Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 10 August 2011, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 10 August 2011

__________

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5

Reference

Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown agreed to:

That, for the purpose of its current inquiry into coal seam gas, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 has power, with the approval of the President, to make visits of inspection elsewhere in Australia.

FILMING OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that filming of proceedings will take place today during question time for parliamentary education purposes.

SESSIONAL ORDERS

Cut-off Date for Government Bills

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [11.15 a.m.]: I seek leave to amend Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 by omitting "14 October 2011" and inserting instead "21 October 2011".

Leave granted.

Accordingly, I move:

I have spoken to the Deputy Leader of the Government this morning. We have agreed to a date one week later than the date I originally gave notice of. That will provide for the orderly conduct of the introduction of Government bills through the rest of this year. I commend the motion as amended to the House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [11.16 a.m.]: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for accepting that amendment and congratulate the Opposition on the motion. It replicates a motion by the President when he held the position of Opposition Whip.

The Hon. Adam Searle: So it is not even a win.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is a win for everybody. That is why it is worth congratulating the Opposition. This is a win for the orderly running of Parliament. We thank the Opposition.

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

Motion agreed to.

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICE

Membership

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That Mrs Mitchell be discharged from the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office and Mr Khan be appointed as a member of the committee.

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

CLEAN COAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Second Reading

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [11.17 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Clean Coal Administration Act 2008

Clean Coal Administration Act

Coal Innovation Administration Act

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [11.18 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011. The Clean Coal Administration Act establishes the Clean Coal Council and the Clean Coal Fund. The role of the council is to provide advice and make recommendations to Government on the provision of funding for research and development projects. As well as its funding role, the council provides advice to Government on the development and implementation of low emission technologies. The council promotes new technologies to other research institutions, industry and the general public. The council can support innovation efforts by directing funds for the demonstration, commercialisation and promotion of new technologies. Further, the council plays a role in identifying opportunities for public and private sector involvement in research projects at State, national and international levels.

The bill makes a number of changes. It renames the Act to the Coal Innovation Administration Act. It restructures the Clean Coal Council and renames it Coal Innovation NSW. The council will consist of two ministerially appointed members from government and two from industry rather than five from government and five from industry as was the case previously, and up to a further four members to be chosen and appointed by the Minister. It renames the Clean Coal Fund to the Coal Innovation NSW Fund and updates a number of other items of terminology.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will cease interjecting. I cannot hear the member with the call.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The purpose of the bill is simply to remove the previous council members, reduce the number of members and appoint members presumably favoured by the Government. Potentially, coal industry representatives could represent only two of the nine members on council. That would be odd, given the council's focus on coal. I assume that the Minister, in his ability to appoint the members, will ensure a reasonable balance of black coal representatives, given that is the industry the council is dealing with. The Opposition recognises that the Government has a right to appoint its own representatives to such bodies. We will watch carefully to ensure that this change is not a way of sidelining this important area of research. The bill has been introduced at a time of great debate on climate change. We constantly see from the other side of the House the climate change sceptics holding sway. Climate change deniers is probably the correct term. Their views are holding sway in the State Government and the Federal Opposition. I will be interested to see what happens after this bill has been enacted.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are you a supporter of the carbon tax?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I will come to carbon pricing shortly, which I am sure Government members will find interesting. The Federal Opposition is using climate change as a political opportunity. Members of the New South Wales Government are Tony's toadies when it comes to climate change. They will say anything to back up the Federal Opposition in its campaign. Why would they retain this fund if they did not believe in climate change? However, they have retained it, which is a positive step. Australia will not move immediately from fossil fuels for energy, particularly coal, to alternative sources of energy. It is important for the future of New South Wales and New South Wales industry to fund research on the production of coal-fired electricity in a way that is cleaner and less costly to consumers.

Over the past week the Government has made some amazing comments on climate change. Given that the Government in this bill allegedly is committed to finding cleaner forms of energy, its recent comments are interesting. Last week the Premier released a so-called independent report about the costs of taxing carbon. The Premier selectively quoted from the report. One of the graphs released showed the impact on the Hunter claimed by the Government to be the result of carbon pricing in Australia. The impact on the Hunter is based on modelling that takes into account global action on climate change: it assumes that action taken by other countries around the world to reduce their consumption of coal will impact on exports from the Hunter. The Premier did not say that because it was not convenient. In other words, the impact would happen regardless of whether a carbon price was introduced in Australia. It refers to global action on climate change. So a bit of dishonesty from the—

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Oh, what global action?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The other side interjects, "Oh, what global action?"

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: As the Hon. Steve Whan well knows, he should not cast aspersions on the good character of a member in the other place.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: To the point of order: If in this place we were not allowed to criticise the Government of the day there would not be much point in having an Opposition.

The Hon. John Ajaka: To the point of order: That is not what the Hon. Steve Whan said. The member clearly stated that the Premier was dishonest. He specifically stated that the Premier was dishonest. He knows better than that.

Dr John Kaye: To the point of order: Two debates must be happening in this Chamber. I did not hear the Hon. Steve Whan say that at all. The member was making valid criticism, as his right of free speech. I know that this Government is keen on restricting free speech. The member was exercising his right of free speech to criticise the Premier.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The interjections from the Government backbench were so loud that I could not hear the comments of the Hon. Steve Whan. I urge the member to be mindful of the standing orders as he makes his contribution to the debate.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: As we can see, the Government has a glass jaw. It cannot take criticism or any comment that goes against the line that it is pushing. The line it was pushing last night was to highlight one part of a report stating that in the long term there would be a jobs impact in the Hunter Valley. The Government failed to say that the report also talked about global change in relation to the jobs impact. A Government member interjected, "What global action?" If the Government believes there will not be any global action then it has nothing to worry about because the figures in its report will be completely wrong. The positives in that report, which the Government failed to mention, included that in many areas growth in coal will slow but it predicted that there will be continued growth in coalmining in New South Wales. We all expect that to be the case. We also expect that by putting a price on carbon we will see growth in other sectors of the economy. The Government did not mention that at all last week. In fact, in many areas we will find continued jobs growth.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: No wonder you lost your seat.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: In relation to the seat that I formerly held in the other place, the electorate of Monaro, the study the Government quoted last week showed growth in the south east of New South Wales in jobs as a result of the Federal Government's policies on climate change and carbon pricing. It also showed growth on the mid North Coast of New South Wales and northern New South Wales. The study that the Government quoted last week showed that to be the case. It also referenced growth in output in those areas. Those opposite, Tony's toadies, are willing to say anything for Tony Abbot. They back a policy from Tony Abbott that would result in a $300 billion budget black hole. His so-called Direct Action Plan would slug Australian families. They would be $720 worse off under the Abbott Direct Action Plan.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Hon. Steve Whan has drifted into the Federal area. He is talking about policy in the Federal area rather than the bill before the House, which is specific.

Dr John Kaye: To the point of order: The issue that the member was addressing was directly relevant to the issue of clean coal. He is directly relevant to the issue of the promotion of coal—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: We can't wait for your contribution, John.

Dr John Kaye: I am sure you can't, and I am flattered that that is the case, Matthew. The member's contribution was directly relevant to the bill. Secondly, I point out that the issue of a carbon tax was raised in an interjection by a Government member.

The PRESIDENT: Order! A number of Presidents have ruled in the past that although members are extended a great deal of latitude during their contributions to the second reading debate, the majority of their speech should address the bill before the House. I ask the member to bear that in mind.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: It is directly relevant to talk about Federal action on climate change. The Federal Government clearly has as its priority the development of clean coal technology and carbon reduction technology with coal production and coal-fired power, which links directly to the climate change issue. We constantly hear those opposite—the climate change deniers—telling the community, for a short-term political gain, that climate change is not happening and they quote a whole range of spurious sources.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: What about NASA? Is NASA spurious?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Is the CSIRO spurious? The CSIRO clearly refers to the impact that climate change will have on parts of New South Wales on a localised basis. Those members who represent regional New South Wales should be very concerned about its impact. For example, people in southern New South Wales know the value of the ski industry to New South Wales, with 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs being provided by the ski industry in the alpine resorts in our State. Those jobs will be placed in jeopardy because members on the other side of the House are denying the impact of climate change. CSIRO studies clearly show that there will be a reduction in snowfall in the Snowy Mountains and that the snowline will increase and the ski industry will become far more reliant on man-made snow, which can be generated only when the conditions are suitable. The ski industry is likely to suffer directly from climate change, with jobs being lost in the Monaro and Albury electorates and with a flow-on into shires such as Snowy River shire. Government members continue to deny the effect of climate change.

When the Premier is railing about climate change we never hear him talk about protecting jobs or about agricultural jobs in New South Wales, which will be under threat from an increased likelihood of more severe storm events, less regular and reliable rainfall and an increased likelihood of droughts such as the one we endured for the better part of the past decade. According to all the studies carried out by the CSIRO and all the reliable scientific modelling, climate change will have a direct impact on the livelihoods of farmers. It is true that it is not all bad in that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make a wheat crop grow faster, although it somewhat changes the quality of the grain. However, if farmers are not receiving reliable rainfall it will be harder to produce those crops.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: It's a rather wide-ranging discourse.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Are we not talking about climate change?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, we are not. Once again my point of order relates to relevance. This three-page bill will change the title of the Clean Coal Council and alter its membership. Mr President, you allowed the Hon. Steve Whan a degree of latitude, but after listening patiently to his contribution I have established that he is not within the leave of the objects of the bill.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: The bill specifically relates to the renaming of the Clean Coal Council as Coal Innovation NSW. It specifically relates to the coal industry and to the impacts of coal on our environment. The Hon. Steve Whan is addressing those issues. The points of order taken by the Leader of Government Business are frivolous.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members of my earlier ruling, in which I noted that members may make wide-ranging contributions during the second reading stage. I regard the comments of the Hon. Steve Whan in those terms. However, I refer the member to the second part of my earlier ruling, in which I noted that the majority of a member's comments should generally be within the leave of the objects of the bill.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I understand the Government's reluctance to talk more broadly about climate change, but surely the Government is continuing this council, renaming it, giving it new members and giving it new reasons for its existence because it believes it should continue research into cleaner coal technology. I consider that to be directly relevant. What is the point of doing all that if the Government does not believe it is addressing climate change? That is the area in which Government members contradict themselves. Some Government members deny the fact that climate change exists and they quote from odd sources. Some Government members probably think that Lord Monckton is a reliable source of information. But overwhelmingly scientific opinion informs us that we need to address human-induced climate change.

When Labor was in government it did exactly that: it established the Clean Coal Council. I attended a couple of meetings and listened to some of the council's deliberations. The broad range of membership on the council was useful because different opinions were obtained from independent experts, departmental officials and the coal industry itself which assisted in directing this research. New South Wales should take advantage of the fact that a substantial amount of money has gone into researching clean coal technology. If we were able to lead the world in developing reasonable technology for reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations it would be valuable to us in addressing climate change in Australia and it would be an incredibly valuable export for New South Wales.

There are sceptics and those who do not want fossil fuels to have any future, and I suspect Dr John Kaye might be one of them. While I am strongly committed to addressing climate change, I believe we have to phase down our reliance on fossil fuels although there will be a long-term and ongoing need to use fossil fuels in our communities. For some time to come that will include coal, coal seam gas, where it can be extracted safely, and other fuel sources. I emphasise the importance of continuing this council, even in its reduced form. I refer to coal and its future and I return to the report released last week by the Premier in which reference was made to the impact of climate change on the Hunter Valley. As I stated earlier, the Premier failed to note that the assumptions in his model were for global climate change reduction and addressing climate change globally.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You're a supporter of Julia, are you?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I am pleased to acknowledge the interjection of the Deputy Leader of the Government as the Labor Opposition has one position on this. Regardless of what people might read, we support any climate change action and we support the pricing of carbon.

The Hon. John Ajaka: Do you support the carbon tax?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. John Ajaka.

The Hon. John Ajaka: Do you support the carbon tax? You can't answer that question.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I am more than willing to answer the member's question. It is interesting that Government members have raised this issue. When Labor was in government it and other State Labor governments submitted to the Federal Government the first proposal for a tradeable emissions scheme that formed the basis of work that had been done. That scheme, which would have been the best scheme for Australia, was knocked back by the Senate. The Greens should hang their heads in shame. If it were not for the Senate that scheme would be up and running.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Do you support a carbon tax or not?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: In the long term we should have emissions trading. In the short term I am happy to support the proposal put forward by the Federal Government as that is one way to implement a tradable emissions scheme.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: In the short term?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Government members might not have realised that the scheme proposed by the Gillard Government relates to a carbon tax in the short term, moving to tradeable emissions in a few years time. If Government members did know that they should not sit in this Chamber and interject. Government members seem to be totally unaware of that fundamental piece of the picture. Shame on them for going along with their leader and for giving us all this claptrap and spin when they do not know what they are talking about! We have seen spin and dishonesty from this Government. On 5 August, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald—

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Manmade climate change is spin.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The Hon. Marie Ficarra interjected and said that manmade climate change is spin. It is now on the record that Government members are climate change deniers.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: That's not what she said.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: That is what the Hon. Marie Ficarra, a climate denier, said. While we are talking about unity, Government members are on the record as stating—

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is far too much interjection in the Chamber.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Before Government members became Tony's toadies on climate change they are on the record as stating that action needed to be taken on climate change. The Minister for Family and Community Services, the Hon. Pru Goward, is on record as advocating change in this area.

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: What's Robbo's position?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Before the Premier became Tony's toady and decided that there was an electoral benefit to be gained, he is on record as advocating action on climate change. Coincidentally, this all happened in the lead-up to the last State election when the Liberal-Nationals Coalition spent all that money advertising Federal rather than State issues. On 5 August an article written by Lenore Taylor in the Sydney Morning Herald contained modelling that directly contradicted the modelling released last week by this Government, which revealed that the impact on the State's generation capacity would occur further down the track. The modelling in the article referred to actual electricity generation and did not include coal exports and global action. It noted also that the action to be taken in Victoria to close down brown coal-fired power stations was a separate issue.

Obviously it would benefit our environment if some of our brown coal-fired power stations were closed, not to mention some of the cleaner and more efficient black coal-fired operations in New South Wales. Members of The Greens who found that statement amusing cannot deny that black coal-fired power is more environmentally efficient than brown coal-fired power. There are graduations in all these things. We must move towards a cleaner environment by utilising lower emitting sources of fuel. All we have had from the Government on this issue is continual hypocrisy. Amazingly, the Government is campaigning publicly—I suppose it could be said that it is raging—against taxing emissions. Before the Government scares most Australians with all the false information being put out by Tony Abbott—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: False information like sea level changes?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Most Australians would probably agree that polluters should pay for the cost of their pollution. The alternative being put forward by the Liberal-Nationals Coalition is Tony Abbott's direct action. As a result, each Australian will be asked to pay an additional $720, which will be given to the big polluting companies. This Government will hand over the cash—an additional $720 from each Australian—to its mates and the big polluters.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order again relates to relevance. As I indicated earlier, the three-page bill that is being debated in this Chamber will amend the Clean Coal Administration Act 2008 to rename the Act, to reconstitute and rename the council established under the Act, to rename the fund established under the Act and to update certain terminology. The Hon. Steve Whan, who is leading for the Opposition in debate on this bill, has spent the past 25 minutes speaking only about the Federal Government. He has not addressed any of the objects contained in this bill. I believe he has had enough time within which to address the objects of this bill.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is now well past the latitude that I referred to in my previous ruling. The remainder of the member's remarks should primarily address the objects of the bill.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Earlier I spoke about my experience with the Clean Coal Council and the good work that it has done. As a former Minister I place on the record my thanks to those who served on that council, who made a great effort and who helped to set the direction of investment in research. My predecessors and I appreciate their work, just as I am sure this Government appreciates their work. As I stated at the outset, the Opposition recognises the right of the Government to replace people on boards with its own representatives. However, I want to ensure that this board is balanced and that it does not end up being stacked in any way. Many former members of the Clean Coal Council would not have referred to themselves as Labor supporters and they probably had diverse opinions about climate change, but they all recognised the need for industry to act in this area, which is why the fund and the council were established.

Contradictory statements have been made by Government members who are vehemently against the concept of climate change but who are continuing the work of this council. If Government members believe in these issues and they are genuine in their scepticism about sea level rises and those sorts of things, why did they bother to introduce this legislation? Why did they not just abolish the council? Government members are not abolishing the council because a number of them know that the climate change issue must be addressed and that technology must be developed to lower coal emissions. Government members are flip-flopping on climate change issues but one thing unites them—they will say anything to score cheap political points. The Opposition supports this decent bill but it highlights the Government's hypocrisy and its willingness to do Tony Abbott's political dirty work on climate change, which is what we have seen over the past week.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.48 a.m.]: The Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011 will make two changes to the Clean Coal Administration Act. First, it will change the name "clean coal" to "lower emissions coal technologies" and, second, it will restructure the Clean Coal Council, which will be renamed Coal Innovation NSW. The Greens do not oppose this legislation but we do not see it as a huge step forward. In reality, this legislation changes one oxymoron for another, although perhaps the replacement oxymoron is marginally less offensive than the oxymoron "clean coal".

The energy component of coal is carbon. When we burn carbon we get carbon dioxide. Separation and burial of that carbon dioxide from the waste stream of a power station has always been an expensive pipe dream. Around the world $28 billion has been committed to integrated combined cycle gasification and carbon capture and storage. Major projects such as FutureGen and ZeroGen effectively have fallen over and been cancelled. In Australia alone we have probably wasted close to $2 billion on projects that have gone nowhere and that will go nowhere. As my first professional job as an electrical engineer was the mining and burning of brown coal I find offensive the term "clean coal". The concept that coal can ever be a clean source of energy is absolutely ridiculous. It was always a marketing term.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There actually are ways to clean up lignite.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjection but because the Leader of the House has limited my speaking time I do not have time to go into lignite. We will stick to black coal because, after all, if I did he would probably get up and say I was not within a bull's roar of the leave of the bill. The reality is that cleaning up lignite is an incredibly energy-expensive process. The reality is that "clean coal" was always a marketing term. It was designed to create the false perception that there was a commercially and technologically feasible way of separating out the carbon dioxide from the flue gas streams of coal-fired power stations, finding a geostrata that was suitable for burial, transporting the carbon dioxide across what could be long distances, burying it and keeping it buried.

There are a large number of genuine technical problems, not the least of which has been the challenge of separating the carbon dioxide from the flue gas stream. Carbon dioxide probably makes up about half of the gas that comes out of the flue, by some estimates. In the case of New South Wales, right now we produce about 64 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year from the burning of coal. Flue gases probably make up about 120 million to 140 million tonnes. Separating out the carbon dioxide from extremely hot and highly toxic flue gases that are riddled with mercury, creosotes and other high toxicity chemicals is hugely challenging.

The other choice, of course, would be to bury twice the amount, which would cost twice as much. Transportation is by no means easy. If one mixes carbon dioxide with water one gets H₂CO₃, carbonic acid, which is a strong acid that will eat away almost any kind of piping except stainless steel. As members would be aware, stainless steel is extremely expensive and building thousands of kilometres of stainless steel piping to move carbon dioxide around will, if nothing else, be unbelievably expensive. The idea of burial sounds simple. One of the things that the billions of dollars spent on the clean coal myth in Australia has produced is lots of pretty diagrams and sketches of what it would all look like.

But when we come to inject carbon dioxide into strata with the idea of the carbon dioxide staying permanently in the strata technically it is extremely challenging. People say it is done in the oil industry, and it is true that waste gases from power stations are often injected into oil wells to increase the productivity of those wells, particularly older oil wells. But the people who are doing that are not storing the carbon dioxide; they are using it as a fluid to push the existing oil out of the oil well. They have no interest in whether or not the carbon dioxide stays in the oil well and they have no legal obligation to ensure that it does. In New South Wales, clean coal would create a legal obligation to store the carbon dioxide in perpetuity in geological strata, the integrity of which has been compromised by drilling in the first place.

The "clean coal" language is used to help coal companies and power corporations, and in particular New South Wales, to hide from the reality of their business. The reality of their business is that a massive amount of carbon dioxide has been produced. In New South Wales, 90 per cent of what happens when one switches on a power point stems from the burning of coal, which is responsible for 63 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. If this State allows the previous Government's approval for two new 2,000 megawatt coal-fired power stations to go ahead, total State emissions will increase by up to 22 per cent. That is a massive increase in carbon dioxide from the coal industry. More than 40 per cent of the State's greenhouse gas emissions currently come from seven coal-fired power stations.

That is not the only problem for the coal industry in New South Wales. In many senses it is the smaller of the two problems. By 2014, according to figures from the Australian Rail Track Corporation, the Port of Newcastle will be exporting 209 million tonnes of coal. When that is burnt by 2014 it will be responsible for 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The Port of Newcastle currently is the largest exporter of coal in the world. By 2016 expansions of the port are expected to take capacity to 300 million tonnes of coal a year. When that is burnt overseas it will create 720 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is 40 per cent more than the current total in-nation emissions of Australia. It is a massive amount of carbon dioxide. On current population levels and projections, that is about 30 tonnes of carbon dioxide for each head of population from our coal exports.

That is a major problem for the coal industry. It can surf off the back of the climate deniers, and it has done so very effectively, but the people who run the coal industry are not stupid and they know full well that sooner or later they have to pay the piper. They know full well that sooner or later the people of Australia and people around the world will say, "Enough of this nonsense. We have a major climate problem on our hands. We cannot afford to allow 27 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to go into the atmosphere every year, about 30 per cent of which comes from the burning of coal globally."

The Hon. Trevor Khan: The Chinese and Indians are onside with this proposal.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am pleased to hear that the Chinese and Indian governments are concerned about the renaming of the Clean Coal Fund. That is a wonderful thing. To continue, the answer of course lies in not burying the problem. The answer to the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide created by the burning of coal globally and the 63 million tonnes created in New South Wales lies not with burying the problem or creating fantasies that the problem can be successfully buried but with the reality of making the transition to low and zero carbon sources of electricity and energy.

The Hon. Steve Whan said that he supported the idea of a transition but he did not think it would happen yet. Maybe in Labor's view it will happen in 20 or 30 years. In the view of some members of the Coalition it may never happen. Others are saying that it might happen in 20 years. The reality is that our planet does not have that much time. We have already exhausted the carbon carrying capacities of the oceans and we are moving into a very dangerous phase. We are increasing the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, which is a major cause for concern. In fact, it is the single most challenging problem confronting the future of humanity: how do we overcome our addiction to fossil fuels and do so rapidly enough to ensure that we do not inflict long-lasting damage on the planet?

It was disappointing to see in the Minister's second reading speech a statement that this could not be done, and that we could not rely on renewable energy because it does not have a 24-hour, seven-day a week capacity. I will talk more about this later, but right now in Spain two large, utility-scale solar thermal power stations operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. New South Wales would be well suited as a location for a large number of such power stations. Instead of spending money on the clean coal myth we should be spending money in this State to make a down payment on the transition to a renewable energy future. Some people say that that transition can be done in 10 years and other experts say that it can be done in 20 or 25 years. It does not matter. We could make that transition and in doing so this State would stand to gain a large number of jobs. The University of Newcastle says that 73,800 new jobs would be created, which is more than 10 times the number of jobs that coal currently generates and that are being protected by the clean coal myth. "Clean coal" sits alongside "safe nuclear power" and "healthy cigarettes" as an oxymoron.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Lite cigarettes.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes, "lite cigarettes". They are convenient untruths. They are convenient for the people who make billions of dollars; Australia made $55 billion in coal export revenue this year. It is convenient to prop up the revenues of the wealthy but it is inconvenient for the future of our planet. The terms might help to gain some community acceptance but they do nothing to solve the challenges ahead of us.

The stark reality of clean coal around the world has been quite outrageous. Both of the global flagship programs have fallen over. FutureGen in the United States was the flagship development in Mattoon township, Illinois. In 2003 the Bush administration, with great fanfare, announced that it would build a massive clean coal project that would revolutionise energy—a 275 megawatt plant, intended to prove the feasibility of producing electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing and permanently storing carbon dioxide underground. FutureGen should have been called "PastGen". The companies that were initially part of the FutureGen industrial alliance—American Electric Power Services Corporation, the largest utility in the United States, Luminant, PPL Energy Services Group, LLC, and Southern Companies Services, from Atlanta, Georgia—have all pulled out. The death blow to the project was in January 2008 when the United States Department of Energy announced that it would pull the plug on funding, mostly because costs were greater than originally expected.

In Australia we have our own mini FutureGen—ZeroGen in Queensland. It is a $2 billion to $3 billion project. At the end of last year the Queensland Government announced that it would cut its losses and pull out from the ZeroGen project. This was a 530 megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle power generation plant with the capture and storage of at least two million tonnes a year of its carbon dioxide emissions. I make it clear that that is far less than the total emissions. It was only capturing and storing a small proportion of its emissions. Even it would not work in the end.

In New South Wales we have our own joke carbon capture and storage at Munmorah Power Station, often promoted by a former Minister, Ian Macdonald. He ran around saying how great it was. In its original incarnation it captured less than 0.15 per cent of the emissions of Munmorah Power Station. In December 2007 the former Government announced a pilot plant that would capture 1.5 per cent of the emissions of even the tiny Munmorah Power Station. Members will note that I said "capture", not "capture and store". It is a shame that members of the Shooters and Fishers Party are not in the Chamber to hear this. It was a capture and release program. The carbon dioxide was captured and released. We spent a lot of money getting nowhere.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did they tag it?

Dr JOHN KAYE: That is a good question. The former Government could have nuclear tagged it. It would have made everybody happy if it had put some nuclear isotopes in it. Instead, the former Government captured and released it. It was a total waste of money on a project that was going nowhere in a hurry. The bill is a step forward because it gets rid of the clean coal language, but it goes for low-emissions coal technology—so we have wiped out clean coal and we are talking about low emissions coal. How do we get low emissions coal? The reality is if we burn coal we create carbon dioxide. Yes, we can improve the efficiency of coal-fired power stations. The Hon. Steve Whan indicated it is true—brown coal has about 20 per cent more emissions than black coal.

Currently state-of-the-art coal-fired power stations emit of the order of 860 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour of electricity. One would be lucky to get it down to 700. If we achieved a 10 per cent improvement in emissions around the world, the planet would have 10 per cent longer to live. However, that is still part of an unsustainable release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and it still contributes to pushing up the concentration of carbon dioxide through all the threshold points that are clearly demarked by science as being dangerous. We cannot afford to continue to do that.

The New South Wales Government currently spends $400 million over a four-year period on the Clean Coal Council—what is about to become Coal Innovation NSW. The industry puts in $400 million annually. Big deal—that $400 million is less than 0.2 per cent of its annual turnover. If the industry were really convinced by coal innovation surely it would put in more than just 0.2 per cent of its annual turnover. I suspect that it spends more money on corporate lunches than on coal innovation.

The people of New South Wales should be able to take the $400 million that is committed to the Coal Innovation Fund and use it for something that would seriously reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. For example, it would give us a good down payment on the utility scale solar thermal power station with storage in western New South Wales. Such a power station would create four or five times the number of jobs created by the fund. Australia, in particular, New South Wales, would have a real future in developing the technology at the utility scale. We would become world leaders. We would build a genuine export industry that can supply economic security into the future. I will deal with The Greens amendments to the bill at the Committee stage. The legislation still leaves New South Wales coping with—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There should be a copy in the House.

Dr JOHN KAYE: There will be. The amendments are coming.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If they are not here, they are not here.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The amendments will be in the Chamber before we get to the Committee stage. I wish to correct one statement made by the Minister in his second reading speech. Yesterday he made an extraordinary statement that a former member of the Legislative Council said in Federal Parliament that coal exports from Newcastle are responsible for famine in Somalia. Such comments only go to show the total absurdity of arguments that are often advanced when discussing this issue. If the Minister had bothered to read the statement of Ms Lee Rhiannon, he would see that she said:

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: That is shameful.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Shut up! What she was saying was clear. I retract the words "shut up"—I ask the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps to keep quiet.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps that interjections are disorderly at all times. However, I ask Dr John Kaye not to respond to interjections in that manner.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I apologise. I shall not. Senator Rhiannon was clearly saying that if we continue to pump this amount of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere every year what is happening in Somalia will be repeated continuously. She was not saying that Somalia was caused— [Time expired.]

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [12.08 p.m.]: Before I start my contribution, I commend Dr John Kaye for making a 20-minute speech. The world did not seem to come to an end, the sky did not fall in and people did not self-immolate in Martin Place. The member got his point across in 20 minutes; that is a welcome development for this House. I support the Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011. Because projects funded through the Clean Coal Council are research based, experimental and highly technical, we do not hear very much about them. We should know about them because they are cutting edge—in most cases, Australian or world first. These projects will provide the technology that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal combustion for electricity.

Two major projects are currently funded through the council—the Delta Demonstration Project and the Statewide Storage Capacity Project. As well, nine other interesting and worthwhile research and development projects are being funded. The Delta project aims to demonstrate the post-combustion capture, transport and permanent storage of carbon dioxide emitted from a coal-fired power station. This will be the first project in Australia to demonstrate post-combustion capture and storage of emissions from black coal. Delta plans to store up to 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. The New South Wales and Commonwealth governments, and the Australian Coal Association, have made an in-principle commitment to fund the Delta project to the tune of $150 million. They have already signed a funding agreement with Delta Electricity worth $28.3 million for stage one of the project.

The Clean Coal Fund has provided $9.43 million as New South Wales's one-third share of the agreement. The council has recommended funding of $40 million for the construction and operation of the stage two demonstration plan on successful completion of stage one. The Munmorah Pilot Capture Project preceded the current Delta project, which was a $7 million joint venture between Delta Electricity and the CSIRO to test post-combustion capture of carbon dioxide.

Prior to the March election I had the pleasure of joining the candidate for Swansea, Mr Garry Edwards, at Munmorah street stalls. Munmorah power workers told us of their despair at the State Labor Government and its support for the carbon tax. History will show that Garry Edwards won the seat of Swansea for the first time for the Liberals and The Nationals. Congratulations to Garry; he will be a great local member. The pilot project was a two-year experimental program that was completed in August 2010 with outstanding results. Over 90 per cent of the carbon dioxide emitted from the power station was captured with a purity rate of 98.5 per cent. The project's results ultimately will feed into the technology choice used in the Delta demonstration project.

The Delta and Munmorah projects focus on the processes and technology to capture and store emissions from coal-fired power stations. The complementary New South Wales Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Project aims to locate potential carbon storage reservoirs. The project's short-term goal is to identify potential storage sites for the Delta demonstration project by 2012. Its medium-term to longer-term goal is to undertake a statewide assessment of potential long-term storage opportunities. This will allow the preparation of precompetitive data for acreage release. This statewide three-stage assessment is planned across key sedimentary basins, including the Sydney-Gunnedah Basin, the Clarence-Moreton Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin. The estimated cost for the first two stages of the project is $54.3 million.

New South Wales recently signed a funding agreement with the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Coal Association to participate in the project as equal funding partners. All this work is significant in the development of carbon capture and storage in New South Wales. The nine other research and development projects I mentioned earlier were selected from an open expression of interest process that attracted 29 applications. The fund will provide $13 million to support those projects, and the remaining required $33 million will come from other sources. Two of the projects are to research the abatement of methane emissions from coalmines and another is to demonstrate an alternative storage method.

Three other projects are researching ways to improve the efficiency of energy generation from coal combustion. This research is based on the idea that the less coal used per unit of electricity generated, the less carbon dioxide that is produced. The remaining projects are equally useful and equally as innovative. All the projects are working towards answers that will contribute to the technologies we one day will take for granted in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The council and the fund are facilitating and promoting these innovations. We look forward to seeing the technology developed once these projects are in place and operating successfully as it is something from which New South Wales will benefit greatly. This effective legislation will provide a clear framework to support this important work. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [12.13 p.m.]: I make a brief contribution to debate on the Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011 and respond to some of the comments—not facts—made by Dr John Kaye. As with any industrial installation, coalmines should be as clean as they possibly can be. We have only to look at the emissions from some of the more recent coal-fired power stations in New South Wales. Advertisements about coal-fired power stations always show steam coming from the cooling towers and the captions read, "Look at the pollution." It is not pollution; it is water vapour. Carbon dioxide emissions come from the tall, narrow chimneys and the particulate pollution cannot be seen. Every industrial installation, irrespective of what it produces, needs to be clean. The big furphy in much of this debate is that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The Greens are sniggering. Obviously, they are not trained in the science of carbon and do not appreciate the role of carbon in life.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham might be surprised to know that his body is full of carbon. If the water were pumped from his body the remaining component would be 70 per cent carbon.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Tax him.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: We should tax him.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: A number of points of order were taken by the Leader of the Government regarding the long title of the bill, which is the Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011. I ask that the same courtesy be extended to the current speaker.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have ruled previously that the contributions of members must be relevant to the second reading debate. Nevertheless, members are able to make wide-ranging contributions and are extended wide latitude during the second reading debate. I extended a previous speaker a considerable degree of latitude. However, I also reminded him of the precedent that the majority of his speech should address the bill before the House. At this stage, there is no point of order.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every living organism and animal on this earth exhales about 15 per cent carbon dioxide. If we make carbon dioxide emitting coalmines cleaner, perhaps those opposite should stop breathing because they emit carbon dioxide every time they do so. Carbon dioxide is the source of all our food. Green plants take in carbon dioxide and convert it into sugar, with the help of a bit of water and sunlight, to provide the food source for all animals on this planet.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: Too much of it causes problems.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Too much of it does cause problems, as all of us who are a little overweight would know. We need to make sure that our food source continues which, of course, stems from carbon dioxide. The biggest sink for carbon dioxide on this planet is the ocean. Far more carbon dioxide is stored in the ocean than anywhere else. The second biggest sink is soil. This planet stores about 750 gigatonnes of carbon in the soil, most of which is organic matter.

The Hon. Steve Whan: That is part of the Federal Government's plan.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The Hon. Steve Whan should listen. Increasing soil organic matter by just 1 per cent will store nine tonnes of carbon per hectare. The Hon. Steve Whan should be listening.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Should I?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Yes, because the member might learn something. He was a former Minister for Primary Industries.

The Hon. Steve Whan: I actually attended a forum on this subject.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I am pleased about that but, obviously, the member did not learn very much. Australia has 450 million hectares of land utilised for agriculture—excluding the deserts—principally concentrated around areas with better moisture content. If we put nine tonnes of carbon into each hectare of the soil in that 450 million hectares and raised the soil organic matter by 1 per cent we would store an extra 4,050,000,000 tonnes of carbon. If we multiplied that figure by 3.7 we would get a much larger figure for carbon dioxide. When I was working as an agricultural consultant—

Dr John Kaye: Is the figure you quoted annual?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I am getting to that. If the member listened for a minute he would find out. In my agricultural consulting career I had farmers who increased their soil organic matter levels by about 5 per cent. The time frame for that ranged from five to eight years, something of that order. Increasing the soil organic level by 5 per cent means 20,250,000,000 tonnes of carbon in the soil. On that calculation, we could neutralise all carbon emissions in Australia for more than 100 years. If we were to increase the organic soil level by 5 per cent 20 billion tonnes could go back into the soil. That is a huge figure. The numbers are enormous. The Government needs to look at those sorts of programs to reduce the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere—if we need to reduce them.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: If? Do we?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Let me explain to members opposite some facts that they are obviously not aware of. The former Minister for Primary Industries should know this, but I bet that he does not. Research shows that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases agricultural production. That will occur in two ways. Research indicates that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 400 to 800 parts per million—I do have a list, but not in front of me—increases productivity by up to 60 per cent in many crops. Why do members think farmers growing tomatoes in greenhouses run the carbon dioxide levels at 1,200 parts per million?

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: It is not only carbon; it requires other things.
.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The plants require many things. The point is farmers run the atmospheres in those greenhouses at 1,200 parts per million because it doubles the production for each tomato plant. The other way that it increases production is water efficiency. Higher carbon dioxide levels improve the water efficiency of the plant. Those who have studied botany will know that within the leaf structure of a plant there is a mechanism by which the plant breathes—that structure is called stomata. The stomata are a small opening through which gas moves in and out of the plant when it breathes. Those stomata take in carbon dioxide and they exhale oxygen.

When we have lower carbon dioxide levels more stomata open, and they open up much wider, to get enough air to feed the plant the carbon dioxide it needs. When they exhale they exhale water vapour as well as oxygen. With higher carbon dioxide levels the stomata contract because they do not require the same volume of air to take in the carbon dioxide that they need for growth. Therefore, when they exhale they exhale a lot less water vapour. The plant becomes more moisture efficient at higher carbon dioxide levels. This is not fantasy. Research has been carried out by highly trained agricultural scientists, some of whom may have studied at Hawkesbury Agricultural College, the University of Sydney and similar institutions.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: The greenhouse effect works.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: To make plant life more efficient and plants more water efficient.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: You cannot just grow plants anywhere; you need organic matter.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Members opposite are not listening to what I am saying. Members opposite need to understand that is one reason why carbon dioxide levels are increased in greenhouses—it makes the plants more water efficient and increases their productivity. I support the bill.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [12.26 p.m.]: As my colleague Dr John Kaye stated previously, the Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011 makes two rather minor changes: a change of name and a change of appointments. There is a lot to be gathered out of the change of the names—the Clean Coal Administration Act 2008 is renamed as the Coal Innovation Administration Act 2008 and the Clean Coal Council is renamed as Coal Innovation NSW. The Government recognises that clean coal has been one of the astroturfing exercises in the history of modern politics.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is a good one.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Astroturfing, which is green washing. It has created monumental destruction and distracted the Government from the real issue of decarbonising our economy. It will be remembered along with lite cigarettes.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Country Labor.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Country Labor, lite cigarettes, moderate Liberals, all these things. We know the truth. As The Greens spokesperson on mining I am particularly concerned with Government investment in technologies that allow for the continued expansion of coalmining throughout the State, further impacting on already affected communities. When giving consideration to the rising energy demands of this State, it is important that investment in the energy sector is carefully considered with regard to effectiveness. Effectiveness is the key. Technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which seek to capture emissions from coal-fired electricity generators and bury them deep underground, have proven to be a lengthy and costly distraction. The technology remains unproven with regard to commercial viability. We have heard from Dr John Kaye that nowhere in the world has an example been found where this technology is commercially viable, proven and is going to—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: We should give up?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox. Yes, we should give up on coal-fired power generation. We should move away from coal-fired power generation.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Tomorrow?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: No, not tomorrow. We should make a transition. We are making the transition. Members opposite are making that transition slowly, glacially, kicking and screaming, into the twenty-first century. It is not 1880 anymore. The Government's initial commitment of $100 million over four years to the Clean Coal Fund has proven to be a distraction, allowing the industry to continue expansion throughout the State with projects such as the Cobbora coal project and all those coalmining projects currently on the books before the Minister. This flies in the face of the interests of an economically and environmentally sustainable State committed to a clean energy future.

Dr John Kaye, an expert in the field, outlined the cost to jobs and opportunities by not investing in renewables. As Dr John Kaye said, we only have to look at the FutureGen project in the United States and the Munmorah capture and release project, which has been a spectacular failure. Around the world an enormous amount of money has been pumped into these projects with little result. The only carbon capture and storage projects that have had any value have been related to conventional natural gas. Nowhere has this technology been proven to be viable in the long term, as has been recognised by the Government. The Government has recognised that carbon capture and storage is astroturfing and greenwashing.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I like Sir Walter.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I am sure it will grow fantastically with all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The carbon capture and storage industry, which was first proposed in 1986, is slowly disappearing. It is shuttling off. Recently Ralph Hillman from the Australian Coal Association bemoaned the fact that the Federal Government, by some estimates, has pulled $470 million out of the fund. It has recognised, as have other governments and the people of New South Wales, that clean coal is going nowhere. The people of New South Wales are demanding a safe and sustainable energy future for their State. Carbon capture and storage is a clear attempt by the industry to prolong and justify its existence. However, it is important to note that unproven technologies such as carbon capture and storage are an indication that the coal industry is aware it is unable to continue to operate as it does. It recognises, as with coal seam gas, that it does not have a social licence—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is catch-22. If they try to fix it they are in the wrong. You want it both ways.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Sometimes you should try to fix it; sometimes you should let it be.

The Hon. Niall Blair: Just give up. Let it go.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: That is right: let it go, make the transition. That is why we do not burn whale oil anymore. In the nineteenth century in Tasmania when it was said that the whaling industry was unsustainable people would have said that was ridiculous because there were millions of whales. I am sure that members in the Tasmanian Parliament back then said, "We will be ruined if we stop burning whale oil." We have moved on and no-one now says that Tasmania does not have a sustainable and healthy community because we no longer burn whale oil. I am sure that the whales appreciate it too. The situation with carbon capture and storage is an indication that the coal industry is aware that it is unable to continue to operate as it does. It does not have the social licence to do so. A key point of the carbon tax is that the coal industry will have to be accountable for all its emissions. Already the Minerals Council is crying about the proper assessment of fugitive emissions from coalmines. They say it will be too hard and not to bother about fugitive emissions. But they will have to pay us for those fugitive emissions.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: You are a fugitive from the Minerals Council.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I am actually. Governments around the world are making genuine investments in zero carbon technologies. Tom Switzer appeared in a recent episode of Q&A. The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox would be a big fan of his.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: I am.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: He said that no other country in the world, none of our trade competitors, is acting to decarbonise its economy. That is utter rubbish. The ideologues on the right are in complete denial about the future.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: What are they doing?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: They are decarbonising their economies.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: They have wonderful targets. What are they doing?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: You should know. At a time when governments around the world are making genuine investments in zero carbon technologies this Government should seek not only to amend the terms of this bill, which states that its purpose is to lower emissions, but also to support and invest in zero carbon technologies. Research has been completed in Australia which shows that proven, reliable, renewable energy technology is commercially available. Last month Spain produced uninterrupted clean energy with storage capacity from its new solar steam generation power plant. The Government should have a look at what they are doing in Spain. This Government continues to look to methods such as burying emissions from coal-fired power underground. Carbon capture and storage is an unproven technology that requires emissions to be pumped deep underground through aquifers into the rock strata and rock layers. We do not know the long-term impacts of that. As with coal seam gas, it is a bit of a suck-it-and-see approach.

Dr John Kaye: Is that a technical term?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: It is a technical term applied by the Government. As communities around the State stand united against the threat of the rapidly expanding coal seam gas industry—an industry that has the capacity to impact on underground water as it drills through aquifers to extract gas—the Government is putting millions, if not billions, of dollars into technology that has the potential to further interfere with the safety of our underground water resources. I commend the Minister for his acknowledgement that the term "clean coal" is a misnomer. That is true. As Dr John Kaye said, it is an oxymoron. The implication that any amount of research would be able to discover a way for coal to burn without emissions is false. Coal will never be clean. We just have to clean it up, and to clean it up is an effort we will have to go through. The term "clean coal" is misleading at best.

Emissions from coal-fired power are dirty and dangerous. The bill should address the effectiveness of efforts to make unsustainable high pollutants such as coal clean. Rather, the bill simply renames the council as Coal Innovation NSW and changes the term "clean coal" to "low emissions coal". These amendments highlight the inadequacy of the Government's efforts to genuinely address the concerns of the people of the State in relation to the ongoing impacts of mining in their communities. The Minister has acknowledged that solar and wind based energy in our energy generation mix contributed only 3.8 per cent of this State's energy generation in 2010. The Minister also acknowledged that coal-fired generators currently emit 63 million tonnes of greenhouse gases annually. This is an opportunity for the Government to refocus its efforts on the State's energy requirements.

The people of the State are calling on the Government to show leadership in decisions around innovation and investment in the energy sector. The people of the State are looking to their Government for the provision not only of jobs but of safe jobs and for not only a boosted economy but a sustainable one. The Hon. Marie Ficarra referred to NASA. I am a big fan of NASA. NASA and other American agencies provide a wealth of information on what is happening to our atmosphere. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] routinely releases a state of the climate address. In one of its recent releases it observed that there has not been a month when the average global temperature has been below the twentieth century average. For 316 months in a row the average monthly temperature globally—the atmosphere, the land and the sea—has been above the twentieth century average. The rabid leftists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Perhaps you should compare with medieval global warming.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Mr Dungeons and Dragons is worried about medieval times. The dragons are coming.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Man had to flatten it out with his hockey stick.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Someone should get their hockey stick. The amendments in this bill are superficial.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps to order for the first time.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: In conclusion, I point out that the amendments to this bill are merely superficial and that the work of the established body that the bill references has been a costly distraction from genuine investment in innovation and technology to transition away from heavily polluting industries as the dominant suppliers of energy to this State. Further, I note that the body this bill references has proven not to meet its end in demonstrating a technology that has the ability to successfully and significantly lower emissions from burning coal but rather that investment in technology with such aims has provided an opportunity for the coalmining industry and the coal seam gas industry to continue expansion across the State, to the detriment of the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.39 p.m.]: It is my pleasure to support the Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011. At the outset I congratulate the Minister for Resources and Energy in the other place for moving so quickly to streamline administrative arrangements in this important area. I also acknowledge the particularly learned contribution—or I should say the emissions—of the Hon. Rick Colless to this debate. The Federal Coalition has sought the expertise of the Hon. Rick Colless in this area, and he has been part of the development of the Federal Opposition's direct action plan. Members will remember that it was the Federal Labor Government that took those great ideas and included them as part of its package surrounding the carbon tax that it is looking to introduce, which those on this side of the House so vehemently oppose.

The Hon. Rick Colless has been a very strong contributor in this area and it is self-evident that those on the other side of the House, particularly The Greens, should take more notice of his knowledge and expertise. I very much look forward to seeing the many notices of motions on the Notice Paper bringing forward debate on the whole area of greenhouse gas emissions. I am sure we will hear some very, very learned contributions in that area in the near future. Despite the commentary from the other side of the House, most of us are aware that the New South Wales Government is taking direct action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some members may not be aware of what we are doing so I will take this opportunity to outline some of the very significant projects that this Government is supporting.

It is very important to understand the Government's approach to what is happening to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many scientists believe that human activity is contributing to climate change, which they say is linked to increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Such changes could have significant implications for the environment, the economy and communities across New South Wales. If there is even a possibility of these changes taking place, it is imperative that we know and understand what action the Government is taking. I first acknowledge that Australia has two points of distinction in its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. One is that as a nation we contribute only 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions. The other point of distinction is that we have the dubious honour of having the highest per capita emissions in the world. In a country with a reputation for world-class innovation and technological expertise we can do better. It is therefore good to know that New South Wales has a history of excellent programs helping to reduce our levels of emissions, and the former Government should be acknowledged for taking direct action on this important issue.

A range of programs have been put in place more recently. Importantly, these programs do not rely on just one type of technology or the introduction of a carbon tax. Instead, New South Wales is taking a portfolio approach to the development and implementation of emerging low-carbon technologies. The innovation and development of low-emissions coal technology is a very important part of this portfolio approach. The New South Wales approach also covers additional support for proven renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind power. The Government's support for emerging technologies is clearly seen in the range of projects under the Renewable Energy Development Program. Under that program the Government is providing $24.8 million for six varied projects. Those projects include a wind farm, a biogas project, geothermal power generation, a solar thermal cooling plant, a solar plant for the Liddell power station and technology to store energy derived from wind. These projects are estimated to have the capacity to generate power or reduce grid power by 96,000 megawatt hours. They will save about 103,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each and every year. This is direct action delivering for the people of New South Wales. Recently the Government has also been successful in securing Commonwealth funding under the Commonwealth Solar Flagships Program to build a $933 million solar power station. That project will be located near Moree. I note that the member for Barwon has been a very, very strong advocate of this very important project.

The Hon. Niall Blair: What a great member.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: What a great member he is. It will be one of the world's largest solar photovoltaic plants, capable of providing power for 45,000 homes. The New South Wales Government will contribute up to $120 million towards the construction of this world-class facility. These are just a few examples of what is currently happening in this State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The New South Wales Government is also looking at ways to offset carbon emissions through Australia's first government-sponsored soil carbon trading scheme. We heard the learned comments from the Hon. Rick Colless about the importance of using soils as a carbon sink, and it is certainly an area in which we can do more work. The soil carbon trading scheme is a five-year trial funded under the New South Wales Catchment Management Action Program. It will allow a better understanding of the potential for the sequestration of carbon in soils.

The examples of carbon reduction programs I have described provide a good idea of the range of projects currently underway. They are all examples of direct action delivering and continuing to deliver reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for the people of New South Wales and they do not require the introduction of a carbon tax. It is great to see such a range of innovative technology being supported and promoted by the New South Wales Government. Given the range of innovative technologies that the Government is supporting to reduce emissions, it is not surprising that it also supports innovative technology to reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations. The International Energy Agency considers the use of carbon capture and storage and low-emission coal technologies to have the greatest potential to reduce emissions from burning coal for energy production. This might come as a surprise to The Greens, who believe we should no longer invest in new solutions such as clean coal technology.

The reality is that approximately 90-odd per cent of the base load of New South Wales is provided by coal-powered generation. Every State of Australia and many other countries rely for their base load on coal-powered generation. We can take enormous steps in researching this important area to ensure that we can minimise our emissions with better technology. The implications are that reducing greenhouse gas emissions with smart innovative technology from Australia, fuelled by funding from the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government through funds of this nature, could be absolutely critical to lowering greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Yet we hear The Greens, who call themselves the great advocates for finding solutions to climate change, say that we should no longer fund clean coal technology. It is an absolute disgrace and it stands in complete contradiction to what The Greens profess to be their purpose in this world. I will talk more about misnomers and oxymorons later in this debate.

I return to the bill. In New South Wales it is the Government's view that carbon capture and storage will provide for a strong and continuing economy that is not subject to the shocks associated with rapid and significant change, such as the closure of the coal industry, which has been pushed in this place on a number of occasions by Dr John Kaye. The Greens would bring the economies of Australia and New South Wales to their knees in pursuit of their radical agenda. The Government's funding of research and development in this field will be truly worthwhile. It is in stark contrast to the Federal Government's approach, which is to introduce a carbon tax that is not climate action; it is economic vandalism.

It is essential to accelerate the development and deployment of these technologies. Doing so will have the highest impact at the least cost. We are not alone in doing this work. Other State governments are promoting the development of low-carbon technology. As I said, the Commonwealth Government is contributing in this field as well. Indeed, countries around the world are investing heavily in this area. Making the proposed changes in the bill will continue to contribute to this valuable work in New South Wales.

The bill will seek to amend the language of the Act to correct the long-used and politically correct term "clean coal". This is not only a misnomer but an oxymoron, as those on the other side have acknowledged. I must acknowledge a few of those oxymorons that have come to the fore in this debate. First and foremost among those is Country Labor. That oxymoron was almost extinguished at the last State election.

The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: My point of order goes to relevance. A discussion of Country Labor has nothing to do with the bill before us.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I presume the member was replying to comments made earlier in the debate. Strictly speaking, such comments would not be in order.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I was responding to the oxymorons that were thrown about this place before. I will reflect on Country Labor very quickly: it is one of those enduring oxymorons. But I will move on to another oxymoron which has come to light recently, that is the conservative Greens. We saw the conservative Greens raise their head in the debate on time limits, which might be called the debate on curbing the emissions of the conservative Greens in this place. We are pleased to see that—

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: I refer to the points of order already taken in this debate by the Leader of Government Business in this House regarding the long title of the bill in that members must remain relevant to the long title of the bill, in accordance with previous rulings in the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have made a number of rulings with respect to the latitude extended to members during a second reading debate. I refer the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox to those rulings. I remind the member that the majority of his remarks should relate to the objects of the bill.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: It would be good if we could legislate—as we are doing in this case—to remove oxymorons. It would be good if we could legislate to remove oxymorons such as Country Labor and the conservative Greens—but I digress. This bill deals with the oxymoron clean coal. In this debate it is worth referring to an article yesterday in the Australian headed "Rhiannon links coal to famine in Somalia". It was instructive in terms of the policy stance of The Greens federally, and I would like to hear what the New South Wales Greens think about this. The article states:

New Greens senator Lee Rhiannon has been condemned by the government and the opposition after linking coal exports from Newcastle to famine in Somalia and praising a group of climate change activists who scaled a coal conveyor belt.

Senator Rhiannon issued a release congratulating the Rising Tide climate change group ...

That sounds like a group of eco-terrorists, does it not? The article continues:

... after its activists climbed a coal conveyor belt at Newcastle port, claiming a link between coal, climate change and famine in Somalia.

Senator Rhiannon said in her press release:

Ship after ship leaving Newcastle port, heaped with coal, is contributing to the greatest threat we face in human history. Stopping the expansion of Newcastle port and NSW's coal industry is essential if we are to ward off similar human tragedies such as that being experienced by the Somalians today.

The ranting that we have heard from The Greens is again at odds with the black-and-white truth of the press release issued by the honourable Senator. The Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitch Hooke could not have put it any better than when he said "The Greens will go to any lengths to defend their position at the extremist fringe of Australia's political debate". In fact he went on to say Ms Rhiannon's "effort to make political points out of the Somalian famine demonstrates yet again that her ideological prejudices continue to overwhelm her judgment". That is what we saw time and again from the Hon. Lee Rhiannon during her time in this place. We could not be happier to bequeath her to the Federal Parliament, where I am sure she will be an ornament of derision for many years to come. I now turn to the Labor Party policy of introducing a carbon tax in Australia. The union between the Labor Party and The Greens is self-evident: it is here for all to see and we have seen that contribution consistently.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: I refer to your previous ruling that the majority of the speech should be relevant to the long title of the bill. We are now well into 16 minutes of a speech in which this member has mainly moved away from that. The previous speaker, the Hon. Steve Whan, was directed on a number of occasions to return to the bill. I would ask that this member be directed in the same way.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. I refer the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox to my previous ruling.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: We will leave that debate for another time. It will be an interesting debate. I understand the sensitivity on the benches opposite, given that the new coalition that we have seen flourishing over the last number of months of this Government will continue to cause them more heartache over the years and will no doubt deliver Federal government to the Coalition in the near future. It is a pleasure to support this important bill. It is a pleasure to support a bill that corrects language that has been at odds with the objects of the original Act. Those objects are to foster innovation, to deliver improvements and to ensure that clean technologies are employed to reduce emissions in New South Wales and direct funding toward that worthy cause. Accordingly, I strongly commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [12.57 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011, which makes a number of useful amendments to the Clean Coal Administration Act. The amendments are not major but still ensure that a council established under the Act will continue to be effective. The Christian Democratic Party also acknowledges that 90 per cent of electricity comes from coal-fired generators and that these generators emit approximately 63 million tonnes of greenhouse gas annually. The Christian Democratic Party also notes the introduction of the Federal Government's proposed carbon tax of $23 dollars per tonne. The New South Wales energy industry will face a new annual bill of approximately $1.4 billion in tax.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is a lot of money.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: It is a lot of money. The fact is that is not the end of the story. That impost filters through to local government areas. There are about 107 water utilities across New South Wales that generally use electricity to pump water to people's places. I cannot see that water being pumped to the end user and the end user not being charged. This tax will be a burden on households, ratepayers, pensioners and boys and girls. It will affect virtually everyone throughout New South Wales. There is no doubt that the magnitude of this tax will keep increasing as demand for electricity grows.

The Christian Democratic Party also notes that while wind and solar power are part of the solution the energy they produce cannot be fully relied on because it cannot be harvested continuously. We also note that without coal-fired power this State would grind to a halt. That is not a good thing. As I said, a lot of people, particularly the elderly and the aged, depend on a reliable power supply. Just recently the South Coast suffered a few blackouts as a result of wind storms. People do not always realise that loss of electricity means the power goes off to the television and the fridge of the little old lady in the house down the street, and then her food goes off. When that happens to someone living alone—a grandmother, for example—it is a catastrophe for them.

A reliable power supply is incredibly important and we need to be aware that every time power reliability is threatened we must ensure it does not have an impact downstream and affect people in their homes who expect power to reach their refrigerator, television, heater or whatever appliance it might be. At the end of the day it is people who are affected long after the power has left the base-load power station. It has been proven that coal-fired power is reliable and it is important that we be able to rely on a constant supply of power.

[The President left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
__________

QUEENSLAND FLOODS INQUIRY

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Given that the Queensland floods inquiry has listed more than 100 recommendations to improve disaster management in that State and given that flooding has had a significant impact on regional New South Wales, has the Government reviewed the Queensland report? Has it committed to implementing any of the recommendations in that report?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Government has the draft report of the Queensland floods inquiry. The Government is serious about learning from Queensland's experience with flooding in the same way as it has learnt from Victorian's experience with fires. It is extremely important that the Queensland report be considered not only by the Government but also by the wider community in respect of our ability to respond to such events, should they occur in New South Wales. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that all consideration will be given to the findings of the Queensland report. When the Government has formed a view in relation to those recommendations it will make that view publically known.

TRANSPORT FOR NSW STAFF APPOINTMENTS

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of Transport for New South Wales?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Labor first promised an integrated transport authority in April 1995.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: When?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: In April 1995. What Labor could not achieve in 16 years this Government will achieve in a matter of months. I am pleased to announce the appointment of three deputy directors general for the new integrated transport authority, Transport for New South Wales. First, Fergus Gammie, Transport Services, is currently Chief Operating Officer of Auckland Transport. He is responsible for the Auckland region's transport operations. He is currently in charge of transport requirements for the Rugby World Cup. He will be joining us shortly, after New Zealand chokes once again in the Rugby World Cup. Second, Chris Lock, Transport Projects, is currently chief executive of the Transport Construction Authority. He has extensive private sector project management and contract management experience. Third, Rachel Johnson, Freight and Regional Development, has a wide-ranging experience of Australia's freight and logistic businesses and operation of transport infrastructure. I will say more about that in a moment.

With the announcement of these appointments, the senior management team is beginning to take shape. Between them they bring a wealth of experience that will be used to improve transport in New South Wales. We are extremely pleased to have people of such calibre and experience on board as we focus on improving customer service for transport in New South Wales and delivering value for money for the New South Wales public. These new deputy directors general will help set the strategic direction for Transport New South Wales and maintain our focus on placing the customer at the centre of everything we do. We have sought out the best candidates both globally and in Australia. We are appointing a strong team to help us move forward and achieve better outcomes in transport for the New South Wales community and economy.

This new team will bring a dynamic approach, enabling us to drive improvements across the Transport portfolio. The establishment of a new division focusing on freight and regional development is absolutely vital. It is a clear indication of how important we consider regional New South Wales is to the State. For the first time, the key freight systems components—including road, rail, marine, ports and intermodal terminals—will be consolidated and provide a single point of contact for industry interaction. I am delighted that Rachel Johnson has agreed to head up the Freight and Regional Development Division. Her knowledge and expertise will be invaluable. Miss Johnson has wide-ranging experience of Australian freight and logistics businesses, and the development and operation of transport infrastructure. She has held senior executive positions in Patrick Corporation, Pacific National, Linfox, GrainCorp and the Westlink M7 motorway.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Bring on the balaclavas.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They cannot accept excellence; they have to make smart comments about it. This woman is right out of the top drawer of business and management in New South Wales.

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

[Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You can hear the noise from over there. Let us compare our highly qualified and suitable choice to the Labor Party's previous choice, the Deputy Director General of Transport in New South Wales. Its choice was Mr Ryan Park, a high school physical education teacher by trade. He was suddenly parachuted—

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: The Minister knows that he is making reflections on a member of the other House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, I did not. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal obviously knows something we do not know.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I was listening closely to the Minister's remarks about the member for Keira in another place. I do not believe that he was casting aspersions on the member.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Had Opposition members been listening, they would have heard me say it is a noble profession. In 2009 when David Campbell ended his short tenure as the Minister for Transport Mr Park had accrued the grand total of one year's experience in transport. He was then named the Director General of Transport New South Wales. Frankly, if that is what the Labor Party considers to be a qualified candidate, it is no wonder the transport services in New South Wales were left to flounder and disintegrate before our eyes.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: Aside from being an outrageous use of a supplementary question, the Minister is clearly out of order in relation to the comments he is making regarding the member for Keira.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister's time has expired.

POLICE RESOURCES

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no transfer of existing police positions as a consequence of the Parsons audit? Will the New South Wales police establish an objective resource allocation model that will fairly distribute the additional police numbers already promised by the Government?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: What has been lacking for so long in New South Wales is a consistent approach to the allocation of resources with regards to the New South Wales Police Force. When one goes to country and regional areas of New South Wales one sees that there are real questions in the minds of police officers with respect to how the previous Government determined where resources would go. The previous Government continued to say that that was a matter for the New South Wales Commissioner of Police, and it was. But never once was it prepared to ask him to explain how he was determining where they were going and whether they were meeting the needs of his own personnel, let alone the needs of the community.

That is why we embarked upon the audit, an audit free of politics—our audit will not be done by politicians or bureaucrats, with all due respect to them, as well meaning as they are. To have an understanding of what is required in policing one has to acknowledge the expertise that exists within the Police Force. That is why I went to a former assistant commissioner of police, a highly respected police officer, someone who had, while he was assistant commissioner of police, the trust and respect of his personnel in the entire north region—a difficult area to resource. Police in that area could explain their difficulties.

Forward planning and an understanding of what the police resource allocation model would look like into the future—that is, where the numbers would be in the future—were lacking. In Opposition—and now in Government—we talked about the need for infrastructure and the need to plan for the future. Those opposite also talked about those sorts of issues. Not once did the former Government talk about its most important assets, its personnel, its public servants—in this case the New South Wales Police Force—and where they needed to be in the future. There was never any forward planning; only discussions based around its needs in the lead-up to an election campaign.

Honourable members will recall that the biggest classes ever seen under the former Government were only weeks away from a State election campaign. Every four years we went through this boom-bust approach. There was never a transparent and consistent approach to the police resource allocation model in New South Wales. Police did not understand how resources were allocated. God help the public of New South Wales to have any understanding. That is why I have trusted the understanding, the expertise and the knowledge of the former assistant commissioner to look at this issue.

I am confident that Peter Parsons is the right person to give Parliament and the New South Wales Police Force—and therefore the public—some understanding of where resources will have to be into the future and whether the current model of policing is the right one. I have my views and I have expressed them to the Police Association. There are probably members in this Chamber who have similar views to mine and others who have different views. That is fine. I have asked someone who knows where the resources are, where they need to be now and where they need to be in the future to put forward a proposition for a future model for police resource allocation.

CORRECTIVE SERVICES BUDGET

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. In the light of recent Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures showing that a 10 per cent increase in police arrests creates an additional $21 million in correctional outlays, will he scrap his election commitment to increase police numbers to meet recently announced cuts to the Corrective Services budget?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: That is a bizarre question. I do not want to debate the question, but it is bizarre. I can give members an ironclad guarantee right here and now that we will never walk away from the public of New South Wales who are the victims of crime because of an increased arrest rate. The only reason the arrest rate is increasing is that the police are doing their job and bringing villains before courts. The Opposition wants us not to reduce the numbers and to ignore the fact that members of the public are victims of crime. It wants to see additional resources. Such an approach simply does not address criminal offences in New South Wales.

The Government is trying to get one step ahead of the game by putting sufficient numbers of police onto the streets to prevent crime from occurring in the first place. The approach of those opposite was to simply respond to crime; our approach is to proactively prevent crime in the first place. That is the difference between this side of the Chamber and the other side of the Chamber. The former Government sees the status quo as being acceptable; we do not. We want to ensure that members of the public believe that there is an approach to policing that will ensure that a police officer will be there not only when they are the victim of crime but also to prevent crime in the first place. We will take an approach to policing that would have been unique in New South Wales over the past 16 years.

INDIGENOUS POLICE RECRUITMENT OUR WAY DELIVERY PROGRAM

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House of the recent graduation of students from the Indigenous Police Recruitment Our Way Delivery Program in Mt Druitt?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: This outstanding question identifies a process to encourage Indigenous people to join the police. I am happy to lend the Hon. Marie Ficarra to the Opposition on a short-term basis to help it with question time. On 8 August I had the honour of attending and speaking at a graduation ceremony for 16 students of the Indigenous Police Recruitment Our Way Delivery Program at Mt Druitt TAFE. The Indigenous Police Recruitment Our Way Delivery program is a six-month bridging course designed to give young Aboriginal people the skills and knowledge necessary to apply for a place at the New South Wales Police Academy in Goulburn.

Other attendees at the graduation included the Minister for Education, the Hon. Adrian Piccoli; the Commonwealth Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness and Minister for Sport, the Hon. Mark Arbib; and the New South Wales Commissioner of Police, Andrew Scipione. Their attendance indicates the importance of the program. The Indigenous Police Recruitment Our Way Delivery Program was developed in 2008 by the New South Wales Police Force western region command in conjunction with the Western Institute of TAFE. The program provides students with the academic prerequisites to undertake further study and, should they choose to do so, enter a career in policing. The program is open to anyone of Aboriginal descent, particularly those who have a limited educational background. It was originally focused only on the western region of New South Wales.

On 11 November 2010 Indigenous Police Recruitment Our Way Delivery courses were rolled out statewide. These courses are also offered at locations such as Dubbo, Casino, Maitland, Nowra, Macquarie Fields, Orange and Tamworth. More than 100 students are currently enrolled in the program. Many graduates from previous courses have gone on to complete their studies at the New South Wales Police Academy at Goulburn and to become serving police officers. Aboriginal police officers who graduated from the program are now working in locations such as Dubbo, Surry Hills, Kings Cross, Coffs Harbour, Ballina, the Northern Beaches and Bathurst. One graduate who did not go on to become a serving police officer instead commenced work with the New South Wales Police Force as an Aboriginal community liaison officer. This is an outstanding program. Again, I have to give full credit to the former inspector of police, Troy Grant, of Dubbo. He was the inspector who was assaulted. Pictures of him speak for themselves. He went away with blood streaming down his head—

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Like the member for Coffs Harbour.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Do not make fun of this; this is an important program. This program gives Aboriginal kids a dream and a hope. For many of them, to be a member of the New South Wales Police Force is the highest position in their community that they can achieve. They want to be that bridge between the Aboriginal community and the New South Wales Police Force and the rest of the non-Aboriginal community of New South Wales. It is phenomenal to see the smiles on these kids' faces. Troy Grant is no longer an inspector of police at Dubbo. He is now a member of Parliament, representing the electorate of Dubbo in the other place. If the people have not already worked it out, I inform them that they will be incredibly well served by him. He went back and extended the hand of friendship and said, "Let's address this problem." He has done it. This program is a success. This Parliament should be proud of our police who then go on to be members of Parliament doing this sort of work. [Time expired.]

POLICE RESOURCES

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and, coincidentally, follows the last two questions asked of him. Will the Minister assure the House that if the Parsons audit identifies a need for additional police over and above those already promised by the Government and recommendations in that respect are forthcoming, the Government will adopt such recommendations?

The Hon. Luke Foley: Good question, Robert.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is an excellent question and it deserves a serious answer, which is what I intend to give. This serious audit by the Government is designed to understand the structural problems within the New South Wales Police Force and to address injury management. It follows on from the report of Peter Gallagher, who was assistant commissioner of police for the western region of New South Wales. He has put together a report examining injury management. The Parsons audit has taken that work on board to assess how our injured cops are treated—something that those opposite did not bother to ask about. The audit will ensure that we have a plan for the future.

I look forward to receiving the Parsons report at the end of August. The Government will then consider its recommendations. It is impossible to answer a hypothetical question without knowing the report's contents. We have not met with Mr Parsons. Unlike those opposite, I do not bring in a policing expert and then tell him what I want him to do. We trust the knowledge and experience of Mr Parsons: he understands the challenges of policing and government. He is putting forward a proposal that will be a blueprint long after I am gone from this portfolio.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: When will that be?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Many years from now. This Government is trying to achieve a consistent approach to allocating policing resources that will stand for a period of time. It is crucial that the New South Wales Police Force has a blueprint, a plan and consistency for forward planning but, equally, that the New South Wales public knows that we do not have a haphazard approach to police resources, as happened under Labor's watch.

SPEED AND SAFETY CAMERAS

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. I refer to comments made last week by the Minister's spokesperson suggesting that although no fines will be issued from the three speed cameras due to be switched back on, they will act as a deterrent. What evidence does the Minister have to suggest that sending a letter will stop people speeding?

The Hon. Mick Veitch: How come John did not ask this question?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: John did not ask the question because he asks only sensible questions. That is the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: Yet again the Minister is debating the question rather than answering it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. The Minister will not respond to interjections.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On 27 July the Auditor-General released the findings of an audit of speed and safety cameras identifying 38 with no proven road safety benefit. Only a few months ago the Premier and I made it clear that if any of the State's 172 fixed speed cameras were found not to improve road safety, they would be removed. As promised, the New South Wales Government immediately agreed to switch off ineffective cameras. For a long time the lot opposite simply ignored the widespread concerns of the public and motoring groups, such as the NRMA, that some speed cameras had become cash cows. Unlike that lot opposite, we agreed to take on board those community concerns. One interesting thing about this issue was the stance of the shadow Minister for Roads and Ports.

The Hon. John Ajaka: Which one?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Mr Furolo. On Wednesday 27 July 2011 Mr Furolo said—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The Minister is straying from the question. The question was specific. The question related to how turning off a speed camera and sending someone a letter will stop them from speeding. It had nothing to do with the member for Lakemba.

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

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do not understand why Opposition members do not want me to read the press release from their shadow Minister. This is the third time they have tried to stop me. I am just reading the press release of their shadow Minister on this subject of road safety and speed cameras. The question has been asked and I would have thought that Opposition members would want to hear from their shadow Minister. On Wednesday 27 July he said:

He went on to say:

A second press release was issued on the same day. [Time expired.]

CITY2SURF

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on traffic arrangements for the upcoming City2Surf?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am pleased to remind members that this weekend Sydney again plays host to that great event, the City2Surf. The event will take place in the Sydney central business district and the eastern suburbs on Sunday 14 August 2011. The 14-kilometre course will start in William Street and travel along New South Head Road and Old South Head Road, turn left on to Military Road and on to Bondi Beach. Based on entries in previous years, around 80,000 participants are expected on the day. Roads in the vicinity of the Sydney central business district will begin closing at 4.30 a.m. and remain closed until 12 midday, including the Cross City Tunnel eastbound, the Eastern Distributor northbound off-ramp to William Street and the southbound off-ramp to Palmer Street, which will be closed between 7.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.

The City2Surf route and surrounding roads will begin closing from 7.00 a.m. and then progressively reopen following cleaning. Special event clearways also will operate from 1.00 a.m. until 4.00 p.m. The first participants are due to start the race at 7.55 a.m. and all roads will be reopened by 4.00 p.m. Motorists should expect delays in the central business district and the eastern suburbs, including at Bondi Beach. People are advised to use Syd Einfeld Drive and Old South Head Road as alternate routes to New South Head Road. I take this opportunity to encourage participants and volunteers to catch public transport as they can travel free on that day.

The following additional transport arrangements have been planned for the day: event buses will be used from Campbell Parade, Bondi, to return participants to Bondi Junction; additional trains—up to 12 per hour—will operate between Bondi Junction and Central Station from 9.00 a.m. until late afternoon; an additional ferry service to Circular Quay will depart Manly at 6.45 a.m.; Hills Bus and Forest Coach lines will both be operating additional early morning services; and Sydney Buses will operate additional services along major corridors to the city.

The Transport Management Centre has an extensive communications plan in place to notify road users, local residents and businesses affected by road closures and special event clearways. The Transport Management Centre will operate also the Joint Operations Centre between 2.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. to coordinate traffic and transport during the event. The City2Surf is a wonderful event and it showcases some of the great sights of Sydney. I am confident with the right planning and coordination we can continue to welcome major events to this great city.

PREMIER CHINA VISIT

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier. During the Premier's recent visit to China with which mining companies did the Premier or his delegations meet? In particular, did the Premier or his delegation meet with representatives of China Shenhua Energy Company Limited?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I will refer the question to the Premier and the member will be informed of the response.

INDEPENDENCE OF THE RURAL FIRE SERVICE, THE STATE EMERGENCY SERVICES AND FIRE AND RESCUE NEW SOUTH WALES

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. I refer to the election commitment made by the Coalition that in government the Minister would maintain the independence of the Rural Fire Service, the State Emergency Services and Fire and Rescue New South Wales as standalone agencies, able to undertake budget negotiations and make submissions direct to cabinet. The Rural Fire Service, the State Emergency Services and Fire and Rescue New South Wales are now sub-agencies in the Department of Attorney General and Justice. Are these agencies now required to go through the Department of Attorney General and Justice for any part of their budget process, and has the Minister broken the commitment that he made to emergency services workers?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: What a silly question from someone who obviously does not understand the structure of government. The member opposite never took the time when he was in the portfolio to get his head around the issues, and it is obvious that he still has not done so. I can assure the member that he can sleep easy of a night. These are independent agencies.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Government has a good local member in that region now and that makes a difference.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Thank goodness. I hope that this is not part of some sort of fear campaign to try to cause trouble amongst the hard-working volunteers. Let me assure the member that these are separate agencies. They have separate commissioners and I am more than happy to advocate on their behalf, as the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, recognising their independence in the budgetary process.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that the Department of Attorney General and Justice does not oversight or vet the budget submissions from those agencies?

The Hon. John Ajaka: Point of order. It is clearly not a supplementary question. It is a new question seeking a guarantee about a matter referred to in the original question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The supplementary question was in order.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: If the member were to examine the structure of government, he would get an understanding of how it works.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: The Minister said that in his previous answer.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I know, but the member who asked the question did not listen, and that is his problem. I have given him a commitment that these agencies are independent and will continue to work independently, whilst working together with the Government in the best interests of the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Together with whom?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Together with the New South Wales Government. Once again that is something that the member did not understand. Last week the member talked about taxpayers' money as if it were his. What I would have expected from him was a question relating to support for the Government to ensure that the Federal Government increases much-needed category C funding for farmers on the North Coast. But the member does not ask that question. Instead he has asked a question that is clearly designed to cause fear and concern.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: The Minister is now not within a bull's roar of answering the supplementary question. The Minister has strolled off into areas of Federal funding and he is debating the question. He should answer the question asked of him with a yes or no.

The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I wish to thank the Hon. Eric Roozendaal—as we do every day on this side of the House. Members opposite can be assured that this Government will continue to work with these independent agencies, their commissioners and their hard-working volunteers to ensure that they have every resource to look after the people of New South Wales—rather than the lip-service paid to them by the former Minister and his Government.

REPRESENTATION OF MINISTER ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS

The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: Following that lecture on the structure of government the members on this side of the House would appreciate some advice on who is answering questions on behalf of the Minister for Finance and Services during his absence from question time today.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: My understanding is that was announced earlier in the day.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Government or the Deputy Leader of the Government may inform the House who is answering questions on behalf of the Minister for Finance and Services. I do not recall such an announcement being made earlier today.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As leader of the Government I am more than happy take those questions on board.

WIND FARMS

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. What does the Minister say to farmers in response to the statements of the Federal member for Hume, Alby Schultz, in relation to wind farm projects in New South Wales, that the democratic rights of landowners have been dismissed, that people feel abandoned and betrayed by the current State Government, and that the Minister and his Government have refused to honour their pre-election promises in the way of a moratorium and an independent commission inquiry into the issue? And I am not talking about "Albo the Good".

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, I understand it is a question about the Federal member Alby Schultz. I might say that Alby Schultz to me is like Mike Kelly, the Federal member for Eden-Monaro, is to the Hon. Steve Whan.

The Hon. Luke Foley: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is misleading the House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, that is what I am told. Everyone tells me that the relationship between Mike Kelly and the Hon. Steve Whan is absolutely poisonous.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Do you help Alby on polling day?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do hand out for the Coalition on polling day. I have to acknowledge that life has dealt Alby a tough hand. For him some days are really difficult and one of the toughest for him was the day that I, as chairman of the National Party, rejected his application to become a member of the National Party. He has had a lot of trouble getting over that, and some of his statements should be taken bearing in mind that rejection.

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I direct my question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health. With major risk factors such a smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, physical inactivity, obesity and low consumption of fruit and vegetables, cardiovascular disease remains Australia's biggest killer, and is currently the most expensive disease to treat. Given that an ageing population will place further pressure on the health system to manage cardiovascular disease, how will the Minister ensure that organisations such as the Heart Foundation are sufficiently funded to undertake advanced research into the intervention, early detection and prevention of cardiovascular disease?

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Good question.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the Hon. Paul Green for, as the Hon. Mick Veitch said, his good question. I will obtain an equally good answer from the Minister for Health as soon as possible.

HENRY LAWSON DRIVE UPGRADE

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. I refer to the Minister's answer to a question on notice about Henry Lawson Drive when he said:

Delivering any projects outside the current capital program and our election commitments is extremely difficult.

Is he aware that Glenn Brookes—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Point of order: The question is unintelligible because of the background noise and the Hon. Lynda Voltz is mumbling into her beard.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I take offence at that comment.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I found it impossible to hear the question asked by the Hon. Lynda Voltz. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. As a result, I did not hear the second part of the point of order taken by the Hon. Trevor Khan.

The Hon. Luke Foley: He said that the Hon. Linda Voltz was "mumbling into her beard".

The PRESIDENT: Order! Will the Hon. Trevor Khan withdraw that part of his point of order?

The Hon. Trevor Khan: I will.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Hon. Lynda Voltz to restate her question.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I refer to the Minister's answer to a question on notice about Henry Lawson Drive when he said:

Delivering any projects outside the current capital program and our election commitments is extremely difficult.

Is he aware that Glenn Brookes committed to an upgrade for Henry Lawson Drive as part of his election document "Glenn Brookes—Real Change for East Hills"? Will the Minister now promise the people of western Sydney that he will meet his commitment to upgrade Henry Lawson Drive or is this going to be another broken promise?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As the Government has often repeated, the election promises that we made, the election promises the Premier and the Deputy Premier made, will be honoured. Unlike the promises of those opposite, our election promises will be honoured, particularly on roads. Pavement rehabilitation currently is being carried out over selected sections—

[Interruption]

The Hon. Mick Veitch is not interested.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: I am.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Opposition asked the question. If Opposition members do not want me to give an answer, they should tell me. Pavement rehabilitation currently is being carried out over selected sections of Canterbury Road between King Georges Road and Punchbowl Road and also between Exceller Avenue and Chapel Road. These works, which are scheduled to be completed this month, will cost $6.6 million. Pavement rehabilitation and widening works were completed in March 2011 on Henry Lawson Drive over selected sections between the Hume Highway, Lansdowne, and Beale Street, Georges Hall.

This work, which cost $1.9 million, involved pavement strengthening and shoulder improvements. Pavement rehabilitation also is scheduled for Canterbury Road in 2013-14 between Phillips Avenue and Bexley Road, Campsie. This work, which will cost $920,000, involves pavement strengthening and re-texturing. Pavement resurfacing is scheduled for Henry Lawson Drive in 2012-13 over selected sections between River Road and Clancy Street, Padstow Heights, at a cost of $1.2 million. Resurfacing also is scheduled for this road in 2014-15 between Lucas Street to Picnic Point Road, Picnic Point, at a cost of $830,000. As I said earlier, our election promises will be delivered.

NORTHERN BEACHES ROADKILL PREVENTION

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Can the Minister update the House on recent initiatives to reduce roadkill on the Northern Beaches?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Contrary to what some members may think, this question is not about Country Labor. The local northern beaches community has long expressed concern about the number of animals, particularly wallabies, killed on Mona Vale Road, McCarrs Creek Road and Wakehurst Parkway. The member for Pittwater, Rob Stokes—what a hero he is—has been very vocal on this issue. Over the past five years he has worked diligently with the Northern Beaches Roadkill Prevention Committee to find a solution. I am pleased to say that we are now a step closer to being able to solve the situation. A report by independent consultants, which was commissioned by the Roads and Traffic Authority to investigate ways to try to reduce roadkill, has this week been released.

The report has provided details on a range of options to reduce roadkill. It will be considered by the Roads and Traffic Authority, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Warringah, Pittwater and Ku-ring-gai local councils. The recommendations are based on field investigations and research, with information and advice provided by the Northern Beaches Roadkill Prevention Committee. The report recommends a range of short- and long-term options to reduce roadkill including the seasonal use of variable message signs—for motorists, not animals—fauna fencing in strategic locations, priority locations for speed humps, the installation or enhancement of fauna underpass structures, and the management of roadside vegetation. I have asked the Roads and Traffic Authority to immediately look into these options.

Unlike The Greens—who, on the one hand, pretend to be interested in protecting wildlife and the environment and, on the other, accept large sums of donations from pig hunters—the New South Wales Government is genuine about doing all it can to protect our native wildlife. That shows the hypocrisy of a party that has repeatedly claimed to be morally superior when, in fact, it does not have a scruple about who provides donations. The Daily Telegraph reported:

A left-wing union boss who abandoned Labor to give more than $300,000 to the Greens has been exposed as a gun enthusiast and pig and game hunter—directly breaching the Greens' own policy on donations.

And they did not give back a shilling.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The question specifically relates to roadkill on the northern beaches. As fascinating as guns are, I do not believe guns are responsible for the roadkill on the northern beaches. I ask that the Minister be required to be relevant to the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the need for him to be generally relevant in his answers to questions.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It seems that the members of the coalition Opposition are protecting The Greens. Once again it is apparent that The Greens mantra of "protect the environment" applies only in certain situations. It is all facade and no substance.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: So pig hunting is not good for the environment?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There is nothing wrong with pig hunting. The problem is the hypocrisy of The Greens. Four temporary variable message signs on Mona Vale Road and McCarrs Creek Road warning of the presence of wildlife along the roads have already been erected. The Roads and Traffic Authority will immediately look into extending wildlife fencing along Wakehurst Parkway and will continue the seasonal use of variable message signs and support to the Northern Beaches Roadkill Prevention Committee for research into broader movement studies in that area. [Time expired.]

BOOLIGAL STATION

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment and relates to national parks. Did the National Parks and Wildlife Service use $1.5 million of Federal funding to buy Booligal Station, north of Hay, so as to add a large ibis rookery to the national parks estate? Is it a fact that after the purchase it was found that the rookery was not actually on Booligal Station but on a neighbouring property?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I will take that question on behalf of the Minister for Finance and Services, and on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and I will get the member an answer as soon as possible.

POLICE RESOURCES

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister make a commitment that he will not divert resources away from front-line police services as a result of cuts to the correctional services budget?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The question is out of order; it contains argument in the form of the comment "cuts to the correctional services budget".

The PRESIDENT: Order! Was the Minister taking a point of order or responding to the question?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I was taking a point of order. The question was out of order. It contained the words "cuts to the correctional services budget" and, as a result, it contains argument.

The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order. The question is in order. The Minister may answer it as he sees fit.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I have given an indication that there will be no cuts to New South Wales police resources. We will continue to support the members of the New South Wales Police Force and to be part of a reform agenda working with front-line police for the future rather that raising silly points such as that raised by the Hon. Greg Donnelly.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer with respect to diversions from the correctional services budget?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Could I ask the member to further elucidate his question?

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no provision for the member to elucidate his question. The Minister may take a point of order in relation to the member's supplementary question or he may answer it.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I will answer the question by referring to my earlier answer.

BUSHFIRE ARSON

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House about measures being taken to reduce the risk of the deliberate lighting of bushfires?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Australians, whether through personal experience or through images shown across our television screens, have seen the destruction that can result from bushfires. We all know that Australia is a land of extremes, with lengthy droughts, extended periods of torrential rain and unbearable heat. We all know the bitter reality when Mother Nature sometimes pushes these extremes to another level. We have experienced bushfires that are out of control and, more recently, heavy flooding that wipes out everything in its path. It is painful enough when Mother Nature deals us these disasters; the pain is even more severe when tragedies are imposed on the community by irresponsible and reckless thrillseekers, such as arsonists.

Of the total number of bushfires investigated each year, approximately 50 per cent are believed to be deliberately lit, with 3 per cent determined to be arson. There are few, if any, more despicable acts than that of deliberately lighting a bushfire. Bushfire arson has the potential to destroy family homes, belongings and livelihoods, to endanger lives and to damage huge areas of our natural environment. I assure the people of New South Wales that this Government will not tolerate such a crime and that we have great confidence in the combined skills of our emergency services personnel to track down arsonists.

We are continuing to support and strengthen the Bush Fire Arson Taskforce, which includes representatives from the NSW Rural Fire Service, the New South Wales Police Force, Fire and Rescue NSW, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Juvenile Justice. The task force develops programs and strategies to reduce the incidents of bushfire arson throughout the State. On a national level, the New South Wales Government has supported the National Strategy for the Prevention of Bushfire Arson. This includes the participation of New South Wales police and emergency services in the National Emergency Management Committee National Bushfire Arson Working Group.

The working group will be a natural extension of the already established New South Wales Bush Fire Arson Task Force set up as a whole-of-government committee tasked with the prevention of bushfire arson. The task force has already identified and instigated statewide programs that reflect strategies in the National Strategy for the Prevention of Bushfire Arson. At this stage anyone found guilty of intentionally causing a fire or who is reckless in spreading a fire can face a jail term of up to 14 years. A person who maliciously destroys or damages other people's property by fire can face up to 10 years jail, or 25 years if the action is intended to be life-threatening.

The New South Wales Government—as well as the NSW Rural Fire Service—has absolutely no tolerance for the appalling crime of arson. That is why the Government supports even tougher penalties for bushfire-related arson and those who tamper with emergency services equipment. We have therefore committed to reviewing sentencing laws for illegal burns and damage to or theft of Rural Fire Service equipment. I take this opportunity to again remind the community that information from members of the public is crucial in any investigation. I urge anyone with any information about suspicious behaviour near bushfires to call Crimestoppers on 1800 333 000.

As we head towards the bushfire danger period I remind members of the threat of grass fires in country New South Wales following heavy rainfall. The Hon. Mick Veitch and the Hon. Steve Whan know exactly what I am talking about, as do members on this side of the Chamber. Bushfires are a real threat to the livelihood and the safety of communities in country New South Wales, and we hope that this year passes without that threat being realised.

COAL INDUSTRY PROFILE 2010

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Energy and Resources. When will the New South Wales Coal Industry Profile 2010 be released, and can the Minister explain to the House why the profile could be said to be 12 months late given that the 2009 report was released in August 2009?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The question involves detail that I will refer to the Minister for Energy and Resources for a response.

ROAD SAFETY

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. In light of concerns raised by several local government areas about the negative impact of Visy Pulp Mill traffic on their roads and State-maintained roads within their council areas, what additional funding has the Government provided to address road safety issues created by the additional traffic?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do not know who is providing information to the member. If he were a resident of the area, he would know that the Government has just provided funding for the upgrade of Gocup Road. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane should not believe what he is told; he should always ask for a background paper before he agrees to ask a question given to him to ask.

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: Point of order: My question was specific. The Hon. Duncan Gay is debating the question.

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

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane is a new member, but he should ask his colleagues to establish a question time committee and when they feed him questions to ask he should insist on material to support the question. He has been set up with this question. His colleagues said, "Who is the nicest guy we can get to ask this question? Who can we put out there as cannon fodder?" I am sorry for the member, but that is what has happened on this occasion.

SEAFORTH TAFE

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services representing the Premier a question without notice. Can the New South Wales Government confirm that it gave a pre-election commitment that the sale of Seaforth TAFE would not proceed? Can the Government confirm that it also gave a pre-election commitment that under a Coalition Government Seaforth TAFE would be refurbished as a trade education centre? What is the New South Wales Government doing to ensure that it honours its commitments?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the member for his question. I suggest that the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane use this question as a model for those that he wishes to ask. It is a good question, and it is obvious that the Hon. Paul Green has done his own research before formulating it. I will forward the question to the Minister responsible, and I look forward to getting a satisfactory answer for the Hon. Paul Green as early as possible.

As I was indicating before the noise hit us from the opposite side of the Chamber, the member would be very interested to hear the answer and I will get the answer from the Minister responsible to him as soon as possible.

As the time for questions has expired, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

NATIONAL PARK VISITOR NUMBERS

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On 2 August 2011 the Hon. Robert Brown asked the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment and Minister for Heritage, a question without notice relating to national parks patronage. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response:

Extraneous factors such as inclement weather and a decrease of domestic overnight visitation to NSW are amongst the most likely causes for the decrease in visitation from 2008.

PORT BOTANY EXPANSION

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On 9 August 2011 the Hon. Cate Faehrmann asked me a question without notice regarding Port Botany goods line duplication. I provide the following response:

Questions without notice concluded.

CLEAN COAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [3.31 p.m.]: As previously stated, the Christian Democratic Party acknowledges that we derive 90 per cent of our electricity from coal-fired generation and that New South Wales energy industries will have to foot an annual bill of $1.4 billion to cover Federal Labor's proposed carbon tax of $23 per tonne. The tax of $23 per tonne will pulsate into homes right across New South Wales to affect every man, woman and child. The Christian Democratic Party also acknowledges that New South Wales is providing alternative energy from renewable resources including solar and wind—which make up 3.8 per cent of total energy resources—and biomass, landfill gas and hydroelectricity.

Renewable energies are acknowledged as being part of the solution, but they also come with a price. Members may have heard on Alan Jones' radio show that the Netherlands, which uses wind power, has the highest prices for energy in the world. Unfortunately, neither wind nor solar power provides continuous energy. New South Wales relies on coal, gas, and hydroelectricity power, which are proven, reliable continuous base load power sources. Coal is the world's most abundant and widely distributed fossil fuel source and it is a vital fuel in most of parts of the world. The Christian Democratic Party supports direct action as part of the solution of reducing emissions from human contributions and from coalmining and combustion. Everyone can play a part in reducing emissions and their carbon footprint. The World Nuclear Association reports:

₂

Development of new "clean coal" technologies is addressing this problem so that the world's enormous resources of coal can be utilised for future generations without contributing to global warming.

Or should I say proposed global warming. The Christian Democratic Party acknowledges that the industry and the Government have clearly recognised the need for significant investment in research and development of low emissions technologies. The black coal industry has committed $1 billion over 10 years and the Government has committed more than $100 million over four years to the original Clean Coal Fund for the development of low emissions technology. The Christian Democratic Party supports the Government on this bill and sees the importance of our technologies being current and relevant. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [3.35 p.m.]: Why was the Clean Coal Administration Act originally put in place? That is a question we need to ask ourselves. This Act was put in place because the socialist Federal Labor Government has decided that it is time to tax the ordinary hardworking people of Australia. The socialist Gillard Labor Government and the socialist Rudd Government beforehand—

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: During this debate numerous points of order have been raised, originally from the Leader of Government Business, about members being relevant to the long title of the bill. The Leader of Government Business was concerned about people veering away from the State issue into the Federal issue. I would ask that this member's remarks be brought back to being relevance to the long title of the bill.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: I refer honourable members to the second reading speech of the Clean Coal Administration Bill by the Hon. Ian MacDonald in which he explicitly and repeatedly stated that the legislation was part of a broader strategy including the Federal Government strategy of reducing emissions. Given the general latitude allowed in second reading debates, and the fact that in the original bill the Minister himself made reference to the Federal implications of this, I ask that you not uphold the point of order.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: As I said, the reason the legislation was put in place originally was that the socialist Federal Labor Government decided to impose a great big new tax.

The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: The epithet "socialist" in connection with the Federal Government is misleading.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is no point of order

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: I can understand why the honourable member wishes to disassociate himself from socialism, given the recent change in wind direction in the Blue Mountains, but nonetheless I do not believe that—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: The socialist Labor Government has decided to impose a great big new impost on every man, woman and child in Australia. Originally it was going to be an emissions trading scheme. Then it was going to be a tax. Now we are not really sure if it is going to be an emissions trading scheme after a tax or a tax that lasts in perpetuity. But whatever it is, whatever the socialists in Canberra decide, there is this great big new tax hanging over us.

As part of the response to that great big new impost previous governments decided that it would be good if there were some way of reducing emissions. Quite frankly, if there is a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, since 90 per cent of our base load power is based on clean, cheap coal, we are going to have to pay a lot of money in tax. So they decided sometime previously that we need to have a program that will attempt to present a low carbon dioxide emissions coal program. That is well and good and we can think that it is fine, but let us get to the real point of this. The real point of this is that it was forced upon them because there is a Damoclean sword of tax hanging over the heads of the governments of New South Wales past and present.

I want to refer to some other matters that were raised. The Greens interjected to the effect that if we do not do anything earth will end up like Venus. Of course, they failed to mention exactly how many parts per million they believe is the tipping point to push the planet into unrestrained global warming. How many parts per million of carbon dioxide are needed to hit this tipping point?

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Five hundred.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Five hundred? I note the interjection. Perhaps members opposite would like to explain how during the Cambrian period on earth carbon dioxide levels were not 10 per cent or 20 per cent higher but 10 or 20 times higher. If the tipping point is 450 or 500 parts per million then why did we not tip into a Venusian situation when we had levels of 2,000 or 3,000 parts per million? It is all a great big scare campaign so they can justify a great big new tax. That is the truth of the matter. The other great misnomer is that this is a carbon tax. This is not a carbon tax; this is a carbon dioxide tax. If this were a carbon tax engagements rings would be taxed, because the last time I checked my chemistry diamonds were made out of carbon. So will there be a tax on engagement rings?

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Yes.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: There will be a tax on engagement rings. There will be a tax on everything if The Greens have their way. The carbon contained in the diamonds of engagement rings is apparently an evil thing in the eyes of The Greens and so all carbon is to be abolished. I look forward to an alcohol tax because the last time I checked—

The Hon. Steve Whan: There is one.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: No, an additional alcohol tax. The last time I checked the formula for the alcohol molecule it contained carbon. Can we expect an additional carbon tax on alcohol? The point is that the Opposition does not want to talk about carbon dioxide. Why is that? It is because they know full well that carbon dioxide is a safe, harmless, inert, colourless, odourless gas which is essential to life on Earth. That is the simple fact of the matter. They do not like to talk about that.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: It goes to the relevance of the long title of the bill. Previously when members on this side of the Chamber started to talk about carbon and emissions trading we were brought back to the long title of the bill following the raising of a point of order. I ask that the member opposite also be brought back to the long title of the bill.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: The President ruled that members needed to come back to the objects of the bill but he allowed some leniency. In fact, the lead speaker for the Opposition was 25 minutes into his contribution before he did that and the Hon. Dr Phelps has been speaking for only a little more than six minutes.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! Members are extended wide latitude during their contribution to the second reading debate. However, the majority of their contribution should relate to the long title of the bill.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Of course, Labor is in disarray. We were told that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Robertson, had told his colleagues yesterday that they will never hear him publicly support a carbon tax. I do not hear any objections from members opposite saying, "That's untrue."

The Hon. Steve Whan: Who told you that? That is a reliable source, is it?

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Is it true? Is it not true? We know that he does not support a carbon tax and we know that he is in bitter and vehement opposition to the Hon. Julia Gillard because the only thing he could manage to say when he was caught on this was that he supports the pricing of carbon dioxide. But he does not support a carbon tax. He may support an emissions trading scheme. Does he? It would be remarkable if he does because everywhere there is an emissions trading scheme that involves market determination there has been failure. The carbon dioxide market has failed three times in Europe. What is the price of carbon dioxide on the Chicago Futures Exchange at the moment? Can anyone opposite tell me that?

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Eight dollars.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Eight dollars. That is considerably less than the $23 that the socialist Gillard Government plans to impose. Once again, this is not government acting to respond to market failure; this is government initiating market failure. The way things have gone saddens me very deeply. When a government intervenes on such a ridiculous matter so often I am left with this thought: Imagine that a group of pseudo-capitalists wants to create a new motor car. Let us call it the Robbo 2010.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Let's call it the Keneally Special.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Let us say they start up a company called Robbo Motors and they want to create the Robbo 2010, which is the same basic standard as a Falcon or a Commodore. The problem is that Robbo Motors has to face competitors such as Ford and Holden that can build a car for, say, $20,000 apiece. But Robbo Motors can only produce the Robbo 2010 for $60,000 apiece. What do they do? They go straight to their friendly Labor socialist government and say, "We want you to put tolls on every road in New South Wales so that every motorist has to pay to subsidise our operation." That is Labor economics for you. When you get to a situation where governments deliberately try to create market failure it reminds me in many ways of the comment by the character Francisco in that great book Atlas Shrugged, where he makes the obvious point that:

When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favours—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you ... you may know that your society is doomed.

That is exactly what the socialist Federal Labor Government is trying to do. The Greens are the coalition partners of the Labor Party in New South Wales and federally. Nothing ever satisfies The Greens. Not until we are living barefoot in caves, relying on whale oil candles presumably, will they be satisfied because they say, "No, you can't have coal: coal is terrible." Okay, what are we going to do for base-load power? Ziggy Switkowski says, "Let's go to nuclear." The Greens say, "Oh, no, you can't have nuclear power." How about hydro? The Greens say, "You can't have hydro." In Greentopia you are not allowed to build any dams because you might destroy the habitat of the left footed wombat or the hairy nosed butterfly. What about natural gas? Do The Greens support the use of natural gas? No they do not because that also produces carbon dioxide. Do they support coal seam gas?

We know they certainly do not support coal seam gas. What is coal seam gas? It is natural gas. So, The Greens do not want coal, they do not want hydro, they do not want nuclear, they do not want natural gas and they do not want coal seam gas. What do we do? Presumably we rub two sticks together and sleep with three dogs. It is a three dog night in Greentopia. Nothing satisfies The Greens. The original bill came about because of the socialists' dreams and their unwitting compliance with the green agenda in Canberra. If this were to be a serious matter the four points that the anthropogenic global warmists claim is true would be met. They would be able to point to a significant hotspot in the troposphere.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: I took the advice of the Minister and listened for some time to see if the honourable member returned to the bill, as suggested earlier in the debate. I ask you to draw the member's attention back to the bill, which I think he has managed to cover for about 10 seconds.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: I again refer to the second reading speech on the Clean Coal Administration Bill 2008 by the then Minister, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, in which he referred to the report of the international panel of the United Nations in relation to the capacity to mitigate greenhouse gases. If it was good enough for the Minister to refer in his second reading speech on the original bill to the International Panel on Climate Change I contend it is appropriate for me to address matters which may or may not have relevance to the broader aspect of what this bill is trying to amend.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: Regardless of what the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps may think about previous debates in previous parliaments, the President today made clear rulings about the majority of the debate being relevant to the long title of the bill.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Further to the point of order: If the International Panel on Climate Change recommendations in relation to climate change are of no relevance to this debate what is the point of having a clean coal bill in the first place, given that that was one of the primary reasons used by the former Minister for the introduction of such a bill?

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Further to the point of order: I am pleased the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps has raised exactly the same objections that we raised when the Leader of Government Business raised points of order during Opposition speeches. They are exactly the points we raised and the President made his ruling.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! While a degree of latitude is extended to members during the second reading debate, I remind members that the majority of their contribution should relate to the long title of the bill.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I return to my point. Where is the hotspot in the troposphere? It is not there. It was predicted by the International Panel on Climate Change and it does not exist. Why is it that while carbon dioxide emissions have been growing exponentially there has been no temperature change since 2001? Why is it the case that the Vostok ice cores show that changes in CO₂demonstrably happened after changes in temperature, therefore there can be no possible reason to assume they are the primary force that created the temperature changes in the first place? Finally, and I thank the Hon. Rick Colless for raising this, why do the warmists not accept the fact that the addition of an additional molecule of CO₂to the atmosphere does not represent a lineal increase in the amount of temperature it can absorb? It is a sliding scale that heads down towards zero.

The Hon. Rick Colless: It is logarithmic.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: That is exactly right: it is a logarithmic scale. Unfortunately, I am running out of time, thanks to the time limits this Government has wisely introduced; otherwise I would be forced to run on for much longer than this. I raise one further point, and that is this. If the Federal Government thinks it will be able to extort money out of the energy producers of New South Wales it may want to think again. I am not a constitutional lawyer: I achieved the remarkable figure of 54 per cent in constitutional law—any mark over 50 representing wasted study time—but I rely on the advice I have been given by a constitutional lawyer, who made this point:

I thank honourable members for listening and I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [3.55 p.m.]: I am surprised at the contribution by Hon. Dr Peter Phelps on the Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011. I seem to recall that the former Opposition was opposed to building dams, particularly Tillegra Dam. The Government is now changing its policy with regard to dams and is now arguing that we should build the Tillegra Dam.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You got the design of Tillegra Dam wrong, that is the problem.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: If we got it wrong, you should build Tillegra Dam. I look forward to the damming of the Clarence River and all the other rivers that the Government will put forward. I am also surprised about Government members talking to us about a market price for carbon. I seem to remember that the Rudd Labor Government put forward a market price scheme and not only did members of the former Opposition oppose the scheme, they rolled the leader of their party to make sure that scheme never happened. It is fascinating that the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps thinks that a market price is an acceptable outcome. He asked me whether I knew about the market price on the Chicago Climate Exchange. Of course, we were able to answer that question from him, although we acknowledge that those interjections are disorderly. I make this point for the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps with regard to the cost to graziers of carbon sequestration.

Another hidden cost that may be regarded as an opportunity cost is the value of the mineral nutrients that are inevitably sequestered in the carbon sequestered in organic matter. Such minerals are garnered from the productive output of the land or must be applied as fertiliser or their availability will decrease. Each tonne of carbon in soil organic matter is associated with 100 to 120 grams of nitrates and 20 kilograms of phosphorus. These amounts, when bound in a large pool of soil organic matter, are unavailable for plant production even though it is a pool that is turning over. The value of these elements, if they were supplied at retail prices of fertiliser, is around $150 to $200 for nitrate and $80 to $100 for phosphorus, at recent prices. Thus, the opportunity cost of the minerals tied up would be around $200 to $300 per tonne of carbon sequestered. When one is talking about sequestration of carbon one has to weigh that cost against—

The Hon. Rick Colless: You misunderstand the basic principle of the science of agriculture, Lynda.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I am not misunderstanding.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What are you reading from?

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: If I am misunderstanding it, so is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [CSIRO]. It is from the organisation's National Research Flagships on Sustainable Agriculture. Members on the Government side of the Chamber do not like scientific research; they think it is much better to cite what Monckton says as opposed to quoting what the CSIRO says. But when it comes to a choice we on this side of the Chamber will take the advice of the CSIRO every time over the advice of the mob of no hopers that you roll out, such as Lord Monckton.

Getting back to the bill before us, my colleague the Hon. Steve Whan has already noted that members on this side will be supporting the Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011. The former Labor Government brought in the original Clean Coal Administration Act, the Clean Coal Council and the Clean Coal Fund. The council's role at the time was to provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on the provision of funding for research and project development of low emissions technologies. It was also aimed to support innovation efforts by directing funding to demonstration, commercialisation and promotion of new technologies and to try to identify opportunities to integrate public and private sector involvement in research.

I have made the point previously in this Chamber that as a major exporter of coal we have an obligation through development and research to mitigate its impacts, not only on this country but also on those countries to which we export. We should also provide our knowledge and research, particularly to developing and emerging nations. For the foreseeable future coal will remain the most important energy source for our economy. We do not have access to the types of hydro energy sources found in places such as New Zealand, Austria or even Tasmania, although the Snowy Hydro makes a significant impact on New South Wales and Victoria. Research continues on thermal sources, which certainly have a limited capacity. So too does coal seam gas, on which the Government recently placed a moratorium, given its environmental impacts particularly on agricultural land.

Only now are we beginning to develop solar power plants. Of course, green technology growth will be weighed up against our population growth. New South Wales has the highest population growth in the country, not the highest percentage, given its size. New green technologies are not replacing existing coal; they are alleviating increased demand for energy brought about by population growth. Whatever one's view, the Solar Bonus Scheme certainly made a significant impact on extra capacity into the grid. Our energy needs in future decades will always be about a mix, and the research and development of new technologies to deal with environmental impacts is important. Care should be taken to ensure that the people of New South Wales get the greatest efficacy from public moneys expended in this pursuit. In 40 or 50 years energy production in our State may be significantly different. We really do not know where technology is taking us. Anyone thinking back 40 years might look at present technology and still wonder where we are heading. We do not know.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: We have the same technology for coal.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: We do for coal, but I hold great hopes.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: And the Snowy Hydro scheme.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: We do not take new technology seriously, such as the Large Hadron Collider and where that may take us. We do not know where technology is taking us or what things will look like in the future. In the meantime, electricity production by coal is important to our economic growth and underpins our State's energy delivery. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [4.03 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to debate and for their general support. The Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011 makes useful amendments to the Clean Coal Administration Act 2008 by restructuring the council to make it more efficient. Under this bill, the greatest number of council members will be nine, instead of the previous unlimited number, and the chair now will be appointed independent of council membership. The bill updates terminology in the Act by renaming clean coal as low emissions coal. Further amendments ensure that the names of the council and the fund established under the Act better reflect their innovative purpose. Therefore, the council will become known as Coal Innovation NSW, and the fund will become known as the Coal Innovation NSW Fund.

These name changes to the Act, the council and the fund reflect the key function of the legislation—innovation. The lead speaker for the Opposition, the Hon. Steve Whan, talked about the Premier quoting selectively. The Premier does not quote selectively. Had the former Minister been in the Chamber yesterday, he would have received the benefit of a master class in selective quoting from the Leader of the Opposition in this place—the bloke he wants to replace. The Hon. Steve Whan said that he supports the Federal Government's carbon tax, but he did not tell us whether he supported Julia's promise not to introduce a carbon tax. He was silent on that topic. As he campaigned for Julia at the last Federal election, he supported her promise not to introduce a carbon tax.

The Hon. Steve Whan: With my friend Mike Kelly. I was working for my good friend Mike Kelly.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Other Labor Party members in Canberra do not say that. They say that the relationship between the Hon. Steve Whan and Mike Kelly is poisonous. A lot of hot air comes out of Canberra.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Mike will be upset.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Mike may well be upset, but the Hon. Steve Whan can blame only his so-called friends. The member returned for a short time and had a job with Tony Burke, but gave it up because he probably did not want to work that close to Mike Kelly. My dealings with Mike Kelly have been fine. I am not sure what the problem is in the relationship between the Hon. Steve Whan and Mike Kelly. The Hon. Steve Whan said that New South Wales black coal is much cleaner than Victorian brown coal. He did not tell us how clean the coal is that Labor locked us into contract with Cobbora. How clean is the coal in Labor's suspect deal compared to the coal being used now? The Hon. Steve Whan was pretty quiet on that topic and quite selective in his quotes. The Hon. Steve Whan also said this Government was flip-flopping. Has anyone watched the Leader of the Opposition in the other place?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: He needs a chiropractor.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He does need a chiropractor. He did his back in badly flipping from one position to another. I give credit to the Hon. Steve Whan for indicating his support for this important bill. Anything we can do to reduce problems in coal-generated electricity is better for New South Wales. Anything that reduces that is better than a continent of community windmills. Opposition members cast aspersions on 1 per cent, 2 per cent, and 3 per cent reductions in carbon emissions. Those sorts of reductions equate to 40 or 50 wind farms in Crookwell.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: They love them. They are lining up for them.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is not unusual for the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham, a member of The Greens, to be talking about a community that he does not understand. He is talking about my community of Crookwell and wind farms. I would not mislead the House by stating that everyone is against wind farms in Crookwell because that would be untrue. Only about 50 per cent of community is against them and 50 per cent of the community is in favour of them. That is terrible for my community. It means that for every one who is for windfarms, there is one against them, and that is destroying the fabric of our community and is not helping anything. As we have traversed this issue at length it is no longer worth listening to interjections from The Greens.

The amendments to the Clean Coal Administration Amendment Bill 2011 will provide for efficiency and enable the Act to better reflect the purpose of the Clean Coal Council and the Clean Coal Fund. They will provide for currency in the terms that are used in the Act. Ultimately, the work supported through the Clean Coal Council and the Clean Coal Fund will provide the technology used in the future to reduce significantly emissions from coal combustion for our energy production, which is most important work. I congratulate the Minister for Resources and Energy, Chris Hartcher, on introducing a great piece of legislation—the first bill introduced by him, and it is pretty good.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): I welcome to the President's Gallery Fran Logan, shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, Water and Corrective Services in the Western Australian Parliament.

RESTART NSW FUND BILL 2011

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher 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.

GRAFFITI LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [4.15 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The bill gives effect to commitments that the Government made during the election campaign to target graffiti vandals. The bill strengthens the penalties available for courts when sentencing graffiti offenders, provides courts with an increased range of sentencing options for graffiti offenders and ensures that young offenders have to appear before a court when charged with graffiti offences. Graffiti is a significant and costly problem. In 2010 the Standing Committee on Public Works tabled its report entitled "Graffiti and Public Infrastructure." The committee reported in 2009 that 11,691 graffiti incidents were reported to police in New South Wales. The report also estimated that the overall cost of graffiti to New South Wales is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The committee heard evidence from RailCorp estimating that graffiti was costing the authority $55 million a year. The Government is determined to tackle this unsightly and costly problem through the initiatives it is introducing in this bill.

The Government is committed to ensuring that when a graffiti offender is sentenced he or she can be required to undertake graffiti cleanup work. Currently section 91 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 allows for a recommendation that an offender perform graffiti removal work as a condition of a community service order. This bill, by item 1.2 of schedule 1, strengthens the provisions relating to community service orders by ensuring that when an offender has been found guilty of an offence under the Graffiti Control Act 2008 and has been sentenced to a community service order, the court must impose a condition requiring graffiti cleanup work to be performed. The bill provides that a court will not be required to impose the condition if the court considers—in the circumstances of the case—that it is not reasonably practicable for graffiti cleanup work to be performed. Where the court does not impose such a condition it must make a record of its reasons for not doing so.

There will be occasions when it will not be reasonably practicable for a court to impose a condition of graffiti cleanup work. When that is the case, requiring the court to provide reasons for not imposing such a condition will allow action to be taken in the future to identify any obstacles to imposing such conditions. These provisions build upon existing graffiti cleanup orders that can be imposed for Graffiti Control Act offences in order to satisfy a fine. The bill strengthens not only the existing provisions in relation to adult community service orders but also community service orders imposed on young offenders. Item 1.1 of schedule 1 inserts a similar provision into the Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987. This will ensure consistent application of the proposal so that when a community service order is imposed for a Graffiti Control Act offence, regardless of whether a person is a young offender or an adult, graffiti cleanup work must be a condition of that community service order where reasonably practicable.

The Government is committed to providing courts dealing with graffiti offenders with an increased range of sentencing options that can act as real deterrents. To achieve this objective the bill creates a new penalty option in the form of drivers licence orders. These orders are specifically for offences of damaging or defacing property by means of a graffiti implement under section 4 and possession of a graffiti implement under section 5 of the Graffiti Control Act. These new penalty options implement an election commitment that graffiti offenders should have action taken against them in respect of their drivers licence for graffiti offences. Item 1.4 of schedule 1 creates the new penalty of driver licence orders. Where an offender is convicted of an offence under sections 4 or 5 of the Graffiti Control Act, the court will now be able to sentence the offender in the following ways. Where an offender is the holder of a learner or provisional licence, the order will extend the minimum period that person must hold a learner or provisional licence before progressing to another licence for a period of up to six months.

The power to impose licence extensions is similar to that available under the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2008 that allows for a provisional licence period to be extended for an offence of a minor using false identification to obtain entry into licensed premises. A court also will be able to suspend a person's driver licence of any class for a period of up to six months on and from the day on which the order is made. The court will have an alternative to suspending an unrestricted licence holder for a specified period of up to six months by imposing a graffiti licence order. The graffiti licence order will limit at four the number of demerit points that a person subject to the order can accrue for the specified period of the order.

If a person subject to a graffiti licence order incurs four or more demerit points during the period specified in the order, the Roads and Traffic Authority must give the person a notice suspending all drivers licences held by the person for an equivalent period of suspension that would have applied had the person been suspended when the penalty was originally imposed. There will be no capacity to appeal the decision of the Roads and Traffic Authority to suspend a licence pursuant to these provisions. These provisions allow a court to give an offender a warning. Therefore, it is a serious deterrent without automatically suspending the offender's drivers licence and potentially affecting the person's capacity to earn a livelihood. These provisions will not be available where an offender has three points or less remaining on his or her licence.

During the election campaign the Government made a clear commitment that young offenders charged with graffiti offences should appear before a court. The Government wants young offenders charged with graffiti offences to realise that what may seem a trivial matter to them is a serious and costly offence. To that end, this bill will ensure that a young offender charged with a graffiti offence will not be diverted from the courts by the operation of the Young Offenders Act 1987. The amendments to the Young Offenders Act 1987 at schedule 1.7 of the bill achieve the Government's objective by no longer allowing an offence under the Graffiti Control Act to be the subject of a warning. In addition to this amendment, the bill prevents the Director of Public Prosecutions and police from being able to issue a caution or refer a young offender to a youth justice conference for a Graffiti Control Act offence. The effect of these amendments will be that pre-court diversion for a graffiti offender will no longer be an option.

The bill will still allow a court to issue a caution or refer a young offender to a youth justice conference, but that is only after the child has appeared in court and where the child admits the offence and the court is of the opinion that a conference should be held. By retaining the power to refer a child to a youth justice conference the court also retains the ability under the Young Offenders Regulation 2010 to require a graffiti offender under a conference outcome plan to undertake graffiti removal work or other community service work or participate in personal development programs. These amendments achieve the Government's objective of making young offenders realise the seriousness of their offences whilst continuing to give the court discretion to deal with the offender as appropriate. This bill delivers on the Government's election commitment to tackle graffiti in local communities. The bill will strengthen the capacity of the courts to sentence graffiti offenders to do graffiti clean-up work and expand the penalties available to a court for graffiti by providing for driver licence sanctions. The bill will ensure that young offenders realise the seriousness of graffiti offences by requiring them to appear before a court.

Graffiti adds significantly to the lack of confidence that many people feel that they are safe from crime in their communities. Graffiti crime can operate as a gateway to the commission of more serious crimes. This bill empowers the court system to send a clear message to graffiti offenders that we want to stop them from taking the pathway to more serious crime. I have said publicly that today's graffiti is tomorrow's malicious damage, next week's stealing and next month's break and enters. We want to deter young offenders from taking that incremental pathway. The Government is committed to breaking that cycle for young offenders. The current system does not draw lines in the sand; we have etched the lines in concrete. Young offenders will understand that graffiti is an offence that tears at the heart of a community and engenders a lack of confidence amongst its members. Areas that are bombarded with graffiti are left with a sense of lawlessness. This legislation works in two ways. It says to the community that we are serious about addressing this problem and we are taking a serious approach to it. It also says to young offenders that the current system has failed to address this issue effectively.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! Government members will listen to the Leader of the Government respectfully.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Government members are excited about this legislation. I thank them for their support for this important piece of legislation. It sends a message to young offenders that we are serious about assisting them in breaking the cycle of offending. For many young people, graffiti vandalism is the starting point of offending. The approach taken by the previous Government led to many young offenders being in a never-ending cycle of cautions and warnings and incrementally working their way through to committing more serious crimes. Under this legislation they will be appear before a court so that they understand that the community and the Parliament view graffiti vandalism as a serious crime. We also have ensured follow-up measures. As young offenders clean up their own mess or the mess of others they will get a clear signal that the community will not tolerate this crime any further. The community has had enough.

Tough measures must be taken on graffiti crime. I suspect some will criticise the removal of drivers licences. The previous Government took similar steps in relation to alcohol-related offences for young people. That is an example of how legislation can be used in myriad ways to get the message across to young people. We are saying to young people that we value a graffiti-free community. Mainstream communities in New South Wales and Australia want a graffiti-free society. Young people value their independence and their ability to obtain a drivers licence. They recognise that obtaining a drivers licence is a rite of passage to adulthood. We say to them that it is not a God-given right. If they are not mature enough to conduct themselves properly in the community and they participate in antisocial behaviour they are not mature enough to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and be responsible for their own safety and the safety of their friends and others. With this bill we are saying to them that they must act maturely and that this type of wanton vandalism of public and private property will not be tolerated.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.28 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The Opposition has concerns about several aspects of the bill and it will move amendments that are designed to improve it. Subject to the proposed amendments, the Opposition will support the bill. The bill amends the community service order legislation to require that community service orders for graffiti offenders include a clean-up provision. It introduces driver licence orders for graffiti offenders and requires young offenders charged with graffiti offences to appear before a court, whether or not that is the most appropriate course of action. As the Attorney General in another place said and as the Minister said in his second reading speech, the bill is intended to strengthen penalties available for courts when sentencing graffiti offenders and to provide courts with an increased range of sentencing options for graffiti offenders. However, the bill also ensures that irrespective of the merits of the case young offenders charged with graffiti offences must appear before a court when charged with graffiti offences.

The Opposition agrees that graffiti is a serious issue with far-reaching costs and impacts on local communities. After 12 years on my local council I am all too aware of that fact, and of the unceasing struggle with graffiti, particularly along rail corridors and the like. Graffiti vandalism has had a big impact on communities. That is why it has always been Labor Party policy to take a tough approach on graffiti vandals by increasing penalties and implementing strategies to prevent graffiti in the first place. The previous Government introduced the Graffiti Control Act. That Act doubled imprisonment penalties for graffiti vandalism from six to 12 months, doubled imprisonment penalties for the possession of a graffiti implement from three to six months, banned the possession of spray paint cans by youths without a legitimate reason for having them, empowered courts to order graffiti vandals to clean up their own graffiti, made it an offence for a person to sell a spray paint can to a minor and made it an offence to supply a spray paint can to a minor. But tough penalties alone are not enough to rid society of this menace.

The previous Government's policy also introduced changes to State planning policies to ensure government agencies consider designing-out graffiti by using coatings and lighting and restricting access when constructing new buildings. The Government also established the Anti-Graffiti Action Team to bring together experts from government agencies, retailers and the paint industry to coordinate and implement new initiatives. Labor's action plan was widely supported by business and community leaders. In the Sun-Herald on 8 November 2009 Stephen Cartwright, the chief executive officer of the NSW Business Chamber, said:

Also in the Sun-Herald on 8 November 2009, referring to Graffiti Action Day, Howard Brown from the Victims of Crime Assistance League said:

In relation to one of the three key features of the bill—ordering offenders to clean up their graffiti—the fact is that courts already have the power to require offenders to clean up graffiti as part of a community service order. Courts can do this under laws going back to 1987. Section 33 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act provides that the Children's Court can "make an order requiring the person to perform community service work". There is also an entire Act of Parliament dedicated to community service orders—the Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987. Section 5 of that Act provides:

Therefore, in large measure, the Government is replicating existing law. However, with a bit of fine-tuning the legislation now will make it compulsory rather than discretionary. But that is counterbalanced if the court concludes that it is not reasonably practicable to impose such a condition. Although on one view it is a minor change to the law it has certain impacts. For example, if the court does not impose that type of condition the court must record its reason for that decision, as the Minister indicated. The President of the Law Society of New South Wales wrote to the shadow Attorney General pointing out that the Criminal Law Committee and the Juvenile Justice Committee have some concerns about this aspect of the legislation. The letter states:

The President of the Law Society further states:

That is an indication that many of the objects of this bill can and already are being achieved under other provisions.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: So you will be supporting the legislation?

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: After the amendments. The Law Society letter continues:

I note that in the debate in the other place the shadow Attorney General asked the Attorney General to respond on the impact of such community service orders in regional areas where formal programs do not exist. The second category of changes in the legislation that the Minister has identified relates to drivers licence orders that can now be made if these laws are enacted. The holder of a learner or provisional licence can have that learner or provisional licence extended by up to six months, a licence of any class can be suspended for up to six months, and the number of demerit points that a person can accrue during a specified time period can be limited to four. The Government wants to cancel the driving privileges of convicted graffiti offenders, but a number of persons who have experience in this area have indicated their view that that objective will not be achieved by these provisions. In a press release on 26 March 2010 Mr Howard Brown from the Victims of Crime Assistance League said:

In a press release on 22 March 2010 Mr Ken Marslew from the crime advocacy group Enough is Enough said:

Even the member for Pittwater, during debate in the other place on a similar piece of legislation in November 2008, stated:

I understand the objective of the legislation but there are some severe doubts as to whether or not it will work. In correspondence with the shadow Attorney General the Law Society of New South Wales stated:

The Opposition opposes this portion of the Government's proposal. The likely deterrent effect designed by the legislation is unlikely to be achieved because the overwhelming majority of offenders are not caught, so this aspect of the legislation would have no impact on the incidence of graffiti. The legislation also requires all young people charged with a graffiti offence to appear before a court. At present they can instead be involved in a youth justice conference, if so determined by the police. I quote from the explanatory note and the overview of the bill:

[It will] remove the power for investigating officials and specialist youth officers to deal with young offenders who have committed graffiti offences by way of caution, warning or youth justice conference instead of court proceedings.

It removes the discretion from police and specialist youth officers to direct people at the earliest opportunity away from the court system into youth conferencing. I note that the Minister says the courts can refer them back into youth conferencing, but the Opposition takes the view that that is a waste of time and resources. If the police on the ground form the view that a matter is appropriate for youth conferencing rather than the court system—at least in the case of a first offence—we should leave it to their judgment and knowledge rather than remove their discretion.

I do not impugn in any way the intention of the Minister, but this aspect of the legislation is a bad proposal because it suggests that the Government does not trust the police to use their discretion. Youth conferencing is effective and has a lower reoffending rate than that of young people who appear before the courts. As honourable members know, once young people start to be associated with the criminal justice system, or the court system there is an increased likelihood that they will continue to be. Youth conferencing has been effective in reducing the reoffending rate. Support for youth conferencing from stakeholders in this area is on the record. For those cases where a court does order a youth conferencing all this legislation will achieve is extra and unnecessary waste of court time. The Government says it wants to require juvenile graffiti offenders to appear before the court, but our view is that this is potentially a disastrous policy that could increase graffiti vandalism.

Police currently have the discretion to formally caution or refer juvenile offenders to those youth conferences. It forces offenders to confront their victims and agree to make appropriate amends. The decision whether to caution or refer offenders to youth conferencing is entirely one for police. The Opposition trusts hardworking local officers on the ground to make these decisions sensibly. This part of the legislation is not about punishing graffiti offenders; it is about not trusting the good judgement of police on the ground. I note that in question time the Minister referred to the expertise of the police and we agree with him in that regard. We want this discretion reposed in police to remain.

The proposal underestimates the effectiveness of youth conferencing. There is a lower recidivism rate for young offenders going through this program than for young offenders appearing at court. More than 42 per cent of people dealt with under the Young Offenders Act do not reoffend. This model of youth conferencing has substantial community support. Howard Brown from the Victims of Crime Assistance League told the Law and Justice Committee in 2008:

This is one of the great things about youth conferencing. If we can get these unfortunates early enough and divert them they do not become serious offenders.

Ken Marslew from Enough Is Enough said to the committee:

With conferencing there is a high level of justice for both victims and offenders. They appear to get more out of the process.

The Law Society had this to say about this aspect of the bill:

As I indicated earlier, the Opposition has considered the concerns about these aspects of the bill. Rather than just mount a blanket opposition we will adopt a constructive approach. In Committee of the Whole we will move amendments that will rectify what we see—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: What are you going to do if the amendments are defeated?

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge the interjection by the Hon. Trevor Khan. I said at the commencement of my contribution that, subject to having the right to propose amendments, we will support the legislation whatever the fate of the amendments. So that is clear. We will support the legislation, but for the reasons I have outlined we think it is flawed. For example, the Attorney General in the other place indicated that the bill is aimed at reducing reoffending and that the Government is committed to reducing reoffending and keeping young offenders out of the criminal justice system. That is a laudable aim. It is an aim I hope all honourable members in this Chamber and in the other place share.

However, we have concerns that, notwithstanding that desirable outcome, the aspects of the bill that I have identified are likely to have the contrary effect. That would be retrograde for public policy and retrograde for the young offenders who will come into the criminal justice system when they ought not to. Again we say that we have faith in the judgement of the officers who are dealing with these matters on the ground. They should decide, at least in connection with a first offence, whether young graffiti offenders should be diverted into youth conferencing immediately or whether they should go before a court.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR [4.47 p.m.]: I support the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 and commend the Attorney General for introducing it. I will address a couple of the concerns raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. His first concern was that in regional areas offenders will not be given community service orders to clean up the graffiti because there is no ability for those orders to be served. He was concerned that custodial sentences may be chosen over community service orders. I refer to a press release from the Graffiti Action Day 2011, held on Sunday 15 May. This action day involved 36 local government areas across New South Wales engaging with their communities to come together and take action against graffiti.

Part of those actions included cleaning up and painting over graffiti that had been put up around those communities. Participants in that program included Tamworth Regional Council, Newcastle City Council, Port Stephens City Council and a lot of other councils throughout regional New South Wales. It is clear that there are many opportunities for community service orders to be complied with by people in regional areas. I emphasise that we are trying to ensure that there is an adequate deterrent for offenders to think about what they are doing before they go down this path—before they open the gateway to a future life of crime. In a few years time they may be in a position they wish they were not in.

Graffiti is a personal attack on other members of our community. It is such a personal attack that usually only the person who does the graffiti knows who did it, although that is not always the case. It is usually only gratifying to the person who did it. Such people are looking for self-gratification from the graffiti. We need to think of ways to make them think about the impact their actions will have on them. If they have to hold a learners licence or provisional licence for longer or their drivers licence is suspended it will have an impact on their life. That is one of the reasons this bill will send a clear message to offenders that they should not open the gateway to a future life of crime and should think about their actions before they go down that path.

I admit that some of these offenders may be quite young. There is also a provision in the bill that will make sure these offenders have their day in court. If that is the deterrent that stops them from opening the gateway to a path of crime that is great. When I was about 13 years old I was riding my pushbike on the footpath and I was stopped by an undercover police officer who issued me with a written caution. Now I stand in this place as an honourable member, so maybe the intervention by that police officer had an impact. They say that from little things big things grow, but it closed the gateway to a life of potential crime for me.

[Interruption]

It is all out now. That is the only thing Opposition members have on me—and I have let it out before they could raise it.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: The Opposition has been working on it.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: That is right. Opposition members are striking it off their list as I speak. I can tell members what happened when that caution turned up at home in the mail. My father got it first. My father, who is a very strict Northern Irish schoolteacher, certainly let me know that I should not proceed through that gateway to a life of crime. I might have given this example in jest but it shows what early intervention can do for some people. If giving these children their day in court is a preventative measure it must be a good thing. As I said, if offenders have their learner or provisional licences extended or their drivers licence suspended so be it.

The main reason I wanted to speak about this amendment bill is that I worked in local government before I came into this place and had responsibility for a number of different areas. In the regional councils where I worked graffiti removal was one of my areas of responsibility. The hardest thing about trying to budget for cleaning up and preventing graffiti is you do not know how big the problem will be each financial year. I had to delay my playground installations until the end of the financial year because if the graffiti budget blew out throughout the year I had to find the money at the end of the year to pay for it. I could not take it from the budget for mowing the grass in parks because the grass grows continually and it is pretty much a fixed cost. Wages were also a fixed cost. So the one area where capital expenditure was, I guess, considered a luxury was playgrounds.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Kids monkey bars.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: Kids monkey bars in kids playgrounds. Unfortunately, there were times when graffiti got out of hand in parks in my local government area and some parks missed out because the money allocated for playgrounds was used to remove graffiti. Many members from both sides of this Chamber have spoken in the past about funding for local councils. Many have said they need more money to provide the front-line services that are required for our communities—important things such as playgrounds. One of the things standing in the way of those front-line services is the cost of graffiti removal. That is another reason I am supporting the use of any measures we can devise to deter people and force them to think about their actions before they carry them out. To me, graffiti is a personal attack on the local community. Another area I was responsible for in my time in local government was cemeteries. Members may be shocked to learn that cemeteries are not immune from graffiti.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Disgraceful.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: Absolutely disgraceful. Vandals put graffiti on headstones, plinths and plaques in a cemetery. The other area I was responsible for was war memorials located in parks. I am sure other members will expand on this, but I do not think anyone in our society would condone any sort of graffiti on a war memorial. The types of graffiti we see are a personal attack on the local community. This bill is part of the Government's election commitment on graffiti. It will require juvenile graffiti vandals to appear before the court for a graffiti offence. It will also give courts the power to extend the time the offender must hold a learner or provisional licence, suspend a drivers licence of any class, or as an alternative to suspension for unrestricted licence holders impose a limit on the number of demerit points they are able to accrue over a specified period before losing their licence. Courts will also be required to impose community service orders on graffiti offenders to make graffiti clean-up a condition of the order.

Will that work? Will making the offenders clean up graffiti stop them from reoffending or prevent people from offending in the first place? I think it will. I have worked in local government and have seen the impact it has when people get their hands dirty and contribute something to their community. It is one of the reasons people get so offended when their property is defaced with graffiti. If you spend your weekend building a fence on your property only to come out on Monday morning and see that overnight someone has covered it with graffiti you take it as a personal attack. Making these offenders get their hands dirty by removing graffiti means they will start to take ownership of the work they have done. If they see their clean-up work is then ruined by another graffiti offender hopefully it will change their mind and stop them from heading down the path to a life of more serious offences—the gateway to a life of crime.

The Hon. Adam Searle: Get them back on the footpath.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: On the straight and narrow. As I said, I did not intend to speak for long because other members have intelligent contributions to make. I had some personal experiences of what graffiti can do to a local community that I wanted to share. I believe that anything we can do to deter people from heading down the footpath and through the gateway to a life of crime is a good thing. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. WALT SECORD [4.58 p.m.]: The Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 proposes amendments to a range of laws. They include the Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, Graffiti Control Act 2008, Young Offenders Act 1997, Fines Act 1996, Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998, and the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2008. I believe the O'Farrell Government can do more to combat graffiti and accordingly we have some concerns about the detail of the bill. But I say at the outset that tackling this issue has bipartisan support and at the conclusion of this debate we will be supporting it.

The cost of graffiti is consistently underestimated. While individual acts may seem commonplace the cumulative effect is massive. The overall cost of graffiti to the entire State runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Last year RailCorp spent $55 million removing graffiti. But graffiti's greatest cost is to families, community groups and private businesses. Hardworking individuals have to spend day after day cleaning graffiti off private buildings, fences and homes. To these people in particular I say that we know that graffiti is not a victimless crime. We know that it chips away at community pride and makes people feel unsafe.

The Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill is a response to the report titled "Graffiti and Public Infrastructure" by the 2010 Standing Committee on Public Works. The committee found that 11,691 graffiti incidents were reported to police in New South Wales in 2009. That is a staggering figure and one that needs our support to tackle. The Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill expands the penalties available to a court in relation to a person caught doing graffiti or in possession of a spray can. In short, in certain circumstances, it allows for the court to take away a person's drivers licence. Losing a drivers licence can have a major impact on one's livelihood and lifestyle. A licence suspension can result in the loss of a job. That is a very tough lesson but one that some people clearly need.

Introducing tougher penalties such as extending the minimum period for learner or provisional licence holders or suspending a licence for up to six months also sends a strong signal. I have supported some of the licence sanctions. But the Government fails to recognise that many offenders are under 16. The Government has failed to explain how these measures will affect or discourage any person who is under 15 years of age and does not have a drivers licence. This is particularly important as we want to stamp out this behaviour at the start with the earliest possible intervention.

The Government also claims the bill will ensure that young offenders realise the seriousness of graffiti offences by requiring them to appear before a court. Further, the Government claims this bill will strengthen the capacity of the courts to sentence graffiti offenders to community service to force them to clean up graffiti. This is hardly new. For the record, the previous Labor Government introduced the practice of making offenders clean up graffiti. The Government is building on—and taking credit for—established Labor policy. Under our graffiti removal program in 2010 more than 250 offenders were forced to clean up graffiti. Last year young offenders spent a total of 8,111 hours or the equivalent of 1081 days scrubbing graffiti off walls. I am pleased that this approach will continue but I think it is incumbent on a new Government that promised new approaches to tackling problems to deliver new solutions, not recycle existing ones.

I support the measures in the bill, but the Government must look at other ways to respond to graffiti. For instance, before the March election there was a suggestion of creating a special offence of racist graffiti. I think that was a very good proposal. Therefore, today I call on the Minister for Communities and Citizenship, Mr Victor Dominello, to create an offence of racist graffiti. That would make New South Wales the first State in Australia to have such an offence on the books. I am certain that it would be welcomed by various communities in New South Wales. Who could forget the disgusting racist graffiti in the late 1980s and early 1990s around Sydney and Perth when National Action and the Australian Nationalist Movement targeted Chinese, Vietnamese and Jewish communities? These kinds of attacks have no place in Australia—then or now.

Yet I caution the House that the Australian Jewish Community reports that there are between 15 and 20 serious anti-Semitic graffiti incidents on Jewish places of worship each year. Can the Government not turn its attention to this particularly disgraceful form of graffiti? Daubing a racist slogan on a temple, church, synagogue or mosque is not expression, it is outright offensive and has no place in society. It is simply disgusting. In the spirit of bipartisanship I urge the Minister for Communities and Citizenship to take up this proposal.

Further, the Government should look at other graffiti prevention measures that have proven effective. Recent data from Keep Australia Beautiful found that the removal of graffiti within two to 48 hours was extremely effective as a method of prevention. In areas where this happened re-occurrence was reduced to almost zero because, for a graffitist, it is the equivalent of being starved of oxygen. Similarly, new technology used to combat and prevent graffiti is being developed every day. Graffiti resistant surfaces have been highly successful in preventing graffiti. In the city of Tucson, Arizona the exterior walls of newly constructed buildings must be graffiti resistant.

Meanwhile, in New South Wales scientists at the CSIRO, the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney are developing a technology which detects spray paint as soon as it hits the surface. In a trial in Sydney's south, offenders were caught in the act of applying graffiti. That is a good deterrent. Why are we not hearing from the Government on these kinds of approaches? While I welcome the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, most of its measures are recycled or do not focus on prevention and hence I question whether this Government is doing enough to prevent graffiti. Families and businesses in my duty electorates, particularly Campbelltown, Parramatta, Tamworth, Camden, Wollondilly and Tweed, have consistently found graffiti to be a problem in their communities. A high youth population combined with an abundance of narrow walkways has made Campbelltown one of the 10 worst areas in New South Wales for graffiti. I can assure members that the public would rather see graffiti prevented in the first place than simply hear about how tough we are on offenders after the fact. Given the importance of any new steps to address this issue, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [5.05 p.m.]: Graffiti has been around a long time. The inscriptions found at the recovered city of Pompeii range from the rather moronic but pointed "imanis metula es" through to "Lahis felat asses duo", which, if true, is remarkable value for money. There was also "Cosmus Equitiaes magnus cinaedus et fellator est suris apertis", which shows that gay vilification as part of derogatory graffiti has occurred for many thousands of years. Finally there is the redoubtable "Sabina felas, no belle faces", which not only shows that even 2,000 years ago graffitists could not spell but also they had very poor grammar. We laugh at this but it is a serious matter. Simply because it has been around a long time does not justify it.

I would like to discuss the reason we take graffiti so seriously. I draw attention particularly to what has come to be known as the broken windows theory. First propounded in 1982 in an article in the Atlantic Monthly by George Kelling and another person, it looked at the incidence of graffiti and general disorder and whether that led to further disorder in the community. Their conclusion was that it did, and that was expanded further in 1996 when Kelling and Cole's book Fixing Broken Windows was published.

The reason the state of the urban environment might affect crime—and, indeed, a poor urban environment of which graffiti is a part affects crime—can involve three factors. The first factor is social norms and conformity; secondly, the presence or lack of monitoring; and, further, social signalling and signal crime. A major factor in determining individual behaviour is social norms, internalised rules about the appropriate way to act in a certain situation. Humans constantly monitor other people and their environment to determine what is the correct norm for their behaviour in a given situation. They also monitor others to make sure that the others act in acceptable ways. In other words, people do as others do and the group makes sure that the rules are followed.

But when there are no people around, as is often the case in an anonymous urban environment, the monitoring of us by others does not work. In such an environment criminals are much more likely to get away with robberies, thefts and vandalism. When no or few people are around individuals are forced to look for other clues—called signals—as to what the social norms allow them to do and how great the risk of getting caught is. An ordered and clean environment sends the signal that this is a place that is monitored, and that people here conform to the common norms of non-criminal behaviour. However, a disordered environment, which is littered or vandalised or the subject of large amounts of graffiti and in that way is not maintained, sends the opposite signal: This is a place where people do as they please and where they get away with that without being detected. As people tend to act the way they think others act, they are more likely to act in a disorderly way in the disordered environment.

The broken windows theory has been subject to a deal of academic criticism, not the least of which was in Levitt and Dubner's book Freakonomics. Levitt and Dubner, while in some ways acknowledging there were some slight bases to the broken windows theory, concluded that the more effective instigator of reduced crime rates was the prevalence and availability of legalised abortion in the United States. Kelling was enough of a scientist to say, "Yes, I've been speaking about correlation, not causality. However, I believe that it is appropriate and there are enough significant correlations to imply causality." Other criticisms were made of the broken windows theory, essentially along similar lines—that is, correlation does not relate to causality.

Fortunately, we have a science peer review paper entitled "The Spreading of Disorder" in volume 322 of Science dated 12 December 2008. Three researchers from the University of Groningen, Netherlands, instituted a controlled experiment to determine the effect of generalised levels of disorder. They chose six projects to examine, creating normal conditions in one area and disordered conditions in other areas. Remarkably, for the first time, quantifiable and provable evidence revealed that the broken windows theory is correct. In each of the six different scenarios the difference in antisocial behaviour between the norm and the disordered environment was significant. Not one of the six examples showed an insignificant change in people's behaviour. I urge everyone with an interest in these sorts of issues to read the paper. I will not refer to it in detail because much of it relates to the methodology of the experimentation. Quite simply, it is a remarkable piece of work: a controlled environment experiment about ordered and disordered environments. The conclusion states:

I repeat:

The mere presence of graffiti more than doubled the number of people littering and stealing.

The conclusion continued:

Not simply correlation; demonstrated causality—

This is the key point and the reason we want to be tough on graffiti:

Importantly, this research tells us that graffiti in and of itself will lead to a spread of other more antisocial disorders. More significantly, the absence of removing graffiti, of cleaning it up, will lead to such disorder that the mere removing of it in the future will not be enough to re-establish the norms of society. In fact, it will cost much more in other social ordinances, presumably through police or ranger presence in the particular location to correct the situation. It is important to get on the record in this debate that this is not some sort of tough-on-kids program simply for the sake of being hairy-chested on law and order.

This bill is a clear example of the Government trying to ameliorate social disorder at the earliest possible time to save the community not only the inconvenience of damage to private property but also the broader damage to the interaction between human beings in that society and, more so, a greater call on the budget for the inevitable presence of police, social workers and rangers that would be necessitated by the breaking down of order. An article in the same volume dated 21 November 2008 by Constance Holden cites research by Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University, Tempe. The article states:

That is an amazing example. Some people reading this speech will say, "You're talking about being tough on crime and graffiti and moving away from your libertarian principles." That is absolutely untrue in this case. This research finds that ordinary individuals acting on their own conscience will assess the situation in which they find themselves based on what they believe are the social norms around them. That is not government diktat on how one should behave. People are given clear indicators of acceptable and unacceptable norms. If the signal is sent that graffiti is unacceptable and anyone committing a graffiti offence will be expected to clean it up, that is wonderful. Not only does it force the offender to undertake punishment for his crime but also, presumably, others in the community—potential offenders as well as potential and previous victims—will then assess the situation and realise that, whatever the socioeconomic status of the community in which they live, certain behaviours are unacceptable. That is a good thing, and that is the reason I strongly support the bill.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [5.17 p.m.]: I support the comments of my colleagues the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Walt Secord on the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The first object of the bill is:

Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Graffiti Control Act 2008

We support this important bill. Many councils certainly will welcome it with open arms, particularly given that apparently over $100 million of taxpayer money is spent on graffiti removal. The previous Government made vandals do the costly and tedious work of cleaning up graffiti to drive home the message that their behaviour was unacceptable. The Attorney-General at the time, the Hon. John Hatzistergos, said some of the offenders are already required to engage in graffiti removal as part of court imposed sanctions, such as those on community service orders or young people on tailored outcome plans after youth justice conferencing.

The former Attorney-General also said that most graffiti vandals face fines, now they face the prospect of cleaning up their mess. The graffiti clean-up orders program was part of the Labor Government's comprehensive package on graffiti removal. Other measures included penalties for graffiti vandals being doubled to 12 months imprisonment, giving police the power to confiscate spray paint from unsupervised juveniles in public and setting up the police and rail counter vandalism task force to target graffiti vandalism on the rail network. Under the former Government it was made illegal for juveniles to carry spray cans unless for education, employment or legal art. Finally, $1 million in grants was provided for anti-graffiti design at hot spots.

The total cost of vandalism across the rail network at the time included graffiti clean-up costs estimated at around $48 million. As well as being a cost to taxpayers it was an eyesore and inconvenience to commuters. As a result of the former Labor Government taking action the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Works, which reported on graffiti on public infrastructure in its report tabled by the Chair, Ninos Khoshaba, MP, in November 2010. The committee's recommendations followed evidence from various local governments and authorities. Evidence from councils, public utilities and members of the public publicised the far-reaching concerns about the overall impact of graffiti on the community and the huge cost to government agencies in dealing with it. The committee recommended that all appropriate steps be taken to prevent graffiti vandalism. The Government should consider whether current penalties for graffiti-related offences should be increased; consider whether the Graffiti Control Act should be amended to introduce an offence of secondary supply of graffiti implements to minors who are known graffiti offenders; and make recommendations for various actions that ought to be taken to address the issues of vandalism and graffiti, which are costing councils and taxpayers millions of dollars.

I reiterate and endorse the comment of the Hon. Walt Secord in relation to racist and offensive graffiti. The policy initiative announced in February 2011 by the Keneally Labor Government was an Australian first. On re-election, the Government would amend the Graffiti Control Act to give judges the power to deem racist, offensive or pornographic graffiti as aggravated offences carrying tougher penalties. The present Government should seriously consider this policy initiative. It would send a strong signal that the Government condemns racism and discrimination in all forms, including that of graffiti. Former Premier Keneally and her Government stated that the bottom line is that racist, offensive or obscene graffiti is simply wrong and has no place in our society.

Graffiti is not a victimless crime; it destroys property and costs taxpayers and property owners hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. On the cost to local governments, Rockdale City Council has graffiti management procedures and provides a graffiti removal service to its residents funded by the community safety special rate levy. The program forms part of the Safer City Program. Rockdale City Council has imposed a special levy on its rate payers to raise the money to clean up after the graffiti vandals.

The Hon. John Ajaka: Three per cent.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: Yes, 3 per cent. The Hon. John Ajaka was a member of Rockdale City Council when the levy was introduced. Council staff regularly inspect the city to identify graffiti. In addition, the council encourages local residents to report any incidents of graffiti vandalism. Graffiti management procedures at Rockdale City Council ensure reported graffiti is removed within 72 hours, and offensive graffiti is removed within 24 hours.

I refer to an interesting list that I was able to obtain from Wayne Carter, who is a director at the Rockdale City Council. It refers to the removal of graffiti in the last few years. In 2005 Rockdale City Council removed 42,543 square metres of graffiti and to date in 2011 it has removed 2,728 square metres of graffiti. Significant graffiti is occurring all over the State and councils are bearing the lion's share of the cost of cleaning up graffiti on the streets, on shops and in public places. I reiterate the points made by the Hon. Niall Blair about graffiti on places of public worship and war memorials. I take this opportunity to condemn action that happened in recent times in the Rockdale city area. Who did it was never established but because it concerned a war memorial particular residents were unfairly identified as being the culprits.

I hope that the increased powers provided to the police under this bill will enable culprits to be caught and brought to justice so that residents around that area who were unfairly victimised can live in peace without having to take the blame for certain graffiti damage to the war memorial. I support the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill within the ambit indicated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [5.28 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I join in debate on the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Simply put, the bill strengthens the penalties available when sentencing graffiti offenders, provides courts with an increased range of sentencing options for graffiti offenders, and ensures that young offenders appear before a court after being charged with graffiti offences. Graffiti is defined as the act of marking property with writing, symbols or graphics. This may be done illicitly or with permission. The Australian Institute of Criminology list suggests that, in developing crime prevention strategies, it is helpful to distinguish between different types of graffiti and graffiti-related activity.

There are many types of graffiti, including tagger graffiti, toilet and desk graffiti, gang-related graffiti, political and protest graffiti and urban art. Urban art refers to the legal version of graffiti insofar as it is done with the consent of the owner of the property and it is an art form which requires skill, involves a strong aesthetic dimension and is a legitimate form of contemporary art. Today we are debating graffiti that is illegal, that is, graffiti performed without the consent of the owner of public or private property—graffiti on our homes, our fences and our highway feeder road signs. Graffiti, especially tagging, is not only unsightly but also devalues suburbs, and it does little for community morale. It could be compared to the chewing gum that is found on our footpaths, the cigarette butts that are thrown in the gutter, or the shopping trolleys that are found on our streets and in our waterways. Graffiti is ugly, it is a nuisance, and it is a pollutant. For those reasons, stringent sanctions must be imposed on those who commit this offence.

Our community relies on our beautiful city to attract tourism, which in turn sustains employment, income, pride and enjoyment. It is our livelihood and we need to protect our lifestyle. Graffiti vandalism, which is perpetrated by a wide variety of people from a wide variety of backgrounds and socioeconomic communities, is a crime that affects us all and often it is non-discriminatory in the areas in which it is perpetrated. I note also that graffiti vandalism is not just a youth crime. In 2005, 354 alleged graffiti offenders in New South Wales were 20 years of age and older, and 93 of them were between 40 and 44 years of age. We are dealing with a problem that is similar in nature to the problem that was addressed last week when we debated the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011. Graffiti is a costly nuisance and our community has had enough. When I look across the city I see the care that people have taken with the landscaping of their gardens and the pride that they have in their beautiful Colorbond fences.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: It sounds like Colorbond is beautiful.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: If Colorbond fences are located in the appropriate places, they can look really awesome.

The Hon. Adam Searle: It depends on your planning instrument, of course.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: It would depend on the council's fencing policy. Nothing would be more disheartening or sickening for those who take such pride in their fences than to see them destroyed by graffiti. Councils spend hundreds of millions of dollars building sporting facilities and amenity blocks and erecting signage only to see them senselessly spoilt by graffiti, whether by tagging or by pictures. The cost to State Government service providers, local government business and private property owners is considerable. Reports have shown that the removal of graffiti costs the New South Wales economy and taxpayers over $100 million each year. Cleaning up graffiti costs local government approximately $260 million a year throughout Australia—on average, $384,000 of ratepayers' money that could be spent on other community projects. RailCorp graffiti costs that organisation approximately $55 million each year.

Shoalhaven City Council spends more than $150,000 each year to clean up its local government area. In the Shoalhaven we are committed to the rapid removal of graffiti from all council property. Council currently uses graffiti-resistant paints wherever practical. It is expensive but it is helpful. Structures such as public toilets and bus shelters, which are cleaned on a regular basis, are regularly inspected by the cleaners for graffiti and other damage by vandals. If the graffiti is of a minor nature it is painted over by staff or it is recorded on council's action management system [CAMS] for priority removal. That might require the repainting of a building or a section of a building. In addition, any reports received from the public are recorded on council's action management system and prioritised against other repairs and painting projects for action.

The council register of graffiti removal works is available on request to ensure community consultation on council's approach. Although council's funding is not provided specifically for graffiti removal, an allowance is included in the maintenance budget. However, this demand is growing and the subsequent cost to ratepayers is increasing and becoming financially unsustainable. An increase in mural arts is being considered as a possible means of reducing graffiti damage in and around the city. A Shoalhaven council initiative will result in the introduction of a program that provides an outlet for graffiti artists—art spaces in appropriate places around the city where they can create tasteful works of art. While responding to graffiti attacks is an important issue, reporting of graffiti is equally important. A graffiti hotline is part of the solution. Council has operated a maintenance reporting line for several years which allows for the reporting of defects on council roads, in parks or on assets. This 24-hour a day, seven-day-a-week recorded service was recently modified to allow for anonymous reporting of the location of graffiti damage.

Shoalhaven council also runs graffiti removal programs throughout the year and volunteers are called on to remove graffiti throughout our city. Council supplies volunteers with graffiti removal equipment and the program coordinator designates an area for volunteers to clean up. Council also registered this year for Australia's second Graffiti Action Day on Sunday 15 May and volunteers across the community of Shoalhaven and from all over New South Wales took part. In 2010 the inaugural Graffiti Action Day resulted in 820 volunteers at more than 200 sites cleaning more than 4,000 square metres of illegal graffiti. In 2009 the Hon. Shelley Hancock, the Speaker in the other place, stated that local councils spend on average $65,000 on graffiti clean-up operations each year—an increase on previous figures. Local businesses are forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for graffiti damage as well as paying for the damage caused on other occasions as a result of the actions of intoxicated and disorderly people.

Under the current legislation a graffiti offender is often provided with a warning, caution or counselling. I note that police will again have discretion in handling these situations. This bill will send a message to offenders as to the seriousness of their behaviour by making it clear that they will not automatically get off with a warning or caution from the police if they are caught. By treating graffiti seriously we will also send a message to the people who are less inclined to report graffiti incidents because they believe that offenders are not punished in any way. This bill creates a new drivers licence penalty option for offenders relating to the damage or defacement of property by graffiti. The court will be able to suspend a drivers licence of any class for a period of up to six months or impose demerit points. This bill also strengthens provisions relating to community service orders by ensuring that, when an offender is found guilty of an offence relating to graffiti and has been sentenced to a community service order, the court must impose a condition requiring the offender to perform graffiti cleanup work.

I note that the inclusion of offenders in clean-up programs has been successful and works extremely well when used in conjunction with the efforts of local police. The circle sentencing program originated in the Shoalhaven—a fantastic program aimed at ensuring that young Aborigines face up to their victims and work with them to resolve any conflicts. This sort of approach, which would prove successful in the Shoalhaven, might not resolve all graffiti problems but it would go a long way towards resolving them.

The Law Reform Commission recognises that community service orders are a valuable and widely used sentencing option that has the potential to make a positive contribution to the rehabilitation and education of offenders. It provides a positive alternative to jail. It also provides reparation to the community and a constructive use of offenders' free time. Community service order workers may learn new skills, employ skills they already possess, encounter positive role models, and obtain a sense of achievement and community contribution, belonging and attachment.

The Christian Democratic Party notes the validity of the courts imposing community service orders on offenders to make recompense and to clean up graffiti. We believe that will act as a real deterrent. School students could be educated about the impact of graffiti on public and private property and the placing of boundaries on wrongful behaviour. If young offenders do not know what wrongful behaviour is, the cost of graffiti or the reason for their actions, it is difficult to stem the flow. I encourage the Minister to look at including this topic in the curriculum, perhaps in art classes.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: It could be in ethics.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: It is an ethical issue. It may be suitable in the arts or ethics curriculum. The Last Supper would be a good subject in the arts curriculum. Education in schools should be part of the solution. Children can be educated that mum and dad eventually pay the bill because as ratepayers their rates go to cleaning up the graffiti. I agree with the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps that behaviours can change. The presence of chewing gum on footpaths is not as prevalent as it once was. It may still occur in Sydney but in the Shoalhaven it is hard to find chewing gum on footpaths. The same applies to cigarette butts. A change in behaviour has occurred, although the practice has not been eradicated. Who would have thought that people would clean up dog poo? But in the clean, green, pristine Shoalhaven people clean up after their dogs. We have Clean up Australia Day and generally people do the right thing. I concur with the comments of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. I am sure we will see the same result in relation to graffiti. The bill will not eradicate graffiti but it will go a long way towards holding graffiti offenders accountable. The community has had enough of graffiti vandalism. The Christian Democratic Party supports the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.42 p.m.]: I support the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The introduction of this bill fulfils clear policy commitments made by the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals leading up to the last election. In my view, it reflects in the election of the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals an acceptance by the community and voters of New South Wales that action needed to be taken on this issue. The objects of the bill are:

Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Graffiti Control Act 2008

Young Offenders Act 1997

In December 2009 a report issued by the Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that criminal damage was costing the Australian community $1.5 billion a year. This figure included but was not limited to graffiti. As previous speakers have said, while the estimates of the cost of graffiti to the public of New South Wales are unclear, there is little doubt that it exceeds $100 million a year. The report by the Australian Institute of Criminology outlines the reasons that members of our community are concerned about graffiti. I will briefly describe some of those reasons. First, many people rightly see graffiti as unsightly. It is reasonable for people to be concerned about the aesthetic effect. Secondly, many people feel that graffiti undermines the safety of their community, mainly because graffiti is one of the most visible forms of crime and antisocial behaviour.

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to work out that the presence of graffiti is often in areas that already suffer from a significant degree of underprivilege. Graffiti acts as a reinforcement of the feeling of a lack of safety that people in underprivileged areas already experience. Because of the nature of the crime and the circumstances in which it is committed, it acts as a reinforcing element of underprivilege in our community. Therefore it should be seen as negatively impacting upon those most in need of our protection and support. Thirdly, the impact of graffiti is a cost to private and public property both in the direct cost of removing the graffiti and the indirect cost in the form of increased insurance premiums and taxes. This can be clearly seen in property insurance premiums and the impact on the rating base to which we are exposed.

A fourth concern to the community is that graffiti potentially impacts on the longer-term viability of businesses and discourages private sector investment in areas heavily affected by it. In particular, in areas already suffering economic stress and disadvantage, the impact of graffiti makes the operation of the business less attractive. That further deteriorates the potential of those communities from clawing their way out of social disadvantage. If businesses do not operate in those areas, the potential for employment close to residential areas is reduced, which further negatively impacts on those communities. Finally, there is a perception, whether it is correct or not, that graffiti is often linked to other types of crime.

I want to make this point clear: Why should graffiti be considered different from other forms of criminal damage? A former member of this place, the Hon. Ian Cohen from The Greens, often spoke on the issue of graffiti. He referred to graffiti as being a form of urban art or political protest or expression. One can understand circumstances where graffiti is an act of political protest, with which some of us may agree. Those of us old enough to remember the Vietnam War and the protests that surrounded that conflict would remember the graffiti that occurred at the time. One has to remember that other forms of political protests are far more negative in their impact. The Hon. Walt Secord already has referred to racist graffiti which, in a sense, in many cases is a form of political expression.

Other forms of graffiti are racist or homophobic, or attack various sections of our communities. Some people may describe that as a form of political expression but in truth it is highly destructive and highly divisive in our community. People like the Hon. Ian Cohen—for whom I had a great deal of respect—sought to diminish the truth about the negative impact of graffiti, but I can think of many circumstances in which political protest graffiti is to be discouraged in any shape or form. Reference has been made to graffiti as a form of urban art—something that the Hon. Ian Cohen might have considered to be of some worth. There are places where those activities can take place but it should be with the permission of the property owner—a private property owner, a government department or some other instrumentality—and not contrary to the wishes of the property owner.

I turn to the key issues at page 2 of the graffiti report of the Australian Institute of Criminology in which it identified different forms of graffiti. It is worthwhile noting—this is an issue to which the Hon. Paul Green referred—that there are five categories of graffiti: tagging, toilet or desk graffiti, as it is described, gang-related graffiti, political and protest graffiti, and urban art. I do not believe that tagging, desk graffiti and gang-related graffiti can be put into the same category as urban art. We have only to look at the urban art community partnerships in Sydney and Melbourne to see that tagging and gang-related graffiti cannot be put into the same category as urban art.

Individuals who engage in the thoughtless destruction of public and private property through graffiti should be prosecuted in the same way as individuals who commit acts of vandalism and other criminal destruction are prosecuted. It is important to recognise that the impact of graffiti is primarily on the underprivileged in our society. In the areas affected by graffiti it impacts on employment capacity and property values. This legislation not only will protect the wealthy but also will protect those who are most in need of the protection of this Parliament.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [5.53 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in debate on the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This legislation is another mirage from the Government, just like the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011 that we debated last week. This bill is designed to trick the community into believing that the Government is doing something about graffiti when in fact it will achieve nothing. It is my strong view and the view of many experts that increasing the punishment will do very little to reduce the incidence of illegal graffiti or graffiti vandalism in the community because so few graffitists and graffiti vandals are ever apprehended. This legislation will not be the deterrent that the Government claims. We will not see a huge reduction in the incidence of illegal graffiti and graffiti vandalism across New South Wales in any community. The Government is being dishonest when it suggests to the community that that will be the outcome of this bill.

We need prevention strategies but nothing in this bill is preventive. I am looking forward to the budget because I want to see what sort of investment the Government will make in prevention strategies. Is the Government serious about reducing graffiti vandalism and illegal graffiti in communities, or is this just a mirage? To reduce graffiti vandalism and illegal graffiti will take money and the Government will need to work cooperatively with local government. Fifty-two Government members in the Legislative Assembly spoke in debate on this bill. Without fail they all talked about local government and about their experiences in local government, and I will do the same thing. Those of us who have been in local government are well aware that local government is at the forefront of this issue.

Communities are complaining directly to local government, which is cleaning up graffiti when local streets are affected and vandalised. There was no consultation with local government, the Local Government and Shires Associations, or individual councils before this bill was drafted. Government members are shaking their heads in disagreement but that is a fact: There was no consultation with local government before the Government drafted this bill.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You guys were in office for 16 years, remember that?

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: And we did consult. During the term of the former Government the legislation that addressed the issue of illegal graffiti and graffiti vandalism was as a result of the task force of the Local Government and Shires Associations.

The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: The Minister for Police and Emergency Services is interjecting.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Encouraging.

The Hon. Adam Searle: I understand that the Minister wishes to be encouraging to all members in this place who make a contribution. Despite his best intentions—a bit like this legislation—it is having the opposite effect. If the Hon. Helen Westwood could be heard, I am sure she will not use her full allotment of time.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: As I was saying before I was interrupted by the Minister's inaccurate interjection, the former Government listened to local government and changes were made to the laws, in particular, the laws relating to access to tools that were used for graffiti. Changes to the laws reduced access to spray paints by prohibiting minors from purchasing spray paint, and we worked with the retailers of those products. The changes that were made helped to reduce the incidence of graffiti. Local government is saying that there has been a reduction in graffiti in the larger council areas; that it is not spending as much now as it did five or six years ago to clean up graffiti. There are things that we can do to reduce the incidence of graffiti. One action that can be taken—and I experienced this in my time in local government—is in the design of our neighbourhoods and streetscapes.

When we approve developments for new buildings in local areas it is important that we ensure that we are not providing a canvas for graffitists. Regrettably, it has taken much vandalism and cost for local governments to take that into account and to amend their development control plans so that they do not allow huge blank walls to be built which provide canvasses to graffitists. That is the preventative approach we need if we are serious about reducing illegal graffiti and graffiti vandalism in our communities.

State government and local government should be aware of the need to involve young people in the design, creation and construction of our public spaces. We are often neglectful of consulting young people and ensuring that the public spaces in which they are going to gather, socialise and participate in recreational activities are spaces that they believe reflect their values and their lifestyles. My experience has been that when one does consult young people on the design and creation of public spaces they are far more respectful of it. We should all bear that in mind.

Local councils have taken differing approaches, but all are approaches that are appropriate to their area. My experience at Bankstown changed my attitude toward graffiti. Previously I accepted that some of it was art and that we should accommodate that in the way we approach the issue. For example, at Bankstown council we allowed young people to create graffiti artworks on our work vans. Those vans would then go around to various streets when works were being carried out. The community and individual residents began to complain to me that whenever those vans were brought to their streets the incidence of graffiti vandalism and tagging increased. I had to review my attitude to the approach that I had accepted to reducing graffiti. As a result, Bankstown council employed a youth worker to look at this issue. People who are elected to council presume they know everything, but it was no longer engineers and councillors looking at graffiti; it was a youth worker.

Employing the youth worker was a worthwhile investment because we learnt a lot about graffiti culture. We also learnt that it was not young people from our area who were perpetrating the graffiti offences, which was contrary to popular belief. There is a view in the community that it is young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and young people from diverse ethnic backgrounds who are carrying out this illegal graffiti, but it is not. The culprits are predominantly young people from working-class, middle-class and upper middle-class Anglo-Saxon backgrounds. We found out that it was not our locals. There were websites encouraging young people to meet at certain locations or get on trains. The trains going through Bankstown were being hit. We had teams of graffitists coming to the Bankstown local government area from outside of the area to graffiti walls and public amenities, usually at night time when they were not going to be seen.

Like most councils, Bankstown council decided to deploy an immediate response to quickly remove graffiti. It was often difficult to get action from the government services. A member mentioned State Rail, but it was sometimes equally difficult to get the owners of the power infrastructure to respond quickly to graffiti on their properties. In the end Bankstown council removed the graffiti itself. That appeared to be the best response. Penrith council has a program where a young guy who can relate to students talk to them about the impact of graffiti—what it costs the community and how it leads to making an area unsafe. We have talked about that.

I accept, as others have argued, that graffiti vandalism can make an area feel unsafe and the area can quickly become a no-go zone. In older urban areas that is a real problem. In areas where there may be difficulties in the local economy, where shops are perhaps closing down or are empty, to have graffiti on top of that makes an area feel unsafe. For that reason we must ensure that we address this serious issue that mostly affects our urban communities, whether in regional areas or in the Sydney metropolitan area. It is in built-up areas that graffiti vandalism is a real problem.

However, punishing young people and increasing the punishment they receive is not the answer to this. We have to accept that young people who do this, because of their age, are simply not mature enough to make good judgements. We know that. That is a reality of adolescence. For that reason, prevention rather than punishment will be a far more effective approach. The former New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, made an interesting contribution to this discussion in a recent Sydney Morning Herald article. First, he said that so few offenders are apprehended. He then said:

Even the vast majority (70 per cent) of juvenile offenders who are prosecuted never reappear in a children's court—another 15 per cent appear twice. So why should any heavier outcome be required for the small percentage who are caught? Reoffending rates for juveniles are not affected by imprisonment—it has no deterrent effect—so what would a heavier response achieve?

I agree with Nicholas Cowdery's position on this. This bill will not be effective and it will not achieve what the Government is claiming it will. However, it is important to acknowledge that some graffiti makes a positive contribution to our streetscape and our public spaces. We can all refer to some great graffiti works in the community. As the Hon. Adam Searle would be aware, there are some beautiful graffiti artworks in the Blue Mountains. A gorgeous one that comes to my mind is in Leura and there is another at Hazelbrook.

The Hon. Adam Searle: The underpass.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: Yes, the underpass. There are many examples of great graffiti work. Often there is far more respect for those pieces from graffitists and they are less likely to be tagged. I have always seen tagging as the human equivalent of a dog lifting its leg and marking its territory. It is really ugly. I used to live near a park, on a corner, with a Colorbond fence, like so many others. I would be out there removing graffiti. It is offensive. I understand property owners' anger when it happens to their property. It is destructive. I think I first became aware of graffiti as a young person through its expression of political views. I know that the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps referred to some that he had seen.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: I am sure you were not around in Pompeii.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: No. One of my favourite pieces that I always enjoyed was on a brick wall in Newtown where someone had written "God hates homos" and someone else had written underneath, "But does he like tabouli?" I always appreciated the wit in that piece of graffiti. There often was wit in the early days but I must say I think a lot of that wit has been lost and the graffiti is nowhere near as clever now.

The Hon. Adam Searle: Less satire.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: Yes, far less satire than there was when I was young. I do not support the cancellation of licences. I think that affecting young people's ability to move around and socialise and go to work and study is not the way to deal with this issue. I urge the Government to rethink this legislation. All of us accept that illegal graffiti vandalism is ugly and a blight on the streetscape and our urban environments, but we have to look at prevention strategies. I believe that increasing the punishment will not reduce the incidence of graffiti.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL [6.11 p.m.]: I support the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which contains proposed amendments to the Graffiti Control Act 2008, the Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987 and the Young Offenders Act 1997. This bill will give effect to the Government's election commitment to crack down on graffiti in New South Wales and impose tough new sanctions on offenders. The bill strengthens the penalties available to courts when sentencing graffiti offenders, provides courts with an increased range of sentencing options that I believe will act as real deterrents, and ensures that young offenders have to appear before a court when charged with graffiti offences. Despite the differing views on this bill within the Parliament there can be no denying that graffiti is a huge issue across this State, and the simple fact is that something needs to be done to address it. We are facing a significant and costly problem.

The Standing Committee on Public Works report last year entitled, "Graffiti and Public Infrastructure", which has been mentioned in this debate, stated that in 2009 alone 11,691 graffiti incidents were reported to police. The same report showed that the overall cost of graffiti to New South Wales is hundreds of millions of dollars and that the cost to RailCorp was estimated to be approximately $55 million per year. Clearly we are talking about huge sums of money being spent each year to clean up this problem, and it is not good enough. The Government is determined to tackle this problem through the initiatives it is introducing in this bill. Graffiti and community concern over graffiti are nothing new. Earlier my colleague the Hon. Niall Blair referred to a personal experience he had had when riding his bike as a teenager and that it had acted as a deterrent to his going down the path of crime.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: It is great that he did it.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: That is right. He has become an honourable member. I would also like to refer to a personal experience that does not involve the law but does relate to graffiti. It happened when I was in high school, which was not quite as long ago for me as for some of my colleagues, with all due respect. In 1999 I was competing in the Lions Youth of the Year contest in Gunnedah. As I am sure many members in this House who are involved with the honourable Lions organisation know, part of the competition is to ask participants questions about current and topical issues. I was asked about graffiti, whether I thought it was art or vandalism and what I would do to tackle the issue. I said that I thought that graffiti was vandalism most of the time. There are exceptions, which the Hon. Helen Westwood referred to, where it can be deemed to be artwork by members of the community, and I respect that. Generally speaking, I think graffiti falls under the banner of vandalism. I thought then that it was important that the Government take a tough stance and crack down on offenders.

That was 12 years ago and here we are today still talking about the issue because not enough has been done to address the problem. I am really proud to be a member of the Liberal-Nationals Government in this State and taking steps to act against graffiti. I maintain the same position on the issue today that I took when I was a high school student: it is up to us as a responsible Government to take a tough stance on graffiti and to crack down on offenders. I believe this bill will ensure that that happens. As elected members of Parliament we are responsible for taking into account the public's view on this issue. I cannot count the number of times that people have said to me that graffiti has offended, upset or bothered them. Members of the public are sick and tired of seeing school buildings, trains, sporting halls and personal property damaged by reckless graffiti, carried out by people who I believe are immature individuals who have no respect for their community.

I make the point also that while graffiti is often obvious in urban areas and blights the urban environment it is not an issue that is confined to Sydney. It also exists in regional areas. I give the example of my home town of Gunnedah where there are regular incidents of graffiti. I cite as an example the Gunnedah Golf Club, where a family friend of mine is the greenkeeper. I was speaking to him only a couple of days ago and telling him that we would be debating this bill in the House this week. He said to me that not a week goes by when he does not have to pull down or fix a sign, some equipment or something on the course that has been damaged by graffiti. This is time that could, and should, be spent working on the course but instead is diverted to dealing with vandalism. These incidents are not limited to a small place such as the Gunnedah Golf Club; unfortunately, they are happening right across regional communities.

As the duty member of the Legislative Council for Northern Tablelands I have seen some of the damage from graffiti and the effects it has had both on local residents and potential tourists to those areas. Graffiti has been a problem in Armidale in the past, so much so that the Armidale Dumaresq Council had to implement its own action plan to stamp out graffiti in its neighbourhoods. The council has done this by using closed-circuit television cameras to identify offenders, and I commend it for taking the initiative to do something about the problem. As the Hon. Helen Westwood said, a lot of the responsibility for cleaning up graffiti falls on local councils. They have enough on their plate. I hope the implementation of this bill will give further support to councils and communities such as Armidale and that by working together we can control and minimise graffiti vandalism.

Another obvious example of unsightly graffiti in the Northern Tablelands becomes very clear when people are driving along the New England Highway near Uralla. If any members have not been up that way I encourage them to do so. I am sure that some members will be familiar with the story of the 1860s bushranger Captain Thunderbolt, whose bushranging territory was said to have extended from the top of the Murrurundi Range all the way to the Queensland border. Legend has it that Captain Thunderbolt used Split Rock—as it was then known—and its amazing views of the highway to spot approaching travellers and mail coaches, and descend upon them at the last moment when escape was impossible.

Uralla has adopted this historical character as he is buried in the Old Cemetery in the town, and Split Rock has been renamed Thunderbolt's Rock in acknowledgment of the outlaw. I believe this is an important part of our nation's history. The rock is a popular tourist destination but it is continually covered in graffiti, which in my view is a real shame as it takes away from the significance of the site. If there were tougher penalties and real deterrents in place this would no longer be the case. I am really hopeful that this bill will lead to some improvement in the problem in Uralla.

I know that this legislation will be welcomed by the people of Uralla. The member for Northern Tablelands in the other place, Richard Torbay, was very supportive of the bill and made it quite clear that his community supported the commitment to tackle graffiti offenders made by the Liberals and The Nationals in the lead-up to the election. It is clear that tough action is needed to stem the cost graffiti imposes on our communities. The Liberal-Nationals Government is making the hard decisions and strengthening the legislation to ensure graffiti vandals are not simply let off with a slap on the wrist. This bill will give courts the power to impose tougher and more effective sentences on those who commit graffiti offences. We are standing up and offering real action to solve this problem.

During the election campaign we made it clear that we would take a tough stance on graffiti. The bill implements our election promise that juvenile offenders who are charged with committing a graffiti offence will appear before a court in order to learn the seriousness of their crimes. For too long graffiti has been seen as a trivial matter and the entire process has not been taken seriously by juvenile offenders. As a result of this bill juvenile offenders will not be allowed to escape the requirement of appearing before court and they will be made to realise that graffiti is no petty matter. They will be made to realise that actions of a criminal nature have consequences, which I think can only be a good thing.

Furthermore, amendments to the Young Offenders Act 1997 will further achieve the Government's objective by no longer allowing an offence under the Graffiti Control Act to be subject to a warning or a caution without the offender first appearing in court and admitting the offence. Again I think that can only be a good thing. In addition, the bill also prevents the Director of Public Prosecutions and police from directly referring a young offender to a youth justice conference for a graffiti offence. A court may refer a young offender to a youth justice conference but, once again, only after he or she has appeared in court and admitted the offence. The message from the Government is loud and clear: graffiti is a serious offence and offenders will be dealt with in a serious manner, regardless of their age.

One of the elements in the bill that has caused some debate thus far is the new penalty option in the form of driver licence orders specifically for offences of damaging or defacing property. This will give courts the power to extend the time graffiti offenders spend on learner or provisional licences or suspend any class of licence. This will be carried out under section 4 and section 5 of the Graffiti Crimes Act to avoid the potential evidential problems of establishing a graffiti offence under the broader property damage offences of the Crimes Act. It is reported by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research that over two-thirds of graffiti offenders are under the age of 18, and over 50 per cent are young males. To stop this demographic from committing these offences we need to hit those in this group where it hurts. I cannot think of a better way to do it than taking away their licences.

Young people love having any type of licence. It is something for which they wait for a long time and usually most people cannot wait to achieve their full licence. The measure of extending licence periods or suspending licences will hit at their freedom and restrict the convenience that a car provides for everyday activities. They might think twice before they spray that can. Such a punishment is appropriate for the crime and will enforce our commitment to ensure that graffiti is dealt with in a tough manner. I think it is a brilliant idea that will see real results. I believe it will be a strong enough deterrent to stop young people from committing these offences in the first place.

The court will have the authority to suspend unrestricted licence holders for a period of up to six months by issuing a graffiti licence order. If offenders incur four or more demerit points during the specified period of the order they will have their licences suspended. There is no way this decision can be appealed when a licence is suspended under these provisions. This is an important part of the bill. We realise that a strong stance is needed on graffiti crime, and I believe the licence provision is a fair measure to be used to stamp out graffiti within our communities.

However, this is not the only punishment available to the courts under the proposed bill. At present, section 91 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 provides a recommendation that offenders clean up their graffiti as a condition of a community service order. Under the proposed amendments the provisions relating to community service orders are strengthened. If an offender is found guilty under the Graffiti Control Act 2008 and has been given a community service order, the court must impose a condition requiring graffiti clean-up work to be performed. This is exactly what should happen. If someone vandalises something, he or she is responsible for cleaning it up.

Some consideration will be given in extenuating circumstances which I am sure will arise from time to time. However, the bill covers that and provides that a court will not be required to impose the condition if the clean-up work is deemed not practicable. However, if the court does not impose the condition it will be required to give reasons for the decision, which will be recorded. The amendment bill will also strengthen the Children (Community Services Orders) Act 1987 and fulfil our commitment that offenders sentenced to a community service order will carry out graffiti clean-up work, regardless of whether they are young offenders or adults.

The bill creates a uniform approach to graffiti crimes for both young and adult offenders. It will achieve the Government's objective of making young offenders realise the serious nature of graffiti offences whilst continuing to allow the court to have discretion to deal with the offender as deemed appropriate. The Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 is a fair bill that introduces real action into an area that has been crying out, literally for decades, for a strong stance. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.25 p.m.]: I support the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Graffiti has an effect on communities throughout New South Wales and is a controversial issue for people in my province—the St George, Sutherland and Illawarra province. Graffiti undermines the quality of our communities and costs many millions of dollars to clean up—I am talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in New South Wales. I understand from some of the reports that I have read that it costs anywhere up to $1.5 billion to clean up graffiti in Australia.

I am aware of the cost within the city of Rockdale. When I was a council member we introduced a program to clean up graffiti at a cost of millions of dollars to Rockdale council. Those millions of dollars were paid by ratepayers through a 3 per cent increase in their rates over the three years that I was there. As I understand it, that program was again implemented with the same rate increase to ratepayers. The program was simple: once graffiti was spotted by someone and reported to council it would be removed within 24 hours. The idea was that as graffiti was continually removed it would act as a disincentive to repeat offenders to return to the same site and perpetrate illegal graffiti. All it did was to move the problem from one council area to another council area; it did not solve the problem completely. Notwithstanding the good work and good intentions of councils and all the time, effort, energy and money that have been spent by them, graffiti is a statewide problem.

I congratulate the Minister on introducing this bill as it takes a statewide approach to solve graffiti. Sadly, that is something the previous Government clearly failed to do in its 16 years in office. I note the earlier comments of the Hon. Helen Westwood, which were sincere but in many ways her statement was wrong. Governments have to work together to solve this problem. It is a sad indictment on the Hon. Helen Westwood to accuse this Government of running a smoke and mirrors campaign. That is not the case. That might have been the case in the time of the former Government, which clearly failed to take appropriate action, but that is not the case in relation to this Government.

Members would be aware that during the election campaign graffiti was a major issue that was raised by many residents. Graffiti was a major policy issue of the Coalition throughout the election campaign. From the results of the election we know that the people of New South Wales embraced that policy by overwhelmingly supporting the Coalition. When my colleagues and I went doorknocking graffiti was one of the major complaints that was raised by people—whether they were businesspeople, homeowners or individuals. The New South Wales Government is determined to ensure that those who engage in graffiti face serious consequences. This was at the heart of the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals "You Spray, You Pay" policy that was taken to the 26 March 2011 election.

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

Item of business set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.31 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [6.31 p.m.]: Members will recall the AGL coal seam gas well blowout that occurred on 17 May at the AGL Sugarloaf 3 coal seam gas well at Camden in south-west Sydney, adjacent to the suburb of Glen Alpine. While talking on site to some landholders, members of the Scenic Hills Association and others concerned about coal seam gas extraction and preparing a video to put on the website, lo and behold a coal seam gas well behind me exploded suddenly.

The Hon. Rick Colless: All by itself?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I had nothing to do with it. It started spewing into the air an unknown thick, white foam substance. The substance being ejected gradually became a liquid aerosol and drifted towards the suburb of Glen Alpine. Members should listen because they will have to form a view about this issue. Given the widely known toxic chemicals used in coal seam gas drilling, and the proximity of the well to the suburbs and drinking water infrastructure of Sydney, I was concerned about the incident. I raised my concerns in this Chamber, with government departments and in the community. On 27 May, in response to a question from me, Minister Greg Pearce informed the House that an interdepartmental investigation headed by the Office of Environment and Heritage was underway. Members will be interested to know that, after some prompting, we have a result. The Office of Environment and Heritage sent a warning letter to AGL stating:

The regulator, being the Office of Environment and Heritage, stated:

Further, the Office of Environment and Heritage determined that:

AGL had been remiss in their management of the CSG bore well.

Members may consider that this is the end of the matter but, unfortunately, I do not believe that is so. We are yet to see the analysis of exactly what was in the foam that was discharged over the suburbs of Campbelltown. However, that analysis is dependent on AGL's own investigation because independent soil sampling was undertaken by consultants for AGL. That is not good enough and is simply indicative of how this industry has been rolled out across the State with numerous other similar instances. The Camden matter would not have been brought to the attention of the Office of Environment and Heritage or the community had I not been present. The same can be said about the Pilliga issue. Members opposite might be interested to know that the claim against me and my office of somehow being involved in tampering with something has been put to bed.

I am informed that a number of departmental representatives, as well as senators, as part of their Senate inquiry, visited the site and saw exactly what I saw. It is inappropriate that this industry is self-regulated. The process has not been proven to be safe and the community has grave concerns about it. I congratulate the Government on supporting the inquiry into coal seam gas exploration and extraction by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. Belatedly, today the Labor Party has announced a task force into the coal seam gas strategy. After rolling out coal seam gas projects across the State it now has decided to have a task force headed by—

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Who's on it? Ian Macdonald and Tony Kelly?

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: No, not former Ministers Tony Kelly and Ian Macdonald. I believe the Hon. Luke Foley and the Hon. Steve Whan have taken a particular interest in the inquiry. They have just discovered the issue. I am sure that Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 will unearth some issues as it travels around the State conducting its inquiry. Ultimately, the Labor Party and this Parliament will make a decision. The industry should be subjected to a moratorium while the inquiry is underway because these issues are occurring across the State.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [6.36 p.m.]: Recently I received an invitation to join The Greens. I hasten to point out that this invitation did not come from a member of The Greens. To my surprise it came from a member of my political party, the Australian Labor Party [ALP]. In fact, it was from my Federal member, the member for Reid, who suggested that I should leave the Australian Labor Party and join The Greens. Why? Because I am a member of Parliament who supports marriage equality. I was astounded at Mr John Murphy's suggestion that I should leave the Labor Party as I have been a member since the mid-1970s—I suspect longer than he has been. I was surprised also by the suggestion that he claimed his electorate of Reid was against marriage equality, because as one of his constituents I know there has been no community consultation on the matter. I sought an opportunity to let him know my views and the views of my partner on marriage equality, but found no mechanism of broad consultation in which to do that.

I am bitterly disappointed that Mr Murphy has taken that position and represented it as being the view of the Reid electorate without widespread community consultation. One reason for my surprise at his invitation for me to join The Greens is that Labor always has led reform. Labor governments dismantled the tower of discrimination that gays and lesbians faced throughout our nation's history. It is important to put on the record that, although some areas still need reform before we attain true equality, State and Federal Labor governments have delivered reform. In 1984 the Wran Labor Government decriminalised homosexual activity between consenting adults. From 1995 to 2010 the New South Wales Labor Government eliminated discrimination and provided legal recognition of same-sex de facto couples in more than 100 pieces of State legislation.

The New South Wales Labor Party amended the Anti-Discrimination Act to ensure equal protection for lesbians and gay men caring for their partners, changed State superannuation laws to recognise same-sex couples, equalised the age of consent laws, and provided legal recognition for both partners in lesbian couples with children as the parents of their children. It is worth remembering also that it was the Whitlam Federal Labor Government in the early 1970s that first included sexual preference as a ground on which workplace discrimination could be investigated. From 1983 to 1996 the Hawke and Keating governments added sexual orientation antidiscrimination protection to the Public Service Act, recognised same-sex couples for immigration purposes, passed sexual privacy laws and declared anti-gay discrimination in the workplace to be a breach of human rights.

In 2008 the Rudd Government legislated to remove discrimination against same-sex couples from 85 pieces of Federal law and recognised the children of same-sex couples for the first time. I believe it will be a Labor Government that removes the last vestiges of intolerance and discrimination that deny lesbians and gay men equality. I hope it will be the current Government and, if not, it will be a future Labor government that delivers this very important reform. I will continue to work within the Labor Party—of which I am very proud to be a member—to ensure that we achieve a core Labor Party value: equality for all citizens of this nation. Therefore, I respectfully decline Mr Murphy's invitation to join The Greens and will remain a very proud member of the Australian Labor Party, the party that is the leader when it comes to reform and equality for gay and lesbian citizens of this country.

COUNTRY AND REGIONAL LIVING EXPO

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [6.41 p.m.]: Like many thousands of others, including a number of my National Party colleagues, I had the pleasure of attending the Country and Regional Living Expo at Rosehill Racecourse last weekend. This was the seventh year in which the expo was conducted with a view to promoting the benefits of living and working and doing business in regional New South Wales. It provides Sydneysiders with information on jobs, real estate, education and lifestyle options, including cultural attractions across the State, with more than 50 exhibitors. Many regional councils participate and visitors can walk New South Wales in a day, experiencing the tastes and sounds of different localities.

The expo is organised by the Foundation for Regional Development Ltd under the leadership of Mr Peter Bailey of Armidale, who is passionate about the promotion of country and coastal regions of this State and, indeed, all those parts of Australia outside the metropolises. The many communities which compete for potential tree change or sea change residents all put their best foot forward at the expo seeking leads from visitors to their booth. They then engage in following up with those visitors interested in making the move to their location. The Cowra community, for example, looks to the expo to help fill vacancies within the bounds of the Weddin and Cowra shire councils, where they need skilled workers.

This year the Parkes Shire Council value added to its exhibit with a star of The Dish and Underbelly, Roy Billing, who has property in the Parkes district. Mr Billing promoted Opera at the Dish in October and the famous Elvis Festival that is on again next January. The Muswellbrook shire, where unemployment is down to 1.7 per cent, is seeking 120 people to fill jobs in Muswellbrook, which, of course, is an important town servicing the upper Hunter mining industry. There are jobs in that shire for electricians, boilermakers, fitters, auto mechanics and even taxidrivers, as well as administrative jobs. A spray painter or panel beater in Muswellbrook can earn over $100,000 each year. The Moree shire, headed by its mayor, Katrina Humphries, was at the expo promoting districts agriculture and tourism sectors as well as housing developments in Moree. Armidale promotes its many education options—from primary school to post-graduate university education—as well as its cultural attractions.

The go-ahead Gunnedah shire is a regular exhibitor and the mayor, Adam Marshall, like many other mayors and community leaders, personally fronts his community's booth at Rosehill. The councils see the expo as the premier forum for this type of engagement. Mike Foster of Cowra said the Country and Regional Living Expo has built a first-class reputation for delivering the right crowds to a well-equipped and well-run convention pavilion. The location enables easy access for exhibitors and participants alike. Only a few kilometres from the geographic centre of Sydney, the venue provides plenty of parking and a train station at the door. We always find accommodation nearby. Once the visitors have been delivered to the venue it is up to the exhibitors to put on the show and convince them of the benefits of country living. This is something that country people seem to do with ease—displaying the energetic, genuine and likeable natures that make up our towns.

The demographic profile of visitors to the expo, which is always gathered, makes for interesting analysis. Most of those who visit and respond to surveys are employed, with the largest segment of jobs held being those in the health and medical sector. Most respondents are aged 55 and under and most are thinking about relocating from Sydney within a year or so. The range of exhibitors includes shires and city councils, chambers of commerce, health stakeholders from government agencies and services groups such as the Royal Far West Children's organisation, regional development organisations, and other government agencies with special responsibility for the rural and regional sectors.

Included in the expo program are seminars on topics such as the latest government initiatives to encourage relocation to rural and regional New South Wales such as the Regional Relocation Grant of $7,000, which was announced during the election campaign and which is now operational. The expo has enjoyed bipartisan support from successive New South Wales governments and this year was officially opened by The Nationals Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Donald Page, who addressed exhibitors and visitors on the special focus of initiatives for regional New South Wales which are embedded in the DNA of the new Liberal-Nationals State Government.

Last Friday, in launching one initiative at the expo, the New South Wales Country Card, I was able to recount why at times it is very easy to market the benefits of living outside Sydney. I drove from Parliament House to Rosehill, listening to radio traffic reports along the way. The city was gridlocked to the south; it was gridlocked at the entrance to Kingsford Smith airport—an increasingly frequent event—and in other parts of the capital. Avoidance of those sorts of stresses in getting from one commitment to another to do business in an efficient way can be a powerful trigger to relocate, especially these days when the location of many businesses is less and less important due to the relative ease of electronic communications. I congratulate Peter and Jenny Bailey, the chair of the foundation, Anthony Fox, and all the organisers and exhibiters in this ongoing endeavour to promote the highly successful Country and Regional Living Expo and country and coastal living in this State.

COUNTRY AND REGIONAL LIVING EXPO

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [6.46 p.m.]: In a great coincidence I will also be talking about the Country and Regional Living Expo on the weekend, which I visited on Saturday with leader of the Labor Party, John Robertson, and the Hon. Mick Veitch, my Country Labor colleague. Over the years I have been to several of the country and regional living expos and had the pleasure of opening them on previous occasions. It is an important event promoting relocation to country New South Wales. As it is out at Rosehill, people have to make an effort to go. It is easy to get to but one has to make the effort. That ensures that the people who are out there are serious about moving and they are not out to have a wander and kick the tyres. I also congratulate the organisers of the event: Peter Bailey, who had the concept for this some time ago as director and chief executive officer of the Foundation for Regional Development; Anthony Fox, the chair, who was there with us; and Sam Notley, who did a lot of the work in putting the expo together this time around. It is a very important event.

New South Wales Labor and particularly Country Labor have been very pleased to be strong supporters of this expo since it started. From 2003 the former Labor Government has funded the expo. It increased the funding last year and gave a two-year funding commitment to the expo. The pressure is now on the Government to continue the funding at those levels and, I hope, to increase funding in future years. There were approximately 60 exhibitors from all parts of New South Wales—an impressive list of areas—including many councils exhibiting together as regions. Some were not there, including from the south-east of the State. I would encourage councils from that area to come along in the future. They have exhibited in the past and I was disappointed to see they were not there this time. It is a great opportunity to see the terrific lifestyles and opportunities for work and employment in country New South Wales. As a representative of regional New South Wales I have always made the point that it is about more than providing jobs; it is about providing lifestyles for families.

As is the case with everything, regional communities have differing needs. Not all the exhibitors at the event were looking for population. Some, such as the North Coast areas, were not trying to encourage population but they were trying to encourage people with ideas and creativity to come along and create jobs. Other areas are looking at population and trying to attract people to move to their communities. Coffs Harbour was looking for creative minds in its display. Many were looking for skilled workers and many in the health sector, which will be harder to do when this Government's wages policy takes its toll on government employees. I was thrilled to see the promotional focus for Orange. It had a great brochure about working at the brand new hospital, which was delivered by the former Labor Government. It is now a drawcard for people to come and work in health services in Orange.

A comment that many exhibitors made to me relates to the importance of the National Broadband Network and the use of broadband optic fibre links in developing a lifestyle in country areas and assisting businesses and people who work from home. A few stall exhibitors I spoke to mentioned, unprompted by me, the importance of the National Broadband Network rollout to the future of country and regional New South Wales. I have made that point often in the past. I am disappointed that the Coalition at Federal and State levels is not backing the rollout of optic fibre cable to regional communities around New South Wales. People such as the shadow Federal Minister do not understand the quantum difference between wireless and optic fibre cable. They just need to understand the difference to realise its importance for future regional development.

Regional development needs to be more than just slogans. The Government is proud of quoting "A decade of decentralisation". At the moment it is just a slogan. The $7,000 grant is not targeted and has no set performance criteria. Although it was being promoted at the expo, there was a fair bit of cynicism as to whether it would lead to new people moving to regional New South Wales. An overarching policy is needed to bring all of regional development together. Events such as the Country and Regional Lifestyle Expo should be supported. I urge the Government to continue provide funding support for such events. I also urge the Government to do as Labor did and next year have the Premier or Deputy Premier open the event, not a relatively junior Minister. A number of people told me that they did not know who opened the event even though they were in attendance. I congratulate the organisers of the Country and Regional Living Expo.

TRIBUTE TO HORACE YOUNG

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [6.51 p.m.]: Tonight I pay tribute to an Aussie Digger named Horace Young, a member of Operation Jaywick and a team that was pivotal in boosting national morale during World War II. Horace Young was born in Perth, Western Australia, on 11 April 1921. Following schooling at Perth Boys High School he worked for the Postmaster-General's Department as a telegraph messenger. Given this was around the time of the Great Depression, his parents were elated that he was able to get a job. A short time later he told his parents, "I am gonna join the navy". They were horrified and said, "You just got a good Government job and that is where you are gonna stay".

When Horrie turned 18 he became a fully-fledged naval reservist. When World War II started Horrie was asked to leave his position with the Postmaster-General's Department and was mobilised into the Royal Australian Navy as a telegraphist. He thought that being drafted was "very good and a bit of an adventure". Horrie married his wife, Hazel, in 1942. After some time at various naval posts a Special Service lieutenant offered Horrie a place on "a small ship up in the islands to browse around". During World War II Horrie arrived at Cairns and was introduced to a 70-foot Japanese fishing boat renamed the Krait. Horrie described the boat as a "shock to the system". He said:

A secret plan was devised to attack Japanese shipping in Singapore harbour. Commandos would travel to the harbour in a vessel that was disguised as an Asian fishing boat. They would then use collapsible canoes to attach mines to Japanese ships. Military secrecy surrounding the mission was justifiably high and Horrie was not allowed to tell his family where he was going. The true nature of the mission was held from even him until he was already at sea and was told, "We're going to Singapore". From then on things got serious and Horrie was told:

We'll be flying under the Japanese flag and you've all gotta stain yourselves black and wear sarongs like Malay fishermen.

The Krait arrived off Singapore on 24 September 1943. Under the cover of darkness six men left the boat and paddled 50 kilometres to establish a forward base in a cave on a small island near the harbour. Two nights later they paddled into the harbour and placed mines on several Japanese ships before returning to their hiding spot. After waiting for the commotion to settle down the commandos returned to the Krait. This victorious mission was known as Operation Jaywick. The resulting explosions sank or seriously damaged seven Japanese ships, successfully destroying 40,000 tonnes of Japanese merchant shipping in Singapore Harbour. Horrie said:

Historically, most of the attention has been on the Krait itself and not on the three British and 11 Australian men involved in the raid from the Z Special Unit. However, it is important to note that Horace Young was involved in what is regarded as Australia's most successful commando raid of World War II. In the 1960s when Horrie was president of the Z Force Association he was informed that the Krait had been found in Sandakan, Malaysia, and was being used by a British timber company. Through an extensive fundraising campaign the Z Force Association was able to bring the Krait back to Australia, where it remains docked in Darling Harbour under the custodianship of the Australian National Maritime Museum. Horrie moved to the Woy Woy area with his wife, Hazel, after his retirement. In an interview Horrie was once asked what he would say to later generations about serving one's country. He said:

I have the peculiar feeling that everybody owes their country something. The country gives them certain things: education, medical facilities and things like that—

[Time expired.]

NATIONAL SERVICE SIXTIETH ANNIVERSARY

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.56 p.m.]: Last Sunday I represented the Premier at the sixtieth anniversary of the first intake for national service in August 1951. The commemoration was held at the Ingleburn Military Historical Precinct and organised by the National Servicemen's Association, under the guidance of their President, Mr Ron Brown. I congratulate them on a splendid turnout and a most enjoyable gathering. National service facilitates nation building because it builds character in those who experience service in our Armed Forces. During the Cold War the threat of communism caused nations that valued the gift of democratic freedom to remain on a high degree of readiness. This threat led to the introduction of the first national service scheme between 1951 and 1959. During this period all young men aged 18 were called up for training in the army, navy and air force. More than a quarter of a million were trained in 52 intakes during this period.

Australians fought with distinction in the Korean War in the early 1950s but, fortunately, no national service servicemen were sent to that war. With the outbreak of confrontation with Indonesia between 1962 and 1966 and the Vietnam War, recruiting was again insufficient to combat the communist threat and conscription was reintroduced. In the second scheme men aged 20 were selected by a birthday ballot for a two-year stint in the army. An alternative scheme allowed those liable for conscription to elect one year before the ballot to fulfil their national service obligation by six years' service in the Citizen Military Forces [CMF]. Some 35,000, including the Hon. Duncan Gay, did so until this option was abolished. Between 30 June 1965 and 7 December 1972 a total of 63,735 were called up for two years full-time service and integrated into regular army units. This was reduced to 18 months in 1971.

After 12 weeks of initial training at recruit training battalions at Kapooka, Singleton and Puckapunyal most national service personnel were allotted to infantry, enabling the army to increase the Royal Australian Regiment to nine battalions. Of these, 150 served in Borneo and another 15,381 served in Vietnam. The remainder served in support units in Australia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. A total of 1,639 completed officer training at Scheyville and were commissioned as second lieutenants. Another 600 who were teachers were promoted to sergeant and posted to Papua New Guinea for 12 months to educate soldiers of the Pacific Islands Regiment at Port Moresby, Goldie River, Lae and Wewak.

National servicemen also served in Papua New Guinea in signals, ordinance, Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers [RAEME], small ships, surveying and other units. During confrontation with Indonesia between 1962 and 1966 the Government committed 3 Battalion and then 4 Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment plus support units to Borneo. All battalions were rotated through Vietnam between 1966 and 1971. Most units gave national service servicemen the choice of active service and most of them volunteered. Of these, two died in Borneo and 210 were killed in action in Vietnam.

All national servicemen are ex-servicemen. They march in their own right on Anzac Day, Remembrance Day, National Service Day, Vietnam Veterans Day and Reserve Forces Day. National servicemen marched as a contingent in the army's centenary parade in Canberra in 2001. They wear a wide variety of service and corps badges on their hats, caps and berets and many are members of unit associations in all three services. The late Barry Vicary founded the National Servicemens Association of Australia in Toowoomba, Queensland on 28 November 1987 to seek a better deal for Vietnam-era national servicemen, and a medal recognising national service was introduced. The association now has branches Australia-wide and is the second-largest ex-service organisation after the RSL. I am proud to have served as a nasho in 1965 and I feel sorry for young people today who do not have the option of volunteering for a national service scheme. I pay tribute to the National Servicemens Association, which continues to honour the proud legacy of national service.

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [7.00 p.m.]: This is indeed a red-letter day. Not only is it my daughter's eleventh birthday, and I fondly wish her a very happy birthday from the confines of this House, but also it is the day on which the Productivity Commission released its report on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I commend that report to members. It is an important report and it will set the scene for important reform in the future.

[Time for debate expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 7.01 p.m. until Thursday 11 August 2011 at 11.00 a.m.

_______________

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 10 August 2011, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links