Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 20 April 2010, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 20 April 2010

__________

The Deputy-President and Chair of Committees (The Hon. Kayee Griffin), in the absence of the President, took the chair as Acting-President at 2.30 p.m.

The Acting-President offered the Prayers.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported:

ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE

The ACTING-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor:

Office of the Governor
Sydney 2000

ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE

The ACTING-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor:

Office of the Governor
Sydney 2000

DEATH OF THE PRESIDENT OF POLAND

The ACTING-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): I inform the House that on behalf of members of the Legislative Council and the people of New South Wales I have sent a message of condolence to the Ambassador of Poland expressing sympathy on the tragic deaths of the President of Poland, His Excellency, Lech Kaczyński, the First Lady, Mrs Maria Kaczyńska, and political, military and religious leaders and others on 10 April 2010.

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

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Report

The Acting-President (The Hon. Kayee Griffin) tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, a report entitled "Investigation into Allegations of Corruption Made By or Attributed to Michael McGurk", dated March 2010, received out of session and authorised to be made public on 25 March 2010.

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

INSPECTOR OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Report

The Acting-President (The Hon. Kayee Griffin) tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, a report entitled "Report of an Audit into the Exercise by the Independent Commission Against Corruption of its Powers under Sections 21, 22, 23 and 35 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988", dated March 2010, received out of session and authorised to be made public on 6 April 2010.

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

BURMA HUMAN RIGHTS

Motion by Dr John Kaye agreed to:

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Peter Primrose tabled the following paper:

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

TABLED PAPERS NOT ORDERED TO BE PRINTED

The Hon. Peter Primrose tabled, pursuant to Standing Order 59, a list of all papers tabled in the previous month and not ordered to be printed.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of the following reports:

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS

Report: Public Funding of Election Campaigns

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to standing orders, of report No. 2/54, entitled "Public Funding of Election Campaigns", dated March 2010, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 26 March 2010.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.39 p.m.]: I move:

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

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Legislation Review Act 1987, of a report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 4 of 2010" dated 19 April 2010, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 19 April 2010.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Government Response to Report

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to standing orders, of the Government's response to report No. 42, entitled "Homelessness and Low Cost Rental Accommodation", tabled on 24 September 2009, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 24 March 2010.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 2

Government Response to Report

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to standing orders, of the Government's response to report No. 30, entitled "Governance of NSW Universities", tabled on 1 June 2009, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 24 March 2010.

SYDNEY LANDFILL CAPACITY

Production of Documents: Return to Order

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 17 March 2010, documents relating to Sydney's landfill capacity received on 24 March 2010 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents.

CBD METRO RAIL

Production of Documents: Further Return to Order

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 25 February 2010, further documents relating to the CBD Metro Rail, received on 1 April 2010 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents.

Production of Documents: Claim of Privilege

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

ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY LAND SALE

Production of Documents: Return to Order

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 18 March 2010, documents relating to Calga Springs Sanctuary, received on 1 April 2010 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents.

Production of Documents: Claim of Privilege

TRANSPORT PLAN

Production of Documents: Return to Order

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 17 March 2010, documents relating to the Metropolitan Transport Plan 2010, received on 7 April 2010 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents.

Production of Documents: Claim of Privilege

ELECTRICITY TRADING

Production of Documents: Return to Order

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 11 March 2010, documents relating to Gentrader contracts, received on 8 April 2010 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents.

Production of Documents: Claim of Privilege

CBD METRO RAIL

Production of Documents: Dispute of Claim of Privilege

The ACTING-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): I report to the House that the Clerk received written correspondence disputing the validity of a claim of privilege on documents lodged with the Clerk on 1 April 2010 relating to a further order for papers regarding CBD Metro Rail as follows:

Pursuant to standing orders, a retired Supreme Court judge, Sir Laurence Street, was appointed as an independent legal arbiter to evaluate and report as to the validity of the claim of privilege. The Clerk has released the disputed documents to Sir Laurence Street for evaluation and report.

PETITIONS

Unborn Child Protection

Petition requesting that the House uphold the sanctity of human life, defend the fundamental right of children to be born and reject all attempts to initiate legislation that emulates the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act 2008, and encourage ways and means of promoting to the people of New South Wales that every baby deserves to be protected and nurtured from conception, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Northern Rivers Rail Expansion

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 2

Reference

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: I inform the House that in accordance with the resolution of the House relating to the establishment of general purpose standing committees, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 resolved on 23 March 2010 to adopt the following terms of reference:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986: DISALLOWANCE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT (LOCAL COURT PROCESS REFORMS) REGULATION 2010

The ACTING-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Pursuant to standing orders the question is: That Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 2 proceed as business of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That the matter proceed forthwith.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.01 p.m.]: I move:

I request the House support this disallowance motion. In June 2007 the House agreed to the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Local Court Process Reforms) Bill, which, in relation to certain offences, authorised police prosecutors to provide an accused with a fact sheet outlining the evidence rather than with a comprehensive brief of evidence. At the time, the Law Society strongly opposed the bill and warned that it could lead to an increase in the number of defended hearings in the Local Court, an increase in the time that police officers spend in court giving evidence in defended hearings, and an increase in the number of guilty pleas on the hearing date itself; that is, it could produce an outcome that was the opposite to that intended. The Government countered by assuring the House that what was proposed was a 12-month pilot scheme that would be evaluated independently at the end of that time. The Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Police told the House:

The Parliamentary Secretary made it perfectly clear what the trial would look at in any review or assessment of its success. Despite these assurances that a 12-month trial was to be evaluated, the initial trial period, which was to operate between 12 November 2007 and 11 November 2008, has been extended twice by subsequent regulations. The trial will now end, some three years late, on 1 July 2011 and then be evaluated. Because disallowance of the entire regulation would block that evaluation, I am not seeking to disallow the regulation in its entirety, only a portion of it. I am seeking to disallow those parts of the regulation that capture an additional range of offences, including:

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966

I suggest that it is completely inappropriate to extend the reach of the regulation until the very overdue assessment of the regulation has been undertaken, its value assessed, and the concerns of the Law Society allayed. Although the Government also gave assurances that police prosecutors would provide an accused with a comprehensive fact sheet in lieu of a brief of evidence, this requirement is not contained in either the enabling Act or the regulation. Until the operations of the regulation are comprehensively reviewed, it is impossible to know if that undertaking is being honoured. The Legislation Review Committee has expressed its concerns at the ongoing extension of the regulatory provisions, commenting that the committee has:

The Attorney General frequently remarks that there is no need to introduce a Bill of Rights into this House for this State because we have sufficient checks and balances already in place, such as the Legislation Review Committee. That committee comprises members of the Government, the Opposition and the crossbenchers from both Houses. It is appropriate for this House to now pay more than lip-service to the committee's remarks. Therefore, I urge members to support the partial disallowance of this regulation.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [3.07 p.m.]: The Local Court process reforms are designed to reduce the amount of time police spend processing matters through the criminal justice system and have been introduced on a trial basis. The matters for which no brief is required to be served are predominantly high volume matters with high rates of guilty pleas. The new offences in the regulations were chosen following consultation with the police portfolio and the Local Court. The offences are relatively less serious and are included to test the impact of the reforms on both police preparation time for cases and court time. An evaluation is to be conducted and these offences will be part of that evaluation, which will be completed before the reforms expire in 2011.

Disallowing this regulation will stop the evaluation of the reforms from being properly conducted; it will not stop the Local Court process reforms themselves from continuing. The legislation provides that they continue until mid 2011. In relation to the broader concerns about the impact of the Local Court process reforms on the justice process, it is important to note that defendants can still get access to material contained in the brief of evidence via a subpoena if they wish. They are not losing that right. Rather, the reforms mean that police do not have to prepare a brief of evidence in every case, only in the ones in which the accused wants to see the brief.

In all cases police provide fact sheets to defendants. If there is a concern that it is necessary to legislate to guarantee that fact sheets are provided, that can be examined when the legislation is evaluated next year. The practice of serving the accused with a fact sheet predates the trial of these reforms and continues to occur. As noted in the agreement in principle speech, police had been providing statements of facts prior to the introduction of the requirement to serve a brief in 1997. Police generate fact sheets at the time of charge and that practice continues. It is in the interests of police to provide a fact sheet, as matters cannot proceed without a summary of the allegation being averred. Police have determined that a fact sheet is the most expeditious way of doing this. As such, it is not considered necessary to provide an additional legislative guarantee.

Drug offences were chosen so that timing could be examined in the evaluation, specifically the impact on court time. It may be that these matters are largely uncontested, but there is also the possibility that they will not be. The accused will still receive a fact sheet in the matter. Should the matter proceed to a hearing, the ability of the defence to issue subpoenas or to request an adjournment to consider material that comes to light is not affected. The evaluation will examine the impact of these processes on the court's time—if this happens—and compare it to the time taken by police to prepare a brief of evidence. It is necessary for the trial to be a success to compare timing issues around supplying a subpoena as against a brief of evidence. Drug offences are suited to this, whereas most of the other offences in the trial are ones in which there is usually a guilty plea and no subpoena.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [3.09 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the Greens motion.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.09 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not support the Greens disallowance motion.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.10 p.m.], in reply: I point out to members of the Opposition that they have representatives on the Legislation Review Committee and it is that committee that has expressed its concerns. The response of the Hon. David Clarke shows the Opposition's contempt for both the view of members of the Opposition parties and the procedures of this House. The whole point of having the Legislation Review Committee is to draw the Parliament's attention to what it considers to be trespasses upon individual liberties. For the Opposition not to deign even to debate the issue I find deplorable. The Law Society was quite strong in its opposition to the proposal when it was introduced in 2007 and the Government gave an assurance that the pilot scheme would run for a maximum of 12 months. It has now run for 36 months and suddenly other offences have been introduced. I think the whole procedure is wrong. It is wrong to try to govern by regulation, particularly with something that impacts on people's ability to know that the evidence that has been provided to them is all the evidence that the Crown will rely on.

The Government maintains that details of charges have been provided. It is okay for the Government to assert that, but the whole point of having a review is to test the accuracy of such statements, whether the scheme is saving court time and whether it is an efficient use of police time. It is to review and determine whether the rights of accused people are being undermined or diminished in any way. The Government really has no credible reason for failing to support this disallowance motion. The motion will not prohibit the review and assessment of the pilot scheme from going ahead. All it will do is prevent the range of offences covered by the scheme from being broadened in a way that was not envisaged three years ago when the legislation was introduced.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 4

Mr Cohen
Ms Rhiannon

Tellers,
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye

Noes, 25

Mr Ajaka
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Ficarra
Miss Gardiner
Mr Kelly
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn

Mr Mason-Cox
Mr Moselmane
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce
Mr Primrose
Ms Robertson

Ms Sharpe
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

WASTE RECYCLING AND PROCESSING CORPORATION (AUTHORISED TRANSACTION) BILL 2010

Discharge of Order of the Day

Order of the day discharged on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

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

CROWN LANDS AMENDMENT (SPECIAL PURPOSE LEASES) BILL 2009

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.21 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Tony Kelly: 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 Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.22 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not oppose the Crown Lands Amendment (Special Purpose Leases) Bill 2009, which is intended to extend provisions permitting special purpose leases to be granted in the Western Division under the Crown Lands Act 1989 to the Eastern and Central Division to facilitate new renewable energy development opportunities, in particular, small-scale wind farms. The amendment would allow the Minister to grant a second lease, called a special purpose lease, for a period of up to 100 years over a parcel of land within the boundaries of the pre-existing lease, for example, for grazing purposes, in the Eastern and Central Division of New South Wales. Any special purpose lease would run simultaneously with the pre-existing lease and be subject to the consent of pre-existing lessees who would be able to negotiate compensation with the proponents.

The amendments also would allow the State to enter into a direct lease with proponents of major projects without the need for the State to compulsorily acquire the land in question or reduce the tenure connection to pre-existing tenants to their leasehold land. By way of background, in 2008 amendments to the Western Lands Act and the Crown Lands Act were introduced to allow for two leases to run in parallel with respect to the same Crown land in the Western Division to facilitate the large-scale wind farm at Silverton, near Broken Hill. The amendments allowed the State to enter into a direct lease with proponents of major projects without compulsorily acquiring the land or affecting the tenure of pre-existing lessees. Although in this instance there is no specific project that I am aware of in the Eastern and Central Division of the State needing the proposed amendments, they would extend the operation of existing provisions for the Eastern and Central Division to facilitate new renewable energy development opportunities, such as small-scale wind farms.

Some people have expressed concern that the amendment would facilitate the establishment of renewable energy generation, such as wind farms on Crown land across the State. The amendment balances the public benefit and importance of developing renewable energy infrastructure where possible with existing lessees' property rights by providing an alternative to compulsory acquisition or withdrawal. The amendment will enable the Government to charge a fair rent for the use of Crown land in the Eastern and Central Division for energy production. Any development in the Eastern and Central Division under a special purpose lease will still have to meet all the standard planning requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A special purpose lease in the Eastern and Central Division would be granted only for an approved purpose, being the construction and operation of facilities for the harnessing of energy from any source, including the sun or wind and its conversion into electrical energy.

Existing leaseholders in the Eastern and Central Division, such as graziers and farmers, will be able to negotiate for adequate compensation in return for their consent whilst retaining the right to repossess the land once the special lease expires. In 2008 the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition did not oppose similar amendments to the Western Lands Act and the Crown Land Act, which, as I mentioned earlier, facilitated the large-scale Silverton wind farm. There are some concerns that holdings in the Eastern and Central Division may be smaller and subject to more intensive use than some in the west, and that special purpose leases for wind farms may impose more adverse impacts on lessees. However, the special purpose lease can be granted only with the consent of the lessee.

A number of stakeholders have written to me in relation to this legislation. I note that the Farmers Federation expressed the need for what it views as some safeguards and compensation that it would like enacted in this legislation. The conditions that the Farmers Federation passed on to me include the maintenance of part 9E section 35XC (4) of the Western Lands Act, which will ensure that special leases on Crown land already subject to a general purpose lease will be permitted only with the written consent of the lessee. Farmers say that inherent in that condition is that the general purpose lessee must be satisfied that the access rights and the defined point of entry do not significantly disturb their farming operations. The Farmers Association also suggests that any required upgrades of roads and other infrastructure to accommodate increased transport use will need to be funded solely by the relevant energy producer or the New South Wales State Government.

It goes on to suggest that the distribution of royalties from the energy production attached to a licence should be allocated 70 per cent to the general purpose lessee and 30 per cent to be retained by a trust for investment in the local region in areas such as infrastructure upgrades. I bring those concerns and suggestions to the attention of members and to the attention of the Government. I refer also to concerns conveyed to my colleague the member for Burrinjuck, which were passed on to me—in particular, planning issues relating to wind farms. The first relates to the definition of a small-scale wind farm. There is no definition of a small-scale wind farm. Will there eventually be coastal wind farms on Crown land? Section 44E of the Crown Lands Act—the section that will be amended by this legislation—reflects that the minimum distance of a special purpose lease to a dwelling must be more than 200 metres, whereas the usually accepted minimum setback distance for wind turbines from dwellings is 800 metres. I place those issues on the record and draw them to the attention of the House. As I said earlier, the Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not oppose this legislation.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.29 p.m.]: The Greens support the Crown Lands Amendment (Special Purpose Lease) Bill 2009, which amends the Western Lands Act and the Crown Lands Act to provide for special purpose leases within a general lease area in the Western District of New South Wales. Last year's predecessor bill that amended the Western Lands Act and the Crown Lands Act came about because the company Epuron wished to establish a wind farm near Silverton in outback New South Wales. The former Premier indicated that he wanted more renewable energy infrastructure for New South Wales. The Greens support this objective but note that it has taken until now for the Government to take steps towards that end. The Greens also note that, in the interim, the Government has approved three new power stations. Although these will be gas fired, as noted by my colleague and Greens energy spokesperson, Dr John Kaye, they will increase the State's greenhouse emissions by 7 per cent. The Department of Planning will continue its ongoing role in approving new developments on leasehold land within renewable energy precincts. At the time Dr Kaye commented:

Unfortunately, things have since reverted to the former position, but I agree with Dr Kaye. One may say it is only a 7 per cent increase, but it is 7 per cent too much when globally our greenhouse gas emissions are out of control and are increasing exponentially. Only 6.3 per cent of energy in New South Wales comes from renewables, most of which is from the Snowy Hydro. We need to decrease emissions, not increase them. The six renewable energy precincts identified by the New South Wales Government as areas known to have high wind resources are the New England tablelands, the upper Hunter, the central tablelands, the New South Wales-Australian Capital Territory border area, the South Coast and Cooma-Monaro. We congratulate the Government on designating those precincts as it will create new green jobs.

However, the new gas-fired power plants should not go ahead. Increasing New South Wales greenhouse gas emissions is reprehensible when management and efficiency measures obviate the need for such plans. Undoubtedly, gas-fired plants are preferable to coal-fired, but all that matters is the total amount of emissions into the atmosphere. A 7 per cent increase in emissions is 7 per cent more than we need. We need to reduce, not increase, emissions. The new gas-fired power plants will increase net emissions unless they replace existing coal-fired plants—but there is no suggestion of that happening. While the Government and the Opposition continue to play politics around the carry-on-polluting-regardless scheme in Canberra, one cannot play politics with physics and the atmosphere. Let me restate the Greens support for new wind farms in this State.

There is no point going on about green energy if New South Wales is not producing any and, in fact, relies on importing wind-generated energy from Victoria's wind farms. New South Wales has new wind projects at Cullerin Range near Goulburn, Conroys Gap near Yass and a third at Snowy Plains near Berridale. This bill will allow more investment in renewable energy by creating special leases on leasehold land in the identified precincts. The member for Burrinjuck, in debate on this bill in the other place, commented about turbines setbacks potentially being only 200 metres. If that is true it is of concern. I disagree with her analysis when she said:

The member for Burrinjuck misses the point. Because we currently do not price the externalities of coal-fired power generation, of course burning coal is cheaper. The problem is that we are poisoning our own atmosphere, as the Singleton case clearly establishes. Some members of The Nationals may choose not to accept the science, but history will prove them to be incorrect. In addition, the cost of wind power generation is decreasing because of improvements in turbine efficiency. Dollar for dollar, wind power is the most cost-effective form of renewable power, which explains the flurry of installation worldwide.

However, I concur with the member for Burrinjuck about the potential community conflict where wind farms are located. While the Greens support urgent investment in renewable energy infrastructure, there must be sensitivity in siting wind farms and the community as a whole must share any benefit. Sites are limited because viable wind speeds are needed for energy generation. Most New South Wales turbines are on ridge tops and are highly visible. This can present noise problems, so there must be adequate setbacks from homes. Some areas have reported bird strike problems and some people do not like the look of the pylons and turbines in the natural environment. Landowners receive rent from energy companies to use their land for turbine siting, and that can create conflict with neighbours who miss out on turbines being sited on their land.

The benefits are not being spread equitably across local communities. The Government should use its legislative powers on freehold land to impose wind farms where required. The improvement from this bill and the special lease process is that leasehold consent is required. The Government, to its credit, during the wind farm inquiry stated that extensive community engagement and consultation will be undertaken within each precinct to address community concerns and improve the community's understanding of wind farm issues. On the other hand, people in areas of good wind speeds must consider the public interest over their private interests. This issue is about a natural resource that is essential for a clean and green future. These are residents of areas that contain a potential resource to benefit the community. We can do better in the process by involving people in energy generation. In Denmark community committees have evolved into wind farm co-operatives. Middelgrunden wind farm was developed and is owned fifty-fifty by the 8,300 local people of the citizens' wind energy cooperative and the local utility, Copenhagen Energy. More than 100,000 households in Denmark are members of wind energy cooperatives that have installed 80 per cent of all Danish wind turbines.

A number of New South Wales communities have indicated their interest in the cooperative model. The Greens strongly encourage this model and would like the benefits to be spread across the community so that local communities with wind resources can become renewable energy producers. This will reduce conflict between neighbours. The Scandinavians are good at cooperative models but Australians are not so good. Another model requires a wind farm developer to set up a trust fund based on the size of the wind farm so that once that wind farm starts generating energy, an amount per turbine is contributed into that community fund, which is administered by community representatives. This process, which is followed in Victoria and South Australia, may lessen some of the conflict when one neighbour gets paid for hosting turbines on their land and the other misses out.

Enlisting people in renewable energy production at a local level will give local communities a true say and part ownership of the resource during the process. It should not simply be corporations that benefit. Australia will increasingly see localised micro-renewable projects, such as many solar thermal and mini-hydros. These localised projects should be included in the renewable energy target regime. As I have stated, the Greens support the bill as a first step.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.37 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I am pleased to support the Crown Lands Amendment (Special Purpose Leases) Bill 2009. The bill proposes an amendment to section 44B (1) of the Crown Lands Act 1989 to permit the Minister, after complying with the procedural and consultative stipulations of section 44B, to grant special purpose leases for the purpose of energy production or other approved purpose in the Eastern and Central Divisions of the State. A special purpose lease, which provides for joint use of land, is particularly applicable to wind power generation where, following the construction of the wind turbines, the power station is likely to have little impact on farming activity, such as grazing. However, some residents of New South Wales have opposed the establishment of wind farms, particularly because of the excessive noise from the turbines and the impact on the environment. The Government always should bear in mind the concerns of residents and should not just bulldoze the establishment of wind farms willy-nilly across the State.

I appreciate that we are talking about projects in the Eastern and Central Divisions, which do not have large populations, but the establishment of wind farms remains a factor for communities. The special purpose lease provision in the western district of New South Wales enabled the Minister for Lands to sign a lease agreement for a future wind farm project over 32,000 hectares of Western Division Crown land. This will have a massive impact on the area. The Department of Planning will continue to have an ongoing role in approving new developments on leasehold land within renewable energy precincts. As various government departments consult widely on many projects, I urge the Department of Planning to ensure that it consults local residents about any new wind farms.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [3.39 p.m.]: In 2008 the Western Lands Act and the Crown Lands Act were amended to allow for two leases to run in parallel with respect to the same Crown land in the Western Division of the State. As members certainly would be aware, for the purposes of Crown land management the State is divided into two divisions—the Western Division and the Central and Eastern Division. The mechanism for enabling two leases to run in parallel is the special purpose lease. This provision currently is available only for Crown land leases in the Western Division of the State. The mechanism is particularly suited to wind power developments where, following initial construction, wind turbines and grazing can occur together. That is a very important point.

All of us as a society are aware that we must reduce our reliance on carbon-generating energy sources. We must be realistic about available options that are easily accessible and economically viable. Certainly at this stage I believe wind power offers the best option. As a government, we should do everything we can to support the development of sustainable power generation within the State. There are many land options that are available to sustainable power developers. The option of a special purpose lease allows for an appropriate return to the State for the use of Crown land for clean energy production, and it is appropriate for that option to be available throughout the State.

The Government is committed to the development of sustainable power in New South Wales. The bill assists the sustainable power industry by providing another option through which to obtain land for sustainable power purposes. The use of the special lease is already occurring in western New South Wales with the development of the Silverton wind farm, which was examined by the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 during its recent inquiry. The evidence received by the committee made it clear to me that coexistence of wind farms with agricultural activity for commercial purposes is sensible. The Silverton development in particular is worthy of close examination. It has the potential to deliver 1,000 megawatts of power, which is the equivalent of the output of a coal-fired electricity plant. All members would agree that power generated by wind farms is a far better option for our environment than is coal-fired electricity generation.

The Silverton project is a $2 billion development that has 500 turbines. It will create 3,700 jobs during its construction phase, and after completion there will be 100 full-time positions involved in the operation and maintenance of the turbines. It is estimated that each year the project will inject $25 million into Broken Hill's economy. As one who visits Broken Hill very regularly, I know that there is strong support in the Broken Hill community for this development. It certainly has been well received and members of the Broken Hill community are looking forward to the associated benefits. It is also important to note that existing environmental and planning laws will continue to operate. Sustainable power projects are subject to normal planning processes. The fact that they are a different form of power generation does not make them exempt from planning processes.

I realise from evidence given to the committee that some communities have concerns about the aesthetics and noise emissions of wind farms. However, I must point out that those concerns were not unanimously expressed. At no stage did the committee receive evidence indicating that every member of the community is opposed to wind farms. Many people welcome the developments as a public good, particularly the benefits for our environment. However, others have expressed concerns. As a society, and certainly as a government, we have a responsibility to examine alternatives to carbon-generating energy sources. In my view wind power provides the best option.

It makes sense to provide special lease provisions that already operate in the Western Division of the State to the remainder of the State. That will enable existing lessees to retain their interest in land and at the same time provide developers of sustainable energy projects with as many land options as possible. Moreover, exactly similar provisions should apply across the State. The enactment of the legislation will ensure that rules for special leases will apply across the whole State. I am pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who contributed to debate on the bill. I will take a moment to address two matters referred to by the Hon. Greg Pearce. He mentioned representations made by the New South Wales Farmers Association. I am informed that the Minister responded to correspondence from the President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, Mr Charles Armstrong, and addressed the issues of special purpose leases, road construction, et cetera. I am advised that special purpose leases will be entered into only with the permission of the existing lessee. The lessee will be able to negotiate conditions regarding, for example, new road construction funding. Special purpose leases are regarded as a good option to pursue because they provide benefits for the existing lessee, the developer and, more broadly, the State.

Regarding issues mentioned by the member for Burrinjuck, I advise that the definition of a small-scale wind farm has no relevance to debate on this bill, as I am sure the Hon. Greg Pearce appreciates. However, I am advised that the definition is currently under consideration by the Department of Planning. I thank all members who contributed to debate on the 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.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 5 postponed on motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND ABUSE MATERIAL) BILL 2010

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.48 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

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

Leave granted.

Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2008

Criminal Procedure Act 1986

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [3.48 p.m.]: The Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010 will make changes to the law pertaining to child pornography and is not opposed by the Opposition. The bill seems to be the Government's belated response to understandable community outrage arising from public exhibition of photographic works by Bill Henson which depicted a totally unclothed 13-year-old girl. While the offensive photographic exhibits were seized by police with the intention of charging Mr Henson and/or the Roslyn Oxley 9 Gallery in Paddington with "publishing an indecent article" under the Crimes Act, no charges have ever been preferred. In October 2008 the New South Wales Child Pornography Working Party made certain recommendations. The bill has been introduced in response to those recommendations, in particular the recommendation relating to removal of the artistic merit defence that is presently available under the Crimes Act 1900. Thus, the bill amends that Act to change the law as it relates to child pornography, which will now be referred to as "child abuse material", so that the defence relating to material produced for child protection, scientific, medical, legal, artistic or other public benefit purposes will no longer be available, and also to make the law generally more consistent with Commonwealth offences relating to child pornography.

Presently the offence of child pornography is contained in the Crimes Act and provides that "child pornography" means material that depicts or describes, or appears to depict or describe, in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person who is or appears to be a child, firstly, who is engaged in sexual activity; secondly, in a sexual context; or, thirdly, the victim or torture, cruelty or physical abuse, whether or not in a sexual context. The bill before us changes the definition of "pornography", or "child abuse material" as it is now called, to:

The bill provides that, in determining whether a reasonable person would regard the material in question as offensive, the matters to be taken into account include standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable persons; the literary, artistic or educational merit of the material; and the journalistic merit of the material being the merit of the material as a record of a matter of public interest and the general character of the material, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character. The Crimes Act provides for the offence of the production, dissemination or possession of child pornography, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. The defence of "artistic merit" currently contained in the Crimes Act provides that it is a defence to any charge for an offence that, having regard to the circumstances in which the material concerned was produced, used or intended to be used, the defendant was acting for a genuine child protection, scientific, medical, legal, artistic or other public benefit purpose and the defendant's conduct was reasonable for that purpose.

As the law is at present, to establish the offence the prosecution is required to prove that the material falls within the current definition contained in the Crimes Act. Thereafter, it is for the defendant to raise the defence of artistic merit and to establish on the balance of probabilities that, having regard to the circumstances in which the material was produced, used or intended to be used the defendant was acting for a genuine artistic purpose and the defendant's conduct was reasonable for that purpose. The bill before us will remove that specific defence, and the issue will become a question of whether the matter complained of falls within the definition of "child abuse material". If it is found to be such material there will be no defence of artistic merit. While the bill's overview declares that the law is amended so as to make it more consistent with Commonwealth offences relating to child pornography, the Commonwealth legislation does not provide a specific defence of artistic merit; rather, artistic merit is one of the matters to be taken into account in determining whether reasonable persons would regard the material as offensive.

The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 so as to enable an authorised analyst to conduct an examination of a random sample of the child abuse material or the alleged material the subject of the proceedings. Evidence of the findings of an authorised analyst may be given in the form of a certificate. Random sample evidence may be admitted under the provision only if the accused person or their legal practitioner has been given an opportunity to view all of the material concerned. The Criminal Procedure Act is also amended to extend to witnesses against whom an accused person is alleged to have committed a sexual offence the protections afforded to complainants in sexual offence cases, such as giving evidence during an in-camera session of court or giving evidence from outside the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television facilities.

The Opposition believes that this bill will assist in the ongoing fight against the use of children in pornography. The sexual abuse of children through their use in pornography dressed up and posing as art has grown at an alarming rate in our society. The public is rightly repulsed and outraged by this pernicious and spreading practice, as is the Opposition. The bill will assist authorities to distinguish child abuse material from genuine art. It will better enable judges to determine whether material is pornographic by removing the present two-fold determination of, firstly, whether material is pornographic and, secondly, whether it is art pursuant to the current exception. It will remove the artificial argument that what is clearly child pornography is acceptable because it supposedly has artistic merit.

The specific consideration of journalistic merit contained in the proposed amendments to the Crimes Act should protect images captured by genuine photojournalism. The amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act extending special arrangements to sexual assault witnesses will enable the court to make an order protecting the identity of a witness and better protect sexual assault witnesses against whom an accused person is alleged to have committed a sexual offence but who is not subject to the proceedings concerned. The bill should also help in reducing trauma to those involved in apprehending, prosecuting and judging those involved in child pornography by allowing the use of random samples representative of vast numbers of images, rather than requiring the analysis of every one of them. The bill also assists in fighting child pornography disseminated through the Internet by standardising the State's law with that of the Commonwealth. As I have already indicated, the Opposition does not oppose this bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.56 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the bill, which does not confine itself solely to artistic merit defences to child pornography charges but also encompasses other defences. In addition, it deals with a number of other legislative matters to do with court procedures and child pornography. The bill has various elements, and I will deal with those relating to artistic merit and artistic purpose first. The bill proposes that New South Wales adopt Commonwealth provisions whereby, rather than an artist or any other person being permitted to advance the defence of artistic purpose, the court examines the artistic merit of the material when deciding whether or not it constitutes child pornography. I understand that the defence of artistic purpose has been used infrequently by those caught with child pornography material. When it has been raised it has been rejected by the court. An example is the 2002 Tasmanian Supreme Court case of Knight v McDonald. This raises the question as to the need for this bill and whether we are debating it today because of the Government's perceived need to respond to media outrage in connection with the Henson photographs. It is a defence that does not hold water in cases where an offender has collected child pornography or child abuse images. The Legislation Review Committee made the following comments on the bill:

One defence that is acceptable under the bill is the work in question being classified by the censor. A drawback, however, is that artists will have to pay to submit their material to the censor to have it classified. It will cost $500 per image to have it classified—a huge disincentive and a cost that many artists will decline to bear. However, if the material is not submitted for classification or fails classification by the censors then it has the potential to be classed as "child pornography" or "child abuse material". When considering the bill the Greens have been conscious of both the rights of children and the needs of the artistic community. In this context I note the comments of Tamara Winikoff, Executive Direction of the National Association of Visual Arts, who said:

The Greens concur with those comments. The Child Pornography Working Party recommended that New South Wales adopt the Commonwealth provisions that child pornography or, in the terminology of this bill, child abuse material is such if it depicts a child engaged in sexual activity or in a sexual context or in a situation of torture or abuse where the person depicted—

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 4.00 p.m. for questions.

REPRESENTATION OF MINISTER ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I advise members that during the absence from the Chamber today of the Treasurer, I will answer questions relating to his portfolio.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
__________

MOTEKIAI TAUFAHEMA DEPORTATION

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney aware of community outrage surrounding the unsuccessful attempt by authorities to have Motekiai Taufahema deported upon completion of his sentence for his role in the killing of Constable Glen McEnallay? Will the Attorney inform the House of any available options to have that decision appealed to the Full Bench of the Federal Court? What support is the Attorney General prepared to give in that regard?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Minister for Police responded to this issue last week. These matters rest with the immigration authorities, in particular, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I understand that it has been the subject of a review by a relevant Commonwealth tribunal. I do not know what other options are available to the Commonwealth in the circumstances in which it finds itself. However, any support that we can give to ensure—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Like what? We just need to know.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: We are happy to give any support that we are required to give in terms of information and other details relating to this matter.

FORENSIC PROCEDURES

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the Government doing to improve the regulation of forensic procedures?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Forensic science is now a vital part of modern police investigation and criminal prosecution. It involves everything from fingerprint analysis, to DNA matching and ballistics. A key part of forensic science is the collection and use of forensic material—blood, saliva, hair, fingerprints, photographs and so on—from people. It is naturally of importance that the collection of forensic material from people, and the use of that material, is properly regulated. The Crimes (Forensics Procedures) Act 2000 does just that. Broadly, the Act sets out when a procedure to obtain material for analysis can be carried out on a person. This will depend on whether the person is a suspect, a volunteer, or a convicted offender. Different requirements exist for a procedure on a person in each group. And, it sets out what can be done with the material once it has been acquired. For example, if a person volunteers a sample, it can only be used for the purpose for which it is volunteered, usually to investigate a particular crime, but if the sample is taken from a convicted offender, it can be used to investigate other crimes.

The Act has been amended a number of times since it commenced in 2000, but there has been no major review of the principles underpinning it. I recently asked Acting Supreme Court Justice Graham Barr to head up a working group to do this. They will look at forensic procedures as a whole, not just the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act. Issues they will cover include: what activities should be regulated as forensic procedures? What, if any, distinctions should be drawn between types of forensic procedures, for example, should intimate and non-intimate procedures be differently regulated? Should different procedural and legal requirements be placed on the conduct of different forensic procedures? For example, do procedures to acquire DNA material need to be more strictly regulated than, for example, fingerprinting, because of the nature of the material acquired? For what offences should forensic procedures, and evidence derived from them, be allowed to be used? And should this vary for juvenile offenders? To what extent should these procedures be regulated by a single Act of Parliament? These are timely questions.

As the Auditor General's recent review of DNA collection and analysis showed, the regime has been a great success in New South Wales. Since 2001, in New South Wales there have been more than 23,000 cold links, that is, where a suspect or crime scene is linked to another unsolved crime by the DNA database when there was no previous evidence linking the two. These links have lead to more than 7,000 charges and almost 4,600 convictions for offences ranging from stealing to murder. We are determined to make sure the regulation of forensic procedures protects the rights of individuals while giving police the evidence they need to investigate and prosecute crime.

Specifically, I have asked the working group to review the regulation of forensic procedures and forensic evidence in New South Wales and propose a regulatory framework that: one, provides strong and appropriate protections for the rights of individuals upon whom the procedures are conducted and to whom the procedures relate; two, is simple and easy to understand and comply with; and three, meets the needs of law enforcement for the efficient conduct of forensic procedures and acquisition of forensic evidence. The working group will be calling for public submissions, and issuing a discussion paper exploring the issues in some detail. I look forward to updating the House as the work progresses.

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND INVESTMENT STAFFING

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. In relation to job cuts at the Department of Industry and Investment, is the Minister aware that job numbers at the Department of Industry and Investment, particularly in the old Department of Agriculture, are at the lowest levels in several decades? Will the Minister explain why his Government has now chosen to axe up to a further 185 jobs? Will the Minister give a guarantee to find out exactly where the new cuts are targeted, in what towns, areas and industry, and what job numbers will be cut? What rationale will be used to justify Steve Whan's latest staff cuts, given it is in addition to the axing of several hundred departmental staff by the former inept Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Ian Macdonald?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will obtain an answer from the relevant Minister and provide it in due course.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, in his own capacity and representing the Minister for Education and Training. Does section 32 of the Education Act 1992 state that there is a legislative requirement that in every government school time is to be allowed for religious education of children of any religious persuasion? Does the 2010 New South Wales Department of Education and Training policy based on that Education Act clearly state that "schools are to support special religious education [SRE] also known as scripture by ensuring that no formal lessons or scheduled school activities occur during time set aside for SRE. Such activities may create a conflict of choice for some parents and for some students attending SRE"? Will the Attorney General direct the Department of Education and Training to uphold this law for policies and ask it to cancel this new competing secular and ethics course which is being advertised for all schoolchildren, not simply those whose parents object to them attending SRE?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am sure the Minister for Education and Training is aware of the details of the legislation and the policies to which the member has referred. I will refer the specifics of the question to the Minister and obtain an answer.

RETAIL COMPETITION

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning. Will the Minister inform the House on the Government's reforms to give consumers greater choice of where they shop?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the member for her question and keen interest in shopping. I am a shopper too. I am glad to report to the House that the Keneally Government will implement the recommendations of a recent planning review that looked into promoting commercial competition through the planning system. Current shopping centre owners can object to the expansion of a rival nearby based on the economic effect it would have on their business. That will change. But the real winner is the consumer. This policy will promote greater competition between retailers and drive down prices. The recommendation for a competition State environmental planning policy [SEPP] came out of a combined Better Regulation Office and the Department of Planning review. The SEPP is currently being drafted to address anti-competitive issues in planning and will include consultation with the retail industry and the public as part of that process.

The review process conducted last year incorporated a number of targeted consultations with a range of stakeholders including retailers and local councils, as well as 44 individually written submissions. As a result of that New South Wales review, a competition State environmental policy is being developed by the Department of Planning to clarify that competition between individual businesses is not in itself a relevant planning consideration, specifically that the loss of trade for an existing business will not normally be a planning consideration. The State environmental planning policy will clarify that any restriction on the number of a particular type of retail store contained in any local environmental plan [LEP] or development control plan [DCP] is invalid. The State environmental planning policy will specify that any proximity restriction on particular types of retail store contained in LEPs or DCPs is invalid.

The proposed centres policy, currently being finalised, will consider ways to increase opportunities for competition by allowing more types of shops into centres that currently only permit neighbourhood shops. Under the competition State environmental policy, the Minister for Planning will be able to issue a direction to councils to consider on their merits applications that divert from floor space ratios in a development control plan. This issue is particularly relevant and one which stakeholders in the retail industry have spoken to me about. For instance, retailers have raised the issue of how local council interpretations of existing development control plans and local environment plans that restrict floor space of new entrants have been used to prevent them from opening new outlets. The State environmental planning policy will address this issue. The policy will provide guidance on how to consider third party objections when assessing development proposals, including how to seek recourse for vexatious objections.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You would be an R. M. Williams man.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is correct. It is easy for me to shop for shoes, always at R. M. Williams. I am proud to say that New South Wales is the first State to strip back these planning requirements, which in the past have led to anticompetitive behaviour in the retail industry. This will ensure that New South Wales continues to encourage innovation in retailing as well as promote choice and lower prices for consumers in New South Wales. There has been a good response from industry to my announcement, even from the large-format retailers. Franklins Managing Director, Aubrey Zelinsky, said:

These changes are an important next step in levelling the playing field in the retail sector, which will bring significant benefits to consumers through greater competition.

The Bulky Good Retailers Association also signalled its support. It said that the State environmental planning policy "should encourage competition and in turn increase the supply of retail floor space, facilitate new market entrants and new retail formats". This is good news for the consumers—more competition between the retailers will mean better prices for the average shopper.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Attorney General. On 16 March 2010 the Attorney General informed the House, in response to a question that I asked, that he anticipated that an announcement about commencement of the Government's new freedom of information legislation, the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, "would be made soon". Considering that more than a month has passed, can the Attorney General please advise the house what timeframe constitutes "soon"?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: If I recall correctly, a number of matters were encompassed in the question referred to. Specifically the issue that the honourable member asked me to address concerned a candidate for the new Information Commissioner. During the time that has elapsed since Parliament last sat, an announcement was made. I understand that yesterday the parliamentary committee that oversights these matters did not veto the appointment of Deirdre O'Donnell as the New South Wales Information Commissioner. It is now a requirement that that name be submitted to the Governor. I intend to have discussions with Ms O'Donnell once she is in office to determine an appropriate start date. I have already had some discussions with the Ombudsman in relation to an appropriate transition date, but I do not think it appropriate for me to identify that date until such time as I have a consensus between both parties.

WOLLONGONG HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I direct my question to the Minister for Planning. What is the current status of consideration of listing the Wollongong Harbour precinct on the State Heritage Register? Will the Minister give an undertaking that a conservation management plan will be prepared in relation to the Wollongong Harbour precinct before any development of the harbour? Will the Minister give an undertaking that the harbour will continue to operate as a working port? Has any financial analysis or feasibility study been conducted in relation to any proposed development of the port?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Government has clear and transparent consultation processes. These processes are there to allow communities to contribute their local expertise and perspectives to planning for their area, and allow the Government to hear and make best use of that expertise. Currently two consultation processes are underway for Wollongong Harbour. One relates to a possible heritage listing, as mentioned by the Hon. Greg Pearce, and the other relates to an exhibition of draft development guidelines. Let me be perfectly clear about this: I am committed to appropriate, open and inclusive consultation processes to ensure that we achieve the best possible planning outcomes for all communities.

I understand that the consultation period on the harbour development guidelines and the heritage listing have concluded. I think they were designed to conclude at the same time. I await advice regarding those consultations from the Land and Property Management Authority and the Heritage Council. Until I have that further advice it would be both inappropriate and improper for me to comment. I will not provide a running commentary on any consultations.

SYDNEY FISH MARKET REDEVELOPMENT

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Minister for State and Regional Development. Will the Minister update the House on the planned $40 million redevelopment of the Sydney Fish Market?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am pleased to say that the Keneally Government will provide up to $20 million towards a jointly funded redevelopment with the fish market owners, Sydney Fish Market Pty Limited.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Macca the Hatter, they call him.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: They had me as a knight on a previous occasion. The redevelopment is expected to cost about $40 million in total with the Government proud to provide up to half that amount. While the Opposition seems confused as to what its actual policy is on this issue, the Government realises that the Sydney fish Market has been a tourist drawcard in our city since the mid 1960s, and that this major investment will reinvigorate our premier seafood marketplace for generations to come.

The Government's $20 million contribution will fund foreshore rehabilitation and enhancements, including a new harbour-side park. It will also help underpin further redevelopment of the market's commercial areas. The $40 million upgrade will deliver a 36 per cent increase in space for wholesale and retail operations, from 9,812 square metres to 13,369 square metres. It will also support an expanded retail presence: 9,951 square metres compared with the current 5,706 square metres. A new boardwalk will be constructed along the waterfront and a seawall and wharf structures will be refurbished.

Redesigned buildings and landscaping will make the fish market precinct more appealing and functional. Environmental improvements will include reduced odour and wastewater impacts, and improved stormwater, drainage and sewerage. Redevelopment of the existing fish market car park will deliver significant improvements to open space, outdoor dining and public foreshore access. Two upper levels of car parking will be constructed to accommodate 357 spaces, with on-ground parking retained to provide capacity for up to 502 vehicles. Public access will also be improved to Blackwattle Bay from Glebe, Darling Harbour, Pyrmont-Ultimo and the Sydney central business district, including greater provision for cyclists.

The Sydney Fish Market currently attracts 3.5 million visits a year, with more than 30 per cent from interstate and overseas. The market is an integral part of the New South Wales seafood industry value chain. In 2008-09 the market traded 13,600 tonnes of seafood, worth about $106 million. It is estimated that the redevelopment has the potential to boost visitor numbers by 30 per cent and retail business by 20 per cent. The redevelopment will generate about 160 full-time equivalent construction jobs and create extra space for up to 12 retail tenants, potentially accommodating up to 200 full-time and part-time jobs—that is 12 extra retail tenants.

The redevelopment will provide a much better operating environment for the seafood industry. It will significantly improve efficiency, productivity and occupational health and safety for seafood suppliers and buyers. The tourism appeal of the site will be significantly improved by better transport links, better pedestrian access, reduced odour, enhanced aesthetics, improved foreshore access and increased open space. The State Property Authority will work with the Sydney Fish Market to develop a detailed site plan for the entire fish market site so that a development application can be lodged this financial year. Redevelopment work will be coordinated to avoid major disruption of the fish market's business and ensure the site meets its full potential. There is no doubt that if there is an opening ceremony, I will be there.

SOLAR BONUS SCHEME

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Energy. Is the Minister aware of the article titled "Windmills for your roof under overhaul of NSW planning laws" published on 18 April in the Sunday Telegraph where it states, "A formal review of the effectiveness of the scheme will be undertaken in July"? Will the Minister confirm that the review referred to is a review of his Solar Bonus Scheme? Given the review was not due until 50 megawatts of generation had been accepted under the Solar Bonus Scheme, can the Minister confirm that that trigger will be reached by July? Will the scheme continue to accept applicants for the gross feed-in tariff or is it the Government's intention to cap the scheme at 50 megawatts? Will the Minister ensure consumers signing contracts for the installation of solar panels are given fair warning of any plans to close the scheme?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for her question and note her personal interest in this matter. The scheme's legislation provides for a ministerial review of the scheme in 2012 or when the department advises the scheme's capacity reaches 50 megawatts, whichever occurs first. That review is not a secret. It is not a commitment we made via a press release or a government announcement. It is something that we put in the legislation to ensure that any unforeseen impacts of the scheme could be managed appropriately. That legislation had the unanimous support of the Opposition. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the policy objectives of the scheme remain valid and whether the terms of the Electricity Supply Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives. It is intended that any change made by the review will impact only on new entrants to the scheme. This is to guarantee that participants already in the Solar Bonus Scheme will not be affected by the outcome of the review. If people are in the scheme today they are guaranteed the full tariff rates until the end of the scheme in 2016. As required by the legislation, a report on the outcome of the review will be tabled in each House of Parliament.

WORKPLACE RIGHTS AND ENTITLEMENTS

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. What action is the Government taking to ensure young people understand their rights and entitlements in the workplace?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for this question and his ongoing interest in the rights of young people at work. The New South Wales Government believes that all workers deserve a fair go in the workplace, especially young people who are starting out. However, the Government also understands that young people are vulnerable and often know very little, if anything at all, about their workplace rights and entitlements. That is why the New South Wales Government has developed a number of initiatives to promote a greater awareness of workplace rights for young people. It is important that young people have the opportunity to learn about their rights in the workplace while still at school so that they are equipped with vital knowledge and skills when they look for and begin their first job.

That is why it gives me great pleasure to advise the House that NSW Industrial Relations has launched the Know the Deal video competition. This competition provides a fantastic opportunity for students in New South Wales to strengthen their knowledge about what they should expect when starting work. A key objective of the Know the Deal competition is to help young people achieve employment goals by giving them an understanding about what is fair in the workplace. The competition was conducted for the first time in 2008 and has proved to be very successful and popular with high schools across metropolitan and regional New South Wales.

The competition challenges high school students from years 7 to 10 to produce an engaging and informative two-minute video for their peers that contains important messages about workplace rights as well as promotes the Young People at Work website. The Know the Deal video competition meets criteria from the high school commerce curriculum, thus enhancing its value and relevance to those involved. The competition has three key aims: to provide teachers with a project that ties in with schoolwork; to raise awareness of the Young People at Work website; and to offer a creative way for students to develop a message about workplace rights that would appeal to their friends. The video entries must contain information about key workplace rights, which are explained at length on the Young People at Work website. Some of the topics include: unpaid trial work; full-time, part-time and casual employment; leave entitlements; and payslips.

In the last financial year nearly 83,500 people accessed the Young People at Work website. I am advised that this is an increase of around 17,000 from the previous financial year. In fact, I encourage all members of the House to visit this website to observe its creative and dynamic layout. I have checked it out myself and it is quite an impressive site. The site delivers practical information and helps to reinforce positive messages about workplace rights, including changes resulting from the move to a new national industrial relations system. The creative messages prepared by the winning schools in the Know the Deal competition help to attract more visitors to the website, which in turn assists in educating young people about their rights and entitlements as workers in this State.

Last year the Know the Deal finalists came from every corner of New South Wales—students from as close as North Sydney to as far away as West Wyalong were presented with trophies and prizes at Parliament House. The video entries improve every year and I for one am looking forward to seeing what the creative minds of New South Wales high school students come up with this year. I strongly urge members to visit www.youngpeopleatwork.nsw.gov.au to view the winning entries from last year's competition. I encourage school students across New South Wales to enter the competition to learn about their workplace rights and become more workplace savvy.

HMAS ADELAIDE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT

Mr IAN COHEN: I direct my question to the Minister for Lands. Will the Minister advise whether, prior to the review of environmental factors, contracts entered into by the New South Wales Government and the Department of Lands in relation to the proposed scuttling of the former HMAS Adelaide contained provisions for contingency and, if not, why not? Is the report by John Polglase on 5 March 2010 that states on page 10 "no known PCBs remain in the ship" consistent with the Minister's advice to the House on 24 February 2010 that "all PCBs, lead and other toxic materials have been removed"? How could the Minister make such a representation to this House about the removal of PCBs when he did not receive the report until 5 March 2010? Is it correct that the Department of Lands and the New South Wales Government were unaware of the appeal rights under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981? If that is the case—it would be consistent with the finding of President Downes's decision—how can the Minister contend that the New South Wales Government has managed this operation with any due diligence and care?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: There is a fair bit of opinion and a lot of questions in that. The ex-HMAS Adelaide has been demilitarised and handed over to the State of New South Wales for the purpose of creating an artificial reef and dive site in waters off the New South Wales Central Coast. The Land and Property Management Authority is managing this project, which is jointly funded by the Australian and New South Wales governments.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It was initiated by us.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: It has been going on for quite some time. I am encouraged by the level of support that the Keneally Government has received for this project. I have received more than 30 letters of support for the scuttling of ex-HMAS Adelaide in the short time that it has been in the news. A number of those are from other towns that want the boat if Terrigal does not. In fact, they are from as far away as Victoria. I have had a number from Queensland and Victoria and other New South Wales towns who would love to have it. By contrast, a concerted campaign by those opposing the sinking of the vessel has generated about 50 letters.

Regardless of the support for the scuttling of ex-HMAS Adelaide and the significant benefits that would be realised on the Central Coast and by the State of New South Wales, the No Ship Action Group, which is represented by the Environmental Defenders Office, lodged a review application with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the decision of the Commonwealth to issue the sea dumping permit. The review was upheld and the vessel remains berthed at White Bay in Sydney pending the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing, which has now been set down for the week of 12 July 2010. As this matter is currently before the courts it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment.

MACKSVILLE AND BELLINGEN COURTHOUSES

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, Minister for Citizenship, and Minister for Regulatory Reform. Has the Attorney General's Department undertaken any review into cost savings across that department in the lead-up to the State budget? Have any proposals been put forward that leave in doubt the future of the courthouses at Macksville and Bellingen on the New South Wales mid North Coast?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The member has a real nerve to ask me a question about courthouse closures when she, as a Nationals apparatchik, handed out how-to-vote cards for a team that, when it was last in office, managed in a single day to close 39 courthouses throughout country New South Wales. And in order to ensure that those places were never reopened the Coalition Government sold them off. Anyone visiting country New South Wales and those great temples of justice would see instead libraries, coffee shops and garden clubs. I have with me a list of what they have become. The member would be interested to know that Berri courthouse is now used for garden club meetings, Boggabri courthouse is used as a coffee shop; Boorowa courthouse is now an arts and craft shop, Murrumburrah courthouse is used for art exhibitions and Urana courthouse is used as a museum.

Do members remember Jerilderie? When the Hon. Tony Catanzariti and I visited Jerilderie courthouse we saw a library, but the only penalties coming out of that place are for overdue books. In reality, this Government has been building and constructing courthouses all over the State, including the one just opposite us in Macquarie Street, the refurbishment of the Supreme Court, the new state-of-the-art complex that has been constructed at Parramatta, the refurbishment at Dubbo, and the massive refurbishment at Nowra. All over the place courthouses have been redeveloped. We will continue to redevelop courthouses across this State; we have no plans to close courthouses.

YOUTH WEEK

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Youth. Will the Minister inform the House what the Government has done to support young people during 2010 Youth Week in New South Wales?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Youth Week is the only mass participation event in Australia that is organised and managed by young people. It celebrates young people and the contribution that they make to their communities, to New South Wales and to the rest of the world. Youth Week began as a New South Wales Government initiative and has since grown to become a national celebration in every State and Territory. Youth Week in New South Wales is bigger—and I would say better—than Youth Week in any other State. Activities and events are organised by young people for young people in communities across the State. This year more than 4,000 young people were involved in the planning and running of nearly 1,000 Youth Week events.

These events included large-scale community festivals such as the "Bring it On" festival at Fairfield, with bands, music, stalls, skateboarding and rides, and smaller events at youth and community centres such as the fancy dress roller skating party, ten pin bowling and film nights. As well as the festivals there were photography and art exhibitions, writing, poetry and band competitions, sporting events such as wheelchair basketball and soccer, talent quests, dance parties, courses and workshops. One of the highlights is the YouthRock statewide school band competition run by students and staff at Belmore Boys High School. I visited a number of Youth Week events and activities and I can tell members that they were great.

In Cherrybrook, for example, the Mayor of Hornsby, Nick Berman, and Michael Stove, President of the local Civic Trust and Labor candidate for Berowra, and I saw a wonderful interactive play about alcohol use that was written and performed by local young people. In Redfern I took part in the presentation of the annual Betty Makin awards, celebrating the achievements of young people, youth groups, youth workers and police. The next day I was back in Redfern to announce funding support for the Tribal Warrior youth mentoring program—a wonderful program involving indigenous volunteers, local police and young people striving to better themselves through fitness and hard work. At Tahmoor my colleague the member for Wollondilly and I attended the opening of the HUB Youth Centre.

At Mount Annan I had the privilege of opening Youth Week in the company of more than 1,000 Girl Guides celebrating the centenary of the Girl Guide movement. In all, about 200,000 young people participated in Youth Week activities. Youth Week could not take place without a great deal of hard work from the thousands of young people and the hundreds of adults who support them, whom I acknowledge and thank. I thank the sponsors, the Motor Accidents Authority's Arrive Alive campaign, and Youth Beyond Blue. Local government also deserves praise for its contribution to making Youth Week such a success. The New South Wales Government makes funding available to local councils on a dollar-for-dollar basis for Youth Week activities, but I know that many councils more than match the Government's contribution.

The greatest achievement of Youth Week in New South Wales is that young people drive it. The New South Wales Government has a strong commitment to youth participation. The New South Wales Youth Advisory Council is a good example. Recently I appointed a new Youth Advisory Council comprising 12 young men and women from across New South Wales. They were selected from more than 100 young people who nominated to become members of the council. They range in age from 16 to 23 and they come from all over New South Wales—from Moree to Moruya and from Griffith to Woy Woy. They are the most talented and impressive group of young people that one would ever want to meet. I met with the council in the lead-up to Youth Week and we discussed the issues that concerned it and established how those issues might be addressed as part of its 2010 Youth Week campaign. It is a great privilege for me, as an old youth work coordinator, to be able to work with such great young people.

GOOLAWAH ESTATE DEVELOPMENT

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I address my question to the Minister for Lands. Because of the application of the Minister for Lands to the Minister for Planning for approval to subdivide sections 3 to 5 of the Goolawah Estate, which contains core koala habitat, is the Minister aware that in Crescent Head the initials KKK stand for Kristina Koala Killer, Kelly Koala Killer or Kelly Koala Chlamydia? Is the Minister also aware that in 2008 the Taree office of the Department of Lands assured residents in writing that sections 3 to 5 of the Goolawah Estate could not be developed because of the endangered ecological community? Will the Department of Lands withdraw its application to subdivide sections 3 to 5 of the Goolawah Estate?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: What a ridiculous and insulting way in which to frame a question. If the member comes back and asks me a reasonable question, I will answer it.

Ms Sylvia Hale: Point of order: The Minister debated the question rather than answering it. He should be directed to answer the question.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: The member received the answer that she deserved.

The ACTING-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! There is no point of order.

DIGITAL RECORDING AND MULTI-COURT MONITORING PROGRAM

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General. Why is the Labor Government now proposing to spend over $11.6 million on a digital recording and multi-court monitoring program when this program has proved to be an absolute failure in Queensland and the Downing Centre in New South Wales? Given that the handling by the Attorney General's Department of the JusticeLink program has resulted in a cost blow-out in excess of $48 million, together with significant delays over several years in its rollout, how much money has now been spent by the Attorney General's Department and Treasury on investigating the deficient digital recording and multi-court monitoring program?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The member attempted to make a number of insinuations. I said that because it is quite obvious that the member does not know what she is talking about. As part of its commitment to keeping the New South Wales court system as the best performing system in the country—which as a matter of interest it is—the Government is spending $48 million on JusticeLink, a groundbreaking computer system that enables the implementation of service delivery models, benefiting all court users, including those in regional and rural areas. Its rollout to all New South Wales courts for criminal matters was finalised in November 2009. The rollout for civil matters commenced in the Supreme Court in December last year and will be completed in the District Court and the Local Court later this year.

JusticeLink will be an integrated multi-jurisdictional case management system in the common law world. It will make it faster, cheaper and easier for litigants and their representatives to access the courts. Prosecutors and defence lawyers will have the ability to log into a bulletin-type system to type their arguments. Judges will be alerted to those posts by email and will then log in and make their determinations. Parties will be able to file documents and check the status of their cases through the Internet. The improved technology will link the courts with the community allowing a greater exchange of information across the justice sector agencies and making them a more efficient court process.

When fully implemented, JusticeLink will make services available electronically to the community and the legal profession without the need to physically attend court. It will streamline the process saving millions of dollars in costs and countless hours spent in the courtroom. Law firms will be able to use the system to file motions and evidence electronically, and all parties in proceedings will be able to call up information at the touch of a button. Nine law firms so far have uploaded a total of 27,600 documents. Once JusticeLink is fully implemented it will make the experience of going to court easier and will benefit the whole community.

The member is mistaken if she believes that digital recording will hamper the capacity of courts to conduct their business. It will enhance their capacity because by sharing resources across our system transcripts will be typed faster and more accurately. That is the reason the system is being implemented in conjunction with the other technological upgrades to which I have referred. The member is passed questions such as this at the beginning of question time; sometimes she does not get much input into what question she might ask. It is important that she acquaint herself better with information on the subject of the question she is given to ask before she embarrasses herself by asking it.

TREE DISPUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the New South Wales Government doing to help neighbours resolve disputes over trees?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I acknowledge this important question and the member's interest in trees. The Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act was introduced by this Government in 2006. The Act aims to provide a simple, inexpensive and accessible process by establishing a new procedure in the Land and Environment Court to resolve neighbour disputes about urban trees causing damage to property or risk of injury. The review of the Act took place in 2009 and received over 230 submissions from residents, community groups, professional associations, councils and government associations. The review found that the policy objectives of the Act remained valid, but made recommendations to improve the operation of the Act. The Government has accepted all of the review's recommendations and legislative amendments will be developed for the Parliament's consideration.

The Land and Environment Court will be given the power to resolve disputes between neighbours over high hedges that severely affect views and sunlight. Neighbourhood feuds over hedges are becoming increasingly common. Reports have been received of residents growing spiked hedges to deliberately block a neighbour's view. Until now no simple legal avenue was available to resolve such disputes. That is why the Government will give the Land and Environment Court a new jurisdiction creating a mechanism by which neighbour disputes about high hedges can be heard and disposed of proportionately, balances competing rights of neighbours to enjoy their property and ensures that the existence and health of urban trees can be maintained.

Given the environmental and other benefits of urban vegetation and this new procedure, the circumstances in which a person can apply for orders regarding trees that block out light and views will be limited to the most serious cases. People will not be able to make an application regarding a single tree. Rather, the application must relate to groups of two or more trees planted to form a hedge and that rise to a height of at least 2.5 metres. The new part 2 of the Act will enable people to apply to the Land and Environment Court for relief when these high hedges on private adjoining land severely obstruct sunlight to a window of their dwelling or a view from that dwelling. This will cultivate community harmony by providing neighbours with a simple, accessible and inexpensive legal means for resolving hedge disputes without the need for a lawyer.

Other changes to the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 arising from the review include giving the Land and Environment Court jurisdiction to hear and determine matters arising out of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 where an application has been made under the Trees Act in relation to a tree that has caused, is causing or is likely to cause damage to a dividing fence, or a tree that is itself part of a dividing fence and has caused, is causing or is likely to cause damage to property or is likely to cause injury to a person; extending the operation of part 2 of the Act—which relates to trees that have caused, are causing or are likely to cause damage to property or risk of injury—to land zoned rural-residential; making it clear that an application for an order under part 2 of the Trees Act may still be made following the removal of the tree that has caused damage or injury on which the application is based; enabling the immediate successor in title to an applicant to benefit from certain orders made under part 2 of the Act; and prescribing vines as a tree for the purposes of the Trees Act. The Trees Act has proved to be a cheap, popular and successful instrument for neighbours to achieve a resolution to their disputes. I am pleased to inform the House that this instrument now will be more efficacious and far reaching following the implementation of the recommendations of the review.

ELECTRICITY PROJECTS

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister for Energy. Does the Minister recall responding to my question on 16 March 2010 about TransGrid's proposed Bonshaw to Lismore high-voltage transmission project by saying, in part:

Could the Minister inform the House which organisation will conduct the independent review? When will the independent review be completed? What are the terms of reference of the independent review? Will the Minister undertake to the House to make public the report of the independent review?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I can advise the House that the review is being carried out by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Once I receive the department's report I will be happy to share the results with the TransGrid action group and this House.

BATHURST HOSPITAL CLINICAL SERVICE PLAN

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Health. Can the Minister vouch for the existence of a clinical service plan for Bathurst hospital and the Greater Western Area Health Service that extends beyond 2010, which the member for Bathurst, Gerard Martin, and the Minister for Health, Carmel Tebbutt, have said is being developed? Following written confirmation from Andrew McDonald, the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Health, that several clinical service plans have been developed and are being revised in consultation with clinicians and clinical network committees, can the Minister provide details of which local medical professionals have been consulted in drafting these revised plans and why no members of the Bathurst Medical Staff Council have been consulted? If such plans are under development, can the Minister provide advice as to when they will be released to local medical professionals and health administrators so that planning for the future provision of health services in the Bathurst region can commence?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: To the extent that the member has not answered his own question, I will refer it to the Minister for Health.

WESTERN SYDNEY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning. Can the Minister update the House on the latest in residential developments in western Sydney?

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Why don't you ask a question about Tamworth?

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: Because I am a member for the State of New South Wales.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the member for her question. The New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring a continuous supply of new land and housing to accommodate growth in new greenfield areas. We are committed to ensuring that new development in these areas is sustainable and of high quality. Last month I had the pleasure of opening the newest of these developments, at Oran Park Town Centre, in Sydney's south-west growth centre. This is the largest residential development in Sydney for the past 10 years. It is also a prime example of how good planning can deliver attractive and liveable communities complete with outstanding facilities and infrastructure. In total, the project covers an area of 1,119 hectares. When fully developed it will provide 7,540 new homes for a population of some 22,000. It will become a town similar in size to Cessnock, Griffith or Singleton.

Oran Park will feature its own new schools, shops, public transport and employment areas. It will have five education institutions, all of which will be within easy access of the town centre, as well as two planned neighbourhood centres that will provide approximately 55,000 square metres of retail floor space. The first supermarket, specialty shops and medical centre are due to open in 2012-13. There also will be approximately 18 hectares of commercial land with the capacity to employ more than 4,000 people. That is important because it meets one of the Government's key objectives under the State Plan—the reduction of commuting times by providing more jobs closer to home. The less time spent by people getting to and from work, the more time they will be able to spend enriching their family and community life.

Oran Park is a good model of methods by which to reduce car dependency. All of its residents will live within 400 metres of a bus stop. On the day I officiated at the opening ceremony at Oran Park, buses were moving through the area and a bus service already had commenced. It is important to ensure that new towns have recreational facilities and community infrastructure to assist in promoting a healthy lifestyle. Oran Park will have 36 kilometres of walking and cycle paths as well as 150 hectares of open space. Oran Park features the best practice in urban design, and that helps to protect and promote biodiversity, regional open space and our precious water resources. A range of housing densities will be available to reflect the needs of a diversity of residents ranging from families with children to retirees, single people and extended families.

The Government released and rezoned the Oran Park precinct in just 16 months. Until the establishment of growth centres in 2005, rezonings could take anything from 7 and 10 years, but precinct planning in growth centres now brings together government agencies and local councils to coordinate more efficiently in the delivery of essential infrastructure for water, sewerage, power, roads, public transport, education and other services. The coordination of planning and infrastructure in growth centres is vital to ensure that land is ready for development as efficiently and as quickly as is possible to meet population challenges that Sydney will face in the next 30 years. Major new roads as well as upgrades to existing roads are being undertaken to service Oran Park. The new roads are being built by the private sector, which is working in cooperation with the State Government.

I inform the House that development applications in Oran Park already have been approved for more than 400 housing lots, with development applications pending for an additional 600 lots. I am pleased that the land is selling like proverbial hotcakes. Oran Park is a very good example of planning outcomes that the Government is achieving in its growth centres. By focusing on new developments in growth centres, we ensure the more efficient use of land on Sydney's fringes, better coordination of infrastructure delivery, better environmental outcomes, and faster delivery of land for development.

SEXUAL ASSAULTS

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister for Planning, representing the Minister for Police, is he aware of the recent figures by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] showing that Sydney has emerged as the rape capital of New South Wales, and that the number of sexual assaults in Sydney increased by 12.1 per cent last year, which is more than twice as fast as the State average? Is he aware that the bureau's figures show that 4,311 sexual assaults were reported in New South Wales in 2009, which represents an increase of 239 sexual assault cases? In particular, is he aware of a recent case in which a man was charged last month with raping two women in the unisex toilets of exclusive Sydney nightclubs, the Ivy and the Piano Room? Given the increasing number of sexual assaults taking place in hotels, pubs and clubs, will he take decisive action by introducing a tougher approach to reduce the number of rapes and sexual assaults that occur in those types of premises?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will refer the question to the Minister for Police. My understanding is that this is the first time 17 out of 17 major crime categories either remained stable or have been reduced. When I was the Minister for Police and during the term of my predecessor, we were always hoping to get 17 out of 17 for major crime categories being reduced or becoming stable, but the best we were able to achieve was 16 out of 17. The statistics represent a major achievement by all involved in the justice system—the courts, the police and those involved in caring for victims. It means that the years of working together are starting to achieve results.

Although recently released crime statistics show that rates of sexual assault are stable throughout the State, I am aware that the statistics also show there has been a recent increase in incidences in the Sydney region. The New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre has suggested that these increases may be due to more incidences being reported. The Government has noticed that as clean-up rates have improved in recent years, people have become more inclined to report offences. The Rape Crisis Centre manager, Karen Willis, was reported in the Australian as saying:

The reforms to which she refers were aimed at improving the legal system so that it works better for victims. Karen Willis, the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre and other groups should take some of the credit for reducing the incidence of rape.

Last year, in the most significant crackdown of sex offences in a generation, the New South Wales Government implemented the recommendation of the Sentencing Council's report into penalties for sex offences by creating new offences and increasing penalties to protect the community from sexual abuse and exploitation. The new laws doubled the maximum sentence for possessing child pornography from 5 to 10 years and introduced a life sentence for aggravated sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years of age. The new laws will prevent courts from taking into account good character, reputation and a lack of criminal history as mitigating circumstances in relation to offenders who use those factors to gain people's trust in the commission of their crimes. By hardening the sentence regime and toughening sexual assault offences, the Government is sending a message to sexual predators that they will not escape unpunished.

POPULATION PROJECTIONS

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for Lands: Is he aware that the 2010 figures released by his department estimate that Tamworth will have an increase in population in 2011 of 0.6 per cent? Is he aware that recently released Australian Bureau of Statistics information indicates that Tamworth already has had an increase in population from 2008 to 2009 of 1.9 per cent? What is the basis of population projections that are made by his department? Does his department take into account actual Australian Bureau of Statistics information that is compiled each year? Is it the case that planning for educational and health infrastructure is based on figures provided by his department? By failure to properly reflect population growth, are the actions of his department ensuring that the people of the Tamworth region are being short-changed in health and education infrastructure?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I confirm that the Department of Planning uses Australian Bureau of Statistics information on which to base its calculations. My understanding is that the department's calculations are based on the 2006 census, which is the most recent information, and on other information released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Figures relating to all areas of the State were released last year, but the announcements made during the past couple of weeks were the first time that statistical information had been broken down into particular geographical areas. My department bases its projections on the best information that is available, and that is information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as the Hon. Trevor Khan has suggested, and I concur with that approach.

The statistical information presents some alarming indications. In the 30-year period from 2006 it is estimated that there will be approximately 600,000 additional people in rural and regional areas of New South Wales and 1.7 million additional people in the Sydney metropolitan area. I state for the record what I have said in a number of other places in recent times: a fair bit of conjecture surrounds that population estimate and the State's need to provide 770,000 new dwellings over approximately the next 26 years. We will need to provide those dwellings. There has been a public comment that perhaps if we put a set of boom gates at Sydney Harbour Bridge and another set at the airport to stop immigration that would solve the problem and we would not have to find the extra 770,000 places.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You won't need to do that. Your Government is keeping people out of New South Wales. It's all your own work.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: In response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, last year New South Wales had the largest increase in the number of people migrating from other States. More than 100,000 people came to Sydney from other areas. The statistics show that more than 70 per cent of the extra population will come from either childbirth or, more particularly—this is one of the most interesting aspects—because people will live longer. Hopefully, I will be in that group. At the moment, one in eight people is over the age of 65; in 25 years time one in six people will be over the age of 65. Rather than drop a set of boom gates at Sydney Harbour Bridge, if members opposite are prepared to die a little earlier we will not need the extra houses. However, if most people live a bit longer we will need those extra houses.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: If members have further questions, I suggest that they put them on notice.

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND INVESTMENT STAFFING

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Earlier in question time the Hon. Duncan Gay asked me a question about staffing in Industry and Investment New South Wales. I am advised that Industry and Investment New South Wales is seeking expressions of interest in voluntary redundancies from its staff. The process is a voluntary one and no staff member will be forced out of the department as a result of this process. The voluntary redundancies will not have an impact on front-line services. Front-line staff are quarantined from any potential offers of redundancy. The New South Wales Government has a strong commitment to maintain a well-trained and well-resourced team of professional and respected front-line Industry and Investment staff, which is why the program of voluntary redundancies is hand in hand with a series of appointments to bolster front-line advisory services. These appointments will enhance our plant biosecurity team to respond to the threat of exotic diseases. Appointments will also be made for district agronomists, entomologists, livestock officers and plant pathologists. These appointments demonstrate that the New South Wales Government is committed to maintaining service delivery to our State's $7.7 billion agriculture sector. The Hon. Duncan Gay is saying that 185 positions will disappear from the Department of Primary Industries in Orange. That is simply untrue. Industry and Investment is looking to target—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is misleading the House. At no stage did I say that 185 positions would disappear from the Department of Primary Industries in Orange.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I did not say you said that in here today.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You said "Orange".

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I did not say the Hon. Duncan Gay said it here today. He said it in the past.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Can you correct the record?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will repeat what I said: It is simply untrue. Industry and Investment is looking to target 90 positions across the department, which has a staff of more than 4,000. These positions are not front-line positions. As I said, the Hon. Duncan Gay has said that 185 positions will disappear from Primary Industries in Orange. Expressions of interest for voluntary redundancies will be assessed on the basis of a continuing need for the positions in terms of the department's business needs, statutory requirements and priorities. Staff are aware that the issuing of formal offers of redundancy is currently before the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. Industry and Investment New South Wales will continue to honour the commitment it has given to the Public Service Association to consult with it every step of the way. The voluntary redundancy program will not adversely affect the department's ability to continue to provide a proactive and comprehensive range of services to the people of New South Wales.

GOOLAWAH ESTATE DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Earlier in question time Ms Sylvia Hale asked me a question that contained insulting terms. For that reason I chose not to answer it during question time, but members and the public should know the answer to the question, even when the insulting terms are removed from the question. Kempsey Shire Council gave development consent for the Goolawah Estate at Crescent Head in 1991. The first two stages were constructed and all blocks were sold by mid 2001, despite the suspension of sales while a native title claim by the Dunghutti people was resolved. As part of that resolution, the Dunghutti people received a payment of $6.1 million as compensation for the acquisition of native title land at Crescent Head. At that time no further vacant Crown land was available for sale to meet the demand for residential development.

During planning for the development of the remaining three stages local members lobbied to fast-track the development to provide further residential land. At the same time environmental lobbyists, headed by John Jeayes, Secretary of the North Coast Environmental Council, pushed to have the development terminated. I think I recall that at some stage in the past John Jeayes was the head of a group called Rustic Roads, which wanted to keep our country roads unsealed.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's my question. Don't mention Orange.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I told the Hon. Duncan Gay that I did not—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's Whan who has given you the wrong information.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am sorry for interrupting my answer to Ms Sylvia Hale's question. During my previous answer I pointed out to the Hon. Duncan Gay that I did not say he said it during question time today.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You implied!

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I did not. In the designing phase for the remainder of the estate the consultant found that topographical restraints, combined with design criteria set by council, made much of the existing development application design unworkable. As a consequence, a modification of the development application was considered. Threatened species assessments undertaken by the Land and Property Management Authority [LPMA] as a result of lobbying from John Jeayes found that a significant amount of the estate was covered with swamp sclerophyll forest, which was added to the threatened species list in December 2004. A combination of the unworkable nature of the development application design, the need to seek an amendment and the existence of threatened species appeared to make development of the remaining estate unachievable.

During valuation exercises for final payment of the native title agreement, it was found that development could proceed despite the existence of threatened species, provided it was in accordance with the original development application that was granted prior to the species being listed as threatened. As a consequence of the $6.1 million payment, the Land and Property Management Authority is now considering development options. The project has been tentatively placed on the Land Development Program, with a projected timetable of investigation and construction in 2010-11 and sales in 2011-12. The effects of undertaking the project will need to be considered before any works are commenced. Currently there is no other vacant land available in Crescent Head for development, with the Land and Property Management Authority holding the only land in the village capable of being developed.

DEFERRED ANSWERS

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

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN FISHING

HOME INSULATION PROGRAM

UNIQUE STUDENT IDENTIFIERS

BATEMANS MARINE PARK

SOMERTON BRIDGE FUNDING

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION DEPUTY PRESIDENT APPOINTMENTS

STAR CITY CASINO

FIREARMS LICENCES

Current Licence Holders by Postcode as 6 Mar 2010

Licence Postcode Count

2000 62
2001 2
2006 1
2007 9
2008 18
2009 50
2010 79
2011 63
2015 38
2016 51
2017 45
2018 115
2019 119
2020 101
2021 84
2022 72
2023 81
2024 61
2025 57
2026 113
2027 81
2028 33
2029 67
2030 139
2031 186
2032 108
2033 62
2034 106
2035 309
2036 267
2037 62
2038 62
2039 46
2040 151
2041 98
2042 67
2043 15
2044 64
2045 143
2046 303
2047 109
2048 50
2049 72
2050 22
2052 1
2060 69
2061 31
2062 40
2063 65
2064 41
2065 144
2066 220
2067 118
2068 144
2069 122
2070 110
2071 110
2072 54
2073 139
2074 228
2075 169
2076 238
2077 301
2079 106
2080 23
2081 57
2082 84
2083 25
2084 114
2085 131
Licence Postcode Count

2086 157
2087 140
2088 235
2089 66
2090 73
2092 66
2093 181
2094 39
2095 85
2096 106
2097 175
2099 333
2100 248
2101 275
2102 63
2103 142
2104 56
2105 19
2106 123
2107 166
2108 39
2110 122
2111 144
2112 290
2113 145
2114 174
2115 127
2116 48
2117 182
2118 185
2119 85
2120 214
2121 175
2122 197
2124 2
2125 140
2126 140
2127 39
2128 11
2130 34
2131 148
2132 147
2133 182
2134 83
2135 189
2136 111
2137 319
2138 123
2140 53
2141 171
2142 256
2143 74
2144 237
2145 829
2146 192
2147 484
2148 678
2150 104
2151 210
2152 121
2153 628
2154 429
2155 533
2156 390
2157 199
2158 226
2159 207
2160 475
2161 440
2162 190
Licence Postcode Count

2163 87
2164 325
2165 328
2166 294
2167 86
2168 441
2170 1336
2171 519
2172 52
2173 183
2174 29
2175 167
2176 784
2177 148
2178 303
2179 342
2190 408
2191 99
2192 196
2193 178
2194 181
2195 168
2196 494
2197 131
2198 176
2199 227
2200 493
2203 93
2204 179
2205 143
2206 357
2207 363
2208 165
2209 143
2210 374
2211 217
2212 202
2213 257
2214 69
2216 251
2217 264
2218 161
2219 188
2220 235
2221 225
2222 104
2223 223
2224 229
2225 67
2226 149
2227 161
2228 168
2229 286
2230 277
2231 54
2232 375
2233 448
2234 461
2250 1191
2251 395
2253 1
2256 162
2257 298
2258 130
2259 943
2260 207
2261 526
2262 196
2263 223
2264 329
Licence Postcode Count

2265 156
2267 63
2278 83
2280 450
2281 255
2282 255
2283 477
2284 179
2285 477
2286 124
2287 520
2289 240
2290 489
2291 138
2292 10
2293 25
2294 10
2295 81
2296 12
2297 11
2298 88
2299 118
2300 58
2302 2
2303 84
2304 156
2305 118
2306 10
2307 60
2311 156
2312 101
2315 262
2316 139
2317 92
2318 392
2319 134
2320 848
2321 562
2322 443
2323 580
2324 659
2325 1300
2326 260
2327 201
2328 238
2329 365
2330 1428
2333 823
2334 114
2335 402
2336 262
2337 806
2338 186
2339 142
2340 2794
2341 92
2342 85
2343 625
2344 122
2345 133
2346 419
2347 345
2350 1502
2351 1
2352 300
2353 143
2354 730
2355 148
2356 22
2357 567
Licence Postcode Count

2358 528
2359 157
2360 1316
2361 188
2365 595
2369 107
2370 837
2371 214
2372 737
2379 92
2380 834
2381 207
2382 223
2386 111
2387 52
2388 396
2390 897
2395 129
2396 142
2397 94
2398 57
2399 103
2400 846
2401 60
2402 253
2403 132
2404 274
2405 115
2406 120
2408 81
2409 74
2410 57
2411 10
2415 37
2420 354
2421 171
2422 594
2423 248
2424 77
2425 184
2426 34
2427 79
2428 443
2429 803
2430 1052
2431 147
2439 141
2440 1182
2441 479
2443 296
2444 806
2445 112
2446 791
2447 426
2448 170
2449 179
2450 1083
2452 206
2453 347
2454 290
2455 118
2456 303
2460 1600
2462 207
2463 340
2464 125
2465 20
2466 56
2469 466
2470 804
Licence Postcode Count

2471 153
2472 120
2473 58
2474 473
2475 57
2476 99
2477 404
2478 368
2479 171
2480 1462
2481 109
2482 158
2483 211
2484 682
2485 113
2486 339
2487 124
2488 43
2489 65
2490 28
2500 392
2502 182
2505 80
2506 120
2508 181
2515 138
2516 88
2517 158
2518 277
2519 304
2525 203
2526 339
2527 461
2528 349
2529 388
2530 627
2533 336
2534 109
2535 249
2536 485
2537 450
2538 183
2539 524
2540 1204
2541 518
2545 77
2546 424
2548 155
2549 206
2550 1294
2551 195
2555 28
2556 182
2557 262
2558 129
2559 9
2560 782
2563 7
2564 111
2565 240
2566 289
2567 471
Licence Postcode Count

2568 46
2569 73
2570 1035
2571 426
2572 186
2573 145
2574 212
2575 519
2576 294
2577 770
2578 95
2579 334
2580 2049
2581 295
2582 1031
2583 712
2584 88
2585 35
2586 401
2587 275
2588 59
2590 494
2594 871
2600 1
2602 3
2604 1
2607 1
2609 1
2611 19
2615 4
2617 3
2618 91
2619 189
2620 1483
2621 470
2622 626
2623 B3
2624 5
2625 4
2626 76
2627 278
2628 296
2629 120
2630 987
2631 159
2632 322
2633 73
2640 1173
2641 587
2642 668
2643 158
2644 318
2645 71
2646 581
2647 166
2648 429
2649 4
2650 2107
2651 67
2652 717
2653 339
2655 168
Licence Postcode Count

2656 153
2658 172
2659 113
2660 149
2661 5
2663 269
2665 379
2666 464
2668 76
2669 358
2671 418
2672 196
2675 214
2680 1327
2681 177
2700 391
2701 204
2702 62
2703 58
2705 659
2706 79
2707 274
2710 1156
2711 465
2712 163
2713 265
2714 183
2715 227
2716 195
2717 117
2720 618
2721 54
2722 361
2725 52
2726 52
2727 64
2729 245
2730 162
2731 289
2732 243
2733 145
2734 76
2735 41
2736 49
2737 78
2738 146
2739 82
2745 631
2747 639
2748 120
2749 349
2750 700
2752 194
2753 677
2754 233
2755 5
2756 1297
2757 48
2758 531
2759 426
2760 419
2761 240
Licence Postcode Count

2762 149
2763 257
2765 749
2766 143
2767 177
2768 207
2769 1
2770 562
2773 94
2774 207
2775 78
2776 73
2777 292
2778 49
2779 57
2780 157
2782 80
2783 47
2784 18
2785 116
2786 43
2787 531
2790 834
2791 54
2792 61
2793 167
2794 751
2795 2528
2797 94
2798 220
2799 347
2800 2278
2803 69
2804 277
2805 68
2806 123
2807 51
2808 26
2809 34
2810 392
2820 611
2821 463
2823 174
2824 385
2825 309
2627 499
2828 134
2829 356
2830 2193
2831 768
2832 311
2833 103
2834 214
2635 558
2836 122
2839 140
2840 379
2842 151
2843 192
2844 224
2845 110
2846 58
Licence Postcode Count

2847 150
2848 118
2849 347
2850 1862
2852 464
2864 132
2865 126
2866 394
2867 115
2868 106
2869 184
2870 836
2871 707
2873 166
2874 103
2875 144
2876 97
2877 498
2878 86
2879 109
2880 1294
2898 9
2899 1
2902 1
2903 1
2905 2
2906 1
2912 1
2913 2
3107 1
3221 1
3500 24
3564 1
3579 7
3580 1
3585 31
3633 1
3644 92
3690 5
3691 1
3707 4
3730 1
3767 1
4053 1
4101 1
4207 1
4208 1
4223 1
4306 1
4309 1
4375 1
4377 3
4385 5
4390 1
4510 1
4516 1
4720 1
4740 1
4871 1
6025 1

Total 177675

STATE EMERGENCY SERVICES VOLUNTEERS FREE NATIONAL PARK ENTRY

REGIONAL AIR SERVICES

CUMBERLAND PLAIN BUSHLAND CONSERVATION

FORBES DIALYSIS SERVICES

WILD DOGS

Field Days on Wild Dog Control Methods and Training,

GOVERNMENT TENDERING PROCESS

HOSPITAL TREATMENT OF CHILDREN

BRIGALOW FOREST THINNING

SCHOOL ETHICS PILOT SCHEME

HILLTOP REGIONAL SHOOTING COMPLEX

ABORIGINAL LAND VALUATION

HUNTER VALLEY COAL EXPLORATION LICENCE

HUNTER VALLEY PLANNING

Questions without notice concluded.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND ABUSE MATERIAL) BILL 2010

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.07 p.m.]: The Child Pornography Working Party recommended that New South Wales adopt the Commonwealth provisions that child pornography or, in the terminology of this bill, child abuse material, is such if it depicts a child engaged in a sexual activity or in a sexual context, or in a situation of torture or abuse where the person depicted is a child, or appears to be or is implied to be a child, and where a reasonable person would find the material offensive. The working party, which included Legal Aid representatives as well as police, suggested that New South Wales adopt the Commonwealth provisions that require that once a court has considered arguments that certain material is art and has reached a determination that it is nevertheless unlawfully pornographic, no further defence of artistic purpose is available.

However, there are concerns about who will provide the court with advice on the artistic merit of an item. The Greens hope that an appropriately qualified body will undertake this task. The bill is in part a reaction by the Government to the photographs by Bill Henson that caused wide debate over what comprises a pornographic image. Henson's work, however, would not be caught by this legislation because the censor has now classified it. Art is about the human condition, and the portrayal of the nude has been part of art history from time immemorial. The portrayal of nudity can be about the beauty of the human form or as a metaphor for human vulnerability, and its use has been integral to art appreciation and artistic expression for centuries. We cannot legislate as to how people look upon a nude, or on a child for that matter. What we can legislate on is whether a reasonable person would consider an image to be child pornography. This is discussed in an essay by Bryn Dodson called "Censorship and Cultural Judgement", which reads in part:

The "offence to a reasonable person" requirement ensures that if a work's only or predominant appeal is to consumers of child pornography, or it is blatantly exploitative, then its production or publication is criminal. A "reasonable person" test is obviously one on which people will disagree fiercely. However, to make a judgment based on that test, there is no avoiding consideration of the merits of the work itself, however difficult it might be to achieve consensus. Whether or not this test is the best that could be devised, it has the merit that cultural judgment remains in the hands of the reasonable person, and not in the hands of the depraved.

If an individual wishes to view an image in a sexual manner, how can we stop that? Any image can be sexual if the viewer wishes to interpret it that way. How do we police such perceptions? At least the legislation attempts to strike a balance by introducing a reasonable-person test. Just what is pornography? Most definitions focus very clearly on the explicitness and intent of an image. An online dictionary describes pornography as:

The representation in books, magazines, photographs, films, and other media of scenes of sexual behaviour that are erotic or lewd and are designed to arouse sexual interest.

The film censors who considered the work of Bill Henson appear to have concluded that these conditions are absent. The images are not explicit, they are actually quite coy, and, according to Henson, the intent is to show vulnerability rather than to be sexually titillating. They are not, however, the images of sexual exploitation that we associate with child pornography. To confuse the two is to unnecessarily impede any artistic endeavour that may depict children and to seek to censor all images that a very small minority of viewers may interpret in an unreasonable way. The Greens' policy is:

Freedom of expression is fundamental to the arts and the ability of all artists to comment on the nature of our society and must be preserved as part of the structure of a just and democratic society.

In defending that freedom, it is important not to allow unscrupulous individuals to hide behind certain excuses, such as arguing that being an artist is a sufficient shield against child pornography or child abuse charges. We cannot excuse Louis Althusser from punishment for strangling his wife because he was a brilliant intellectual, nor can we excuse the rape by an artist of an underage person merely because the artist happens to be a famous film director. The danger is that personal predispositions may lead the censor to refuse to classify an image. Pressure may be brought to bear on the censors. It is possible that an artwork may be deemed to be pornographic if it depicts a child's naked form in a context that the censor deems to be sexual. Will censors who are not mindful of artistic merit condemn nudity? One can only place one's faith in the integrity and good sense of the Office of Film and Literature Censorship.

There also needs to be more clarity around the journalistic merit and the publication of images of children suffering an abuse in war zones, or descriptions of child abuse cases. Who will determine journalistic merit? Will it be up to a properly qualified panel of experts as may be the case of artistic merit, or will it be left to the discretion of the court? Challenging images are part of the nature and purpose of art. We should not underestimate the ability of the general population to deal with such images. Unfortunately, sensationalist outpourings by the shock-jock media and tabloid press do little other than to inject hysteria and moral panic into what should be a rational discussion of an artwork's qualities. We cannot legislate to stop the raincoat brigade. To try to do so is to legislate to impose restrictions on the entire community as though everyone were a consumer of pornography—an unacceptably broad-brush approach that would bring the law itself into disrepute. The artist Polixeni Papapetrou, whose photograph of her six-year-old daughter on the cover of Art Monthly caused a storm last year, did not send her work to the censors for classification. She has criticised the change to the law. When asked whether she was prepared to be prosecuted if her work were judged by authorities as child pornography, she said:

I think they're barking up the wrong tree. I really think they should be going after those people who exploit children.

On Wednesday 10 March this year in an article entitled "Art or child porn? Now censors must decide", the Sydney Morning Herald asked: Will images such as Picasso's Boy child be caught within this net? The Attorney General assures us that nudity will not, in or of itself, be grounds to constitute child pornography but the legislation refers to showing "… private parts of a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be a child". This raises concerns about how rigorously this description will be applied. Here one cannot but think of all those photos of naked toddlers that are found in family albums and the like. We must ensure that this element of the offence is carefully considered in terms of the context and intent of the image. It would be deplorable to regress to the Victorian era when fig leaves proliferated. Sadly, the New South Wales Police Force have a history of ill-advised sallies into artistic censorship. Norman Lindsay, when his novel Redheap was censored in 1930, made some very disparaging remarks about a Government that "let's the lowest type of official moron wipe his boots on it. Policemen as the arbiters of our culture! Lord, what a country!"

We watched the spectacle of the New South Wales Police Force seizing 23 of Bill Henson's photographs from the Roslyn Oxley Gallery following a complaint from one person. Henson's photographs were given classification under Commonwealth law by the censors and were deemed unrestricted, except for one that was classified as PG—parental guidance recommended. The case against him collapsed and the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped it. The Government should stop taking fright every time someone complains to the tabloid media about something they find offensive. While some may dislike Henson's work, and may even think it is exploitative or unsettling, we must differentiate it from child pornography. By all means anyone can criticise and denounce an artist via the media, or stand out the front of a gallery and demonstrate, but the Government should not despatch police to raid a gallery without first seeking an informed and educated opinion as to whether the works being exhibited within the gallery are pornographic. The Greens want more clarity around the issue of journalistic merit.

The bill also amends other parts of the legislation. I will now move on to those other aspects. To reduce the amount of distressing material viewed in trials, the bill provides that only a random sample of alleged child abuse material needs to be presented to juries. Another provision doubles the maximum penalty for those found in possession of child abuse material from 5 to 10 years. The bill provides that victims in child pornography cases will be allowed to give evidence during a trial in camera or via closed-circuit television. These arrangements will be extended to witnesses. The court is empowered to protect the identity of sexual offence witnesses as well as the identity of complainants. The expression "child pornography" is being replaced with the term "child abuse material" throughout the legislation. The Greens will support the bill, but we note issues of concern. We hope that any prosecutions will be handled with great care and objectivity and not be influenced by hysteria and dubious moral outrage.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.18 p.m.]: On behalf of Family First I speak on the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to change the law as it relates to child pornography so that the defence relating to material produced for child protection, scientific, medical, legal, artistic, or other public benefit purposes will no longer be available, and the law is generally more consistent with Commonwealth offences relating to child pornography. The bill also amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to provide for the use of random sample evidence in proceedings for a child abuse material offence. It also seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Act to extend to a witness in sexual offence proceedings the same protection as that afforded to a complainant in the proceedings in cases where it is alleged that the accused person has committed a sexual offence against the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010 witness that is not the subject of the proceedings concerned.

In its 2008 report entitled "Penalties relating to Sexual Assault Offences in New South Wales" the New South Wales Sentencing Council recommended that artistic purposes be removed as a defence to child pornography charges. In addition, the Sentencing Council recommended the establishment of a Child Pornography Working Party to evaluate and report on these issues. In late 2008 the Government established its working party and appointed Judge Peter Berman, SC, as its chair. The working party included representatives across a broad range of government departments and interested parties. The working party was asked to consider a number of issues that had arisen in the prosecution of child pornography offences, and in particular how to remove the artistic purposes defence from child pornography offences in the Crimes Act 1900 without infringing upon the rights of journalists and artists to depict valid situations involving children. Under the recommendations, artistic merit can no longer be used as a defence for the use of images of children deemed to be pornographic. If the recommendations of the working party become law, any person producing, distributing or possessing such material could still argue artistic merit, but once the material is ruled to be pornographic the defence would lapse. The New South Wales Attorney General, the Hon. John Hatzistergos, said:

The definition of child pornography was recently broadened by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2008, which commenced on 1 January 2009. Child pornography is now legislatively defined as:

In addition, a new section was inserted that specifies any material that contains or displays an image of a person that has been altered or manipulated so that the person appears to be a child. During the second reading speech on the bill, the Attorney General explained the reasoning behind the further broadening of the definition when he said:

I commend the Attorney General for explaining that reasoning in such a way. I support the recommendations of the Child Pornography Working Party, given that this is a huge community concern for families and that children must be protected from such material. The working party recommended, "material that is otherwise offensive because of the way in which it depicts children should not be protected because its creator claims an overriding artistic purpose for it". The working party was of the opinion that the defence of artistic merit led to the impression that material that would otherwise constitute child pornography could be acceptable if the material was produced whilst acting for a genuine artistic purpose.

The working party also recommended that in defining child pornography the legislation provide a list of factors that must be taken into account in determining whether material is offensive, and that the defences be amended to mirror existing Commonwealth legislation. The bill now removes the stand-alone defence of artistic merit and, in its place, reworks the definition of child abuse material to include a list of factors that must be taken into account when determining whether material is offensive, which includes, amongst others, the existence of any artistic merit. The bill abolishes the artistic merit defence to a charge of producing, possessing or disseminating child pornography. This corrects a major defect in the law that has allowed material depicting children in a manner that is offensive to reasonable persons to be openly circulated on the grounds of its alleged artistic merit. The change will make a very clear statement that would be endorsed by New South Wales families: Art is not an excuse for child pornography.

The bill also allows for random sample evidence in circumstances in which the quantity and gravity of child pornography makes it undesirable to adduce to the court in its entirety. The random sample evidence limits the exposure of those associated with the proceedings to viewing unnecessary amounts of child pornography but still allows them to understand a representative sample of the material. The bill also extends certain protections currently afforded to complainants in sexual offence proceedings to witnesses in the proceedings who also allege that the accused person has committed a sexual offence against him or her.

I ask the Attorney General to consider taking the opportunity presented by the bill to improve the law on child pornography by amending the definition of a child for the purpose of these offences from "a person who is under the age of 16 years" to "a person who is under the age of 18 years". There are several reasons to make such a change. First is consistency with other offences in the Crimes Act 1900. While the general age of consent for engaging in consensual sex is 16, there are several sexual and other offences for which a child is defined as a person under the age of 18 years. This includes child prostitution, section 91C; sexual intercourse with a child under special care, section 73; recruiting a child to be involved in a criminal activity, section 351A; persistent sexual abuse of a child, section 66EA; and aggravated sexual servitude, sections 80C and 80D.

Each of those offences rightly recognises that a child is in special need of protection by the law until the age of 18. Child pornography should be considered to be one of those offences for which all children up to the age of 18 are in need of protection by the law. It is one thing for a child aged 16 or 17 to consent to sex; it is another thing for offensive pictures of a 16- or 17-year-old child to be taken in a sexual context and circulated. Such pictures may remain permanently available on the Internet. The bill would then bring New South Wales laws on child pornography into substantial agreement with Commonwealth law. As pointed out by the Minister when introducing the bill, this substantial agreement would facilitate law enforcement, as offences involving computers and carrier services may overlap the Commonwealth and State jurisdictions. It is important that the same material be considered as child pornography in both jurisdictions. However, the Commonwealth offences treat any person under 18 as a child.

Therefore, I recommend that the Attorney General raise the age in New South Wales from 16 to 18 years. The bill provides a defence to an offence of child pornography if the material has been classified other than as "refused classification" under the National Classification Scheme. The definition of a child for the purpose of the National Classification Scheme is a person under 18. I believe this bill would be greatly improved if the age were lifted from 16 to 18 years. In conclusion, Family First believes that children have a right to innocence. They have a right to grow up without any pressure of being sexually exploited in any way. It is fundamentally for this reason that I support the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill, and I commend it to the House.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [5.28 p.m.]: I will confine my remarks on the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010 to why the artistic purpose defence has been removed. In late 2008 the New South Wales Sentencing Council recommended that the defence of artistic merit be removed from the child pornography provisions contained within the Crimes Act 1900. The Government supported that recommendation and established a high-level working party to examine how the defence could be removed without infringing on the rights of journalists and artists to depict valid situations involving children.

The working party was chaired by Judge Peter Berman, SC, and comprised members of the New South Wales Police Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Justice and Attorney General, Legal Aid New South Wales, the Public Defender's Office, the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Law Enforcement Policy Branch of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The working party recommended that New South Wales should follow the Commonwealth's approach to this issue. Under Commonwealth legislation the artistic merit of a piece of work is considered by the court when it is determining whether reasonable persons would regard particular material as being, in all the circumstances, offensive.

This means that a defence to a charge of child pornography will no longer be available for creators of material without any specific artistic merit but produced under the guise of an artistic purpose. The changes give clear guidance to the court as to what it should consider in deciding whether reasonable persons would regard particular material as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. These include the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; the literary, artistic or educational merit, if any, of the material; the journalistic merit, if any, of the material, being the merit of the material as a record or report of a matter of public interest; and the general character of the material, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character. The changes represent a sensible approach to this matter and they have the support of victims groups. The changes will make the New South Wales laws in relation to child pornography more consistent with the Commonwealth laws in this area. I commend the legislation to the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.30 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I am pleased to support the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010. The bill will implement the recommendations of the Child Pornography Working Party and it extends to witnesses in sexual offence proceedings the same protections as those afforded to a complainant in the proceedings where it is alleged that the accused committed a sexual offence against the witness that is not the subject of the proceedings concerned.

Members will recall that the change in the legislation arose out of the controversy concerning Bill Henson's photographs of full frontal nudes that were displayed in a Sydney art gallery, particularly the full frontal photo of a 12-year-old boy that displayed his genitalia. As we know, following those reports the police felt they had an obligation to act and they seized 21 pictures. It was then up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to examine the evidence, so to speak, and he advised the police that it was unlikely that a jury or a magistrate would convict Henson or the gallery owners of either child pornography charges or of publishing an indecent article if any such charges were ever laid. That was because of the confusion over whether the defence of artistic purposes would apply in Bill Henson's case. It revealed a grey area in the legislation and I am pleased that the bill clears that up and hopefully makes the matter more black and white.

I congratulate the Child Pornography Working Party, which considered the request from the Attorney General to examine the Commonwealth child pornography laws to see what could be done because those laws did not contain a defence of artistic purposes. The bill will change the law as it relates to child pornography, which will now be referred to as child abuse material, so that the defence relating to material produced for child protection, scientific, medical, legal, artistic or other public benefit purposes will no longer be available. The law will also be generally more consistent with Commonwealth offences relating to child pornography. There are other matters in the bill, but they are not the main concern of my contribution.

I note that previous speakers in this debate, particularly the Greens, raised red herrings and spoke about photos of naked babies in the family photo album as if the police are going to go around confiscating family albums. Everybody is adult enough to know that what we are dealing with is child pornography material. I am very pleased that a number of years ago, in the 1980s, I campaigned with Dr John Whitehall to bring in the first laws relating to child pornography. It may come as a surprise to some members to know that there was no law against child pornography in New South Wales or Australia at that time. It was a major development to get at least one classification of child pornography identified and prohibited by law. I believe there are other categories that should be prohibited, but that is an issue for another debate. I refer particularly to what I call rape material that depicts women in rape situations, whether it is on the Internet or in videos or films. I believe it is provocative material, particularly as it includes abuse of the women portrayed. It also provokes males who are obviously mentally and sexually ill and stimulates them to attack and rape women. It is one of the factors in rape.

We are talking about child pornography or, to use the new term, child abuse material. One area of concern is the use that these materials are put to by paedophiles. Normal human beings, and I include all members of the upper House, would see this material as offensive. I think Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Bill Henson's photographs were revolting. We can have different responses but we are concerned about the way the material may be used by paedophiles. Looking at a photograph may stimulate them to attack a child. All the evidence I have studied, and discussions with police involved in this area, confirms that. This sort of material stimulates paedophiles and leads to more attacks on children. That is the reason we are concerned about this type of material being put on public display or being made available in any form to this group of people. Obviously, they are only a small minority, thank God, but we do not want to see even one child being physically or sexually abused as a result of a person being stimulated by this sort of material. If we can get this sort of material out of the public arena it is all to the good.

I congratulate the Attorney General, John Hatzistergos, who led the development of this legislation as a result of the Henson controversy and followed it through to the bill being before the House. The main aspect of the bill clearly defines what is child abuse material. The Crimes Act, which we are amending, states that child pornography is defined as material that depicts or describes, or appears to depict or describe, in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person who is, or appears to be, a child:

Under the Crimes Act it is an offence to produce, disseminate or possess child pornography. The bill will replace that with the new term "child abuse material". I know there are always good intentions when these new terms are introduced, but I hope that it will in no way lessen our attempts to prohibit this material. When it was described as child pornography everyone knew what child pornography was. I trust that the term "child abuse material" will not in any way produce a softer response by our law enforcement agencies. I do not believe it will, but I am pointing out that that needs to be watched very closely. The explanatory note to the bill states:

The term "engaged in a sexual pose" is applicable to the Bill Henson situation. I am sure he will argue that that was not his intention, but I believe that other people have to make a judgement about the impact on others of his photographs of nude children. The explanatory notes continue:

The clarity in those provisions will assist the New South Wales Police Force in implementing this legislation. We will have to monitor the operation of this much-needed legislation. Members would be aware that we face major problems with child abuse throughout Australia. One in four girls and one in seven boys is the victim of child sexual abuse. In Australia a child is abused every 13 minutes. Last year there were more than 872 new reports of child abuse every day, which is a major problem. In 2007-08 over 317,526 reports of suspected child abuse and neglect were made to State and Territory authorities in Australia—three times the number of reported child abuse cases in 1998, which was 103,000. We have a major problem.

The figures for New South Wales indicate that the total number of child abuse cases in 2007-08 was 34,135. Of those cases, 13,000 involved emotional abuse, 10,000 neglect, 6,700 physical abuse and 3,875 sexual abuse. This legislation is needed to protect the children of this State. It is our responsibility to protect all children—a strong emphasis in all religions, in particular, in the Christian faith. When Jesus Christ talked about the abuse of a child he said it was far better for the person who abused a child to have a millstone put around his neck and to be drowned in the deepest sea than to fall into the hands of the living God. That sets a standard and that should reflect our attitude to child abuse. We must do all that we can to prevent child abuse from occurring.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [5.43 p.m.]: Before deciding whether particular material constitutes child abuse material the court must consider whether reasonable persons would regard that material as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. One of the matters that the court must consider is whether the material has any artistic merit. At page 24 of its report the Child Pornography Working Party noted:

... by requiring the literary, artistic or educational merit of the material is determined prior to the work being defined as child pornography. It ensures that works with genuine artistic merit are not confused with child pornography. It also ensures that a defence is not available for the creators of material without any artistic merit, but produced under the guise of an artistic purpose.

In this way the work of artists is distinguished from child abuse material. In addition, police are now able to consider the artistic merit of a piece of work before any charges are laid rather than it operating as a defence to be raised once criminal charges have been laid. The working party released its report in January this year. The Government then consulted with arts groups, the media and victims groups on the proposed changes. During the consultation many stakeholders from the arts sector were concerned that the proposed changes would remove the existing classification defence.

Arts groups recommended that this defence be retained. They argued that the classification defence provided a safeguard for emerging artists who may not have an established body of work, which might be a consideration that the court takes into account when determining whether a work has artistic merit. If the defence were retained emerging artists could apply to the Classification Board to have their work classified. In that way artists and art galleries could be confident that the work they display is not child abuse material and that they will not be liable for criminal prosecution The Government listened to this feedback and decided to retain the classification defence.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank all those members who contributed to debate on the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Bill 2010. I will respond briefly to a number of issues that were raised in debate. Ms Sylvia Hale suggested that Polixeni Papapetrou had spoken out against these reforms. However, if her quote in the Sydney Morning Herald is read in full, it becomes obvious that she supports the direction of this bill. I put on record her full quote:

I don't know of any artists who exploit children and if they do they should not be protected by any legal defence.

That is exactly what this bill does: it stops child abuse from hiding behind the fiction that pornography is art. I respond to the Greens' call for greater clarification of journalistic defence. Whether or not material has journalistic merit is a matter that the court will consider when it regards the material as being, in all the circumstances, offensive. Experts will be able to give evidence on whether, in their expert opinion, the material has any journalistic merit. That will assist the court when it is considering this issue, and whether it causes offence to reasonable persons.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes referred to raising the age for child pornography. Under the current child pornography provisions a child is defined as a person under the age of 16 years. This bill does not alter that position. The Child Pornography Working Party considered that issue but did not recommend that the age be increased from 16 to 18 years. This bill makes several important reforms to the criminal law of this State, most of which have been outlined in detail by members. There are three important aspect of the bill. First, it amends the Crimes Act 1900 and the law surrounding child pornography. It replaces the term "child pornography" with the term "child abuse material". This change demonstrates the seriousness with which the Government and the community regard these types of offences, as well as acknowledging the serious harm caused to children who are abused through these processes.

It removes the defence of artistic purpose. This ensures that work that meets the definition of child abuse material cannot be excused by the claim that it is produced for some artistic purpose. It also makes the law relating to child pornography more generally consistent with Commonwealth offences relating to child pornography. Second, the bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to allow for the use of random sample evidence in proceedings for a child abuse material offence. This important reform will reduce the exposure of child abuse material to law enforcement officers, legal practitioners, judges, juries and court staff, which will have substantial occupational health and safety benefits for all those involved.

Third, the bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act to extend to witnesses in sexual assault proceedings who allege that the accused person has committed a sexual offence against him or her the same protections as those afforded to a complainant in the proceedings. These protections include: providing for closed courts; providing for non-publication orders; restricting cross-examination regarding sexual experience; providing that the complainant not be examined or cross-examined by the accused person; providing for the giving of evidence by a complainant by alternative arrangements such as closed-circuit television and screens; and providing an entitlement for the complainant to have a support person present while giving evidence. These reforms are aimed at encouraging more victims to come forward and report abuse. It is for these reasons that the Government has introduced the reforms. The Government is committed to minimising the distress caused to victims of sexual assault when giving evidence. It is not possible to distinguish between the difficulties faced by these witnesses and complainants in sexual assault trials. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.50 p.m.]: I move:

MULTICULTURALISM

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [5.50 p.m.]: I acknowledge the important contributions of migrants to New South Wales in light of my recent involvement in the 2010 Sydney Multicultural Festival. The Manly Vale-Calabria Bowling Sports and Social Club organised this festival and I acknowledge the following individuals who made this wonderful event possible: Pat Barbalace, Chairman of Calabria Bowling Club; Tom Cimino, Club Secretary; and committee members Cate Brockbank, John Caputo, Armando Damico, John Gavagna, Sam Guedouard, Geoff McMaster, Anne Maclennan, Tom Mastroianni, Pino Musso, Tony Nero, Ralph Palermo, Mick Pangallo, Umberto Russo, David Stephens and John Wassell.

The festival reminded me of the many great things immigration brings: new skills and cultures, and enthusiastic people filled with hopes and dreams of a new life in their new country. This festival was a testament to those who came here to build a future and to the generations that have followed as proud and patriotic Australians. Migrants from Europe, Asia, Africa and America have travelled across oceans to be part of the rich tapestry of Australian life. Migrants love the greatness of Australia and true Australians love the greatness of migration. The birthplaces of members of this Parliament demonstrate the wonderful diversity in New South Wales. In this current parliamentary term they include Lebanon, Scotland, China, the United States of America, Northern Rhodesia, Iraq, the Netherlands, Egypt, Malta and Italy.

This Parliament has a rich history of embracing those who migrated to Australia and represented this State. For example, Sir Edward Knox, born in Denmark in 1819, immigrated to Australia and served in the first Legislative Council in 1856. He resigned in 1894 due to illness. In 1898 he was knighted for his contribution to Australia. Other parts of the world from which members of this Parliament hail include Chile, Russia, Germany, Grenada, France, Barbados, Wales, Canada and Greece. Former Liberal leaders Nick Greiner and John Fahey, like current Labor leader Kristina Keneally, were born overseas and reached the highest office in this State. Greiner grew up in Hungary, Fahey in New Zealand and Keneally in the United States. Other premiers were born in England, Scotland, Ireland and India.

There was a time when someone with the name Roozendaal, Hatzistergos, Moselmane, Obeid, Whan Khoshaba or Catanzariti would struggle to enter this State. That people with those names now are elected to run this State is testament to hardworking migrants and Australia's positive attitude to multiculturalism. There is perhaps no other society in the world more multicultural and harmonious than the New South Wales community, and it is this astonishing achievement that the Sydney Multicultural Festival acknowledged and celebrated. In this spirit the Sydney Multicultural Festival provided an excellent opportunity for a person to celebrate their heritage while developing an appreciation of other people's heritages.

The value of this cultural exchange lies in participation, communication and friendship amongst people from diverse cultural backgrounds. The New South Wales Government views the many culturally diverse festivals and community celebrations in our State as an important means to encourage and develop an inclusive and cohesive community through interaction and mutual understanding. The Government acknowledges also that it is important for communities to appreciate and value our unique cultural diversity. Through this diversity individuals have opportunities to actively participate and contribute to the life of our State.

Our cultural diversity has long underpinned our economic and social advancement, a fact well recognised by both the New South Wales Government and the community at large. Therefore, the New South Wales Government was happy to provide $5,000 in funding to support the festival, through the Community Relations Commission's development grants program. I congratulate the Manly Vale-Calabria Bowling Sports and Social Club on organising the multicultural festival and I thank everyone who supports multiculturalism in this State.

GUNNEDAH WATERWAYS WILDLIFE PARK

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.55 p.m.]: Gunnedah is known as the koala capital of the world, but the attention the koalas have received lately has been for the wrong reasons. On 3 February 2010 eight koalas and two lizards were removed from the Gunnedah Waterways Wildlife Park when, along with cameramen of the television series Animal Rescue, RSPCA officers attended the park and removed the animals. This removal occurred just days after an inspector had been to the property but had not indicated there was a problem. The removal of these animals by the RSPCA was criticised by the Gunnedah community, including local veterinarian Dr David Amos, who often assisted park owners, Colin and Nancy Small, with the park and the animals. Dr Amos believed that the RSPCA did not follow proper protocol and he, like the rest of the Gunnedah community, would like questions answered.

The Gunnedah community has gathered behind the Smalls by raising over $26,000, holding a working bee at the wildlife park to give it a bit of a facelift to comply with the requirements set forth by the RSPCA and holding many rallies to send the message that a parliamentary inquiry should be held into the way the RSPCA handled the matter. I watched the unravelling of this situation. I advised my colleague the shadow Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Duncan Gay, about what was happening and the impact on the community. However, our actions were constrained because an investigation was being undertaken by the RSPCA and we did not believe we should intervene when a possible prosecution was underway. The matter was delicate and was to be treated as such until all evidence was compiled and evaluated by the RSPCA.

The RSPCA has announced that it will not proceed with a prosecution. The time has now arrived for an inquiry to be undertaken to obtain answers. Most of the local community agree that an inquiry should be undertaken. Apparently, the Minister for Primary Industries, Steve Whan, does not want an inquiry to take place and is quite comfortable to make assertions about the Smalls without hearing both sides of the story. It is highly inappropriate—indeed, perhaps shameful—for the Minister to make assertions about the Smalls, who are widely respected in the community, as demonstrated by the support they have obtained over the past few months, without a hearing, without an inquiry and without proper measures being taken by the department within the Minister's portfolio.

The Department of Industry and Infrastructure currently is reviewing the licensing conditions attached to the Waterways Wildlife Park. The lawyer for the Smalls, Mr Peter Long, stated at a recent rally in Gunnedah that the department had been "dragging their heels" on a promised report on changes it would like to see at the park. The report apparently now is considered to be an "administrative review" of the licence and is yet to be determined despite five of the seven remaining koalas being returned to the park along with the two lizards. Interestingly, this review was supposed to have been undertaken months ago. Perhaps the Minister is concerned about what might be revealed about his department's treatment of the Smalls and the koalas, or perhaps it might demonstrate the tardiness and inefficiency of his department. If the Minister has nothing to hide why is he so adamant that an inquiry should not take place?

Even the RSPCA would like the opportunity to tell its side of the story, which until now it was not willing to do because of the possibility of a prosecution or other proceedings. The Gunnedah community needs an inquiry into this matter and that is supported not only by the New South Wales Liberals-Nationals through an announcement by the Hon. Duncan Gay when he visited Gunnedah recently to speak with the Smalls and other community members, but also by the Greens and, indeed, the Shooters. The Minister is displaying his inability to react to decisions that must be made in the interests of the community. Government departments cannot take action without justification. The community of Gunnedah wants to know why the park has been raided without explanation and seeks finality. Minister Wong should support the inquiry, listen to all sides of the story, and make an informed decision. Without adopting that approach, assumptions will be made based on one point of view only—and even that is being questioned.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.00 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the proposed secular humanist ethics course that will be trialled in New South Wales primary schools. Ten public schools—Darlinghurst, Bungendore, Rozelle, Hurstville, Haberfield, Ferncourt, Baulkham Hills North, Leichhardt, Randwick and Crown Street—were selected for the trial that commenced this week. The first lesson was held today at 9.00 a.m. at the Haberfield Public School. I will be interested to receive a report on what has been achieved.

The St James Ethics Centre has been promoting this course for some years. From the centre's background material I note that the centre lobbied various Premiers, including the Hon. Bob Carr when he was Premier. The centre gave Mr Carr a submission on a proposal for instituting an ethics course as an alternative to scripture or special religious education [SRE]. He passed on the centre's letter and submission to the then Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. Andrew Refshauge, whose response was that there was no scope to implement the proposal because, he claimed, there was no community support for such a course. However, the St James Ethics Centre did not give up but instead lobbied another former Premier, Nathan Rees, who agreed to the trial being conducted in 10 primary schools.

Some controversy has been attached to the proposal. A number of church leaders have expressed opposition to the ethics course. They believe—and I agree with them—that the course will compete with scripture classes in our State schools system. The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Archbishop Peter Jensen, has met the Premier, Kristina Keneally, to express his concern and opposition to the permanent introduction of secular ethics classes in public schools. He has told the Premier that the course will jeopardise the future of special religious education. The New South Wales Council of Churches also has expressed concern over not being consulted about implementation of the course. I was present at a meeting when the matter was discussed. It was apparent from that discussion that the Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, the Anglican Church and some other denominations had not been consulted. There was some consultation with the Uniting Church, but it would be very dangerous for the Government to regard the Uniting Church as representative of widespread opinion on this issue: it is not. In many ways, the Uniting Church often is out of step with other Christian denominations.

Clearly the course is being advertised to all children in schools involved in the trial, contrary to the promise that the course would be only for children who do not attend scripture classes because their parents' conscientious objection has led to their being withdrawn from special religious education classes. Religious leaders were told that the ethics course would be provided for those children only, but it is being advertised to all children in the primary schools that are participating in the trial. We are not sure of the impact of the current approach, but obviously the course is capable of being presented in an attractive manner. In some schools, State teachers are teaching the ethics course. The possibility exists of a popular teacher saying to children, "I'll be conducting this course. I invite you all to come along", thereby putting into the minds of children a competition between the ethics course and scripture classes. We were promised that that would not happen.

I am against the course because it is being advertised in schools participating in the trial as "co-scripture" whereas the full term is "complementary to scripture". The abbreviated term may lead some to think, naively, that the course contains a little scripture and that it makes some mention of God, the Bible and Jesus Christ. However, my understanding is that the course will not make any reference to any Christian values, beliefs or heritage. The course will be secular humanist and based on a belief referred to as humanist that is held by some people. I accept the existence of that belief, but we do not want that philosophy being promoted in our State schools.

ASIAN WOMEN AT WORK

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA [6.05 p.m.]: Throughout my term as a member of this place, I have had the pleasure of becoming familiar with the work of a number of non-government organisations. I have been able to see the excellent work that many of these organisations do, often in close collaboration with government services. They make great progress for key groups in our community. Today I will spend a few minutes on talking about the work of one such organisation in particular, an organisation known as Asian Women at Work. Asian Women at Work is a unique organisation. For the past 16 years it has worked with Asian migrant women who are engaged in low-paid and precarious employment, including restaurant workers, factory workers, cleaners, manufacturing workers, clothing factory workers, clothing outworkers and so on.

In the best of circumstances workers can be vulnerable to significant exploitation and injustice, including illegal wages and conditions. Of course, this situation is even more difficult when, as is the case for many of these women, there are barriers of language, fear of losing their job and a lack of information about Australian industrial law and their rights as Australian citizens preventing them from reporting and seeking assistance when they become caught in these situations.

Asian Women at Work has built an extensive membership network across Sydney with over 1,300 migrant women workers from a range of communities, including Chinese, Vietnamese, Khmer, Filipino, Indonesian, Lao and Korean. In the group's own words:

Asian Women at Work seeks to assist these women to overcome this exploitation and isolation, stand up for their rights and contribute more significantly to Australian society by working with them to access information, resources, relationships and confidence in themselves. We are doing this by not only responding to their workplace issues, but to a range of issues impacting on all aspects of their lives.

I first became aware of Asian Women at Work not long after I was elected to Parliament and when, as the Minister for Commerce with responsibility for Industrial Relations and Fair Trading, I became involved with the Behind the Label strategy. That strategy set out the Government's approach to providing assistance to outworkers and encouraging an ethical and fair clothing trade employment within the retail clothing market. At that time Australia had approximately 300,000 outworkers, an estimated half of whom were in New South Wales and very many of whom worked in very poor conditions indeed. The workers were known to face incredible exploitation with frequent non-compliance with award, legislative conditions and occupational health and safety standards. Often they were paid as little as $2 an hour, they had no job or income security, they were responsible for the purchase and maintenance of their own equipment, they were susceptible to increased risk of work injury, and in many cases they had no workers compensation if they were injured.

This was an incredibly shameful situation for a country that takes national pride in the ethos of a fair go. I am very proud to have worked with organisations such as Asian Women at Work to bring about change in their industry, most notably through the Industrial Relations (Ethical Clothing Trades) Bill. I will not deal in detail with the bill: many members may recall the debate on that legislation and the evidence is available in Hansard. However I particularly mention that I am proud we were able to persuade a old shellback like the Federal Leader of the Opposition and former Federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony Abbott, of the importance of the issues. He even incorporated aspects of our Industrial Relations (Ethical Clothing Trades) Bill in the WorkChoices legislation—an inclusion that was quite out of character with the balance of the WorkChoices legislation.

I recently met again with Asian Women at Work and I am pleased that the organisation has continued to expand—although that is not surprising, given the dedication and zeal of the staff and the professional and passionate advocacy of the membership. I emphasise that this is a genuine labour organisation in which the rank-and-file membership of the organisation is the active and driving force as well as the motivating force of the organisation's activities. Asian Women at Work operates across Sydney. Its activities are conducted out of two offices, in Bankstown and Cabramatta, and through a range of community centres in Blacktown, Auburn, Hurstville and Fairfield. Everyone who seeks assistance from the organisation is encouraged to become a member.

The management committee of the organisation comprises Chinese and Vietnamese women. Asian Women at Work coordinates a number of activities to bring together outreach, support, training, leadership development, community development and advocacy. They are innovative in their approach to leadership development. For example, because many members have family and work commitments, they have organised walking groups so that they can exchange information and get their daily exercise at the same time.

They contribute to run an evening telephone information referral service in both Chinese and Vietnamese. That phone line provides an important source of information for women seeking assistance. The phone line is complemented by a range of outreach mechanisms, including workplace visits, seminars and information sessions such as on Centrelink, tax issues and discussions about rights at work. Like many non-government organisations, the activities of Asian Women at Work are based on a community development model. The organisation focuses on engaging women at a grassroots level and supporting them to identify and implement solutions to their own needs. There is particular focus on empowering migrant women to represent and advocate for themselves, supporting them to be a direct voice for migrant women workers in the community with policy debates. [Time expired.]

SHADOW CABINET VISIT TO PORT MACQUARIE

DOG WALKING RESTRICTIONS

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [6.10 p.m.]: I am pleased to advise the House of a recent visit by the Liberal-Nationals shadow Cabinet to Port Macquarie. The visit in late March was at the instigation of Leslie Williams, The Nationals candidate for Port Macquarie. Leslie Williams is a tireless advocate for the people of the Port Macquarie electorate and has succeeded in extracting a commitment from the Leader of the Opposition to fund the much-needed fourth pod at Port Macquarie Base Hospital. That is an essential commitment, given revelations in this place that the Government's capital work budget is bare for at least the next three years. During the day we spent in Port Macquarie a number of my colleagues and I were fortunate to attend the regular monthly meeting of the Port Macquarie Chamber of Commerce, where we were able to share views on the importance of credible infrastructure development for regional New South Wales, particularly for the high-growth region of the mid North Coast. My colleagues also met with a number of groups not only from Port Macquarie but also Harrington, Lake Cathie and Camden Haven on matters including local health services, lack of policing, planning, environmental and recreational issues. We were also pleased to host a meeting of more than 60 retirees who are concerned about the Government's changes to retirement village regulations.

One issue bears further discussion in this place: the proposed banning of dog walking on certain beaches in the Port Macquarie electorate. Leslie Williams had arranged for the shadow Minister for Local Government, Chris Hartcher, and I to meet with local campaigner Kathy Broadbent. The background to this matter is that Port Macquarie-Hastings Council proposed to ban dogs from Wash House Beach in February. This followed a request from the New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water to review the council's dogs on beaches policy. Results of the initial review are expected to be made public at the next council meeting on 28 April. The Hon. Kayee Griffin is familiar with the Port Macquarie electorate and is probably aware that there are great concerns about this issue. On 31 March the Camden Haven Courier reported the National Parks and Wildlife Service mid North Coast region manager, Greg Croft, as saying:

However, as Leslie Williams told me:

Like Leslie Williams, I acknowledge that Kattang Nature Reserve is a significant coastal area from which dogs should be prohibited. Thus, in many ways this is a justifiable request from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. However, Leslie Williams told me that the Camden Haven community has worked tirelessly to maintain the reserve, with regular weeding and the removal of noxious weeds. The community is proud of the reserve and helps to maintain its environmental nature. I have a copy of a petition submitted to council containing the signatures of more than 1,000 local residents who are concerned about the impact of prohibiting dog walking, particularly by elderly residents, many of whom rely on the activity for their daily exercise. It is a tribute to the local community that it has conducted this campaign in such a deliberate and professional manner, and it is willing to give on the issue in order to reach compromise.

I understand from Leslie Williams that regular dog walkers have requested that a dog exercising area bounded by the break wall and up to the Kattang Nature Reserve sign be allocated. Importantly, they have also requested permission to walk dogs in the corridor below the mean high-water marks, where dogs would be required to be leashed at all times, thereby ensuring that dogs could not intrude in the reserve and interfere with the nests of the migratory birds in the area. That is a commonsense and decent solution put forward by the community to assist elderly people who take their dogs to Wash House Beach. They accept and respect that there are environmental concerns and issues. They simply want to continue taking their dogs on leashes to that area of Kattang Nature Reserve. That is a reasonable position.

It is a commonsense solution and one that I hope Port Macquarie-Hastings Council will take on board ahead of its meeting on this issue next week. The community is also concerned that since the council went into administration people like local councillor Daphne Johnson, OAM, who was always available and always took up the fight for the community, are no longer being heard. Daphne has also been in contact with Leslie Williams and me as she is concerned about the impact of the dog ban on elderly people in particular. We understand the need for people in our community to have a good exercise regime, and walking a dog on a leash on a beach is a sensible way of achieving that, and we support the activity. I look forward to an update from Leslie Williams on the outcome of this matter, and I commend her for her proactivity. [Time expired.]

MACQUARIE CUSTOMISED ACCESSIBILITY SERVICES

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [6.15 p.m.]: Today I will speak about an excellent organisation based at Macquarie University called Macquarie Customised Accessibility Services—M-CAS for short. Its Centre for Flexible Learning is doing wonderful, innovative work making university studies available to students with a wide range of print and learning disabilities. Directed by Sharon Kerr with a dedicated staff of 70, M-CAS is committed to providing its specialist services directly to students at Macquarie University and other universities, as well as to educational institutions throughout Australia. It works this way: M-CAS disability liaison officers work closely with students from the start to find out what types of support they need and they then contact all the lecturers to obtain the required study and support materials of each course, which they proceed to convert into alternative formats for use with assistive technologies preferred by the student. Text can be converted into speech, complex diagrams can be presented in tactile forms, and information can be produced in Braille or other formats. The philosophy of M-CAS is to recognise students as individuals who have their own access issues and needs and have developed their own preferred methods for learning. Various levels of support are required by students to achieve their independence as learners. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. As one student remarked:

I no longer actually have a disability once I am equipped with the same access to the study materials that all the other students have. I am competing on an equal footing, and that is great!

M-CAS also directly assists educational institutions across the country by ensuring that all recommended accessibility guidelines are met for its campuses. M-CAS is also able to assist with curriculum development and the review process. It can help with the testing of emerging technologies for students using assistive technologies and can provide resources such as checklists, guidelines and legislation overviews, as well as provide training and support materials to university staff. M-CAS is committed to supporting all educational staff in their efforts to develop and deliver accessible curriculums in accordance with legislative requirements. Most academic staff do not have specialist training regarding education for people with a learning or print disability, and many university lecturers have said that the work of M-CAS frees them to do what they do best, that is, prepare their course materials and continue their research. They can leave all the organising and technical conversion of course materials into the formats needed by students with a disability to the M-CAS staff. They know it will mean that their students will be able to participate fully in class, having access to all the same materials as other people.

The work of M-CAS benefits not only students. Business leaders with whom I have spoken are well aware that, with one in 20 people in the community having a disability, they now can reasonably expect to have a workforce reflecting the same statistic and, with such accessibility to university studies that M-CAS makes possible, their future employees with a disability can be expected to have completed advanced education and to be as productive as employees without a disability. That is good news for business. It also requires that initial commitment by management to make their workplaces accessible, along with the investment in assistive technologies, with the outcome being a win-win situation for everyone in the workplace and in the community.

I have toured the M-CAS headquarters and facilities of the cognitive sciences branch at Macquarie University and I came away very impressed with the dedicated director and her staff undertaking this vital work. One student who is benefiting from the program is my friend Mr Jim Bond, the dedicated dyslexia advocate with whom I have worked for some years. Having not being able to read or write throughout his life, Jim is now thrilled to be completing an arts degree majoring in political science, made possible with the wonderful assistive technology and liaison officers at M-CAS. That is a real accomplishment for Jim, and for all other students who suffer from such learning difficulties. I commend Macquarie Accessibility Services for the excellent work it does for students with a learning disability and all the institutions involved in their education.

[Time for debate expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m. until Wednesday 21 April 2010 at 11.00 a.m.

_______________

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 20 April 2010, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links