The President (The Hon. Amanda Ruth Fazio) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

Leave not granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.

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

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Citizenship, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.01 a.m.]: I move:

That the second reading stand an order of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.02 a.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by omitting "a later hour of the sitting" and inserting instead "Tuesday 26 October 2010".

I speak briefly to this procedural motion, which I believe I can do at this stage. The Opposition is moving for this short delay—literally only two sitting days—to enable all members to consider what I think everyone would agree is a landmark piece of legislation in this important area of public policy. There is a general view amongst those crossbench members with whom I have canvassed this issue that regardless of the merits of their view they would like some time to look at the provisions of the bill and to satisfy themselves that they are happy with them or whether they should consider possible amendments.

Let us be quite clear: No members of the Opposition, the crossbenches or the Independents in the other place saw this bill prior to yesterday. Yesterday this legislation went through the other House as an urgent bill and it is now before this House. Staff of the Leader of the Government suggested it would be the first bill to be debated this morning. I believe there is a strong view in this Chamber that we have not been given enough time to consider a matter of such importance. I commend the amendment to the House.

Question—That the amendment of the Hon. Don Harwin be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment of the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to.

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

Motion as amended agreed to.

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

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

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

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

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

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following communication from Commissioner Andrew Scipione, Commissioner of Police, expressing thanks for the message of condolence sent by this House on the tragic death of a New South Wales police officer:

NSW Police Force
The Hon. Amanda Fazio Office of the Commissioner
President
Legislative Council
Parliament House
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Ms Fazio,

Thank you for your recent correspondence in which you extended your condolences following the tragic death of Detective Constable William (Bill) Arthur George Crews on 9 September 2010.

I am saddened at the passing of such an enthusiastic young officer as Detective Constable Crews. His untimely death is not only a terrible loss to family and friends, but also to the NSW Police Force.

I will ensure that a copy of your letter is forwarded to his family, whose members, I am sure, will be grateful for your gesture of sympathy.

Yours sincerely,
A. P. Scipione APM
Commissioner of Police

The President tabled, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act 1974, the annual report of the Ombudsman for the year ended 30 June 2010, received out of session and authorised to be made public this day.

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

Private Members' Business item No. 267 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.15 a.m.]: I move:

That this House congratulates St George Illawarra Dragons on their 2010 minor premiership and premiership wins in the NRL competition, and in particular congratulates:

(a) Darius Boyd on his award of the Clive Churchill medal and selection in the Australian Kangaroos squad,

(b) Brett Morris and Dean Young for their selection in the Australian Kangaroos squad,

(c) Wayne Bennett on his record premiership coaching record, and

(d) all of the other players and support staff on their determined, courageous and consistent effort during the year and all of the St George Illawarra supporters for their commitment to the team.

I am sure that all members will join with me and the people of the Illawarra in proclaiming: Go the mighty Dragons!

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

Motion agreed to.

Private Members' Business item No. 274 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

The Hon. John Robertson tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 19 October 2010.

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Electronic Information Security" dated October 2010, received and authorised to be printed this day.

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Ian Cohen.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [11.18 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 274 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding the New South Wales Solar Bonus Scheme, be called on forthwith.

Question put.

The House divided.

[In division]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I place the Hon. Melinda Pavey on a call to order for failing to set her mobile phone on silent mode.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Catherine Cusack agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 274 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.28 a.m.]: I move:

1. That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Energy, the Department of Industry and Investment, EnergyAustralia, Country Energy, Integral Energy or TransGrid:

(a) all documents relating to applications by EnergyAustralia, Country Energy, Integral Energy or TransGrid to the Australian Energy Regulator for the pass through of costs for the introduction of the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme, including:

(i) all versions of any application prepared,

(ii) all appendices and attachments to any version of any such application,

(iii) any document which relates or refers to any such application,

(b) all versions of all reports, including appendices, provided to the Minister for Energy pursuant to section 15A (7) of the Electricity Supply Act 1995, and

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

2. That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documentation in the possession, custody or control of the Premier, the Treasurer or the Minister for Energy:

(a) all advice and reports provided to the Premier, the Treasurer or the Minister for Energy since 1 October 2009 relating to the cost, take up rate, and financial or technical impact of the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme, and

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

This motion urgently requests the Government to release data relating to its Solar Bonus Scheme—a scheme approved by the Parliament in November last year and implemented by the Government from 1 January this year. Soaring electricity prices are devastating consumers and are causing this Government to implement program after program and to make announcement after announcement to try somehow to protect low-income people who are inundating members' electorate offices, the media and other forums and saying how crippling they are finding these price increases. On top of this we have looming new price increases for consumers to do with the funding of the Government's Solar Bonus Scheme.

Let me be clear: Opposition members have never said that this scheme is triggering the current round of high electricity prices. It is scary that this scheme is yet to have an impact. The Government, using its credit card, implemented a scheme that will have to be paid for by a future government. Electricity retailers are unable to commence recuperating their costs until 1 July 2010. Submissions to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal are not able to be made until after March next year. I suppose the Government is hoping that the costs of this program will be hidden prior to the election and that somebody else will deal with it, presumably after the election.

The Government has grossly underestimated the take-up rate of the Solar Bonus Scheme. The scheme is accepting applicants at an unsustainable rate and it is incurring costs that will impact on electricity prices from July 2011. The scheme must be suspended urgently and replaced with a more sustainable scheme that can provide for measured growth of renewable energy at an affordable price for consumers. The Government's stated aim for the Solar Bonus Scheme is 50 megawatts, to be taken up over seven years. On 27 November 2009 the Hon. John Robertson, the then Minister for Energy, said in his media release:

We aim to triple the existing capacity of small scale solar PV systems, bringing the state's total up to 50 megawatts.

This would equate to around 33,000 NSW customers with solar panels installed on their roofs ...

On the issue of costs Minister John Robertson sought to minimise the sums involved by talking about the increase to household bills every quarter. In that way he avoided stating the full cost of the scheme to all electricity users over the seven-year period of the scheme. For example, Minister Robertson told ABC Radio on 4 January 2010:

Our independent economic modelling shows the cost to the average household could be as little as 48 cents a bill and certainly no more than $1.90 a quarter. The government's being very cautious and we're going to review the scheme within two years.

The per household figures stated by the Minister of $1.92 to $7.47 per household per year are actually sourced from scenario 10 in table 6 on page 30 of the Solar PV Tariff Feed-in Taskforce Report, which was released in February 2009. This states that the average annual increase in bills per household in 2009 dollars would be $1.92 to $7.47 per year. The Minister's statement to ABC Radio dishonestly suggests that this $1.92 to $7.47 cost is the whole impact of the scheme on households. In fact, it is the average annual increase in electricity bills, which means we are talking about a rate of price increases that is locked in and compounds for seven years. The maximum price under the modelling he referred to is $13.07 in year seven of the scheme.

Because the scheme has been immediately oversubscribed, that year seven cost has been brought now to the end of year one and is likely to take effect on 1 July 2011. The cost to households of the scheme will be at least $91.50 spread over seven years. Unfortunately, that is the most optimistic assessment based on what the Minister thought in January. In reality households are likely to pay far higher costs because the Government is continuing to accept new applications into the scheme, causing its costs to blow out exponentially.

We know that, under the modelling, the Government's worst-case scenario was that 10,286 applicants producing seven megawatts would enter the scheme progressively over its first 12 months. In fact, the Government has admitted that at least 8,000 pre-existing solar homes were admitted into the scheme from day one. Others have suggested the figure was 12,000. The scheme then boomed as solar companies from interstate immediately commenced advertising and marketing packages to install new panels direct to consumers. There was initial disarray as the energy companies were caught unprepared. They had to reprogram or replace net meters, which had been required under the initial Carmel Tebbutt net scheme introduced by the Government in the middle of 2009. They had to be reprogrammed or replaced with gross meters as a result of Minister Robertson's last-minute changes to the scheme at the end of 2009.

The boom in people wanting to sign up resulted in a major shortage of inverters and other materials that had to be ordered and imported from overseas. This resulted in a time lag between the acceptance of new applicants for the scheme and actual installation and connection to the grid. The Minister for Energy, Paul Lynch, announced on 24 August 2010 that "the Solar Bonus Scheme has reached its first milestone—a capacity of 50 megawatts". This means that the Government's modelling for a linear take-up rate of 50 megawatts over seven years was wrong. The scheme was not meant to be fully subscribed until year seven. A 50 megawatt scheme that is fully subscribed in year one has the following costs. The scheme was supposed to cost $51,990,740 in year seven but that cost is brought forward to year one and one therefore has to multiply it over seven years to get the total cost of the scheme, which is $363.9 million.

That is a massive blowout from the Government's initial estimation of $208 million—not quite double, but almost. It shows the dramatic effect of an almost vertical take-up rate in the scheme. The cost was predicted to be $208 million but already we know it will be $364 million. This is an optimistic view of what has happened because it assumes that the Government approved no more applications after 50 megawatts. We know that the scheme is still open and many more applications have been accepted. The Premier has clearly stated that what she refers to as the wildly popular scheme will not be closed to new applicants. She has defended the impact the scheme will have on electricity prices by referring to the rebate scheme, which she says will cushion the impact of price rises for about a third of householders. The announcement on 24 August by Minister Lynch that the 50 megawatt figure had been reached relates to the trigger under the legislation. Section 195 states:

195 Review of solar bonus scheme by the Minister

(2) The review is to be undertaken as soon as possible after 1 July 2012 or as soon as the Minister becomes aware that the total generating capacity of all complying generators reaches 50 megawatts, whichever occurs first.

It is significant that Minister Lynch's announcement on 24 August 2010 did not say exactly when the 50 megawatt target was reached. The wording of the legislation refers to when "the Minister becomes aware" of it. We believe that this point was reached far earlier. It is also important to understand that the 50 megawatt trigger relates to actual generating power connected to the grid. Systems that are approved but not installed do not count towards the 50 megawatt trigger. In other words, an unknown amount of solar generators are approved for the scheme, contracts that must be honoured but not yet installed at the time of the Minister's announcement. These will all have to be cross-subsidised on top of the 50 megawatts. I note that there will be a time delay between applying to enter the scheme and then installing a system to participate with a compliant generator. This means that the amount of generating capacity approved for the grid as at 24 August could be even double the 50 kilowatts cited by the Minister. We have had at least two more months worth of applicant approvals, at an accelerating rate, since the 24 August announcement. We hold grave fears about how many megawatts have been approved, how many applications will have to be honoured and what the cost will be.

I do not have the actual figures for the scheme; they have not been released by the Government. That is the purpose of this motion. To explain clearly what we fear might have happened in terms of costs I have used the Government's own modelling in the February 2009 report to Ministers that I have cited. I note that the modelling is 2008 modelling and will not take into account technology improvements, which have resulted in panels being more efficient. I also note that the costs do not take into account administrative costs of the scheme. EnergyAustralia states that its administrative costs alone are $76 million. It has already approached the pricing regulator asking for $76 million, not to subsidise consumers but to pay its costs for administering the scheme. I suspect much of that relates to the flip-flop over meters.

I have taken the Government's own modelling and I have made one adjustment, that is, I have dispensed with the linear take-up assumption, which is plainly wrong, and I have substituted an exponential take-up in estimating the cost of the scheme. Also, because we fear the number of applicants has blown out dramatically, I have developed additional scenarios for a higher than expected number of participants. In summary, we fear that there has already been a gigantic cost blowout and that this will have to be addressed by a future government. To recap, the aim of the scheme, according to the Minister, was to accept 33,000 participants, 50 megawatts of generating capacity, spread in a linear way over seven years, at a cost of $208 million.

The worst case scenario modelled by the Government was for 72,000 participants to enter the scheme. That would have been 108 megawatts of generating capacity but, again, this was on a linear take-up and the total cost of that would have been $449 million spread over seven years. We believe actual acceptances to date are in the order of 70,000 participants; that is, 103 megawatts of capacity accepted up until the end of September, in the first nine months. This will cost consumers $655 million in cross-subsidies over seven years. So we are already way past the Government's worst-case scenario. As I said, the rate of applications is increasing exponentially. If new applications to the scheme are not frozen the scheme will approach 130 megawatts by Christmas, potentially triggering subsidies in excess of $800 million spread over seven years.

The Government needs to understand that every application it accepts into the scheme triggers a cross-subsidy of more than $10,000. In other words, on an average of 1.5 megawatts the scheme will attract a subsidy of more than $10,000. That is based on the Government's modelling, as provided on, I think, page 30 of its Solar Bonus Scheme report to Ministers in February last year. The maths becomes very straightforward. If 1,000 people are accepted into the scheme at $10,000 each $10 million in cross-subsidies is automatically triggered.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: What's your policy? What's the Coalition's policy?

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I will come to that in a moment. At 150 megawatts the scheme will exceed $1 billion in subsidies, which will need to be recouped from electricity clients over the next seven years. At 200 megawatts the cost of the scheme will blow out to $1.38 billion, and it would have the effect of increasing household electricity bills by $96.80. I note that the Government's modelling refers to the price impacts of the scheme per household. That is the unit by which the Government explains the impacts of the scheme in terms of electricity prices. The Government's modelling speaks about the average impact of the scheme on electricity prices, and then it speaks about the impact on households. What is missing from the equation is the impact of the scheme on non-households. The Government says in its modelling that only 31 per cent of electricity accounts are held by households. The mathematics of working out the cost impacts of the scheme on non-households is straightforward. In the event that the scheme is allowed to blow out to 150 megawatts, the impact on non-household bills—that is, those for businesses, community groups and government agencies—will be $677.60, on average. That is spread over the seven-year period, but that gets us up close to a price rise of around $100, which is locked in for each of the next seven years.

If a billion dollars were available to stimulate renewable energy in this State the Solar Bonus Scheme, which focuses exclusively on small-scale educational models, would not be the rational way to fully expend such a large sum. Yet, it is being locked in, with applications being accepted and honoured for the next seven years at an enormous cost to consumers, with those costs being hidden until after the State election next year. This is absolute vandalism of electricity prices. This reckless and irresponsible Government, with no transparency about what it is doing, is allowing the scheme to explode in its face exponentially. Rather than admit that there is a problem and face the music in the media for another day of bad publicity, the Government would rather just let this thing run wildly and expect that a future government will have to deal with it. But the consumers that will have to pay for it starting next year are the very same consumers that the Government will have to face when it goes to the election in March. We believe it is absolutely essential that these costs and this behaviour should be open to public scrutiny so that everyone can make their own judgement.

As I said, the figures I have given are based on the Government's model, and I have adjusted those figures simply for the linear take-up of the scheme. I hope that the figures I have referred to are incorrect. I hope that this scheme is not the disaster we fear. I say that genuinely. I really hope we are wrong in this. The only way we can know for sure is for the Government to make public the data about its acceptance of the applications, and to make public the advice it has been getting from its departments and from the electricity retailers who advised the Government on the scheme prior to the flip-flop in November when it turned from a net scheme to a gross scheme, and who would have been advising the Government on all the problems that were triggered with the meters, some of which had to be reprogrammed. We want to see that information. More to the point, we want to know exactly what the take-up rate is, what the number of consumers is, and what the estimated costs are.

I believe it is absolutely vital, and in the public interest, that the public make an informed assessment of the scheme. If my worst fears are proven to be correct, we need an enormous campaign to try to get the Government to freeze new applications to the scheme so that we do not continue to bleed money from consumers. I fear that we may have found ourselves in a situation where the Government is unable to close the scheme because the legislation mandates that retailers must accept all applications and must pay the 60¢. It appears that there may be a flaw in the legislation and that the Government is unable to stop the scheme without legislation. It is all the more urgent for us to know what is going on while the Parliament is still sitting; it is all the more urgent for somebody to be in a position to make an informed assessment and push the Government to take control of this nightmare scheme.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [11.45 a.m.]: I oppose this call for papers, based on some fundamental issues. First, it is a waste of time. In the midst of the Government's preparation of a ministerial review the Opposition would force a ridiculous time-wasting exercise on staff across government agencies and businesses. Secondly, it is redundant. As the Hon. Catherine Cusack knows full well, a ministerial review is underway that will in due course provide a wealth of information to the Parliament and to the public on the New South Wales Solar Bonus Scheme. Thirdly, the call for papers is meaningless. As part of the ministerial review process many of the pieces of work referred to would, certainly at this point in time, be subject to the confidentiality of Cabinet. This call for papers is a farce perpetrated by an Opposition that is not sure what it wants so its default position is to try to cause as much noise and fury as possible in the hope that no-one will notice that it amounts to nothing. This motion does not warrant urgency, and the Opposition knows why.

The legislation passed by this Parliament last year—passed with the support of the Opposition—makes it very clear that the New South Wales Solar Bonus Scheme will be subject to meticulous review. The first of those reviews—triggered in August this year when the scheme reached a generating capacity of 50 megawatts—is currently underway. It is a ministerial review, required under the legislation. Section 195 of the Electricity Supply Act 1995 states:

(1) The Minister is to review the solar bonus scheme (being the scheme for the payment of electricity supplied to the network by small retail customers using complying generators) to determine whether the policy objectives of the scheme remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives.

(2) The review is to be undertaken as soon as possible after 1 July 2012 or as soon as the Minister becomes aware that the total generating capacity of all complying generators reaches 50 megawatts, whichever occurs first.

I am surprised that the Hon. Catherine Cusack questioned when the Minister became aware of this. The legislation is quite clear on the Minister's responsibilities. As soon as the Minister becomes aware that the total generating capacity—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: I am just saying there is a time gap between when it happens and when the Minister knows about it. I am just saying there is a time gap there.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members did not interrupt the Hon. Catherine Cusack. I ask that the same courtesy be extended to the Hon. Lynda Voltz.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: Regardless of whether the Hon. Catherine Cusack believes that there is a time gap until the Minister makes the announcement, the Minister has a clear legislative responsibility as to when the review is undertaken. Section 195 of the Electricity Supply Act 1995 continues:

(3) A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament.

The second review is to be undertaken by the Auditor-General as soon as practicable after the period of one year from the commencement of the scheme. Again, the Auditor-General is required under section 194 (3) to report to each House of Parliament. So a ministerial review is underway. An Auditor-General's review is to be presented to the Parliament in 2011. Not only did Opposition members support the introduction of the New South Wales Solar Bonus Scheme; they themselves are responsible for some of the oversight mechanisms built into the legislation.

It was the Hon. Catherine Cusack who moved for the provision that locked into place the review to be conducted by the Auditor-General, an amendment agreed to by this House. These meticulous, thorough and transparent reviews will result in a wealth of information being presented to this place in a timely and orderly fashion. But instead of respecting that process—a process endorsed by the Opposition when it supported the scheme in the first place—it chooses to put up this spurious motion. Fundamentally, this order for papers is redundant. The review mechanisms built into the legislation make it redundant and those review mechanisms were not just supported but in some cases were championed by the Opposition. It is not the business of this Parliament to give the Opposition a leg-up when they are confused about policy position. In November 2009 in this place the Hon. Catherine Cusack stated:

The Liberal Party and The Nationals have long advocated a gross feed-in tariff.

She claimed that the scheme itself was evidence that the Opposition was right all along on the issue of a gross feed-in tariff. To quote her exact words:

The fact that we are debating this bill proves one thing above all else. The Coalition has been correct all this time.

But even a year ago the Hon. Catherine Cusack was not sure whether right was right enough. She strongly argued:

The scheme is unambitious.

It was the Hon. Catherine Cusack's view at that time that the Coalition supported fixed participation, a scheme under which a household or business joining even in the seventh year would be paid the gross feed-in tariff for a full seven years. She argued that the scheme was unambitious in its exclusion of the commercial property sector, larger systems and technologies other than solar photovoltaic [PV] and small-scale wind generation. Yet, just a few days ago, her compass had swung in a completely different direction. In an October press release she said:

... the Keneally Labor Government must urgently close out-of-control solar bonus scheme.

She went on to defy the terms of the legislation by arguing that, in spite of the terms of the scheme being locked into that legislation, the Government should immediately and unilaterally deny entry to new participants. The mobility of the Hon. Catherine Cusack on this issue is astonishing. First, she gives grudging support but argues the scheme should be massively more expansive and then she wants to kill it overnight. First, she supports the inclusion of fair, sensible, comprehensive, transparent review, going so far as to make a valuable contribution to those mechanisms—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: I am being grossly misrepresented and misquoted in this debate.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Catherine Cusack will resume her seat. A point of order cannot be taken to cover the claim of gross misrepresentation. The Hon. Lynda Voltz may continue.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Who wrote this garbage—one of the staffers? You just read it out like a parrot.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: Talk about parroting! Then suddenly that is not good enough.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Read the garbage.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I assume the member who is interjecting also supported the amendments to the review. Suddenly, in spite of knowing that the very information she seeks will be in evidence when the Ministerial review is complete and presented in this place, there is a motion for an order for papers that we are left to presume is purely so that the Opposition can be seen to be doing something. This is a farcical motion. The member should show sense and accept that the review process the Opposition was happy enough to commit to not 12 months ago is in train and will deliver to her and the community in due course a clear insight into the operation of the New South Wales Solar Bonus Scheme.

The Hon. IAN WEST [11.53 a.m.]: I speak against the Opposition motion. As members would be aware, the level of access to public information has never been greater. This Government has strengthened the transparency around government decision-making and improved access to the information for the public. The Government Information (Public Access) Act 2010, which commenced on 1 July 2010, has opened government information to the public in three basic ways: first, authorising and encouraging the proactive public release of government information by agencies; secondly, giving members of the public an enforceable right to access government information; and, thirdly, providing that access to government information is restricted only when there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.

The Act requires government agencies to make certain information easily available to the public without requiring an application. This is known as open access information and includes such things as information about the role of agencies, what they do and the information they hold, information and government reports tabled in Parliament, agency policy documents, a log of all the information released in response to applications—a disclosure log—and information about contracts valued at over $150,000. With access to the internet, extensive information is available to the general public as well as specialists, industry groups, consumer groups and other parties interested in accessing such information. In this context, the order for papers is completely unnecessary and an utter waste of time. A report into the Solar Bonus Scheme, as well as submissions, except for those where confidentiality is requested, will be available on the Industry and Investment NSW website for all to see. I strongly support not making public those submissions from individuals who have requested privacy. In the interests of transparency, we will also be making submissions public from the Opposition.

Diverting Industry and Investment NSW resources to complying with this standing order is an abuse of Government process. The Energy branch of Industry and Investment NSW not only delivers the Solar Bonus Scheme but is responsible for government programs that assist vulnerable customers to pay their energy bills. Staff from Industry and Investment NSW, together with staff from the Government Contact Centre, provide support and advice to community welfare organisations and the public who seek assistance with their energy bills. Staff priorities should not be searching for documents, photocopying, preparing lists of documents and boxing papers. Nor should the public have to pay for contractors so that staff resources are not diverted. I urge members not to support this motion.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [11.57 a.m.]: The Solar Bonus Scheme has been highly successful in increasing the number of people in New South Wales with solar panels being connected to the grid. The first milestone, the review trigger point of 50 megawatts, was reached in mid 2010. Accordingly, a statutory review of the scheme is currently underway. The outcome of this review and the submissions to that review are to be made publicly available and are to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. I repeat that the level of community interest in this scheme continues to be strong. I am also advised that those implementing the scheme at Industry and Investment NSW and network businesses are focused on providing a high level of customer service to support those who are interested in participating in the scheme. Departmental staff are also focused on completing the review in order to provide a report in this session of Parliament. This will ensure that public information on the outcomes of the review will be provided in a timely manner and that attention is rightly directed to delivering the scheme, assisting the public to join the scheme, or responding to questions from the public about the scheme. Departmental staff are dedicating significant time and resources to the review process. Likewise, network businesses are working hard to efficiently process applications to join the scheme. This call for papers, particularly within the ridiculously short 14-day time frame, will inappropriately direct resources—

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

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall that in answer to a question from me yesterday he said that New South Wales needs long-term fuel supplies for generators? Given that the Government has known for a number of years that coal contracts will expire, when did he decide to cease negotiations with Whitehaven Coal and have the Government dig the coal out of the ground? What was the timing?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I refer to my previous answer.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: How do you ask a supplementary question on that answer?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Treasurer referred to his previous answer. My supplementary question relates to his previous answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not allowable under the standing orders.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: I address my question without notice to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest information on infrastructure funding in New South Wales?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the Hon. Kayee Griffin for her question and interest in this important matter. Let me be clear, without a doubt, Australia's economic recovery leads the developed world and the stimulus policies of both the national and State governments averted a recession in this country. The New South Wales Government is investing $62.2 billion over the next four years on infrastructure, supporting around 155,000 jobs a year. This is not just a record for this State but the biggest infrastructure investment of any Australian government. That is why I was stunned by the shadow Treasurer's recent blundering admission on infrastructure funding. Michael Baird has admitted publicly for the first time that his wacky Waratah Bonds scheme will cost New South Wales taxpayers more. That is right, he admitted publicly in a debate with me before the Illawarra Business Chamber last Friday that his wacky Waratah Bonds will cost the taxpayers of this State more. This is what he said, after I got stuck into him on the issue:

You may well pay an increased amount for that diversity.

It will result in extra costs for the taxpayers of this State to implement his wacky merchant banker idea. What a massive blunder! For the benefit of members, the New South Wales Government has a central borrowing authority, TCorp, which borrows money to fund infrastructure projects at the cheapest possible interest rate. TCorp is world renowned for its strong financial leadership on behalf of the people of New South Wales. Under Michael Baird's scheme, which is the Coalition's major economic policy for infrastructure funding, he would issue Waratah Bonds every time they want to fund individual infrastructure projects. This means borrowing small amounts multiple times at potentially higher interest rates and with extra administrative costs, such as registry and bank charges, rather than borrowing a large amount at a potentially lower interest rate and lower administration costs.

Small bond issuances would be less liquid, meaning that the Government would have to offer higher interest rates to attract investors. This would cost taxpayers even more. More bond issuances mean more administrative costs, more compliance costs and more transaction costs, which would have to be paid by the taxpayers of this State. Instead of funding vital frontline services such as police, teachers and nurses, Michael Baird will pay extra administration costs for his whacky Waratah Bonds out of the public purse. The problem is that this merchant banker wants to invent new little ways of raising funds because he thinks he is in the retail game. He wants to saddle the taxpayers of this State with higher costs every time the Government builds a new road or hospital. This flies in the face of a very simple, well-established economic idea: the economies of scale. I notice that the Hon. Greg Pearce is nodding his head in agreement.

Barry O'Farrell has to step in immediately and axe Michael Baird's wacky Waratah Bonds scheme. It is time for Barry O'Farrell to show some leadership after this frank admission by Michael Baird that his new idea will cost the taxpayers of this State n additional charges. It is a dumb plan that will raise expensive debt for this State, which taxpayers will have to bear. Debt is debt, no matter what fancy name they may give it. For the benefit of members, the New South Wales Government is borrowing $20.5 billion over the next four years to fund our record $62.2 billion infrastructure building program. These borrowings through TCorp are conducted in the most efficient way to minimise cost and interest payments to the New South Wales taxpayers. This Government will get on with the job.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Has the Attorney General taken advice regarding requests from the New South Wales Police Force in relation to a domestic violence register? Is he aware of any legal impediments to the implementation of a domestic violence register? If so, what are they? If not, is the creation of such a register a priority for his Government?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I have had no approaches made to me in relation to that particular issue. Should such approaches be made, they will be considered, as are all proposals submitted to me by justice stakeholders.

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Given the problems besetting the Government's electricity privatisation plans, will the Treasurer give the House an assurance that no transaction will proceed without the support of both Houses of Parliament?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: As I have outlined in previous answers, the transaction is on time and continuing.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Can the Minister update the House on the implementation of the new 2010 commuter timetable?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: On Sunday 10 October 2010, a new timetable was introduced successfully for ferry passengers and commuters who catch the train and bus to work. The timetable improvements were the direct result of the Government's continued investment in transport infrastructure, in response to growing demand for services. The main improvements under the 2010 CityRail timetable were for commuters on the Cronulla, South Coast, Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra lines. The new timetable took advantage of the new capacity available as a result of the $436 million investment by the New South Wales Government in the Cronulla line duplication and resignalling work along the Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra lines.

As a result, from last Sunday the new timetable delivered more than 300 extra train services a week for customers between Kirrawee and Cronulla, as well as other additional services to commuters on the Illawarra, Eastern Suburbs and South Coast lines. For passengers at Cronulla that is an extra 42 services every week day and an additional 52 services each day of the weekend to and from Bondi Junction. The new timetable started well last week, operating with an on-time running of 95.9 per cent cross the network since its implementation nine days ago. In addition to the hundreds of extra services for Cronulla commuters every week, the benefits of the new timetable include the replacement of most diesel trains between Kiama and Wollongong with electric trains, many of them Outer Suburban Carriages, which provide a more comfortable journey. The benefits of the new timetable also include additional evening peak-hour services for Waterfall, Hurstville and Cronulla commuters; faster journey times for weekend services between Kiama and Sydney; improvements to late-night services from the city to the South Coast; and on weekends, two additional services an hour between Glenfield and the city via Granville throughout the day. I am pleased to report that in its first week of operation RailCorp has already received some great feedback from commuters about the improvements. I refer to a few of them. A Hurstville commuter emailed:

The new timetable is very efficient so far, lots more trains making more travel more efficient, keep up the good work!

A commuter on the Cronulla line phoned to say:

I just thought I would drop a line to advise RailCorp on how well the speed and level of comfort that the new train timetable has offered for the Cronulla line. I have found the express trains so much less crowded and congested, both while travelling and the ability on exiting the train in the city.

Another commuter complimented RailCorp on the awareness campaign that was undertaken before introducing the new timetable, stating:

Congratulations on your "Changes to CityRail Timetable" brochure. Very positive to see the increase in train services on several lines, and a very clearly written and designed communication tool to the public.

Those are great compliments and a testament to the good work undertaken by RailCorp to bring in the new timetable. Last week also saw the successful introduction of a new timetable for Sydney Ferries commuters. It was clear that there was a need for more services along a number of routes, particularly along the Parramatta River, which the new timetable delivers. Key changes include more services for growth areas on the Parramatta River, increasing services to Watsons Bay and Taronga Zoo on weekends and extending the span of services on Sundays on most routes. In line with the changes to ferry and train timetables, there were also some minor changes to State Transit Authority bus services to improve links with trains and ferries.

I am pleased to say that as a result of the hard work of Transport NSW, RailCorp, Sydney Ferries and State Transit in the lead-up to 10 October, the timetables were implemented successfully and without major incident. I would like to thank everyone from each of the transport agencies involved in implementing the new timetable. I encourage everyone in this House to visit the Transport Infoline website, www.131500.com.au, to find out more details.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Planning, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for Lands, the Hon. Tony Kelly, the following question without notice. Is the Minister aware that public housing residents in Todd Street, Warrawong, are living in rat-infested and fire-damaged units? Is the Minister aware that the occupants of these public housing units have raised repeated concerns over the reported theft of 30 to 35 downpipes from the estate, downpipes which remove all the water from the roof? Is the Minister aware that Housing NSW has acknowledged there is a problem with the repeated theft of the downpipes, the rat infestation and the fire-damaged units, yet nothing has been done to alleviate the situation? Will the Minister please indicate what is being done to ensure that public housing units are kept at an adequate living standard and why public housing tenants must wait excessive periods to get basic services?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Minister.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Given that yesterday in answer to my question the Treasurer said that New South Wales needs long-term fuel supplies for generators, can the Treasurer now explain who will be responsible for delivering the coal and the rail infrastructure and guaranteeing the coal quality? What will be the costs to the taxpayers of New South Wales and which bucket of money will these costs be coming from?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The New South Wales Government has acted decisively to secure significant long-term fuel supplies for existing generators. Of course, New South Wales electricity generators require long-term supplies of fuel to make sure that this State's energy needs are met. The Cobbora coal resource—whichever way you want to pronounce it—is in the State's Central West—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Correctly would be nice.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: As if you would know either way. The Cobbora coal resource is owned by New South Wales taxpayers and has been set aside for electricity generation. This is important for us in order to secure significant long-term fuel supplies at a price that is less distorted by external price measures. We will continue with our commitment to ensure that these supplies are maintained.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask the Treasurer a supplementary question. In light of the Treasurer's answer and given that his Government has known for a number of years that coal contracts will expire, when did the Treasurer decide to cease negotiations with Whitehaven Coal and for the Government to dig the coal out of the ground? What was the timing of this decision?

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: That is a completely new question. It is not a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! In accordance with rulings of former Presidents, I uphold the point of order.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Attorney General. What is the New South Wales Government doing to stop people from habitually using the court system to pursue unreasonable lawsuits?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: In 2008 the Government passed the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, an Act which was aimed at weeding out vexatious litigants from the legal system. Courts exist to administer justice and help people to resolve their legal disputes. They do not exist so that people can pursue unmeritorious, frivolous and vexatious lawsuits, intimidating, harassing or annoying others without reason or rhyme. Under the Vexatious Proceedings Act it is easier for our courts to declare people who persistently make frivolous claims as vexatious litigants.

People declared as vexatious litigants are not allowed to start court proceedings without getting permission from the court. A vexatious litigant may apply to the court to set aside or to vary the order. The court may also vary or set aside the order on its own motion or on the application of a person who can apply for the making of an order. All vexatious proceedings orders are published in the Government Gazette and recorded on the Supreme Court's website. Under the Vexatious Proceedings Act, this year alone five persons have been declared as vexatious litigants, in contrast to a mere 10 persons who were declared vexatious litigants over 15 years under the old provisions.

Among the court abusers declared as vexatious litigants this year is a gentleman who instituted 14 sets of proceedings in the Supreme Court over a period of 11 years, nearly all of which were an attempt to re-litigate a matter that was first determined in 1994. This gentleman is renowned for his pugnacious behaviour in the courtroom, and in declaring him a vexatious litigant Justice Davies noted that the litigant was often rude, overbearing and offensive and that on many occasions he had to be removed from the court. Indeed, the litigant stayed true to form during the proceedings to have him declared vexatious, informing Justice Davies at the outset that the court had no jurisdiction to do anything and that the appointment of all judges was fraudulent. The litigant talked over the top of Justice Davies and counsel appearing for the Government, and on a number of occasions, he was warned that he should sit down and be quiet until it was his turn to address the court. When he refused to do so, Justice Davies eventually had him removed from the court.

Vexatious litigants take away resources and potentially delay other court users in the hearing of genuine disputes. Persistent litigation by vexatious litigants may cause undue harm to, and unnecessary costs for, opposing parties and other participants in the justice system. Innocent parties can be dragged through the courts, often at great financial and emotional costs. Apart from launching frivolous claims, vexatious litigants may also abuse the justice process by refusing reasonable settlement offers, failing to pay costs after being ordered to do so and launching more appeals. These actions impinge on the efficiency of the justice system and make the process more expensive for everyone.

These new laws are making a difference; they are freeing up the justice system to focus on legitimate matters and ensuring that resources are spent on resolving serious legal issues. They demonstrate the Government's commitment to improving the efficiency of the court system and making sure that the justice system is fair, quick and cost-effective.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Attorney General the following question without notice: Is it a fact that a 16-year-old female minor was forced by her mother to work as a child prostitute in the council-approved Edgecliff brothel known as Liaisons? Is the Attorney General aware that the minor has suffered sexual, physical, mental and drug abuse? Why was the girl's mother sentenced to jail for only 18 months when the penalty is up to 20 years in jail and when a person in a similar case in Hobart received a 10-year jail penalty? What charges have been laid against the Edgecliff brothel Liaisons for employing a child prostitute and what action will the Government take to prevent any further child prostitution in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: There is a number of aspects to the question, some of which fall into other ministerial responsibilities. I will seek advice from the relevant Ministers and come back to the member with a comprehensive response.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Has Treasury conducted any analysis of the total capital and recurrent costs of building and providing social housing compared with the costs of funding affordable rental housing under the National Rental Affordability Scheme? If yes, will the Treasurer provide that advice to the House? What are the reasons that Treasury has limited New South Wales' participation in the National Rental Affordability Scheme to 4,597 dwellings, which is only 9 per cent of the available 50,000 dwellings across Australia, whilst other States such as Queensland are committing to 10,000 or more dwellings?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am happy to take that question on notice.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest investment in international education in New South Wales?

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Take that on notice.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I love Charlie; he is a great wit. Members opposite could learn from him. He has a good sense of humour and he takes this place with a grain of salt. I have more good news about the New South Wales economy. I am pleased to inform members that a leading Indian education provider last month announced an investment of $45 million in a new campus in Sydney. This is great news for New South Wales and for western Sydney, which will be the site of the new campus. It will be established by S P Jain Center of Management and will take its first students in 2012. The project is expected to create 50 full-time jobs and 100 part-time jobs over the next five years.

The new campus is the first education investment in New South Wales by an education provider from India. It will be built in two stages and will include academic housing and recreational facilities. S P Jain Center of Management is an education provider that specialises in masters of business administration programs. It set up its first campus in Mumbai in 1981. In 2004 it decided to focus on global learning and established its first international campus in Dubai, and another in Singapore in 2006. In 2008, the Mint-Wall Street Journal survey ranked the school the second top private business school in India.

Earlier this year I travelled to India on a trade mission during which I met Nitish Jain, the President of S P Jain Center of Management, to discuss plans to establish a campus in Sydney. Mr Jain announced his investment decision when he was in Sydney for the Forbes Global CEO Conference late last year. Mr Jain's decision to invest $45 million in Sydney is great news for our international education sector. It confirms Sydney's position as a high-quality education provider and as a safe destination for international students wanting to study overseas. Mr Jain said that when his organisation was considering establishing a campus in Australia, Sydney was the obvious choice. The New South Wales Government takes the issue of student safety very seriously. In fact, earlier this year the Government established the Premier's Council on International Education—the first of its kind in Australia.

The S P Jain Center of Management education model rotates its students through overseas campuses so that they can gain exposure to different business environments. Equally important is that the students get an understanding and appreciation of diversity and open their minds to a global view. This gives the students great insight and a good start in their careers. New South Wales already has an impressive record as a provider of quality education at all levels. I am pleased to say that the New South Wales Government and Austrade worked with the S P Jain Center of Management to win this investment for our State. Mr Jain's decision to establish a campus in Sydney will enhance our international reputation and make New South Wales an even more attractive destination for international students. Mr Jain's investment decision sends a clear, positive message about Sydney and New South Wales.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Noting the concern expressed by senior judges that they cannot enter the public debate to protect themselves from attacks in the media, will the Attorney General commit to undertaking the historic role of the Attorney General and actively defend this State's judicial officers from such attacks?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: That is a great question, because the honourable member has joined a party that has come into this House time and again whenever a judicial decision has been given against their sectional interests, and they have opposed it. I will provide a couple of examples. Do honourable members remember Ms Rhiannon? How can we forget that serial rorter of entitlements? While a member of this House she moved a motion as a matter of public importance requesting that the House condemn the unequal treatment of Catholic and public school teachers in the decisions on their respective salary cases by the Industrial Relations Commission. A full-on debate ensued; Hansard contains page after page of the greatest sectarian bigotry one could imagine from Ms Rhiannon. Why does Mr Shoebridge not disassociate himself from that? When he does that, why does he not also explain what she did late last year when she had a go at the Industrial Relations Commission about the hours that TAFE teachers were ordered to work as part of an arrangement? The Industrial Relations Commission hears the competing cases put by the employers and the employees and comes to a considered decision. However, when a decision does not accord with the Greens' sectional interests they bag the judges. As I did then, I will continue to defend the judiciary against that sort of outrageous attack. The Greens members in this House are interested in only one form of justice: Soviet-style justice—that is, outcomes predetermined by the Politburo.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I ask a supplementary question. I take it from the Attorney General's response that the short answer to my question is no.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the honourable member for this opportunity because I will continue to support the judiciary of this State, particularly against unwarranted, spiteful and bigoted attacks from the members with whom Mr Shoebridge associates, whose performance he appears to be reticent about criticising. I take my responsibilities very seriously and I have done so on many occasions. I find it interesting that today's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald contains an article complaining that Attorneys General previously have not supported the judiciary. One of the journalists who wrote that article has written a book criticising Deputy Coroner Jacqueline Milledge.

Mr David Shoebridge: It did not criticise her.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: It is a matter of fact. I make it clear, as I have on a number of occasions, including at a press conference, that I support the deputy coroner in the discharge of her responsibilities—and I will continue to do so. It is unfortunate that people attack the courts, particularly when proceedings are current. Parties are entitled to put their case and for decisions to be made. From time to time errors are made—that is inevitable. When exercising human discretion and judgement, mistakes can be made. That is why we have an appeals process. If everyone got it right every time, we would not bother with that process. Judges accept that their decisions will be dissected, analysed and from time to time criticised. That is part of living in a democracy. However, I object to the spiteful and bigoted attacks perpetrated by the member's colleagues, which he seems not to want to criticise.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer. Given his many statements about the professionalism and effectiveness of the Government's bookkeeping, was he concerned to learn that a colleague, who is serving as a parliamentary secretary, was unable to comply with parliamentary accounting standards because she said she was not trained in filling out forms? How widespread is this problem in the Government ranks? Is it only backbench members and parliamentary secretaries who are unable to function because of a lack of training in filling—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: I think the member knows she is well and truly out of order. Standing Order 64 (1) is very clear about the nature of questions to be asked and answered by a Minister. That question is clearly out of order.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: How is it out of order?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Does the Hon. Catherine Cusack wish to speak to the point of order?

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is difficult because the honourable member has asserted that the question is out of order but he has not explained why.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. Standing Order 64 (1) provides in part that "Questions may be put to Ministers relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected". Clearly the question does not relate to such matters.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Volunteering. Will the Minister update the House on the implementation of the Premier's Student Volunteering Awards Program?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: All honourable members realise that substantial benefits can be gained from volunteering, most significantly for the community but also for the volunteers themselves. That is especially so when young people volunteer. In recognition of this, in 2007 the New South Wales Government committed to supporting a program in government schools that would increase youth volunteering. The focus of the program was to help to engage socially isolated and disadvantaged young people in community activities and to help to build the foundations at an early age for a lifetime of volunteering.

It was acknowledged that such a program could contribute to the objective of increasing volunteer engagement, but, more importantly, that it would give young people a better sense of connection with their communities. This program had a target date of implementation by 2010, and I am pleased to be able to update the House today on the achievements to date. A highly successful pilot program was conducted in 2009 with the involvement of 20 schools around New South Wales. So much so, that at the beginning of this school year the New South Wales Department of Education and Training officially launched the New South Wales Premiers Student Volunteering Awards Program across New South Wales. The program is open to all government schools and is targeted at students enrolled in years 9 and 10. The awards program is not mandatory but it encourages years 9 and 10 students to undertake a minimum of 20 hours of school and community volunteering during those two years of enrolment. Students become eligible for certificates of acknowledgement when they reach the milestones of 20, 40, 60 and 80 hours of volunteering.

Government funding has been provided in a number of areas to facilitate this program. These include a team at the department's Curriculum Directorate to develop resources, including promotional materials and an information and resource web site; the appointment of regional coordinators for each of the 10 Department of Education and Training regions; grants to schools for designated school coordinators; release time to attend professional learning workshops to manage the program; and the development of an online software application to manage student volunteering data. In-school volunteering activities include establishing school breakfast clubs, peer mentor programs and after school homework centres. Out of school volunteering activities include working with not-for-profit organisations, such as the State Emergency Service, the Rural Fire Service, surf lifesaving, the Salvation Army, Meals on Wheels, Riding for the Disabled and many more.

There are schools supporting student visits to aged care facilities, befriending elderly residents, helping them to learn to use computers for emailing their relatives and generally working to bridge the generation gap. Other students are focusing attention on their local special needs schools, helping to run sports carnivals or build and maintain gardens. Most importantly, the students are forming friendships and networks within their communities, contributing to their sense of belonging. Anecdotal feedback from teachers, the community, parents and, most importantly, the students themselves is that the student volunteering program is providing real help to the community while building students' skills, confidence and a sense of community.

I recently read an article in the Deniliquin Pastoral Times acknowledging awards given to five local students who are doing bronze and silver awards for volunteer hours contributed since the beginning of the year. I am sure similar stories will continue to appear in local newspapers across New South Wales. It is great to see the community and local media recognising the excellent achievements of our student volunteers.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. The New South Wales Ombudsman's report into delivery of disability services to Aboriginal people recognised the high rate of disability within Aboriginal communities. It found also that there was a low level of knowledge and understanding in these communities about what services are available. What will the Minister be doing to address this disconnecting service provision to Aboriginal people with disability? Four key areas of improvements in service delivery were identified in the report—support for children and young people, support for carers, home modifications and community transport. What tangible actions will the Minister implement to achieve the needed improvements?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: The New South Wales Government, through the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, is committed to ensuring older Aboriginal people and Aboriginal people with a disability have greater opportunity to participate in community life and that their families and carers are supported in their caring roles. Aboriginal people are twice as likely to have severe or profound poor activity limitations. At the same time Aboriginal people are far less likely to access formal services.

The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care recognises the challenges of ensuring older Aboriginal people are supported to live independently in their own homes and be connected with their communities. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care recognises also the challenges of ensuring that Aboriginal people with a disability have every opportunity to reach their potential, and at the same time supporting and sustaining the unique community responses that are an integral part of Aboriginal culture. The agency acknowledges that true engagement with Aboriginal families and communities in service planning and development is essential to encourage access to services and to foster skills and independence so that the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal families and communities are maximised.

As a consequence, the Government, in seeking to pursue this goal, resources the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care to develop and implement structural reforms and target employment of Aboriginal people to increase its capacity to deliver culturally responsive services to Aboriginal communities. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care currently funds eight programs that target Aboriginal communities specifically. The flagship program is the Aboriginal Home Care Service, which is the largest provider of community care services to Aboriginal people in New South Wales. In addition, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care has a range of Aboriginal specific services and programs that target Aboriginal people. Examples of these include Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care early intervention services and intensive family support services for families with young children, community participation programs for school leavers as well as programs for carers and older carers. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care has also established the Aboriginal Service Development Delivery Directorate to provide leadership, coordination and support across the agency to bring about systemic structural reforms to improve ageing and disability services for Aboriginal people now and into the future.

The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care continues to work towards innovative and responsive models of service delivery that respect cultural values, meet community expectations and build the confidence of Aboriginal families to access services. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care monitors and measures its service delivery activity in relation to equity of access to services for Aboriginal people, and evidence suggests that there is strong correlation between the proportion of Aboriginal people receiving services in a region and the number of Aboriginal people in that region.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport. I note the recent program of CountryLink forums around the State, particularly the forum conducted in Jindabyne on 3 September. Will the Minister inform the House as to why the Government refused to hold a public forum on this important matter in Cooma? Apart from the local member's suggestion that people without public transport options should try to car pool with others, does the Government have any practical plans to improve public transport options for people in Cooma, Jindabyne and other towns in the Monaro?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thought the honourable member's interests were on the North Coast of New South Wales. As the Hon. Melinda Pavey alluded, it is true that Parliamentary Secretary the Hon. Penny Sharpe has been conducting a series of community consultations—a review that was initiated by my predecessor and a review that I requested she continue to undertake right across the State. Those consultations have concluded and my advice is that they have been very well attended with regard to community participation. They were well advertised and open to as many people as possible. As well as being invited to attend the community forums, people were also encouraged to use the Internet. If, because of timing or location, they were unable to attend a particular forum, they were presented with an opportunity to go to a website to lodge a submission.

We were very keen to get as much feedback as we could. Our public transport agencies accept and welcome feedback from the community, irrespective of where it is, so that we can improve our public transport services. An indication of how we respond to community feedback was the introduction of Guardian services. They were initiated directly as a result of commuter feedback. The selection of the lines on which they would operate and the times at which they would operate were specifically as a direct result of computer feedback.

As I said, we were very keen to get as much feedback as we could. The fact that people may not have been able to attend for a range of reasons did not restrict or limit their capacity to provide feedback with regard to the CountryLink review. I will be keen to receive the report from the Parliamentary Secretary, consider that feedback and look at what enhancements we can make to CountryLink services to ensure that we continue to improve public transport opportunities, for people not only in the metropolitan and outer regions but also right across the State.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. What is the latest progress on the Government's commuter car park program?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I acknowledge the member's ongoing interest in public transport matters. As most members in this House would know, I am always happy to talk about transport infrastructure being built right now by this Government that is making a huge difference to the lives of commuters every day. Last Thursday it gave me great pleasure to hop on a train to Wollongong and to join the hardworking member for Wollongong, Noreen Hay, to open the latest commuter car park delivered by the New South Wales Government.

The New South Wales Government is delivering an additional 7,000 commuter car parking spaces across the rail network to make it easier for people to catch a train. The Government's commuter car park program was established in November 2008 in order to speed up the planning, approval and construction of commuter car park facilities that had previously been bogged down in red tape and negotiation between State government agencies and councils.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did Noreen show you the table of knowledge when you were down there?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ought to get some knowledge at some point himself. The program is a great example of cooperation between government agencies and local government to deliver real benefits to local commuters. As part of the commuter car park program, 29 commuter car parks will be delivered across Sydney, the Blue Mountains, the Central Coast and the Illawarra.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What about Campbelltown?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: Listen up and you will hear also about Campbelltown. Wollongong was the fifteenth car park to be opened by the New South Wales Government under this program in addition to car parks opened at Wentworthville, Helensburgh, Seddon Park—I think the Hon. Charlie Lynn knows where that is—Morisset, Campbelltown, Holsworthy, Tuggerah, Windsor, Werrington, Katoomba, Woonona, Ourimbah, Glenfield and, just a few weeks ago, a brand new 200-space commuter car park at Quakers Hill. These car parks have proven incredibly popular. In fact, no sooner had the member for Wollongong and I opened the gates to the new commuter car park on Thursday than cars began streaming into the facility.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Screaming.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I said, "streaming".

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: To this Government they were screaming.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The Leader of the Opposition is always very keen to pick up on the elocution of Ministers when they are providing answers to questions. I suggest that he listens because I said "streaming". They were keen to use the new $11 million facility, which provides 356 new car park spaces, all of which are untimed and free to use, including 12 widely spaced disabled access car parking spaces and 23 motorcycle spaces. A dedicated kiss and ride zone is also provided. Cyclists will also be pleased to hear that storage is available for 24 bicycles. The Wollongong commuter car park features closed-circuit television surveillance, lifts and security lighting to make it safer for commuters and their vehicles.

In addition, the entrance area to Wollongong station has been upgraded with high-quality paving, new planter boxes, improvements to pedestrian pathways and connecting streets and a lift for commuters to access the four levels of the new car park. Also pleasing was the fact that the project team, led by the Transport Construction Authority, was able to build and open the facility for commuters two months ahead of schedule. It is a very impressive structure and the member for Wollongong reports that demand for the hundreds of extra spaces available at the commuter car park has been very strong.

The Government has opened 15 commuter car parks and delivered more than 2,500 extra car parking spaces for commuters. But we are not resting there. Construction is happening right now on 12 car parks across the network, including eight that are on track to be completed and opened by the end of 2010, including commuter car parks at Emu Plains, Berowra, Waterfall, Seven Hills, Wyong, St Marys, Macarthur 1 and Macarthur 2. The commuter car park and interchange program was further increased as part of the 2010-11 budget— [Time expired.]

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. In response to budget estimate questions the Minister indicated that the "two more trains for Singleton" proposal would be considered as part of the Hunter regional transport strategy. When will the strategy be completed, and given that the community has been lobbying local coal companies in the area to help fund two additional passenger rail services between Singleton and Newcastle, will the Government accept that it is its responsibility to fund these services and not that of the coal industry?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: This is my portfolio, and I should say that the Government is working on a range of regional transport strategies and transport management and accessibility plans [TMAP]. The Hunter is one of those specific areas.

[Interruption]

If members opposite wish to ask questions, they should seek the call and I will answer them. As highlighted in the recently updated State Plan, the Government will be developing regional transport strategies that will address better integration between land use and transport. We have already undertaken consultation with key stakeholders in the Murray, on the Central Coast, in the Illawarra and in the Hunter. The Central Coast, Hunter and Illawarra regions are all set to grow over the next 25 years and, as with Sydney, we need to know how the transport network will respond to growth. The regional strategies will provide the framework; they will identify transport objectives and priorities for the regions to 2036 in line with the Department of Planning growth strategies. The strategies will be released for comment progressively in 2010.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. In light of new figures released by RailCorp that detail that morning peak overcrowding on trains has increased on the Illawarra line from an average load factor capacity of 120 per cent in 2005 to 135 per cent in 2010, a substantial increase over just five years, does the Minister stand by his comments to commuters made on Tuesday 12 October 2010 on Channel 10 that "if they're concerned about wanting to get a seat, they can make a choice about when they travel"? How does such a comment in any way assist morning peak hour rail travellers who need to get to work on time so as to ensure they meet their employment responsibilities?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thought the Hon. John Ajaka wrote his own questions.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: No, he doesn't.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: Indeed, he does not. I think Shelley Hancock from the other place—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is debating the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Minister should answer the question.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: Unfortunately, this is confirmation yet again that members opposite do not listen to answers that are provided by Ministers to their questions. This Government has invested $436 million on work on the Cronulla line. Yesterday in this place I talked about the benefits of that $436 investment—the massive increase in services provided to people on the Cronulla and South Coast line, all the way to Kiama. We have improved train services. From memory, we have provided 300 additional services. Members opposite do not listen. They ask questions that someone else has written for them but they do not listen to everything that is said in this place by Ministers in response to their questions. The Hon. John Ajaka is better than that. The comments referred to relate to information about the capacity of trains that RailCorp, as part of the Government being transparent, posts on the website. It is true that all this data about loadings right across the rail network for peak periods and during the day is there for everybody to see—it is no secret. That information is put on the website after it is collected specifically in order that RailCorp can determine where the most appropriate investments can be made to improve capacity and where we run additional rail services, and where and when it can do something about the loadings.

The second reason the data is there—and this is the quote that was given—is so that people who can choose what time they travel to and from work, and who want to get a seat, can make an informed decision about when they get on a train. But that data is not simply collected in some flippant way—the way the Opposition suggests—as though I am saying to people, "Just catch a train earlier or later." The purpose of the data is to allow people to make a choice. It is about being transparent, so that we are not hiding what our loadings are on the trains. We are saying to people that if they want to make a choice and a seat is important, and they can decide when they start and finish work, they can go to that website, access that data, and make the decision about when they travel, if that is something they can do.

As I said, we collect the data so we can look at the investment; so we can make investments like the $436 million investment on the Cronulla line to increase services; so we do things like the quadruplication of Revesby; so we can start work as we did on the turnbacks that are being constructed right now, which will increase our capacity on the network; so we make sure that information is available for commuters; and so we make the right investments to get the best bang for our buck.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on reforms to the way class actions can be undertaken in New South Wales courts?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: As members would be aware, class actions, which are known also as representative proceedings, are lawsuits involving a large number of people with similar legal claims joining together to sue a person or organisation. In August this year the Government foreshadowed plans to introduce new laws to change existing class action court rules in this State—rules that do not provide clear guidelines as to who may commence a class action and in what circumstances, and other issues such as settlement of proceedings, costs, and appeals.

Today the Government will be releasing a consultation draft of the Civil Procedure Amendment (Supreme Court Representative Proceedings) Bill 2010, along with a discussion paper for public comment. The draft legislation is modelled on Federal and Victorian laws that provide a comprehensive set of rules on these issues and for each step of a class action. This approach will have a number of benefits for the New South Wales justice system. Firstly, it will eliminate the lack of clarity currently in New South Wales court rules—something that may be discouraging potential litigants from pursuing legitimate class actions. Moreover, reducing uncertainty may also cut legal costs and court time currently involved in pursuing a class action in New South Wales. Secondly, the Federal and Victorian laws have proven to be a successful model and New South Wales courts will be able to draw on that experience. Finally, by having uniform procedures within the major commercial courts in Australia, this will help to minimise confusion among litigants.

The laws propose three improvements recommended in the Victorian Law Reform Commission's 2008 Civil Justice Review and the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department's 2009 Access to Justice Report. It is proposed that the New South Wales legislation will give the Supreme Court the power to order that unclaimed damages from a successful class action be distributed to a charity or public interest beneficiary. It may not always be possible to locate all members of a class action. In these circumstances the funds could be put to their next best use rather than being returned to the party or company that was sued in the class action. Secondly, the legislation will clarify that it is not inappropriate for representative proceedings to be brought on behalf of a limited group of identified individuals. Finally, it is proposed that a representative proceeding can be taken against several defendants when not all group members have a claim against all defendants.

The full Federal Court in Phillip Morris (Australia) Ltd v Nixon interpreted part IVA of the Federal Court Act to require that all members of the class must have claims against each of the defendants. However, this approach can significantly limit the availability and flexibility of representative proceedings to deal with a full group of related claims, and has affected a number of actions. A clause has been included in the draft bill to clarify that representative proceedings may be taken against several defendants, even if not all group members have a claim against all defendants.

As always, the Government has in the past encouraged and will continue to encourage alternative dispute resolution instead of court proceedings. Nonetheless, class actions are an important vehicle for improving access to justice, and this is particularly the case for people who cannot afford to pursue a case on their own. Of course, it is important also to have clarity in the law when class actions do proceed. The consultation period will be three weeks, and I encourage all those interested to make a submission.

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it true that as part of the multitude of deals surrounding the merger of the Australian Jockey Club and the Sydney Turf Club, Tabcorp will not pay any State wagering tax on the first $255 million of turnover in each of the first 23 years of its operation of Trackside as a wager? If this is true, what is the total dollar value benefit of this tax arrangement to Tabcorp?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: This is a matter for the Minister for Gaming and Racing. However, I remind members that the Government announced on 22 July that a proportion of New South Wales Government wagering taxes would be used to fund improvements to Randwick racecourse. The proportion of New South Wales Government wagering taxes flowing to Tabcorp will be no more than $5 million in any one year for the duration of the agreement, as was consistent with the previous arrangement.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister for Ports and Waterways, Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Illawarra. Does the Treasurer agree with the statement made by the Federal Minister for Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, who said at a press conference on 15 May this year:

Sydney's greatest natural asset is our harbour and the surrounds. We should cherish and defend every single bit of harbour foreshore land.

If so, will the Treasurer rule out the proposal by Meridien Marinas, or any other potential developer, to build a massive business park with marina at Berrys Bay, Waverton—which overrides the Waverton Peninsula master plan agreed to by community, Government and council after extensive consultation and includes a marina three times the size of the current facility, a five-storey office block, two-storey and three-storey retail blocks, and substantially breaches council planning controls?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: As members would know, Albo and I are often of the same mind when we are talking about issues to do with Sydney. Indeed, I can remember sharing a cold beer with Albo when we celebrated the great victory in the Federal election—both when we defeated the Liberals the first time and, of course, the most recent Federal election victory. I talk to Albo often.

In relation to the Berrys Bay Maritime Precinct at Waverton, I refer the Hon. David Clarke to the transcript of the budget estimates committee hearing on 13 September 2010 which provides the following information. I am advised that the proposed Berrys Bay Maritime Precinct development encompasses vessel storage, maritime workshop space, and a business precinct providing the public with foreshore access at the former BP site and the current Woodleys site at the west of Berrys Bay. The developer is expected to lodge its development application with the relevant consent authority, the Minister for Planning, later this year. I am advised that subject to consent authority approval, the development should be operational by 2014. This afternoon I am meeting with the Mayor of North Sydney Council to discuss the proposal.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is addressed to the Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister advise the House how the New South Wales Government is supporting the role of grandparents, especially those who are primary carers?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I thank the Hon. Lynda Voltz for her question. The New South Wales Government supports a number of initiatives to ensure that the needs of older people are identified and addressed. Chief among the advisory bodies are the Council on the Ageing (NSW) and the NSW Ministerial Advisory Committee on Ageing. The Council on the Ageing (NSW) is the peak body representing all people over 50 in New South Wales. Its roles include social policy development, advocacy, and the development and delivery of innovative ageing programs. The Ministerial Advisory Committee on Ageing is the official advisory body to the New South Wales Government on matters of interest to older people. As well as its advisory role, it conducts consultations and seminars, and publishes discussion papers on ageing issues.

In 2008 these two groups co-hosted a Grandparents Forum that brought together a diverse range of stakeholders to examine the rights, roles and responsibilities of grandparents. In attendance were researchers, advocates, service providers and, of course, grandparents. I was pleased to launch the report "Listening to Grandparents" from the Grandparents Forum earlier this year. The report focused on four main areas: services for grandparents, the provision of information, legal issues, and advocacy. When reading the report, and also at the launch, I was deeply moved, as were others at the launch, by the personal accounts of grandparents as the primary care givers who have raised their grandchildren.

The report also highlights financial and emotional impacts for grandparents assuming the primary carer role and some of the difficulties faced when families fall apart or parents become ill and have to relinquish care. It is essential that governments, organisations and grandparents continue to work together to produce positive outcomes for grandparents and families, especially those in complex situations.

I am proud to say that the New South Wales Government has been working with grandparents to promote appropriate services and to recognise the valuable contributions that grandparents make. For example, we have introduced the Supported Care Allowance; a payment available to assist eligible grandparents who are raising their grandchildren. The New South Wales Government is working also with the Council on the Ageing (NSW) on a number of grandparent-specific projects that will be implemented across regional and metropolitan areas of New South Wales. In 2009-10 the Council on the Ageing (NSW) received a $200,000 grant to fund these projects, including developing activities with Aboriginal and culturally and linguistically diverse communities to support cultural aspects of grandparenting, enhancing grandparent support networks to provide better geographical coverage, linking grandparent support groups in New South Wales to other service networks, and conducting research into intergenerational activities to provide better connectivity and support for grandparents.

In collaboration with the Council on the Ageing (NSW) and the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Ageing, the New South Wales Government has put in place initiatives to support grandparents, including those who are primary caregivers, consistent with the views expressed at the Grandparents Forum. I am pleased to note that this collaboration has already achieved a number of things, including the "grandparents raising grandchildren" website—a resource for grandparents to navigate the supports available to grandparents; the establishment of the Grandparent, Relative and Kinship Carer Alliance; and the release of the New South Wales Statutory Declaration for Informal Relative Caregivers, which will allow grandparents and other relative caregivers to declare that they have primary responsibility for the regular care of a child or grandchildren. For all grandparents the message is clear: We really could not do it without you!

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Earlier in question time the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question relating to a proposal for a domestic violence register. I make the following further comments to what I said earlier. Domestic violence is inexcusable. One instance of domestic violence is one too many. The notion of a domestic violence register, similar to that already in place for known sex offenders, does raise complex issues and questions that have yet to be covered by any detailed proposal to the Government. Those questions include: Which agency would oversee and monitor the register? What would an offender have to do to qualify for the register? What would constitute a repeat offender if the register were to include repeat offenders? How long would an offender stay on the register? And what would be the sanctions for a breach? However, the Government would consider a proposal for a domestic violence register if it was formally put. It would do that because we are committed to supporting our police force in its ongoing fight against domestic violence. Domestic violence convictions are already listed on an offender's criminal record, which is available to the New South Wales Police Force, the courts and prospective employers. Furthermore, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission are due to release a report next month that will comprise a comprehensive national approach to family violence issues.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Earlier in question time the Hon. Greg Pearce asked me a question relating to the National Rental Affordability Scheme and social housing. I will pass the member's question on to the Minister for Housing for an appropriate response. However, I can say that the New South Wales Government has made significant commitments to increasing the supply of affordable housing in New South Wales and we welcome the initiatives of the Federal Labor Government in dealing with social housing issues.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.04 p.m. The House resumed at 2.35 p.m.]

Pursuant to sessional orders debate on Committee reports proceeded with.

Debate resumed from 22 September 2010.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.35 p.m.]: When this take-note debate was last called on, due to events taking place and discussions and negotiations about the content of this very important report, I moved that this debate be adjourned to the next sitting day. In light of ongoing discussions and negotiations by members of this House about pertinent issues, I will again move to adjourn this take-note debate.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The standing orders of the House deal with disorderly conduct. The amount of noise coming from the President's gallery and the volume of discussion between the Attorney General and his advisers makes it very difficult for members of the House to hear the Hon. Michael Veitch.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: It's from your side of the Chamber, not ours.

The Hon. Don Harwin: The Hon. Lynda Voltz has made an accusation that noise coming from the Opposition side is preventing members from hearing the Hon. Michael Veitch's contribution. I do not want to take up his time unnecessarily. I ask that the Minister and his advisers in the President's gallery desist from making so much noise that the Hon. Michael Veitch cannot be heard.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: To the point of order: I was inquiring into the whereabouts of the next speaker in the debate because there was a delay in the matter on the business paper being able to take its course. I was unaware of what was happening in the House. In explanation of what occurred, it is important that I put those matters on record.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I did not hear all of what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Michael Veitch. For that I blame a former member of this House, the Hon. Henry Tsang, whom I also welcome to the gallery. We are all most pleased to see him. I apologise to members who could not hear the Parliamentary Secretary and I thank the Hon. Don Harwin and the Attorney General for the matters they raised in speaking to the point of order. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to now move his motion.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned until the next sitting day.

Question—That the motion for the adjournment of debate be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for adjournment of debate agreed to.

Debate adjourned and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Debate resumed from 11 May 2010.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [2.40 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2, which conducted an inquiry into the management and operations of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales. The committee committed to this review as part of its recommendations following its first inquiry into the Ambulance Service of New South Wales, particularly into bullying and harassment. One of the recommendations from that inquiry, which was agreed to by the Director General of Health, Professor Picone, was that after 12 months we would conduct a review into the progress of our recommendations. We examined whether our concerns following the first inquiry were still relevant and how far our 45 recommendations in our initial report of 2008 had gone in terms of addressing those concerns and strengthening accountability within the service. The 2008 report also included an undertaking that the implementation of those recommendations would form the basis of our inquiry.

Our inquiry was short because that was the only substantive matter that we were to deal with. The Government supported 33 of our original 45 recommendations and advised in its report back that it had implemented or was in the process of implementing the supported recommendations. The Government said it had done that through the service's Healthy Workplace Strategies Program, which had introduced new guidelines, policies and training to address issues relating to bullying, harassment and grievance handling. However, sadly, in general—and I am speaking in general terms because, to be fair, there have been some improvements—the feedback received from ambulance officers is that despite the new initiatives little has changed and that the significant management and cultural problems remain within the service. Whilst there is an awareness in the service of new policies and initiatives and of a high adherence to the application of the policies, the proof of the pudding is lacking somewhat, particularly by ambulance managers, and our assessment was that that appeared to be low or, at best, varied.

The Professional Standards and Conduct Unit was the subject of a number of our recommendations for additional resourcing, additional staffing and a focus on the way in which the unit dealt with matters and what sorts of matters went before it. There were improvements in that there were increased resources and there was a change of focus to address what serious staff misconduct was. From submissions to the inquiry it appeared that there was still a misunderstanding amongst a number of ambulance officers as to what constituted serious staff misconduct. The average time taken to resolve complaints by the unit has been reduced to five months, but that is still inadequate. That is five months that someone could be out of the workforce, probably on reduced pay because they would not be getting penalties or overtime. Effectively, their career would be on hold—in pause mode for five months—while an issue was addressed. That is not an ideal situation for anyone in the workplace. Not every case is proven, so after five months someone could be completely exonerated from the charges or the issues of apparent misconduct and they could then resume work, but the previous impact and stress on their lives and their families would be considerable. As stated in the committee's report, improvements need to be made to the time frame for the resolution of complaints, because the emotional and financial detriment suffered by these officers is unacceptable. We hope the service works harder to resolve those cases.

Throughout the review the service maintained that cultural changes cannot happen overnight and that the intended effect of the new initiatives may not be seen or felt for years. That contention was reiterated by Deloitte's review. Deloitte was contracted to independently examine the service's progress in implementing the Healthy Workplace Strategies Program. In its 2009 progress review report Deloitte found that the program had only recently progressed from the implementation phase to the operational phase and Deloitte recommended that the service wait at least two years before conducting a formal evaluation of its impact. That was accepted by NSW Health, which proposes to re-evaluate the program in 2012. The committee acknowledges that it may take some time to see the results of the service's reform and supports the decision of NSW Health to re-evaluate the Healthy Workplace Strategies Program in two years time. We will be watching and waiting with interest to have a look at the results of that evaluation, as no doubt will many members of the community and other members of Parliament.

I note that during this inquiry a number of old wounds were reopened for some of the ambulance officers who had been part of our initial inquiry. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the wonderful work that ambulance officers, paramedics and many of those involved with the Ambulance Service do day in and day out. We expect them to be there answering the phone, we expect them to be there when an emergency occurs and all too often we forget the sorts of issues that they deal with daily, the types of accidents that they come across and the sort of stress it has on them emotionally as well as the considerable toll it sometimes has on their family life.

I acknowledge all those ambulance officers and, in particular, the many officers who were involved with our initial inquiry and again in the review of progress to date. I have no doubt that if the initial inquiry had not been conducted many of the service's recent reforms would not have been implemented. I have absolutely no doubt that if this inquiry into the Ambulance Service and the bullying and harassment had not been brought to the fore through the parliamentary process of a Legislative Council inquiry, with the focus and attention, and rightly so, of the New South Wales community and the media—and I thank the media for its focus on this issue also—things would remain the same.

This report has been the result of a General Purpose Standing Committee doing its work, doing what it does best with limited resources but with fantastic secretariat support, identifying issues and enabling the New South Wales community to come to us and reveal what is bothering them. As a separate issue to this inquiry but important nevertheless, I look forward to increased vigilance on whistleblower legislation so that those who work within the public service who want to come forward with issues that concern them and their workplace are protected and supported when they do that.

The committee supports the progress that has been made to date and the implementation of the reforms. However, the Ambulance Service must not become complacent. It is too early, after just 12 months, to know whether the reforms will be effective. In some instances they are designed to change the culture of an entire organisation. Bullying, harassment and difficult interpersonal relationships are not an issue in every ambulance station. The committee understands that it will take some time to change the culture in those parts of the service in which they are an issue with managers and staff alike. We must ensure that the Ambulance Service is reformed from the top down—that is, from the Minister down to the Director General of NSW Health and then to the senior managers. New South Wales will be watching and complacency is unacceptable.

The Ambulance Service of New South Wales must continue to strive to create a healthy working environment for its employees. They are its most valuable asset. Ambulance vehicles have the words "Most trusted profession" emblazoned on their back doors. They are there because we rely on and trust our ambulance officers. They are not all perfect, but by and large they do a job that many of us would not want to do. They need the Government's support and they certainly need management support. They also need our support in ensuring that their working environment is as safe, pleasant and supportive as it needs to be so that they can do the job they need to do. As I said, they are a valuable asset.

On behalf of the committee I thank all the review participants for their important contributions. I particularly thank the participants in this review who also participated in the 2008 inquiry. I know that it has been a difficult and emotional process to recount their experiences. I thank them for doing so during the inquiry and now for a second time. I am always conscious of the fantastic work undertaken by my committee colleagues on General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2. They work together in a bipartisan way. We occasionally disagree but by and large members displayed goodwill towards and support for the Ambulance Service, and I thank them for that. The committee secretariat also does an outstanding job. I particularly acknowledge the work of Beverley Duffy, Teresa McMichael—who now knows the Ambulance Service inside and out—Kate Mihaljek and Kate Harris. They are a great credit to this Parliament. When one takes into account the resources available to Senate committees and joint standing committees one appreciates how much our staff punch above their weight and produce reports of which we should be very proud.

The report contains five simple but important recommendations. NSW Health must be much more transparent. It must publish the results of the chief executive and senior executive manager performance reviews. We need to know what is going on in the Ambulance Service. That information should be on the website within a month of each review being completed. NSW Health must also establish a key performance indicator in which the Professional Standards and Conduct Unit reports the percentage of investigations completed within three months and performance against that indicator should be reported in the NSW Health annual report.

The committee also recommended that the Government fund NSW Health to introduce personal electronic access cards for drug safes. That was a big issue during the inquiry and I hope it is addressed. It is easily addressed by having access cards so that schedule 8 drugs and employees are protected. They need a much safer environment. The committee further recommended that the Ambulance Service ensure that on-duty crews, where appropriate, comprise two ambulance officers. That is a huge issue in rural New South Wales, and particularly in my area in the Hunter Valley. Ambulance crews in regional areas must cover long distances, and often on hazardous roads, while also caring for patients. The committee has twice recommended that ambulances have two crew members. In fact, it was recommended that be implemented by 31 December 2010, which is not far off.

The committee's fifth recommendation is that the Ambulance Service should replace all personal satellite navigation units with one high-quality satellite navigation unit fixed in each vehicle. That is a no-brainer. Giving individual ambulance officers their own budget-quality satellite navigation units that did not even identify hospitals was a ridiculous waste of money. Ambulance officers need high-quality satellite navigation units installed in their vehicles; they do not need budget-quality units which must be initialised each time they use them or which can be left at home. The people of New South Wales would be surprised to hear that that high-quality equipment is not the norm.

I look forward to the debate and hearing other committee members' comments about the review, which I believe was well worth conducting. I commend the report on the "Review of the Inquiry into the management and operations of the Ambulance Service NSW" to the House.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [2.55 p.m.]: I will speak very briefly on the report entitled "Review of the Inquiry into the management and operations of the Ambulance Service NSW". I thank two other honourable members who have given me time out of sequence in order that I might speak. I was the chair of the committee when it conducted the original inquiry in 2008. The committee spent a great deal of time and effort listening to ambulance officers throughout New South Wales and to senior personnel in NSW Health. Like other people in the community, I have a high regard for our ambulance officers and paramedics. At the time that I was chair of the committee I indicated that it would be a good idea not to conclude the inquiry formally in 2008 but to postpone its finalisation until 2010, when a review would be undertaken of the progress made with regard to harassment, bullying and so on. We did that, and I thank everyone who participated in the review.

I will make one simple point. Since this report was printed I have had the opportunity to look personally at what is happening with paramedics and the Ambulance Service. During the winter recess I was approached by members of the Ambulance Service who work at stations near to where I live indicating that many of the recommendations in the committee's report had not been implemented. One night I went unexpectedly and unannounced to Gosford Hospital and stayed in the ambulance bay near the emergency department from 10.00 p.m. until about 3.00 a.m. the next day. During that time I had a wonderful opportunity to talk with the ambulance officers. There are four ambulance stations in our area and I spoke to officers from each of them. They were adamant that, despite everything the committee said and did and what had been agreed to by the Ambulance Service administration, the recommended changes were not getting through to the grassroots. They said that there were still serious problems with the management of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales.

I decided to provide that information to the committee to see whether some follow-up action should be taken. However, unexpectedly after a day of very foolish and heavy activity, which included spending all day in this House, I had a heart event in the middle of the night that necessitated a midnight trip to hospital in an ambulance. The paramedics helped with pain control and relief on the journey to Wyong Hospital. On the way I asked them whether the situation was improving in the Ambulance Service. Unfortunately, their responses were very negative. I had a wonderful opportunity to continue my research because no beds were available immediately in the emergency ward. In fact, I spent 16 hours in the waiting area without any treatment apart from my blood pressure being taken.

Dr John Kaye: Didn't you say, "Don't you know who I am?"

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: No, that is another part. In those 16 hours I had the opportunity to observe the Department of Health and the operations within the emergency ward and, because there were a whole lot of ambulance officers standing around waiting for people to be taken off ambulance trolleys and so on to get into an emergency bed, I took the opportunity also to wave them over to ask them how they are getting on with the various issues. They had a number of complaints. At the top of the list was inadequate card access, which the Hon. Robyn Parker spoke about. Apparently there has been no improvement in that system. Secondly, paramedics are being treated like juveniles having to get from place to place using handheld satellite navigation devices. Not even my grandkids have to use this kind of equipment. That is a simple matter to resolve. I took the opportunity to speak with Professor Picone and with people from the Department of Health about greater support and resources. They assured me that they are doing all that they can within budgetary constraints.

After 16 hours in accident and emergency, my wife, who had reached the point of being disgusted at the lack of service, rang a cardiologist in Sydney, who said, "Leave it to me. I am taking you off the public system and I will solve the problem." Within five minutes a nun came to me and said, "We cannot do any more for you, I am sorry, because you are no longer our patient." Up to that time I had not been aware of exactly what was being done for me, so I was not going to miss a great deal. However, the interesting thing was this: within five minutes of one phone call, at a very early hour of the night, a cardiologist had taken me off the public system, had booked me into Royal North Shore Private Hospital and had ordered an ambulance, which arrived within six minutes. I was then taken on a very fast trip down to Sydney. I took the opportunity on board to do nothing else but talk to the paramedics about the system.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Did you take the mask off and ask a couple of questions.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I did as a matter of fact, and I got firsthand feedback. Even with the good things we have done with our excellent recommendation, the message is still not getting through to the administration of the New South Wales Ambulance Service. I am pleased to say that as a result of a number of interventions over the next few days all is now well with me. I am back to shifting heavy boxes again.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.02 p.m.]: Individuals and management within the Ambulance Service must be congratulated for the magnificent job they do and continue to do to improve the service for members of the community and those who work in the service. The management training programs—which were well underway long before this committee decided some quasi political gains could be made by bagging the service in the original so-called inquiry—are now in full swing. Issues that should be dealt with at local level with support structures to improve outcomes are increasingly being resolved at the local level. Significant work on defining the kinds of issues that arise—and this was a major problem during the first inquiry of course—have resulted in the differences between harassment, bullying and pure disciplinary action being much clearer for all concerned.

During this inquiry an interesting competition developed between two groups that perceived that they had a right to represent ambulance services. I will not go into the detail of that, suffice it to say that it took us quite a while to work out exactly what was going on. Some of the so-called issues that were brought forward related to industrial matters that arose while one group was trying to put itself forward as the appropriate industrial organisation to represent ambulance personnel. That was totally a side issue, but it certainly wasted a lot of time in the inquiry.

A number of fairly inconsequential recommendations were made as a result of this particular review. Some relate to actions that already take place through the annual reporting process. Some relate to service provision. Another, which was certainly outside the purview of the committee, relates to defining the way the system works. As often happens, if you have five or six people on the one hand telling you that the system should work in a particular way, on the other hand you will have five, six, 20 or 30 others telling you that it should work another way. It is certainly not our role to determine the delivery or provision of service.

A decision was taken not to present a dissenting report in this inquiry—a completely different approach to that taken with the original report. I was very impressed with the department's responses to the recommendations of the first report, which of course we discussed in this report. The department had obviously put in a lot of work before we commenced our inquiry and their efforts had borne much fruit by the time of the Government's response to the recommendations. Although we decided that there was no real need for a dissenting report, I was disappointed when I read in the chair's forward that the media had inferred that "there was little or no change". What absolute nonsense. In my view, it was shameful that a deliberate political campaign to interfere with the management of the service created so many difficulties for the service. I congratulate the service, its management, the Department of Health and the Minister on this world-class service.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [3.06 p.m.]: From the outset I wish to thank our committee chair, the Hon. Robyn Parker, for her relentless pursuit of justice for our much-respected ambulance officers. I also wish to thank my parliamentary colleagues and our committee secretariat, Beverly Duffy, Teresa McMichael, Kate Mihaljek and Kate Harris for their ongoing patience and professionalism. I thank and acknowledge all participants in the original inquiry and the many contributors who returned for a second time to give the committee their valued feedback along. I thank also the many new witnesses who could see that the committee's objective to improve the working conditions and future sustainability of the New South Wales Ambulance Service was genuine, to achieve results at the coal face in the many ambulance stations around New South Wales.

The committee's report into the New South Wales Ambulance Service in 2008 was a long overdue, critical assessment of the failings of the senior management of the service and their relevant NSW Health masters. The report included 45 recommendations aimed at addressing the unacceptable level of bullying and harassment within the force, along with a lack of appropriate human resource management skills, including poor grievances handling and the general undervaluing of our hardworking, front-line ambulance officers. Importantly, one of the 45 recommendations made in 2008 was to review the implementation of the committee's recommendation by the Keneally Labor Government. The Government supported 33 of the original recommendations, and their implementation was supposed to occur via the services Healthy Workplace Strategies program. However, the general feedback the committee received from ambulance officers was that real and genuine progress has not been made; all that occurred is bureaucratic window dressing. To quote one officer:

I inform you now that little has changed on the ground. A vindictive, heartless and incompetent management structure remains. Whilst there are a number of managers who buck this trend, they are a minority.

Another officer reported to the committee:

Regardless of the fact that all managers had to undertake training, bullying and harassment is still rife in the service. One manager told me it was a token training course and would make no difference and he was 100 per cent correct.

Indeed, the Health Services Union found that 55 per cent of the respondents to their survey on the matter still felt that they were not supported well after traumatic incidents. One work place survey found that 65 per cent of respondents believed that bullying had not been reduced, with 68 per cent declaring that there had been no improvement in relation to harassment of officers.

Significant management and cultural problems still exist within the New South Wales Ambulance Service. Bullying, harassment and systemic cultural problems continue to thrive. Basically, the Keneally Government is failing our hardworking ambulance officers, many of whom remain frustrated, angry and disenfranchised. The Government's inaction has merely added to the existing low morale at the coal face of our Ambulance Service. Let us recall that in the Deloitte's independent 2009 review of the Healthy Workplace Strategies program operational progress was found to be too slow and that a further evaluation of the impact of the program was to be conducted in 2012. Let us hope by then that the New South Wales public can be satisfied that the welfare of our ambulance officers and the future strength and sustainability of the service is front and centre at the core of the business of NSW Health and indeed this Government.

Access to the Emergency Medical Services Protection Agency, formed in 2009 with over 680 ambulance officers as members, has been banned. This agency was formed to give members access to legal advice and representation for employment-related matters. Why the ban when the Health Services Union and the Australasian College of Ambulance Professionals are allowed? The Professional Standards and Conduct Unit told the inquiry:

We remain significantly concerned about the protracted length of time it is still taking for the PSCU to conduct and complete investigations. While the average time of 5 months to resolve a complaint maybe an improvement, it is still far from satisfactory. The Service must give more attention to lessening the damaging emotional and financial consequences on its ambulance officers by improvements in the PSCU resourcing for improved efficiencies.

According to the five recommendations that the committee handed down, NSW Health will publish the results of the chief executive officer and senior executive managers' performance reviews on the Ambulance Service's website within one month of the review's completion. NSW Health will establish a key performance indicator in which the Professional Standards and Conduct Unit will report the percentage of investigations completed within three months. Performance against this indicator will be reported regularly in NSW Health's annual report. The State Labor Government will provide funding to NSW Health to provide personal electronic access cards for all drug safes in all ambulance stations across New South Wales as a matter of priority.

Where appropriate, on-duty crews consisting of two ambulance officers will be operational by 31 December 2010 and the Ambulance Service will replace all personal satellite navigation units with high-quality better units fixed in each ambulance vehicle as soon as possible. All of these measures are aimed at improving the safety and efficiency of ambulance officers in the course of their jobs and ensure that the performance of senior management is monitored with regard to the implementation of all adopted recommendations.

Ambulance officers do an amazing job and the community knows it. They deserve better treatment than many have received in the past. Ambulance Service management, along with its masters in NSW Health, must continue its focus on a sustainable healthy working environment. If their most valued assets are cared for—that is, ambulance officers—then the public receives optimum care. We cannot expect ambulance officers to be at their optimum performance levels if their working conditions place them under mental, physical or financial stress. Many officers agreed that if it were not for the conduct of the original inquiry into the Ambulance Service of New South Wales and the subsequent review of the implementation of the 2008 recommendations, we would have seen many positive changes ignored, watered down or transformed by middle managers previously displaying outdated poor human management skills into something they could live with.

Times have moved on and respect for all ambulance officer levels will be front and centre in New South Wales. The Government should be sending the strong message to all our hardworking and enthusiastic ambulance officers that they should get trained and cope with this change or start looking for other employment. It will be the strong message of the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals. We send that message in support of all the hardworking and enthusiastic ambulance officers. They start the day with a positive and caring attitude and give their best always to alleviate the suffering of their fellow man and create a safer environment for us all. We can repay them by ensuring we do our best to provide them with the type of environment within which they deserve to work—one we would expect for ourselves and our loved ones. I commend the committee's report to the House.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.14 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their comments on the report, particularly those who participated in the inquiry, Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, the Hon. Marie Ficarra and the Hon. Christine Robertson. Although members have different views, we are all dedicated to the Ambulance Service. I will not be a member of this House after March 2011 but I know that other members of the committee will be vigilant and focused on what is happening within the New South Wales Ambulance Service. Committee members have a different view and understanding of the role of ambulance officers; hopefully we will not all have the personal, face-to-face contact experienced by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. I have incredible respect for their dedication and I know that all committee members share that view.

Even though the progress to date has been small in some respects, it is important that it is maintained. I hope that whichever party is in government after March 2011 regards this matter as a priority. I know that the shadow Minister has undertaken to closely monitor the progress of the New South Wales Ambulance Service, and I am confident she has a broad understanding of the issues should the Liberals and Nationals win office next year. I hope there is continued progress within the Ambulance Service. If there is not, the Parliament and the people of New South Wales will be monitoring the situation. In closing, I wish the New South Wales Ambulance Service all the best in continuing its progress and good work. I hope that some of the smaller issues are resolved by the time the Government responds to the committee's recommendations. I commend the report to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 22 September 2010.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [3.17 p.m.]: When I last spoke in this debate I was referring to legislative changes that had occurred during the period of the 2008-09 annual report of the Health Care Complaints Commission and specifically I spoke about the amendment to the Medical Practice Act that permitted legal representation before a professional standards committee. Previously legal representation was not permitted for either the commission or the practitioner. The commission's prosecution of complaints was conducted by hearing officers who were not admitted to practice as lawyers in New South Wales. The commission anticipates that the majority of respondents will in future be legally represented and that this may lead to increased legal costs being incurred by the commission—a matter which the committee will continue to closely monitor.

One issue that was raised in the commission's annual report and also in evidence to the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Health Care Complaints Act was the lack of access by patients and their families to information about serious health events in public hospitals. When a serious adverse event happens, a root cause analysis is undertaken to identify systemic causes. Legal privilege attached to information obtained through this investigation has meant that, in the past, such information could not be used to explain in detail to patients or their families the reasons for the event. I am pleased to note that the recently passed Health Legislation Amendment Act clarifies that the final report of a root cause analysis team may be provided to any person, including patients, but that such reports cannot be adduced or admitted in evidence in any proceedings.

As part of its annual review, the committee examined trends in complaints and noted that the commission has introduced an improved issues categorisation system to allow for a more detailed analysis of the complaints that it received. According to the commission's annual report, the number of inquiries and complaints has grown from that of the previous year. There has been a significant increase in complaints about health practitioners, but, conversely, a decrease in complaints about health organisations. The three health professions most commonly complained about were medical practitioners, dentists and nurses. Whereas treatment, followed by communication, were the biggest issues of complaint for most practitioners, nurses received a higher proportion of complaints raising issues of professional conduct.

The annual report also noted the continuation of a remarkable rise over the past three years in the number of complaints that related to communication. Indeed, the commissioner advised the committee that communication was probably the biggest single problem in the health system, and that it was not simply communication between practitioner and patient but that there was also a lack of communication between practitioners in regard to the ongoing care of people. Complaints about lack of informed consent were a major issue, but there was also a considerable systemic problem involving handover of information during shift changes, requiring patients to continually recount their story to different medical staff.

One issue the committee raised with the commissioner was the high, and increasing, number of complaints made about treatment provided through medical centres at correctional and detention facilities. Complaints in this category involve staff and procedures of both Justice Health and the Department of Corrective Services. In 2008-09 the commission received 138 complaints about correctional and detention facilities, raising some 238 issues. Forty-one of these issues related to "medication". While this figure includes a range of medication issues that did not necessarily involve methadone or buprenorphine, the commissioner noted in evidence to the committee:

There is a proportion of complaints around the methadone, buprenorphine distribution in jails, and that is a significant number. That is a difficult matter of administration for Justice Health because there is a problem of diverting and trafficking internally.

As the commissioner advised the committee, complaints may also relate to the fact that inmates may have had on the outside a particular medication that they are used to but which is not available to them in detention. Either Justice Health thinks it is not a necessary medication or the inmates have a substitute which is dispensed to them. The committee acknowledges the unique issues facing the staff of Justice Health, but will continue to monitor this situation to ensure that inmates are receiving appropriate medical treatment, based on their complaints made to the commission.

The commission's annual report also noted that the commission received 200 complaints from the Special Commission of Inquiry into Acute Care. Of these, 72 were discontinued. When asked by the committee why such a high percentage of these complaints had been discontinued, the commissioner responded that a lot of people made representations to Commissioner Garling to voice their feelings about the health system because they had had bad experiences and they wanted the commissioner to know how they felt. The commissioner added that the complaints referred to the commission ran the whole gamut, from the very serious to the perhaps less serious, and included matters that had been dealt with before, and that this might explain the slightly higher discontinue rate.

A major part of the commission's work consists of addressing systemic issues by making recommendations to health organisations as to improvements that ought to be made. The 2008-09 annual report noted that since 1 July 2005 the commission has made 300 recommendations in 134 investigations. Of these, 258, or 86 per cent, had been implemented as at 30 June 2009. The committee asked the commissioner to explain what measures were taken to ensure the timely implementation of recommendations, and whether they were ongoing and implemented to the fullest extent. The commissioner responded that this was a difficult area to which he had been giving serious consideration recently. One option was to design an audit program to track both the implementation and longevity of the recommendations. Committee members consider that this would strengthen the implementation of the commission's recommendations, and the committee will continue to follow with interest the manner in which the commission monitors implementation.

The committee noted that the commission had also implemented a module in its case management system, Casemate, which allows the commission to capture systemic quality improvement results from the resolution of complaints. The committee suggested to the commissioner that it would be useful if the commission's brochures were to show how changes may occur by discussing, in general terms, systems improvements that have been made as a consequence of particular investigations. Committee members consider that adapting the commission's brochures in this way would be a simple and effective way to help build public confidence in the work of the commission, and we look forward to its implementation by the commission.

In its review of the commission's last annual report, the committee noted that the commission had made significant improvements during 2007-08. The committee is therefore pleased to note that the commission's performance has continued to improve. The 2008-09 annual report states that the commission's performance during the year shows that the commission is capable of continuously improving and dealing with challenges, and that, despite a reduction in the number of staff, the commission's performance has improved on that of previous years in most categories. In early 2009 the New South Wales Ombudsman conducted a "mystery shopper" audit of the commission. The committee was pleased to note the Ombudsman's positive finding in relation to the audit, in particular that staff were "consistently professional and treated matters of sensitivity well and in a sympathetic manner". In addition, responses to letters and emails were "of a very high standard, providing detailed and relevant information".

Also during the reporting period the commission introduced a client satisfaction survey. The commissioner informed the committee that he was concerned that the response rate was fairly low. Nonetheless, useful feedback had been received that had assisted in improving procedures that would enable the commission to better meet client needs in the future. Overall, the committee was pleased to note a concerted effort at both improving the provision of services by the commission and ensuring that the commission's services are widely known and utilised. On behalf of committee members I thank the staff of the committee secretariat. I also thank my fellow committee members, both in this place and the other place. I look forward to hearing the contributions of my fellow committee members Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. David Clarke on the committee's report. I commend the report to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 1 June 2010.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [3.28 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the report of the Select Committee on the NSW Taxi Industry. This was my first opportunity to chair a committee, and it is the first report I have presented to the House as a committee chair. The key message from this wide-ranging inquiry is that, despite recent progress with reforms to the taxi licensing framework, there remains significant need for further reform to create a competitive and viable taxi industry that will meet the needs of all its stakeholders. The committee's comprehensive, 270-page report contains 59 recommendations that aim to facilitate this change.

The committee and the inquiry were established in November 2009 to inquire into and report on a number of issues impacting on the New South Wales taxi industry. These issues included the regulation, transparency and accountability of the industry, the performance of the wheelchair-accessible taxi fleet, and working conditions and entitlements for taxi drivers. The committee received 79 submissions from a number of stakeholders, such as New South Wales Transport and Infrastructure, the New South Wales Taxi Council, the New South Wales Taxi Drivers Association, and the Disability Council of New South Wales. The committee also held four public hearings to receive evidence from organisations and individuals, including taxidrivers from metropolitan and regional New South Wales, the Tourism and Transport Forum, and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales. The committee received evidence also from Mr Reginald Kermode, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cabcharge Australia Limited.

One of the central concerns during the inquiry was the framework used to allocate new taxi licences to the market. In October 2009 the Government announced a series of proposed reforms to the taxi industry, including that there be no cap on the number of taxi licences that could be issued each year. Effectively, this was deregulating the industry. Inquiry participants were deeply concerned about the potential impact of these changes on the value of taxi licences and the long-term viability of the industry. Following extensive consultation with industry stakeholders, the proposed reform package was changed to include a cap on the number of licences that could be issued each year. The committee was advised that the Director General of NSW Transport and Infrastructure will determine the number of licences to be released following consideration of a number of factors, such as likely demand for taxi services and the performance of the existing fleet.

The new licensing framework commenced in January 2010 with an initial tender process for 100 new taxi licences. The committee was disappointed that despite the high level of interest in the tender—there were over 800 applicants for the new licences—the process resulted in further concentration of ownership, with many of the new licences awarded to existing licence holders. The committee was also concerned that for the 2010-11 licence release there was no limit on the number of licences that an applicant or related applicants could be allocated. The committee made a number of recommendations to ensure that any future allocation processes are transparent and equitable, and that ownership of new taxi licences is not entrenched in the hands of existing licence holders. Most notably, the committee recommended that for all future licence allocation processes NSW Transport and Infrastructure limit the number of licences that an applicant or related applicants can receive to one. In addition, the committee believed that the individuals or entities that currently own 10 or more licences should be disqualified from future allocation processes in order to encourage diversity in licence ownership. These issues were referred to in recommendations Nos 1 and 2.

The 10 per cent surcharge on electronic payment of taxi fares using a debit card, credit card or Cabcharge card provoked a great deal of discussion among inquiry participants. The committee considered the 10 per cent surcharge to be excessive, especially when compared with surcharges levied in other industries and particularly given the ever-increasing proportion of electronically paid taxi fares. The committee recommended that the Minister for Finance request the Federal Minister for Finance and Deregulation to review the surcharge, including determining the impact of the surcharge on consumers of taxi services. The committee also recommended that NSW Transport and Infrastructure investigate ways to regulate the electronic transaction fees in the New South Wales industry.

On 24 September 2010, after the inquiry, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] finalised its proceedings against Cabcharge Australia Limited. Cabcharge was ordered to pay $15 million in penalties and costs for three contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which is the highest penalty yet to be imposed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in the misuse of market power proceedings. Two of the three contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 related to a refusal by Cabcharge to allow competing suppliers of electronic payment processing services for taxis to process Cabcharge branded non-cash payment products, while the third contravention related to the below-cost supply of Cabcharge taxi meters and associated fare schedule updates for an anticompetitive purpose.

The committee considered a number of other issues relating to the payment of taxi fares, such as prepayment of taxi fares for late night travel. The majority of inquiry participants felt that requiring the prepayment of fares would assist to reduce dramatically the incidence of fare evasion and might also encourage more taxi drivers to be on the road at night. The committee made recommendations also for proof of passenger confidence in taxi fares through the provision of an itemised receipt detailing the elements of the taxi fare. These issues were referred to in recommendations Nos 18, 19, 15 and 17.

Another issue discussed during the inquiry was the role and influence of Sydney-based taxi networks. Inquiry participants were particularly concerned about the wide-ranging influence of Cabcharge Australia Limited and its associated entities. The committee considered that NSW Transport and Infrastructure should take action to promote greater competition between taxi networks and to encourage the establishment of more taxi networks to service the Sydney metropolitan transport district. The committee recommended that the Minister for Transport remove the legislative requirement that a network must be able to provide services to the entire Sydney metropolitan area 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whilst ensuring that taxi networks have a redirect mechanism for any out-of-area bookings. Further, the committee believes that NSW Transport and Infrastructure should undertake a thorough review of the regulations governing taxi networks with a view to removing barriers that may preclude new networks from entering the industry. These two measures will promote the establishment of smaller networks that serve specific geographic locations and facilitate greater competition for network services. These matters were dealt with in recommendations Nos 8 and 9.

The availability of taxis is an issue of concern for all taxi users, especially the recurring issue of the industry-wide 3.00 p.m. changeover. The committee remains unclear as to why the industry has failed to explore staggered changeover times in order to provide a constant supply of taxis for passengers. The committee recommended that NSW Transport and Infrastructure introduce a varied changeover time as part of licensing conditions as a means of overcoming this longstanding problem. In addition, the committee believes that NSW Transport and Infrastructure should explore the feasibility of introducing more peak period taxi licences to increase the availability of taxis after major events and when demand for taxi services peak, such as on weekends and during the Christmas and New Year period.

The committee further considered that there should be an increase in the number of taxi ranks in areas where passenger demand is significant. This will improve passenger safety in hailing and entering a taxi, as well as allowing taxi drivers to stop safely. Growth in the number of designated secure ranks will facilitate also quicker dispersal of large crowds and provide better safety for both taxi drivers and passengers through the presence of security personnel. The committee suggested also that NSW Transport and Infrastructure explore the merits of allowing greater flexibility in the types of vehicles that may be used as taxis, subject to safety and security requirements. This will allow for the development of a taxi fleet that is better suited to a changing operating environment where road congestion and environmental impacts are increasingly important considerations. All these issues were dealt with in recommendations Nos 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

An ongoing area of concern for the industry was the limited standard in wheelchair accessible taxi licences issued under the so-called Nexus Scheme. These licences were issued free of charge in the early 1980s and 1990s in order to cross-subsidise the provision of wheelchair accessible taxi services. Deloitte Touché Tohmatsu produced two reports into the Nexus Scheme that made no findings of impropriety in relation to the scheme. However, inquiry participants were concerned about perceived financial advantages gained by holders of Nexus Scheme licences. The committee acknowledged these concerns but considered that the length of time since the introduction of the licences and their subsequent transfers made it difficult to determine who should bear responsibility for addressing the outcomes of past policy decisions. The committee considered that the clarification of the operating conditions of the nexus licences under changes to the Passenger Transport Act 1990 provided sufficient clarity and transparency. Accordingly, the committee recommended that no further action should be contemplated in relation to the Nexus Scheme licences. This issue was referred to in recommendation No 7.

Accessible taxi services play a critical role in facilitating access to all aspects of life for community members with mobility issues. The committee made a number of recommendations to improve services for users of wheelchair accessible taxis. Despite increases in the number of wheelchair accessible taxis there are still significant variations in service levels across metropolitan and regional New South Wales. Accordingly, the committee recommended that the percentage of wheelchair accessible taxis in the fleet be increased from the current 11 per cent to a minimum of 50 per cent by 2020.

Inquiry participants identified two areas where the New South Wales taxi fleet does not meet Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002: parity in response times between the accessible and standard taxi fleet, and the space dimensions required for accessible taxis. The committee recommended that NSW Transport and Infrastructure improve the key performance indicators for the wheelchair accessible fleet to ensure that they accurately capture information, particularly in regard to the waiting times experienced by passengers. The committee recommended also an audit of the entire wheelchair accessible fleet to identify any vehicles that do not comply with the space dimensions stipulated by the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002.

The committee further recommended that the Minister for Transport request the Australian Transport Council to undertake a feasibility study into the introduction of a universally accessible taxi fleet in Australia. Whilst we appreciate the considerable financial investment that will be required to establish a universally accessible taxi fleet, significant benefit will be gained from ensuring maximum accessibility of the fleet, particularly given the impact of the rapidly ageing population and the demand for accessible taxi services. The committee recommended that the Taxi Transport Subsidy Scheme, which provides financial assistance to users of wheelchair accessible taxis, be increased to half the total fare—to a maximum value of $50.00 per fare—to better reflect the high travel costs faced by passengers with a disability. We believe that the value of this subsidy, as well as the value of the Taxi Driver Incentive Scheme subsidy that is provided to drivers who undertake wheelchair accessible taxi work, should be considered by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal as part of its annual review of taxi fares. These matters were dealt with in recommendations Nos 21, 23, 26, 29, 35, 36 and 40.

The inquiry highlighted the need for greater transparency and accountability in the taxi industry. The committee has made a number of recommendations that aim to improve the accessibility of information pertaining to the taxi industry and to increase transparency and accountability. The committee recommended that NSW Transport and Infrastructure establish a public register of licence owners by July 2011 to enhance transparency and generate a clearer understanding of the dynamics of the taxi industry.

We recommended also that the key performance indicators for the industry be disaggregated on the basis of network, geographic area and time of day to allow for a more detailed understanding of industry performance. To further increase awareness of the industry's performance we recommended that NSW Transport and Infrastructure finalise and implement key performance indicators for both standard and wheelchair accessible taxi services in regional and rural New South Wales.

The committee was concerned about the dual role played by taxi networks as both regulator and service provider. We believe that reform is needed to dilute the influence that some networks have on the industry. Therefore, we recommended that the Minister for Transport investigate the feasibility of establishing an independent regulator to monitor the administration and enforcement of the regulatory framework for taxis in New South Wales. The committee further considered that NSW Transport and Infrastructure should finalise the establishment of a taxi advisory committee, consisting of a broad range of stakeholders, by December this year. The previous advisory committee ceased to operate in 2004. These issues were covered in recommendations 41, 46, 47, 43 and 50.

Many of our inquiry participants were concerned that the Taxi Industry (Contract Drivers) Contract Determination 1984 applies only to permanent bailee drivers in the Sydney metropolitan area, which means that a large number of taxidrivers are not afforded protection under the determination. The committee believes that the Industrial Relations Commission should review the determination to provide clarity as to the employment status of drivers and to reflect the current needs of the taxi industry. Further, greater emphasis should be placed on providing taxidrivers with support and opportunities to pursue satisfying careers in the industry. Improvements can be made to the driver training course, which is undertaken by all new taxidrivers. NSW Transport and Infrastructure should require an increased emphasis on occupational health and safety, industrial issues and insurance rights to better inform taxidrivers of their entitlements and responsibilities. Driver training courses should include disability awareness training for all taxidrivers to equip them with the necessary skills to transport passengers with a range of disabilities.

The committee was concerned also that in carrying out their duties taxidrivers are exposed to a range of safety and security risks, including occupational health and safety risks arising from the unroadworthiness of vehicles, driver fatigue and transporting passengers who may be under the influence of alcohol or illicit substances. We made a number of recommendations to address these issues, such as an increase in the penalties faced by taxi operators if a vehicle is unroadworthy, and a review of the specifications for security cameras to require footage to be retained for a minimum of 60 days. The committee believes that NSW Transport and Infrastructure, together with the Roads and Traffic Authority, should review current parking and driving regulations to enhance the ability of taxidrivers to legally set down and pick up passengers. In addition, we recommend that the Minister for Transport amend Passenger Transport Regulation 2007 to require all taxis in New South Wales to be fitted with GPS devices. These matters are covered in recommendations 38, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57.

The committee considers that this report and its recommendations will result in positive reforms to the taxi industry and facilitate the development of a responsive and viable industry that meets the needs of all industry stakeholders. I thank the individuals and organisations that provided submissions and gave evidence for their assistance and ongoing concern about the challenging issues that were raised during this inquiry. I thank also my committee colleagues for their commitment and assistance to this inquiry. On behalf of the committee I thank the committee secretariat: Rachel Simpson, Cathryn Cummins, Donna Hogan and Shu-Fang Wei.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.43 p.m.]: This comprehensive report involved a great deal of work by all members of the committee. I note in particular that considerable assistance was provided by the committee secretariat: Director, Rachel Simpson; Principal Council Officers, Ms Cathryn Cummins and Ms Donna Hogan; and Assisting Council Officer, Shu-Fang Wei. It is worth noting the division of interests and responsibilities that were adopted by committee members. The committee was ably chaired by the Hon. John Ajaka, who demonstrated his usual equanimity and tolerance of the various viewpoints of committee members, including me. The deputy-chair, the Hon. Penny Sharpe, in her thoughtful contributions that she made to the committee was particularly interested in the provision of taxi services to disabled members of the community, including the timeliness of the availability of services and the design and number of wheelchair accessible taxis. Without the Hon. Penny Sharpe's contribution in that regard, the committee's inquiry would have been far less informed.

The principal contribution of the Hon. Greg Donnelly, who is not present in the Chamber, related to the working conditions and wages of taxidrivers. His past experience in the union movement contributed considerably to the level of debate on this issue. Ms Lee Rhiannon, a former member, served on the committee. Her significant interest related to the nexus plates and what she perceived to be the mismanagement in the past of the distribution of those plates. That area became of less importance as the inquiry continued because it became clear that whatever might have happened was in the past and it was more appropriate for us to concentrate on improving service delivery in the future. That was reflected in our recommendations.

I cannot move on without noting that the Hon. Roy Smith served on the committee. It would not be unfair to say that the Hon. Roy Smith's approach, as was often the case in his service on committees, was more of a watching brief. He was always thoughtful, considered and decidedly calm. He always had the insightful question at the appropriate moment. As was said by members in a condolence motion for the late Roy Smith, his contributions will be missed by us all. Chapter 6, which relates to the payment of taxi fares, reflects my particular interest. It became clear from submissions early in the inquiry that there was a real and significant issue about the collection of fares, particularly the electronic payment system. In due course, that led to various attempts to have Mr Reg Kermode, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Cabcharge, join us for the purpose of giving evidence.

One is always assisted by going to the appendices at the back of reports and reading the minutes and motions that were moved. The minutes show the attempts that were made over time to convince Mr Kermode to attend. One would have thought that when Mr Kermode gave evidence before the committee he was a willing witness. The minutes show that although he may have been willing at the end, the spirit and body were not as willing until he arrived. In the course of correspondence it was suggested that if Mr Kermode did not want to attend voluntarily there were ways of compelling him to do so. In truth, the threat of compulsion finally brought Mr Kermode before the committee to give evidence. It was important that he came before the committee so that we had an opportunity to make inquiries of him about the system of electronic payment and the usage of cards.

It is important to recognise, as the Hon. John Ajaka has already pointed out, that this 10 per cent surcharge on card payments must be of concern to all people who use taxis in New South Wales. It is clear from the evidence that the 10 per cent surcharge was originally a surcharge for the provision of credit; that is, for companies to obtain an account through which a taxi fare could be paid. Of course, by its very nature the provision of credit involved a risk factor. The 10 per cent surcharge involved not only a component of administration but also a potential loss if, at the end of the day, the creditor did not pay the taxi fares that had accumulated in the time in which the account was maintained.

When that 10 per cent charge is applied to card transactions it no longer reflects a risk of non-payment; it reflects only a charge of 10 per cent for the administration as the risk is borne by the provider of the card—normally a bank. That 10 per cent credit charge has been transferred as a transaction fee—an entirely different cost structure and an entirely different risk for Cabcharge. In truth there is no relationship between the 10 per cent charge and the cost for the provision of the service. That became clear in the course of the hearings. Even to this point in time we have not been able, despite some reasonably thorough questioning of Mr Kermode, to obtain a clear explanation as to why that surcharge should continue to be charged to customers.

As the Hon. John Ajaka mentioned, since the committee report there has been action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in regard to this matter and the levying of a $15 million penalty on Cabcharge. I think it is incumbent on both the State Government—whichever colour it may be in the future—and the Federal Government to reassure us that firm action will be taken to ensure competition in the provision of credit facilities in the taxi industry. Plainly, we are moving more to a system of card payments rather than cash payments. The almost monopoly position, if not the true monopoly position, that Cabcharge holds must be broken down for the benefit of the consuming public of New South Wales and Australia. I take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members and the secretariat staff for the considerable work they all did in regard to this report.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.52 p.m.]: I, too, participate in the take-note debate on the inquiry into the taxi industry conducted by the Select Committee on the NSW Taxi Industry. I thank the committee staff for their wisdom and for their hard work. After going through all the key issues that we had to address in relation to the taxi industry in New South Wales, in the end they made this complex report make sense. I thank also all the members of this committee. It was interesting to be a member of this committee—a task that was made much easier because of the seriousness with which people undertook their tasks, and because of their thoughtful participation.

I acknowledge in particular the Hon. John Ajaka, who was ably assisted on several occasions by the Hon. Trevor Khan. I acknowledge also our late colleague Roy Smith. This was the first time I had spent any time with Roy while he was a member in this place. I like people who are conservative with the words that they use, and when every word makes sense and it means something. I felt privileged to have spent some time with Roy. I thought his contribution to the committee was important.

Suffice to say that if one were to design a taxi industry to service New South Wales it would not be the current taxi industry with which we live. If one were designing a taxi industry from scratch many of the historical decisions that were made would not impact on the organic and complex industry that now exists in New South Wales. Our inquiry came off the back of a number of previous inquiries that tried to get to the bottom of a number of issues. I do not think any of those were a surprise to most people on the committee and they definitely were not a surprise to the active participants who sat through the many public hearings and who put in submissions. This industry is characterised by many stakeholders, all of whom have firm views. Whether one is a contract driver, an owner, a network operator or a passenger, or whether one relies on taxis to get to and from places, particularly someone with a disability, the issues are complex and underlie the importance of taxis in our society.

Taxis are a form of public transport. For many people taxis are the only method by which they can leave their homes and participate in the community. It says a lot about this report that more than 17 of the 59 recommendations dealt with issues surrounding people with disabilities and their needs within the taxi network. Often taxis are the only way in which they are able to get to work or to health appointments and connect with their community. I would like to spend some time reflecting on the recommendations relating to the needs of people with disabilities. First, I thank two individuals who gave evidence to the committee—Dougie Herd and Greg Killeen.

Greg Killeen in particular spent many days sitting through all the evidence that the committee heard. He has been active in trying to get to the bottom of an ongoing issue—an issue about which this committee made a recommendation—that is, how to deal with people in larger wheelchairs, how that intersects with disability standards and how those people can get on board a taxi. It is one thing to have disability standards that state that a taxi meets the needs of people with disabilities; however, it makes no sense if those people with disabilities cannot get into a taxi. I do not pretend for a moment that the problem is an easy one to fix, but I recognise the contribution made by Greg Killeen, who for some time was tenacious in pursuing this issue.

The evidence taken from people with disabilities and their representatives raised some big questions about what a taxi fleet should look like. We were told that in places such as Edinburgh there is a universal taxi fleet, and that if one built a taxi fleet that everyone could get into that would be ideal. Ultimately that is not the position to which this committee came. We took a halfway point and suggested that a further investigation of universal fleets would be worthwhile. I am interested in doing that. The recommendations pointed to the ability to have far more diversity in the type of taxi fleet that we have. I believe there is a market and a need for smaller and larger cars. Ultimately, a fully universal fleet was not the solution advocated by other committee members or by me. However, we did talk about the desperate need to increase the number of wheelchair accessible taxis.

According to the evidence given by people with disabilities, there has been some improvement in the waiting times for obtaining a taxi. However, it is a real problem and the system is not reliable. The Government has taken some good steps—the taxidriver subsidy clearly closed the gap for many—but we heard also about problems with the way in which the rules operate, which limits the ability for all taxis to get to all people in New South Wales.

I look forward to the response of the Minister and the Government to the recommendation to increase the number of wheelchair accessible taxis. It is simply not acceptable that people have no reliable or secure transport simply because they are in a wheelchair or face other mobility issues. Ease of payment and subsidies for people with disabilities were also raised. The committee again pointed to the need for a review of the adequacy of the subsidy and whether taxidriver subsidies would assist in closing the gap. Those recommendations have been picked up and the committee also addressed the issue of booking taxis.

Some of the evidence presented highlighted the need for taxidrivers to be sensitive and to understand the needs of people with disabilities. Some drivers are doing fantastic work and they should be held up as role models for others. However, a great deal of evidence suggested that some taxidrivers do not understand their passengers' needs and that they should be more informed about the impact of disabilities and the needs of disabled passengers. I also hope that the Government will respond rapidly with regard to an electronic card payment system for people with disabilities. Evidence suggested that that was an ongoing issue and that life would be much easier if disabled passengers could use a card rather than the current paper-based docket system.

It was important that the committee get to the bottom of the Nexus taxi plates issue. The impetus of the Opposition and the Greens for establishing this inquiry was a suggestion that there had been improper dealings. If we designed a taxi system from scratch it would look nothing like the one we now have. Many decisions that have been taken along the way have had an impact on the way in which plates are distributed. We can now put that issue to rest, and that is a welcome development.

I thank everyone involved in the inquiry. I particularly acknowledge the drivers. A group of about 20 drivers listened intently throughout the public hearings. They probably would have given evidence four or five times if that had been permitted. No-one could doubt their sincerity and their desire to work in a professional industry which provides them with a career and which allows them to do the honest work of moving people around the city and the State while at the same time feeding their family and enjoying a decent day's work. [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [4.02 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. Trevor Khan and the Hon. Penny Sharpe for their contributions to this take-note debate. Unfortunately, I ran out of time when I presented the report before I could acknowledge the contribution of the late the Hon. Roy Smith. The Hon. Penny Sharpe was correct when she said that it was an honour to work with him on the inquiry. As I said in this place when we acknowledged his sad passing, Roy was one of those members who would sit and listen intently and would always come up with the right question or comment at the right time, and it would be of great assistance to everyone. He had a wonderful way of finding the balance or the middle road in the midst of diverse evidence, and we are grateful for that. This debate gives us an opportunity to remember him in the best light. As the Hon. Trevor Khan said, the Hon. Roy Smith will be very sadly missed.

I again thank my committee colleagues for their assistance and for the hard work they did on this inquiry. When the reference was first forwarded to the committee I mistakenly believed the inquiry would be a far simpler task than it was. An amazing number of complex issues arose and we sought advice from the Clerk's office on many occasions. I believe I speak on behalf of the entire committee when I express my gratitude for the assistance provided by the Clerk and her staff. Mr Kermode's appearance before the committee presented particular problems and we had to go to great lengths to get him to volunteer to give evidence. The Clerk's assistance in that regard was greatly appreciated.

This report and its 59 recommendations must not be ignored by the Government, the Minister or the department, and implementation of the report should not be deferred until after the election. Many of the recommendations attracted unanimous support and they must be implemented immediately. I would be very disappointed if many have not already been implemented. These recommendations are critical and they should be acted on well before the end of this year. All 59 recommendations are equally important, but if I had to choose the recommendations that should be implemented now I would choose those relating to wheelchair accessible taxis. As the Hon. Penny Sharpe said, those recommendations are critical and they should be actioned now. We should ensure that people with disabilities lead as normal a life as possible, and they depend on wheelchair accessible taxis to achieve that.

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

Pursuant to sessional orders debate on budget estimates proceeded with.

Debate resumed from 22 September 2010.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [4.07 p.m.]: In my contribution to the 2011 budget take-note debate I will focus on the portfolios for which I have carriage for the Greens. In particular I will focus on the key areas of environment, ageing and disabilities and Aboriginal affairs. My overall observation of the budget is that amidst the funding of positive public programs it falls short in remediating the last four years of neglect, financial mismanagement and underinvestment in infrastructure, sustainable economic and cultural development and social justice. The Treasurer, with his myopic economic orthodoxy, has lost a real opportunity to re-energise the State.

Last financial year the New South Wales Government raised $305 million from the waste and environment levy. This financial year the aim is to raise $385 million. Over the forward estimates, the waste levy revenue stream will be well over the $400 million mark each year. Of the revenue raised, only one-third finds its way back to the Environment Trust. That is a poor record indeed. The Greens have long been supporters of landfill and waste levies to internalise the cost of not recovering resources and recycling. As a policy instrument the original intention and fundamentals of the waste levy—creating a price signal for landfill materials that more effectively represents the cost of disposal and enhances the economics of recycling and resource recovery—are laudable.

In 1998 I called on this House to support the full hypothecation of the waste levy. Since then I and many others have called for hypothecation of the waste levy, to the blanket rejection of Treasury. This State will face significant difficulties in the near future if it does not bolster the reinvestment of the waste levy into waste minimisation and resource recovery infrastructure, technology and programs. The Wright Corporate Strategy, Public Review Landfill Capacity and Demand Report, after it was forced out of the dark recesses of Minister Kelly's bottom drawer by this House, showed that landfill sites in Sydney are rapidly moving towards capacity. Specifically, by 2016 our current landfill capacity will be potentially exhausted. Only a number of weeks ago Keep Australia Beautiful revealed that New South Wales has the highest volume of litter per 1,000 square metres in Australia—13.42 litres per 1,000 square metres to be precise—well above the national average.

While Labor might find full hypothecation of the waste levy is unpalatable, we must divert at least two-thirds of the waste levy to the Environmental Trust to fund the construction of new resource recovery infrastructure for commercial and industrial waste streams. We need to invest in developing innovative collection, source separation, processing and recovery technology for commercial and industrial waste. The Government needs to renew its commitment to functioning extended producer responsibility and product stewardship schemes rather than weigh down the slow-moving Environmental Protection and Heritage Council.

While on the topic of environmental associated revenues, the $48 million collected under pollution control licences, which include load-based licensing fees, most certainly does not reflect the true social, economic and health costs associated with air and water pollution in New South Wales. Research cited by NSW Health estimates that air pollution alone costs New South Wales around $4.7 billion dollars per year in health costs. How is the "polluter paying" when the State's biggest industrial polluters are potentially costing the State $4.7 billion in health costs yet handing over only $48 million in load-based licensing fees?

Turning to the ageing, disability and home care portfolios, we should acknowledge the increase in funding for this department, which for the 2010-11 financial year is $2.468 billion, an increase of 9.1 per cent on the previous year's budget. The Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Ageing recently announced a number of new programs and funding support for the portfolio. Additional funding for attendant care, autism services, respite care, home and community care [HACC] services and supported accommodation are important to note, and the Minister has been a vocal advocate for increasing funding. Unfortunately, unmet need and shortfall in support are at a level that the 1.2 million people in New South Wales with disabilities cannot continue to tolerate. When I sought support from this House to establish an inquiry into ageing, disabilities and home care by the social issues committee I wanted the committee and members of this House to connect with the coalface of providing disability services and what happens to people when their civil and human rights are ignored. I am receiving feedback that the committee is doing a really thorough and thoughtful job in examining the issues, and I think we should acknowledge the work the members of the committee are doing.

Funding shortfalls for ageing and disability services are not the only problem: the Parliament, not just the Minister, must face the deficiencies in departmental management and culture, quality assurance, program delivery and service coordination and flexibility. As for the Treasurer, he should reflect on why he chooses to prioritise funding a clean coal fund when the sector is awash with capital, subsidising elite sports stars who rake in millions in endorsements, feathering the nests of agribusiness goliaths at the expense of family farms and propping up every sporting event on the circuit in some perpetual one-upmanship against other Australian States. I would rather see a young person with disabilities be able to use public transport and receive assistance that facilitates community and workplace participation than V8 Supercars roaring around Homebush with the aid of New South Wales Government dollars—or for that matter the Repco rally, which has moved to Coffs Harbour, being a terrible drain on the resources of the people in the local area of the Tweed. I would rather see carers of children with disabilities receiving aids and equipment so they can attend school and communicate with their family rather than pumping State research dollars into multinational agribusiness conglomerates. We need to prioritise the funding of social justice, investing in civil rights, and removing the barriers to full social inclusion, not "doing in" the State budget to prop up private enterprises with already bountiful bottom lines.

During the budget estimates hearing for Aboriginal Affairs I asked the Minister whether the Treasurer had seen a draft or interim copy of the Two Ways Together Report on Indicators 2009 before allocating the Aboriginal Affairs budget of $26.9 million. The reason I asked this question is that I wanted to know whether he made funding allocation decisions with the full knowledge that the indicators in the report did not show much improvement in addressing Aboriginal disadvantage. Over the past three years the Aboriginal Affairs budget has been cut from $35.2 million to $31.4 million to the current budget of $26.9 million.

It is important that we acknowledge that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is not the sole budgetary source for addressing Aboriginal disadvantage. Governments do, and should, adopt a position of meeting the needs of Aboriginal communities through a whole-of-government approach. The Government has made funding commitments in health, community services, ageing and disabilities, housing, education, and lands and justice. Maybe there is a Government sentiment that funding priorities should be given to front-line services and programs rather than channelling funding through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. While one can appreciate the sentiment, I think we should not overlook the importance of the department in its research, strategic policy formulation and program delivery. Seeing Aboriginal disadvantage through the prism of individualised government portfolios is something we should be moving away from and I cannot help feeling that the reduction in departmental funding is indicative of a shift away from whole-of-government approaches. Programs rolled out by community services need to be integrated with education policies and programs. I am not sure how much this is really happening. When 31 per cent of all children in out-of-home care are Aboriginal and this proportion has increased from 27 per cent in 2003 it is fundamentally important that community service programs are connected with health and education programs.

I think it is reasonable to say in the time remaining that this is my last take-note speech on the New South Wales budget and I would just like to make some comment on my experience with previous Treasurers that I have had the pleasure, and sometimes pain, of dealing with.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Who's your favourite?

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Thanks for the question. I have to say that personality-wise Michael Egan wins by a mile—no doubt about that at all. I say that advisedly because certainly Michael Costa was a very, let us just say, strong character, but whether that character—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Robust.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Robust is a very important term, and I acknowledge the interjection by the Labor Party Whip.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What about evil Eric?

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Certainly evil Eric—that was a slip-up in response to the interjection, so I withdraw that comment. What we are seeing now is Treasury running the show in a situation that is somewhat unimaginative. It is disappointing that we do not have a greater degree of creativity. The lack of hypothecation of environmentally raised funds to good purposes is a great disappointment to me. I think the Government can do far better. I do not expect any more of the Opposition if things should change after the next election, but I say here, as a person who has represented environmental issues to the best of my rather limited ability in this House for some 16 years now, that we really need to pay far greater attention to the minor issues—environment, disability, people who are really needy in this State and the social justice issues, which should be paramount.

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

Government Business Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Citizenship, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [4.20 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Courts and Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 is to make amendments to a range of courts- and crimes-related legislation. Most of the amendments are minor in nature, but some are more substantial and represent refinements to criminal laws in this State. I will now outline each of the amendments in turn. Schedule 1 to the bill contains consequential amendments to the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 as a result of the commencement of the Commonwealth Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Act 2010 on 15 April 2010. Amongst other reforms, the Commonwealth Act repealed part IIIA of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 that related to child sex offences committed outside Australia—known as child sex tourism offences—and transferred these provisions to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. This bill amends the New South Wales Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 to reflect these changes. The amendment ensures that offenders convicted of Commonwealth child sex tourism offences are registrable under the New South Wales Child Protection Register.

The amendments contained in schedule 2 to the bill amend section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 defines "offence involving violence" for the purposes of section 93. Section 93 provides that a victim witness is generally not required to attend committal proceedings for an accused charged with an "offence involving violence". The practical effect of offences being included in the definition is that it allows magistrates the discretion not to direct the attendance of the alleged victims at committal hearings unless there are special reasons. Currently the definition does not include section 112 (2) Crimes Act 1900 offences—aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote to the Attorney General requesting that offences falling under section 112 (2) Crimes Act 1900—aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence—be included in the definition of "offence involving violence" under section 94 Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions advises that it is often the case that the serious indictable offence in section 112 (2) is robbery or reckless wounding. On their own, these offences are an offence involving violence as defined by section 94. If, however, the activity is prosecuted under section 112, notwithstanding the violence involved, it falls outside the existing definition.

Consequently, victims of section 112 (2) offences are afforded less protection in relation to attending to give oral evidence at committals than other victims of violence. It is possible that other composite offences, that is, those involving a combination of elements which in isolation would constitute separate offences in the Crimes Act, may equally not be adequately covered by the section 94 definition. The amendment therefore expands the definition of "offence involving violence" to comprise an offence that includes the commission of, or an intention to commit, any of the offences already prescribed under the section, specifically, offences under section 94 (1 ) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). The amendment will address the issues raised by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions while helping to achieve consistency for all victims of violence.

Schedule 3 to the bill amends the District Court Act 1973 to allow a person who is or has been an associate judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to be appointed as an acting judge of the District Court, where that person is more than 72 years but not more than 75 years of age. Section 18 (4) of the District Court Act confines judicial appointments of a person aged between 72 and 75 to retired judges. This precludes a person who is a current or retired associate judge of the Supreme Court from being appointed as an acting judge of the District Court. Although associate judges are qualified judicial officers, by definition under the Supreme Court Act 1970 an associate judge is not a judge. Currently there are very few acting judges available to sit in the District Court. The amendment will expand the pool of possible candidates that the District Court can draw upon for appointment to act on the District Court bench.

I now turn to the amendments contained in schedule 4 to the bill. Section 4 of the Solicitor General Act 1969 currently allows the Attorney General to delegate the Attorney General's powers and functions to the Solicitor General. The Crown Solicitor has advised that this is limited to the delegation of powers and functions that the Attorney General has in his capacity as Attorney General. It does not, therefore, include the power to intervene in proceedings before a court or tribunal where an Act simply confers this power on the Minister responsible for that particular Act, and the Attorney General is the Minister responsible for that Act. The bill amends the Solicitor General Act 1969 to clarify that the Attorney General's ability to delegate powers and functions to the Solicitor General extends to any power or function to intervene in court or tribunal proceedings, including a power or function conferred on the Attorney General as the Minister administering an Act.

I now turn to the amendments contained in schedule 5 to the bill. The bill amends the Trustee Act 1925 to clarify that it is not necessary to prescribe an individual insurer for the purposes of a prescribed insurer in that Act and that, rather, a class of insurers can be prescribed. Under the Trustee Act 1925 a trustee is not chargeable with breach of trust arising from loans made on the security of property provided the requirements of section 18 are complied with. One of those requirements is that the amount of the loan must not exceed two-thirds of the value of the property unless repayment of the loan is insured by a prescribed insurer, in which case the amount of the loan is not to exceed 95 per cent of the value of the property.

Clause 5 of the Trustee Regulation 2010 lists individual prescribed insurers. These insurers are all authorised by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [APRA] to issue lenders mortgage insurance. Clause 5 of the Trustee Regulation requires regular updating to ensure that only APRA-authorised insurers are prescribed. The proposed amendments will clarify that a class of insurers can be prescribed and allow the regulations to be amended to simply provide that insurers authorised by APRA to issue lenders mortgage insurance are prescribed insurers for the purpose of the Trustee Act 1925. This bill addresses a number of issues relating to the smooth and effective running of courts and tribunals in New South Wales and also makes refinements to crimes-related legislation in this State. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion by the Hon. Catherine Cusack agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 274 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding the New South Wales Solar Bonus Scheme, be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Catherine Cusack agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 274 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [4.28 p.m.]: As I said earlier, this call for papers, particularly within the ridiculously short 14-day time frame suggested in the motion, would inappropriately direct resources, already delivering a large volume of work relating to the scheme, to the large administrative task of complying with the standing order. This would duplicate work on the review, a report on which the Government has committed to make public by the end of the session. The size and scope of the proposed order are so broad that it effectively requests copies of all versions of any documents, regardless of whether they contained factual, correct or current information relating to the scheme. EnergyAustralia's application for the pass through of administrative costs associated with the Solar Bonus Scheme is on the website of the Australian Energy Regulator.

The scope and size of this order is an inappropriate burden to place on resources delivering this important scheme. The cost to comply with this order must also be considered. Staffing resources are not free; they come at a cost. While I would expect the department and the network businesses to comply with any order in a manner that incurs the least cost to the community, there is an obvious cost to the community when staff are required to put draft documents in boxes instead of assisting the public. I would go so far as to say that redirecting employees of these front-line businesses to an administrative task of searching for and boxing up draft documents to comply with Standing Order 52 is totally inappropriate and is an abuse of the spirit of the standing order.

The Government has been open and transparent in implementing the Solar Bonus Scheme. Currently on the Industry and Investment NSW website sit a range of documents and information specifically relating to the scheme. The taskforce report provided to Ministers, prepared in 2009, is also on the website. The submissions to the taskforce report as part of an open public consultation process are also on the website. Detailed questions and answers and information regarding the scheme are regularly kept up to date on the website. Information relating to the statutory review, which is currently underway, is also publically available.

The Minister for Energy will table in both Houses of Parliament a report on the outcomes of the review, as required by the legislation, which was endorsed in this Parliament. A public, open and transparent review process is occurring right now, and the results of that review process will be tabled in this House in the spring session of Parliament. The timing for the release of the report in this session of Parliament is also on the website. This order in some ways pre-empts what the Government will already do—that is, make the review report public, and make public important information relating to the scheme that impacts the community and businesses. The Government has also confirmed that submissions to the review will be made public, unless respondents specifically request that their submission remain confidential.

Let us not forget that the New South Wales Government just this year has introduced new laws that enhance the public's access to information with the new Government Information (Public Access) Act, which replaced the Freedom of Information Act on 1 July 2010. In the words of the new Information Commissioner herself, Ms Deirdre O'Donnell, the "new right to information laws promote openness, accountability and transparency and will make Government agencies more proactive in providing information to the public". This displays that the Government is an open government and it is pleased to make information publically available, and indeed is already doing so in a business-as-usual manner.

This order undermines the review process. It implies that the Government needs to be prompted to make important information public. This implication is completely inappropriate. There is a process in train, and I can confirm that the review report and submissions will be made publicly available. Also, the order calls for copies of applications, as well as all draft versions, to the Australian Energy Regulator. This is also a public process. EnergyAustralia's application to the Australian Energy Regulator to pass on the administrative costs of the scheme to customers is right now on the Australian Energy Regulator's website. Along with that are the four submissions received from the public as part of the open, public and transparent process that was undertaken by the Australian Energy Regulator.

Presumably the Australian Energy Regulator will also make its final decision publicly available. Details of this submission were also reported in the media, making them very public indeed. The regulatory processes governing distribution networks need to provide them with an opportunity to protect commercially sensitive information. The Australian Energy Regulator does not take requests for commercial in confidence lightly. These networks operating across the national electricity market are publicly and privately owned and the same rules apply equally regardless of ownership. Given that this order for papers duplicates work already taking place, and that it is being conducted through open and transparent processes, I strongly urge the House not to support the motion.

Dr JOHN KAYE [4.35 p.m.]: I support the Hon. Catherine Cusack's motion. It is important that this information be in the public domain, given the debate that is raging in respect of the Solar Bonus Scheme, and in particular the campaign that is being run in some areas of the media to attempt to undermine the scheme. At the outset I indicate that the Greens strongly support the Solar Bonus Scheme and enthusiastically voted for it, as did every member of this House. Not one member voted against the Solar Bonus Scheme when it was debated in this House last year.

A number of reasons for supporting the scheme were put forward. One of them was the employment that a fully functional Solar Bonus Scheme would create in the solar energy industry—potentially tens of thousands of jobs. If rooftop photovoltaic energy becomes a key source of electricity within New South Wales, it will attract to this State large numbers of jobs and that economic activity will have flow-on effects. The scheme would also assist in greenhouse gas reduction. It is clear that renewable energy will play a key role in addressing the 60 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide that our coal-fired power stations pump into the atmosphere. Along with the very important energy efficiency—or doing the same with less—and energy conservation—in some cases getting rid of unnecessary uses of energy—there is an economically efficient, employment-generating, low-carbon future for New South Wales in which rooftop solar energy, and indeed all other forms of distributed energy generation, will play a crucial role.

But this can only be achieved by developing industries in each of those specific areas. It is important to protect those industries against competition from central station power, particularly coal and gas, the fossil fuel powers, which are subsidised because they do not pay their full attributable cost, in particular the cost of the greenhouse gas emissions and the long-term damage they do to the climate, and hence to the economy, society and human health. We therefore enthusiastically supported the Solar Bonus Scheme. The scheme was put in place last year and began operation in January. As I said, the scheme was passed by this House. I had occasion to review the debates on the legislation and I noted that the scheme was passed by this House without opposition. However, we have to admit that there has been an unexpectedly high rate of growth in the scheme.

It is highly possible that the scheme was either overly generous at the time at which we passed it or events since then have made the scheme now overly generous. The 60¢ per kilowatt hour bonus payments may well be greater than that needed to provide the stimulus and protection to the solar industry to compete against fossil fuels. When I say that, I do not seek to apportion blame to anyone. I was one of those who voted enthusiastically for the legislation; the Greens supported the legislation. But there comes a time when one has to ask the question: Did we do the right thing? Has this grown too rapidly? Is it imposing an unnecessary economic burden? Is it in the best interests of the renewable energy industry as a whole and of the solar industry itself?

So it is sensible that there be a review. We note that the Government has instituted a review, as indeed the legislation this House passed said it should. The problem is that that review may not be seen by this Parliament and by the people of New South Wales until it is too late to make amendments to the scheme. The review may not be seen before this Parliament rises for the year. Of course, the Parliament will not sit again until April or May 2011. During that period the scheme will continue to operate, albeit reduced by one year—that is, rather than there being seven years of payment for people who sign up to the scheme after 1 January 2011 there will only be six years of payment, so the scheme will be one-seventh less generous. Nonetheless, that number may still be too high. That is something that needs to be debated. It is unfortunate that the report on the review is unlikely to come out in time for this Parliament to consider the information. If the report on the review were to come at a time that would give us an opportunity to consider the information, introduce legislation, and amend the scheme prior to the Parliament rising for the end of this year, perhaps the Hon. Catherine Cusack's motion would not be so important. However, that appears not to be the case. It is important that the information being sought in this motion is put into the public domain.

A clear need exists for an informed debate—and I emphasise the word "informed"—about the Solar Bonus Scheme. I am deeply concerned by some of the things I have read in the media, and it is difficult to know where some of that information is coming from. Allegations about the impacts of the Solar Bonus Scheme on household electricity bills have, for good reason given the massive increases in power bills, become a hot-button item in the media and the community. The allegation that the Solar Bonus Scheme has played a major role in those price increases is of concern. I doubt from my own calculations, even allowing for the large rate of growth that has been hypothesised by the Hon. Catherine Cusack, whether they would come anywhere near the $17.4 billion—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: The price rises do not come into effect until next year.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I stand corrected. I doubt that we will even see it when they come in next year with the electricity super highway from the coal-fired power stations to people's houses, which is being reinforced by the energy distributors and the energy transmission authority TransGrid. Nonetheless, I am sure what was said by Hon. Catherine Cusack was said in good faith, and what has been said in the media may or may not be correct. It is important that the information being sought is in the public domain so that observers of the industry can make informed comment on where the scheme is going and so that debate could potentially lead to modification of the scheme.

In an undated media release put out by Hon. Catherine Cusack, which I suspect was put out around 7 October, the member calls for the scheme to be closed. The Greens would not support the closure of the scheme. However, we heed the words of people such as Dr Mark Diesendorf, an academic from the University of New South Wales and an expert in renewable energy, to look at changing the price or other parts of the scheme. But, as Hon. Catherine Cusack correctly pointed out, that cannot be done in isolation of the facts. I urge members to join with the Coalition and the Greens in voting for this motion.

The motion calls for the papers to be tabled within the Parliament within 14 days. I heard the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane comment in this debate on the time conflict between the motion and the work on the review. There is sense in that. The review is clearly being conducted under pressure and we take it in good faith that the review is being thoroughly and carefully conducted. We acknowledge that the review is a time-demanding issue for the offices of the Minister of Energy, the energy division of the Department of Industry and Investment, EnergyAustralia, Country Energy, Integral Energy and possibly TransGrid, and we are concerned to cut some slack for the bureaucrats involved in this some process. Hence after some consideration I move:

That the question be amended by deleting "14" wherever it appears in paragraphs 1 and 2 and inserting instead "21".

This will allow a three-week period rather than two weeks for the tabling of documents that are the subject of the order. I am concerned that the response to this motion should be timely because we only have eight or nine weeks until the end of this parliamentary session. To give an additional week to the bureaucrats to compile what I suspect will be a sizeable volume of materials and to prepare an index of that documentation is a sensible compromise.

I reiterate the Greens support for the Solar Bonus Scheme. I also reiterate that the amendments to the Solar Bonus Scheme were voted for in good faith. After long debate throughout 2009 we all came to more or less the same conclusion—that it was time to do something. We felt that 60 cents per kilowatt hour was a very generous price in response to a debate in which we had been fighting over the issue of gross versus net feed-in, and in which the Coalition, the Greens and many in the environmental movement had been fighting hard for a gross feed-in tariff. By achieving a gross feed-in tariff and 60 cents per kilowatt hour, which was probably more than what we thought we were going to get, we possibly made a mistake by not sitting back, taking a cold shower, and thinking more carefully about the 60 cents. Perhaps none of us felt particularly enthusiastic about saying that we should make it less generous. Perhaps now is the time for us to get together and in that spirit of working together have an honest look at the scheme to consider whether or not we want to adjust the bonus size. The Greens support the motion, subject to my amendment.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [4.45 p.m.]: I support the motion of Hon. Catherine Cusack. I also agree with the amendment moved by Dr John Kaye.

[Interruption]

Yes, I realise that is rather unusual. We discussed this legislation in our crossbench briefing and it was quite obvious that everybody there was talking through his or her hat. No-one really knew what the projections would be or the cost burden to the poor New South Wales electricity consumers of 100 megawatts for these solar panels. I put my hand up; I invested in solar panels for my roof. An amount of 100 megawatts in an installed capacity of 18,000 megawatts is less than 0.05 per cent. I want to see what information the Government can bring to bear on this as much as anybody else. I hope we will not get into a debate about the retrospective value of a 60 cent per kilowatt gross feed-in tariff because I would have to declare an interest.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.46 p.m.]: I support the motion of the Hon. Catherine Cusack. I also support the amendment from 14 days to 21 days. The community is greatly concerned about the dramatic price increase of their electricity bills. Many have incurred a 50 per cent increase. We need an investigation into the reason for this dramatic increase. I would be inclined, although I will not do it, to examine all the papers relating to carbon trading to ascertain why carbon trading is being included in the pricing—

Dr John Kaye: It is not in the price.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: It is in the price.

Dr John Kaye: Read the determination by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: It is in the price. That is the explanation for the increase; otherwise there is no justification for it.

Dr John Kaye: You are misleading the House, Fred.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Then what is the reason for the 50 per cent increase?

Dr John Kaye: Because of the $17 billion on wires and poles.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There is another 20 per cent that may eventuate. That is not in there yet.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is right—that is the carbon trading. I would like to see an investigation into that matter to prevent some massive errors being made in the future that will affect the families of this State.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.48 p.m.], in reply: I thank all speakers for their contributions to the debate. I particularly thank those who spoke in favour of the motion. Following the example of the Hon. Robert Brown, and as I have previously stated, I disclose that I have solar panels on my roof. I also note that a number of members of Parliament are in the scheme. As to the media statement that was read out by Dr John Kaye, I clarify the Liberals-Nationals policy, and that is that all applications that have been approved by the energy companies must be honoured. We made it clear when the bill was debated in this place last year that retrospective changes must not be made to the scheme, such as reducing the 60 cent feed-in tariff, because people borrow money to invest in these panels. The last thing the renewable industry needs is more uncertainty. It would be unthinkable to make retrospective changes, not only for those already participating in the scheme but also for the applicants who have been approved to install the panels. They must have their contracts honoured because they have borrowed money in good faith.

This motion, which calls for the production of papers, is about freezing applications to the scheme. It is not about closing or dispensing with the scheme. I make that clear to the House. It is about controlling access to the scheme because we fear too many have been accepted at the 60 cent rate. Our position has never changed on this issue. We always have supported a gross feed-in tariff. We put that position early last year. The Government decided on a net feed-in tariff. It attacked our policy position for most of last year and then backflipped in November and adopted it by deciding on a gross feed-in tariff. But in its version the 60 cent return that was announced by Carmel Tebbutt for the net tariff was applied by John Robertson to the gross feed-in tariff. At the time the Coalition said that it was too generous. The term I used in the debate was that we feared it would trigger a boom-bust in the solar panel industry. The Coalition was clear about this issue and we have not altered our position. In April I raised concerns in the House that the scheme was filling up too quickly. In our policy the return has always been at the low 40 cent mark. I am distressed about this blowout because if the scheme costs $1 billion, it will reduce opportunities for other initiatives in renewable energy.

The Government quoted me correctly; I said that the scheme was too small and mean. However, my reference was not to the 60 cent rebate to consumers, which we consider too generous. It related to the vision that 50 megawatts was available only for small-scale solar. We want, and have always wanted, a scheme that is able to be sustainably grown and opened up to medium and large scale renewable energy. It must have a clever feed-in tariff that pulls in investment at a sustainable rate. A 60 cent tariff for a small scheme that goes boom and bust is not helpful to anyone. For the purpose of clarification, I put those matters on the record. I fear that if the scheme blows out to in excess of $1 billion, the resultant damage would cut off future options for more wide-scale renewable energy. That would be a tragedy. The price increases that are coming down the tunnel to consumers beginning on 1 July next year will be on top of already substantial increases. These increases will be smaller but perhaps more painful because they are on top of already large price increases. That does not leave us any room to consider other schemes that could trigger larger amounts of renewable energy. I look forward to the support of the House for the motion so that we can be informed of the facts of the matter.

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

Amendment of Dr John Kaye agreed to.

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

Motion as amended agreed to.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.55 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Coastal erosion is a real issue facing many coastal land owners and local councils. Some 40 houses have been lost to erosion in recent decades and around 200 are currently under threat. Projected sea level rise in the future will significantly increase the number of houses at risk. The New South Wales Government announced a coastal erosion reform package last October to strengthen the current approach to managing erosion risks. It builds on current arrangements for coastal management under the Coastal Protection Act, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Local Government Act. These reforms comprise an integrated package of legislation, including this bill, and supporting guidelines.

As members may recall, an exposure bill was released in March this year to begin the consultation process on this difficult policy issue. Extensive public consultation was undertaken with councils, the Local Government and Shires Associations, beachfront owners, environmental groups, the Opposition, the Greens and relevant government agencies. The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water ran 10 workshops from Ballina to Moruya, with almost every coastal council attending at least one workshop. In July the department supported the Local Government and Shires Associations at a further series of workshops to explain and further explore aspects of the bill introduced in June. As a result of this extensive consultation the bill was refined substantially to address legitimate concerns that were raised. All matters were carefully considered.

On 11 June 2010 Parliamentary Secretary and member for Drummoyne, Angela D'Amore, introduced a previous version of this bill. After the previous version of this bill was introduced, some stakeholder groups raised further concerns with the bill. In response, the bill was deferred to allow further consideration. That is why it has been put forward in this session. During the winter recess further consultation was undertaken with stakeholders, particularly local government. As part of this process, in August the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment travelled to a number of at-risk beaches and met with local councils and affected property owners to see at close hand the challenges that we face. The Minister thanks all concerned for their insights and constructive contributions during this consultation process. For the record, the shadow Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, the Hon. Catherine Cusack, was invited to travel with the Minister to these inspections. She declined to attend on both days of the Minister's visits.

The bill responds to the feedback received during these further consultations. There is no doubt that there are some greatly differing perspectives on this issue that may well be irreconcilable. Some want no interventions at all to protect private or public properties on the beachfront. Others want to have absolute freedom to protect all property, with small regard for potential negative consequences, such as, further beach erosion and prohibitive costs to the community. Yet others suggest that the Government should mine sand from offshore areas to continuously nourish beaches, despite the prohibitive costs and potential environmental impacts. After considering all these points of view and the many comments, the Government remains convinced that the fundamentals of the previous bill are sound. This new bill includes a series of incremental improvements to the previous bill to address stakeholder concerns. For the convenience of the House, a new bill is being introduced rather than a set of amendments to the previous bill. Consequently, the previous bill has been withdrawn.

I make it clear that this bill is framework legislation. It does not seek to solve erosion problems at individual locations. Its aim is to provide more tools and options for councils and landowners, extending the current arrangements under the Coastal Protection Act, the Environmental P and Assessment Act and the Local Government Act. It reinforces coastal zone management planning as the way that local solutions can be developed for local erosion problems.

Councils currently prepare coastal zone management plans with grants and support from government. The bill improves the arrangements for coastal planning to ensure long term and emergency planning is completed faster and to appropriate standards. These plans will identify the most appropriate local response to erosion issues developed in consultation with local communities. The Minister will ask councils in coastal erosion hotspots to prepare coastal erosion emergency action subplans by the middle of next year. The Minister will direct these councils also to finalise their coastal zone management plans by the end of next year or later if necessary.

This bill establishes the NSW Coastal Panel, which will be able to provide expert advice to councils and the Minister on significant coastal issues. It will determine also development applications for coastal works where there is no certified coastal management plan, as will be provided by the proposed Infrastructure State Environmental Planning Policy [SEPP] amendments. Three of the seven panel members will be nominated by the Local Government and Shires Associations and three by State government agencies. The Minister will appoint the panel's chair with the concurrence of the Local Government and Shires Associations. Councils currently have some powers under the Coastal Protection Act to order the removal of material dumped on a beach that is causing erosion. This bill expands these order powers including the ability to issue a stop-work order if a person is about to dump rocks on a beach illegally.

Councils will be able to require an administration fee to be issued when they issue an order. This fee is the same as the fee a council charges when issuing a pollution prevention notice under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. The maximum penalty under the Coastal Protection Act is only $11,000 and does not effectively discourage offences under this Act. This bill significantly increases maximum penalties under the Act to nearly $250,000 for an individual and nearly $500,000 for a corporation. This will support councils' enforcement activities under this Act. The Local Government Act currently provides councils with exemptions from liability for coastal management decisions if they act in good faith. Councils have been calling for improvements to these arrangements, particularly in response to climate change impacts. This bill responds to those concerns by expanding these exemptions from liability. This aims to ensure that councils acting in good faith are not caught up in unjustified court cases.

Landowners who want to build works to protect their property currently can lodge a development application for those works. This bill provides an additional option for landowners by allowing them to place sand or sandbags as emergency works, under strict conditions. The emergency works provisions are an important part of this bill. We have seen rocks and building debris placed in an emergency at locations such as Belongil and Collaroy-Narrabeen beaches. Some of these rocks have been on our beaches for more than 30 years, impacting on the community's enjoyment of the beaches and presenting a public safety risk. The message from history is clear: if we do not provide an appropriate way for landowners to reduce erosion threats to their properties in an emergency, many landowners will do the wrong thing and we will live with the consequences for many years.

The emergency works provisions allow landowners with properties at risk to place sandbags on a beach, provided that the works are certified by an authorised officer of a local council or of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. The exposure bill did not require a certificate from an authorised officer. This provision has been added in response to evidence that without some form of quality control, inappropriate works and materials can be introduced onto our beaches and waterfront areas. The certification process can be expeditious, and by allowing a range of authorised officers it provides for flexibility, especially in an emergency context.

Landowners will be able to place emergency works once for any parcel of land and may also place them on adjacent private land, with that owner's agreement. The emergency works can normally be placed for up to 12 months. This provides the landowner with an opportunity to consider longer-term options for managing erosion risks. These options may include lodging a development application for longer-term coastal protection works. If a development application is lodged the emergency works can remain until the development application is determined. The bill includes strict controls on emergency works so that they do not cause erosion of neighbouring land, do not present a public safety risk or unreasonably impact on access to a beach. Orders can be issued by authorised officers to remove the works if these criteria are not met.

It is important that any emergency works placed by landowners are consistent with council's emergency response arrangements. That is why the Minister will be encouraging councils to finalise their emergency subplans as soon as possible. The emergency works will therefore need to be placed in accordance with council's emergency action subplan. Lodging a development application remains the preferred pathway for landowners wanting to reduce erosion threats to their property. This process allows a thorough assessment of any proposed works. It allows also for appeals to the Land and Environment Court. The emergency works arrangements in this bill strike the right balance—they allow landowners to place works temporarily while they go through a proper development application process for longer-term works.

This bill will be accompanied by complementary amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure). A copy of the policy outcomes statement for proposed amendments to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) relating to coastal protection was tabled in the other place. This bill and proposed amendments to the Infrastructure SEPP improve the arrangements for landowners wanting to build long-term works such as a seawall. The proposed Infrastructure SEPP amendments will allow landowners to apply for consent to build seawalls. Landowners will be required to satisfy the consent authority that there will be suitable arrangements in place to ensure any seawall will be adequately maintained and any beach erosion impacts managed. This aims to achieve the appropriate balance between private property protection and protection of our beaches.

The bill will allow councils also to levy a coastal protection service charge on landowners who have voluntarily contributed to building a new seawall or upgrading an existing seawall. This provision will not apply retrospectively. The charge covers the cost to council of maintaining the works and managing any off-site erosion impacts. The charge will not apply to existing seawalls. Landowners will be able to request an independent review of the costs of the charge every three years. Councils will normally be able to charge a fee to cover their reasonable cost of providing this review. The fee will not apply in the first year the charge is levied or if the charge increases above the rate pegging increase. This is in addition to the ability for the Minister to direct a council to undertake an independent review. There is no requirement for landowners to spend money to protect their property from erosion. The emergency and long-term property protection arrangements are entirely voluntary. Moreover, nothing in the bill prevents local councils from carrying out such works.

Another part of the bill will allow details of lands vulnerability to erosion and the expected council response to managing this erosion to be listed on section 149 certificates. This will help future purchasers better understand the erosion problems associated with a particular parcel of land. I take this opportunity to set the record straight about some comments that have been made in the media in relation to this bill. Many of these comments relate to the emergency works provisions. I reinforce the statement that these emergency works provisions are in addition to the ability of a landowner to lodge a development application for emergency or longer-term works. If landowners consider that the emergency works requirements in this bill are not suitable, they should consider lodging a development application for their preferred works. If they are refused they can exercise their legal appeal rights just as for any normal development application.

One claim that has been made frequently is that the bill takes away landowners' property rights. This is not true. Landowners currently have the right to apply for development consent to construct a seawall to protect their property: the bill does not change that. The bill expands the ability of landowners to protect their property. The emergency works provisions in the bill provide new streamlined arrangements for landowners to place sandbags to reduce immediate erosion threats to their houses. This is intended as an interim measure while the normal approval processes are pursued—an avenue not previously available to owners.

Concerns have been raised about the fact that the controls on emergency works are too stringent. The bill's emergency works provisions have been developed to minimise the risks of any emergency works placed by landowners impacting on our beaches or beach users, such as causing erosion elsewhere on the beach, risking public safety, or unreasonably reducing public access to a beach. They strike the right balance between these two perspectives. If a landowner wants to place different emergency works he or she is invited to lodge a development application for those works.

There are concerns also that the emergency works cannot be used to protect vacant property. The aim of the streamlined approval process for emergency works is to enable landowners to reduce erosion threats to their homes. This may include works on adjacent vacant land if it is to protect erosion threats to their homes. If a landowner wants to protect vacant land from erosion, which does not involve protecting a house, he or she can follow the normal development application process. There are reports also that the requirement for a house to be within 10 metres of an erosion escarpment before emergency works can be placed is too restrictive. That requirement will be changed.

Other concerns that have been raised include that the Minister's draft requirements limit the height of emergency works to 1.5 metres, which may be too low to be effective in some locations. The height of the works has been limited to reduce the likelihood of these works causing erosion impacts or presenting public safety risks. If a landowner wants to construct larger works he or she can lodge a development application supported by appropriate engineering advice. Some landowners have raised concerns also about emergency works being able to be placed only once on each parcel of land. These emergency works arrangements are intended to give landowners an opportunity relatively easily to place works while they are considering longer-term arrangements.

This may include lodging a development application for placing large sandbags, or other works, again in the future. The reason for the once-only provision is to prevent the 12-month limit on emergency works being artificially extended by new works prior to the expiration of the 12-month period. Nothing in the bill prevents an owner responsible for emergency works from repairing those works. However, this cannot restart the clock and trigger a new 12-month period. I emphasise that the emergency works provision is designed purely as an interim measure to allow owners to seek approval for more permanent works. The media has also reported that plans for permanent protection need to be lodged with council within seven days after emergency works are placed. That is not the case; landowners can lodge a development application at any time within the 12-month period after the works are placed.

Another issue raised is that the legislation privatises the protection of private property, transferring responsibility from the State Government to residents and councils. With the passage of this bill the Government, through the Minister and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, will remain involved in a number of ways. Departmental officers may authorise emergency works, which currently is not the case. An expert coastal panel will also be created and its members appointed by the Minister from the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, the Department of Planning and the Department of Lands. The Minister must also certify a coastal zone management plan. If a council does not have a certified coastal plan, the coastal panel will be the consent authority for any application for works under the Infrastructure SEPP amendments.

The Minister may direct a council to prepare a coastal plan or to revise a coastal plan. If a council does not make or revise a coastal plan, the Minister may independently make the plan. The Minister may also intervene to require a council to justify a coastal protection service charge for the maintenance of coastal works. State Government authorised officers will be appointed to ensure compliance with the Coastal Protection Act, including issuing orders to stop unlawful works on beaches. The Government will continue to provide grants and technical support to councils to help them prepare coastal plans. The Minister will continue to issue concurrences for some offshore activities that may present a risk to our coastline. The Government is not reducing the amount that it spends on coastal management in response to this bill. Nearly $4 million is spent annually on coastal management projects. Councils currently can seek a special rate variation to fund coastal protection works, and the bill does not change that arrangement. The bill and the proposed Infrastructure SEPP amendments provide landowners with additional options to protect their property.

Another claim made is that surfing would become an extreme sport as board riders dodged stone groynes and other walls established to defend homes. Again this is incorrect. The Government is not proposing to allow landowners to construct artificial reefs that may present a risk to surfers. It has been said also that public land should not be used to protect private property. The Government's preference is for any emergency works to be located on private property. However, this may not be practical in certain circumstances and the use of public land for these temporary works is permitted under strict conditions.

Some diverse and even extreme views have been expressed about how best to balance the impacts of coastal erosion and sea level rises on our coastline with the interests of communities and beach users. The Government's goal is to achieve a reasonable, workable solution to the real challenges that we face. It recognises that managing coastal erosion is difficult and often contentious, and that different solutions are appropriate in different circumstances. This bill is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It provides additional management options for landowners and councils, building on the current coastal management framework, along with a strengthened regulatory framework to ensure that the public's enjoyment of beaches is not compromised.

I emphasise that this is framework legislation, within which the individual challenges that face our beaches can be more flexibly addressed. It is not legislation designed to solve specific beach erosion problems in its own right. This new bill represents a key component of the Government's strategy of managing coastal erosion risks. It strikes the right balance between protecting private property, public assets and beaches from coastal erosion. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [5.14 p.m.]: Last night I listened with considerable astonishment as the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, the Hon. Frank Sartor, told the Parliament that the Opposition had constantly been changing its position on this legislation. However, he failed to point out that the Government has presented no fewer than three completely different bills in the past 12 months, all entitled Coastal Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The first version was the exposure draft that was released in September last year. The second version—a new consultation draft finalised by Parliamentary Counsel—was released on 26 March 2010. I believe that a version of that draft was introduced into Parliament, but it could have been a later version, on 11 June 2010, only to be withdrawn on 22 September and replaced with yet another bill with the same title. I note that the bill before the House has been redrafted 57 times. I have been advised that a fifty-eighth version will be introduced.

Having spent the better part of a year trying to track and assimilate all these different versions of the legislation, it seems a bit rich for the Minister boldly to complain to Parliament that Opposition members had changed their position on the legislation. We have not changed our position on this legislation: the Government has changed the legislation more than 60 times in the past 12 months. Let me provide the history relating to this legislation. The original exposure bill was announced by former Premier Rees one year ago. That version has been wiped from all government websites. David Penberthy wrote an opinion piece that was published in the Australian highlighting the case of the Belongil homeowners who have been dragged to court repeatedly by their local council to prevent them from defending their homes from storm surge. The article states:

In other circumstances this would be just another bit of endearing NSW north coast weirdness. There's a couple of things that make it quite serious.

The first is that we have an Australian council ... telling a group of living, breathing rate-paying humans that they should watch their family home be swallowed up by the elements. That of itself should probably be against the law.

The second is the potential of the council's actions to affect policy at the state government level, especially when that government is the politically desperate 14-year-old outfit headed by Nathan Rees. To its rare credit, the NSW government has decided to front up for the fight.

The Australian revealed this week that the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change has written a stern letter to Byron Bay Council stating that ratepayers have every right to defend their homes.

"Any planned retreat policy should allow landowners to continue to use their property while ever it is safe to do so," deputy director-general Simon Smith advised. "(Council) should set out potential arrangements that would permit appropriate landowner-funded coastal protection works."

The New South Wales Liberals and The Nationals supported that position. I have tried to explain this on a number of occasions to Minister Sartor, who seems oblivious to the fact that anything existed at all in the Environment portfolio prior to his arrival. In fact, he is the third Minister for the Environment we have had to deal with in the past year. Wiping the bill off the department's website does not obliterate the fact that it existed. It was a sensible approach taken by his colleague the Hon. John Robertson. In the words of Mr Penberthy, to its rare credit, the New South Wales Government decided to front up for the fight. Of course, that has gone out the window with the introduction of this latest version of Sartor legislation. I repeat: the Opposition has not altered its position on this legislation. Rather, this Government has redrafted the legislation 50 times in the past 12 months.

I now turn briefly to the specifics of the legislation. The stated objectives of this legislation sound fine. I emphasise the word "stated" because there is a complete disconnect between the detail in its clauses and its stated purposes. According to the Government the legislation will establish a New South Wales coastal panel to advise the Minister and to act as a consent authority for certain emergency and long-term coastal works and for some long-term mitigation works. It will permit limited emergency coastal protection works—the placing of sandbags and sand—and empower councils to order the removal of such works. It will also establish a method of funding coastal works through levies on rateable land.

It is important to note that this bill applies only to works that protect property and beaches. It empowers councils to deem works legal or illegal. Consent may be given only if beach access and ongoing maintenance are addressed. It places an open-ended liability on property owners where councils decide to impose a levy to maintain an existing seawall or fund sand replenishment. The councils may decide to fund costs from rates or to impose some or all costs on certain properties. As I have said, the bill will establish a coastal panel, which is an issue of concern. This issue was raised with Minister Sartor on day one and he is aware of our difficulties in relation to this issue. Last night in Parliament he claimed that back in June he went through the bill clause by clause with a group of Opposition members and that we agreed with all of them, which is incorrect. We did not go through the bill clause by clause. At the meeting we had to discuss whether it would be possible to take a bipartisan approach we specifically raised this issue, which has consistently been a problem for us.

The seven-member coastal panel to be established in New South Wales will include three nominees of the Director General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Planning and the Land and Property Management Authority; three nominees of the Local Government and Shires Associations; and the chair nominated by the Minister for Environment, which had to obtain the concurrence of the Local Government and Shires Associations. At that point the members did not have to be qualified—a problem that we highlighted. I understand that the Minister addressed that issue in one of these amendments. However, we fundamentally disagree that such an important area of responsibility in which leadership and resources are required should be totally abrogated to another party—that is, the Local Government and Shires Associations—as a step-in authority when the local government system has not worked. It seems to me to be nonsensical.

The bill expands the matters in the council coastal zone management plans to include coastal hazards and the effects of climate change. For example, councils must have regard to the sea level rise policy statement of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water that asserts that an allowance has to be made for a 1.1 metre sea level rise between 1990 and 2010. That policy statement is based on a succession of modelling and precautionary assumptions disputed by many scientists, and we have sought further advice on that issue. It is well known that I am not a climate change sceptic. I believe it is real and I believe that the oceans are rising. I have spent a considerable amount of time going through the sea level rise statement of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, through the attachments and through the work that has been done and upon which the CSIRO claims it has relied.

I am concerned about this issue because the sea level rise statement, which states that oceans will rise 1.1 metres by 2100, assumes that the ocean levels have risen by 20 centimetres since 1990 to 2010, which plainly has not happened. That is the entire basis of the sea level rise policy. People are now talking about a 0.9 metre rise from 2010 to 2100, which will simply deduct 20 centimetres on the basis that sea levels rose 20 centimetres over the past 20 years, which has not happened. This issue is serious and there is no explanation for this problem. On that basis thousands of residents on the Central Coast have had their land title cases marked—they would say defaced—with a warning that their property will be under water in a few years time when demonstrably sea levels have not risen 20 centimetres over the past two decades. That methodology is not supported by what we know has happened.

There are many problems in this bill, so I am forced to move on to the next issue. The bill strips the Minister of powers to acquire or substitute coastal protection plans and transfers this authority to the panel, which as I said effectively is controlled by the Local Government and Shires Associations, a political organisation. It is entitled to be a political organisation. It elects its office bearers from the delegates that go to its conferences, which is a far cry from the property owner about whose interests these decisions are being made. It is unacceptable and undemocratic for a political representative advocacy group to have effective control of the coastal panel. It is reminiscent of an approach to an issue in a Stalinist state rather than an approach one would take in a democracy where there must be a clearer connection and accountability between those who are making these decisions and those being impacted by them.

I might add that those people have families, mortgages and jobs, and they are contributing members of society who have invested their nest eggs in their homes. The interests and anxieties of those people should be respected and they should be accorded some rights in this debate. I am sorry to say that because of the way in which this legislation was introduced they have been robbed of their rights.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: There are a lot of retirement villages along the coast.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I acknowledge that many retirees and retirement villages along the coast will be affected by this legislation. I visited all the hot spots along the coast after I was able to ascertain where they were. The department not only is changing the ministerial requirements in this legislation; it also is changing the list of hot spots and their definition. Originally the definition of hot spots was five or more houses at threat. The definition has now been changed to more than five houses at threat, which will have implications for Norah Head. Under the definition of five or more houses at threat Norah Head was considered a hot spot and aspects of this legislation could be applied to it. As that definition has now been changed to five or more houses at threat, apparently Norah Head is no longer a hot spot. I visited Norah Head which looks pretty precarious to me. Houses, private property and the interests of beachgoers are very much a hot spot in Norah Head. That demonstrates how such simple words can have a profound impact on people's lives.

As my colleague the member for Ballina said in debate in the lower House, these hot spots should not be restricted to beachfront owners. In some cases there are coastal lakes behind the sand spit. By the way, virtually all these hot spots were associated with waterways and that is the case at Belongil Creek. This is an issue for landowners at Belongil Creek whose properties are at risk. If their properties are lost there is a potential for the sand spit to be breached and for many other properties to be inundated and flooded. Essentially, Byron Bay is built on a wetland which could result in parts of the central business district being inundated. Houses at the front of those properties are not the only things that require protection; the land itself is defending more extensive property interests. That is the case on the Central Coast where I visited beaches and estuary areas.

Opposition members believe that a piecemeal approach is being entrenched in this legislation when a holistic approach is required. The bill will prevent the Minister from dealing holistically with the whole coastline. In fact, the Minister has stripped himself of almost all his powers. The councils and the Coastal Management Authority will be dealing block by block with approvals, particularly in relation to emergency works. We are concerned also that Crown land is not covered by this bill. Last night the member for Port Macquarie spoke about the impact of this legislation on Lake Cathie. He referred repeatedly to the problem relating to Illaroo Road and to the sand erosion that is occurring. I am sure that the member does not realise that this legislation does not apply to Lake Cathie. He does not comprehend that legislation is required to enable those public assets to be defended and that some kind of plan of management should be mandated. This legislation will not benefit or be of assistance to Lake Cathie residents.

This bill is flawed. Residents living on Illaroo Road were under major threat because council allowed the sand dune to recede to such an extent that the road was being eroded by the ocean, and they were next in line. Residents asked the council to inform them how far it would allow erosion to take place in the Lake Cathie area. Council obtained further legal advice in relation to the matter and it was subsequently advised that it had an obligation to ensure access to those residential properties on Illaroo Road. It was advised also that if the road was eroded by the ocean those landowners relying on the road for access would be entitled to sue the council. We then saw a sudden change in attitude. Simple work that should have been undertaken years ago to the stormwater drains, which were undermining, impacting on and accelerating erosion from those dunes, was then undertaken.

We believe that the emergency measures are impractical because they are too bureaucratic. I shall run through some of the Minister's inconsistencies in an interview he gave to Alan Jones yesterday and that have been cited many times in debate in the other place. I have some sympathy for the Minister because the bill has been changed so many times that I can understand his confusion. Mr Jones asked the Minister, "Why do we need this Coastal Protection Bill?" The Minister said:

... the current Act provides for councils to prepare coastal protection plans, coastal management plans and so far not one has been finalised.

This is not true. Page 31 of the 2009 of the Department of Environment and Climate Change annual report states:

Three new estuary plans and one new coastal management plan were completed in 2008-2009.

The annual report also has a graph indicating that there are now 18 or so coastal management plans completed as at the end of 2009. There may well be more now. The problem councils have faced in submitting their plans is that under the legislation they have to comply with the Government's coastal management manual. The catch is that the Government has failed to produce the manual. Councils have struggled to comply with a document that does not exist. Nevertheless, significant work has been undertaken and plans complying with drafts of the manual have been submitted. In a technical sense councils cannot comply with legislation because that requires a coastal management manual that does not exist. Mr Jones asked Minister Sartor why there was no emergency protection allowed for vacant land. The Minister said this is not true. He said emergency protection for vacant land was allowed if it is next door to a lawful building. This, too, is incorrect. The Minister was speaking about a previous version of the bill, the one he introduced in June but withdrew in August. The latest version of the bill does not provide for vacant land. Section 55P (2) (c) (ii) in the original version of the bill, which allowed for emergency protection for vacant land if next-door to a house, stated:

55P (2) (b) land on which a building could be lawfully erected that is zoned residential under an environmental planning instrument and is adjacent to land on which a lawfully erected building is located.

In this bill the section reads:

55P (2) (b) The material must be placed by or on behalf of a landowner to reduce the impact or likely impact from the erosion on a building being lawfully used for residential, commercial or community purposes.

The word "land" has been removed from the current version. Alan Jones asked why the bill says "we can't start doing anything until the erosion is ten metres from a building". In reply the Minister stated:

That's a good point actually. I had this argument with my bureaucrats ... I think 10 metres is really unreasonable ... that's in the Ministerial requirements and I've asked my Department to change that.

The draft ministerial requirements on the website have not been changed; the figure is still 10 metres. I urge members to look at that website. The version that I downloaded only an hour ago states:

For the purposes of section 55P(2)(b), it is likely that beach erosion is imminent or likely to be imminent when the distance between the most seaward part of a wall of an existing residential building or commercial building on or adjoining the site and the most landward extent of the sand dune erosion escarpment is less than 10 metres. This distance is to be confirmed in writing by a registered land surveyor or an authorised officer under the Act before the placing of works is to commence.

I argued with the Minister about this specific issue at our 24 August meeting in his office. I pointed out the 10-metre problem in the requirements and I was reprimanded by the Minister for saying that it was unworkable and laughable. The Minister did not like the word "laughable". The Minister also told me he would change that figure but, contrary to his statement to Alan Jones, it has not been changed; the 10 metre requirement from the building still remains. It is worth going through this statutory instrument that forms part of the bill. The Minister describes a key purpose of the legislation as providing a means for people to lawfully defend their properties in an emergency. This is how the system is supposed to work.

As we know, vacant land cannot be defended. Building occupants must wait until the ocean has gouged through the sand dune to less than 10 metres. A certified engineer must measure and issue a certificate and then the emergency works can commence. These works can only be done in authorised places, without disturbing vegetation other than grass. Prior written approval is needed to disturb a dune restoration area and a senior police officer is required to be on hand to advise that the area is "not unsafe" for placing the works. A professional engineer must also be available to certify that the escarpment has a low likelihood of failure. In the undertaking of the works sand from the beach may not be used unless all necessary approvals are obtained from all applicable legislation. The sand must meet Australian Standard AS 2758, 1996-2009. A written statement from the sand supplier certifying that it meets the standard must be given to council. The geotextile material or sandbags need to meet specified standards for strength. The weight, when dry, must be specified. If whilst work is underway part of the sand collapses the work must stop and an authorised officer must attend and issue a certificate to say that it is safe for the work to continue.

The protection works can only be 1.5 metres in height. They have to be performed three hours either side of low tide. If erosion is occurring, which it must to reach the 10-metre trigger point—how does one organise such works three metres either side of low tide?—a senior police officer and an engineer need to direct the placement of protections. Manual labour is restricted: it may not be used at all for geotextile material. The sandbags are to be laid "similar in arrangement to English Bond brickwork". Specifications are given as to how they are to be tied. The requirements go on and on. The most remarkable requirement, on page 3, is that works must not be placed when the Bureau of Meteorology has issued a severe weather warning for large waves or damaging surf. I was so astounded by this requirement I had to recheck that section 55P (2) relates to emergencies. It does, but any forecast of damaging surf will prevent owners from actioning any of these onerous requirements in any event.

My description of these rules as laughable may have offended the Minister but it is polite terminology compared with what I am hearing in the community. The Minister's claim that this legislation assists landowners to undertake emergency works is patently false. There is so much red tape it overpowers the stated intention of the bill. I quote from some of the feedback received by the Opposition from stakeholders. Dr Howard Brady stated:

While it is prudent to check what coastal properties could be at risk to the sea, the process of establishing sensible guidelines has been muddied by poor modelling and exaggerated predictions that are poorly based in recent science. Above all it is important to have sound but not wildly exaggerated sea level rise predictions that are based on data from the National Tide Facility.

Robert Hecek, President of the Australian Property Institute, wrote:

As the works are only allowed in emergency circumstances, and are temporary in nature, the practicality of the proposed requirements is questionable. The nature of such emergency works is governed only by the elements, making foresight difficult, even if warnings are given. Property owners should be able to undertake protective measures on their land then seek approval after the event.

The Sydney Division of Engineers Australia has written:

Clearly, resources are required to implement coastal management strategies and this requirement is likely to increase. Unfortunately it is not possible to fully consider the effectiveness or otherwise of the legislative amendments proposed until such time as the relevant guideline proposed has been finalised. It is our opinion that the Legislation amendments could be withheld until such time as the company documentation is finalised and discussed.

That is a reference to the ever-changing ministerial requirements and regulations and the plethora of other documents that are still at the draft or consultancy stage that form part of what the Parliamentary Secretary refers to as the framework. It is certainly a confusing framework. The letter continues:

The practicality of permitting an individual property owner to initiate protective strategies outside of the Local Government Coastal Management Planning process is a real concern. Worldwide, the current trend within coastal management is towards effective use and implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management ... which balances the competing coastal uses and issues. We believe that to take the process back to an individual issue is a retrograde step, winding back the advances made in coastal zone management over the past 20 years in NSW.

I also received correspondence from the Australian Property Institute. The institute wrote:

… the API has concerns regarding retail, commercial and industrial lands. It is requested that the proposed amendments in the Bill to permit emergency works on residential land be extended to incorporate generally any retail, commercial and industrial lands. In various parts of the NSW coastal zone, over many years shopping centres, industrial and commercial buildings have been erected which are equally vulnerable to severe storm events.

I acknowledge Pat Aiken, a resident of the Central Coast who has taken it upon himself to contact many of his fellow citizens. I think it is fair to say he was shocked when he first understood the implications of the legislation. He is very concerned about what is happening on the Central Coast at the moment regarding thousands of people in low-lying areas. I pay tribute to the work he has done. The Minister has asserted that this is some sort of party creation, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Liberal Party has been approached by Mr Aiken for support, and I admire his activism on the issue. A media release quotes Mr Aiken as saying:

… the legislation, which proposes changes to the Coastal Protection Act, would be a disaster for the environment and an attack on the rights of tens of thousands of landowners to protect their homes and property from storm erosion.

The changes proposed in the legislation will prevent residents from being able to adequately protect their homes from storm erosion and threaten huge $250,000 fines for breaches.

These are massive fines. If a property owner even attempts to put these sandbags in place and does it the wrong way he or she is liable to a $22,000 fine. The media release continues:

"If the NSW Keneally Government succeeds with draconian legislation a large number of homes and private property along the coast, in harbours, estuaries and rivers of the Central Coast will be at risk." Mr Aiken said.

Mr Aiken said he believed as many as 30,000 residents in the Central Coast area of Gosford alone could be vulnerable and most of them would have no idea what was happening.

Finally I quote from the Sydney Coastal Councils Group's correspondence, which is dated April and deals with the original bill. However, I note the comments that the Minister has not substantially changed things to address these concerns in the current bill, so I place the concerns on the record. The council wrote:

The current "new" initiatives announced by the NSW Government do little other than to coerce councils and/or threaten beachfront property owners to attempt to implement protective "solutions". They replace a 20 year old coastal management process that is well respected and developed a real partnership approach between State Government and Councils in managing and protecting the coast for all NSW residents. The proposed approach will ultimately pit councils against ratepayers and ratepayers against ratepayers, to fund prohibitively expensive engineer-designed solutions. This includes the associated (and in most cases unquantifiable) cost of managing the considerable known adverse environmental consequences of such works. In the view of the SCCG Executive Committee, this is a dangerously unsustainable long-term outcome.

The direction that the NSW Government appears to be taking is considerably at odds with all other States, the Commonwealth and indeed jurisdictions internationally. Other jurisdictions are looking at longer term, strategic initiatives designed to maximise the use of vulnerable coastal lands whilst it is safe and appropriate to do so and ultimately retreating from such threats over time. The SCCG is extremely concerned about [that].

We have now been reverting to a block-by-block approach—which is useless, because when a storm occurs it occurs everywhere. If a property owner is protecting his or her land and his or her neighbours are not protecting their land that property owner's protection of his land is of no value. A property owner may not wish to undertake long-term works. He or she may be quite happy to look at simply guarding himself or himself against what is the major cause of erosion, which is storm gouge. It may well be that that property owner does not want to undertake those more expensive, long-term works but wants to be able to access emergency works, to protect the coastline in front of his or her property on a temporary basis. Many people would regard that as a reasonable thing to do. It would minimise any impacts on the beaches, and it would minimise the cost to residents. Such an option has been completely ruled out by this legislation. Property owners either do the emergency works—and they do it only once—or they have to resort to a long-term solution. That simply highlights the complete silliness of this bill.

I thank honourable members for the time they have afforded me. As I said, there is a great deal of detail in the bill, much of which I have not been able to get through. I conclude by indicating that the Coalition foreshadows moving an amendment to change the title of the bill. It is obviously a symbolic gesture, but it really just brings things to the bottom line as we see it: that the effect of this bill is destruction, not protection. I foreshadow that I will move in Committee an amendment to change the title of the bill to the "Coastal Destruction Bill 2010".

The Hon. IAN COHEN [5.44 p.m.]: I lead for the Greens on this very important bill. I believe it is very important because it affects so many people on the coastline; indeed, it affects our culture. I listened with great interest to the matters raised by previous speakers in the debate. I must admit, I got rather angry on the sidelines here about some of the things that were said. Before I commence my contribution on the Coastal Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and refer to some general concepts I want to respond to a few issues that have been raised in the debate. I am sure other members were listening to the Hon. Catherine Cusack when she said that the council took people on the Belongil Spit to court. She certainly gave a very strong impression that it is a long, ongoing campaign by a radical council.

I note that the Hon. Catherine Cusack is now leaving the Chamber. I would have hoped she might stay in the Chamber to listen to this. In fact, the council took these people to court just once, because they were dumping rocks on the beach. Every other time there has been a dispute between council and the ratepayers it has been these particular people on the Belongil Spit that have taken the council to court. Yet I heard the Hon. Catherine Cusack say the council took these people to court. That is a lie. That is misleading the House. I would like that to be remedied at some stage during this debate. This is the type of thing—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We'll do you a deal. If she has misled the House she can remove her misleadings if you remove all your misleadings.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I will happily stand up to my misleadings if you—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I don't think you've got time in view of when you leave.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Maybe not. That sort of cynical response is typical. I am very angry about the council's actions. It is an elected council, and it is attacking my community. Indeed, the council is engaging in ongoing attacks. The Hon. Catherine Cusack saw fit to quote none other than David Penberthy of the Daily Telegraph as some sort of august back-up on the way we should approach things in this House. I find that despicable.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Come on! You're distorting what she said.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I am not distorting it. The Hon. Catherine Cusack quoted David Penberthy. The only time that council has taken a resident to court was when they were illegally dumping rocks on the beach. That was the only time. I know that because I was there: I saw it happen. I complained about it. The residents were illegally dumping rocks on the beach with a massive bulldozer. Then they lobbied Tony Abbott at a Federal level and unemployed young people on work for the dole programs were basically forced to work in sandbagging the beach. If the unemployed young people did not do it they would lose their dole. That was a directive from Tony Abbott.

There are people doing that even today. Under that system, being forced to work like that, many of those people have suffered back injuries but they have not been able to get any recourse in relation to their injuries. That is the history of that area. Certain people in that community, backed up by the Hon. Catherine Cusack and the Opposition, have absolutely abused people and are twisting history. The Opposition is changing history.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So are you!

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Well, prove it! Get up and say on the record how I have done that. I am saying on the record that the Hon. Catherine Cusack has lied to the House and she has given an impression that is absolutely an untruth. It is typical of the level of debate in this House on this issue.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I ask the Hon. Ian Cohen to withdraw the statement that the Hon. Catherine Cusack has lied to this House.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: That is exactly what has happened. The statement made was that the council had taken—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked that the comments be withdrawn and I would think that would be the appropriate course of action. I remind the Hon. Ian Cohen that he is referring to a member who is not present in the Chamber.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I asked her to stay and I saw her walk out while I was speaking.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I will not enter into an argument with you.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: People have to leave for various reasons.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I will call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time if he continues to interject. I ask the Hon. Ian Cohen to withdraw the comment referred to. Thus far, debate on this important legislation has been respectful and conducted in good spirit. I would ask that it continue in that way. If the member with the call feels the need to make such comments about another member, I remind him that he can only do so by way of substantive motion.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I withdraw the comment I made.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Thank you.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: The comments made in the course of this debate so far, including interjections, have covered but a small snapshot of the history of this matter. The misrepresentations made so far should be corrected and the history appropriately identified. The coastal protection bill did not just appear from nowhere; it has involved an angst-ridden process over decades. Governments of both political persuasions—the Labor governments of the 1980s and the Greiner and Fahey governments of the 1990s—have attempted to grapple with this difficult situation. I am angered by some of the impressions given that people have not had warning or known about the issues confronting them. I will shortly be quoting from a couple of real estate agents to clearly indicate the level of awareness that has been current for a long time about the coastal processes and the vulnerability of properties in this area.

I am not happy with this bill but after much communication with interested parties I do not oppose it. I am extremely unhappy about certain aspects of it. The bill presents a process to allow the protection of properties in emergencies, despite the fact that the sites identified have been known to be hazard sites for a very long time. A period of history is hardly an emergency. I quote from the 1978 Public Works Department report entitled, "Byron to Hastings Study", which was a comprehensive report on coastal erosion processes, as follows:

In the past, unwise development has occurred due to the lack of understanding of the coastal processes by all parties concerned. In the future, persons wishing to disregard the long term erosional trend identified by this investigation, or the implications of that trend, do so at their own risk.

I have been a coastal watcher, a storm chaser and a surfer for over 40 years. I have seen most of this State's coast in storm conditions. I have a great respect for the sea. I have travelled to most of the surf locations up and down this coastline whilst pursuing my passion for catching large waves. One gets to understand the vulnerability of the coast and the balance of the coast in its natural state. That is why I have great difficulty with some of the projected defences proffered.

I suggest those people obtain the records of a number of the coastal conferences held in recent years, which I have attended, where scientists and experts have constantly said the situation cannot be remedied by fortification. We have the great crunch, if you like, in that dynamic coastal zone that if you protect private property you will lose the commons, the beach. The Greiner Government—I will come to this in more detail in a moment—started the concept of planned retreat. Using the Belongil area as an example, I come from one of the areas identified as an emergency area. Belongil Beach near Byron Bay has been the subject of investigation as to storm impact for almost half a century. I do not see how this can possibly be a case of emergency action being required when the hazard situation with all the areas identified in the bill have been known for a very long time.

We had the Coastal Council. I find it interesting that the Coastal Panel is now opposed by the main speaker for the Opposition, yet the Coastal Council was successfully in place for many years and was disbanded by a Labor Government. I have strongly campaigned to have this council reinstated in some form or another—the Coastal Panel is a form of that. In 1999 the Coastal Council undertook two reviews of beach management: part one, the review of emergency beach management, and, part two, the review of property claims and boundary changes. Part one related to the management of beaches before, during and after a storm-induced emergency, and part two dealt with the problems of beach erosion and accretion and the issues that arise in relation to property titles.

In the 1960s the State Government approved the construction of a groyne at the main beach in Byron Bay. This is often referred to as the cause of the erosion at Belongil Beach but that has not been indicated by the assessments that have been undertaken in the past. Next month Byron shire is to receive the substantial research of Dean Patterson, who has for some months been investigating and modelling the impact of the cape and the protection works, including this approved work and the unapproved works that have been undertaken. In 1972 and 1973 there were storms with cyclones Daisy and Kirsty and when cyclone Pam hit the region in 1974 there was substantial damage, which included the loss of 17 houses just north of Brunswick Heads at Sheltering Palms. Those destroyed and abandoned houses were purchased under the Government's Coastal Lands Protection Scheme. The Government also acquired 20 lots on Belongil Spit.

In 1978 the then Minister for Public Works, Jack Ferguson, commissioned a study of the area from Byron Bay to Hastings Point that identified inevitable risk to this section of coastline—inevitable risk. In 1978 the State Government developed a policy to restrict and limit the scale and density of development in the coastal zone where there was known hazard risk. In 1979 the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Coastal Protection Act identified these risks and the objectives for protection of the coast and the amenity and access that the people of New South Wales are entitled to as the beach is our commons. No doubt the thinking at that time was also mindful of the public liability risk.

With the proclamation of the Coastal Protection Act in 1979 a stronger role was defined for the State in providing advice on the coastal zone. In 1980 a notice under section 38 was issued over the foreshore from Brunswick River to the northern boundary of the shire, and a process of close monitoring of development began. In 1984 the Crown road along the Belongil was lost to the sea. In 1986 the planning administrator, Jim Waugh, adopted a management policy for land in Byron shire threatened by coastal erosion to inform the preparation of a development control plan. The substance of the policy was based on the principle of defined hazard zones and that the onus would be on the property owners to remove or relocate buildings when necessary or face prosecution for non-compliance with development consent conditions.

On 17 March 1988 the Bryon Local Environmental Plan, which included the coastal zones and the development control plan, was adopted. That was in the last days of the Unsworth Government—the election was held on 25 March. The combined planning instruments presented a process for managing development in the coastal hazard zone. It effectively allowed time-limited development in the zone and constrained the scale of development by allowing approval only for the demountability and removal of structures in a period of risk. The council also ensured that information was provided on section 149 certificates.

In June 1988, the Greiner Government adopted a coastline hazard policy that provided for proposed financial and technical assistance to local government on the basis of a one-to-one subsidy between State and local government, production of a manual to assist local government in dealing with coastline hazards and new development processes, amendment of appropriate Acts to provide councils and other public authorities with immunity from liability in respect to advice provided and acts done in good faith, and amendment of Acts to allow councils and other authorities to provide rate relief in respect of vacant land that cannot be developed. That policy was introduced by the Greiner Government and now local councils are under threat from major landowners. They know they can break the council by taking the matter to court. That sort of threat leads to acquiescence on coastal development. These same landowners have had full warning for decades of the vulnerability of these areas.

In 1990 the Government released the Coastal Management Manual, which documents the process for developing individual local government coastline management plans. In appendix C2, Beach Erosion Hazard, the manual identifies the method of measuring beach erosion. It refers to Byron Bay. Then in appendix D3, Environmental Planning Options, it mentions "planned retreat". Currently, our so-called radical Green council in Byron Bay is getting canned across-the-board for holding onto a planned retreat policy. But this planned retreat policy was introduced by the Greiner Government. I would suggest it was hardly a radical policy then, but vested interests have misrepresented it and misused it, like a red rag to a bull, to landowners in the area. That was the first naming of the Byron shire process. The manual states:

Planned retreat would appear to be an effective and equitable way of maximising the use of receding coastline.

It is dealing specifically with a receding coastline. This State has a number of receding coastlines. A receding coastline is not necessarily due to global warming. It is due to storm activity on a natural coastline that has areas of accretion and receding coastline. That is the nature of our coast. If we respect that and work with it, rather than try to fortify against it, we may come up with a result that will work for the majority of people and the environment. The manual further states:

The recession of the coastline is acknowledged and becomes a dominant factor in planning for the use of coastal areas. A variety of responses are possible, including time limited occupation, relocatable buildings, etc.

Byron Shire Council has recently adopted planned retreat as a means of managing their receding coastline. The Byron Shire Development Control Plan recognises three recession/erosion "lines" for planning purposes … By this approach, Byron Shire facilitates a planned retreat from a receding coastline whilst encouraging responsible use of hazardous coastal areas at minimum future cost to council.

Byron shire is a special case because of the difficult issues of coastal development management. An article in the Australian Financial Review of 20 January 2005 relates to local real estate agents identifying the warnings that are given to potential property owners. They are not rabid greenies. They are intricately entwined in the development process. The article states:

Byron real estate agents such as Ed Silk said they had always warned potential Belongil Beach buyers of the problems of coastal protection.

Tony Farrell, managing director LJ Hooker Byron Bay, said, "It's always been a difficult area, you can't get finance on it, you have to be a cash buyer.

So often we hear about the impact on mortgages. In this area, people have had to be cash buyers. There has been a history of clear and transparent restriction on development and any purchaser since 1988 has been well informed of the risk and the constraints on development. Byron Shire Council has had a number of court cases in relation to coastal planning. In 1996, after severe storms, a group of Belongil residents submitted a development application to construct a seawall, as is their right under the planning Act. The development application was assessed and refused by Byron Shire Council. The applicants took it to the Land and Environment Court—matter No. 10518 of 1996. It was refused by the court. I refer to the judgement to illustrate the point that coastal protection works can be undertaken in areas at risk. It is a dangerous position and a policy turnaround to give hope to coastal property owners that they can protect their property with the construction of seawalls. In conclusion, the judgement by Commissioner Hussey stated:

Having carefully considered the evidence and with the benefit of a view, I am not satisfied that the public interest would now be well served by the approval of this seawall, and ancillary works to be constructed on the public beach area, at this stage. It is apparent that the Byron Bay Beach is a significant public asset which, in accordance with the objective of the LEP, is environmentally sensitive land that should be protected. On my consideration of the evidence this could be best achieved after detailed consideration of the various options and formulation of a coordinated management system that has been regularly recommended in the past. Currently this position is supported by DUAP, Department of Land and Water Conservation and the various technical experts in this case.

These historical facts get thrown out and reinvented and off we go with another dynamic. From the comments I have heard in the House tonight, I shudder to think what will happen if we have a change of government. The judgement continued:

Whilst the proposed isolated section of seawall and ancillary works would afford protection to the private properties, it will consequently restrict sand flow from the dunes which will be adverse to the beach erosion process, with such effect extending in the order of a 200m downdrift. Further adverse effects will be experienced with end effects at the northern end of the wall and these may extend onto private property in the vicinity.

A great deal of passion has been aroused by this legislation and the state of our coastlines. Our collective memories are adorned with childhood contact with the beach, family picnics on hot summer days and fishing at the break of dawn. We admire the commitment and bravery of our 305 surf lifesaving clubs across Australia. Our coast is a defining element of our identity. So much of our culture, economy and livelihood are entwined with the vitality and beauty of our coastal environment. Our obsession with the coastline is evident in our settlement patterns. At last count, approximately 85 per cent of Australia's population lives along 35,000 kilometres of coastline, with roughly 711,000 Australian homes within three kilometres of the coast and less than six metres above sea level. In New South Wales we are witnessing population surges in non-metropolitan coastal areas. Nationally, population growth in non-metropolitan coastal areas is approximately 2 per cent. Growth in New South Wales is approximately 50 per cent higher than the national average.

It is regrettable that our undying love of our beaches and marine environments does not always lead to the creation of laws and policy that reflect such reverence. Our approach to conserving and managing coastal environments is not always geared to the ecological complexity of our coastal environment. While we have built up considerable scientific knowledge and technical capacity in relation to the vast universe of ecosystem components and processes, we have significant knowledge gaps that require us to exercise a high degree of precaution. Most people would much rather be safe than sorry when it comes to managing our unique coastal areas.

It is probably also true that some of the current residents in coastal communities along the New South Wales coast do not have the historical experience of living in that location. For those who have had generational experience of the New South Wales coast, there are always stories, such as, the memories of cyclones of 1954 and the big storms of 1974, when 13 storms smashed against the coastline in the first half of the year. It was good surf that year! These memories have made many old timers in coastal communities cautious and wary of our moveable coastline, but it is not so for the newcomers or the Government, so it seems. In addition to the naturally evolving and shifting nature of our beaches, climate change has a range of impacts on our coastal zone. For the public, the most identifiable sea level rise is caused by both thermal expansion of oceans and the melting of continental ice sheets. However, climate change also impacts on wave energy, storm surge frequency, wetland and estuary inundation, marine ecosystem composition and process and habitat viability.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections in Assessment Report No. 4 estimated a global sea level rise of up to 79 centimetres by 2100. The regional variation modelling—undertaken by the CSIRO and identified in the derivation of the New South Wales Government's sea-level rise planning benchmarks technical note—anticipates that New South Wales's sea level rise could be another 14 centimetres, at the upper limit, above the projected global levels. It is important to acknowledge that a one-metre sea level rise does not simply mean the ocean creeps forward another metre on the beach. In explaining sea level rise to the inquiry on Managing our Coastal Zone in a Changing Climate, Dr Hunter of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre stated:

… if you get one metre of sea level rise—which is pretty well the upper limit of what we expect this century—that will give us a shoreline recession of between 50 and 100 metres. In other words, the shoreline on average will move back 50 to 100 metres. So if we take a middle of the range projection of half a metre for this century then we are talking about a recession of the shoreline, on average, of between 25 and 50 metres back.

While specific shoreline recession will vary across different coastal zones, it is important to acknowledge the basic rule of thumb. For the community, discussion of a sea level rise of one metre needs to be accompanied by an explicit explanation that a one-metre sea rise equates to between 50 and 100 metres of shoreline recession. Climate change impacts on our coastal zone are not limited to shoreline recession. Concurrent with rising sea levels is the intensification in storm-surge events and wave energy. The Climate Change Risks to Australia's Coast National Assessment report states:

With a mid range sea-level rise of 0.5 metres in the 21st century, events that now happen every 10 years would happen about every 10 days in 2100. The current 1-in-100 year event could occur several times a year.

Members in this House from regional areas along the coast would understand the significance of that statement. Our State Emergency Service volunteers and officers would reel at the potential for recurring storm events on a monthly basis. Imagine a one-in-100-year event similar to that which occurred on New South Wales's Central Coast in June 2007 occurring on a yearly basis. Just imagine upwards of 200,000 homes losing power, mass evacuations and flooding of commercial and residential properties with a price tag exceeding $1.3 billion in insured losses on a yearly basis. To me that is a mind-blowing proposition.

Last year the Department of Climate Change released a first pass national assessment of climate change risks to the Australian coast to fulfil a key action required under the National Climate Change Adaptation Framework adopted by the Council of Australian Governments. The report identifies the potential replacement cost of existing residential buildings damaged by inundation under a 1.1 metre sea level rise scenario as ranging from approximately $41 billion to $63 billion, with between 157,000 and 247,600 individual buildings identified as the lower and upper risk limits. These costs assessments only include residential building asset replacement costs. They do not factor in commercial or industrial property values or economic costs and losses associated with coastal erosion and inundation. Such external costs are difficult to accurately model, yet we can imagine that the disruption of everyday commercial activities would vastly increase the loss estimation.

According to the national first pass assessment, between 1967 and 1999 the total estimated cost of major floods, tropical cyclones and severe storms in our coastal zone was $28.6 billion. For New South Wales, inundation analysis suggests that between 40,800 and 62,400 residential building areas may be at risk of inundation from sea level rise and storm surges. The replacement cost of residential buildings at risk is estimated at between $12.4 billion and $18.7 billion. Much of these building replacement costs will be centralised in local government areas such as Lake Macquarie, Wyong, Gosford, Wollongong, Shoalhaven and the Minister's electorate of Rockdale. These local government areas represent over 50 per cent of the residential buildings at risk in New South Wales.

These challenges in coastal zone management were recently considered by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, in its strongly bipartisan report "Managing our Coastal Zone in a Changing Climate: The Time to Act is Now". The committee spent 18 months investigating the impact of climate change on the management of the Australian coastline. The 47 recommendations of the committee, which the New South Wales Legislative Council supports, provides a blueprint for reform to coastal governance, the establishment of new funding sources and the prioritisation of research work to fill knowledge gaps. We agreed in this House that the New South Wales Government should build upon this important bipartisanship and work with other State governments and the Federal Government to collaboratively address our need for ecologically sustainable and integrated coastal management.

Committee recommendations Nos 19 to 23 specifically focus on the need for a national response to the legal and planning reform required by climate change impacts on the coast. While the formulation of a response to these vexing planning issues requires a national dialogue and a unified response, we are not without some guidance from the courts. Falkner v Gisborne District Council, considered by the New Zealand High Court in 1995, examined the nature of Crown duties to maintain coastal protection works on a fore dune area protecting residential properties from erosion. In that case the council withdrew continued maintenance of the coastal protection works on the basis that the works were not an effective long-term option and that a more appropriate policy was one of "managed retreat". Some residents stridently opposed the council's decision and sought to establish their own individual protection works in front of their properties. The Minister of Conservation subsequently issued a direction under New Zealand's Resource Management Act 1991 that such private coastal protection works required development consent. The primary argument of the residents was that they had a common law right to protect their property and that the Crown had an obligation to "preserve the realm from the inroads of the sea". In finding for the respondent council and the Minister, Justice Barker stated:

The common law right of an owner to protect land from the inroads of the sea, although previously expressed in absolute terms, could no longer be asserted in direct opposition to a bona fide legislative policy of management of the coastline in the public interest.

That is the issue in a nutshell. The High Court of New Zealand argued that common law duties embedded in the precedent of our legal history cannot be applied in such an absolutist manner as to corrode legitimate regulatory management of our coastline in the public interest. The decision, and many like it, in the Australian jurisdiction seeks to eradicate absolutist property right narratives and replace them with a more responsible and equitable equilibrium of private rights and common rights to environmental and resource heritage.

In the 1979 Supreme Court of South Australia case of Southern Centre of Theosophy Incorporated v South Australia the court had to consider the doctrine of accretion applied to a perpetual lease of land or, more precisely, land granted pursuant to a statutory scheme. While the Privy Council reversed the decision on appeal, it is important to note the comments of Justice Zelling at first instance. He stated:

In this country, far from thinking that there ought to be rights to sea frontages vested in private persons, the view for many years, in this State at least, has been that there ought to be a substantial area set back from the actual seafront or waterfront vested in the Crown for public purposes.

As pointed out by Zada Lipman and the now member for Pittwater, Rob Stokes, in their 2003 Environmental Planning and Law Journal article titled "Shifting Sands - Coastal Processes and Climate Change: Implications for Owners and Regulators of Land", the judicial sentiments expressed by Justice Zelling are now supported by the principle of intergenerational equity—an essential element of statutorily recognised and defined ecologically sustainable development. The principle requires the implementation of buffer zones to manage future shoreline fluctuations.

In 1996 a number of property owners along the Belongil Spit made a joint application for a 250-metre rock seawall along the beach. As history shows, the council rejected this proposal due to the unacceptable environmental impacts and the reduction in beach access and amenity for the local community. The decision of the Byron Shire Council to refuse the proposed rock wall was challenged in the New South Wales Land and Environment Court in the case of Scott v Byron Council in November 1996. In refusing the landowners' application for a rock wall, Commissioner Hussey stated that the interests of the property owners needed to be "assessed against the wider public interest in terms of future beach amenity". The commissioner noted that while a rock wall may provide some protection to the properties, the rock wall would have adversely affected beach erosion processes. The proposed rock wall was considered a bandaid approach to coastal management, with considerable negative environmental and coastal process impacts.

Belongil beach has remained the sight of considerable confrontation over coastal management and climate change adaptation. In the recent New South Wales Land and Environment Court case of Byron Shire Council v Vaughan, the respondents, Mr and Mrs Vaughan, had commissioned a contractor to dump large rocks on Crown land with the intention of reducing beach erosion in front of their property. The council sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the un-engineered dumping of rocks on public and private land because the respondents did not obtain the appropriate consent and the council's consent for the geotech bag wall did not extend the type of work sought by the respondents. Importantly, Justice Pain notes:

All this evidence reinforces my view that work done in isolation on one property is likely to have adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in the immediate vicinity and more generally along the Belongil spit.

To this end it is important we note that we are no longer living in the eighteenth century. The absolutism that some people speak of in relation to common law property rights protecting coastal dwellings has long been relegated to the pages of legal history. I encourage such people to turn to the insight, intellect and knowledge presented by the member for Pittwater, Mr Rob Stokes, who delivered a reasoned and considered speech on this bill in the other place.

I seek leave to have part of my speech incorporated in Hansard. I am mindful of the length of my contribution. I have shown the material to the Government Whip and other members. It is historical material and it would be helpful to incorporate it.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Does it contain anything controversial?

The Hon. IAN COHEN: No.

Leave granted.

__________

Tell Barack Obama the Truth—The Whole Truth

Embers of election night elation will glow longer than any prior election. Glowing even in other nations, and for good reason. We are all tied together, more than ever, like it or not.

Barack Obama's measured words on election night, including eloquent recognition of historic progress, from the viewpoint of a 106-year-old lady, still stoke the embers. But he was already focusing on tasks ahead, without celebratory excess.

Well he should. The challenge he faces is unprecedented. I refer not to the inherited economic morass, as threatening as it is. The human toll due to past failures and excesses may prove to be great, yet economic recessions, even depressions, come and go.

Now our planet itself is in peril. Not simply the Earth, but the fate of all of its species, including humanity. The situation calls not for hand-wringing, but rather informed action.

Optimism is fuelled by expectation that decisions will be guided by reason and evidence, not ideology. The danger is that special interests will dilute and torque Government policies, causing the climate to pass tipping points, with grave consequences for all life on the planet.

The President-elect himself needs to be well-informed about the climate problem and its relation to energy needs and economic policies. He cannot rely on political systems to bring him solutions—the political systems provide too many opportunities for special interests.

Here is a message I think should be delivered to Barack Obama. Criticisms are welcome.

Climate threat. The world's temperature has increased about 1°F over the past few decades, about 2°F over land areas. Further warming is "in the pipeline" due to gases already in the air (because of climate system inertia) and inevitable additional fossil fuel emissions (because of energy system inertia).

Although global warming to date is smaller than day-to-day weather fluctuations, it has brought global temperature back to approximately the highest level of the Holocene, the past 10,000 years, the period during which civilization developed. Effects already evident include:

1. Mountain glaciers are receding worldwide and will be gone within 50 years if CO2 emissions continue to increase. This threatens the fresh water supply for billions of people, as rivers arising in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains will begin to run dry in the summer and fall.

2. Coral reefs, home to a quarter of biological species in the ocean, could be destroyed by rising temperature and ocean acidification due to increasing CO₂•

3. Dry subtropics are expanding poleward with warming, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, and Australia, with increasing drought and fires.

4. Arctic sea ice will disappear entirely in the summer, if CO₂ continues to increase, with devastating effects on wildlife and indigenous people.

5. Intensity of hydrologic extremes, including heavy rains, storms and floods on the one hand, and droughts and fires on the other, are increasing.

Some people say we must learn to live with these effects, because it is an almost god-given fact that we must bum all fossil fuels. But now we understand, from the history of the Earth, that there would be two monstrous consequences of releasing the CO₂ from all of the oil, gas and coal, consequences of an enormity that cannot be accepted.

One effect would be extermination of a large fraction of the species on the planet. The other is initiation of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise, out of humanity's control, eventually eliminating coastal cities and historical sites, creating havoc, hundreds of millions of refugees, and impoverishing nations.

Species extermination and ice sheet disintegration are both 'non-linear' problems with 'tipping points'. If the process proceeds too far, amplifying feedbacks push the system dynamics to proceed without further human forcing. For example, species are interdependent—if a sufficient number are eliminated, ecosystems collapse. In the physical climate system, amplifying feedbacks include increased absorption of sunlight as sea and land ice areas are reduced and release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, as permafrost melts.

The Earth's history reveals examples of such non-linear collapses. Eventually, over tens and hundreds of thousands of years, new species evolve, and ice sheets return. But we will leave a devastated impoverished planet for all generations of humanity that we can imagine, if we are so foolish as to allow the climate tipping points to be passed.

Urgency. Recent evidence reveals a situation more urgent than had been expected, even by those who were most attuned. The evidence is based on improving knowledge of Earth's history—how the climate responded to past changes of atmospheric composition—and on observations of how the Earth is responding now to human-made atmospheric changes.

The conclusion—at first startling, but in retrospect obvious—is that the human-made increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂), from the pre-industrial 280 parts per million (ppm) to today's 385 ppm, has already raised the CO₂ amount into the dangerous range. It will be necessary to take actions that return CO₂ to a level of at most 350 ppm, but probably less, if we are to avert disastrous pressures on fellow species and large sea level rise.

The good news is that such a result is still possible, if actions are prompt. Prompt action will do more than prevent irreversible extinctions and ice sheet disintegration: it can avert or reverse consequences that had begun to seem inevitable, including loss of Arctic ice, ocean acidification, expansion of the subtropics, increased intensity of droughts, floods, and storms.

Principal implication. CO₂ is not the only human-made gas that contributes to global warming, but it is the dominant gas with a lifetime that dwarfs that of the other major gases. Much of the CO₂ increase caused by burning fossil fuels remains in the air more than 1000 years. So CO₂ must be the focus of efforts to stop human-caused climate change.

It would be easy to jump to the conclusion that solution of global warming is to phase down total fossil fuel emissions by some specified percentage. That approach will not work as a strategy. The reason for that conclusion and an outline of a better strategic approach follow immediately from geophysical boundary constraints.

Figure 1a shows oil, gas and coal reserves, with the purple portion being the amount that has already been burned and emitted into the atmosphere. Despite uncertainty in the size of undiscovered resources, their amounts are certainly enough to yield atmospheric CO₂ greater than 500 ppm. That amount would be disastrous, assuring unstable ice sheets, rising sea level out of humanity's control, extermination of a large fraction of the species on Earth, and severe exacerbation of climate impacts discussed above.

Oil is used primarily in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture CO₂ emerging from tailpipes. The large pools of oil remaining in the ground are spread among many countries. The United States, which once had some of the large pools, has already exploited its largest recoverable reserves. Given this fact, it is unrealistic to think that Russia and Middle East countries will decide to leave their oil in the ground.

A carbon cap that slows emissions of CO₂ does not help, because of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO₂. In fact, the cap exacerbates the problem if it allows coal emissions to continue. The only solution is to target a (large) portion of the fossil fuel reserves to be left in the ground or used in a way such that the CO₂ can be captured and safely sequestered.

[Figure 1 not included.]

Coal is the obvious target. Figure 1b shows that if there were a prompt moratorium on construction of new coal plants, and if existing ones were phased out linearly over the period 2010-2030, then atmospheric CO₂ would peak during the next few decades at an amount somewhere between 400 and 425 ppm. The peak value depends upon whose estimate of undiscovered reserves is more accurate. It also depends upon whether oil in the most extreme environments is exploited or left in the ground, and thus it depends on the carbon tax (see below).

This coal-phase-out scenario yields the possibility of stabilizing climate. Overshoot of the safe CO₂ level is sufficiently small that improved agricultural and forestry practices, including reforestation of marginal lands, could bring CO₂ back below 350 ppm, perhaps by the middle of the century. But if construction of new coal plants continues for even another decade it is difficult to conceive a practical, natural way to return CO₂ below 350 ppm.

Outline of policy options. The imperative of near-term termination of coal emissions (but not necessarily coal use) requires fundamental advances in energy technologies. Such advances would be needed anyhow, as fossil fuel reserves dwindle, but the climate crisis demands that they be achieved rapidly. Fortunately, actions that solve the climate problem can be designed so as to also improve energy security and restore economic well-being.

A workshop held in Washington, DC on 3 November 2008 outlined options (presentations are at http://www.mediafire.com/nov3workshop) The workshop focused on electrical energy, because that is the principal use of coal. Also electricity is more and more the energy carrier of choice, because it is clean, much desired in developing countries, and a likely replacement or partial replacement for oil in transportation.

Workshop topics, in priority order, were: (1) energy efficiency, (2) renewable energies, (3) electric grid improvements, (4) nuclear power, (5) carbon capture and sequestration.

Energy efficiency improvements have the potential to obviate the need for additional electric power in all parts of the country during the next few decades and allow retirement of some existing coal plants. Achievement of the efficiency potential requires both regulations and a carbon tax. National building codes are needed, and higher standards for appliances, especially electronics, where standby power has become a large unnecessary drain of energy.

Economic incentives for utilities must be changed so that profits increase with increased energy conservation, not in proportion to amount of energy sold.

Renewable energies are gaining in economic competition with fossil fuels, but in the absence of wise policies there is the danger that declining prices for fossil fuels, and continuation of fossil fuel subsidies, could cause a major setback. The most effective and efficient way to support renewable energy is via a carbon tax (see below).

The national electric grid can be made more reliable and "smarter" in a number of ways.

Priority will be needed for constructing a low-loss grid from regions with plentiful renewable energy to other parts of the nation, if renewable energies are to be a replacement for coal.

Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and an improved grid deserve priority and there is a hope that they could provide all of our electric power requirements. However, the greatest threat to the planet may be the potential gap between that presumption (100 per cent "soft" energy) and reality; with the gap being filled by continued use of coal-fired power.

Therefore we should undertake urgent focused R&D programs in both next generation nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration. These programs could be carried out most rapidly and effectively in full cooperation with China and/or India, and other countries.

Given appropriate priority and resources, the option of secure, low-waste 4th generation nuclear power (see below) could be available within about a decade. If, by then, wind, solar, other renewables, and an improved grid prove to be capable of handling all of our electrical energy needs, there would be no imperative to construct nuclear plants in the United States. Many energy experts consider an all-renewable scenario to be implausible in the time-frame when coal emissions must be phased out, but it is not necessary to debate that matter.

However, it would be dangerous to proceed under the presumption that we will soon have all-renewable electric power. Also it would be inappropriate to impose a similar presumption on China and India. Both countries project large increases in their energy needs, both countries have highly polluted atmospheres primarily due to excessive coal use, and both countries stand to suffer inordinately if global climate change continues.

The entire world stands to gain if China and India have options to reduce their CO₂emissions and air pollution. Mercury emissions from their coal plants, for example, are polluting the global atmosphere and ocean and affecting the safety of foods, especially fish, on a near-global scale. And there is little hope of stabilizing climate unless China and India have low—and no-C0₂ energy options.

We should also urgently pursue R&D for carbon capture and sequestration. Here too this may be done most expeditiously and effectively via cooperation with China and India. Note that, even if it is decided that coal can be left in the ground, carbon capture and sequestration with other fuels still may be needed to draw down the amount of CO₂ in the air. An effective way to achieve drawdown would be to burn biofuels in power plants and capture the CO₂, with the biofuels derived from agricultural or urban wastes or grown on degraded lands using little or no fossil fuel inputs.

Opponents of nuclear power and carbon capture must not be allowed to slow these projects. No commitment for large-scale deployment of either 4th generation nuclear power or carbon capture is needed at this time. If energy efficiency and renewable energies prove sufficient for energy needs, some countries may choose to use neither nuclear power nor coal. However, we must be certain that proven options for complete phase-out of coal emissions are available.

Tax and 100 per cent dividend. A "carbon tax with 100 percent dividend" is needed to reverse the growth of atmospheric C0₂. The tax, applied to oil, gas and coal at the mine or port of entry, is the fairest and most effective way to reduce emissions and transition to the post fossil fuel era. It would assure that unconventional fossil fuels, such as oil shale and tar sands, stay in the ground, unless an economic method of capturing the CO₂ is developed.

The entire tax should be returned to the public, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No bureaucracy is needed.

A tax should be called a tax. The public can understand this and will accept a tax if it is clearly explained and if 100 percent of the money is returned to the public. Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners. No lobbyists need be employed.

The public will take steps to reduce their emissions because they will continually be reminded of the matter by the monthly dividend and by rising fossil fuel costs. It must be clearly explained to the public that the tax rate will continue to increase in the future.

When fuel prices decline, the tax should increase, to retain the incentive for transitioning to the post-fossil-fuel-era. The effect of reduced fossil fuel demand will be lower fossil fuel prices, making the tax a larger and larger portion of energy costs (for fossil fuels only). Thus the country will stop haemorrhaging its wealth to oil-producing nations.

Tax and dividend is progressive. A person with several large cars and a large house will have a tax greatly exceeding the dividend. A family reducing its carbon footprint to less than average will make money. Everyone will have an incentive to reduce their carbon footprint. The dividend will stimulate the economy, spur innovation, and provide money that allows people to purchase low-carbon products and a low-carbon lifestyle.

A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.

Beware of alternative approaches, such as 'percent emission reduction goals' and 'cap and trade'. These are subterfuges designed to allow business-as-usual to continue, under a pretence of action, a greenwashing. Hordes of lobbyists will argue for these approaches, which assure their continued employment. The ineffectiveness of 'goals' and 'caps' is made blatantly obvious by the fact that the countries promoting them are planning to build more coal-fired power plants.

If the United States accedes to the ineffectual 'goals' and 'caps' approach, a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol approach, it will practically guarantee disastrous climate change. Instead it should persuasively argue that other countries also adopt tax and dividend. The countries agreeing to this approach will also agree that imports from a country that does not apply a comparable carbon tax will be taxed at the port of entry. That import tax will be a strong incentive for all countries to participate.

A carbon tax is necessary but not sufficient. By itself a carbon tax cannot solve the energy problem and allow rapid coal phase-out. There also must be better efficiency standards in building codes, for vehicles, and in appliances and electronics. Profit incentives for utilities must be changed, so as to encourage efficiency as opposed to selling as much energy as possible. These are only examples of the many things to be done. But all of these things will be done easier and more effectively in the presence of a carbon tax.

Indeed, a carbon tax is essential. It is the tool that will impact people's decisions and lifestyle choices for the short-term, middle-term and long-term, allowing the world to move as gracefully as possible to the post-fossil-fuel-era. In this way we will leave in the ground the hardest to extract fossil fuels as we move rapidly to clean energy sources of the future.

Nuclear Power. Some discussion about nuclear power is needed. Fourth generation nuclear power has the potential to provide safe base-load electric power with negligible CO₂ emissions.

There is about a million. times more energy available in the nucleus, compared with the chemical energy of molecules exploited in fossil fuel burning. In today's nuclear (fission) reactors, neutrons cause a nucleus to fission, releasing energy as well as additional neutrons that sustain the reaction. The additional neutrons are 'born' with a great deal of energy and are called 'fast' becoming 'thermal' or slow neutrons.

All nuclear plants in the United States today are Light Water Reactors (LWRs), using ordinary water (as opposed to 'heavy water') to slow the neutrons and cool the reactor. Uranium is the fuel in all of these power plants. One basic problem with this approach is that more than 99 per cent of the uranium fuel ends up 'unburned' (not fissioned). In addition to 'throwing away' most of the potential energy, the long-lived nuclear wastes (plutonium, americium, curium, etc.) require geologic isolation in repositories such as Yucca Mountain.

There are two compelling alternatives to address these issues, both of which will be needed in the future. The first is to build reactors that keep the neutrons 'fast' during the fission reactions. These fast reactors can completely 'burn' the uranium. Moreover, they can burn existing long-lived nuclear waste, producing a small volume of waste with half-life of only decades, thus largely solving the long-term nuclear waste problem.

The other compelling alternative is to use thorium as the fuel in thermal reactors.

Thorium can be used in ways that practically eliminate build up of long-lived nuclear waste.

The United States chose the LWR development path in the 1950s for civilian nuclear power because research and development had already been done by the Navy, and it thus presented the shortest time-to-market of reactor concepts then under consideration. Little emphasis was given to the issues of nuclear waste. Today the situation is very different. If nuclear energy is to be used widely to replace coal, in the United States and/or the developing world, issues of waste, safety, and proliferation become paramount.

Nuclear power plants being built today, or in advanced stages of planning, in the United States, Europe, China and other places, are just improved LWRs. They have simplified operations and added safety features, but they are still fundamentally the same type, produce copious nuclear waste, and continue to be costly. It seems likely that they will only permit nuclear power to continue to play a role comparable to that which it plays now.

Both fast and thorium reactors were discussed at our 3 November workshop. The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) concept was developed at Argonne National Laboratory and it has been built and tested at the Idaho National Laboratory. IFRs keep neutrons "fast" by using liquid sodium metal as a coolant instead of water. They also make fuel processing easier by using a metallic solid fuel form. IFRs can bum existing nuclear waste and surplus weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, making electrical power in the process. All fuel reprocessing is done within the reactor facility (hence the name "integral") and many enhanced safety features are included and have been tested, such as the ability to shut down safely under even severe accident scenarios.

The Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a thorium reactor concept that uses a chemically-stable fluoride salt for the medium in which nuclear reactions take place. This fuel form yields flexibility of operation and eliminates the need to fabricate fuel elements.

This feature solves most concerns that have prevented thorium from being used in solid-fueled reactors. The fluid fuel in LFTR is also easy to process and to separate useful fission products, both stable and radioactive. LFTR also has the potential to destroy existing nuclear waste, albeit with less efficiency than in a fast reactor such as IFR.

Both IFR and LFTR operate at low pressure and high temperatures, unlike today's LWR s. Operation at low pressures alleviates much of the accident risk with LWR. Higher temperatures enable more of the reactor heat to be converted to electricity (40% in IFR, 50% in LFTR vs 35% in LWR). Both IFR and LFTR have the potential to be air-cooled and to use waste heat for desalinating water.

Both IFR and LFTR are 100-300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs. In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined. Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect.

The Obama campaign, properly in my opinion, opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. Indeed, there is a far more effective way to use the $25 billion collected from utilities over the past 40 years to deal with waste disposal. This fund should be used to develop fast reactors that consume nuclear waste, and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste. By law the federal Government must take responsibility for existing spent nuclear fuel, so inaction is not an option. Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfil its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste, and open up a source of carbon-free energy that can last centuries, even millennia.

It is commonly assumed that 4^th generation nuclear power will not be ready before 2030.

That is a safe assumption under 'business-as-usual". However, given high priority it is likely that it could be available sooner. It is specious to argue that R&D on 4th generation nuclear power does not deserve support because energy efficiency and renewable energies may be able to satisfy all United States electrical energy needs. Who stands ready to ensure that energy needs of China and India will be entirely met by efficiency and renewables?

China and India have strong incentives to achieve pollution-free skies as well as avert dangerous climate change. The United States, even if efficiency and renewables can satisfy its energy needs (considered unlikely be many energy experts), needs to deal with its large piles of nuclear waste, which have lifetime exceeding 10,000 years.

Development of the first large 4^th generation nuclear plants may proceed most rapidly if carried out in China or India (or South Korea, which has a significant R&D program), with the full technical cooperation of the United States and/or Europe. Such cooperation would make it much easier to achieve agreements for reducing greenhouse gases.

Implications. We have already overshot the safe level of greenhouse gases. Things are beginning to crumble—Arctic ice is melting, methane is bubbling from permafrost, mountain glaciers are disappearing. We must move onto a different course within the next few years to avoid committing the planet to accelerating climate changes out of our control. The time has passed for 'goals', half-measures, greenwashing, and compromises with special interests.

Geophysical limits are crystal clear: coal emissions must be phased out and emissions from unconventional fossil fuels (tar shale, tar sands, e.g.) must be prohibited.

Priorities, in order, for solving the climate and energy problems, while stimulating the economy are steps to: (1) improve energy efficiency, (2) develop and deploy renewable energies, (3) modernize and expand a 'smart' electric grid, (4) develop 4th generation nuclear' power, (5) develop carbon capture and sequestration capability.
Prompt development of safe 4^th generation nuclear power is needed to allow energy options for countries such as China and India, and for countries in the West in the event that energy efficiency and renewable energies cannot satisfy all energy requirements.

Deployment of 4^th generation nuclear power can be hastened via cooperation with China, India and other countries. It is essential that dogmatic 'environmentalists', opposed to all nuclear power, not be allowed to delay the R&D on 4^th generation nuclear power. Thus it is desirable to avoid appointing to key energy positions persons with a history of opposition to nuclear power development. Of course, deployment of nuclear power is an option, and some countries or regions may prefer to rely entirely on other energy sources, but opponents of nuclear power should not be allowed to deny that option to everyone.

Coal is the dirtiest fuel. Coal burning has released and spread around the world more than 100 times more radioactive material than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Mercury released in coal burning contaminates the world ocean as well as our rivers, lakes and soil. Air pollution from coal burning kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. If such consequences were occurring from nuclear power, nuclear plants would all be closed. Mining of coal, especially mountaintop removal, causes additional environmental damage and human suffering. It is time for all the coal plants to be closed, indeed, averting climate disasters demands that all coal emissions be phased out. Coal is best left in the ground.

Nevertheless, R&D for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) deserves strong support. It is needed to provide the full range of options in energy choices, for countries that insist on exploiting their coal resources. Moreover, CCS has another potentially more important role to play: it could be used at power plants that bum biofuels, such as agricultural wastes. This sort of' geoengineering', which draws excess C0₂ out of the air and puts it back in the ground where it came from, may be needed to get atmospheric C0₂ back to a safe level.

Transition to the post-fossil-fuel era with clean atmosphere and ocean, requires a carbon tax. That tax will cause unconventional fossil fuels to be left in the ground, as well as much coal and some oil and gas that resides in remote regions. The public will accept such a tax if the funds are returned entirely to the public, no funds going to Washington and other capitals for politicians and lobbyists to determine its fate. Tax and 100 percent dividend is not sufficient by itself—many other actions are needed—but it is necessary. No time remains for a transition via ineffectual half measures.

Frank communication with the public is essential. At present, all around the world, many Governments are guilty of greenwash, an implausible approach of goals and half-measures that will barely slow the growth of C0₂. The world, not just the United States, needs an open honest discussion of what is needed. It is a tremendous burden to place on the President-elect. The only chance seems to be if he understands the truth—the whole truth.

Young people realize that they, their children, and the unborn will bear the consequences of our actions or inactions. They do not blame their parents, who legitimately 'did not know' what they were starting. Young people worked hard to influence the democratic process. Now they expect appropriate actions.

__________

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Before I deal with the specific provisions of the bill it is important that I return to the philosophical heart of the Coastal Protection Act, the primary objective of which is the protection of the New South Wales coastline and maintenance of the beach for future generations to enjoy the same experiences with which we have been blessed. Our coastline is unique; there is none like it in the world. However, the bill we are being asked to pass poses conceptual difficulties given the ideals inherent in the protection of our coastal commons. The explanatory note for the bill makes it clear that its object is to enable landowners to install coastal protection works and to prevent coastal erosion on their property. Here we have a shift in our legislative agenda from one primarily focused on protecting our coastal environment for local communities to one that in part is unnecessarily pre-occupied with protecting landholder rights to a static and unchanging coastline.

I anticipate that the vexing debate about coastal boundaries and the unresolved question of the nature of property rights on an eroding shoreline and rising sea level will receive national consideration, debate and consultation. Australia as a nation needs to be clear about its priorities for maintaining the coastline or private property and what balance between these two interests can be achieved. More and more, managed or planned retreat is becoming the dominant management strategy that balances such rights and it is the only real long-term, viable, climate change adaptation strategy.

I turn now to the substantive provisions of the bill. Item [4] of schedule 1 seeks to designate or assign particular land within coastal zones to the different coastal authorities that are outlined in proposed section 6. The coastal governance model that this item and proposed section 6 may install is one that will encourage regulatory complexity, jurisdictional turf warfare and ineffectual enforcement. Instead of constructing a governance framework that adopts an orderly and structured approach to dividing jurisdictional responsibility for coastal management, the New South Wales Government has opted for a mode of coastal management predisposed to conflagrating clashing departmental management philosophies to the detriment of one of our most valued natural resources.

These difficulties can be partially resolved by either reducing the number of coastal authorities or establishing an enforcement hierarchy. Alternatively, if we are of the opinion that we need multiple coastal authorities, would it be possible to create a process whereby the Minister for Lands exercises regulatory powers only if the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment or the relevant local council does not wish to exercise such functions? Many in this place and in the government bureaucracy see the difficulty presented in the coastal governance model proposed in this bill as the result of departmental personalities. Those at the helm of the Department of Lands certainly see themselves as the alpha land managers of this State and seek an unrestricted mandate to utilise public land free from the perceived shackles imposed by this State's environmental legislation.

Throughout exhibition of the consultation draft, I and many others made repeated calls for the reconstitution of the New South Wales Coastal Council. In 2003, the New South Wales Government amplified its hostility towards the council and effective coastal management by repealing part 2 of the Coastal Protection Act and dismantling the body. The New South Wales Government at the time believed management of our coastline was more effectively guided by unrestrained executive whims rather than with the assistance of experts on coastal science. It shunted off coastal policy formulation to a subcommittee within the Natural Resources Advisory Council. That represented an affront to integrated and ecologically sustainable management of our coastline. However, such actions were characteristic of New South Wales Labor, which even in opposition in 1991 opposed the formation of a coastal council authority.

The original New South Wales Coastal Council was a 20-member body drawing upon experience from the environmental management, natural resource management, fisheries, tourism, regional development, ports and waterways, sporting and tourism and local government portfolios. It was a body with considerable advisory capacity to assist this State in managing the coastal zone in the State's best interest. It had broad powers to engage in both community consultation and judicial processes. Its independence was loathed by the bureaucracy and the New South Wales Labor Party. Managing the New South Wales coastal zone in the best interests of the whole State was not a priority.

The proposed creation of the New South Wales Coastal Panel is an extremely positive aspect of this bill and an acknowledgement that dismantling the Coastal Council was a poor policy decision. It is an acknowledgement that joint regional planning panels would not have the capacity to navigate the challenges inherent in assessing development applications for permanent coastal protection works. The New South Wales Coastal Panel will be a seven-member group with broad expertise in coastal engineering, coastal environmental management and coastal planning. Under proposed section 13, the panel will be conferred with functions and powers to determine development application for permanent coastal protection works.

Items [12] and [13] of schedule 1 will amend the matters to be dealt with in coastal zone management plans. Coastal zone management plans are plans created by local councils in consultation with local communities that outline how the local council and community will manage the coastal zone within their local government area. The philosophy behind the coastal zone management plans is to empower local communities to determine how they want to manage their coastline. It represents a collaborative stewardship role in coastal management. Interestingly, the Opposition's concern about giving local government too much power is clearly at odds with its commitment to return planning powers to local communities.

I draw the attention of the House to the conflict between the words in proposed section 55C (g) that explicitly and correctly presume that permanent coastal protection works will restrict public access to beaches and the provision in the Act that states that a coastal zone management plan must make provision for undiminished public access to beaches or headlands. How can a local council create a plan that maintains undiminished public access to beaches—which means at the very basic level no use of public lands for protection works—while making provision for permanent protection works that irreversibly damage coastal ecosystems and substantially reduce public access to the beach and overall beach amenity? The provisions are irreconcilable. How can a local council ensure undiminished public access to the beach for current and future generations—a central tenet of the legislation and its objectives—when it is required to make provision for construction and maintenance of coastal protection works to protect private property that restrict public access to the beach?

Items [15], [16] and [18] of schedule 1 remove the process of ministerial approval of coastal zone management plans and replace it with a process of certification. The legal division of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water argues that the move away from the concept or terminology of ministerial approval to ministerial certification is "purely semantics". The legal division and the department make the argument that the shift from approval to certification is meaningless. That begs the question: Why change legislation if such reform is meaningless? They state that under the current Act the Minister has no power to assess or to consider the substantive merit or content of a coastal zone management plan submitted by a local council. Therefore, moving to the concepts of certification—whereby the Minister simply certifies the creation of the plan as complying with procedural requirements in the Act—alters nothing.

When one looks at proposed section 55C in conjunction with the proposed amendments in item [14] of schedule 1, one notes that some substantive elements must be satisfied in the creation and approval of a coastal zone management plan. Currently a Minister cannot approve a coastal zone management plan that does not make provision for undiminished public access to beaches or preserve beach environments and beach amenity. Under proposed section 55C, a Minister needs to examine the substantive elements of a draft coastal zone management plan. I certainly understand that to be the practical reality of coastal zone management plan assessment. The argument that proposed section 55C requires the Minister to examine the substantive compliance of a coastal zone management plan with the requirements of the section is also made by Ms Karen Coleman, a partner at Mallesons Stephen Jaques, who in a letter to the Department of Premier and Cabinet wrote:

A lawful coastal management plan cannot provide protection of some parts of the coastline at the expense of others. A plan embodying discriminatory protection of part of the town and the destruction of private property, beach access and beach environment and beach amenity would be an abuse of decision-making power and no valid plan under the Coastal Protection Act. We refer in particular to the mandatory requirements of section 55C of the Act.

Although Ms Coleman's interpretation—

[The President left the chair at 6.31 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

[Business interrupted.]

The PRESIDENT: I announce that the winner of this year's Parliament of New South Wales Indigenous Art Prize is the Euraba Artists and Paper Makers from Boggabilla and Toomelah for their collaborative work Gaduu—the Murray Cod.

[Business resumed.]

The Hon. IAN COHEN [8.01 p.m.]: I congratulate the winner on the wonderful display in the parliamentary gallery, hosted by the President. Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was referring to a statement made by Ms Coleman. Although Ms Coleman's interpretation of the requirements of section 55C is questionable, it is important to note that legal counsel for the owners of property on Belongil Beach are arguing that the mandatory requirements of section 55C are relevant to the validity of the coastal zone management plan. Ms Coleman in her letter is arguing that the Minister's role in approving the draft coastal zone management plan requires substantive approval, not certification, of procedural compliance. The Minister is required to assess whether the plan achieves the provisions in section 55C. These provisions are in contrast to schedule 1, clause 12, which includes amendments to section 55B. It is important to note that this provision was not in earlier provisions of the bill.

Proposed section 55B (7) in particular gives the Minister broad powers to take control of formulating and publishing a local council coastal zone management plan. Considering the short time frame of required compliance in proposed section 55B (6) of 12 months, it is highly likely the Minister will be able to use the power under subsection (7). On the one hand the bill is removing executive government from the coastal zone management plan process and on the other hand it is intervening substantially. This bill simply is not consistent in that context. The provisions in this bill should not apply when a council has an existing coastal zone management plan.

My council, Byron Shire Council, spent a decade conducting comprehensive studies, working hard to be at the cutting edge of this debate, and obtaining a lot of scientific support and evidence to back it up. As I said earlier, a number of court cases have been involved. I have to correct a statement that I made. The council took private landowners to court twice and not once, as I said earlier. In both cases it reacted to the illegal dumping of rocks on the beach to protect private property. In both cases the council won in court. In all those cases in which private individuals have taken council to court over this matter the council has been successful. In this case we have a significant amount of experience and expertise. The council spent over a decade investigating these matters and it has a significant amount of scientific evidence and expert backup.

Earlier I referred comprehensively to the planned retreat option—an issue that has been discussed and that has been utilised for a long time. Today we are dealing with an international strategy, not just with Byron council, some northern New South Wales hippies, or whatever. Government and Opposition members are fond of ridiculing the cash cow on the North Coast that over time attracts millions of people to Australia's shores. For many it is the highlight of their trip and it is a fantastic economic boost to the coffers of New South Wales. However, it is condemned over and again. The planned retreat option clearly is an international strategy. In the United Kingdom, Canada and Antigua and in many other places it is referred to as a managed retreat, and in Sri Lanka and Barbados it is referred to as a planned retreat. The United States—a bastion of private property—has a concept of rolling easements, which is akin to a planned retreat.

Often in debates in this Chamber we lose sight of the global expertise relating to these issues. One of the biggest problems confronting governments of all persuasions is that they should have resisted coastal zone development decades ago. Governments and local councils should have refused that type of development in coastal zones and they should have created a natural buffer that would have served us well. However, there has been an overwhelming push to utilise that valuable land. Historically, governments of all persuasions are at fault as they knew what was going on.

I refer again to the provisions in this bill relating to coastal zone management plans. Those provisions are in contrast to schedule 1 clause 12, which includes amendments to section 55B. The bill is not consistent in that context. This raises the question of what role a valid coastal zone management plan will play in local council decision making processes. Currently, there is no guarantee that local councils will consider coastal zone management plans in development applications, as section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act does not make reference to coastal zone management plans. The ministerial guidelines for drafting of coastal zone management plans state that they are not intended to take precedence over other council plans. We must consider what roles coastal zone management plans should play, with council decision-making processes proportionate to the research and time and the resource investment underpinning coastal zone management plans. The depth and detail of coastal zone management plans should earn them an important role in local council evaluations of development in the coastal zone area.

While it is disappointing that amendments to the Infrastructure SEPP are not included in this bill, I note that the policy outcome statement tabled by the Minister outlines the amendments that will be made to the SEPP if the bill is passed. Importantly, local councils with coastal zone management plans become the consent authority for permanent coastal protection works. Where a council does not have a coastal zone management plan the New South Wales coastal panel is the consent authority. A number of provisions have the potential to detract from the development of holistic and integrated coastal zone management plans, allowing public authorities to opt out of coastal zone management plans referred to in section 55C (2) (b). The creation of coastal zone management plans that address only one issue listed in section 55C or that apply only to one area within the local government area coastal zone referred to in section 55C (3) might compromise the consistent and integrated application of coastal zone management plans.

When discussing permanent coastal protection works there are a few important things that we should keep in mind. The first is that local councils, in developing coastal zone management plans, have committed significant financial resources to modelling and researching coastal processes. Decisions pertaining to coastal management generally are supported by extensive environmental impact assessment research. It is worth noting that councils that have been preparing coastal zone management plans have been required to undertake extensive expert assessments and modelling of the natural processes. This research needs to be done to understand specific coastal processes, including wave energy, sand movement and retainment, dune erosion and overall development impact. It is about building a scientific and ecological profile of localised coastal processes and evaluating the impact of alteration to the coast, which takes time.

I might have said some time ago in the House that coastal geomethology is so complex and so little understood that no-one is certain how the coastline operates. Theories abound and we have experts such as Professor Bruce Thom and Andy Short from the Wave Centre at Manly Vale and other scientists and academics skilled at dealing with coastal geomethology. However, it is difficult to be accurate as there are complex and different processes. It is as complex as the ocean itself, with wave refraction, long-shore drift, wave action and seasonal differences. It is a wonderful study for an amateur. Every surfer is an amateur coastal geomethologist, although he or she might not be aware of it. Surfers study the ocean to learn about waves and their impacts; they watch sandbanks come and go and they see different formations.

It is an extremely dynamic habitat so it is difficult for humanity to intervene as we have done so much with groynes, rock walls and vast engineering works in the past, each having resolved something but each creating another problem. We have sand bypass pumping from under the Tweed up to the Gold Coast, in some ways remedying those eroding beaches but, as discussed in this House, creating all sorts of other problems. It is extremely difficult to find a human engineered management process that will really work, which is why we keep getting back to that planned retreat, the natural balance of the coast—to move with it as it erodes and accretes seasonally; to try to work with the coastal process dance rather than saying that an engineering fix will solve it all.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Very poetic.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Thank you, Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. It is not often I am called a poet, particularly in this House. Some people in our community do not believe that the installation of coastal protection works is a big deal. They regard a few rocks, a car body or two and a bit of construction waste as not being a problem. Ocean geomethologists and coastal engineers certainly say otherwise. A couple of years ago an overseas tourist was jogging up Belongil Beach on the hard pack when he trod on a buried piece of car body and cut himself severely. One can imagine the impact that had on him and on the people he told about his experience. He was a German long distance runner enjoying the beauty, the sunshine, the pelicans and the little terns, if they are still there—they might have been driven away by all the dogs that people irresponsibly take down to the beach.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: The terns might go but the turds remain.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. The poor fellow was traumatised. One can imagine the stories that he told back home. It is a travesty when works go wrong. Coastal protection works have the potential to alter coastal processes radically and accelerate overall beach erosion and impacts on neighbours. While one landowner might temporarily reduce erosion impacts in front of his or her property, in most cases a neighbour will experience acceleration in erosion impact. The point that the majority of Opposition members fail to grasp is that we all have neighbours.

In the case of Belongil Beach, if all property owners put up some type of revetment or defence in front of their property, the adjoining national park would be wiped out with natural erosion as a result of being on the leeward side of a groyne with the long-shore drift that traditionally tends to go from north to south. In big seas it will sweep away public property. We do not live on severed and atomised parcels of land; our properties are part of a coastal system and landscape. When one person tries to protect his or her home, all the adjoining neighbours suffer. That is what is happening on Belongil Beach. Illegal protection works are causing greater erosion on Belongil Beach, not the main beach car park works, as targeted by many people who, out of self-interest, are trying to defend their own little project.

It is in this context that proposed section 55M is one of the most important provisions in the bill. The section is of particular importance as it adds specific considerations for coastal protection works in the development application process. Substantial changes have been made to proposed section 55M to make it more consistent with the powers provided for in part 4D. The Greens believe the more appropriate approach is one in which ineffective and environmentally damaging coastal protection works are prevented from being installed in the first place. Allowing a landowner to install environmentally damaging and ineffective protection works and then issuing orders for it to be removed is not a good regulatory process.

Proposed section 55M requires a consent authority assessing an application for coastal protection works to be satisfied there are satisfactory arrangements over the life of the work for restoration of the beach and land adjacent if the work causes increased erosion, maintenance of the works, minimisation of risks to public safety and maintenance of public access to the beach concerned. Subsection (2) requires the securing of funding for remediation and maintenance through the use of legally binding obligations or an annual coastal service protection charge. Strangely, this applies only to coastal protection works constructed by multiple landowners or works undertaken by landowners jointly with a public authority; it does not apply to individual landowners. As I stated earlier, one of the key problems with the bill is the inability to use the right financial mechanism to underwrite the potential impact of coastal protection works.

This is particularly true with respect to proposed section 55M. We are not referring to the infamous great big tax line that is bandied about in the most ridiculous circumstances; we are referring to service charges for those who chose to use a council service. I will refer in detail to this point during the Committee stage as the Greens will be moving an alternative to section 55M. The provision for landowners—in identified hotspots along the coast—to install emergency protection works is included in part 4C of the bill. Proposed section 55P defines the meaning of emergency protection works, identifies the buildings that emergency works can be installed to protect and establishes the triggers for when emergency works can be placed. Much of the substantive technical requirements pertaining to the installation of emergency works will be contained in the Minister's requirements.

Proposed section 55Q sets the maximum period for the installation of emergency protection works at 12 months, which can be extended beyond the 12-month period if a development application is submitted for permanent works. In those instances where a development application is submitted, the works may remain in place until 21 days after the final determination of the development application. Proposed section 55S restricts the placement and installation of emergency coastal work to a one-time use per property. This is a sensible requirement that will encourage landowners to investigate more permanent options for protection works rather than reverting to works based on the premise of a perpetual emergency situation.

In the consultation draft of the bill emergency works were given a status of exempt development, which is a most irresponsible concept. The bill now requires a certificate authorising the placement of emergency protection works. These division 2 certificates are to ensure there is a degree of quality control in the placement of emergency works, and to ensure the works do not pose a threat to the safety of the public or restrict public access to the beach. Those that support exempt works status simply do not care about beach users or public safety.

Proposed section 55Z expands the authorisation of a division 2 certificate to allow a landholder to place and maintain emergency works on public land. The authorisation is valid only if the landowner takes reasonable measures to avoid using and occupying public land, minimises the risk to public safety, and maintains public access to and through the beach. Proposed section 55Z also expands the division 2 authorisation to authorise the use of adjacent land, for example a neighbour's property, if the applicant landowner has obtained the required permissions in the form of a lease, easement or right of way. Importantly, a public authority must not unreasonably refuse a person access to public land in order to place emergency coastal protection on public or private land. The Greens do not support the placement and maintenance of emergency works on public lands, especially in the context where no compensation is paid. We will move amendments that restrict landowners to using public land in order to place emergency works on their private land.

Proposed section 55Y makes provision for the removal of emergency protection works. Proposed section 55Y deals only with emergency works that have expired. Specifically, the works are required to be removed and the land restored in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Coastal authorities have additional powers to undertake removal and restoration works where the landholder fails to comply, and to seek the recovery of costs incurred. Under part 4D coastal authorities are given three distinct order powers. Proposed section 55ZA relates to removing materials and structures unlawfully dumped or placed on a beach as defined in the bill. A coastal authority may order the removal of illegal structures or illegally dumped materials if in the opinion of the authority it causes or may cause erosion, limits public access to the beach, or poses a threat to public safety. Subsection (2) deals with the situation of material illegally dumped near the boundary of private land and the beach. Proposed section 55ZA also empowers coastal authorities to order a person to remediate and restore land and/or a beach damaged by the illegal dumping of material. The stop work orders in proposed section 55ZB provide similar powers, with a focus of preventing the illegal dumping of materials or the erection of structures.

The third power under part 4D relates specifically to emergency coastal protection works. Proposed section 55ZC empowers coastal authorities to seek repair, alteration or removal of emergency works before their expiry if they are increasing erosion, threatening public safety, limiting public access, or are not maintained in accordance with the requirements and conditions of a division 2 certificate. A coastal authority is required to undertake a number of notifications and consultations before exercising that power.

Proposed section 56B is another important amendment. I have listened to comments made in the other place, especially by members of the Opposition, about the effect of inserting climate vulnerability information on section 149 planning certificates. I have noted also discussions about the decision of Gosford council to place notations on section 149 certificates. What Opposition members are arguing is that information that may devalue a property should never be placed on a 149 certificate. They want to throw out consumer protections, for potential homebuyers to be fully informed about the planning policies and environmental realities that burden the property. Forget about notifications of bushfire risk, contaminated land and flood risks. Members of the Opposition do not believe in it.

Those in the market to buy a home are to be left intentionally in the dark. In the Opposition's eyes, people are not entitled to such information. That type of policy is absolutely disgraceful. Then again, maybe this all comes back to the fact that the vast majority of Opposition members do not believe in climate change and therefore to place information about climate change sea level rise vulnerability is simply part of some global conspiracy concocted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the "illuminati". If that is the basis to their objection to inserting climate change vulnerability on 149 certificates just as we note contaminated land and flood prone vulnerability, they should just come out like their Federal leader and say the concept of anthropogenic climate change is crap.

Changes proposed to be made under schedule 2 of the bill relate to the ability of local councils to levy landowners and occupants for the cost of coastal protection services that benefit the parcel of land they own or on which they reside. The amendments to the Local Government Act under proposed section 496B would allow councils to charge annually for a range of services associated with coastal protection works, including legal, insurance, engineering, surveying, project management and financing costs. These services may be for coastal protection works that are constructed either solely by the owner-occupier or jointly with council. A parcel of land may be deemed to be benefited by the services if they are for coastal protection works that are placed either wholly within a parcel of private land or on neighbouring land. Protection is provided to owners and occupiers from being charged excessively by a proposed provision that would allow appeal to the Land and Environment Court on the amount of the annual charge. The proposed new division 3 goes on to apply restrictions on how the annual charge is calculated, and on how annual charge estimates must be worked out and provided to people who request one. Proposed section 606B would also put the onus on councils to get an independent review of the annual charge if this is requested by the person being charged or if directed to do so by the Minister.

Finally, the bill makes amendments to the liability exemption in section 733 of the Local Government Act. Generally we have to be careful with liability exemptions. We do not want to give too much exemption so as to encourage local councils not to take action in relation to coastal management. For example, if we give local councils an exemption from liability for failing to remove illegal structures or material from the beach we may encourage councils not to use their removal powers under part 4D. However, there does need to be some protection for councils from liability in respect of such actions by a small minority of irresponsible landowners. The other issue in relation to paragraph (f6) of section 733 (3) is that council does not have exemption from liability for placement or maintenance emergency works, only negligently placed or maintained works. This means that if works erode a neighbour's property causing damage and the local council has not sought removal the council may be liable. This is a problematic element of the bill.

In summary, there are problematic elements of the bill and the Greens have significant amendments to address some of these problems. Contrary to arguments made by the Opposition and some groups, there has been a significant degree of consultation. The department has listened to feedback from a number of stakeholders and incorporated many different perspectives. Some perspectives have entered the bill, and I object to that. A significant number of people have had input into discussions and negotiations regarding the bill, and my office has benefited greatly from that. I acknowledge the invaluable contributions of Professor Bruce Thom; Geoff Withycombe of the Sydney Coastal Councils Group; Genia McCaffery, the President of the Local Government Association and Mayor of North Sydney; Bob Verhey of the Local Government and Shires Associations; Engineers Australia; Mayor Jan Barham of Byron Shire Council; and a number of other people who have a made great effort to investigate properly a matter that goes to the heart of the cultural, social and environmental issues in this country.

With those comments I indicate that I do not oppose the bill. I do not fulsomely support it, but after much angst and difficulty in my office and much pressure from my staff, particularly Scott Hickey—who has done a monumental job in investigating every matter that has come to hand and researched the prepared parts of my speech extremely well—I will not oppose the bill. I thank all those people who have come to this issue with nothing more than a sincere desire to get it right. In some ways I am not satisfied, but I accept that the bill is a step forward and therefore I will not oppose it.

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN [8.30 p.m.]: I speak to the Coastal Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (No. 2) on behalf of the Greens. My colleague Ian Cohen spoke earlier about some of the shocking statistics that members need to keep in mind in this important debate. The economic and social impacts of even half a metre of sea level rise, which would lead to a recession of the shoreline of between 25 and 50 metres this century, is not something that any member can ignore. While this legislation is not solely about the impacts of climate change, it is very much a recognition that Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that laws are put in place to ensure that the people and the environment of New South Wales can adapt to these impacts wherever possible. It is concerning that today we are debating legislation that is focused on adapting to the impacts of climate change while there is still so much resistance in the community and among members of this Parliament and Federal Parliament to address the causes of climate change. That resistance does seem to be in direct conflict with the Sea Level Rise Policy Statement of this Government, which reads:

Sea levels are expected to continue rising throughout the twenty-first century and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that sea levels will stop rising beyond 2100 or that the current trends will be reversed.

The best national and international projections of sea level rise along the New South Wales coast are for a rise relative to 1990 mean sea levels of 40 cm by 2050 and 90 cm by 2100. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 also acknowledged that higher rates of sea level rise are possible.

There is no shortage of evidence that the impacts of climate change are already upon us. Trends in the frequency of hazardous weather events have doubled in the last decade. This includes heatwaves, rain events and storms. The United Nations Meteorological Organisation keeps records of extreme weather events. In its most recent update from 11 August this year it identifies a long list of extreme events occurring at that time and states that, while climate extremes have always existed, recent events compare with, or exceed in intensity, duration or geographical extent, the previous largest historical events. One of the events listed was the recent extremely serious heatwaves in Russia. The Russian Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring reported that July 2010 was the warmest month ever in Moscow since the beginning of modern meteorological records, 130 years ago. Temperatures over that month exceeded the long-term average by 7.8^o Celsius. Studies of the past climate show no similar high temperatures since the tenth and eleventh centuries in ancient Russia.

Australia has always experienced its share of extreme weather events, including fires and heatwaves, tropical cyclones and floods. The unseasonal recent extreme wet and windy weather and media reports from yesterday that this cyclone season is expected to be the worst in years are just the latest. Indeed, it is interesting to note that Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has convened a meeting of some of Queensland's top weather forecasters following an unseasonal deluge and forecasts of increased cyclonic activity. While we can debate the role of climate change in relation to a specific event, what we do know is that an increase in extreme weather events is consistent with the projections of climate scientists. It is prudent for us as legislators to take action to reduce the causes of climate change, but it is also incumbent upon us to manage the impacts. This bill starts that process.

This is the right time to be looking to address the impacts of climate change. In fact, it is past time. This bill is a very short-term solution to a problem that has enormous ramifications for New South Wales, well beyond all of our time here. It is disappointing to see the Opposition fail to constructively engage on this issue and this bill, particularly given that it could find itself in government after March having to deal with the impacts of a rapidly changing climate. It is disappointing to see the Opposition prioritising private property rights over the community's right to access public beaches, and prioritising private property rights over healthy estuaries and wetlands. It is also disappointing that the Government has included nothing in this bill to support an approach of planned retreat. It is a courageous local council that supports a policy of planned retreat in the face of not only inevitable rising sea levels and coastal inundation but also hostile beachfront property owners. Byron Shire Council is to be commended for thinking and planning long-term in this regard. Councils such as Byron Shire Council must be supported by State and Federal Governments in any planned retreat strategy.

This bill must only be the start of a process to develop legislative and regulatory mechanisms to manage the impacts of climate change, including those that extend beyond our coastlines. These challenges extend to stemming biodiversity loss, ensuring our food and water supplies are resilient to the changing weather patterns, managing the health impacts of climate change, protecting local communities from extreme fire, heat and cold events, and ensuring disaster response preparedness is adequately resourced. Despite the bill's limited focus, it is attempting in a small way to address the problem that climate change is happening and impacting on communities now and that we are not prepared for this. This bill imperfectly tackles only part of the diabolical problem of climate change impacts. My colleague Ian Cohen will be moving amendments in an attempt to address some of the inadequacies in the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.35 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak on the Coastal Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. New South Wales coastal communities and local councils are facing difficult coastal erosion issues. Since the 1940s approximately 40 houses have been lost to coastal erosion, and some 200 houses at 15 erosion hotspots are currently at risk in the event of a significant coastal storm. The number of properties at risk is expected to increase with projected sea level rise. Three options are available to deal with the serious situation faced by those families living on the New South Wales coast and the councils responsible for those areas, and no-one doubts that it is up to the New South Wales Government to decide whether or not to take action to address this problem. The options available are: take no action, do nothing and sit on one's hands; talk and delay action; and tackle the problem in the best way we can.

This legislation is not perfect. It is receiving criticism from many areas. In an endeavour to improve it I have put together some minor amendments. The Greens have also distributed a large number of amendments. The Coalition has also provided amendments, which primarily deal with the meaning of certain words, not the substance of the bill. It is as if the Coalition has withdrawn from the real debate on this legislation. Turning to what has happened around New South Wales in past years—not something last week—in a report of 8 September 2009 it was stated that a number of mid-North Coast councils held meetings calling for a coordinated government approach to deal with the issue of coastal erosion. Mr Peter Besseling, now the member for Port Macquarie, had this to say:

The State and Federal governments have a role to play. ... This issue is not only of significance to the Port Macquarie area, but we've also seen areas like the Belongil Beach and Old Bar [with similar problems]. ... This is happening right across the state, right across the nation, so it is important that those levels of government get involved and help councils as well.

Discussions were held with the then Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, Ms Carmel Tebbutt. Mr Frank Sartor is now handling the legislation. In the last day or so I received an email from Elaine Pearce, President of the Old Bar Beach Sand Replenishment Group, in which she said:

... We thank you for your interest in our very distressing problem. Three of our residents have lost their homes to the ocean and there is a block of 41 units, council approved in 1995, which has lost 32 metres of foredune and has only 26 metres before the ocean is right at the building. We have researched the option of off-shore reef which has been so successful in Narrowneck on the Gold Coast and our group is endeavouring to raise the funds for a feasibility study which will prove that it will not damage any part of the coast, will accrete 800 metres of sand for 100 metres of reef, will enhance the ecology by way of creating healthy marine communities and as an added bonus will create a good surf wave. Then having "put our money where our mouth is" we will be looking to State and Federal Governments for funding and our success can be used as a pilot plan for those other hot-spots on the coastline.

That is evidence of local community groups doing what they can at a local level. But it is too big a task for one community group raising funds to solve the problem; it needs State legislation. That is why this bill is so important. Coastal erosion does not occur only on the North Coast of New South Wales. A newspaper article dated 27 August 2007 states:

North Cronulla's Surf Life Saving Club and an entire row of waterfront houses at the famous Sydney beach could be underwater by the end of the century.

Alarming research into the impact of climate change on the NSW coast shows the state will be more vulnerable to rising sea levels, harsh storms, huge waves and extreme winds than many other parts of the world.

This research places additional pressure on the State Government and the Parliament to come up with a solution—maybe not a perfect solution, but one that we can build on in the future. The article continues:

In North Cronulla, coastal erosion could push the ocean to the front door of waterfront homes by 2050. By 2100, the second row of homes back from the beach could have water views too close for comfort …

More than 80 per cent of Australians lives within 3km of the coast and less than 6m above sea level.

"Rises like this not only put seaside communities like Cronulla, Bondi and the Northern Beaches at risk, they would cause catastrophic economic impacts," [then] Climate Change and Environment Minister Phil Koperberg said.

"Our experts predict that while sea levels in NSW have already risen by 10cm over the past 100 years, this could intensify 10-fold this century," Mr Koperberg said.

"With so many people living on or near the coast, this has the potential to have major economic, social and environmental impacts."

One of the areas where there has been a great deal of controversy and tension within the community is Byron Bay. Some of this tension has been due to the heavy-handed actions of Byron Shire Council, led by the Mayor who follows extreme Green policies. She is a member of the Greens, as I understand it. The council has not undertaken proper consultation and discussion to ensure that it has the support of the community. This has caused divisions within the community. There have been major problems in this North Coast area. In 2008 Belongil Beach in Byron Bay recorded its highest tides since 1992, which caused further beach erosion.

The Hon. Ian Cohen: Have you been there, Fred?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Yes, I have been up to Byron Bay. I met with the mayor, when we had a committee meeting on her doorstep, and I told her of my concerns about her handling of the situation. The Byron Shire Council's policies have resulted in court cases. An article dated 17 September 2009 states:

Laurie Lynch wonders how much money the community is going to have to pay in compensation if residents at Belongil Beach have to demolish or relocate their homes due to the Bryon Shire Council's policy on coastal erosion.

… Mr Lynch said that 25 homes have been identified as being within 20 metres of the erosion escarpment.

Thirteen of these had conditions attached to their development consent which would require their relocation or demolition in the "at risk" zone.

Mr Lynch said the council's plan to make residents comply with the conditions or consent should any structure be found to be in immediate risk of further erosion was a drastic measure.

"These conditions mean that landowners would have to demolish their properties or relocate them," My Lynch said.

"I would like to know who was driving this agenda of relocation or demolition and I do believe it is the Byron Mayor, Jan Barham.

"Why is she so motivated to have to keep driving this issue forward when there's never really been an opportunity for people to discuss these issues?

The Hon. Ian Cohen: Who said that?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Mr Laurie Lynch. The article, quoting Mr Lynch, continues:

"Why can't we wait until the new draft Coastal Zone Management Plan has gone out so the community can have a chance to look at it?"

These examples highlight the importance of dealing with these issues properly. I believe the Government and the Minister have tried to achieve balance in this legislation. The issue came to a head when Mr Vaughan, a landowner in the Byron Bay area, took Byron Shire Council to court for the right to defend his land. A news story on this issue states:

Over the past decade Mr Vaughan has been fighting to defend his property from the encroaching sea, but he says his biggest battle has not been against the sea but against the local council in the courts.

"I have already moved the house back once after a major event in 1999, and hopefully we won't have to do that again," he said.

"[The council] stopped me by an interim injunction of rebuilding approved works which council had put in place in 2001.

"There was very nice landscaping and field rock walls on the front yard which adjoins the ocean, and there were some beautiful 20 or 30-foot-high pandanus trees, all of which, once they were undercut, fell down onto the beach during a storm event."

Mr Vaughan said the trees crumbled into the ocean because of a lack of protection and because of his inability to put in short-term works that would have saved them.

Mr Vaughan is hopeful, as am I, that this legislation will assist landowners who follow the correct process, as set out in this legislation. The head of Geosciences at the University of Sydney, Peter Cowell, has been studying coastal erosion for three decades. He said the policy that the Government has outlined, and will be implemented in this legislation, is a step in the right direction. He stated:

It's really gratifying to see the state taking a lead and taking action on what we need to come to grips with for the future in relation to climate change.

I hope that this very important bill will allay some of the concerns of residents who live in areas threatened by coastal erosion. The reform package outlined in this bill was first announced in October 2009 to strengthen the current approach to managing erosion risks by, first, improving the consideration of coastal erosion in new development areas in order to prevent the intensification of land use in locations expected to be at risk and, second, increasing management options available to councils and landowners for responding to erosion risks to established buildings and infrastructure. These reforms include amendments to legislation, new guidelines and additional support for councils to re-energise their planning processes. In relation to existing buildings, the reform package aims to achieve a reasonable balance between the concerns of beachfront land owners threatened by coastal erosion and the community' use and enjoyment of beaches. A particular challenge for erosion protection works on the coast is that if not properly implemented they can merely transfer erosion to other locations or reduce areas of beach. On the other hand, prohibiting any action will lead to loss of homes and infrastructure. A balance must be struck in this area. Some avenue must be provided to residents to take action in accordance with the legislation.

The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment intends to issue a direction to councils in erosion hotspot locations to prepare coastal erosion emergency action plans within six months. Those councils will also be issued directions to fast-track their overall coastal zone management plans, which are to be completed within 12 months or as negotiated.

Further amendments are contained in both this bill and in changes to the Infrastructure State Environmental Planning Policy that would follow its passage. The legislation embodied in this bill amends the Coastal Protection Act to allow landowners to place geotechnical sandbags or sand in specific and limited circumstances as emergency coastal protection works. Landowners will need to obtain a certificate from an authorising officer of the council or the Department of Climate Change, Environment and Water before placing the emergency works to ensure that they comply with the Minister's requirements. My concern with the requirement to obtain a permit is that there needs to be some streamlined process as to how the resident obtains the permit. Who does the resident speak to and will it be a specially allocated permit officer so landowners do not go around in circles not making much progress when they are faced with an emergency?

The bill will allow landowners to place emergency works once for a period of up to six months unless a development application is lodged for longer-term works, in which case the works can remain until the application is determined. An authorising officer will be able to issue an order to remove the works if they are causing erosion of neighbouring land, if they unreasonably limit beach access or if they pose a threat to public safety. A NSW Coastal Panel will be established under this Act to provide expert advice to the Minister and to act as a consent authority for some long-term coastal protection works permissible under the proposed amendments to the infrastructure State environmental planning policy. The panel will comprise expert members from State agencies and local government, with the chair appointed jointly by the Minister and the Local Government and Shires Association. That follows the approach the Government has been taking in other areas of planning laws in this State in establishing various panels at different levels.

The bill also includes improved statutory exemptions for liability for councils and government for coastal management and climate change under the Local Government Act, based on advice from the Crown Solicitor. These exemptions enable council to properly fulfil their responsibilities to avoid the high cost and delay of unreasonable litigation. Hopefully, this bill will reduce that type of litigation in the future. It will also be possible for councils to participate with private landowners to share the costs and responsibilities for constructing and maintaining the works. This would apply only where each participating landowner agrees to do so. Where councils want to require non-volunteer landowners to contribute to large-scale works they will be able to utilise their existing rates base or seek approval for a special levy under the existing provisions of the Local Government Act. For those reasons I believe that the House should support the bill.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [8.53 p.m.]: I join with my Liberal and Nationals colleagues in this House and in the other House in opposing the Coastal Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (No. 2). The bill is actually being labelled the Coastal Protection and Destruction Bill for the very reason that it does nothing to protect communities and homes where danger is most imminent from storm activity. The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, Frank Sartor, pretends that he is doing much to save the coastline. Instead, he is putting up a proposition with, I understand, 57 draft changes to this legislation, which achieves nothing for the many hotspots that he refers to that are in great danger of falling into the sea in many places.

A change of beach conditions is at the heart of what this legislation was supposed to solve. In my duty electorate of Port Macquarie Lake Cathie is facing the brunt of many of these coastal erosion problems. At meetings organised by Lake Cathie resident and local campaigner Leslie Williams, many of the shortfalls of this legislation have come very much to the fore. My shadow ministerial colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack and I attended a public forum and meeting at Lake Cathie in recent times to discuss this bill with the local residents around Illaroo Road. Those people understand intimately the dangers they face from storm activity around the public land in front of their properties.

It is not just storm activity that is a threat to those properties, it is also the change in the usage of the public land area at the beach at Lake Cathie, which has been impacted by man in the different types of surges that come from Lake Innes down to Lake Cathie and into the ocean. That is also said to have a profound impact on the build-up of sand and adds to the difficulties that that community faces—a community with people from all walks of life who have to take a very deep breath every time they see the Bureau of Meteorology warnings about storm activity in the area. I congratulate Leslie Williams and Catherine Cusack on being so open and available to the community. The concerns of that community are reflected across many parts of coastal New South Wales and Catherine Cusack has been very much a part of sitting down and listening to those communities—not hopping in a helicopter and having a look at them from the sky but talking to residents and getting a real understanding of what those communities are going through.

This bill is meant to add to the Coastal Protection Act an objective to promote adaption to coastal climate change impacts and beach amenity. But there is no point in adding that objective if the provisions of the Act promote the destruction of private property and the existing shoreline. The shoreline in front of the residents in Illaroo Road at Lake Cathie is public reserve: it is the council's responsibility. Discussions with the local community and a meeting at Hastings council have confirmed that there is no emergency management plan for Lake Cathie in the event of a storm. If a storm were to hit the area tonight there is no plan to deal with the imminent danger that those properties face.

The Coastal Protection Act was supposed to improve coastal management planning requirements so that more councils get long-term coastal erosion and emergency response plans in place more quickly, including allowing the Minister to direct a council to prepare a plan. But it is not an improvement; it is the opposite of what the Government said it would do. Under current section 55B (1) the Minister already has the power to direct a council to make a coastal management plan. The Minister's power to control the contents of the plan is being reduced by the deletion of section 55G (2), which currently provides:

The Minister may approve, or refuse to approve, the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan.

The Government promised legislation ensuring a consistent approach up and down the coastline. Instead, the Government is now giving more power to local councils, for example, to exclude areas from the right to temporary protection. The Government is giving up its ability under section 55G (2) to control what a council puts in a coastal management plan. That is not an improvement. This bill was supposed to require coastal zone management plans to include managing risks from coastal hazards, estuary health risks and the potential impacts of climate change on those risks. The Government already has the power to give directions about the contents of coastal management plans. New opt-out provisions allow councils to prevent any emergency protection. Following the meetings at Lake Cathie we have received correspondence from many of the local residents. One resident, Mr Stephen Hunt, wrote to us and said:

... the Local Council have basically washed their hands of the whole issue and it would appear that they are putting the onus back onto the State Government in an effort to solve or address this problem.

The State Government has now introduced legislation that will put the onus on and give all the control back to local councils. That will not solve the problem at Lake Cathie and that is a major concern for the local community. Jack Jones, the secretary of the Lake Cathie Progress Association, said that the burden should not be dumped on local government. There must be State and Federal Government involvement because no council has the funds to do that sort of work. However, like the State Government, the Federal Government has dodged the issue.

The electorate of Port Macquarie is represented by Independent members at both the State and Federal level. Those members claim that they get on very well with their respective Labor governments. However, these so-called honest brokers, who believe that they can arrange special deals and achieve for their communities, have not delivered a solution for the Lake Cathie community. It is interesting to read the contribution in the other place of the member for Port Macquarie, Peter Besseling, who, unbelievably, represents the Lake Cathie community. He concluded his speech on this legislation by stating:

Within the development of coastal zone management plans the future action of State and local governments relative to public assets needs to be addressed. The impact of coastal erosion on New South Wales communities is directly upon us and the time to act is now. Given that I have approached the Government on many occasions to involve itself in coastal erosion issues, it would be hypocritical of me to reject this attempt and to reject the bill. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

That is the basis upon which he supported this bill, but it fails to support his local community. Interestingly, the other two country-based Independent members in the lower House—the member for Dubbo, Dawn Fardell, and the member for Tamworth, Peter Draper—opposed the bill. Perhaps they saw through it and realised that it did not achieve the outcomes that local communities need and desperately want.

I am very concerned that the member for Port Macquarie is not prepared to stand up to the State Government or to criticise it. He has been very pleased to make representations to the State Government and to encourage the community to believe he is achieving something. However, those representations have amounted to nothing for the Lake Cathie community. I am sad that that community's concerns will not be addressed by this bill. For that and many other reasons—including the fact that we are dealing with the fifty-seventh draft of this legislation—the Coalition will oppose this piece of spin, known as the "Coastal Destruction Bill".

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.04 p.m.], in reply: The Coastal Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is a framework bill that improves how coastal erosion risks are managed in New South Wales. It provides additional options for landowners to protect their property, strengthens the strategic management of erosion risks through coastal zone management plans and improves the statutory exceptions from liability for councils that act in good faith. This bill and the proposed amendments to the Infrastructure State Environmental Planning Policy—the infrastructure SEPP—are an integrated package that helps to address this challenging issue.

The State Government has undertaken extensive consultation on this bill and the complex and competing issues that were raised have been carefully considered. The bill has been diligently developed to ensure that property protection does not come at the cost of our beaches or unreasonably impeding public access to beaches. Unlike the Opposition, which does not care about protecting our public beaches, the Government is trying to strike a fair balance by providing carefully managed options for coastal landowners to protect their property in a way that also protects our precious beaches. The Opposition would happily let our beaches disappear.

It has been asserted that new council levies will be imposed on landowners. The bill does not provide councils with additional levy powers. The claim that it introduces a new tax is completely untrue. Councils can now recoup the cost of any works they undertake by way of a special rate levy. They must seek the approval of the Minister for Local Government to impose such a levy, and that will not change. The bill will allow owners, on a strictly voluntary basis, to agree to fund works if they choose to do so if they agree to pay for their ongoing maintenance and any necessary beach restoration. It also provides for cost sharing between owners and their local council for agreed works, but, again, on a strictly voluntary basis.

The rights of private property owners are not reduced by this bill; they are increased. In fact, the bill gives owners a new right to place emergency works to protect their properties without having to go through the full development application process. They will be able to get a certificate from an authorised officer of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water or their local council. For the first time, owners will be able to place emergency works on public land, such as a beach, without the consent of the public authority that owns the land. It is clear that the Hon. Catherine Cusack does not understand this bill. She did not deny that the Opposition has changed its position on the bill. However, she claimed that that change was a result of various amendments made to the bill.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: I have stated repeatedly that the Government changed the legislation and that the Opposition did not change its position.

The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order. Members who wish to take a point of order must wait until they are given the call before they speak. While we are having this break in proceedings, I point out that members should behave slightly better because they are setting a very bad example for young Jack Pavey, who is sitting in the President's gallery. We should be showing young people that we behave properly in this House.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: I believe Jack is here to compete at the State athletics carnival. It is good to be a runner. The Hon. Catherine Cusack has conveniently failed to tell the House that some of the changes made to the bill resulted from consultation with the Opposition. This bill is not significantly different from the version that the Opposition supported in June. Sadly, we are witnessing rank opportunism on the part of the Opposition.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack raised the concerns expressed by some coastal landowners about sea level rises being included on section 149 certificates. Certificates issued by local government are not affected one way or the other by this bill. The bill is not the reason for the concerns raised by people such as those living around Brisbane Waters. The claim that many coastal zone management plans have been adopted is misleading. The Minister's statement in this regard refers to coastal zone management plans prepared in accordance with the 2002 amendments to the Act and approved by the Minister. Two estuary management plans meet that criteria; no coastal zone management plans cover coastlines that meet the 2002 Act requirements, nor has the Minister approved any.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack claims that the Government has not provided a coastal management manual. She is obviously not aware that the New South Wales Coastline Management Manual, which assists councils in preparing coastline plans, was released in 1990. Further, as part of the Government's coastal management reforms, new draft guidelines for preparing coastal zone management plans have been prepared to improve the 1990 manual. The honourable member fails to realise that the limitations on the ability of property owners to use public beaches to protect their homes are already in legislation. Coastal property owners currently have no right to use public land to protect their properties. However, this bill provides some options for them to undertake emergency protection works in some circumstances and provides more streamlined approval processes for permanent protection works with related amendments to the infrastructure SEPP.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack referred to the fines for illegal works on beaches. She fails to realise that the fines that now apply to individuals who illegally dump rubbish on beaches are much higher than those that apply to illegal works on beaches. The dumping of rubbish, such as rusted car bodies or old tyres, on public beaches appropriately attracts penalties under existing waste dumping laws. Under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act a maximum fine of $500,000 for individuals or $2 million for corporations applies for negligent waste dumping that harms the environment.

Unauthorised development, such as illegal seawalls, can also attract penalties under existing planning laws. Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, a maximum fine of $1.1 million, plus $110,000 per day, currently applies for development without consent. Under this bill illegal coastal protection works may attract maximum penalties of $247,500 for individuals or $495,000 for corporations. Let me stress that these fines are maximum and are applied by a court, commensurate with the nature of the offence. They have been increased to these levels because owners now have a legal recourse in an emergency. It is only reasonable that they follow the proper process and not undertake illegal works on beaches.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack spoke about the 10-metre zone. The draft ministerial requirements, which are currently being reviewed in the light of public comment, will be revised, in accordance with the Minister's undertaking. The Minister has already indicated there is concern that the trigger distance for emergency works of 10 metres from a building is likely to be insufficient. The Minister has suggested that a distance in the order of 20 metres may be appropriate. Subject to further consultation it is envisaged that a change of this nature will occur. Other concerns about the wording of the draft ministerial requirement concerning emergency works will be clarified.

In conclusion, the coastal erosion issues we face in New South Wales today are challenging and there are no simple solutions. Houses have been lost due to erosion and many more are currently threatened. In the past, inappropriate actions have been taken to protect threatened properties, causing risks to public safety and the loss of beaches, which are of course highly valued by our community. The bill is a significant step towards strengthening the management of coastal erosion in this State. They achieve a reasonable balance between the concerns of beachfront landowners threatened by coastal erosion and the community's continuing use and enjoyment of our beaches. I thank all honourable members for their contributions in this debate and I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): With regard to the first set of amendments, those circulated by the Liberal Party, I remind the Hon. Catherine Cusack that Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice and the New South Wales Legislative Council Practice state:

An amendment is out of order if it is vague, trifling or tendered in a spirit of mockery.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.23 p.m.]: Madam Chair, I assure you that the amendments are not being moved in the spirit of mockery. We are seeking to move very serious amendments.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Did you intend to move the Liberal Party amendments in globo?

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Yes, Madam Chair.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): I have advised members of my concerns with regard to the Liberal Party amendments. I propose to allow them to be moved to enable members to speak to them. I will then put the question with respect to them and it will be a matter for the Committee to decide how they are dealt with.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.24 p.m.], by leave: I move Liberal Party amendments Nos 1 to 5 in globo:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 1, lines 2 to 4. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

1 Name of Act
This Act is the Coastal Destruction and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010.

No. 2 Page 37, schedule 1 [35], proposed section 64 (2), line 27. Omit "Protection". Insert instead "Destruction".

No. 3 Page 38, schedule 1 [35], proposed section 65 (2), line 2. Omit "Protection". Insert instead "Destruction".

No. 4 Page 38, schedule 1 [36], line 9. Omit "Protection". Insert instead "Destruction".

No. 5 Page 49, schedule 2 [9], line 22. Omit "Protection". Insert instead "Destruction".

Under this bill the most restrictive and burdensome regime for temporary and permanent protection works would be forced on every owner of property along New South Wales beaches, coastal rivers, lagoons, bays, lakes and estuaries. This bill is a huge attack on the fundamental common law right of all property owners to protect from inundation by sea or tidal waters. The restrictions on emergency protection fly in the face of what every Australian expects, which is that emergency services will be there to protect life and property in an emergency. The provisions for permanent protection place overwhelming burdens on beachfront property owners out to a level of 10 metres depth under coastal waters.

It seems very unlikely that many property owners could assume such obligations, and the users of our beaches themselves are already protesting. A number of other industry bodies have criticised the bill, including the tourism taskforce, the New South Wales Property Council, the Institute of Valuers and the Local Government and Shires Associations, which recently criticised the bill because of its insufficient focus on long-term solutions. In addition, property owners up and down the coastline are protesting. The Minister is not listening. Through his correspondence issued last week, the Minister is evidently trying to mislead everybody into not realising that he proposes to introduce the most draconian restrictions on the right to protect that have ever been introduced in any part of Australia.

If this bill becomes law, it will result in increased environmental degradation as property owners are unable to protect their properties, and that will, in turn, cause damage to other properties, communities, public roads and infrastructure, as well as the existing natural environment. No attempt has been made to assess the ramifications of this destruction, even though the Department of Environment and Climate Change has acknowledged on its website that it will only be on rare occasions that emergency protection measures can be satisfied. I doubt they can be satisfied at all. In a complete reversal of what the Government promised to do, the bill also allows councils to disallow any protection and deletes the current section under which the elected State Government had the power to approve or not approve council plans. Power is being removed from the elected State Government and given to councils and to the Local Government and Shires Associations when councils are not resourced and competent to act. This is a recipe for inconsistency and for a debacle along our coastline. The bill will result in the long-term destruction of private property and the existing natural environment along our beaches, our coastal rivers, our lagoons, our bays, our lakes and our estuaries. I urge all members to consider the amendments, which seek to change the name of the bill to the Coastal Destruction and Other Legislation Amendment Bill.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [9.28 p.m.]: My response to the matters put forward by the Hon. Catherine Cusack is that I am obviously in the wrong party. I have strutted my stuff in my own way in this Chamber for some 16 years and will stagger out after putting significant effort into bills such as this, which I take very seriously. A lot of work has been put in by my staff and me on such legislation, and I know other members work very hard in this regard also. But in this case, the Hon. Catherine Cusack has sought to transform this debate from sensible to ridiculous. She has come up with a one-word amendment, seeking to change the word "protection" to "destruction", and hopes to waltz her way to a possible ministerial position in the next Government. I find the whole situation ridiculous.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [9.29 p.m.]: I did not intend to speak, but after the Hon. Ian Cohen's contribution I just could not help myself. I agree wholeheartedly with him. I apologise to my colleagues: I cannot vote for something as silly as this. However, I recall that the Greens' first amendment to the Game and Feral Animal Control Bill 2002 was to change the title of the bill to the Blood Sports Bill. Touché!

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.30 p.m.]: The Government will not support Liberal Party amendments Nos 1 to 5.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.30 p.m.], in reply: I must reply to the Hon. Ian Cohen's insinuation that we have not taken this legislation seriously. Indeed, to the contrary: I have spent most of the past few months visiting all the hotspots, meeting with the communities, and meeting with all the local councils. I have had numerous meetings with the Minister.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Why didn't you draft amendments then?

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I acknowledge Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's interjection. Based on the original legislation, which was released in a draft by the previous Minister, John Robertson, we were eager to discuss a bipartisan position with the Government and to take the politics out of this incredibly emotional issue. Members have heard from the debate in the Chamber tonight just how emotional the issue is and, unfortunately, how personally some members appear to take it. I can assure members that it is a very personal issue for property owners who are being directly impacted and who feel that their lives are about to be placed in great jeopardy. In fact, many residents on the Central Coast feel that that moment has already passed.

Members of the Coalition did in good faith approach the Minister, and in good faith we talked to him about the benefits to our community of taking a bipartisan position on the issue. But through a process of 60 different versions of this bill in the past 12 months, the bill has altered unrecognisably from what was initially put forward. It appears to us that it has been about the Government and the Greens working together. I felt that was very disappointing because we really gave the Government the opportunity to have the support it needed to stare down ideologues on this issue.

It has been an incredible amount of work. Because of the toll on my family, the amount of travel I have done and so on, it is not at all fair to accuse Coalition members of treating this as a trivial issue. We absolutely have not done so, and we are very disappointed that, in spite of our best efforts all the way through this process over 12 months, we have now reached the point where we are totally opposed to the legislation. It was not a case of moving amendments to the legislation. I have made many requests to the Minister for changes to the legislation.

I understand that the Local Government and Shires Associations recommended 40 or 50 amendments. About half of those amendments have been incorporated by the Minister. The bill has slid in a completely different direction to that presented originally. None of our suggestions have been taken on board. The issue of people having to wait until a storm is underway and the land is eroded to within 10 metres of their building—not their property, but their building—was raised with the Minister in August, and he now claims that he is having that issue addressed. The issue was raised with the Minister two months ago. We have negotiated in good faith. That is why we feel we have reached this point of complete opposition to the bill.

With regard to the amendment to change the title of the bill, it is not a matter that we take lightly. It is a reflection of the way in which we feel the original intentions behind the bill and what is required for this State have been turned completely on their head and reversed, hence our amendment that the title of the bill be changed from "coastal protection" to "coastal destruction". We have no doubt that if the bill runs its full course that is exactly what the result of it will be.

Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 5 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 5 negatived.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [9.35 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24:

No. 1 Page 10, schedule 1 [5], proposed section 13. Insert after line 31:

(2) In exercising its functions, the Coastal Panel is to have regard to the objects of this Act.

No. 2 Page 11, schedule 1 [5], proposed section 13 (3), line 2. Insert "the Minister and" after "concurrence of".

No. 3 Page 12, schedule 1 [11], lines 19 and 20. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

[11] Section 55A
Omit the section. Insert instead:
55A Minister to have regard to objects of Act
In exercising his or her functions under this Part, the Minister is to have regard to the objects of this Act.

No. 4 Page 17, schedule 1 [25], proposed section 55M, lines 5 to 31. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) Consent must not be granted under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to development for the purpose of coastal protection works, unless the consent authority is satisfied that:
(a) the works will not over the life of the works:
(i) unreasonably limit or be likely to unreasonably limit public access to or the use of a beach or headland, or

(ii) pose or be likely to pose a threat to public safety, and
(b) satisfactory arrangements have been made (by conditions imposed on the consent) for the following for the life of the works:
(i) the restoration of a beach, or land adjacent to the beach, if any increased erosion of the beach or adjacent land is caused by the presence of the works,

(ii) the maintenance of the works.

(2) The arrangements referred to in subsection (1) (b) are to secure adequate funding for the carrying out of any such restoration and maintenance, including by either or both of the following:
(a) by legally binding obligations (including by way of financial assurance or bond) of all or any of the following:
(i) the owner or owners from time to time of the land protected by the works,

(ii) if the coastal protection works are constructed by or on behalf of landowners or by landowners jointly with a council or public authority—the council or public authority,

Note. Section 80A (6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides that a development consent may be granted subject to a condition, or a consent authority may enter into an agreement with an applicant, that the applicant must provide security for the payment of the cost of making good any damage caused to any property of the consent authority as a consequence of the doing of anything to which the consent relates.
(b) by payment to the relevant council of an annual charge for coastal protection services (within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993).

No. 5 Page 18, schedule 1 [26], proposed Part 4C, note, lines 4 to 9. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 7 Page 19, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55P (2) (e), lines 13 to 16. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(e) in relation to material placed before 1 September 2011—the material must be placed by or on behalf of the landowner in accordance with any requirements adopted by the Minister and published in the Gazette for the purposes of this section before 1 January 2011,

No. 8 Page 20, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55R (1) (c), lines 31 and 32. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(c) in relation to works placed before 1 September 2011—any requirements adopted by the Minister and published in the Gazette for the purposes of this section before 1 January 2011,

No. 11 Page 21, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55T. Insert after line 38:

(6) For the avoidance of doubt, works are not or cease to be emergency coastal protection works for the purposes of this Act if the works are not placed or maintained, respectively, in accordance with the requirements set out in the conditions of a certificate issued under this Division.
Note. See also section 55P (2) (a) and 55R (1) (a).

No. 12 Page 24, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55Y (1) (a), lines 11 and 12. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(a) in relation to works placed before 1 September 2011—any requirements adopted by the Minister and published in the Gazette for the purposes of this subsection before 1 January 2011, and

No. 14 Page 25, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55Z (1). Insert after "concerned" on line 18:

, and
(e) to minimise disruption of the public use of the beach concerned.

No. 16 Page 26, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55ZA (3) (a), lines 36 to 37. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(a) in relation to an order made before 1 September 2011—any requirements adopted by the Minister and published in the Gazette for the purposes of this subsection before 1 January 2011, and

No. 18 Page 28, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55ZC (1) (d), lines 12 to 16. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(d) the works have ceased to be emergency coastal protection works (for example, the works have been in place for longer than the maximum period allowed for emergency coastal protection works or the works are not being maintained as required by Part 4C or this Part or the requirements of the certificate under Division 2 of Part 4C that authorises the works).

No. 21 Page 28, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55ZC (4) (a), lines 39 and 40. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(a) in relation to an order made before 1 September 2011—any requirements adopted by the Minister and published in the Gazette for the purposes of this subsection before 1 January 2011, and

No. 22 Page 43, schedule 1 [38], proposed schedule 2. Insert after line 17:

16 Minutes of meetings
The Coastal Panel must cause full and accurate minutes to be kept of the proceedings of its meetings.
17 Minutes to be available for public inspection
The Chairperson must, on request, make available to any member of the public a copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the meetings of the Coastal Panel.

No. 23 Page 45, schedule 2 [1], proposed section 496B (10), line 22. Omit "may". Insert instead "is to".

No. 24 Page 52, schedule 3. Insert after line 9:

3.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No 203
Section 79C Evaluation
Insert at the end of section 79C (1) (iv):
and
(v) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979),

Greens amendment No. 1 seeks to ensure the functions of the New South Wales coastal panel are undertaken in a way that is consistent with the objectives of the Act. The original Coastal Council had a similar provision that established an organisational framework for the council. Greens amendment No. 2 deals with the ability of the New South Wales coastal panel to delegate its development consent authority powers. There would be very limited instances whereby the New South Wales coastal panel should be delegating its consent power, if at all. The Greens amendment simply requires both the Minister for Planning and the Minister administering the Coastal Protection Act to agree concurrently to the delegation of consent powers of the New South Wales coastal panel.

Greens amendment No. 3 aims to restrict the ability of the Minister to exercise powers under part 4A relating to coastal zone management plans to the object of the Act. For example, the amendment will restrict the ability of the Minister to require review of existing coastal zone management plans where it is not consistent with the objects of the Act and does not comply with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. Greens amendment No. 4 seeks to replace new section 55M and insert an altered version of section 55M. There are two key changes in the Greens version of section 55M. Firstly, issues of public safety and access will be threshold issues in the development consent process. It will avoid unnecessary discretion on the formulation of mitigating conditions in relation to public safety and access. These principles should be non-negotiable. Secondly, the Greens version expands the application of legally binding obligations such as bonds and assurance to all permanent works.

Greens amendment No. 5 removes the note at the start of part 4C, Emergency Coastal Protection Works. The note talks about the ability of public authorities to develop coastal erosion emergency works without development consent under clause 129 of the Infrastructure State Environmental Planning Policy. We all know that the Department of Lands has sought to retain an ability to install large-scale rock walls without development consent. Whether part 4C alters the operation of other laws pertaining to protection works is a matter of legal interpretation, not a blanket statement contained in a note.

Greens amendments Nos 7, 8, 12, 16 and 21 tighten up the way in which new guidelines relating to the technical requirements for emergency coastal protection works can be published. The Greens are of the opinion that Parliament should have a say in such requirements, which include specification on work height, definitions of beach erosion imminence and escarpments, and maintenance requirements. As such, these technical requirements should be contained in a disallowable instrument such as a regulation so that we do not leave these requirements to the whim of the executive.

Greens amendment No. 11 clarifies that emergency coastal protection works cease to be works if conditions in the division 2 certificate are not complied with. We note that there are already provisions in sections 55P (2) (a) and 55R (1) (a). However, it is necessary to make specific reference to the conditions as opposed to requirements attaching to a division 2 certificate and to make clear the implications of non-compliance with conditions.

Greens amendment No. 14 adds an additional requirement where emergency works are placed on public land. The requirement is that all reasonable measures should be taken to minimise disruption of the public use of the beach. There is a differentiation between access and use. Use is a much more specific context that relates to how a community uses a beach, whereas access is a concept that focuses on a physical ability to move across. Emergency protection work should not be allowed to impact on beach recreation. Greens amendment No. 18 is a technical amendment to ensure that breaching conditions of a division 2 certificate cause the works to cease being considered emergency protection works and as such can be removed under new section 55ZC.

Greens amendment No. 22 requires the New South Wales coastal panel to keep minutes of proceedings and such minutes must be available for public inspection. This is consistent with many statutory authorities working in the natural resource and environmental management field. Greens amendment No. 23 aims to guarantee that local councils are adequately aided by guidelines issued by the Minister in relation to the levying of coastal protection service charges. Greens amendment No. 23 inserts an amendment into section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requiring consent authorities to consider coastal zone management plans in development applications. As highlighted in my speech during the second reading debate, large amounts of research and consultation have gone into formulating coastal zone management plans. As most of them are yet to be formulated, they should be considered or go into development applications and be used to guide planning decisions on the coast. I commend those Greens amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.41 p.m.]: The Government supports Greens amendment No. 1, which states that the objects of the Act are guiding principles for those exercising functions under the Act. Greens amendment No. 2 will mean that the coastal panel can delegate its functions only with the concurrence of both the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. That amendment is appropriate and it is supported. Greens amendment No. 3 refers to the objects of the Act as guiding principles for those exercising functions under that Act. That amendment is supported. Greens amendment No. 4 makes it clear that development consent should not be granted if the proposed coastal protection works pose a threat to public safety or unreasonably limit public access. That amendment is also supported. Greens amendment No. 5 refers to the note to be deleted and states that the relationship of part 4C with other laws is deemed unnecessary. That amendment is supported.

Greens amendments Nos 7, 8, 12, 16 and 21 recognise that the proposed ministerial requirements will have effect only in relation to material put in place before 1 September 2011. The ministerial requirements are only intended to operate temporarily until they are enshrined elsewhere; for example, a regulation under the Act. Once the Act has been proclaimed it is the Minister's intention to draft a regulation that incorporates appropriate provisions from the Minister's requirements. The Government is committed to ministerial requirements that provide, where there is already a form of coastal protection works on the land, such as a seawall, whether constructed lawfully or unlawfully, the landowner can place emergency coastal protection works on that land only if the landowner provides an emergency works authorised officer with a letter from a professional engineer certifying that those works will provide a lower degree of erosion protection than the emergency coastal protection works, and that letter is provided before the application for certification is determined. It is committed also to ministerial requirements that allow emergency works to be placed on land only if the emergency works authorised officer is of the opinion that the sand dune erosion escarpment is within 20 metres of a building being lawfully used for residential, commercial or community purposes. Those amendments are supported.

Greens amendment No. 11 simply describes the effect of other provisions in the bill and is supported. Greens amendment No. 14 specifies that in addition to the other measures a landowner must take before placing emergency coastal protection works on adjoining public land, the landowner must take steps also to minimise disruption of public use of the public land concerned. That amendment is appropriate and is supported. Greens amendment No. 18 simply clarifies the intended operation of the subsection and is supported. Greens amendment No. 22 simply ensures that the coastal panel will keep publicly available minutes of its meetings. That amendment is appropriate and is supported. Greens amendment No. 23 refers to the fact that the Minister fully intends to issue guidelines relating to coastal protection charges. This amendment will require him to do so, and is supported. Greens amendment No. 24 requires a consent authority to consider a relevant coastal zone management plan in determining a development application, and is supported.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.44 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition was advised of the Greens 26 amendments late this afternoon after I began my comments, so clearly we were never in a position to consider them or to make an informed assessment. The Government and the Greens have done a deal on these amendments and they have cut out everyone else. A long list of new restrictions will now be placed on property owners. I thought the list in this legislation was already exhaustive so it required enormous creativity to think of additional restrictions. More restrictions have been conceptualised to which the Government appears to be agreeing readily. The bill is an absolute farce and this is yet another chapter in that farce.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24 agreed to.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [9.46 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 6, 10, 17, 25 and 26 in globo:

No. 6 Pages 18-19, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55P (2) (b), line 36 on page 18 to line 2 on page 19. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(b) the material must be placed by or on behalf of a landowner to protect a lawfully erected building used for residential, commercial or community purposes from damage due to erosion,

No. 10 Page 21, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55T. Insert after line 30:

(4) A condition under subsection (3) may, for example, require the owner of land to whom the certificate is issued to obtain adequate public liability insurance in respect of the works within a specified time.

No. 17 Page 28, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55ZC (1), line 4. Omit "may". Insert instead "must".

No. 25 Page 53, schedule 3.2. Insert after line 7:

[3] Schedule 3 Designated development
Insert after clause 12:

12A Coastal protection works
Coastal protection works (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979) that are constructed using any rocks, concrete, construction waste or other debris.

No. 26 Page 54, schedule 3. Insert after line 4:

3.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
[1] Clause 129 Development permitted without consent
Omit clause 129 (2) (c) and (d). Insert instead:
(c) environmental management works erected or placed on a beach, or a sand dune adjacent to a beach, that are constructed using material or objects other than rocks, concrete, construction waste or other debris, including but not limited to the following:
(i) beach nourishment works,

(ii) foreshore erosion control works,

(iii) dune and foreshore stabilisation works,

(iv) headland management works,

(v) weed management works,

(vi) revegetation activities,

(vii) foreshore and dune access way works,

(viii) foreshore amenity works.
[2] Clause 129 (4)

Insert after clause 129 (3):
(4) Development for the purpose of emergency works required as a result of flooding, storms or coastal erosion may be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority without consent, but only if:
(a) the development is carried out for the purpose of protecting public infrastructure, and

(b) the development comprises the placement of works:

(i) that would constitute emergency coastal protection works within the meaning of section 55P of the Coastal Protection Act 1979 (other than 55P (2) (a) and (b)), and

(ii) for a period that does not exceed 12 months commencing on the placement of the works (or such longer period as the Minister administering that Act, with the concurrence of the Coastal Panel established under that Act, allows), and

(iii) that are maintained in accordance with any requirements referred to in section 55R (1) (b)-(d) of that Act, and
(c) within 6 months after the works are removed, the land on which the development was carried out is restored in accordance with any requirements referred to in section 55Y (1) (a) and (b).

Greens amendment No. 6 relates to what landowners can use emergency coastal protection works to protect. Previous versions of the bill allowed vacant land to be protected with emergency coastal protection works. While we are happy that that has now been removed from the bill there are some issues relating to new section 55P (2) (b). The current version in the bill allows landowners to install emergency protection works to reduce the impact of erosion on a building lawfully used for residential, commercial or community purposes. In comparison to earlier versions of the bill, the current version is focused on allowing works to protect lawful occupation as opposed to lawful residential commercial or community buildings.

The Greens amendment removes this approach and replaces it with a version used in an earlier bill that focuses on lawfully erected buildings rather than lawfully occupied buildings. There are many situations in which residents are occupying illegal dwellings that do not have the appropriate consents. Why should we protect properties that do not have the appropriate development consent? Landowners should be encouraged to obtain appropriate consent before having an ability to use emergency coastal protection works, otherwise the bill will be seen as encouraging illegal works on our coastline.

Greens amendment No. 10 seeks to encourage local governments to require as a condition on the certificate the holding of adequate public liability insurance in respect of emergency protection works. It does not make it mandatory but it simply authorises local governments to require such a condition. What needs to be remembered is that accidents or private property damage on a neighbour's land caused by emergency protection works not negligently placed or maintained are not exempted in proposed amendments to section 733 of the Local Government Act. In other words, the council potentially holds the bucket on liability where personal or property damage is caused by emergency works placed in the absence of negligence. I think any council that does not require landowners to have public liability insurance before issuing a division 2 certificate is running a liability gauntlet.

Greens amendment No. 17 aims to remove the discretion of coastal authorities in relation to the power in new section 55ZC—that is, the power to seek removal, repair or alteration of emergency works. In some cases councils exercise these powers in highly emotive situations. There are similar situations whereby councils have difficulty exercising discretionary powers in relation to land management. Applying public safety requirements where a resident is hoarding rubbish and possessions in a manner unsafe and dangerous to health and safety standards is such a situation. Because of certain sensitivities in many cases, discretion feeds inaction. The power in new section 55ZC is one of those cases. The people of New South Wales should be guaranteed a beach free of dangerous and unstable emergency works.

Greens amendment No. 25 lists permanent coastal protection works constructed from rock, concrete, construction, waste or other debris as designated development. The aim of listing such permanent coastal protection works as designated development is to ensure that development applications are supported by rigorous environmental impact statements, subject to public consultation and disclosure and open to appeal by third party objectors. Listing such works as designated development will ensure that the public has a say on works that may irreversibly alter the nature of a beach. Greens amendment No. 26 seeks to require public authorities to abide by the same requirements as private landowners in relation to emergency protection works. I commend the Greens amendments.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.50 p.m.]: Greens amendment No. 6 seeks to prevent the placement of emergency coastal protection works to reduce likely, as opposed to actual, erosion impacts. Emergency coastal protection work should be able to be used to prevent actual and likely impacts. Therefore, the Government does not support this amendment. Greens amendment No. 10 will allow a condition to be attached to a certificate authorising emergency coastal protection works, which would require the owner of land to obtain public liability insurance in respect of the works. The Government considers this would be an unreasonable requirement, given the urgent circumstances that would surround emergency coastal protection works and the extensive limitations in the bill on what is allowed by way of emergency coastal protection works. This amendment is not supported. Greens amendment No. 17 relates to the proposed power to issue an order to remove, alter or repair emergency coastal protection works in certain circumstances. It would require the Coastal Authority to issue a notice if the specified circumstances exist. This is clearly inappropriate. Order powers such as these should be a tool available in appropriate circumstances; they should not be required to be issued in all circumstances. The amendment would result in a position that is completely out of step with the order powers in other legislation. Therefore, this proposed amendment is not supported.

Greens amendment No. 25 seeks to make long-term coastal protection works designated development under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This would place unnecessary and unreasonable burdens on landowners seeking to protect their properties from coastal erosion. It could drastically delay the implementation of works by imposing public consultation requirements, including the development and exhibition of an environmental impact statement, prior to the determination of the development application. It would also open the door to third party objector appeals to the Land and Environment Court if development consent is granted. Therefore, this amendment is not supported. As to Greens amendment No. 26, the Infrastructure State Environmental Planning Policy [SEPP] is designed to streamline important public authority developments. Public authorities will need to carry out assessments under part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In doing so, they will need to consider the impact of the proposed development on coastal processes, which adequately addresses this issue. The proposed amendment, therefore, is unnecessary and we do not support it.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.53 p.m.]: The Coalition has not had the opportunity to look in detail at the proposed amendments. All these amendments seem to add further restrictions, without any regard to the circumstances on individual beaches. They impose blanket restrictions that seek to frustrate property owners from defending their properties. Many of these restrictions are being argued in the name of protecting public beaches. At one beach that I have visited at Old Bar no public beach is left. By the time the erosion has occurred in the sand dunes to within 10 metres of a person's property the public beach has disappeared and the beach is now on private land.

The Greens and others who consider this is wonderful legislation are completely oblivious to the fact that by defending our coastline we are defending public beaches. We want to preserve public access. We recognise an enormous number of past engineered works, such as breakwaters at rivers and the groyne that is holding together the central business district of Byron Bay at Johnston Street, which is in decay and in need of replacement. Replacing that groyne will impact on the Belongil people, whom the council is preventing from defending their properties. No regard is given to the circumstances of individual cases. To continue to frustrate these landowners, based not on the facts but on ideology, is incredibly unfair and disrespectful to those property owners and ultimately it is counterproductive to maintaining the public beach.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [9.55 p.m.]: I want to comment on the accusations made by the Hon. Catherine Cusack. First, Belongil is pronounced "Belonjil". Secondly, it is not driven by ideology. Thirdly, there is a great deal of dispute about the impact of the groyne. The science is that the groyne that is in front of the swimming pool in town is not the reason for erosion problems further along Belongil Spit. It is well proven to be the result of works much closer to affected areas. This type of information is either malevolent or coming from an ignorance of coastal processes.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.55 p.m.]: I ask the Hon. Ian Cohen whether he defends the groyne. Does he support the replacement or upgrade of that groyne in order to defend the central business district of Byron Bay?

The Hon. IAN COHEN [9.56 p.m.]: My understanding is that the council is looking at works to ameliorate that groyne for a number of reasons, but not for the simplistic perspective put forward by the Opposition.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 6, 10, 17, 25 and 26 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 6, 10, 17, 25 and 26 negatived.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [9.57 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos. 9, 13, 15, 19 and 20 in globo:

No. 9 Page 21, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55S (1), line 10. Omit "(other than public land)".

No. 13 Page 25, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55Z (1), line 7. Insert "on land owned by the person" after "works".

No. 15 Page 25, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55Z (3), line 33. Omit "(whether public or private)". Insert instead "owned by the person".

No. 19 Page 28, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55ZC (2), line 19. Omit "(whether public or private land)".

No. 20 Page 28, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55ZC (3) (a), line 29. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:

(a) to avoid using or occupying the public land for the placing and maintaining of the works on land owned by the person, or

These consequential amendments will have the effect of preventing emergency works from being placed on public land. Instead, landholders will be allowed to use public land to place works on their own private property. The amendments allow access to public land but not use for the placement of works. To allow private landowners to use and occupy public land without paying any compensation is unprecedented. The use of public land, specifically the beach, for the placement of works is problematic and the Greens oppose this element of the bill. I commend Greens amendments Nos 9, 13, 15, 19 and 20.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.58 p.m.]: Greens amendment No. 9 would mean that emergency coastal protection works could be placed only once on a particular parcel of public land. Given that public land could join several parcels of private land, it is inappropriate to limit the number of emergency coastal protection works placed on public land. Therefore, the Government opposes this amendment. Greens amendments Nos 13, 15, 19 and 20 seek to prevent private landowners placing emergency coastal protection works on adjoining public land. This is unduly restrictive. The bill already limits the circumstances in which such works can be constructed by a private landowner on adjacent public land. The private landowner is allowed to do so only when he or she has taken all reasonable measures to avoid placing the works on the public land, to avoid damage to the public land, to minimise public risk and to maintain public access. These amendments, therefore, are not supported.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.59 p.m.]: This is a particularly petty amendment that seeks to obstruct private property owners from implementing legal protection works in an emergency by denying them access to public land. In any other form of emergency—an emergency in the water or an emergency on the beach—people seeking to institute emergency procedures are entitled to access the scene of the emergency using public land: it is what we would all expect. Why should people not be allowed to access public land for this particular type of emergency? It is mind-boggling and speaks volumes about the mentality of the approach taken with this bill.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [10.00 p.m.]: It also speaks volumes about the mentality of Opposition members that they seem to be misconstruing the concept of access. We are talking about the allowance of access across public land but not the building of emergency works on public land to support or protect private land. There is no question about accessing public land. This is misconstruing the argument altogether and it will be used probably as some sort of propaganda campaign, of which we have seen so much in recent times. The objections are without any substance at all. Once again, the situation is being misconstrued when there is honest argument. I understand the amendments are not supported; nevertheless, this is an honest argument on the part of the Greens to make sure that the works that are carried out are carried out on the private land. There is no argument about accessing across or being able to use public land. The Opposition's argument is very mischievous.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.01 p.m.]: As the Hon. Ian Cohen knows, defending one's private property when it is adjacent to public land is of no use whatsoever, and we have seen this up and down the coastline. This is the whole flaw in the block-by-block approach that the Government and the Greens are seeking to take—which is a minimalist and ineffective approach—because if you defend your block and the blocks on either side of your block are being gouged by stormwater obviously all of your protections are rendered redundant. We do not support that approach. We believe it has got to be a landscape and a beach approach. We are doing that in every other area of the environment. Imposing these limitations is yet again an attempt to accelerate the destruction of private property and to frustrate people's attempts to defend their property.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 9, 13, 15, 19 and 20 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.
Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 9, 13, 15, 19 and 20 negatived.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.10 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 22, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55T (6), lines 1 to 5. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(6) A person must not make an application to an issuing authority for a certificate to authorise the placement of emergency coastal protection works if:
(a) a certificate relating to the same works has been issued by another issuing authority and is in force, or

(b) an application to another issuing authority in relation to the same works is pending.
(7) In this section:
emergency works authorised officer means an authorised officer appointed by a council or the Director-General who has been authorised in writing by the council or the Director-General, as appropriate, for the purposes of issuing certificates under this Division.

issuing authority, in relation to an application for a certificate under this Division, means the relevant local council and the Director-General.

The amendments are designed to improve the legislation and to address the criticism that it appears to be introducing a new tax on landowners. This amendment relates to certificates for emergency protection works and ensures that a person cannot get two certificates from different authorities for the same emergency works.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [10.01 p.m.]: This amendment prevents landholders from applying for multiple division 2 certificates. It prevents certificate shopping and the Greens strongly support it.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.01 p.m.]: This is a well-reasoned and appropriate amendment. As such, the Government supports it.

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

Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.02 p.m.], by leave: I move Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 2 to 4 in globo:

No. 2 Page 28, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55ZC. Insert after line 35:

(4) A Coastal Authority that is a designated authority for land on which a person has placed (or caused to be placed) emergency coastal protection works may order the person to restore land that is adjacent to the land on which the works were placed if the Coastal Authority is of the opinion that the adjacent land has been damaged or disturbed by:
(a) the placement, maintenance or removal of the works, or

(b) erosion caused by the works.
No. 3 Page 30, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55ZD. Insert after line 28:

(9) An order under this Part given to a person does not authorise the person to enter land without the permission of the owner of the land.

No. 4 Page 31, schedule 1 [26], proposed section 55ZF. Insert after line 23:

(2) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under this section if the defendant establishes that the failure to comply with the order concerned was caused by the refusal of an owner of land to give the defendant permission to enter the land to do the act or thing required by the order.

These amendments, which refer to orders relating to coastal protection works, will enable a coastal authority to issue an order to a person who has placed emergency works that require him or her to restore adjacent land disturbed during the placing, maintenance or removal of the works or as a consequence of erosion caused by the works. The amendments also clarify that a person must comply with the order only if the owner of the adjacent land consents to him or her coming onto the land to carry out the works. These amendments recognise the rights of the landowner and of the owner of adjacent land.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [10.03 p.m.]: Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 2 provides some additional protections to neighbouring landowners whose property may be damaged by adjacent emergency protection works. I have raised this issue and I am glad that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has provided an equitable solution for all landowners. This deals with some of the points raised in the debate. While the bells were being rung for the division I spoke with the mayor of Byron Shire Council, who assured me that she has not met with the Hon. Catherine Cusack to discuss these issues. She sat on a bus at the airport with her for a moment, but to her knowledge the honourable member has not had a meeting with Byron Shire Council about this issue. I seek some clarification.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Of what?

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Whether you met with the mayor. She said that you did not meet with her.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: No, I did not meet with her.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: Unless I am very much mistaken, you said in the House that you met with the mayor.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: I do not believe I said that. I have no idea what you are talking about.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I will let it go. Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 3 and 4 clarify that an order under proposed section 55ZD issued to a landholder does not authorise that person to enter private land without the permission of the owner and create a defence of noncompliance if the consent to enter is refused. The Greens also support these amendments.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.04 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendments.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.05 p.m.]: It is obvious that the Christian Democrats, like the Greens, have negotiated their amendments directly with the Government. The Coalition has not had the benefit of briefings and it is therefore not in a position to assess them.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.05 p.m.]: The Shooters and Fishers Party supports these excellent amendments.

Question—That Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 2 to 4 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 2 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.05 p.m.], by leave: I move Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 5 and 6 in globo:

No. 5 Page 44, schedule 2 [1], proposed section 496B, lines 7 to 22. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) A council may, in accordance with this Act and the regulations, make and levy an annual charge for the provision by the council of coastal protection services for a parcel of rateable land that benefits from the services, being services that relate to coastal protection works constructed:
(a) by or on behalf of the owner or occupier (or a previous owner or occupier) of the parcel of land, or

(b) jointly by or on behalf of:
(i) the owner or occupier (or a previous owner or occupier) of the parcel of land, and

(ii) a public authority or a council.

No. 6 Page 45, schedule 2 [1], proposed section 496B (9), line 17. Omit "Subsections (1) and (2) do". Insert instead "Subsection (1) does".

These amendments relate to the coastal protection service charge. The bill contains the word "must". Concern has been expressed, including by the Opposition during the second reading debate, that councils could be forced to impose levies or charges on landowners. These amendments remove that compulsion. Councils should not be obliged to impose a charge on landowners whenever they provide coastal protection services for coastal protection work constructed by or on behalf of landowners. As it stands, the Act forces councils to impose a charge when they do not wish to do so. These amendments ensure that councils have the discretion to determine whether to impose such a charge on landowners. Obviously, councils will consider the landowners' concerns.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [10.06 p.m.]: These amendments simply clarify the levying of annual coastal service protection charges. As such, the Greens support them.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.06 p.m.]: The Government supports these amendments.

Question—That Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 5 and 6 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 5 and 6 agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.07 p.m.], by leave: I move Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 7 to 10 in globo:

No. 7 Page 45, schedule 2 [3], proposed section 553B (1), lines 33 to 36. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) An annual charge for coastal protection services may not be levied on a parcel of rateable land in relation to existing coastal protection works unless the owner (or any previous owner) of that land has consented in writing to the land being subject to such charges.

No. 8 Page 46, schedule 2 [3], proposed section 553B (2), lines 3 to 6. Omit:

if, after the commencement of this section, the owner or occupier of the parcel of rateable land contributed to the upgrade or expansion of the existing coastal protection works.
Insert instead:
if the owner or occupier (or any previous owner or occupier) of the parcel of rateable land contributed, after the commencement of this section, to the upgrade or expansion of the existing coastal protection works.

No. 9 Page 52, schedule 3.2. Insert after line 10:

[1] Clause 3 Definitions
Insert in alphabetical order in clause 3 (1):
coastal council means a council whose area, or part of whose area, is included within the coastal zone (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979) or whose area includes land that adjoins the tidal waters of the Hawkesbury River, Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay, and their tributaries.
No. 10 Page 53, schedule 3.2 [2], lines 3 to 7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

4B Annual charges under Local Government Act 1993 for coastal protection services that relate to existing coastal protection works
In relation to a coastal council—whether the owner (or any previous owner) of the land has consented in writing to the land being subject to annual charges under section 496B of the Local Government Act 1993 for coastal protection services that relate to existing coastal protection works (within the meaning of section 553B of that Act).

Note. "Existing coastal protection works" are works to reduce the impact of coastal hazards on land (such as seawalls, revetments, groynes and beach nourishment) that existed before the commencement of section 553B of the Local Government Act 1993.

These amendments again clarify that where a landowner with existing coastal protection works consents to the council imposing a charge for the maintenance of those works the council can also impose that charge on subsequent owners of the land. That is obviously fair. When this bill commences some landowners with existing coastal protection works may wish to ask the council to maintain those works and to manage any erosion impacts that the works might cause. If a landowner wants to do that—and it is up to the landowner—then a council should be able to impose a charge on the landowner to recover the cost of those services.

Under the current bill a council must obtain the consent of the landowner before imposing a charge for providing services to maintain or manage the owner's coastal protection works. This amendment makes sure that where such a landowner gives consent for the council to impose such a charge then the council can impose that charge on subsequent owners of that land. It would also be noted on a planning certificate so potential purchasers of the land will be aware of the situation and will not be taken by surprise. They can take into account the value of the land and so on because of that notation on a certificate.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [10.20 p.m.]: Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 7 and 8 deal with successor in title issues relating to existing works and the applicability of coastal service protection charges, and as such are supported by the Greens. Christian Democratic Party amendments 9 and 10 relate to information placed on planning certificates and these amendments clarify where annual service charges are consented to be levied, a recording to be made on the certificate. The Greens support all those final amendments moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.21 p.m.]: The Government supports Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 7, 8, 9 and 10.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.22 p.m.]: I cannot let these amendments pass without making some comment in relation to the Government's new plan to tax beachfront owners in order to shift the cost of coastal protection onto those people. I must make the point that to put all the burden onto such a small group of people in our community is virtually having the effect of privatising the maintenance of our beaches—point number one. Secondly, it appears to give no recognition to the fact that there are protection issues for the properties behind front-line properties. In relation to properties located on sand spits, defending the sand spit and preventing a breach from the ocean potentially can be perceived as protecting thousands of properties. Why should the full burden of costs be allowed to be put onto that handful of property owners? I simply cannot let these amendments pass without placing those concerns on the record.

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

Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 7 to 10 agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to.

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

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 with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendments.

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

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

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

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

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.26 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Community justice centres (CJCs) have been providing a valuable dispute resolution service to the community for over 25 years.

CJCs are wholly funded by the government, provide free mediation and conflict management services to help people across NSW resolve their disputes without having to go to court.

The mediation process is one in which trained mediators assist those in dispute to resolve the issues between them. The mediator is impartial, has no advisory or determinative role, but rather facilitates discussions between disputants to help them come up with their own solutions.

CJCs mediators assist with a whole range of disputes, including disputes between neighbours, disputes within families, civil and small claims matters and business disputes.

In 2009-10 NSW CJCs opened files in relation to almost 5,000 disputes, up more than 60 per cent from 3,000 in the previous year.

In the same year the centres conducted a total of 1,725 mediations.

Over 80 per cent of mediations resulted in an agreement being reached.

I am sure honourable members will agree that is an impressive track record.

There is no secret to the success of this scheme—people who engage in mediation are more committed to the outcome because they take part in the decision-making process.

In 2009, recognising the increasing importance of alternative dispute resolution, the Department of Justice and Attorney General established an Alternative Dispute Resolution [ADR] Directorate.

The role of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Directorate is to encourage the greater use of alternative dispute resolution in New South Wales.

CJCs now come under the umbrella of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Directorate.

The reforms before the House today were developed following an internal review of the Community Justice Centres Act by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Directorate in consultation with community justice centre mediators and parties who use the service.

The Community Justice Centres Amendment Bill 2010 introduces amendments that will update and further improve the operation of the Community Justice Centres Act 1983 and provide a better framework for community justice centre mediators to operate under the new National Mediator Accreditation System. Additionally, the bill also repeals the Community Justices Centres Act 2007. The 2007 amending Act contains a number of un-commenced provisions, some of which have now been incorporated into the bill before the House.

Engagement of mediators

I will begin by outlining the proposed amendments relating to the service of CJC mediators.

Currently, the Community Justice Centre Act provides that community justice centre mediators are accredited by the Minister on the recommendation of the community justice centre director for terms of up to three years. The Minister determines their remuneration.

The Community Justice Centres Amendment Act 2007 provided for the repeal of these arrangements and for community justice centre mediators to be made employees under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002.

The 2007 amendments were aimed at clarifying the employment relationship of mediators and enabling the appropriate supervision and assessment of mediators to ensure continued delivery of quality service. However, these amendments were never commenced.

In 2010 the role of community justice centres in supervising and managing its mediators is not at issue. With the introduction of the national mediator accreditation system, it is clear that accreditation needs to be supported by a legislative scheme that accords with that system and permits flexibility in appointment, conditions and pay.

Accordingly, the bill introduces a new legislative framework for the appointment of community justice centre mediators.

This is based generally on that successfully used for youth justice conference convenors under the Young Offenders Act 1997, forum sentencing facilitators under the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2005 and the NSW Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal.

The bill provides for:

The appointment of mediators by the Director General of the Department of Justice and Attorney General on the recommendation of the director of community justice centres
The appointment of mediators as independent contractors for renewable terms of up to three years
The determination of mediators' remuneration and allowances by the director general from time to time on the recommendation of the director of community justice centres
The removal of mediators from office by the director general or in other circumstances, such as where they are convicted of an offence punishable by 12 months imprisonment or become a mentally incapacitated person.

The bill also clarifies the status of mediators and the director and staff of community justice centres under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002.

The proposed new arrangements will result in a transparent and workable system that is more adaptive as developments arise in the alternative dispute resolution area.

Community justice centres are currently transitioning their mediators to national accreditation under the national mediator accreditation system.

The new legislative arrangements will better support this process and allow community justice centres to accredit their mediators in line with the national standard and engage them in a manner which is consistent with other equivalent schemes across New South Wales.

Other proposed amendments provided for in the bill will enhance the operation of the Community Justice Centres Act and the services provided by community justice centres.

Court ordered mediation

The bill contains a number of amendments aimed at clarifying and modernising the Community Justice Centre Act with regard to court ordered mediation.

The bill amends the Community Justice Centres Act to clarify that community justice centres can now carry out mandatory court-ordered mediations.

The bill also amends the Community Justice Centres Act so that, where there are no secrecy, privilege and liability provisions in the legislation under which the court-referred mediation was ordered, the protections and privileges under the Community Justice Centres Act will apply.

Further, where there are secrecy, privilege and liability provisions in the referring legislation and those provisions conflict with those in the Community Justice Centres Act, it is proposed that, consistent with the approach taken with the rest of the legislation, the provisions of the Community Justice Centres Act will also prevail.

This approach achieves simplicity.

It will mean that community justice centre mediators will generally enjoy the same rights and obligations when carrying out their functions, irrespective of how a dispute has been referred to them.

It will also ensure the specific requirements of community justice centre mediators are accommodated; for example, community justice centre mediators need the exception to the secrecy provisions contained in the Community Justice Centres Act in order to enable them to make the requisite mandatory reports to Community Services for child protection purposes.

Attendance of non-parties and agents at CJC mediations

The Community Justice Centres Act provides that a mediation session is to be conducted in private, but non-parties may be present or participate in a mediation session with the permission of the director.

The director's approval is also required in order for a party to be represented at a mediation session by an agent.

The bill removes these outdated restrictions on the conduct of mediations.

The Community Justice Centres Act already provides that the procedure for commencing and conducting a mediation session is to be determined by the director.

The bill nevertheless provides that the director or individual mediators will be able to exclude a person from attending, or continuing to attend a mediation, if, in their opinion, the presence of the person may frustrate the purpose or conduct of the mediation session.

This will safeguard the proper conduct of mediations.

Removing the prohibition on the adjudication or arbitration of disputes

The Community Justice Centres Act presently provides that a dispute may not be adjudicated or arbitrated upon at a mediation session.

The bill removes this restriction.

Community justice centre mediators will continue to do what they do best, which is mediation. It is not intended that community justice centre mediators become arbitrators.

However, the amendment contained in the bill removes any uncertainty about the ability of community justice centres to provide their conflict management services, including those with a directive element.

For example, community justice centre mediators since the inception of the service have provided dispute resolution and conflict management services relating to disputes in Aboriginal communities in rural areas. These disputes may involve several families and a considerable number of individuals, and are more directive than the conventional mediation process.

Removing the prohibition merely confirms the validity of community justice centre mediators to carry out these types of processes, and is for the avoidance of doubt.

The Chief Magistrate has advised that he supports the removal of this prohibition, as it will promote alternative dispute resolution services and provide greater certainty to participants in such processes.

Enforceability of mediation agreements

At present, the Community Justice Centres Act expressly provides that agreements reached at community justice centre mediations are not enforceable in any court, tribunal or body.

The Chief Magistrate has advised that he supports also the removal of this prohibition.

The National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council also supports this view.

The restriction is anomalous in contemporary alternative dispute resolution law and policy.

One of the principal objectives of mediation is to enable parties to avoid litigation. Enabling parties to reach enforceable agreements at mediation assists in achieving this objective.

The bill therefore amends the Community Justice Centres Act to remove this restriction. Should parties wish to make an enforceable agreement, they will be able to do so at the community justice centre mediation.

Statutory protections such as those provided by the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Fair Trading Acts in relation to misleading and deceptive conduct, and the protections available in cases of unfair contracts will, of course, continue to apply.

As a consequence of this amendment, the bill also provides that, where the parties have agreed that an agreement reached at mediation is to be enforceable, evidence can be given before a court or tribunal to enforce such an agreement.

Updating the mandatory reporting threshold for CJC mediators

As previously mentioned, community justice centre mediators have a mandatory duty in relation to reporting children at risk of harm.

Legislative amendments introduced following the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in New South Wales (the Wood inquiry) raised the threshold for mandatory reports to Community Services.

As a result, rather than making a report where there is a reasonable suspicion of a risk of harm, the relevant parts of the care legislation now refer to "a risk of significant harm".

The bill updates the mandatory reporting obligation for community justice centre mediators consistent with this new standard.

Ensuring admissibility where a mandatory report has been made

Community justice centre mediations are generally privileged and confidential.

The Community Justice Centres Act provides that evidence of anything said or of any admission made in a community justice centre mediation session is not admissible in any proceedings before any court, tribunal or body.

Similarly, a document that has been prepared for the purposes of a mediation session, or produced in the course of a community justice centre mediation session, is not admissible in evidence in any proceedings before any court, tribunal or body.

However, these provisions do not apply where the parties to the mediation consent to admission of the evidence or document.

The privilege and secrecy provisions also do not apply where proceedings have been instituted in relation to which a disclosure has been made on the basis that it is necessary to prevent harm to another person or damage to any property.

However, there is some doubt over whether evidence or documents from a mediation session would be admissible in care proceedings where a mediator has made a mandatory report to Community Services that a child is at risk.

The bill therefore amends the Community Justice Centres Act to provide a further specific exception to the privilege and secrecy provisions where a community justice centre mediator has made a report to Community Services as required under the legislation.

Finally, the bill makes a number of minor amendments designed to update the legislation and remove certain anachronistic provisions.

The location of CJCs

As currently framed the Community Justice Centres Act requires that community justice centres and the principal office of a community justice centre must be established at such premises as the Governor may determine by order.

In practice, community justice centre mediations are carried out in a wide variety of locations as needed from time to time, such as on court premises and in community facilities.

It is impractical to require the director to give approval for each specific location and the bill therefore removes these provisions of the Community Justice Centres Act.

While largely technical in nature, the amendments provided for in the bill will help ensure that community justice centres continue to provide high-quality and progressive alternative dispute resolution services to the New South Wales community.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [10.26 p.m.]: The purpose of the Community Justice Centres Amendment Bill 2010 is in general terms to enhance and improve the system of dispute resolution within the New South Wales justice system which has developed over the past 25 years or so. Specifically, the bill amends the Community Justice Centres Act 1983 and repeals the Community Justice Centres Amendment Act 2007 so as to provide an efficient system of community justice centre mediation to operate within the overall framework of the new national mediation accreditation system.

It is a bill which Opposition members do not oppose because we support the growth within our justice system of mediation. It results in significant cost savings. It resolves disputes before they reach the courts, thus freeing up our court system for other matters which cannot be resolved and it is a less stressful process for those who are in disputation who avail themselves of its services. For those who find themselves engaged in family disputes or disputes with neighbours or civil disputes generally, it has proved to be a successful alternative to proceeding down a pathway of costly and stressful litigation, and it is a process to which increasing numbers of would-be litigants are turning.

According to government figures, in the year 2008-09 New South Wales community justice centres opened new files relating to 3,000 disputes referred to it, but for the year 2009-10 this number had grown by some 60 per cent, with 5,000 new files being opened in that year. The State Government maintains that 80 per cent of all mediations conducted by the mediation system result in agreement being reached. If these figures are correct the mediation conflict resolution service of the community justice centres needs to be further encouraged and consolidated. This is what the Government tells us that it seeks to do through the Community Justice Centres Amendment Bill 2010.

The Government advises that the changes contained in the bill have been formulated as a result of an internal review conducted by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Directorate in consultation with Community Justice Centre mediators and parties who use the system. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Directorate was itself established in 2009 by the Department of Justice and Attorney General. The principal objects of the bill are:

(a) to provide for the appointment of mediators for Community Justice Centres and the terms and conditions of appointment of those mediators,

(b) to provide that the Director and the staff of Community Justice Centres are to be employed [pursuant] ... to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002,

(c) to provide that a party to a mediation session may be accompanied by or represented by another person but that the Director or the mediator conducting the mediation session may exclude a person from the mediation session in certain circumstances,

(d) to provide that the parties to a mediation session may agree that an agreement reached at, or drawn up pursuant to, the session may be enforceable in a court, tribunal or other body,

(e) to provide that the privilege given with respect to evidence given at, or documents prepared for, a mediation session does not extend to evidence in relation to agreements that the parties have agreed will be enforceable,

(f) to provide that the secrecy requirements that apply to a person exercising functions under the principal Act do not prevent the person from giving evidence in relation to agreements that the parties have agreed will be enforceable, and

(g) to provide that the obligation for a mediator to provide a report under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 applies only if the mediator has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is at risk of significant harm.

Whilst not seeking to traverse each and every section of the bill, there are some matters to which I will make particular mention. The bill clarifies that mediators, who are to be appointed for a maximum term of three years but maybe reappointed, are not members of the Government service and therefore subject to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002. The Director General of the Department of Justice and Attorney General is responsible for their employment, their removal from office and the level of their remuneration. In contrast however to the position of mediators, the Director of Community Justice Centres and the staff of the centres are employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 and thus are members of the Government service.

The bill provides that matters relating to the provision of mandatory services apply to any dispute referred by a court or tribunal to community justice centres for mediation. It is no longer relevant whether the parties to the dispute have consented to the referral. The current provision that agreements reached at community justice centre mediations are not enforceable in any court or tribunal is removed. Now the parties to such mediation will be able to enter an enforceable agreement. The current threshold at which community justice centre mediators have a mandatory duty to report details of a child at risk of harm is raised from reasonable suspicion of risk of harm to a risk of significant harm. In summary, this bill hopefully will assist in modernising the community justice centre mediation process as a means of dispute resolution. In the circumstances, and as I have indicated earlier, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [10.32 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I speak on the Community Justice Centres Amendment Bill 2010. The Greens also support this bill, which in general provides a series of practical amendments to the Community Justice Centres Act 1983 that reflect the growing importance of mediation in conflict resolution. It is extremely encouraging that more than 80 per cent of mediations result in an agreement being reached, and that saves the parties from what can be costly litigation in court proceedings. The costly process of litigation proceedings is a matter of which I have some recent experience. The whole practice of mediation is something that the Greens are very willing to support. It will reduce the cost, the time and what can often be substantial emotional stress that parties otherwise face in contested litigation through the court system.

However, the Greens note some modest concern in that the original provision that a dispute may not be adjudicated or arbitrated upon during mediation has been amended. It is understood from the agreement in principle speech in the other place by Mr Collier that the amendment was directed at certain Aboriginal communities in regional areas and special circumstances relating to such mediations. However, this bill makes no such limited application of the clauses or no such reference to special circumstances and, instead, applies to the functioning of all community justice centres.

The Greens see this as potentially weakening the role of mediation in favour of potentially greater arbitration and greater determinative resolutions by the mediators of the community justice centres. Given that mediation has proved so successful to date, the Greens would expect that the Government will monitor the effects of introducing an element of arbitration or adjudication into the functioning of community justice centres. There will be a need to closely monitor the system over the next period, with a view to potentially removing these elements of adjudication and/or arbitration if they are found to be weakening what has always been the primary and positive goal of mediation in community justice centres. I note that there may well be good practical reasons why one would not want a very narrow definition of the role of a mediator in community justice centres. However, removing the primary goal of mediation and allowing these arbitration and adjudication roles are matters of some modest concern to the Greens.

Some concern was also expressed by the Legislation Review Committee about the loss of confidentiality or privilege for the limited basis of enforcing an agreement reached at mediation where the parties have agreed that the agreement will be binding upon them. However, the Greens note that there is a clear public purpose for allowing this limited exclusion of confidentiality and privilege. The Greens note also the narrow scope of the limitations. On balance, accepting that allowing for the enforcement of an agreement and introduction of this evidence to enforce the agreement may in fact lead to far less costly and emotionally stressful proceedings than otherwise fully contesting the whole issue, the Greens support that provision.

Various members of the community have expressed concern that community justice centres themselves require additional resources and funding to properly undertake their tasks throughout New South Wales. In some areas the lack of funds could mean a substantial impediment to parties getting their matters brought before community justice centres in a timely manner. However, that of itself does not detract from the merits and benefits of the bill, which the Greens are happy to support.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [10.36 p.m.]: I support the Community Justice Centres Amendment Bill 2010. The main focus of community justice centres is to provide mediation services. However, honourable members may not be aware that community justice centres now also provide a range of other services, including advice about resolving or preventing disputes and the use of facilitation in resolving disputes.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Program is also run through community justice centres. The program provides both mediation and conflict management services to Aboriginal communities across New South Wales.

The Family Violence Prevention Program provides training to community members in conflict awareness, conflict identification and basic conflict management skills. To date, evaluations of the program have been very positive. As it is currently framed, the definition of "mediation" in the Community Justice Centres Act is inappropriately restrictive. The bill amends the definition of "mediation" to remove any uncertainty about the ability of community justice centres to provide the kinds of services outlined. It is not intended that community justice centre mediators become arbitrators and the main focus of community justice centres will remain the provision of mediation services.

The mediators procedure manual will remain unchanged in this regard. It specifically provides that a mediator's role is not to judge and that the objective of the process is to allow people to take responsibility for the resolution of their own problems rather than having solutions imposed on them by a third party. Community justice centres mediators who provide conflict management and other services with a more directive element will continue to be trained in the limits of their role. The amendments simply mean that these kinds of services clearly fall within the ambit of the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.39 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Community Justice Centres Amendment Bill 2010, the object of which is to amend the Community Justice Centres Act 1983 in a number of ways. The bill amends the definition of "mediation" so that it applies not only to mediation undertaken at the request of one of the parties to the dispute or the Director of Community Justice Centres but also to mediation carried out in compliance with an order of a court or tribunal. The bill clarifies the employment status of mediators. It states that they are not members of the government service or public service; they are appointed by the Director General of the Department of Justice and Attorney General and hold office for a term of not more than three years. The bill also clarifies that matters relating to the provision of mandatory mediation services apply to any dispute referred by a court or tribunal to community justice centres for mediation. It is no longer relevant whether the parties to the dispute have consented to the referral. Under the legislation, a party to a mediation session may be accompanied by or represented by another person.

The bill provides that an agreement reached at, or drawn up pursuant to, a mediation session is not enforceable in a court, tribunal or other body unless the parties agree in writing that the agreement is to be enforceable. The bill provides special protection concerning a child at risk. It states that if a mediator is obliged to make a report under section 29A of the Community Justice Centres Act 1983 when the mediator believes a child is at risk of significant harm, the evidence of anything said in a mediation session, or a document prepared in relation to the session, is admissible in proceedings instituted in connection with the report. The legislation imposes an obligation on a mediator to make a report under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 if the mediator has reasonable grounds to suspect a child is at risk of harm. I believe that is important in maintaining the utmost protection of children and young people. We support the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.42 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and note that there is broad support across the Chamber for the bill. Community justice centres have been an outstanding success story in terms of providing accessible alternative dispute resolution services. Key provisions in the bill remove any uncertainty about the ability of community justice centres to provide conflict management services, such as those with a directive element; remove the restriction on mediation agreements being enforceable, where both parties agree; update the mandatory reporting threshold relating to children suspected of being at risk, in line with the recommendations of the Wood inquiry, and ensure material that is the subject of a mandatory report may be admissible in court proceedings; and bring the provisions relating to the appointment of mediators into line with comparable officers in New South Wales, such as youth justice conference convenors and forum sentencing facilitators.

The bill also makes a number of technical amendments to improve the administration of community justice centres and the handling of mediations referred to community justice centres by the courts. The amendments contained in the Community Justices Centres Amendment Bill update the statutory basis for the provision of services provided by community justice centres and will enable continued flexibility in the provision of these services. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.45 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [10.45 p.m.]: New South Wales has a proud history of fire services. Indeed, tomorrow I will join a number of other members of this place to celebrate the centenary of the New South Wales Fire Brigades Employees Union. On behalf of the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals I congratulate the union on this milestone and acknowledge its strong history of advocacy on behalf of its members. I will return to this later. I cannot speak highly enough of the vast majority of our New South Wales firefighters, whether they be paid, retained, or volunteers through the Rural Fire Service or members of community fire units.

I take this opportunity to talk about the simmering tensions between sections of our firefighting organisations due to a lack of leadership at the ministerial level. Some of that tension surfaces when retained fire stations become permanent. Recent instances at Port Macquarie and Queanbeyan are cases in point. Because of the strong desire for many Sydney-based firies to move to regional locations, the transfer list dictates who goes where. More often than not that transfer list dictates that we have permanent firefighters coming from city areas into regional areas, and following that a natural tension arises between those who were working there as retained firefighters and the permanents. How that tension is managed is an important issue. I have been told at the most senior levels within New South Wales Fire Brigades that the tensions in Queanbeyan and Port Macquarie are the strongest in the State. Recently in this place I spoke about an incident in Queanbeyan when the tensions spilled over into a fist fight at the front of the fire station on a Friday night, requiring police to be deployed to the scene.

For the record I point out that in the past I have been overwhelmed by the hospitality and generosity of permanent staff at each of these stations and was greatly impressed with their professionalism and passion for their work. Yet I am deeply concerned that there are undercurrents that destroy the effective working relationships and that create tensions between the three groups of firefighters. The controversy surrounding the Port Macquarie North Shore fire is worth examining in further detail. Yesterday the Daily Telegraph reported that boundary demarcations between the New South Wales Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service were responsible for a house burning down—fortunately with no injuries or fatalities. I have spoken with the Captain and President of the North Shore Rural Fire Service brigade at Port Macquarie. These are wonderfully dedicated people who take their responsibilities very seriously. Captain Kingsley Searle and President Derek Wrigley are extremely concerned that they have been undermined by a series of untruths and exaggerations emanating from outside their community.

As all local people know, it takes more than 10 minutes to travel from Port Macquarie to the North Shore: part of the journey involves crossing the Hastings River on a barge. Another complication for speedy response is that there are no water hydrants on the North Shore that the fire brigade tanks can tap into. Having access to water is obviously vitally important for a fire brigade truck. Media reports that it took more than 15 minutes for the Rural Fire Service crew to attend are simply false. In fact the president of the brigade was across the road at the time. The problem is that we have a Minister who is more interested in photo opportunities than in showing leadership to resolve these matters. I want to place on record comments by Kingsley Searle, the Captain of the North Shore Rural Fire Brigade. He wrote:

… I would like to thank you for your concern. At the moment the morale of the brigade is pretty low.

As far as I'm concerned the people behind this are power-hungry empire builders with self interest at heart. They have a blatant disrespect for the damage these incorrect comments cause to the Brigade and its volunteers, the confidence the community has in the brigade, and the relationships between the two services.

The North Shore Brigade has worked hard to establish an excellent working relationship with all the emergency services. We recently participated in exercises with the SES and NSW Ambulance service and have been invited on three occasions to participate in the NSWFB Championships …

As to criticism that the NSWFB were not deployed, as the incident controller (with over twenty six years experience in the RFS) I deemed that the resources I had were more than adequate. The North Shore Brigade has 3 appliances. A Category 1 tanker primarily set up for village firefighting with CABA (Breathing apparatus), a Category 7 tanker and a Category 9 tanker, and I had 15 crew members at the incident and this was before any back-up crews arrived.

The Cat 1 tanker was on scene within less than 7 minutes, however, due to a radio malfunction this time was not recorded.

In fact, too many resources would have been a hindrance in the cul-de-sac where the fire occurred …

My primary concern is for the community I live in. One of the brigades volunteers actually lives in the house next door to the fire! If I thought the NSWFB could have offered any assistance to us in this incident I would not have hesitated in calling them.

As I said earlier, the problem is that we have a Minister who is not interested in leadership to resolve these matters. The Secretary of the Fire Brigade Employees Union, Jim Casey, is frank and fearless in his determination to have more full-time or permanent staff, and I appreciate his forthright approach as well as his commitment to his members. Clearly, a strong goal of the Fire Brigade Employees Union is to push very strongly for permanent stations. This objective must take into account the need to maintain cooperative and supportive relationships. That is why we need to extend mutual aid agreements, which is a more formalised approach to cross-service cooperation. [Time expired.]

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN [10.50 p.m.]: Most of us wake up in the morning not wondering if we will get through the day and night without suffering violence from our partner or parent. But too many people in New South Wales, the overwhelming majority of whom are women and children, are not so fortunate. We cannot be sure how many victims of violence there are in New South Wales. We can only go on the level of reported cases. The 2005 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey estimates that 5.8 per cent of women experienced violence in the 12-month period preceding the survey in 2005, compared with 7.1 per cent when the survey was undertaken in 1996. Of this number 4.7 per cent of women had experienced physical violence in 2005, compared with 5.9 per cent in 1996, and 1.6 per cent had experienced sexual violence compared with 1.5 per cent in 1996. Reporting rates have increased since 1996. In 2005, 36 per cent of women who experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator reported it to the police, compared with 19 per cent in 1996. That is a significant increase and a good sign that more women are reporting assault. However, 64 per cent of women did not report to the police.

A study conducted by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research found that women were more inclined to report further abuse if they had experienced advocacy services. We need to ensure that victims of domestic violence receive the support they need when they need it. Unfortunately, assistance does not go anywhere near what is required to adequately address the needs of women and their children in these circumstances. Most of the funding via the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program is directed to women's refuges. For the relatively few women who get into the refuges for an average stay of six weeks it is a brief respite from the perpetrator. The worst 7 per cent of offenders are put in prison. Most are given an unsupervised bond. It is the women, very often with dependent children, who are on the run. Some support is given to the victims who attend court. However, there is usually a long period of violence before a matter goes to court and many cases do not even go to court. There is also a long period after the case and quite often a long period after the respite at the refuge.

In New South Wales a wide range of non-government services, all of which are underfunded, are trying to fill these gaps. Though they are pitifully few and far between, they are under-resourced and overworked. Carrie's Place at Maitland is one such centre that runs an integrated service. The refuge can accommodate only three families and a few women without children at any one time. It has after-care housing of four units and one house, where clients can continue to be supported on their path to independence. It also has an outreach service for its residents and the wider community, offering health and legal support groups and activities. This is an excellent example of an intensive service that meets the crisis and long-term needs of a few, and reaches out to a wider catchment with support, education and healing. But it is the proverbial drop in the ocean.

For the 12 months ending 30 June this year the staff at Carrie's Place had no choice but to turn away 1,300 women and children who were escaping violence. Some were referred to other services, while some would have been left with the choice of either sleeping in their car, on the street, or returning home to their violent partner. It is clear that more resources are needed for victims in violent situations so that they have the strength and the support to leave that violence. Legal and medical services for victims must be sufficiently funded so that women in New South Wales are able to access them, and this is all the more important in the regions.

Importantly there needs to be adequate funding for sensitively delivered child protection services for the children who have learnt to survive with vigilance and fear. Adequate funding is also required for post-refuge community-based services so that women escaping violence can meet their basic needs for housing and gain the self-respect and healing that comes with counselling, support groups, training, education and employment. In continuing to underfund resources we are telling women they have no choice but to live with violence and that it is okay for children to grow up witnessing hostile arguments and physical violence; seeing power triumph over helplessness.

Members have a responsibility to ensure the safety of our communities; this includes inside the family home as well as outside it on the streets and in public places. The law and order auctions that have become a familiar part of our political rhetoric conveniently ignore domestic violence. To date our response to domestic violence has been pitifully inadequate. We must start listening to those in the community who can tell us what we have to do. Then we must commit to taking action so that the next round of statistics from the Australian Bureau of statistics—which, remember, are real women and real families—have happier stories to tell.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [10.54 p.m.]: I recently had the opportunity to launch the book entitled Burma—Women's Voices for Peace. I did so in my capacity as a proud ambassador for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. This book is the seventh compilation written by the women of Burma, and it is important that it be brought to the House's attention. The first publication was in 1998, and these compelling women's stories have been published every two years since. The moving stories contained in this book are about everyday women talking about their own life experiences. It is difficult for us as women with the freedoms that we take for granted here in Australia to comprehend what the women of Burma endure on a daily basis. To simply say they struggle is a gross understatement.

Burma has an extremely high infant, maternal mortality and morbidity. It is reportedly estimated that at least one-third of Burma's children are malnourished. A widespread health crisis exists there. UNICEF states that these figures are much higher in reality as it is impossible to obtain accurate figures from active conflict areas. In the backdrop of the reality that is Burma today, the stories in this book of the women of Burma who endure systemic exploitation of fundamental human rights on a daily basis will move many to tears. They are abused, raped and suffer atrocities that are beyond our comprehension. The stories of these women demonstrate how they are displaced often forcibly from their homes, families, partners and communities unable to return for fear of losing life. It is commonplace for the women to work to feed, support and, where possible, educate the family single-handedly, as the men are usually forced to flee into exile.

Women support not only their children but also the extended family of parents and in-laws and other community members. The women of Burma have the simple aspirations that we all share. They want freedom, peace and civilian and democratic government. Reading the women's stories in this book is a humbling experience as you realise that these courageous women are the heart of their families, communities and Burma itself. The common threads that underscore the experiences in this book are hope and tenacity. At the launch we heard from Htay Chelliah, who recounted her experience of living under a regime of constant oppression and poverty. She also expressed a deep abiding sadness of being forced to live in exile and her constant longing to return to her homeland, culture and family. I extend my thanks to all those involved in the publication of this book and foremost to the women who shared their moving and inspiring experiences.

I also note that this Sunday 24 October Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, will have spent 15 years in some form of detention in Burma. She is due to be released on 13 November 2010. This is her third period of imprisonment; her first was in 1989. For the past 21 years she has been in and out of detention. Aung San Suu Kyi has been imprisoned because of her unwavering belief in peace, freedom, democracy and human rights. She is an inspiration to all of us and to people across the world. On Sunday I will sign a petition and add my voice to those around the world calling for her immediate and unconditional release, and for release of 2,100 political prisoners in Burma.

In two weeks time Burma will hold its first elections in 29 years. I do not believe that an election process in relation to which thousands of potential opposition candidates have been arbitrarily imprisoned, including Aung San Suu Kyi, can be regarded as credible or legitimate. I join with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burma, Mr Tomas Quintana, in voicing concern over the continuation of impunity for gross human rights violations being enshrined in the 2008 Burmese constitution. I will continue to support Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma in their quest for meaningful democracy, peace, freedom and human rights. I will continue to answer Aung San Suu Kyi's call to "please use your liberty to promote ours". I extend my heartfelt solidarity to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all the women of Burma to continue their struggle.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [10.58 p.m.]: I speak tonight on the sad passing of Nabil Gazal senior, a valued figure of the Australian-Lebanese community; a man of so many achievements. Born on 3 July 1947 in a little mountain village in Lebanon, Nabil passed away on 7 October, 2010, aged just 63. The life of Nabil was nothing short of inspirational. He is survived by his wife Maud and his four children, Nicole, Nora, Nabil junior and Nicholas. I reiterate the words of his eldest son Nabil Gazal junior, who gave the eulogy at his father's funeral. Nabil Gazal was a young boy when he found his ambition. His neighbour in Machgara, who was working in Africa at the time, brought home a box of mangos. Nabil had only heard of the exotic fruit; he had neither seen nor tasted a mango. He could smell the fruit and begged for a taste but was denied. From that day he decided he wanted to be successful so that he could buy his own mangos.

Nabil Gazal's biggest gamble was at the American University of Beirut. He was a very talented student but his family could not afford to send him to any university, let alone the most prestigious one in the Middle East. However, having passed the entrance exams, Nabil's kind Uncle Victor gave him enough money to pay for the first semester. His family was gambling that Nabil would perform brilliantly so that the university would offer him a scholarship. The gamble paid off and, after topping all his classes in his first semester, Nabil was awarded a scholarship to complete his Bachelor of Civil Engineering degree. After a short and unsuccessful stint in Australia working as a builder, Nabil, in his mid 20s, returned to Beirut. He was jobless and broke when he had a chance meeting with a fellow student of the American University of Beirut who asked him to work for his father in Dubai. There he worked successfully for his friend. But when it came time to a share in the profits, sadly, that did not eventuate and they parted ways.

Nabil then started his own construction company with the little capital that he had. Before long he had built up a reputation for building on time and on budget. His reputation grew and he developed a strong relationship with His Highness Sheik Rashid, the ruler of Dubai at the time. His Highness referred to Nabil as the Lebanese engineer. Soon enough Nabil was building roads, bridges, tunnels and power stations for His Highness. By 1984, at the age of 37, Nabil was at the height of his business success. However, in the best interests of his children, and because he did not like the extreme heat of Dubai, he decided to move to Sydney. His career in Australia started on shaky ground after a poor investment. He came close to losing it all, but he was never one for quitting. So he fought and turned it around by sheer perseverance and diligence or, as we like to say, hard work. As a result, he built a most successful business enterprise that is well known to everyone.

Nabil always ensured that he spent time with his family. He never missed a dinner at home and always took the family away during school holidays. He was a great father and a perfect role model. More than that, he was, in the words of Nabil Junior, his son's best friend. Winston Churchill once said, "We make a living by what we get but we make a life by what we give." Nabil spent his life giving, making better the lives of all those around him. For the past 10 years he sat on the Board of Trustees of the Catholic Melkite Church in Australia, playing an integral role in setting up the Holy Saviour School and St John's Church in Greenacre. As a member of the Melkite Church, I am well aware of his generosity and contributions in both time and funding. Beyond those contributions and charitable donations to the church, Nabil also assisted numerous less fortunate children in Australia and abroad by paying their school fees and tuition by way of scholarships. He believed in giving children a start in life, just as he was given a start by his uncle and the university. Nabil was a big supporter of the Cure for Life Foundation, buying essential medical equipment that was needed in the pursuit of finding a cure for brain cancer. These are just a select few of his many contributions to our community.

Nabil never shied away from a fight and he never quit. That is why it was such a harsh twist of fate when it appeared that the biggest battle he would ever fight would be with his health. In 1999 he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, a cruel blow for a proud and strong man. Then in 2006 he was diagnosed with bowel cancer. To make matters worse, doctors also found that three of Nabil's four major arteries were blocked. He underwent countless surgical procedures and chemotherapy sessions. Nabil Gazal is a perfect example of the contribution made to our Australian community by Australians of Lebanese background. His diligence, perseverance and work ethic, his staunch family values and his absolute commitment to those less fortunate make him a role model to all immigrants wanting to make a life in Australia. In fact, it makes him a role model for all Australians. On behalf of my family I offer deepest condolences to his family.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.03 p.m.]: Tonight I speak about the Murray-Darling Basin Authority report. This report has hit our farming community in the basin area, in particular, those dependent upon irrigation like a sledgehammer. The Murray-Darling Basin is a geographical area in the interior of south-eastern Australia spanning parts of the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. It is over 3,370 kilometres in length and drains one-seventh of the Australian land mass. It is currently, by far, the most significant agricultural area in Australia. The name of the basin is derived from its two major rivers, the Murray River and the Darling River. The basin is flat, low lying and far inland and receives little rainfall, although in the past week the southern regions of the basin have had floods. The rivers in the basin carry a large volume of water.

On Thursday 14 October 2010 I was in Griffith when an estimated 5,000 to 7,000 farmers in the region held a massive protest to object to the proposals in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority report to cut water allocations by up to 37 per cent. When that report was publicised the Greens, who hold the balance of power in the Federal Parliament, said they wanted even greater cuts in water allocations. This caused a great deal of anger in Griffith and in neighbouring towns, where thousands of farmers attended the protest meetings. I was in Griffith as a member of our upper House Standing Committee on State Development. We were conducting an inquiry and hearing evidence from farmers in the area, who are dependent on irrigation. Many of the farmers were involved in grape growing and were already experiencing tremendous pressures as a result of previous cuts to their water allocations. They were also struggling with competition from cheap wine imported from New Zealand. The grape farmers were concerned that they would have a harvest but that they would not be able to sell it. The wineries would not take their grapes because of a glut in grape and wine production and Australian wines were not as popular as they had been in previous years.

Many farmers were facing bankruptcy, with banks seeking to foreclose on their loans. Some of the farmers had loans on their properties averaging $250,000. The proposal in the report for greater cuts to water allocations caused banks to ask farmers whether they would be able to service their loans. The banks, which have to look after their own interests, will put further pressure on farmers if they call in their loans and force the farmers to sell their properties. Our State is facing a serious situation, as the greater part of the Murray-Darling Basin is in New South Wales. I have a vision of these farmers, who after World War I were given land as soldier settlers, turning a desert into a green oasis. If the proposals in the authority's report are adopted, this irrigation area will revert to a desert. That would mean a loss of income for farmers and a loss of food production, which provides for the metropolitan areas. I support those who have expressed great concern about the report. Barnaby Joyce said, "The whole fabric and social fabric of that community is decimated." He has warned of a tipping point where regions will have to close down. I do not want to see those regions close down. Greater consideration must be given to this report before its recommendations are adopted.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.08 p.m.]: Tonight I draw to the attention of the House the work of the New South Wales Pride History Group and acknowledge that this year marks the fortieth anniversary of the establishment of the Campaign Against Moral Persecution—or CAMP—in Australia. CAMP has been extremely significant to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex [GLBTI] community and its establishment is considered by many to mark the beginnings of gay and lesbian activism in Australia. In 1970 it was still illegal for men to engage in homosexual acts in all States and Territories across the country. Men faced up to 14 years imprisonment at the worst or a fine at best. Many were forced into involuntary psychological treatment. In New South Wales women were restricted from public physical displays of affection through legislation such as the New South Wales Police Offences Act.

For many the stigma attached to being branded as a homosexual was at this time often the harshest of all penalties. This puts in context the significance of two brave people who in 1970 founded CAMP. John Ware and Christobel Poll became the first publicly self-identifying gay man and lesbian woman in Australia. The establishment of CAMP was about more than just law reform; it was about being open, out and proud; and it was about removing the stigma and myths surrounding gay people and challenging stereotypes and the vilification of the gay community by the media.

On 24 and 25 September the Pride History Group, in conjunction with the Australian Gay and Lesbian Archive and the University of Technology Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Research Centre, held its tenth Australian Homosexual Histories Conference, "Into the Streets!" at the University of Technology. This conference was an opportunity to discuss, debate, celebrate and, of course, continue to document the rich and diverse queer history of GLBTI activism in Australia. The conference heard from the original activists who 40 years ago stood up and said to the world, "Yes I am gay, yes I am a lesbian, and together we demand change". They were not afraid to take to the streets to demand this change. The first public demonstration outside the Liberal Party headquarters in October 1971 is best summed up by one of the placards, which simply stated, "I am a lesbian and should be treated as human."

The conference explored the events and social and political climate that existed leading up to the establishment of CAMP and the subsequent effect this had on the gay community and the Australian community more broadly. I was fortunate to be at the conference to hear from activists such as Ken Davis, Dianne Minnis, Sue Wills, Lex Watson, Peter Bonsall-Boone, Joseph Chetcuti, Lynn Thomas, Col Eglington, Peter Trebilco, Charlie Bowers, Robert French and Ian Black. They were just a few of the activists who participated in the conference. I was disappointed that I was unable to stay for the whole conference.

I heard about the CWA—the CAMP Women's Association—and the formation of a support service called Phone a Friend, which later went on to become the Gay and Lesbian Counselling Service—a service that continues today. The conference participants talked about the consequences of being openly gay, lesbian or transgender and of rejection by family, community and the church. They talked also of great political debates, great political camaraderie and of political organising in a time of telephone trees and word of mouth—a time before the Internet, Facebook, email and Twitter.

From its first meeting CAMP Ink was born—a publication with the purpose of raising awareness about discrimination, advocating for law reform and providing information about friendly services available to the gay community. CAMP led to the establishment of media monitoring campaigns and the establishment of a clubroom where gays and lesbians could meet and organise. As campaigns evolved, counselling services were introduced and in 1978 the first Mardi Gras was held—an event that has since become one of the biggest in Australia.

South Australia was the first State in Australia to decriminalise homosexuality in 1972. In New South Wales it would be 1984 when this reform was achieved. Since that time we have seen laws equalised and discrimination removed across almost every piece of legislation in New South Wales. Equalising the age of consent, the introduction of the relationship register and, most recently, the recognition of same-sex families are significant reforms. These reforms would never have been possible without the hard work, personal courage and ongoing determination of GLBTI activists over the past 40 years. The Into the Streets! conference was an opportunity for younger activists to listen and learn and share information about campaigns of the past while developing ideas for the campaigns of the future. Unfortunately, there is still a need for campaigning and activism.

In the past week a new campaign has developed in response to the tragic suicides of young people in the United States of America due to homophobic bullying. For some the stigma of being gay remains a burden still too hard to bear. As a way of reaching out to people, using social media and traditional media, the Wear It Purple campaign was established in several countries, including here in Sydney. I acknowledge the work of a 16-year-old activist, Katherine Hudson, who drove the first Wear It Purple campaign in Australia, which was held last Friday.

In 40 years many things have changed: Law reform is a reality, there are GLBTI-focused services and community attitudes have come a long way. I acknowledge the people at CAMP, the 1978ers who participated in the first Mardi Gras and those from the Pride History Group who told their extraordinary stories and documented the history of a social movement that has led to so much change for the better.

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

Motion agreed to.