the direction of this bill. I am sure members in this place share those concerns. I am aware that some of those concerns have been answered, but we will be looking for answers to others before we make our decision on the bill. On the present undertakings given to us, the Opposition opposes this bill.

If clarifications and certainty for small businesses are forthcoming from the Government, we will be prepared to support the bill. We have been negotiating with the Government and understand there may be movement on the issues. The Opposition is concerned about the outcome for a small business when its one operator trained as a food safety supervisor temporarily leaves the business. Will inspectors be able to enter the business and instantly impose a fine? I trust that if the trained food safety supervisor, who may be the proprietor, leaves to do the banking, that absence will not facilitate in a fine being imposed. I am concerned also about the impacts on franchises, particularly major franchise groupings such as McDonald's that have a large number of temporary employees. Franchisees who operate these food outlets, whether it is McDonald's or another—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Or Red Rooster.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Red Rooster.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Be careful!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I know. I nearly fell into that trap. McDonald's outlets and even local coffee shops employ young people. I seek clarification on whether the person possessing the certificate in such a business entity, who may be the owner of the premises, can put in place a particular regime so that each of the young temporary employees will not need to hold that certificate. Let us take the example perhaps of a Gloria Jean's coffee shop franchise. If the person who owns that business possesses the certificate and then needs to do the banking or is not in the premises on a particular day, will that business be fined? The Minister's advisers are shaking their heads, but with the best will in the world Hansard cannot record that. I am sure those advisers will incorporate a response in the reply. Another concern on which I seek clarification is whether the certificate of the principal or someone else in the business covers transient employees.

I also note that some exemptions will be granted by regulation. Charities and canteens were referred to in the agreement in principle in the other place, but I wonder whether the relevant provision includes small concerns that are not registered as charities, such as garage sales for a rugby club, a rugby league club, a soccer club or a junior league. I request the Parliamentary Secretary during her reply to clarify how far the regulations will reach, whether they will apply to such activities, and to what extent the regulations will apply to small businesses.

I understand that this legislation will not apply to premises where food is not being prepared, such as service stations that sell pre-packaged food. I assume that premises involved in the preparation of pre-packaged food would have a qualified supervisor. However, the Opposition requires clarification of the types of premises to which the legislation will apply. For example, would a coffee shop that is not involved in selling sandwiches require staff with a food supervisor's qualification? I realise that I am drilling down to the effects of the implementation of the bill, but the concerns of Opposition members relating to the application of this legislation are genuine.

The burden of regulation that applies to small business is one of the greatest problems confronting small businesses in the State. Irrespective of whether regulation takes the form of red tape or green tape, the most frequent request of people in the community is, "Can you get government off my back?" Sadly, even with the best intentions in the world, this bill will impose a greater degree of regulation on small businesses. I understand that the projected costs will be $215 for training and $30 for a certificate. I must say that $30 for a certificate seems to be an exorbitant amount. I wonder how the Government will be able to justify an additional cost of $30 for presenting a piece of paper that is a mandatory requirement. I will be interested to hear justification of that during the Parliamentary Secretary's reply.

I regret that there is not more time for discussion of the bill. Although I compliment the Minister and his office on negotiations relating to the bill, the Government, in its "wisdom"—and this is the same mob that cannot run New South Wales—introduced the bill in the middle of those negotiations and at a time when I was absent from Parliament under a pair arrangement. I appreciate that the Government has allowed additional time, but the shortness of time compels me to insist on answers being provided during the Parliamentary Secretary's reply as a condition of Opposition support for the bill. That would not have been necessary if the Government had behaved in a professional manner. In particular, I seek clarification of whether school canteens will be exempted from operation of the legislation. I believe that that was a matter referred to in the Minister's agreement in principle speech.

Key points that are of absolute importance have been brought to my attention by the Australian National Retailers Association and include a commitment to managing compliance through a web-based process of monitoring who is registered and trained. The bill envisages a statewide process involving two tiers of government and myriad forms. I accept that for the sake of people who are not able to access the web, the Government must maintain a paper-based system. However, the pre-eminent determinant of Opposition support for this legislation is the Government's ability to reduce costs associated with training and compliance through its provision of a web-based system. The Australian National Retailers Association has stated:

The failure of the [Food Amendment (Food Safety Supervisors)] Bill 2009 to allow businesses to register the Food Safety Supervisor's statutory information through a web-based page will add costs for government, industry, as well as limit the compliance by small to medium enterprises, including franchises. While a paper-based system will be needed for equity of access by people without internet resources, that form should be standardised. Launching such a scheme concerning personal identification of thousands of Food Safety Supervisors without web-based access is certain to create unfavourable industry and general media comment, and may limit compliance rates.

Retailers are presently experiencing greater administration costs of registering food premises through two levels of government due to local government agencies demanding food businesses register the same information that is required on the NAFSIS database, but on paper-based forms of varying layout.

The association makes a fair case. An undertaking by the Minister to establish a web-based process is the minimum precondition that must be met for the Opposition to support the bill. I will not deal with the details of the bill at length, but I reiterate that my colleagues in the lower House spoke passionately about small businesses in their electorates that are doing it tough. From any perspective it would be remiss of the Opposition to support a bill that imposes more regulations on small businesses without the very basic requirement of a much-needed web-based resource being satisfied.

Dr JOHN KAYE [10.07 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens, I join in debate on the Food Amendment (Food Safety Supervisors) Bill 2009. The underlying intent of the bill is most laudable, as is the idea of every food business having a qualified food safety supervisor who is capable not only of ensuring that food safety standards are adhered to within that business but also of educating other employees within the business to ensure compliance with food safety standards, even during shifts when the food safety supervisor is not present. Given the massive impact of poor quality food-handling standards, or a lapse of food-handling standards, on community and individual health, and given the relative ineffectiveness of inspection regimes in reaching the dark corners of the food industry in New South Wales and throughout the world, it is very important for government to effect an improvement in the standard of training and qualifications in food handling throughout the industry.

An observation that has been made during debate on a number of food bills in this Chamber over approximately the past three years is that even with all the inspection regimes in the world, in the end we need to have people in the food industry who understand the consequences of their actions and who not only know about basic hygiene as well as personal hygiene but also know that proper food handling requires a knowledge of food storage, what happens to food when it is not appropriately handled or adequately stored, and what happens when food is not kept at appropriate temperatures. To that extent, the Greens strongly support this legislation.

The idea that almost every food business will have a qualified food safety supervisor present to improve the standard of food handling, educate other workers and ensure that there is a properly developed food safety strategy for each business is a positive step forward. The Greens welcome that, and to that extent we support the bill. However, we have a number of reservations about the legislation, and they are slightly different to those raised by the Coalition. I was impressed by some of the arguments put forward by the shadow Minister and I, too, will be listening carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary's response to the questions posed to her. As much as food safety is important, it is also important that we do not destroy the viability of local food businesses. Clearly, there must be a balance between food safety, which is an important public health issue, and maintaining the viability of small food businesses. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to guide the House—she is nodding—through the Government's intentions with respect to maintaining that balance. I have some confidence that this legislation will go through this evening. It would be a shame if that does not happen.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will address our reservations. First, as far as we can tell from reading the legislation there is no requirement on the food safety supervisor to rectify food safety breaches when they are observed. It is not enough to have a food safety supervisor present on the premises, to have cleanliness by example and to have one person observing quality food safety handling procedures without the ability to turn around and enforce those when he or she sees breaches being perpetrated by other workers in the food business. Parallel with that, there does not seem to be a requirement for the food safety supervisor to notify the relevant authority if there is an ongoing or persistent breach of food safety standards.

The system of inspections—and certainly with the name and shame website—is a step forward, although we have criticisms about how that is done, which I will not go into here. That is an important, necessary condition for raising the standard of food hygiene but it is not sufficient. I think everybody agrees that there need to be internal cultural changes driven by people like food safety supervisors. But the problem is when food safety supervisors see a persistent breach of food safety standards they must be required to notify the relevant food inspectors and food authorities, whether it be local government or the Food Authority of New South Wales, so that action can be taken.

Our third concern parallels the original concerns with respect to occupational health and safety, that is, providing protection to individuals who blow the whistle on a breach of food safety standards. In this legislation there is no protection for the food safety supervisor from victimisation, dismissal or other adverse treatment as a result of enforcing or blowing the whistle on a food safety breach. Our fourth concern relates to the exemptions. I note that the Minister's second reading speech lists exemptions initially for not-for-profit community and charitable causes, which is sensible, school canteens—I have concerns about that—some delicatessens, greengrocers, childcare centres and raw seafood retailers. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to address the issue of raw seafood retailers. I think many people have had the raw prawn experience and recognise that there is a great degree of vulnerability in raw seafood businesses. Another concern relates to service stations and convenience stores that serve so-called packaged food. The particular concern is the pies and pasties inside the heater. The argument has been put to us that pies and pasties are contained within a wrapping so there is no risk—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Rats coffins.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The shadow Minister refers to them as rats coffins. We are not concerned about the transmission of disease by hand contact. The risk is that pies are perpetually reheated and spend too long in the heater. There is a food safety vector associated with those outlets. Clearly, convenience stores and service stations are different to places where food is being prepared or unpackaged food is being served, but exemptions for convenience stores and service stations is a concern unless other mechanisms are put in place to protect consumers from adverse outcomes. With those four concerns, which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will address, the Greens do not oppose the legislation. As I said, we will be interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's response to the concerns raised by the shadow Minister.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.15 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Food Amendment (Food Safety Supervisors) Bill 2009, which amends the Food Act 2003, the principal Act, to require the proprietors of certain food businesses to appoint food safety supervisors who hold certain qualifications and have the authority to supervise food handling, to require that those appointments be notified to relevant enforcement agencies, and to allow the Food Authority to approve registered training organisations to issue food safety supervisor certificates to persons who have the prescribed qualifications. This is a simple, straightforward bill. During the briefing I raised the question of whether the word "supervisor" is accurate. It gives the impression that the person is physically supervising whereas the role is more that of a coordinator, ensuring that everybody is following the correct food safety procedures, and that the person has received training through an approved registered training organisation. I note that a fee of $30 has been mentioned, but I do not see a reference to $30 in the bill unless I have missed where it appears.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's in the second reading.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: But it is not in the bill. Obviously the organisation that conducts the training will want to charge students a fee, and the Food Authority will probably charge a training organisation a fee to be an approved training organisation. That administration should be kept to a minimum and not be draconian. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there should be a simple form of communication. The bill states that notice must be given in writing to the relevant enforcement agency, et cetera. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary in reply could state that it is in principle in writing, but that notification can be by other forms, including emails. The bill simply states "in writing". That may put administrative pressure on food supply agencies that do not need such pressure if they are simply a small business. All of us are concerned about dangers when people's health is affected by contaminated food. In the past people in Sydney have died after eating contaminated food. A name and shame register is operating, but I think the Government's intention is that we will not have anyone to name and shame. If this legislation works the name and shame register will be unnecessary. So I believe it should be given a fair trial.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They'll have nothing to do.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is right. That is the hope.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.20 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I note that there have been a number of concerns about the bill and I will seek to deal with those in turn. The bill reflects the Government's strong commitment to food safety and is an example of applying a rational solution to address a significant public health and safety concern. Informed by extensive industry consultation, the bill provides a sensible approach to reduce the risk of food-borne illness. Increasing the skills and knowledge of food handlers and encouraging food safety supervisors to take a lead role on food safety within the business will appropriately manage risk. Managing and minimising food safety risks will improve the reputation of the industry.

The bill amends the Food Act 2003 to achieve three objectives. First, it will introduce a mandatory food handler training scheme for food businesses in the New South Wales hospitality and retail food service sector. Each food safety supervisor must hold a New South Wales food safety supervisor certificate. Second, it will require businesses, other than those selling food from temporary premises or mobile vehicles, to notify the relevant enforcement agency of their food safety supervisor. In most cases this will be the local council. Third, it will allow the New South Wales Food Authority to foster confidence in the quality and consistency of training by approving registered training organisations to issue food safety supervisor certificates.

The Opposition has indicated in the Legislative Assembly and in this Chamber that it has "serious concerns about the extra cost this will have on small business". Experience gathered through the food handler pilot program, as well as market research from Queensland and Victoria, show that this training can be completed as a one-day course. Cost is estimated at $215 per person, plus $30 to obtain the food safety supervisor certificate. Spread over the five years for which the certificate remains valid, this equates to a cost of less than $50 per year. Put another way, this is less than a dollar a week and for a business that operates five days a week or more, less than 20¢ a day to help ensure that food served to consumers in New South Wales is safe. The Government believes that is not unreasonable.

The Coalition has also claimed the Gold Coast council offers food safety courses for free. Many councils in New South Wales also offer a range of food safety courses for free. These courses are not accredited and the content varies from council to council. The proposed food safety supervisor training in this bill is based on nationally accredited training that is already being delivered by registered training organisations. Providing a nationally recognised food handler qualification will enhance careers and employment opportunities for hospitality workers. The Opposition has also failed to acknowledge that councils in Queensland and Victoria charge licensing and registration fees for retail food businesses. New South Wales removed local council licensing requirements for retail food businesses in the 1990s and does not wish to return to licensing, as this would significantly increase costs to small businesses.

Some food handlers may seek and pay for this training themselves, in an attempt to upskill and provide themselves with better opportunities for employment. It is not unusual for individuals to obtain responsible service of alcohol certification prior to seeking employment and there is no reason to expect that similar proactive approaches will not be adopted by people wishing to work in the hospitality and retail food service sector. In these instances, the business would have no cost at all. The Opposition in the Legislative Assembly raised the issue of council inspection fees and used the example of butcher shops. This initiative applies only to hospitality and retail food service sectors serving ready to eat, potentially hazardous foods. It does not apply to butcher shops because they are already licensed and are already required to comply with more comprehensive food safety management interventions.

Councils in New South Wales are able to charge an annual administration fee in relation to their routine inspection programs. I must stress, however, that councils are prohibited from charging a fee for dealing with notification requirements arising under this bill The Opposition has expressed concerns about the impact of this initiative on small business. I am sure that members opposite will be interested to hear that participants in the pilot scheme conducted by the New South Wales Food Authority were largely small business proprietors and their employees. Feedback from these participants was overwhelmingly positive—91 per cent of participants felt more confident about their food safety knowledge and 96 per cent agreed that all food handlers need food safety training and that this was relevant to their life in general. Opposition concerns about the burden on businesses like hotels stands in contrast to the position of the Australian Hotels Association, which was consulted extensively and welcomes this initiative.

I am aware that the Opposition has also called for a coordinated training course to cover all requirements for food handling, responsible gaming and responsible service of alcohol in one course. It is important that training, be it for food handlers or alcohol servers, is only delivered by trainers who are competent to deliver the relevant competencies. For this reason, the Opposition's call for a single training program covering all these aspects is not practical. Coordination of training cannot occur at the expense of achieving proper training outcomes. To do so would reduce each of these initiatives to mere tokenism. Even if this idea is feasible for hoteliers, fish and chip shop owners will not want to sit through training on gambling and alcohol that is not relevant to their business.

The Government's key focus and commitment in this area is to ensure that rural and regional areas in New South Wales have access to high quality, consistent and affordable food handler training. The Food Authority has researched delivery methods ranging from online through to face-to-face. For example, Queensland's Southbank Institute of Technology offers both face-to-face and online food safety training and the cost of both delivery options is consistent with the estimated cost of New South Wales training courses. The Food Authority has also explored these issues with providers like ClubsNSW, which offers online training to meet other training needs. The bill provides the Food Authority with the capacity to approve registered training organisations that will issue food safety supervisor certificates. In most cases it is these approved organisations that will deliver the training. The Food Authority will use the approval process to ensure that training is effectively delivered in rural and regional areas and will consult further with both industry and registered training organisations to ensure this occurs.

The Opposition in the Legislative Assembly also called for TAFE New South Wales to deliver the required training. TAFE is one of many registered training organisations that may elect to be part of this scheme and it will be up to TAFE to decide whether it wants to be involved in delivering this training. In the Legislative Assembly the Opposition also made an ill-informed assertion that legislation already in place adequately deals with food safety, but that it is not being enforced. The Government strongly disagrees with this ill-informed assertion. Under the Food Regulation Partnership, the Food Authority coordinates, supports and assists local government to enforce food laws. The success of this partnership in enforcing existing food laws is demonstrated by the entries on the name and shame register.

The name and shame register currently displays 1,732 penalty notices, involving 983 businesses for offences in the past 12 months, and 93 per cent of those entries are directly attributable to hospitality businesses. This indicates that food handlers need help in better understanding these basic but critical food safety concepts. Mandatory food handler training will educate food handlers to better understand food laws and put the requirements into practice. This means that businesses will be better able to stay off the name and shame register. As other speakers have noted, if this system works, there will not be a need for a name and shame register. For many years the Restaurant and Catering Association has urged both national and State governments to adopt mandatory food handler training as an effective response to food-borne illness attributable to the food service sector. Local councils support this approach. They want to focus on improving compliance and understanding rather than always resorting to punitive measures.

The Opposition was also concerned about who would be issued with a penalty notice where an employee failed to follow the proper instructions of a food safety supervisor when the supervisor was not present. The Act has always contemplated that an employee may be held liable for certain offences. This remains unchanged. However, any breach of the Act by the employee will be deemed to have been committed by the employer unless the employer can establish that he or she could not have prevented that breach by exercising due diligence. It may be appropriate, in certain circumstances, that the employer and the employee both be held accountable for a breach. However, ordinarily as a matter of policy the Food Authority will only prosecute the company or business owner. There is also a level of confusion among Opposition members about the requirements for the food safety supervisor to be present. It is important to understand that the food safety supervisor is not required to be present at all times.

I respond specifically to the request by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to ensure food safety supervisor notifications are not restricted to paper-based systems administered by individual councils. While these are administrative matters, I am happy to give a commitment that the Government will consult with councils and industry during implementation to ensure the notification requirements are practical and efficient. To this end, I can advise that the Government will commit to introducing an efficient web-based system to ensure that businesses have a simple option to meet their notification requirements under this bill. The Government has taken a practical approach by limiting these new food safety supervisor requirements to businesses that sell ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food. Pre-packaged food items such as ready-to-eat sandwiches or meat pies sold in places like convenience stores represent a low food safety risk if the only activity conducted on site is temperature control.

In response to the issues raised by the Greens specifically in relation to a food safety supervisor, it is not intended to create an internal policeman within a business. It is a matter for enforcement agencies and their authorised officers to determine or prosecute breaches of the Act. It is anticipated that a food safety supervisor would coordinate and facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Act and the code.

In relation to the prawn issue, premises where processing of ready-to-eat fresh seafood is undertaken will be exempt from stage one of the scheme. This is because the impact and efficiency of mandating food handler training within these operations has not yet been clearly established. To ensure that any future application of the food safety supervisor requirement is practical and effective, especially to food businesses that conduct limited food handling activities, the Government has taken a staged implementation approach. I also confirm for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the businesses exempt from stage one continue to be the not-for-profit community and charitable causes, school canteens, delicatessens, greengrocers who cut fruit and vegetables and childcare centres. If issues arise they will be examined after stage one.

In response to the issue raised by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile about fees and charges for registered training organisations [RTOs], I advise that the matter is still under consultation. Present indications are that registered training organisation approval fees will be based on the number of full-time equivalent trainers the RTO engages to deliver food safety supervisor training. It is likely that there will be an initial application fee of $100 and an annual approval fee. Indicative annual fees for an RTO are $600 for an RTO engaging fewer than 5 full-time trainers, $1,800 for an RTO engaging between 6 and 15 trainers and $2,400 for an RTO engaging 16 or more trainers.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: That is for a training organisation.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: Yes, and I think I said at the beginning that the cost for an individual to do the training is estimated to be about $200 per person and $30 to get the certificate. I thank members for their contributions. There has been quite a lot of detailed discussion about the various parts of this bill. 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.

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.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.32 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

I am pleased to bring before the House the Health Practitioner Regulation Bill 2009.

The bill provides for the implementation in New South Wales of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

The National Law sets out the regulatory framework for the new National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for Health Professionals. It implements the Agreement signed in 2008 by the Council of Australian Governments to establish the national registration scheme by 1 July 2010. As such the National Law represents a significant development in the Australian health care system and the regulatory framework that has contributed to the very high standard of health professional education and professionalism that is enjoyed in Australia.

The National Law provides for the registration at a national level of ten health professions:

· chiropractic;

· dentistry (including dental hygienists, dental therapists; and dental prosthetists);

· medicine;

· nursing and midwifery;

· optometry;

· osteopathy;

· pharmacy;

· physiotherapy;

· podiatry; and

· psychology.

Four further professions will be added to the national scheme in July 2012. Those professions are:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice;

· Chinese medicine;

· medical radiation practice; and

· occupational therapy.

The National Law has been developed by a team of officials over the last 18 months. During the development of the legislation there has been an extensive consultation process involving a series of national and State forums that provided for engagement with health professionals, professional associations, regulatory bodies and the public.

Over the course of the consultation process over 550 formal submissions were received with the ideas raised in those submissions providing a number of valuable and practical improvements to the legislation and the scheme as a whole.

Under the National Law registered health practitioners will pay a single registration fee that will entitle them to work across the entire country without being required to meet additional criteria or pay additional fees.

The National Law will ensure that nationally uniform processes and criteria exist for registering practitioners and accrediting educational programs. The establishment of these uniform processes and standards will mean that uniformly high standards will be applied nationwide and that the public can have increased confidence that all registered health practitioners meet appropriately high standards.

The National Law also provides for mandatory reporting of practitioners who are placing the public at risk of harm due to the manner in which they practise their profession, including by practising whilst intoxicated or affected by drugs; by practising in a manner that represents a substantial departure from accepted professional practice; or by engaging in sexual misconduct in the course of practice.

Many of the essential public protection features of the National Law already exist in New South Wales law in substantially the same fashion as they appear in the National Law. These features include … mandatory reporting, which applies to medical practitioners in New South Wales … mandatory professional indemnity insurance, which applies to all professions in New South Wales other than nursing and midwifery … and the requirement for all registrants to lodge an annual return that provides information relevant to ongoing registration to the registration authorities.

Members will be aware that all national systems are, necessarily, the result of negotiation and compromise to reach outcomes acceptable to all jurisdictions. The National Law to be adopted by this bill is no different, and practitioners and regulators in New South Wales will find some differences in how registration, accreditation and other processes will be managed under the National Scheme.

The processes for approving standards for the accreditation of education courses have, for example, been contentious. During the consultation process on the National Law, professional groups identified concerns that the original COAG Agreement gave the Ministerial Council final power of approval over the Standards which would be used to accredit courses.

Under clause 11 (4) of the National Law, the Council will now have power to intervene only where there is a concern that the Standards "will have a substantive and negative impact on the recruitment or supply of health practitioners". The Council will also be required to give consideration to the potential impact of the Council's direction on the quality and safety of health care.

While I recognise that some professional groups may take the view there should be even further restrictions on the Ministerial Council, the Government considers this is a sensible and appropriate solution to ensure co-operative approach on these issues.

As I have already indicated, there are some areas where through negotiation and discussion, compromises are necessary to reach agreement on a National system.

There are however equally areas where compromise is not possible where the protection of the public is the paramount consideration. For this reason this Government has consistently argued there can be no compromise in ensuring the maintenance of a strong, accountable and transparent disciplinary and complaints system in New South Wales.

Members will be aware that the health care complaints system in New South Wales is virtually unique in Australia. It divides the complaints and disciplinary roles between the health professional boards and the independent Health Care Complaints Commission.

This structure has evolved over many years. Starting in response to the Chelmsford Hospital scandals in the 1980s, to the establishment of Australia's first fully independent health complaints investigator in 1993, the changes made to the New South Wales system over the last 20 years have consistently focused on … enhancing the public accountability of health service providers and … improving the capacity of complaints system to protect the public.

As members may be aware, the National Law's complaints model adopts processes similar to those which currently apply in most other States and territories. It is markedly different from the current New South Wales model, as it relies primarily on the health professional boards to undertake disciplinary functions and does not provide for an independent investigator and prosecutor such as the Health Care Complaints Commission.

This Government remains committed to the Health Care Complaints Commission as an integral element in complaints management in New South Wales.

For this reason I am pleased to advise the House that the Government has brokered an agreement with the other States and Territories, which will enable New South Wales to maintain the current New South Wales health complaints system and retain the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission.

New South Wales will now participate in National Registration as a "co-regulatory jurisdiction". As a result, the bill I bring before the House specifically provides New South Wales will not adopt the National Law complaints model, which is set out in Divisions 3 to 12 of Part 8 of the National Law.

Under the proposed New South Wales approach the national registration boards will be expressly precluded from dealing with complaints about matters occurring in New South Wales and those matters must be referred to the New South Wales authorities, including the Health Care Complaints Commission, to be managed.

As New South Wales is not adopting the National Complaints Model, further legislation will be required at a State level to re-establish and consolidate the New South Wales professional regulation system. This legislation which the Government will introduce before the end of the current session is currently being developed in consultation with key New South Wales stakeholders and the regulators, including the Health Care Complaints Commission.

The legislation will reflect the Government's commitment to retain the Health Care Complaints Commission as a separate entity and will also extent many recent reforms to the Medical Practice Act to other professional groups.

Stakeholders in New South Wales have uniformly welcomed the commitment of the Government to retain the existing complaints system and recognise the benefits that a robust, independent and transparent system delivers to the public, health practitioners and the health system as a whole.

In terms of funding the New South Wales complaints system Health Ministers have agreed that the practitioners of other jurisdictions will not be called on to fund the complaints system in New South Wales and that practitioners in New South Wales will equally not be called on to fund the complaints system established under the national law. The New South Wales Government has also committed to maintaining the substantial New South Wales subsidy to the health complaints system through Government funding of the Health Care Complaints Commission. It is therefore anticipated that in most, if not all cases, registration fees payable for practitioners based in New South Wales will continue to be lower than for the rest of the nation.

As I have already indicated, the Government proposes to bring a separate bill before the Parliament later in this session to implement the New South Wales complaints system and to make any other legislative changes that are required as a consequence of the national system.

I extend the Government's thanks to all of the health practitioners, both in New South Wales and other jurisdictions, who have freely given of the time and expertise to help develop the national registration and accreditation system and congratulate those individuals who have been appointed to the various national boards.

The implementation of the national registration and accreditation scheme represents an exciting development in professional regulation in Australia and I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [10.33 p.m.]: This bill is a means to implement in New South Wales national registration and accreditation for health professionals. The bill has been quite a long time in the making. Once the bill and its complementary bills are enacted across the Federation there will be free movement of health professionals across the nation and there will be standardised registration procedures for the professions and professionals will be nationally accredited.

The Liberal and National parties support the principle of national registration and accreditation for those working in the health professions, although we do have some reservations about the relatively unusual methodology being used by the Council of Australian Governments to put the scheme in place throughout Australia. The bill enacts the Council of Australian Governments agreement of last year that a national registration scheme should be in place by 1 July next year. The mechanism to bring this national registration accreditation scheme into existence is that the Queensland Parliament acts as the host of the legislation having been the first of Australia's parliaments to enact it and New South Wales and other States will enact complementary applied law schemes, which will replace their State-based registration and accreditation schemes and refer powers to the newly established national authorities. This bill adopts the Health Practitioner Regulation national law that has passed through the Queensland Parliament and is set out in the schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 of Queensland.

The bill establishes a national registration and accreditation scheme for the regulation of health practitioners and it also provides for the registration of students undertaking programs of study that provide a qualification for registration in a health profession or clinical training in a health profession. The bill is about five pages long and then the schedule that is a schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 of Queensland is the schedule that applies once the bill is passed in New South Wales. So it is a very extensive law and the regulation bill that is before us now is the latest redraft after extensive consultation across Australia.

The bill sets up the role of the Ministerial Council, Ministers of Health, and the policy directions that that Ministerial Council can take and the setting up of the registration standards that the Ministerial Council will undertake. It establishes an Australian health workforce advisory council andan Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and, of course, it sets up national boards for registration and sets out their powers and the membership of the boards and the eligibility for appointment to those boards. It also sets out the functions the boards will have as well as the remaining State and Territory boards and their roles. It sets out the registration standards and codes and, of course, it addresses the question of setting up accreditation authorities and their functions.

It sets out the various categories of registration for health practitioners. For example, there will be categories for general registration and specialist registration. There will be a category for provisional registration and another category for limited registration, for example where students are undertaking post-graduate training or supervised practice. There will be a provision for limited registration for areas of need and there may be other limited registration permitted, for example, where such is deemed to be in the public interest, or there could be another category of limited registration for the purpose of teaching or research.

There will be another category of non-practising registration and the regulation bill sets out the means of applying for registration for the various categories, and there is one for student registration applications. There is also provision that persons being registered can gain an endorsement for authority to issue scheduled medicines, for example. There can be an endorsement in relation to nurse practitioners, midwife practitioners and acupuncturists. There are provisions that protect the titles used by various health practitioners, for example an acupuncturist, and various other specialties. The same applies to certain practice protections.

The regulation bill sets out the obligations of registered health practitioners and students with regard to such things as continuing professional development and professional indemnity insurance, and the regulations relating to advertising for health professionals. It also sets out the provisions that go to identity and criminal history, which has been an important issue in New South Wales. There are also provisions for mandatory notifications, voluntary notifications, health and performance assessments, appeal provisions, how it will be funded, privacy, offences and many other matters.

The regulation bill relates to 10 health professions in the first instance that will come under the umbrella of the national registration and accreditation regime. They are chiropractic, dentistry—including dental hygienists, dental therapists and dental prosthetists—medicine, nursing and midwifery, optometry, osteopathy, pharmacy, physiotherapy, podiatry and psychology. In 2012 four additional professions will be added to the national scheme—Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander health practitioners, Chinese medicine practitioners, medical radiation practitioners and occupational therapists.

Registered health practitioners will need to pay a single registration fee that will entitle them to work across Australia without being required to meet additional registration criteria or pay additional fees. The national law has as its objective to ensure that nationally uniform processes and criteria exist for registering practitioners and accrediting educational programs. The aspiration is that there will be uniformly high standards across Australia, bringing increased confidence that all the registered practitioners have met the criteria to gain such registration.

One of the features of the nationwide law will be to have mandatory reporting of practitioners who place the public at risk in the way they practise their profession, including practising while intoxicated or affected by drugs, practising in a manner that represents a substantial departure from accepted professional practice or engaging in sexual misconduct in the course of practice. It is true that many of the public protection measures are already in place in New South Wales, including mandatory reporting of medical practitioners in this State, mandatory professional indemnity insurance for all professions in New South Wales other than nursing and midwifery, and the requirement for all registrants to lodge an annual return that provides information relevant to ongoing registration to the appropriate authorities.

It is also true that an earlier draft of the regulation bill generated considerable concern in some of the health professions. I certainly received many representations from health professionals in that regard. One of those areas of concern related to the Ministerial Council having final power of approval over the standards that will be used to accredit courses. Under the current version of the bill the Ministerial Council will be able to intervene only where there is concern that standards will have a substantive and negative impact on the recruitment or supply of health practitioners. Further, the Ministerial Council will have to give consideration to the potential impact of the council's direction on the quality and safety of health care.

Another feature of the redrafted bill is that it takes into account the health care complaints regime that has evolved in New South Wales. That framework divides the complaints and disciplinary roles between the health professional boards and the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC]. Most other States and Territories have a different framework when it comes to complaints about health care providers, relying primarily on health professional bodies to undertake disciplinary functions, and it does not provide for an independent investigator and prosecutor such as the HCCC in New South Wales.

In New South Wales, after the anger and anguish of the cases involving Dr Graham Reeves, this Parliament introduced mandatory reporting of impaired doctors, and this stringency will be retained in this State. The bill provides for New South Wales to participate in the national registration framework as a co-regulatory jurisdiction. This means that New South Wales will not adopt the national law complaints model. That is in the schedule that applies to other jurisdictions.

Under the New South Wales version of the registration procedures the national registration boards will be expressly precluded from dealing with complaints about matters occurring in this State and such matters will have to be referred to the New South Wales authorities, including the HCCC, to be managed under New South Wales laws and procedures. Because of that exemption from the national complaints model this House will have to debate further legislation that will re-establish and consolidate the New South Wales professional regulation system. The Government has indicated it will introduce such a bill before the end of the current rather busy session. The HCCC has been involved in developing that legislation. The HCCC will be retained as a separate entity and recent changes to the Medical Practice Act will be extended to other health care professions. The Ministerial Council has agreed that practitioners in other jurisdictions will not be called on to fund the unique New South Wales complaints system.

Many members have received representations with respect to dental technicians not being covered under the national proposals. These technicians may not see patients alone—or they are not meant to—and they work in conjunction with other dental professionals. That is the reason Minister Tebbutt gave today in her response to the second reading debate in the other place for those technicians not being included in the framework. On behalf of the Opposition I note the representations that have been made expressing concern about that particular part of the bill. As I said at the outset, the Liberal and National parties support the principle of national registration and accreditation of health professions throughout Australia. There are many benefits from a national scheme of accreditation and registration. We note that the bill will be reviewed after five years. We commend the principle of the bill and I have pleasure in advising that we do not oppose the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.47 p.m.]: The Health Practitioner Regulation Bill 2009 will implement in New South Wales a national law relating to health practitioner regulation. It sets out the regulatory framework for the new national registration and accreditation scheme for health professionals, which was agreed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2008. The Greens support the sentiment behind creating a national registration scheme but we have a number of questions and concerns about specific aspects of the bill. I hope the member representing the Minister will deal with these in her speech in reply. The national law provides for the registration at a national level of 10 health professions: chiropractic, dentistry, medicine, nursing and midwifery, optometry, osteopathy, pharmacy, physiotherapy, podiatry and psychology. I understand that in 2012 four more professions will be added to the national scheme. I think that is good news. They include Chinese medicine, occupational therapy, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice.

The guiding principles of the national registration and accreditation scheme are that the scheme is to operate in a transparent, accountable, efficient, effective and fair way. The fees to be paid under the scheme are to be reasonable having regard to the efficient and effective operation of the scheme. Restrictions on the practise of a health profession are to be imposed only if it is necessary to ensure health services are provided safely and are of an appropriate quality. Under the national law, health practitioners will pay a single registration fee that will entitle them to work across the country without being required to meet additional criteria or pay additional fees. There will be nationally uniform processes and criteria for registering practitioners and accrediting educational programs. There will be a system for mandatory reporting of practitioners who are placing the public at risk of harm due to the manner in which they practise their profession.

I understand that New South Wales will not buy into the national health complaint system and that the national registration boards will be expressly precluded from dealing with complaints about matters occurring in New South Wales. Instead, New South Wales will retain its current regime for dealing with complaints about registered health practitioners and students studying in New South Wales. Importantly, matters will still be able to be referred to the Health Care Complaints Commission. The Greens support the retention of the current complaint system in New South Wales. The national body relies primarily on the health professional boards to undertake disciplinary functions, whereas in New South Wales the Health Care Complaints Commission is an independent investigator and prosecutor.

The Health Care Complaints Commission should be able to contribute its important work in New South Wales. My Greens colleagues in the Senate have broadly supported the concept of a national registration and accreditation scheme for medical practitioners. I acknowledge the work done on this issue by my Greens colleague Senator Rachel Siewert. Senator Siewert was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs that inquired into the national registration and accreditation scheme for doctors and other health workers and reported in August 2009. In her additional comments Senator Siewert referred to the importance of a national registration scheme and said:

The Greens believe such a scheme would help ensure that patient safety and that the quality of patient care provided to all Australians is enhanced by the more efficient movement of registered practitioners across Australian jurisdictional boundaries. A nationally uniform set of policies and regulatory guidelines would signal an end to the reliance on mutual recognition of jurisdiction-based registration. Furthermore, the Australian Greens believe this scheme could have significant benefits for consumers in terms of increased access to midwifery care for women and babies, and for improving quality assurance for pregnant and birthing women and their families.

One of the more controversial aspects of this national law has been its treatment of independent midwives who oversee home births. The national law, as originally proposed, could have had significant implications for women and families who chose to have a home birth. The law would have made it effectively impossible for independent midwives to be registered and to be able to attend a home birth because currently no insurance product is available to indemnify midwives. It would have made home births illegal, dragging women and their families back to the dark old days and driving home births underground. That would have been an appalling situation for women in Australia and would have greatly increased the risk that pregnancy complications would not be spotted and significant delays would be experienced accessing medical care if something went wrong that had tragic consequences.

I recognise the tireless work of the Maternity Coalition and Home Birth Australia in campaigning on this aspect of the proposed national law. Its strong community campaign forced the Government to back-pedal on the original proposal and provide an exemption for private midwives currently overseeing home births to continue to do so during the transition period, when presumably an insurance product will become available. Proposed section 284 sets out a temporary exemption from the requirement for professional indemnity arrangements for midwives practising midwifery. Under this proposed section a midwife would not be in contravention of the Act if, first, the practice occurred in a participating jurisdiction in which immediately before the participation day for that jurisdiction a person was not prohibited from attending home births in the course of practising midwifery unless professional indemnity insurance arrangements were in place; second, informed consent had been given by the woman in question; and, third, the midwife complied with any requirements set out in a code approved by the national board.

The remaining concern about this temporary exemption is whether it turns out that the private model of professional indemnity for midwives is not available by the time the transition period ends. In this case the Greens support a government-backed indemnity scheme to bridge the gap and to ensure that mothers and midwives are adequately covered. I am a strong supporter of women's right to choose when it comes to birthing decisions. A range of safe choices should be available to Australian mothers—from home births to birthing centres, to hospital wards, to full clinical intervention. Our maternity care system should support women and families to make informed choices and enable easy and timely transition to higher levels of care, as the need arises.

Giving birth to a child is one of the most significant experiences for a woman and her family. The Greens believe that the choice of having a safe and supported low-risk home birth should be available in Australia. But right now the medicalisation of having a baby is not akin to what other comparable countries are doing. For instance, in the Netherlands half the births are home births, which saves a huge amount in health dollars. There is no evidence that home births are unsafe, but unfortunately in Australia the birthing culture has moved away from home births and low-intervention procedures. One has to ask: Who benefits from that culture?

In general, obstetricians and midwives who have less experience of natural births because of an increasing number of caesareans are finding that there is a de-skilling of the workforce. I understand that around 40 per cent of births in Australia are caesarean and that each birth represents a cost to the health budget of $20,000, which emphasises the need for more work in this area. I emphasised that point because in an era of a shortage of health professionals and hospital beds we must increase access to midwives and decrease, rather than increase, the medicalisation of births, as that would be much better for the health of mothers, their children and society.

Independent midwives offering healthy birth services provide real and safe options for mothers. Midwifery services are particularly popular for women who have had traumatic birthing experiences. Recently a number of the women to whom I spoke referred to the importance of birth centres in local hospitals—an area that is considerably oversubscribed. An experience that was recently relayed to me mirrors my own birthing experience. When my second child was born naturally in hospital and a midwife was in attendance a large number of student doctors were brought into the birthing room because they had never witnessed a child being born in those circumstances. I was happy to accommodate them. Some of the women to whom I have spoken also said that they were happy for student doctors and midwives to witness the births of their children. I found it extraordinary that people at that level of their training had not previously witnessed a natural childbirth. For all those reasons we must do a lot more work in this area.

I turn now to a number of specific concerns about the bill. A number of industry groups have raised concerns about the mandatory reporting provisions. The bill provides for the mandatory reporting of practitioners who behave in a way that constitutes notifiable conduct, that is, the mandatory reporting of practitioners who are placing the public at risk of harm due to the manner in which they practice their profession, including practising while intoxicated or affected by drugs, practising in a manner that represents a substantial departure from accepted professional practice, or engaging in sexual misconduct in the course of practice.

Because of significant public health concerns the Greens support mandatory reporting. My office has received representations from the Australian Dental Association, the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons about proposed section 141 (1), which sets out the circumstances in which a health practitioner is exempt from making a mandatory notification under the bill. These organisations argue that this proposed section might have the unintended consequences of discouraging health practitioners from seeking treatment, advice and support from other health practitioners for fear of being subject to mandatory notification.

The Australian Dental Association raises the issue of dentists who contact the Dental Defence Advisory Service to speak to a peer adviser. Its concern is that the current wording may have the unintended consequence of driving poor performance underground, causing potential closure of the advisory service or increasing the cost and complexity for practitioners and the public. Similarly, the Australia Medical Association raises the issue of whether doctors who provide support or care to other doctors and the Doctor's Health Advisory Service should be exempt on the basis that the current wording may mean that at-risk doctors do not seek treatment and care, and place patients at further risk by hiding an illness or addiction.

The Greens support mandatory regulation. We believe it is essential to ensure public safety. However, as a result of mandatory reporting we do not want health professionals to not seek appropriate treatment and support because they do not want to be reported. Driving problems underground will not enhance public safety. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to respond to this concern and explain what measures the Government will take to ensure that health practitioners continue to seek support and treatment while maintaining public safety standards for people. My office also has been approached by the Oral Health Professionals Association, which represents Australian dental technicians and laboratory owners with concerns that the New South Wales bill excludes dental technicians from maintaining registration. In its representations to my office the Oral Health Professionals Association states:

We believe the activities of the occupation pose a significant risk of harm and safety to the public as Dental Technicians construct appliances that are inserted into human mouth. Any failure on the part of the dental technician to observe proper infection control procedures could lead to adverse health outcomes such as hepatitis C for the public and for the Dental Technician.

Many of us remember the tragic case some years ago when a number of dental patients of one particular dentist acquired AIDS because of unsafe practices. Clearly, the Oral Health Professional Association has identified an issue that needs attention. Queensland, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory will retain registration of dental technicians. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to explain why the New South Wales Government has omitted dental technicians from the registration system. The House and the professionals involved in such work deserve a response on this issue.

Finally, the Greens are concerned that there has not been a regulatory impact statement nor costings associated with the bill, nor any process for how outcomes will be measured. The Australian Dental Association has specifically raised this concern with me. The association states that because of this a significant element of trust is expected of the professions and the community in relation to this bill. Again, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address these costings concerns associated with the bill and how outcomes will be measured. The Greens support moving to a national system of registration and accreditation.

We recognise the amount of consultation that has gone into drafting the scheme at a Federal and State level. We realise it has taken a long time to reach this point. It certainly was an area that needed improvement. We would all agree that the bill is not without its flaws, but we acknowledge that it is an advance on the current situation. We ask the Parliamentary Secretary to respond to the issues we have raised. It is important to get our concerns on the record so that everyone is clear and we can move forward to continually improving such legislation.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.03 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Health Practitioner Regulation Bill 2009. The bill states:

The object of this Bill is to adopt the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the National Law) hosted by the Queensland Parliament and set out in the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 of Queensland. The National Law gives effect to the Intergovernmental Agreement for a National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions, signed by the Council of Australian Governments on 26 March 2008 and establishes a national registration and accreditation scheme for:

(a) the regulation of health practitioners, and

(b) the registration of students undertaking:

(i) programs of study that provide a qualification for registration in a health profession, or

(ii) clinical training in a health profession.

The Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission has had discussions on whether the quality of the national scheme equals our State scheme. New South Wales already has a good scheme and by plugging into the national scheme we would be adopting a lower common denominator. I believe that underlying concern is probably the reason New South Wales is not adopting divisions 3 to 12 of part 8 of the national law and related definitions, which provide for health, performance and conduct matters relating to registered health practitioners and students. Instead, New South Wales will retain a separate system to deal with complaints about registered health practitioners and students practising or studying in this State.

Before the national law commences it will be necessary for New South Wales and each of the other States and Territories to enact legislation providing for consequential amendments of other Acts, and transitional and savings arrangements consequent on the adoption of the national law. The provisions dealing with the complaints system for registered health practitioners and students practising or studying in New South Wales will be addressed in this legislation. That concern is justified as New South Wales should monitor the complaints system. It may be necessary for this State as part of the Council of Australian Governments to have necessary improvements to this bill and the national scheme so that it meets New South Wales' standard rather than New South Wales lowering its standards.

Like other members, I have received detailed submissions, including a six-page submission from the Australian Dental Association and the Australian Medical Association. They have inefficient internal systems, but are concerned that the bill may undermine those systems and we will finish once again with a weaker system. In its letter dated 5 November 2009 the Australian Dental Association referred to the Dental Defence Advisory Service, which provides timely and non-judgemental support and information to members on a broad range of issues. How does that relate to the procedures in the legislation? The association refers to that as follows:

First Issue: Disclosure made by a person to the first health practitioner in the course of a legal proceeding

Section 141 (4)(a)(ii) of the bill refers to "a disclosure made by a person to the first health practitioner in the course of a legal proceeding …

Will some of these provisions stifle this advisory system from working? The association states:

The Branch holds grave concerns that the current wording will result in:

members not contacting the [Dental Defence Advisory Service] and obtaining prudent advice from Peer Advisors;

members and other health practitioners not reporting circumstances to professional indemnity insurers for fear of being reported to the National Agency (the problem therefore goes underground)—

we do not want to see that happen—

patient complaints not being dealt with or not being dealt with appropriately;

poor healthcare outcomes;
an escalation in legal proceedings and therefore further involvement of lawyers in the complaint handling process.

Again, we do not want to involve more lawyers and more expense. The association also states that disclosure made by a person to the first health practitioner in the course of the provision of legal advice arising from the insurance policy may have a negative impact. The association's letter is dated 5 November, so I am not sure whether the Government has received the association's recommendations. If so, the Government has not had much time to consider them. The association suggests amendment of clause 141 (4) (a) (iii) of the bill to add the words "an existing or anticipated" and to delete "legal" from the phrase "the provision of legal advice". If the association's amendment is accepted, clause 141 (4) (a) (ii) would state:

(ii) forms the reasonable belief that the second health practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes notifiable conduct, or the student has an impairment, as a result of the disclosure made by a person to the first health practitioner in the course of an existing or anticipated legal proceedings or the provision of advice arising from the insurance policy; or

The association's suggested amendments are minor, but it is a pity that the association was not consulted during formulation of the bill. The association recently received the draft legislation and has not had sufficient time to comment on the bill. Finetuning may be required: the Australian Medical Association also has pointed out that the legislation may have consequences not intended by the Council of Australian Governments. The associations have fired a warning shot across the Government's bow, so the Government may have to carefully monitor developments. Having said that, I state that the Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [11.11 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I join in debate on the Health Practitioner Regulation Bill 2009. As noted in the Minister's second reading speech, the bill adopts the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, which is referred to as the national law, as a law of New South Wales. The national law is a result of a lengthy and complex development process involving all States and Territories. It is also worth noting that very lengthy and comprehensive consultation has been engaged in with many stakeholders in the healthcare sector in New South Wales and nationally.

Before dealing with the key points I wish to make, I express my concurrence with comments made by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile regarding retention of the New South Wales health care complaints model. It is true, as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile stated and as verified by the work of the joint parliamentary committee on the Health Care Complains Commission, that consumers, healthcare practitioners and various boards support the New South Wales model. Those groups have expressed the view that New South Wales should not revert to the system operating in other States because that would represent a weakening of the very good system that operates in New South Wales. That matter will be dealt with by legislation before the current parliamentary session concludes.

The regulatory scheme proposed by the bill will herald a new era for health practitioner regulation in Australia and will assist in the ongoing development of a more mobile health workforce. However, mobility of the workforce should not provide an opportunity for practitioners who do not comply with accepted professional standards, or who practice improperly, to move around and stay one step ahead of previous misconduct. Accordingly the scheme provides for national registers and the free flow of information between the regulatory authorities, States and Territories, and most importantly the provision of relevant and accurate information to the public.

The mandatory reporting system in the national law is a key part of that regulatory system. It is to that system that I will address most of my remarks this evening. Mandatory reporting is an issue that has generated significant debate among the professions and in the Queensland Parliament when it debated its bill. Members will recall that in mid 2008 this Parliament debated and passed a range of amendments to the New South Wales Medical Practice Act that largely arose from the inquiry conducted by a former Federal Court Judge, Deirdre O'Connor, following a number of serious complaints that had been made about the medical practice of Mr Graeme Reeves.

Included in those amendments was a mandatory requirement for medical practitioners to report on specific types of misconduct by their professional colleagues. The conduct that is covered by the mandatory reporting provisions is practising while intoxicated by drugs or alcohol; engaging in sexual misconduct in connection with the practice of medicine; and practising in a manner that represents a flagrant departure from accepted standards of professional practice or competence, and that risks harm to some other person. After more than a year of experience with mandatory reporting, the New South Wales Medical Board has not been overrun with complaints; nor has there been a flood of notifications that are vexatious or frivolous. In fact, there have been no vexatious or frivolous reports.

Many members of the medical profession welcome the mandatory reporting requirements because they provide the medical profession with certainty and protection by the statutory requirement. The benefits of mandatory reporting are such that other States and Territories are now strong supporters of it and have argued passionately that it be included in the national scheme and extended to cover all professions as well as students. The national law also requires practitioners and employers, such as hospital managers, to report to the relevant national board a practitioner who is placing the public at risk of harm. Mandatory notification under the national scheme will be triggered when a practitioner is affected by drugs or alcohol in the workplace; engages in sexual misconduct in their professional practice; places the public at risk of substantial harm in the practitioner's practice of the profession because the practitioner has an impairment; or places the public at risk of harm because the practitioner has practised the profession in a way that constitutes a significant departure from accepted professional standards.

To a large extent these provisions reflect the existing law of New South Wales under the Medical Practice Act. The only variation to the current New South Wales reporting regime and to the reporting regime proposed in the national law is the inclusion of mandatory reporting in some cases of impairment. This is a matter that has been of significant concern to other jurisdictions, and compromises therefore have been required. While not diminishing the importance of concerns that have been raised about mandatory reporting of impairment, it is essential to remember that the system in place for managing impairment operates in a supportive and rehabilitative manner and that practitioners who are reported simply on the basis of an impairment that has not given rise to any form of misconduct would be assisted through a cooperative approach rather than the disciplinary system. Such an outcome is in the best interests of the practitioner, patients and the health system as a whole.

Another matter of some controversy has been the fact that the national law does not provide exemptions from the mandatory reporting requirements for spouses or treating practitioners. The only exemptions are for registered health practitioners who acquire relevant information in the following circumstances: in connection with employment by an indemnity insurer; in connection with providing legal advice; as a member of a statutory quality assurance committee; and when there is a reasonable belief that some other person has made the required notification. Although concerns have been expressed about the lack of exemptions for spouses and treating practitioners, the experience of the New South Wales Medical Board with the existing New South Wales version of mandatory reporting suggests there is little real basis for these concerns. It is understood that many practitioners are relieved that they have no choice as to whether or not to report. Most importantly, given the very serious nature of the conduct, it would be unreasonable to undermine the notification system by providing additional classes of exemption.

I note that concerns have also been expressed about the inclusion of students in the mandatory reporting regime. In considering those circumstances, it is vital to note that mandatory reporting applies to impaired students only in circumstances in which the student is undertaking clinical training and when his or her impairment may place the public at substantial risk of harm. Mandatory reporting of impaired students serves two separate and equally important purposes. Firstly, mandatory reporting of students will provide an avenue through which members of the public will be protected. Protection of the public particularly applies in the clinical training component of a student's education when in many cases there is a substantial degree of direct, albeit supervised, contact with patients.

Secondly, mandatory reporting of students will ensure that the relevant cooperative and supporting systems can be put in place to address the student's impairment and, ideally, resolve the problems such that the student may complete his or her education and become a member of the profession for which they have trained and for which the community has invested resources in training them. Each of these matters has previously been identified as being of concern to educators and clinical supervisors.

However, universities have felt constrained in their ability to report matters to registration authorities. The mandatory notification requirements remove any doubts about the ability—indeed, the obligation—of universities and other educators to provide this information to the relevant authorities. Educators support the application of the impairment system to students and the inclusion of students in the mandatory reporting regime in these limited circumstances. The mandatory reporting system is an important aspect of the national law and will contribute to public protection and the maintenance of public confidence in the regulatory system. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.20 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to this debate. I note that there is support across the Chamber for the Health Practitioner Regulation Bill 2009. The national scheme will deliver improved administrative efficiency for the growing number of practitioners who practise in more than one Australian jurisdiction by allowing them to freely move around the country without the need to hold multiple registrations. Consequently, it will promote a more flexible, responsible and sustainable health workforce. I am pleased that other speakers noted the provisions around mandatory reporting and the fact that New South Wales has maintained its separate complaints performance and health systems. I acknowledge and thank the Ministers who have maintained this, and believe that it is a major achievement in the national scheme.

A couple of issues were raised during the debate. I do not intend to go into them in detail but I will respond to the issue regarding independent privately practising midwives. The national law makes it mandatory for all registered health practitioners to hold approved insurance or be otherwise indemnified while engaged in professional practice. This is the system that currently operates in New South Wales under the provisions of the Health Care Liability Act for all registered professions other than nurses and midwives as they generally work as employees. Ministers noted feedback from privately practising midwives and many consumers that no appropriate insurance product was currently available to midwives attending home births and therefore privately practising midwives could not meet the PII requirements for the scheme.

In September 2009 Ministers agreed to a transitional provision, as included in the national law, to provide a temporary exemption from holding indemnity insurance for privately practising midwives who are unable to obtain indemnity insurance for attending a home birth. This temporary exemption will run for two years, until 1 July 2012. Additional requirements to access the exemption include a requirement to provide full disclosure that the midwife does not have insurance and gain informed consent, reporting arrangements in relation to each home birth and participation in a quality and safety framework which will be developed after consultation led by Victoria through the finalisation of the registration and accreditation process.

However, if the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia determines that an appropriate insurance product is available for private midwives prior to 1 July 2012, the board may recommend to the ministerial council that the transition period, and the exemption provided under the national law, should end. The New South Wales Government will work closely with other governments, including the Commonwealth, to ensure that appropriate indemnity insurance is available. The Hon. Helen Westwood went through in some detail the provisions relating to mandatory reporting. Members should note that these provisions to a large extent reflect the existing law of New South Wales under the Medical Practice Act. As members may be aware, New South Wales was the first jurisdiction to introduce a comprehensive reporting regime in 2008. While this was somewhat controversial at the time, the New South Wales Medical Board has not reported any significant difficulties in the reporting of practitioner misconduct since the introduction of these relevant provisions.

The only variation to the current New South Wales reporting regime and that proposed in the national law is the inclusion of mandatory reporting in some cases of impairment. This matter has been of significant concern to other jurisdictions and compromises have been required. While not diminishing the importance of concerns that have been raised about mandatory reporting of impairment, it is essential to remember that the system in place for managing impairment matters operates in a supportive and rehabilitative manner, and practitioners who are reported simply on the basis of an impairment that has not given rise to any form of misconduct would be assisted via that cooperative approach, rather than via the disciplinary system. Such an outcome is in the best interests of the practitioner, patients and the health system as a whole.

The issue of dental technicians has also been raised. Dental technicians have been registered in New South Wales since 1975 and are also currently registered in the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and South Australia. Under the intergovernmental agreement and in regulations since the agreement was signed, government identified 15 professions appropriate for regulation under the scheme. Dental prosthetists were included; dental technicians were not. The essential distinction between dental technicians and dental prosthetists is that prosthetists may attend upon and deal directly with their own patients while dental technicians may not see patients and may only undertake technical work on the written order of a dentist or a dental prosthetist.

In other words, there is always another registered practitioner between the patient and the technicians, and another practitioner who is responsible for patient satisfaction. On that basis, and on a genuine and independent assessment of the risks to patients associated with the practice of dental technicians, dental technicians have not been included in the national scheme. Accordingly, when the national scheme commences the Dental Technicians Registration Act will be repealed and dental technicians will no longer be registered.

Finally, on behalf of the Government I acknowledge the contributions made by government officials and health practitioners to the development of this legislation. In particular, I thank the New South Wales Parliamentary Counsel's Office for its work. This is complex legislation and has had many variations on the way through, and the Parliamentary Counsel has done an outstanding job. The Government also acknowledges the work of the many health professional board members, professional association members, clinicians and members of the public, particularly consumers with particular interests in issues such as home births, who have taken the time to read discussions papers, write submissions, attend forums and generally offer the benefit of their experience and knowledge, for no pay and with a great deal of time but also a great deal of energy and passion. This legislation is better for their efforts. 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.

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.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.28 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [11.28 p.m.]: As members would be aware, this appalling New South Wales Labor Government has perfected the master class on how not to privatise publicly owned assets. This New South Wales Labor administration has plumbed new lows in its mishandling of its privatisation agenda. Who can forget the surreal scenes in this Chamber last year when its electricity privatisation backfired so spectacularly that it claimed a Premier and a Treasurer, and split the Australian Labor Party asunder? Members opposite remember that with great bitterness. Indeed, the architect of that disaster struts around this place as the new energy Minister, or should I say the de facto privatisation Minister, obviously appointed by a Premier with a particularly twisted sense of humour.

In light of this, I thought it prudent to remind the House that, despite the consistent bungling of New South Wales Labor, privatisation can be in the public interest if it is managed properly. Keys to success include establishing the regulatory framework up front, carefully determining the appropriate sales model and ensuring that the financial climate is conducive to maximising sales proceeds. Sadly, the Government continues to face challenges on each of these critical fronts in its latest attempt to flog New South Wales electricity assets. Perhaps the Government should have looked to best practice and past privatisation successes before rushing into its ill-conceived privatisation processes in its desperate attempt to stave off self-inflicted budgetary oblivion.

One case the Government could have learnt from is the successful privatisation of Commonwealth airports and, in particular, the privatisation of Canberra airport. Members may be aware that Capital Airport Group purchased a 99-year lease of Canberra airport in 1998 for about $60 million. At the time the airport was in need of significant investment in aeronautical infrastructure—an investment to which the Commonwealth was not prepared to commit. It was run by the Federal Airports Corporation—an organisation peppered with engineers more intent on building monuments than an efficient, operational airport. Since that time, the Capital Airport Group has invested more than $600 million in Canberra Airport under the stewardship of the Snow family, including its chairman, Terry Snow, and its chief executive officer, Stephen Byron.

The investment has included the upgrade of the common user central area for the 2000 Olympics, a major terminal apron, expansion of the general aviation precincts, 6.5 kilometres of taxiway upgrades, upgraded terminal facilities, screening points, new baggage infrastructure, the purchase and full development of the former Ansett terminal, a multi-user facility, a new Qantas maintenance hangar, new car rental maintenance and cleaning facilities, a 600-metre extension to runway 17/35 and the strengthening of that runway, a major upgrade of facilities at RAAF Fairburn, new RAAF special-purpose aircraft maintenance and reception facilities, a new fuel farm, a new freight facility for Australian Air Express, a new non-directional beacon, and new catering buildings. Indeed, 10 times more was spent on Canberra last year than the Federal Airports Corporation spent on it in the last five years of its stewardship.

Add to that the massive investment in new retail precincts, a new commercial business park, new car parks, new roads in and around the airport and the planned new terminal, and one can understand why it is hard to recognise the old airport. Canberra Airport is one of the key economic powerhouses of the region. A recent study undertaken by independent consultants URS commissioned by the Tourism and Transport Forum estimates that Canberra Airport's $600 million investment has led to direct benefits to 109 different industries and resulted in more than $2.1 billion in gross output, more than $882 million in value adding and more than $480 million in wages and salaries paid to Australian workers.

That would never have happened under Commonwealth Government ownership. Privatisation has brought new businesses and new income streams to sustain long-term investment in critical airport infrastructure and increased tax revenue for all levels of government. The pie has grown massively and every stakeholder shares in that outcome. Indeed, this would not have been possible if government ownership had continued. That alternative would have seen less money available for runway upgrades and much less overall investment and employment in the Canberra region. I note that this spectacular growth is set to continue under the recently approved airport master plan. New precincts will be developed along with a new terminal that will further cement Canberra Airport as the region's economic and transport powerhouse. Finally, I congratulate Capital Airport Group on the release of the airport's 2009 master plan. I urge the New South Wales Government to take a closer look at one of the best examples of privatisation in Australia. The benefits are there for all to see.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.32 p.m.]: The Murray-Darling Basin is so vital to the social, cultural, environmental and economic interests of Australia that its welfare has been placed in the hands of the newly constituted Federal entity, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. A raft of schemes and programs combine under this authority to restore health to the river system, and all the States involved must work together to restore the river's health. No-one could disagree that the Murray River has been suffering degradation caused by years of maltreatment, yet I wonder how committed New South Wales is to its rescue given the decisions being made by this Government that have a substantial impact on this great river system.

To enable the expansion of its paper mill at Albury, the Norwegian company Norske Skog was granted a licence by the New South Wales Government to discharge three megalitres of salty wastewater each day, which will release 1,500 tonnes of salt annually into the Murray River at Albury. To mitigate the effects of the discharge, the Norske Skog Green Offsets Project was announced by the New South Wales Department of Water and Energy in October. Under this project, Norske Skog will fund the operation of a salt interception scheme that operates on Billabong Creek. Under the terms of the Billabong Creek Salt Interception Scheme, water from deep within an aquifer that sits below the creek bed is pumped into the creek itself. The groundwater just below the creek bed near the surface of the aquifer is of poor quality and very salty. Theoretically, pumping out the good quality groundwater from the deep aquifer prevents the groundwater level from rising high enough to push the poor quality groundwater near the top of the aquifer up into the creek bed. This should prevent the salty groundwater from entering the creek, and eventually the Murray.

This sounds good in principle—extra water is put into the river system, diluting the salt content of the river. However, the scheme is based on modelling, while the paper mill's negative contribution is demonstrable and measurable. The claims for this scheme are that it will effectively stop 3,000 tonnes of salt from going into the river. I believe that this amount is not proven. Whether 3,000 tonnes of salt enters the river depends on the flows of Billabong Creek. The salt may never in fact reach the River Murray at the levels claimed, particularly given the low rainfall projected for the future for the southern Murray-Darling Basin.

Billabong Creek passes near Albury and then runs parallel to the Murray River for 400 kilometres before joining the Murray River via the Edwards River. What impact will the increased salt load have on this stretch of the Murray River before Billabong Creek joins it? Users of the Murray upstream from the Billabong Creek system, before it flows back into the Murray via the Edwards River, claim they will be subject to higher salt levels. A key feature of the 15-year Basin Salinity Management Strategy for the Murray-Darling is the adoption of end-of-valley salinity targets for each tributary catchment and a basin target at Morgan in South Australia. The basin target is to maintain the salinity at Morgan at less than 800 EC units for 95 per cent of the time. Communities downstream from Albury already have public water supplies that are unfit to drink, with salinity levels of around 1,200 ECU. The people of this region have very valid concerns about this project.

Salinity affects the microorganisms on which other animals, and eventually fish, feed. Local anglers tell me that they have just started to see the return of fish stocks to the river and fear that the increased effluent from the paper mill will reverse this positive trend. In New Zealand, the Norske Skog pulp mill has polluted the Tarawera River over the 50 years of its operation. Locals call it the "black drain". Local tribe the Ngati Awa are seeking compensation, saying that the mill's pollution of the river has deprived them of food sources. In the midst of the worst regional drought on record, should the New South Wales Department of Water and Energy be giving the thumbs up to a project that relies on an unproven salt mitigation scheme? Its effectiveness will be tested only during its five-year proof of concept phase. What damage could be done in that time and who can be relied upon to test it independently?

I have already spoken at length in this House about the river red gum forests of south-west New South Wales. The health of these forests has an impact on the health of the Murray. As the largest paper mill in the country, Norske Skog needs to source vast amounts of timber. Given the poor performance of Forests NSW, is the Minister for Primary Industries allowing the pollution of the Murray River in order to keep open a market for river red gum forest products? Is the New South Wales Government going all out to allow this paper mill to expand because it can sell forest and plantation material to the Norske Skog plant in Albury?

For the unproven two birds in the bush green offset that the Billabong Creek Salt Interception Scheme promises, the expansion of this paper mill should not be allowed to go ahead. I understand that the Minister for Water has given it the okay. I have received numerous complaints from farmers and fishers who fear for the ecology of the creeks and rivers, and particularly for the platypus downstream from the salt discharge areas. The Government is acting in contradiction to all the science indicating that the Murray River is in a state of real peril and that we should not be adding such vast quantities of salt effluent into it at this time.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [11.37 p.m.]: This year marks the seventieth anniversary of the start of the Second World War. Today on Remembrance Day I take this opportunity to say a few words about one of the lesser-known wartime facilities in New South Wales. Many people are unaware that the suburb we know as Riverwood was home to the largest military hospital in Australia during the Second World War. In late 1942 the United States Army took over a 236-acre site at Herne Bay between Canterbury Road, the East Hills Railway Line, Salt Pan Creek and Bonds Road. The 118th General Hospital Unit had already been operating at both the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the Hydro Majestic Hotel in the Blue Mountains while awaiting a larger and more permanent base.

Because of the difficulties associated with finding appropriate accommodation in existing Sydney buildings, the Australian Government agreed to build a new hospital comprising temporary buildings on the Herne Bay site through the Allied Works Council under the reverse lend-lease reciprocal aid program. This move was aimed at easing the pressure on civilian hospitals treating war casualties while at the same time providing increased accommodation for troops and medical staff. Herne Bay Hospital—or "Hernia Bay", as it jokingly came to be known—consisted of 490 timber barracks-type buildings, each measuring approximately 12 metres by 30 metres, that housed a total of 4,250 beds to accommodate patients and staff.

The 118th General Hospital Unit was formed under the revival of the affiliated units policy as suggested by the Surgeon General of the US Army following the success of affiliated units during the First World War. These were essentially reserve units sponsored by medical schools and civilian hospitals whose members volunteered to join the army and deploy to treat the wounded during wartime. The 118th was formed following the bombing of Pearl Harbour and comprised doctors and nurses from the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, who had all volunteered for active service. Reports from surviving members of the 118th describe how fast paced the transition from civilian life was once they were called up for duty. Members were immediately sent to Camp Edwards, Massachusetts, for training, where they received basic military training, uniforms and ranks largely based on professional medical experience.

With little notice, the physicians, nurses, technicians and orderlies who made up the 118th travelled by train to San Francisco and set sail on the USS West Point, destined for medical units throughout the Pacific. The West Point sailed without escort, carrying more than 6,000 troops, and travelled via Wellington in New Zealand to Melbourne following the Japanese submarine emergency in Sydney Harbour on 31 May 1942. The longest-surviving officer from the 118th unit, Dr Josh Billings, who died aged 95 in 2007, wrote memoirs about the journey to the South Pacific. Billings states:

The night and the ship were both pitch dark. Under blackout orders, lights were strictly forbidden on the vessel until morning. They wanted to keep the existence of a large capacity military hospital in the Southwest Pacific a secret from the Japanese for as long as possible.

The hospital staff of the 118th arrived in Sydney during June 1942 and set about operating a 400-bed hospital in the Royal Prince Albert Hospital from August 1942. With the influx of casualties from the Battle of the Coral Sea, the hospital was overrun and a section of the Hydro Majestic in the Blue Mountains was used as a hospital for a short period before the relocation of the 118th to Herne Bay in May 1943. By November, more than 1,700 beds were being utilised. During this period General Macarthur, First Lady Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt, and entertainers Artie Shaw's Band and Bob Hope visited Herne Bay Hospital.

The 118th General Hospital Unit would be in service for 41 months, treating more that 41,000 patients in the Pacific region and remaining in service longer than any other United States General Hospital Unit in World War II. In October 1944 the main United States hospital left Herne Bay following the liberation of the Philippines, although some American patients and staff remained on site until January 1945. In that same month, the Royal Navy, United Kingdom, opened a hospital to treat wounded members of the British Pacific Fleet in the vacated buildings. It received and treated more than 9,000 patients. The Australian Army also occupied some of the other sections alongside the Royal Navy until March 1947.

After the military had departed, the hospital barracks buildings passed to the New South Wales Housing Commission and were used to ease the post-war housing shortage. Many of the streets in Riverwood recall the past American presence, with names such as Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Michigan, Kentucky and Washington. The connection with the hospital is still maintained through the fact that a remaining hut from the hospital is used as the Riverwood Air League Squadron's headquarters, and I am proud to serve as patron of that organisation. There is still a connection with the armed services in America through the Riverwood Air League Squadron and also through the local services club. I place on record also my gratitude to all Australians who have served in past and current conflicts.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [11.42 p.m.]: It is with gratitude and sadness that I speak about recent events that brought me into contact with Calvary Health Services. I cannot speak highly enough of the hospital staff, whose kindness and compassion helped my family through a most difficult time, with the illness and recent passing of my father, George Iskandeh Ajaka. The hospital is well known to locals in the Kogarah and Rockdale communities, as well as the St George area as a whole. Volunteer services commenced early in the history of the hospital. They originated when members of the Society of St Vincent de Paul visited patients and attended to many of their personal needs. Members of the Kingsgrove Catholic Women's League were also regular visitors and assisted with patient meals. From the early 1970s the Australian Red Cross sent voluntary aides to the hospital. In 1980, the Calvary Volunteer Association was formed and a volunteer coordinator appointed.

This significant level of community support behind Calvary continues today. Many of our relatives or close friends enter the hospital in their declining days. It provides a range of services, including inpatient rehabilitation and palliative care, and dementia day care and hydrotherapy. The local community relies heavily upon Calvary's community rehabilitation and geriatric services, including an adult brain injury respite program and transitional aged care program. My father, who passed away on Friday 30 October 2009, was admitted to Calvary in his final days. The burden on my family during this incredibly difficult time was eased significantly by the care and kindness of all staff and the entire hospital community. I cannot thank them enough for their support.

The hospital's future is a matter that I hold very close to my heart. It is with genuine concern that I note that Calvary Health Services is seeking funding from the State Government to construct a new rehabilitation and geriatric care services centre. Calvary is heavily dependent on the goodwill of patients' families and community donors, whose generosity has enabled it to foot some of the maintenance bills so far. The hospital has sought a $2 million contribution from the State Government towards this $3.5 million project. Calvary will meet costs from funds donated to the hospital through the generous support of the local community to put towards the planned geriatric centre. It is my understanding that a number of representations were made to the former Minister for Health, the Hon. John Della Bosca, to provide funding for this centre. The State Government has not yet provided this funding, and I give my support to those representations.

The funding will make such a big difference to the lives of so many locals in the St George area and their families. Surely the goal of providing the highest possible standard of care, with a compassionate hand and open heart, is something we should all throw our support behind. I call on the Government to provide financial assistance, which Calvary Health Services needs in order for it to continue to give the best care possible to the local community.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.45 p.m.]: The major political parties have been promising to back reform of the electoral funding system in New South Wales for the past two years. Two bills were passed in 2008 with the stated aim of improving transparency. The main achievement was six-monthly disclosure periods. Clearly there is a lot more to do. I will set out two areas where reforms are needed urgently. In 2008 in-kind donations over $1,000 were banned for office space, vehicles, computers or other equipment. While this rule covering office accommodation is good, it is difficult to monitor. Candidates are not required to indicate on their returns the amount of money they spend on campaign offices, so finding violations of this ban is a hit-and-miss affair.

Evidence has come to light that City of Sydney Councillor Shayne Mallard had a campaign office during the 2008 local government election for which he did not pay rent. We have invoices of the Sydney Liberal campaign for tens of thousands of dollars in campaign expenses that were sent either to Andrew Kirk at 505/80 William Street, East Sydney, or to Sydney Liberals at 505/80 William Street. Andrew Kirk was the campaign manager for Mr Mallard's campaign for Lord Mayor of Sydney and for the Liberal team running for Sydney council. Some campaign material was also delivered to the office on William Street.

There are two organisations in suite 505, which is located in a large set of offices rented by Michael Yabsley—Matrix Corporation Marketing founded by Mr Yabsley and now owned by Jason Collins, and the European Australia Business Council. Mr Mallard is currently employed by Matrix, as he was throughout the 2008 campaign. The receptionist at Matrix told a caller recently that she does not know Kirk. When Kirk submitted his invoice for $13,200 to the Sydney Liberals for his work as campaign director of the Sydney Liberal Party campaign, his address was a unit in Redfern. Officials at the New South Wales Election Funding Authority clearly have a role to play. The evidence about Mr Mallard's possible free campaign office is serious enough to be investigated as he may have broken the law. I urge the New South Wales Election Funding Authority to investigate this matter.

The second problem I will address is even more serious. As I have written in articles with Dr Norman Thompson, the Liberal Party has laundered all donations to individual Liberal State and local government candidates and campaigns through the party's head office in recent years. One consequence of this is that Liberal councillors can vote on development applications submitted by a major donor to their campaigns without the public knowing that these councillors have broken their council's code of conduct regarding donations disclosure. We now have evidence that suggests that Liberal councillors on Hawkesbury council did just that. The large property developer from Newcastle, Buildev, formed a new company to develop a large tract of land in North Richmond. Buildev Development (MR) Pty Ltd submitted a development application for a seniors housing-aged care facility, with plans for a further development of more than 2,000 homes in the area.

In spite of huge opposition from the community, the five Liberal councillors on Hawkesbury council voted to approve the development on 15 September 2009. In addition, they voted to defeat a rescission motion on 29 September 2009 on this development. On each occasion the vote was five to five, with the Liberal mayor casting the deciding vote. All Liberal candidates submitted nil returns to the New South Wales Election Funding Authority, saying they received no donations, did not use any of their funds for campaign purposes and had no electoral expenditure. Yet there is evidence that they spent more than $20,000 on their 2008 campaign. Although Buildev typically gives 62 per cent of its donations to Labor and only 38 per cent to the Liberals, the North Richmond company, Buildev Development (MR), has given only to the Liberal Party and not to Labor.

The Liberal Party received considerable money from Buildev (MR) before the 2009 local government election campaign, totalling at least $130,500. The company contributed another $23,500 to the Liberal Party on 4 July 2008 but the Liberal Party of New South Wales did not report it to the New South Wales Election Funding Authority. To which section of the Liberal Party did this large donation of $23,000 go? We know from our research that local Liberal campaigns often forget to pass on their donation information to head office. Did this money go to the Hawkesbury Liberals or to the local council? It is quite possible. The Government must act to ensure these abuses stop.

The issue of the Mallard campaign office should be thoroughly investigated by the Election Funding Authority. In the Hawkesbury council matter the Liberal Party should open its books so we can see the source of all donations to local campaigns currently being laundered through its head office. Right now we are not confident that the Liberals will open up their books or stop funnelling donations. That is why we need far-reaching electoral funding reform. [Time expired.]

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [11.50 p.m.]: One of the final major events for the Northern Inland Regional Development Board before it was replaced by the Northern Inland Regional Development Australia Committee was the Prime Super Northern Inland Innovation Awards held in Narrabri in May. The innovation awards offer the opportunity to recognise individuals and companies that have an innovative approach to manufacturing products and providing services in northern inland New South Wales for sale locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. The Northern Inland Regional Development Board covered the area from Moree Plains shire to Tenterfield shire in the north, to Walcha, Tamworth and Liverpool Plains in the south and Gunnedah and Narrabri in the west.

Supporting rural and regional industries is a key concern of Country Labor and the New South Wales Government. These innovation awards are important in celebrating and encouraging development in regional areas. The New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development and Ausindustry provided the minor sponsorship after Prime Super, the regional not-for-profit superannuation fund. The Northern Inland Innovation Awards had the express objective of recognising the contribution of business to regional prosperity; showcasing initiatives, products and services; linking stakeholders capable of assisting business innovation and creativity; and representing the region as a dynamic, forward-thinking and global participant. The awards are aimed at applying creative thinking to initiate or introduce improvements in a skill, product, methodology or process. Further criteria for the Northern Inland Innovation Awards are that the innovation must be unique to or developed in the northern region, better than the status quo, sustainable in all applications, and have a viable outcome. These are the guiding principles for the six award categories.

Armidale-based Training Resource and Multimedia Studio [TraMS] won the Innovation of the Year award and the Research in Education category. This exciting company develops animated, interactive multimedia applications tailored to the training needs of its clients. It develops software that clients can use to train staff on computers rather than using books or face-to-face contact. Online access and assessment is part of the package, allowing lower cost training to be delivered across remote and regional areas by Internet downloads. TRaMS commercial director, Ross Maclennan, has said that the company currently employs 11 staff in its Armidale office and hopes to double that by the end of the year.

The winner of the Agriculture-Horticulture and Associated Services category was Manuka Chaff of Quirindi with its product Horsilage, a premium lucerne silage for horses. He had samples and it was quite interesting. This product has been researched and tested extensively, is proven to have higher nutrient levels, is more digestible and creates less dust in storage than hay. With high moisture levels and low pH levels it provides hydration without bacteria risk. Interestingly, much of the market for that product was international. The winner of the Manufacturing and Engineering award was GC Agriculture of Uralla—a very exciting firm in Uralla—for the 1050 Shielded Sprayer, which provides cost and environmental benefits, especially when spraying sugarcane crops. It was originally developed for cotton. However, the sugarcane people approached that company and an exciting, innovative product has been developed and is being sold to cane farmers on the North Coast.

Other winners to be congratulated include Cottage on the Hill of Nundle. Cottage on the Hill was a very exciting enterprise, which involves a group of people who ran quilting workshops for those who came to stay at the facility in Nundle—a very exciting project indeed. It was great to meet those people. Although I am representing all of New South Wales, I was very proud that Treloars' lingerie department won an award for professional and retail services for its work with women who have had mastectomies. It was excellent to see women who have performed a service for so many years receive credit for their work.

I congratulate the organisers of the Northern Inland Innovation Awards, including Don Tydd, the board's executive officer. I take this opportunity to congratulate the last chair of the Northern Inland Development Board, Meryl Dillon, on her commitment to the New England and north-west region generally. It is pleasing to see that Meryl has continued as a member of the Northern Inland Regional Development Board Committee. After this tremendous success I look forward to the next awards. The sponsors have given a commitment that this will occur. [Time expired.]

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.55 p.m.]: Two weeks ago managing contractors were at Abbotsford Public School preparing to proceed with the State Government's flawed proposal to use Building the Education Revolution funding to demolish a block of four air-conditioned classrooms and replace it with another block of four non-air-conditioned classrooms and a special tuition space. The Minister for Education and Training was refusing to discuss the issue and the local Labor member, despite numerous hours she had invested in the issue, had proven completely ineffective at delivering an outcome acceptable to the school community. The demountables were on their way and a sod-turning ceremony had been scheduled. As far as the Government was concerned, the matter was settled and work was to proceed immediately as planned.

I am delighted to report that within 48 hours of the passage of my motion through this House on 28 October, the member for Drummoyne and the Minister for Education and Training had been forced to revisit the matter and finally accede to the school community's demands for a better outcome. The late 1970s block H will still be demolished, but the replacement block will now comprise four air-conditioned classrooms, two special tuition spaces and two storage areas. This revised capital works schedule is one of the compromise positions the parents and citizens association put to Minister Firth on 29 September but which she had previously refused to approve. Meeting the challenge of increasing enrolments has always been at the centre of this issue. It has been raised in letters to the Minister by the parents and citizens association and in speeches that I made in this House on 9 September and 28 October.

It is complete nonsense to suggest that the new alternative plan is the result of the issue of increasing enrolments at Abbotsford Public School coming to the attention of the Minister's office for the first time in the Friday 30 October meeting with the school leadership. The parents and citizens association president, Rob Vellar, graciously acknowledged in his public statement this week that the recent debate in this place was crucial in securing a sensible and acceptable outcome for Abbotsford Public School. He knows that the Minister for Education and Training and the member for Drummoyne considered the matter resolved and that it was only through the intervention by the Opposition that they were forced back to the negotiating table.

Mr Vellar has done an extraordinary job fighting to secure this result. He has demonstrated great tenacity and leadership in the face of ministerial indifference. Mr Vellar, the principal, Peter Widders, and the school council president, Lyn Reynolds, have represented the school's interests astonishingly well. I am delighted that this House has shamed the Minister and the member into finally giving Abbotsford Public School a better outcome.

[Time for debate expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.