Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 21 October 2011, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Friday 21 October 2011

__________

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 9.30 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

SCIENCE HOUSE

Motion by Mr David Shoebridge agreed to:

PORCHETTA DAY

Motion by the Hon. Sarah Mitchell agreed to:

BUDGET ESTIMATES 2011-12 PORTFOLIOS AND HEARING DATES

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher, on behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay, agreed to:

Day three: Wednesday 26 October 2011

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

TRUTH IN LABELLING (FREE-RANGE EGGS) BILL 2011

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 October 2011.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [9.37 a.m.]: I am pleased to resume the debate on The Greens egg bill—the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011. As I mentioned last week, the intervention by Marrickville Council in this issue is a source of bewilderment to many of us. The only connection I can make between Marrickstan and egg policy is the free range between the ears of most Marrickville councillors. This bill fails on a number of grounds. It is unnecessary as the industry is self-regulating. It is too prescriptive. It will probably have poor environmental outcomes and it may well have poorer animal welfare outcomes. It will almost certainly disadvantage consumers as unnecessary regulation drives up costs for non-caged producers. Currently, there is sufficient regulation to ensure that labelling is not deceptive, food safety is protected and animal welfare is not compromised. It is a weak bill that confuses animal welfare aspirations with truth in labelling goals. It will achieve neither while driving up costs to the public. It cannot be supported.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [9.38 a.m.]: The Greens have spoken in great detail about chickens in debate on the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011. I quote Dr John Kaye who said:

This bill is based on the growing understanding of birds as social, sentient beings that need to develop complex relationships and whose wellbeing is fulfilled only when they can forage for food.

He also said:

… those who see hens purely as industrial units, not as sentient beings with instincts, desires and social relationships.

Mr David Shoebridge said:

Chickens are relatively intelligent and social animals. Anyone who has experience with chickens recognises that they are intelligent and social creatures.

To which some horrid member replied:

Only compared with Greens voters.

Mr David Shoebridge went on to say:

When you spend time interacting with chickens you realise that they are quite sociable animals and they are clearly animals of some intelligence.

Well, on hearing this revelatory news I simply could not wait to get back home and find out if it was true. Members will know that I keep chickens.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The chook whisperer.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Spirit fingers, spirit fingers. I went into the chicken run and I put to Pickles the proposition raised by The Greens, and she found it was "sound, but simplistic". Whisky, a Marxist chicken, said that The Greens had completely failed to understand the inherent class structure in chicken society. Pebbles merely queried if a rooster crowed in a henhouse and nobody heard it, could it be said to have been crowing? Snowy replied, "Of course it happened because an objective reality is not reliant upon subjective observation." Pecky and Becky, the anarcho-feminist chickens, said that the whole egg-laying system was a tool of patriarchal oppression and that I would be in trouble if I even thought of bringing a rooster into the henhouse. They also asked, for the purpose of Hansard, could chicken please be spelt "chyckyn"? Becky and Ginger got into a fight over whether the true conservative chicken view is one of tradition or liberty. While Frilly, a Nietzschean, rambled on about "chicken and super-chicken" before handing me a list of those she thought could be disposed of to "improve the situation".

Members—well, certainly The Greens members at least—may be surprised to find that these conversations did not, in fact, take place. You see, Mr President, the simple fact is this: Chickens are not intelligent, they are not sociable, at least any more than ants are sociable, and they are certainly not sociable enough to invite them into the club. In fact, chickens are stupid. Indeed, I look at The Greens and their friends in the extreme animal rights movement and I am reminded of Mrs Tweedy's words in the movie Chicken Run:

They're chickens, you dolt. Apart from you, they're the most stupid creatures on this planet.

But at the heart of all of this Green extremist rhetoric is the crude anthropomorphism that is a stock in trade of the lunatic animal rights movement. Who can forget People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—there's a misnomer if ever there was one—and their desire to rename fish "seakittens"? That is the sort of intellectual capacity that we are dealing with here. Chickens are stupid and, indeed, how stupid they are can be evinced by the life and times of Mike the Headless Rooster.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: It is totally inappropriate for the Government Whip to refer to the Leader of the Government as being headless!

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Let alone "rooster"!

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: It could be worse; it could be a capon. On 10 September 1945 a 5½-month-old Wyandotte rooster was pecking through the dust of Fruita, Colorado. The unsuspecting bird had never looked so delicious as he did then, that famous day. Lloyd Olsen, his human owner, went out and, with a skilful blow executed against the neck of the chicken, dispatched its head. The chicken staggered around like most freshly terminated poultry. But the determined bird shook off the traumatic event and never looked back. In fact, Mike returned to his job of being a chicken. He pecked for food, even though he did not have a head, and preened his feathers just like the rest of his barnyard buddies.

When Olsen found Mike the next morning, he decided that if Mike had that much will to live he would figure out a way to feed and water him. With an eyedropper Mike was given grain and water, and it became obvious that Mike was special. A week later Olsen drove Mike 250 miles to the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. The sceptical scientists—ah, what beautiful words they are—were eager to answer all the questions regarding Mike's amazing ability to survive with no head. It was determined that the axe blade had missed the jugular vein and a clot had formed, preventing Mike from bleeding to death.

In the next 18 months that he lived, Mike, "The Headless Wonder Chicken", grew from a mere 2½ pounds to nearly 8 pounds. In a Gayle Meyer interview Olsen said Mike was a "robust chicken—a fine specimen of a chicken except for not having a head." Sadly, Mike died some 18 months later when the eyedropper used to clean his oesophagus was left behind. The fact is that there is not a great deal of intellectualism amongst the chicken community. Indeed, the whole idea of an aimless creature dependent on welfare and showing limited signs of sentient behaviour, all the while lacking a head, is clearly analogous to the New South Wales parliamentary Greens party itself.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will return to the bill.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: And unscramble the egg.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Getting back to the bill at hand, I do realise that there may be a problem in labelling a product. The question is: What is the proper response to such behaviour? Well, what do The Greens and their socialist allies do? They go running home to momma—regulation and big government. Always regulation, always big government. Have you got a problem? Legislate. Is there an issue? Legislate. Are you upset? Legislate. That is the mentality of that side of the House. And when you hear a particular section of an industry clamouring for government regulation, I am smelling special interests at play here—The Greens in the pocket of special interests.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It's getting foul now.

Dr John Kaye: Easy politics for Phelps.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: It's interesting. The nature of the emails that we have been receiving—or, as I like to call them, eggs and spam—is that the emails themselves are pro forma in their substance; but the titles tend to give it away. What do the titles say? End battery farming, no cages, free the chooks. This is not an issue about labelling in this instance. This is a Trojan horse to get stuck into commercial chicken farming arrangements in Australia. This is a nasty little Trojan horse and, while Dr John Kaye will not acknowledge that, it is quite clear that those people that he has brought in to send us emails, to spam us with emails, are clear about what their true objectives are.

All legislation has unintended consequences, not just those that are envisaged by The Greens. It gets back to the original question which I asked: What is the appropriate response in those instances where people believe that a product is not labelled correctly? The proper response to the free range issue is not to force anyone to label anything, but to use some private company to label their foods "free range", or some other term, and to define the rules that allow other food companies to use this term, and then trademark the brand name so the Government or another firm cannot take them over.

A private certification system will satisfy those who only wish to buy "free range" eggs, without placing a burden on those who wish to sell battery eggs. It will be up to the private label company to enforce the use of their "free range" label or brand. This is a sort of "Made in Australia" or "Heart Foundation Tick" seal, which could be placed on eggs to conjure up visions of certain free-range things. They can call them whatever they like. They might call them "super eggs", or "real eggs" or, my favourite, "Green Eggs" because I look forward to the day when Dr Kaye goes into his local café and orders "Green Eggs and Ham". That would be appropriate, I think. Those who are concerned about the free-range issue can purchase eggs that are specifically branded as such by this private branding arrangement, and those who do not think it is a valid issue can purchase everything else, which in most cases will probably be cheaper.

Anyone who sells battery eggs would not be able to use this new free-range approved logo, but if they did, they would open themselves to a very expensive claim for trademark infringement. We do not need to follow the suggestion for the Government to initiate force by mandatory labelling instead of allowing consumers to choose. In a free market, which, of course, The Greens despise, private certification would evaluate egg production, as Choice does for many products. The difference is that consumers would be free to disregard information they believed was inaccurate or did not apply to their situation. Furthermore, such boards would not be subject to the political pull and lobbying that goes on in today's government systems.

No certification board could use police power to force their opinions down anyone's throat. The board would have to earn citizen respect by making consistently good decisions over a number of years. Consumers then could use that information to make their own judgement about whether something is free range, based on the determining criteria of the certifying company rather than some bureaucrat charging consumers thousands of dollars to make the decision for them. However, statists, like The Greens, view the citizen as an idiot who cannot make a decision and, therefore, demands that a government official must make it for him. This begs the question: if an individual is not capable of making a simple decision affecting his or her life, such as, whether to buy eggs labelled free range, how can that same individual make the decision to elect officials to public office as that presupposes he or she is able to determine how the elected official judges?

The Government's job is to protect rights, not to regulate people's affairs. If a company sells a product claiming it to be free range when it is not, the purchaser has a right to demand legal compensation. That is the only valid role of government. A private certification board system in this instance is cheaper, more effective and gives effect to what The Greens want to do. Bringing the Government into the process only shows their true colours, which is to end the commercial chicken industry in Australia and have a socialist collectivist system of government and commerce.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.52 a.m.]: I oppose the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011. As mentioned by the Minister for Roads and Ports, this bill will erode national consistency in food regulation by creating different labelling requirements for products currently traded freely between States. New South Wales should not be going alone in the food regulation area. The bill's proposed labelling provisions have national implications, particularly in light of the reform agenda of the Council of Australian Governments, and the Blewett Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy that was released in January. The Australian Egg Corporation wrote a damning letter about this bill to the Minister for Primary Industries. It advised the Minister that the Australian egg industry is concerned about the ramifications of Dr John Kaye's bill on the egg market and on the freedom of choice that the industry is passionate about preserving for New South Wales consumers. It is not surprising to hear that Dr John Kaye has not consulted the egg industry, given his track record.

Dr John Kaye: That's not true.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I am sure Dr John Kaye can correct the record in his reply if he believes it is not true. According to my research, it is true. It is absolutely disturbing that the Australian egg industry states that Dr John Kaye's egg bill will result in the egg industry being "unsustainable, unrealistic, not commercial and discriminatory". That is what happens when industry is not consulted properly. Mutual recognition requirements will mean that eggs coming from other States that do not comply with New South Wales requirements will still be lawful for sale in New South Wales provided they comply with the requirements of their home State, of which there are none. This is simply unfair for New South Wales businesses because other States have no such controls. New South Wales egg farmers should not be punished when the issue can be addressed effectively in a national forum.

Like the Australian Egg Corporation, the New South Wales Government supports truth in labelling and recognised production systems. However, the Government does not support this flawed and misleading bill. We support the process of a consultative working group of industry and government working through the issues on which this bill touches. Free-range egg producers already label their products to meet demand, and current truth-in-labelling provisions already regulate this practice. All New South Wales food businesses must comply with the Food Act 2003, which makes it an offence to falsely describe products. The New South Wales Food Authority has an outstanding record of successful enforcement action against rogue traders, particularly regarding misleading or deceptive conduct. All these actions were taken under existing legislation. The egg industry does not require a different approach or specific laws of its own.

The Food Act and the Food Regulation 2010 already contain strong provisions to regulate the labelling of packaged food such as eggs and the safe production and handling of eggs intended for sale. In particular, the Food Act already prescribes offences for deceptive or misleading labelling of food for sale, including eggs. The Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011 would make it an offence to advertise, package or label eggs for sale as free-range or barn eggs if certain requirements were not met. The bill forces eggs to be labelled untruthfully. For example, eggs produced in a free-range or barn system that is fully compliant with the prescribed animal welfare requirements in the Federal Primary Industries Standing Committee "Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, Domestic Poultry 4th Edition", still would not meet the strict criteria that the bill establishes for eggs to be labelled as free range or barn laid.

Two specific Acts already separately regulate animal welfare and food labelling. The bill would add a third Act containing provisions that contradict both existing Acts. This would create uncertainty and confusion for both regulators and primary producers attempting to comply with all relevant legislation. There are significant incidental costs associated with the bill. New South Wales eggs are marketed in many other Australian States and any move to require different labelling for those eggs would impose additional and unnecessary costs on New South Wales producers. The impacts of all these changes on egg producers would flow through to their local communities and have considerable consequential impacts on the nearly 200 egg producers and almost 4,000 workers currently employed by this industry. The flow-on effect is also likely to result in higher egg prices to consumers and families. A bill that potentially affects an entire industry must be subjected to wide consultation with all stakeholders, and not merely dictate its narrow terms to those who will be affected. I cannot complete my contribution to this debate without referring to comments that sum up The Greens' position regarding eggs. Mr David Shoebridge said:

Chickens are relatively intelligent and social animals. Anyone who has experience with chickens recognises that they are intelligent and social creatures who deserve greater protection than this Parliament has provided to date.

He went on to say:

When you spend time interacting with chickens you realise they are quite sociable animals and they are clearly animals of some intelligence. They enjoy company, the capacity to roam and have some freedom, and to be treated with respect. If you do that you get more eggs out of them as well.

Regardless of how much shell grit or wheat we fed the chickens in our yard, we still got only one egg a day. Surely that indicates the intelligence The Greens bring to this debate. Presently congregating in Martin Place on another issue are free-range ferals with as much intelligence as the chickens we are talking about. The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham said:

Many of these eggs have never been truly free range. They never walked like free range chickens, they never clucked like free range chickens—they are not free range.

This bill is not about that; it is about the proper regulation of industry in New South Wales for which provisions already exist. For that reason I cannot support the bill.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL [9.59 a.m.]: I speak against the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011. I think all members in this place would agree that animal welfare is an extremely important issue. I am of the view that this bill is not the correct path forward and, if adopted, it would result in serious financial damage to the egg-producing industry and devastate the livelihood of thousands of this State's egg producers. In order to understand the complexities of this bill I studied research from both sides of the argument and decided to look at the industry in action. I visited an egg production facility run by Bede and Narelle Burke at their property, Glendon, near Tamworth. Bede and Narelle Burke have been in the egg industry for a number of years and Bede is chair of the NSW Farmers Association Egg Producers Committee.

The Burkes' farm houses 106,000 birds and produces 35 million eggs each year. It is a sizable operation and one that complies fully with current legislative and industry standards. Of paramount importance to Bede and Narelle Burke—and in fact to most egg producers—is the welfare of their birds. It is only logical for a producer to look after his laying fowls in order to produce a greater quantity of eggs of a higher quality. In 2009 Bede and Narelle Burke were awarded the prestigious Brownhill Cup for their innovative and environmentally sustainable practices. Since being awarded the cup they have continued to be at the forefront of developments in their industry. During my visit I was able to see firsthand the compost system that they are currently trialling, which results in all waste products being converted to use as fertiliser on their pastures.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. This is an interesting story but this bill is about free-range eggs. I pay respect to these farmers but as they are not free-range egg farmers and as they do not claim that their eggs are free range, I fail to see the relevance of the member's contribution.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: Dr John Kaye referred in his second reading speech to the commercial battery industry. If it is irrelevant now why was it not irrelevant when he raised the issue in his second reading speech? The second part of my point of order relates to the fact that the chicken industry is being looked at. Given the generally expansive nature of second reading speeches, I ask you to rule that the member's point of order is out of order.

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

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: As I was saying, the Burkes are currently trialling a compost system that results in all waste products being converted to use as fertiliser on pastures where the feed for their birds originates. Essentially, they have established a completely sustainable system, which is an amazing achievement, and they should be given credit for that. I use the Burkes as an example to show the incredibly exciting developments that are occurring in the egg industry. These people are at the top of their game and they know their industry. As I mentioned earlier, Bede is the chair of the NSW Farmers Association Egg Producers Committee. When I spoke with Bede about this bill he was incredibly concerned about the long-term and devastating impacts these proposed changes would have on his colleagues. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to help the egg industry but this bill will have the opposite effect.

It is important to remember that this Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011 was introduced shortly after the egg industry underwent a series of drastic changes under the previous Labor Government. After Tasmania proposed that the use of cages for egg production be banned, a working group was formed that comprised representatives from the egg industry, welfare groups and government. Back in 2005 a Layer Hen Welfare Reform Committee was formed in New South Wales that had as its role to implement the decisions of the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. The then Minister for Primary Industries, Ian Macdonald, agreed to a number of measures to improve hen welfare, including that all new cage systems increase the floor area for birds and increase cage heights. Also implemented were minimum standards for laying hens kept in sheds with an increase in the provision for food, water and space.

I acknowledge that these regulations primarily concerned farms that used cages for egg production. However, I use it as an example that valuable lessons can be learned from regulations that are adopted and implemented with industry consultation. As I mentioned earlier, Bede and Narelle Burke were operating their farm at the time of these legislative changes. They estimate that the regulations cost their business several million dollars in order to convert their farm to comply with the new regulations. Although this was a significant capital outlay they complied and went even further by implementing temperature-controlled cages for their birds.

I will always support consultation with industry when there are proposals for drastic changes in a particular sector. In earlier debate on this bill there was some confusion as to how much consultation there had been with egg producers. I note that Dr John Kaye said he had consulted with industry and with New South Wales farmers. I look forward to hearing his reply to debate on this bill as I am interested in establishing with which organisations and producers he met. As I said earlier, I spoke with Bede Burke, chair of the NSW Farmers Association Egg Producers Committee, who informed me that he has had no direct conversation with Dr John Kaye, which is a shame. While there may have been some consultation, which I am happy to acknowledge, obviously there was not sufficient consultation with the wider industry. If there had been wider consultation there might not have been such confusion.

In order for producers to fall within the definition in this bill of "free-range eggs", for four years immediately following the introduction of the bill a laying fowl must have access to a range area with no more than 1,500 fowls per hectare, with a reduction to 750 fowls per hectare after the four years has elapsed. In addition, stocking density within a shed must be kept to a maximum of six fowls per square metre for more than 4,000 fowls. These two stipulations are the main area of concern that I and many egg producers have about this bill. The Greens are asking egg producers to expand their housing sheds for birds at an exceptional cost and they are also asking farmers either to purchase more land to accommodate their laying fowls under the term "free-range" or to reduce the number of birds they own. If this bill is implemented I am concerned that it will have devastating consequences for New South Wales egg producers. Farmers would be forced to purchase more land or to cut back on their profit margins. The egg industry has been able to keep down the cost of eggs to consumers because of its production systems but this bill will put that under threat.

If this bill is enacted, industry will struggle to cope with the changes, and free-range egg options for consumers will reduce because of a reduction in available choices. This bill will make free-range egg farms expensive to purchase and run, and it might have the unintended consequence of shutting down or severely crippling industry. In the past few weeks the Australian Egg Corporation submitted draft proposals to define the term "free-range". I am concerned that the opinions of egg producers have not been fully taken into account. If that had been the case there might have been a more conciliatory approach to laying fowls and egg regulation generally. I acknowledge the need for a legally enforceable definition of "free-range eggs" in order to eliminate confusion between various interest groups. However, the severe reduction in laying fowl numbers per hectare proposed by this bill would have a devastating impact on egg producers across the State. If this bill were passed it would provide—four years after its enactment—that for eggs to be classified free range 750 laying fowls must be allowed to roam in an area bigger than a rugby league field. Many egg producers and I believe this to be an overly harsh restriction.

I would like to discuss the labelling requirements that this bill aims to implement for egg producers. The Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011 would enforce particular labelling requirements on the classification of egg production. In essence, a person would not be able to package or label eggs as free-range or barn-laid unless a number of conditions, which were outlined in Dr John Kaye's second reading speech, are met and complied with. The bill would also stipulate that a person must not use any words, images or other means to suggest that the laying fowls that produce eggs are not kept in cages. Put simply, the producer must not mislead the public. I would like to refer members to the case mentioned by Dr John Kaye in his second reading speech regarding the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CI & Co Pty Limited (2010). In this case, CI & Co Pty Limited was found to have contravened sections 52, 53 (a) and 55 of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974. It was found to have used the words "free-range" when a substantial proportion of the cartons contained eggs produced in cages.

Under the Trade Practices Act the product was found to be misleading or deceptive, or it was likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act. It was also found that the company had misrepresented goods and misled the public as to the nature or characteristics of goods under section 53 (a) and 55 respectively. The second and third respondents in this matter, both associated with the aforementioned company, were found to have contravened section 55 and were issued with an injunction to prevent them from engaging in any similar conduct in the future. They were ordered to publish a notice of the court's order in the West Australian, send the notice to all their customers and pay the costs of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The second respondent was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine.

This example is a clear case of legislation already in place to help monitor trade practices and issue appropriate responses in relation to the falsification of egg labelling. Dr John Kaye argued that it is difficult to prosecute offenders under the Trade Practices Act because there is no legal definition of "free-range". However, according to the 2009 Council of Australian Governments and the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council report entitled, "Labelling Logic", regulatory actions in relation to consumer values should be initiated by industry, whereas actions relating to food safety, preventative health and new technologies should be initiated by government.

Over the past few weeks the egg industry has begun the process of defining "free-range" and is willing for it to be legislated. I am sure all members will agree that the industry of any given product has the most knowledge regarding its production. It is appropriate in this case for all those involved in the egg industry to decide on a mutually agreeable definition and to request that the definition be legislated. I do not believe that is the responsibility of The Greens, and I therefore cannot support the bill.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [10.10 a.m.]: I speak in debate on the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011. The Government had significant concerns about this bill in its original form—concerns that have been variously described by other speakers in this debate. I do not think it is necessary to go through the range of issues that have arisen relating to various parts of the original bill. However, the concerns that have been expressed are not addressed by the amendments proposed by the Hon. Steve Whan, despite what might be considered to be his best intentions. The Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011 creates an offence of advertising, packaging or labelling eggs for sale as free-range or barn-laid unless certain requirements are met. If the proposed amendments are accepted these requirements would be contained in legislation.

The detail of the regulation is unknown, although the amendments require that they be consistent with the fourth edition of the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry. Whilst the Government agrees that the model code sets out a nationally agreed layer-hen housing reform, which was introduced in New South Wales in January 2008, unfortunately the code was never meant to be a document that regulated the labelling of food for sale. It is therefore not clear whether the approach in the proposed amendments would work in practice. Realistically, proper consultation with industry needs to be undertaken before this can be clarified.

The Hon. Steve Whan: It is up to you guys to write the legislation.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I note that the Hon. Steve Whan wishes to make a further contribution. His insight into legislation was demonstrated yesterday when his grasp of the Long Service Leave Act was shown to be sadly wanting. He would have made a more significant and intelligent contribution in that debate if he had bothered to read the legislation and if he had had proper consultation with industry. He is now intent on achieving a level of relevance which he was never able to achieve when he was in government. Sadly it now has to be left—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: There are two parts to my point of order, the first of which relates to relevance. The Hon. Trevor Khan is not speaking directly to the bill before the House. My second point of order is that if he wants to make imputations against other members he should so by way of substantive motion and not by giving a spray, a diatribe, of grubby remarks against other members in this place.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times, as are responses to interjections. I advise the Hon. Trevor Khan to ignore the interjections of the Hon. Steve Whan.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: The Government acknowledges that this issue should be addressed but we disagree with The Greens and those opposite on the way in which it should be addressed. The egg industry is a significant national industry, with New South Wales being home to approximately 44 per cent of the eggs produced in the Australian market. Not surprisingly, New South Wales eggs are marketed in many other Australian States. Any move to require different labelling of eggs sold in New South Wales and in other States would impose additional and unnecessary costs on New South Wales producers. All these impacts on egg producers would flow through to their local communities and would have considerable consequential impacts on the 200 egg procedures and 4,000 workers currently employed in the industry. Before we make sweeping changes that affect producers in one State we must take account of considerations such as level playing fields and competitive problems that may be encountered in the marketplace if this type of legislation is passed in only one jurisdiction.

This bill erodes national consistency in the area of food regulation by creating different labelling requirements for products that are traded freely between States. This problem is unchanged by the proposed amendments. This significant issue will impose additional costs on New South Wales producers, but not on producers from neighbouring States with whom producers in this State are obliged to compete. The Government is keen to pursue this issue at the national level in the first instance and it is clear that more work has to be done. For this reason the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business has placed egg labelling on the agenda for the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council meeting which is scheduled for 9 December. This is certainly the most appropriate way to deal with issues of national significance to food producers and consumers.

By working with our jurisdictional colleagues to determine a national approach it is far more likely that the issues that this bill purports to be address will be fixed in reality. The Government supports truth in labelling and agrees with the Australian Consumers Association that proper definitions of fashionable terms such as "free-range" are needed. This is particularly the case when consumers are paying a premium at the register in the belief that the animal that produced the food has been housed or kept in a particular way. The best way to achieve this is to deal with it through the national Domestic Food Regulatory System with adoption of standalone New South Wales legislation being a potential fallback option only if a national approach is not achievable.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [10.16 a.m.]: On behalf the Christian Democratic Party I speak in debate on the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011. This bill aims to ensure that eggs in New South Wales are labelled as "free-range" only if they have come from a farm that has no more than 750 hens a hectare as per the national code. The Australian Egg Corporation, which represents most egg farmers in Australia, has allowed free-range egg farms to run as many as 20,000 chickens per hectare or two for every square metre. I note that some of the debate revolves around whether the two hens are locked into that square metre, but that is not the case. There are many hectares within which the hens can move around. Free-range eggs currently represent nearly 20 per cent of the eggs sold in the supermarket and more than two-thirds of the eggs sold in Australian supermarkets are laid by hens kept in small wire cages holding up to five birds per cage. Free-range egg consumers want eggs from hens that are kept under traditional low density free-range conditions.

Animal welfare experts, such as Dr Bidda Jones, chief scientist at the RSPCA, believe that chooks suffer stress unless they are able to satisfy their basic behavioural needs. Some of the behavioural needs were mentioned earlier by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. Hens need space in which to stretch and flap their wings. Members will appreciate that chooks need room to flap their wings from the personal experience of having their personal space intruded on. Hens need a secluded nesting place in which to lay their eggs, and facilities which allow them to dust bathe and forage. Traditional free-range standards are designed to meet these needs but there are concerns that they are being compromised by large-scale production systems.

This morning other members spoke extensively about free-range eggs and appropriate labelling, so I will not speak at length in debate on the bill. However, I would like to put on the record my thoughts and concerns. Although I find this bill to be a great step forward towards consistency in the industry and honesty to consumers, I am hesitant to support it because there must be national consistency and not just a State approach. During the contribution to this debate by the Hon. Charlie Lynn, he explained well his reading of what this means to the industry, especially if only New South Wales introduces truth-in-labelling legislation. He referred to investment by New South Wales egg producers in meeting the cost of labelling compared to producers in other States who are not required to do so, and the competitive disadvantage that may result.

These are matters of grave concern to producers. Business owners must ensure that business outcomes do not result in competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis producers in other States, especially when one State's legislation may create bias in business opportunities and competition. This bill erodes national consistency in regulation by creating different labelling requirements for products that are traded freely between States. This problem persists, despite the provisions of this amending bill. When we had chooks, they were given names such as Satay, Dinner and Nugget.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Sartor? Not Frank!

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Rick Colless but he is incorrect. The name was Satay, not Sartor. They were very nice chooks. They were Rhode Island Reds and they produced lots of eggs—if we could find them. They did not seem to follow what Dr Jones suggested—"a secluded nesting place in which to lay their eggs"—but seemed to lay them anywhere around the property. It used to be a bit like an Easter egg hunt when we collected the eggs, but the children liked that. I am advised that the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business has placed egg labelling on the agenda for the Council of Australian Governments Food Regulation Legislative and Governance Forum, which will be convened by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council. The forum will be held on 9 December 2011. While the bill has merit, it would be wise for us to await the results of the Council of Australian Governments meeting and liaise further with the industry to ensure national consistency.

Dr John Kaye: You will be very old. You will be an old man, Paul.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I note the interjection of Dr John Kaye. It is puzzling that a member who constantly urges the House to refer matters to committees would baulk at obtaining further stakeholders' advice, the adoption of a holistic approach and consultation with the community and government agencies. Either we believe in adopting a widely consultative approach to legislation or we do not. This legislation is a fine example of the wisdom of wide consultation. I appreciate that Dr John Kaye has consulted with some representatives of the egg producers' umbrella organisation, but I understand he has not spoken to the egg producers' committee. We must proceed carefully and ensure that everyone's voice is heard so that the legislation we pass is the most effective legislation possible. I encourage Dr John Kaye to support a committee approach to ensure that all industry representatives and affected parties are heard and so that we formulate the strongest possible legislation to address the issue. The issue affects everyone. I do not think anyone is out to take advantage of poor old chooks.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Yes, they do.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I do not think they are interested in taking advantage of chooks. It is probably the moolah that makes the difference. Money makes the world go round and efficiencies and productivity are inextricably linked to business incentive. Sometimes moolah can make people blind to the blatantly obvious, such as suffering that may occur along the way. This legislation is a step in the right direction but it may pre-empt outcomes of a national coordinating forum. There is a right way to do things—the right thing, the right way and in the right order—and that would be to wait for the Government, through representations by the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Small Business, to ascertain Council of Australian Governments outcomes from the forthcoming legislative and regulatory forum and formulate State legislation that is strong and can be unanimously supported by this House. The Christian Democratic Party will not support the bill.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.24 a.m.]: I do not support the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011. It is a shoddy bill. It is a bill that has not been clearly thought through. It creates more problems than it supposedly seeks to solve. It targets small producers. It targets free enterprise. It will add additional cost burdens to producers and consumers. It has been thrown together based more on emotion than on rational consideration. It is a bill that is drenched in political correctness. It is a bill that contains some of the more crazy ideas being spruiked around the country by extremists in the animal liberation movement. In other words, it is a typical Greens bill.

God forbid that The Greens should ever have political control of this country. God forbid that their bizarre ideas on so many issues should decide the destiny of our State and country. Should they ever be in control, Big Brother would reign supreme. It would be supremacy of the thought control police. This bill will undermine the viability of investment in the industry. It demonstrates that The Greens have no understanding of the reality of commercial life in the industry. It would require producers to label their products in an untruthful manner as cage eggs if their free-range production system is outside the narrow definition in the bill. If this bill is passed, many free-range and barn-laid eggs produced in New South Wales would be required to be labelled as cage eggs, and thus receive cage-egg prices, yet eggs produced interstate in the same circumstances could be sold in New South Wales as free-range or barn-laid eggs. The bill ignores national inconsistency on this issue. The bill would have a devastating effect on the egg industry in this State. Therefore the bill should be rejected.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM [10.26 a.m.]: I support the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011 and congratulate Dr John Kaye on introducing the bill. This is important legislation because it recognises community concerns about what people consume and the choices they make. The right to know is an important issue and so is recognising how we treat the animals on whom we rely for sustenance. Rather than disregarding their wellbeing, humane treatment and protection of them, we should think about our role in protecting the rights of animals. The Greens have introduced this legislation to create a mandatory standard for free-range eggs that are sold in New South Wales and, as I said earlier, to respond to consumer action in seeking ethical standards in food production and humane treatment of animals. Consumers have called for this action. The Greens have all been inundated with emails and letters of support for the bill. By and large, people have been shocked when they discover how eggs are being mass produced and that there has not been truth in labelling of free-range eggs. As consumers express their abhorrence at the appalling treatment of caged hens by purchasing products labelled free-range, the absence of a legislative definition and appropriate enforcement leaves both egg producers and farmers at the mercy of some unscrupulous producers.

After consulting widely with free-range egg producers and their industry bodies The Greens New South Wales members of Parliament developed, with much consideration, the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011, which seeks to establish an enforceable regulatory scheme for labelling free-range eggs. The bill stipulates that for eggs to fall within the definition of free-range eggs the producers must ensure their laying fowls meet certain requirements. Earlier a member commented that money makes the world go round, and that point needs to be considered in the light of consumers right to choose and their willingness to pay higher prices for products that they feel are produced ethically and in a way that meets standards that warrant the higher price. This trend is increasing as people respond to opportunities to purchase organic, biodynamic and free-range products. This is the ultimate in consumer choice: paying more money for a better product. That is what it comes down to, and some people fear that. Consumers are becoming more aware of the opportunity to buy a better product and they are willing to pay for it.

The provisions in the bill relating to labelling requirements create penalties for false free-range claims, ban misleading labels such as "cage free" and place restrictions on the use of positive imagery and text on cage egg cartons. The bill imposes maximum penalties of $55,000 for corporations, and $5,500 and six months imprisonment for individuals. I say to members who have raised concerns about the bill and commented that it takes a radical approach that this is harking back to a far more humane and traditional way of food production. In the past, prior to corporate food production, farmers were far more responsible towards animals and their communities when producing food. They did not undertake this type of corporate exploitation of animals for the sake of profit.

The bill creates the opportunity for positive economic advantage for producers. Research shows that farmers benefit from going down the path of being more ethical and environmentally friendly producers. Consumers are making a choice, and we are seeing more and more that the farmers who venture from inhumane or corporate farming techniques are gaining benefits. We have seen that in the rise of farmers markets because consumers want to have a relationship with the producer of their food. They want engagement in a relationship with producers, as well as quality and ethical assurances that the food they are buying has been produced without harming the environment or animals. It is a responsible and reasonable practice. We must respect consumers who are leading the way and calling on legislators to make sure that the food they buy is as stated on the label.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: The answer is not always legislation.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: We fail to see many outcomes when self-regulation is the option. We see fraudulent activities that hoodwink consumers into believing they are a buying product that does not meet standards. My North Coast community is known for its strong participation in ethical consumerism. That is spreading. The organic agricultural sector is the fastest-growing sector in agriculture. This will continue as people become more aware and more concerned about how their food is grown. A strong trend is occurring to support locally owned and independent stores and good-quality products. That is shown by the increase in farmers markets and the number of farmers moving in that direction. We have seen those moves at a local level, and they have a national and an international resonance.

It should come as no surprise that the move to free-range eggs has been taken up with vigour by North Coast communities. I am surprised at the interest shown by city dwellers. They make the point that it is important to them that they buy genuine free-range eggs. I have been astounded by the calls of support for this legislation, which was introduced by Dr John Kaye. So many people are interested in the dual aspects of the bill—that is, protecting the rights of consumers through truth in labelling, and the animal welfare issue. I again congratulate Dr John Kaye on introducing this very important piece of legislation, which addresses community concerns.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.34 a.m.]: I join my Nationals and Liberal colleagues in not supporting the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011 for a number of reasons. It is important to highlight that the New South Wales Farmers Association has made a strong case against supporting the bill, particularly in relation to the abundance of links between animal welfare and product labelling. The New South Wales Farmers Association argues that they are not consistent with those outlined for free-range producers in the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry, Fourth Edition.

Concerns have also been raised about the unsustainable stocking densities to meet consumer demand and litter cover of 50 per cent of the barn floor, which the New South Wales Farmers Associations says poses unnecessary occupational health and safety risks and animal welfare concerns. People who work in and know the industry have said that the solutions put forward by The Greens will result in poorer outcomes for animal husbandry. Unfortunately, The Greens have been unable to meet with the peak group for the egg industry. Dr John Kaye shakes his head and indicates that is not the case. I look forward to his response to that point when he replies to the debate. The bill has prompted good debate. I look forward to Dr John Kaye's speech in reply and then to proceeding to the Committee stage.

Dr JOHN KAYE [10.36 a.m.], in reply: I speak in reply on the Truth in Labelling (Free-range Eggs) Bill 2011. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I particularly thank my colleagues for exploring the various attributes of the bill within their shadow portfolio areas and for adding to the understanding of the House about the aims of the bill.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: You are welcome.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I particularly thank the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps because every serious issue needs some light relief, and he provided it. I recommend that he stick to stand-up comedy and leave the ideology to others. I thank the Australian Labor Party, in particular, the Hon. Walt Secord, the Hon. Lynda Voltz, the Hon. Amanda Fazio and shadow Minister the Hon. Steve Whan. I thank the Labor Party for engaging constructively with the bill. It would have been possible for Labor members to reject it outright because they did not like the form of the bill and had difficulty with various provisions. Rather, they did what works well in a multi-party House—that is, they engaged constructively and tabled proposed amendments that they foreshadowed will make the bill more to their flavour. The Greens will debate the proposed amendments at greater length in Committee, as we have issues with them. Mr President, I am having difficulty speaking while members are holding conversations.

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

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Greens have concerns about the model code. The Hon. Cate Faehrmann and I will address this issue in Committee and outline our concerns about the model code. However, we recognise that we are trying to build a consensus and we will engage in that debate. I thank the Shooters and Fishers Party for their support for this legislation with the foreshadowed Australian Labor Party amendments. I note the track record of the Shooters and Fishers Party of standing up not only for the welfare of chickens but also for small egg producers. As I have walked around the traps talking about this issue people have spoken about the irony of the Shooters and Fishers Party being concerned for the welfare of animals. But it is true.

In December 2007 when my former colleague Ian Cohen moved a disallowance motion to stop the then Minister for Primary Industries from subjecting layer hens to battery cages for decades to come The Greens were supported by the Shooters and Fishers Party. Many members will remember a joint press conference held with Animal Liberation, the Shooters Party and The Greens on 4 December 2007. Consistent with that, the Shooters Party—

The Hon. Jan Barham: A strange alliance.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It was not an alliance; it was a lining up of beliefs. That was how democracy ought to work. The joint press conference was held at 11.30 a.m. on 4 December 2007. So the Shooters and Fishers Party's support for the amended bill is consistent. The Hon. Steve Whan suggested that the labelling requirements of The Greens would deny egg producers the possibility of putting on the packaging or labelling of non-complying eggs a positive claim relating to the nutritional value of eggs. That is not correct. Nothing in our bill will change the capacity for egg producers to label eggs as nutritious or make nutrition claims about eggs. Of course, they will have to be consistent, under the Trade Practices Act, with the requirements of truth in labelling and with whatever legislation or national agreements emerge from the implementation of the Blewett report.

Consultation is a key issue. The Minister for Roads and Ports claimed that I had not met or consulted with the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd [AECL] or the NSW Farmers Association Egg Producers Committee in relation to the content of the bill. The Hon. Niall Blair said that the bill must be subject to wide consultation with all stakeholders, not merely dictate its narrow terms to those who will be affected. I think those comments were repeated by the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, the Hon. David Clarke and the Hon. Trevor Khan. For the record, on 27 May 2010 I sent an email to the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd in which I outlined the provisions of what was then the 2010 version of this bill. I said:

We specifically sought attention to that matter in the bill. I concluded:

I also sent a copy of the bill. The next I heard from the Australian Egg Corporation was a three-page letter dated 5 August 2011 addressed to "Dear Member of the New South Wales Parliament". The corporation did not respond to my initial letter, although The Greens viewed that as giving it a copy of the bill. The corporation did not respond until it chose to do so. I note that the letter was distributed via Medianet, which is a media company. The corporation did not pay me the courtesy of responding to me personally—which is its right—but responded generally. There is no way the Australian Egg Corporation can claim it was not consulted; it was sent a copy of the bill.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Were they consulted before the bill was drafted?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Indeed. On 21 September 2009 at 2.30 p.m. in room 1136 of Parliament House I met with James Kellaway and Jacqueline Baptista from the Australian Egg Corporation.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: With a draft copy of the bill or just general principles?

Dr JOHN KAYE: I sent them a draft of the bill in 2010. In 2009 I met with corporation representatives. We talked generally about the terms and at that point I indicated my intention to develop legislation. A range of issues were discussed and they disagreed with me. Nonetheless, I listened to them. In 2010 I sent them a copy of the bill. Likewise, on 9 June 2011 I sent a copy of the bill to Jeff Sorrell, the excellent Government Relations Director of the NSW Farmers Association. I have a copy of the email that I sent him. We met on 8 August 2011 with the sole intention of discussing the bill. Present at that meeting was one individual from the NSW Farmers Association Egg Producers Committee. We have also consulted widely with the Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia Ltd [FREPA] and the free-range egg industry.

Our draft bill was on our website from 2010. We have also consulted with animal welfare groups. So to say The Greens have not consulted widely is absurd, insulting and wrong. If the Government is being told by the egg industry that we have not consulted, then it is being sold a crock because it is not true. If the industry were honest it would acknowledge that The Greens sent draft copies of the bill, we spoke to the industry and we gave it adequate opportunities to talk to us about the bill.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: So NSW Farmers are being dishonest, is that what you're saying, John?

Dr JOHN KAYE: I do not know what they told you, but somebody is not telling the truth because we sent the association a copy of the bill and we met with its representatives on 9 June 2011. We have consulted with the association as well as with Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia Ltd and various free-range egg farmers.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Who did you talk to on the egg committee?

Dr JOHN KAYE: I sent the bill to the Government Relations Director, who I viewed as the appropriate person to receive it. If the bill was then sent to the egg committee, that is its decision. I now refer to some comments about the bill. The Minister for Roads and Ports, the Hon. Rick Colless and others said that the bill will disadvantage the egg trade in New South Wales, but that is simply not true. Both the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania have introduced and enacted similar legislation that regulates the labelling and sale of free-range eggs. The European Union also has such regulation.

If The Nationals had real concerns for anybody other than the industrial producers—for example, those who are producing eggs for the growing free-range market that constitutes 37 per cent of the entire market in dollar value—its members would stand up for free-range egg producers. They would also consult with free-range egg producers. I would like to hear at some stage when members who spoke earlier in the debate last met with Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia and other representatives of the free-range egg industry and stood up for those producers. If jobs are lost in New South Wales it will be because we do not have a legislated definition and free-range eggs will disappear from the market because the free-range egg producers cannot compete with the industrial farmers who are killing them off.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I welcome to the public gallery staff and students from St Marys Primary School, Warners Bay in the Charlestown electorate. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope that you enjoy your visit to Sydney and to Parliament, and learn a great deal from the experience.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I join in welcoming the students to Parliament. I hope they learn how important it is to have legislation to regulate the labelling of free-range eggs, which is what we are debating. We are about to go into Committee on the bill, which will also be very interesting. It is interesting that members of The Nationals and the Liberal Party said that there is no need for regulation. The Hon. Rick Colless and a range of speakers, including the Minister for Roads and Ports, said that the bill does not respond to a real problem. However, the Hon. Sarah Mitchell admitted that there is a problem. The Hon. Trevor Khan admitted that there is a problem. In fact, the members' speeches seemed to reveal a major disjuncture in the Coalition.

It would be fair to say that on this legislation the Coalition is in complete disarray. We have the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps trashing the whole idea of legislation and we have the Minister going off to her ministerial council—I congratulate her for doing so, but I am fascinated that she has chosen to do so now—saying they have to talk about the whole business of regulating egg labelling. The Government is in disarray on the regulation. I notice that the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps relies on self-regulation. He has not been following the debate. The reality is self-regulation has failed. When large industrial producers, through their mouthpiece the Australian Egg Corporation, say 20,000 birds per hectare, it is very clear to everybody—other than those who cannot see beyond just the industrial producers—that something is going badly awry. It is the job of Parliament to intervene and to legislate to create standards. It is not just me saying this.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: No, it's every other socialist.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Every other socialist including the NSW Food Authority, which, in its 2006-07 annual report admitted that eggs from caged hens are being sold to consumers as free range. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps says that the Food Authority is full of socialists. That is interesting. Even in 2000 the Federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry released a report that stated that there are problems with this issue. The report indicated that consideration should be given to implementing industry standards and that if the standards are not satisfactory—and the Australian Egg Corporation has proved that they are not—then a move must be made to legislate on labelling requirements.

There is no question that there is a crisis of legitimacy in the egg industry over the term "free-range", which can only be rectified by the intervention of legislation. I congratulate the Hon. Scot MacDonald on giving one of the strongest speeches in favour of the legislation. He managed to outline every single argument in support of the legislation. I intend to send his speech and that of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps to everybody on my mailing list.

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: Point of order: Dr John Kaye is misleading the House. I did not support the legislation.

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

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Hon. Scot MacDonald says, "Cannibalism is more likely in free-range production systems". Unfortunately for the Hon. Scot MacDonald, the science goes in the other direction: Cannibalism has been explicitly linked to high-stocking densities of laying hens. It is very clear that cannibalism and feather-pecking happens because of environmental factors, including overstocking densities. Hens naturally pick at their environment. The problem is that when they are overstocked they tend to peck at each other. The Hon. Scot MacDonald's assertion that cannibalism is more likely to occur in free-range production systems is a poorly informed general statement with the sole intention of eroding the term "free-range" to undermine the need for labelling. The final issue I turn to is again in relation to the speech of the Hon. Scot MacDonald—and I thank him once again for his speech; it is a very useful tool in promoting our legislation. He alleged that free-range eggs are only a niche market. He said:

I point out to the honourable member that, according to the 2010 annual report of the Australian Egg Corporation, in the 2010 financial year free-range eggs represented 26.6 per cent of the market by volume and 37.3 per cent of the market by value—more than a quarter of the population is elite. The honourable member should go out and talk to people and ask what they want in a free-range egg. Instead of just mouthing the propaganda coming from the industry, he should talk to the people who purchased the 92 million free-range eggs, worth $174 million, in 2010. One can hardly say that is a niche market and one can hardly call those consumers elite. It is offensive to people who pursue their values through what they consume to call them elite. In fact, the Hon. Scot MacDonald must be calling Woolworths elite because in 2009 Woolworths agreed to start reducing its cage egg product lines and move towards more free-range egg stocking. Also, Coles announced that it would be phasing out its own brand cage eggs by 2013 and reducing the price of its free-range eggs by 18 per cent.

I conclude by thanking the people who worked on this legislation. In particular, I thank my former staff member Geoff Ash, who worked tirelessly to sort through the different definitions in the free-range industry, who consulted with the free-range industry, who drafted a letter for me to send to the Australian Egg Corporation and the NSW Farmers Association, and who worked through the details and produced what I think is an extremely fine piece of legislation. I thank Lauren Waldon, who came to my office as a work experience student. She wrote a report on free-range eggs, which got her a very well-deserved high distinction in her final year at university, and has turned out to be an excellent advocate within my office for free-range eggs and for animal rights.

I also thank the Free Range Egg Producers Association, a number of egg farmers and the several animal welfare groups and consumer groups that worked with us to develop this bill, and who endorsed the bill. In particular, I thank Animals Australia, Animal Liberation and the Humane Society International. Finally, I thank Choice for its support of this bill. Choice stands up for the rights of consumers time and time again, and it has said very loudly and clearly that legislation is needed in this area to protect consumers. Choice says that this legislation is needed and wants to see it pass through the House; it does not want to see it held up by sectional interests of the large battery hen producers. Choice wants those people who purchase free-range eggs to get what they pay for. I commend the legislation to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [11.00 a.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 5 on sheet C2011-072A in globo:

(2) Laying fowl must be kept in conditions that meet the requirements (if any) specified in the regulations for the purposes of this section.

(a) fowl must be kept in conditions that meet the requirements (if any) specified in the regulations for the purposes of this section,

(4) A regulation must not be made for the purposes of section 4 or 5 unless the Minister is satisfied that the provisions of the regulation are consistent with the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals Domestic Poultry, 4th Edition, published by the Primary Industries Standing Committee or any document that replaces that code.

As I stated in my contribution to the second reading debate, the Opposition's amendments will make the bill more practical and will insert some important criteria. They address the concerns that have been raised about truth in the labelling of eggs, which is very important to many people in New South Wales. Some Government members also recognise that this is an issue. The Government has levelled a number of criticisms at The Greens bill with which the Opposition concurs. They relate to the need to ensure that we retain a national standard for the production of eggs. With that in mind—and in the spirit of ensuring truth in labelling by labelling the legislation truthfully—the Opposition's amendments suggest that, rather than imposing conditions, the bill should refer back to the national standards, which are currently contained in the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry, fourth edition. We should not enact legislation that needs to be changed every time the code is amended; rather, we should refer to that code.

Therefore, the Opposition's amendment requires the Government to introduce regulations that mirror the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry. I accept that The Greens believe that that does not go far enough in setting conditions for free-range egg production. However, the Opposition believes that the model code is the appropriate standard and that implementing it and ensuring that consumers can be confident that it is being adhered to is the best way to achieve the aim of truth in labelling. I do not believe it is unfair to say that to implement the legislation without these amendments would result in the decimation of availability of labelled free-range eggs in New South Wales because probably only a small percentage of producers comply with the conditions in this bill. I do not share Dr Kaye's hostility towards big egg producers. In fact, some have done a fabulous job in supplying the people of New South Wales with healthy eggs. I am a friend of Frank Pace and I had the great pleasure of leading a delegation to China of which he was a member.

Mr David Shoebridge: I hope you travelled economy class.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: In keeping with the practice implemented by the former Government, that information was all put on the internet. In fact, it is still there; I saw it when I was recently searching for travel information. In the interests of openness, I advise the Committee that Mr Pace attended one of my fundraising functions before the last election. The Opposition's amendments are designed to ensure that people can be confident that when they buy free-range or barn-laid eggs that is what they are getting and it is appropriate to adopt the model code of practice to achieve that. The media has published some incorrect information about the model code and the implications of the bill if it were to be amended. The model code is being reviewed and it will be considered by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. The Minister and the New South Wales Government should work hard to ensure that the code reflects appropriate practice now and into the future, because we expect it to continue to change.

The model code refers to a stocking density of 1,500 birds per hectare. Members mentioned that free-range egg producers move their flocks around to keep their grazing areas fresh. Given that practice, there is no effective maximum stocking density, and it is acknowledged by the industry that some producers produce at very high rates. The proposed model code being discussed by the industry would create an effective maximum of 20,000 birds per hectare, which is two birds per square metre. Given that the area in which the birds range is regularly changed so that their feed is fresh—just as cattle producers move their herds from paddock to paddock to ensure adequate fresh feed—that is not an unreasonable starting point for the discussion. The Opposition's amendments are practical and will ensure that the consumers of New South Wales get the information they need to make proper choices. I draw members' attention to the contribution made by the Government Whip.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Hear! Hear!

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The Queen is in town and she might have an opening for a court jester. His speech was a good job application.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: But she's not in Sydney.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: In fact, she is in our neighbourhood. I am sure the Government Whip is disappointed that he cannot be with her.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: I will see her on Saturday at Duntroon for the Trooping of the Colour.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: That is excellent.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: I will be there with my kids.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: With a Union Jack?

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Perhaps.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Where will you be?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I will be doing something with my family. I will leave it at that. The Government Whip made a number of points about the free market and the industry setting the standards in what he probably regards as the serious part of his contribution to the second reading debate.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: No, I referred to private certification.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Yes, the member did talk about private certification. One of the key elements of real competition is making accurate information available to consumers, and proper labelling is part of that. The Opposition's amendments, when implemented with the regulation, would be a good way of ensuring that consumers can be confident that when they make a purchase they are doing so with accurate information. I note that officers from the NSW Food Authority are in the advisers' gallery. I have every confidence that they will be able to implement this legislation effectively in the same way that they have successfully implemented the new legislation dealing with beef labelling. Getting that right has taken an enormous amount of work over the past couple of years. Government members said a great deal about a national approach and the Blewett review. The Opposition agrees that national labelling standards are very important, particularly for products that are carried interstate. New South Wales has the opportunity to take the lead in this area. I note that the Australian Capital Territory has beaten us to the punch and that its legislation is working very effectively.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What about Tasmania?

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Yes, it has enacted legislation, but I know more about the Australian Capital Territory legislation.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What percentage of the industry is involved in free-range egg production?

Dr John Kaye: It is 36 per cent by dollar value.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Members are interjecting across me. The point about the Australian Capital Territory is that it does have an egg producer, but it also imports many eggs from New South Wales. That is why we need legislation that is consistent with the national standard—it would then be consistent with the Australian Capital Territory legislation.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: These amendments would put us all out of kilter.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: That is wrong and it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the way this works. New South Wales can take the lead in this area, as we did with beef labelling and kilojoule labelling of fast food. The Labor Government introduced that legislation and an answer to a question on notice suggests that the Coalition Government is continuing to implement it. It is possible, and indeed desirable given that it represents such a big slab of the market, for New South Wales to take the lead. Contrary to suggestions made by Government members, this will not result in decimation of the industry if the model code is used as the base. It will result in standards that have been developed in consultation with the industry, so it will have no difficulty in implementing them.

Consumers will be confident that what is on the label is what is in the box. That will be beneficial for this industry. I go back to the fact that a number of Government members, with the exception of a couple, did acknowledge that this is an issue. I welcome the indication from the Government today that the Minister has put this on the agenda for the Council of Australian Governments for the Ministerial Council for Corporations. That is positive.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: For egg labelling.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Yes, for egg labelling. In response to the interjection I highlight again that the Opposition amendments make this a truth in labelling bill, rather than setting the standard.

[Interruption]

I had great pleasure in having a corroborative discussion with The Greens in moving these amendments as well.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Talk about cannibalising—we know who the real cannibals are.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: It is always tempting to respond to the comments from across the Chamber from the world's oldest Young Liberal, but I will not in this case.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: I am more proud of Young Liberal than you are of Young Labor.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I was a proud member of Young Labor, but I knew when to leave and I knew when to stop the speeches that we used to make at Young Labor conferences, whereas the member opposite keeps on going. This is an important bill and with the Opposition amendments it could make a positive contribution to consumer information and to the egg industry in New South Wales. I urge the House to support the Opposition's amendments.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.13 a.m.]: The Greens will not oppose these amendments, but we raise major concerns about them. We appreciate that the Labor Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party share The Greens' concern about the situation and the need for legislative action. There is a commonality of intent at the fundamental level. That is a good thing. It is good that the processes of Parliament allow us to build a parliamentary majority. That is how it should be and the system is working well. I also appreciate being given the opportunity to talk to the shadow Minister about these amendments.

Labor's amendments remove all the standards for free-range and barn-laid eggs and propose instead that any standards that are to be created must adhere to the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry fourth edition, or whatever edition is in force at the time. That raises another concern for The Greens because it means that if the model code becomes less of an expression of animal welfare there is a risk that the prescribed standards of care in the regulations could decline greatly. It means that the model codes, which are entirely voluntary, would become law if the bill was passed with Labor's amendment. That means a labelled egg will have to conform to regulations consistent with the model code.

The model code prescribes a stocking density of 1,500 birds per hectare as opposed to our stocking density of 750 birds per hectare. The Greens have been asked why we would compromise. The reason we have not walked away from the table is that 1,500 birds per hectare is a whole lot better than 20,000 birds per hectare. It establishes a bottom line so that people in New South Wales who buy a carton of eggs labelled free range will at least know that stocking densities were at that reasonable level of 1,500. The second issue that disturbs us is de-beaking or beak modification. The model code permits beak trimming but only under a certain set of circumstances. Clause 12.4 of the model code provides:

To prevent or reduce behaviour or other problems, poultry producers should consider selection of the most appropriate bird strains and the method of rearing used to suit the type of housing and management practices employed.

At the outset the model code says poultry producers should look carefully to find the right breed of hen to keep if they are going to become free-range egg producers. Clause 12.5 provides:

Should an outbreak of feather pecking or cannibalism occur, or an outbreak appear imminent, environmental factors that may aggravate it should be examined and if appropriate, adjustments made, such as reducing stocking density, light intensity, temperature, humidity or disturbances to pecking order, removing injured birds, removing birds observed to be instigating pecking—

Remove the troublemakers. That might be something for this Parliament to think about one day—

or eliminating shafts of bright sunlight. If these measures fail to control the problem then appropriate beak trimming of the birds should be considered in consultation with an expert in animal welfare to prevent further injury or mortality in the flock.

It clearly states that beak trimming can occur only after a range of environmental factors have been considered, including reducing stocking density, and it can then occur only after appropriate consultation with an expert in animal welfare. The way the model code is implemented now, it appears that people just say: It allows beak trimming, we are under the model code so we will trim the beak. The model code is a step forward. It clearly states that serious consideration should be given to the alternatives to beak trimming. Although it is probably better than nothing at all, there are problems with the model code that cause us major concern.

The code outlines requirements in respect of accessible food and water, freedom to move, stand, run around, stretch, sit and lie down. It specifies that birds must have visual contact with other members of the species and accommodation that provides protection from weather that neither harms nor causes distress. It also outlines methods for the prevention of disease, injury and vice and for rapid treatment if those things occur. All those things are fine, but a number of things are missing from the model code. I have already spoken about beak trimming. The Greens are convinced that consumers who pay more for eggs labelled free-range expect the eggs to come from birds that have their entire upper and lower beaks intact so that they can forage appropriately.

The second concern is that the model code fails to specify the litter that must be put on the floors. Litter is absolutely essential for birds to forage in and create a comfortable environment. Also, the model code does not require perches—it encourages perches, but it does not require them. Perches should be seen as an absolutely essential ingredient for hens to fulfil their natural behaviour. The absence of perches deprives hens of a basic ingredient necessary for their welfare. Further, the model code only provides for one nest per seven hens or a one square metre nest box per 120 hens. That is totally insufficient. Hens will have to compete for nests they need to lay their eggs in.

Nothing is more tragic that the images of hens deprived of somewhere quiet and private to lay their eggs trying to burrow in to find a suitable place. Also, the high stocking densities within the overnight sheds of 30 kilograms of bird per square metre is far too high. I have invited the Hon. Cate Faehrmann to talk about the concerns we have with these serious issues in the model code. That being said, we understand that it is the nationally consistent code and therefore it will produce a nationally consistent outcome and a model for the rest of the nation. I was not aware of this until I came into the Chamber today, but it is interesting that the Minister for Primary Industries is taking this issue to her ministerial council—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: In relation to egg labelling.

Dr JOHN KAYE: —for consideration in relation to egg labelling. That is an important issue. It demonstrates that debate around this legislation, and debate around the submission of the Australian Egg Corporation of 20,000 birds per hectare, is causing a debate in the community to which the Government is listening. New South Wales makes up a little over one-third of the free-range egg market in Australia. In many senses, New South Wales is the tail that can wag the dog. Earlier the shadow Minister referred to action being taken in New South Wales such as the kilojoule labelling requirements for quick-serve restaurants and the Scores on Doors requirements for all restaurants. New South Wales has taken steps to achieve outcomes that have not been achieved in other States. New South Wales is the largest State, with the largest free-range egg market, and that affords us the opportunity to lead the way and set the standard in these matters.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: We are the largest regulators.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I note the interjection of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. I profit from hearing him talk about free market economics in this Chamber. I am not persuaded by it, but I profit intellectually by hearing an argument against which I can sharpen my arguments. Nonetheless, as the shadow Minister said, he would admit that for a market to operate, high-quality information is required. In fact, markets are at their worst when they are misled by misinformation. That is what is happening in New South Wales and around Australia, where markets and consumers are being badly misled by misinformation with respect to the standard of egg labelling. The reason why The Greens will accept this amendment and vote for the third reading is specifically because this legislation provides an opportunity for us to move forward on this issue. I also put on record that, when we saw the Opposition's amendments, we went to our key stakeholders and we asked the free-range egg producer, and a number of individual free-range egg producers and their associations—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: AECL?

Dr JOHN KAYE: It is not up to us to consult with the Australian Egg Corporation Limited on these matters.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: You said stakeholders.

Dr JOHN KAYE: They do not hold stakes, they hold other things. We went to our stakeholders and they were all very enthusiastic.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: "Our" stakeholders.

Dr JOHN KAYE: We went to those people who endorsed the bill, let me clarify the issue.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Not those who did not endorse the bill?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Surely it is up to Labor to consult—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Isn't it up to you? You introduced the bill. Should you not consult all stakeholders?

Dr JOHN KAYE: We went to the people who endorsed this bill in its original form and asked them for their opinion, and all of them have come back to us—the three animal welfare groups, Animals Australia, Animal Liberation, the Humane Society International, the Free Range Egg Producers Association and a number of free-range egg producers—and clearly stated that it is very important that we accept Labor's amendment, that we get some standard through. It is not the standard they want but it is at least a standard and it will stop the highly dodgy standards that are floating around out there such as 20,000 birds per hectare. Those sorts of standards are of real concern to the genuine free-range egg producers who aspire to provide free-range eggs to the 26.6 per cent of consumers who purchase them. The real concern those producers have is that they will be out-competed by a dodgy standard that will produce unfair competition. This is about creating fair competition and fair access to the market for those genuine free-range egg producers.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.24 a.m.]: The Government has serious concerns about the amendments moved by the shadow Minister. It is important to note that the model code of practice is not new—it was signed off by the Primary Industries Standing Committee in 2002. If this document is the perfect fit and can deal with the free-range issue, why was it not adopted by the former Government when the Hon. Steve Whan was the Minister for Primary Industries? The answer is obvious—the model code of practice is sound. It is a nationally agreed set of guidelines dealing with the welfare of animals. It is not necessarily a good fit for food labelling regulation, and a lot more work would need to be done before the Government could be confident that it is the right tool for the job. It is important to highlight that the Minister for Primary Industries has committed to raising egg labelling at Ministerial Council at the end of the year. Those concerns will be brought forward. It is also important that the shadow Minister understands that the review of the model code of practice is not due until 2015. There is no maximum enforceable in the model code because there are loopholes. That is why further work is needed at a national level and that is not due until 2015.

I highlight the point raised by Dr John Kaye in relation to enforceability. Dr John Kaye read an excerpt highlighting areas of his concern. The question is: How does the Government regulate outcome-based standards in an enforceable way? What is the legal test for "where appropriate", for example? How do you have a legal test for that? We raise these concerns in relation to the amendments put by the Government because we have had much debate. The Hon. Steve Whan raised the Australian Capital Territory and having legislation in place to regulate the labelling of eggs. This is true but there are two flaws in the argument that has been raised. First, the Australian Capital Territory legislation does not require eggs to be labelled as caged eggs when they fail to meet the technical requirements for barn or free range. That is what this bill proposed regardless of whether a cage was on the property where the animal was raised.

Secondly, it is easy to pass legislation regulating areas where one's jurisdiction does not have a significant industry, because the likelihood of impacts on your own constituents is minimal. The Minister noted that the Australian Capital Territory had only one significant egg producer. The Australian Capital Territory is such a small producer of eggs that the egg industry includes it within the New South Wales 44 per cent of national production. The potential impact and risk to business in New South Wales is far greater than in the Australian Capital Territory and that is why the Government believes that any solution should be progressed carefully and at a national level.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [11.28 a.m.]: I support the amendments moved by the Opposition to Dr John Kaye's bill, but I do so reluctantly. I have serious concerns about the animal welfare implications of these amendments. They weaken the strong animal welfare gains that Dr John Kaye's bill would put in place. I am the animal welfare spokesperson for The Greens, and it would be a shame if this bill, in all its ambition, passes in a way that forbids New South Wales to introduce regulations for poultry welfare that are more ambitious than the current code of practice. Animal welfare groups have been calling for the regulations to be reviewed and strengthened for some time. The current Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry, which was endorsed in 2002, states:

This Code of Practice will be further reviewed in 2010, although an earlier review will be implemented if technologies offering significant welfare benefits are available.

We are in 2011, yet as far as animal welfare rights groups and activists know, they have not been told that a review is underway or will be scheduled. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Melinda Pavey, indicated that a review will be undertaken in 2015, but we are not sure whether a review of the current code of practice is being undertaken. I know that animal welfare groups hope that any review will strengthen the code and they are disappointed that that has not happened yet. The current code allows de-beaking in its definition of "free range". When speaking to the amendments, Dr John Kaye referred to the contents of the model code of practice and what the farmer must do if there is an outbreak of feather picking to ensure that cannibalism does not occur.

They have to put in place a range of measures such as removing birds observed to be instigating pecking. However, if these measures fail to control the problem—this is my major concern with the amendment—the model code says appropriate beak trimming of the bird should be considered in consultation with an expert in animal welfare to prevent further injury or mortality in the flock. I looked into how hens are de-beaked and came across this information from zoologist Professor F. W. Brambell. Battery hens particularly are de-beaked as chickens with a hot machine blade, sometimes because a young beak will often grow back. Professor Brambell found that:

Between the horn and bone of the beak is a thick layer of highly sensitive tissue, resembling the 'quick' of the human nail. The hot knife ... cuts through this complex or horn, bone and sensitive tissue, causing severe pain.

De-beaking impairs the hen's ability to eat, drink, wipe her beak and preen normally, and may leave the chicken in constant pain. We should remember that if the model code of practice changes following the long-promised review it could go backwards as a result of pressure from the powerful egg and poultry industry. There is no guarantee that when the model code of practice is reviewed it will advance the welfare of chickens at all. It has been said a couple of times in this debate that new standards proposed by, for example, the Australian Egg Corporation, could if the corporation had its way with the model code of practice see the standard for free-range eggs extended from 1,500 birds per hectare to 20,000 birds per hectare.

Surely it is up to us to legislate for a standard of free range that consumers expect, one in which the welfare of the animal is prioritised. After all, that is what consumers expect when they buy free-range eggs. That is what they expect if they are prepared to be a little more out of pocket for their carton of eggs. They are compassionate and they care about the welfare of animals. It is absolutely imperative that the definition of free range is as ambitious as it can be so that those ethical consumers—remember that 26.6 per cent of consumers in 2009-10 chose to buy free-range eggs over caged eggs—are not duped or greenwashed. Those ethical consumers are equally legitimate members of the community. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps talked about the emails being received by members of Parliament from people concerned about this and suggested they are spam emails. I do not think they are spam emails.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: They are identical.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: They are members of the public emailing us as members of Parliament and telling us their concerns. That is not a spam email. They are legitimately trying to tell us their concerns and asking us to vote one way or another on a piece of legislation. The minute we consider that to be spam email we might as well say that petitions are spam emails as well. This is a legitimate way of ordinary members of the community informing members how they feel about a particular piece of legislation. To hear it said in this place that those people who care enough to write their own message to members of Parliament, click and send, are considered to be spam emailers is perhaps not surprising when it comes from my good friend the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. Shame on you, Peter Phelps.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: "Greens attack Phelps"—that will look really bad at my next preselection, won't it?

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: I acknowledge the interjection from the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps that it will be very damaging for his next preselection if The Greens are seen as his best friends. I am aware of the politics in this place and that if this amendment is not supported the bill will not get up. That is a real shame. However, even with this amendment the bill will still be an improvement. I congratulate Dr John Kaye for his hard work in getting the bill to this stage. It will be an improvement because consumers will know that what they are purchasing is legitimately free range and that the welfare of the chickens will be greatly enhanced compared to the current situation. It will ensure that unscrupulous egg producers can no longer dupe consumers at the expense of the welfare of chickens. I will support the amendment in that regard.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.34 a.m.]: I had not envisaged taking part in this debate but I have been listening intently. There is a lot of goodwill in the House on this subject. I agree that we should not support this amendment and we should not support the bill. However, having said that, I understand that Dr John Kaye has been in the forefront of bringing many important issues relating to food production to this House. We have stood side by side on issues such as trans fatty acids and other things where we understood there had to be a national approach. I always pay high prices for free-range eggs.

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: Elitist.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: The Hon. Scot MacDonald may think I am elitist but we all want to be seen as humane when it comes to methods of food production, whether it be chickens, beef, fish or whatever. We also understand there is an industry that employs a lot of people. Yes, it is a profit-orientated industry but it is also a fine industry that supplies food. We are in a dilemma and it is very important that we progress in the correct way. I think if prices were reduced consumers would all go for free-range eggs. However, it is more costly. Now we have the added dilemma when we reach for a carton of a dozen eggs that we are not really sure whether it is genuine free range or not. I stand there and think about which ones I am going to buy. I do not like cage eggs. I am sorry if that makes me an elitist. You can tell they are not the same quality. When you crack the egg it cracks easily but when you crack a free-range egg the shell is harder and you can just tell they come from hens that have been better fed and better treated.

We should not go ahead piecemeal with something that will have major ramifications. I am a scientist and Dr John Kaye is an engineer and we go on evidence-based procedures and evidence-based science and we should consult widely and take a national approach. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Katrina Hodgkinson. Perhaps we are moving forward at a faster rate. That is terrific. The Minister will take the matter to the Council of Australian Governments meeting before the end of the year. The Hon. Cate Faehrmann spoke about the model code of practice. I am not convinced that it is as good as it can be. I am sorry but if it is going to be reviewed in 2015 that is too long to wait. The physiological and anatomical aspects of the pain inflicted in de-beaking are correct and I am not happy about that either.

As much as it pains me to say I am going to vote against this bill, I want there to be a move forward. The consumers of New South Wales and Australia want to know that what they are buying is accurately labelled. It is consumer protection and the Liberal-Nationals Government supports consumer protection. Let us move forward and get a better industry; let us make sure it is viable and that jobs and consumers are protected. I congratulate the Government for taking this to the Council of Australian Governments meeting before the end of the year. It is now mid October so there is not long to wait. For those reasons I will be voting against the amendment.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [11.40 a.m.]: I make a brief response to a couple of issues. First, I refer to the review of the model code of practice. A draft model code of practice is in circulation. Any Minister on the council can bring agenda items forward, so the review could be conducted earlier—one would hope it is. The Parliamentary Secretary asked why I had not done this when I was the responsible Minister. The hardworking New South Wales Food Authority was doing "Scores on Doors", beef labelling, the kilojoule labelling handling review, the Egg Food Safety Scheme and various other things. Perhaps we could have done it had the wonderful people of New South Wales given us another year or so in office.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: The miracle seventeenth year.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: It this case it would have been my second or third year as Minister, but that is the way it goes. The busy agenda of the previous Government in labelling and food safety achieved excellent results. This amendment will give the Government the chance to keep up and make some achievements of its own.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.41 a.m.]: I thank the Hon. Marie Ficarra for her comments. Throughout debate the assumption has been made that mandating the standards for free-range eggs will destroy jobs in the industry. The opposite is true. Once the free-range egg industry is cleaned up more jobs will be created because the free-range egg industry will be vibrant. The caged bird industry will not be damaged, other than by people deserting the industry to go for free range. In that sense there will be no net loss of jobs. No jobs will be lost as a result of what we are doing here today. If anything, there will be a growth of employment as we achieve better standards for the free-range industry.

I acknowledge the Hon. Marie Ficarra's comments about de-beaking. De-beaking is a major issue. The Egg Corporation says it is okay because from its consumer survey no-one really cares about de-beaking. But it did not show any images of a bird immediately after it had been de-beaked. Those who watched 7.30 NSW on the ABC two weeks ago would have seen a little chicken emerging from the beak trimming apparatus with a look of pain and bewilderment on its face.

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: Hundreds and thousands of them.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes. This is about consumer protection; consumers getting what they pay for. When consumers see images such as that I am sure they would say, "We think free range means no de-beaking." Despite The Greens' reservations about the model code, The Greens do not oppose the amendment.

Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 5 [C2011-072A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 5 [C2011-072A] agreed to.

Clause 4 as amended agreed to.

Clause 5 as amended agreed to.

Clause 6 as amended agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.43 a.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C2011-073A:

9 Defence

It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under this Act if the defendant establishes that the defendant:

The Legislation Review Digest No. 2 of 2011 identified that clause 6 of the bill creates three "strict liability" offences in relation to advertising packing and labelling of eggs as free range when they do not comply with the requirements. The maximum penalty for the offence is $55,000 for corporations and $5,500 for individuals and/or six months imprisonment. The digest reads:

"Strict liability" means that a corporation is guilty of an offence even if they were ignorant of the fact that the eggs sold did not conform to the standards. In other words, it is not a defence to say, "I did not know this was happening." The Greens admit that it did not understand or analyse that when the bill was drafted. The Greens appreciate the advice given by the Legislation Review Committee. The Greens amendment is dated 25 August 2011 and the Legislation Review Digest is dated 23 August 2011. An amendment was developed to rectify the problem as soon as it was drawn to our attention. The amendment does not take away from the seriousness of the offences; it makes a longer "strict liability". This is a good example of the importance of having committees such as the Legislation Review Committee to review legislation in a nonpartisan way. I thank the Legislation Review Committee for identifying the problem. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.46 a.m.]: The Government supports The Greens amendment. I thank the Mr David Shoebridge for his work on the Legislation Review Committee and for ensuring that The Greens legislation was corrected.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [11.46 a.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [11.47 a.m.]: I do not take credit for this. The Legislation Review Committee staff, who have the extremely difficult job of looking at legislation, raised it. As Dr John Kaye said, in a nonpartisan fashion the Legislation Review Committee listens and takes on board advice from its staff. The amendment was taken on board by the proponent of this bill in response to that advice. It would be good if the Government would take on board the bipartisan advice from the Legislation Review Committee more often.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2011-073A] be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2011-073A] agreed to.

Clause 8 as amended agreed to.

Clause 9 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Adoption of Report

Motion by Dr John Kaye agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE

Reference

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: According to the resolution establishing the standing committees, I inform the House that on 20 October 2011 the Standing Committee on Law and Justice resolved to inquire into the following terms of reference from the Minister for Finance and Services, the Hon. Greg Pearce, MLC, the Attorney General, the Hon. Greg Smith, MP, and the Minister for Fair Trading, the Hon. Anthony Roberts, MP:

That the Committee inquire into and report on opportunities to consolidate tribunals in New South Wales, and in particular:

(a) opportunities to reform, consolidate, or transfer functions between tribunals which exercise decision-making, arbitral or similar functions in relation to employment, workplace, occupational, professional or other related disputes or matters, having regard to:

(b) options that would be available in relation to the Industrial Relations Commission in Court Session, should the commission's arbitral functions be consolidated with or transferred to other bodies,

(d) any consequential changes which might arise.

3. That the Committee report by 29 February 2012.

COMMISSION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Report

The Deputy-President (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones) tabled, pursuant to the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1988, the annual report of the Commission for Children and Young People for the year ended 30 June 2011, received and authorised to be made public this day.

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (LOCAL DEMOCRACY—WARD REPRESENTATION REFORM) BILL 2011

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 September 2011.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.52 a.m.]: At the outset I indicate that the Government opposes the Local Government Amendment (Local Democracy—Ward Representation Reform) Bill 2011. This private member's bill was introduced into the Legislative Council by Mr David Shoebridge on 5 August 2011. The object of the bill is to amend the Local Government Act to provide that each council for an area that is divided into wards must have at least three councillors for each ward. The bill also provides that at least six months before the next ordinary council elections each council that is divided into wards, and has less than three councillors in each ward, must alter its ward boundaries or change its number of councillors, or both, to ensure that it complies with this new requirement. A council will not need to obtain approval at a constitutional referendum to give effect to this new requirement.

The bill is proposing amendments that will result in permanently entrenching restrictions on councillor numbers to a minimum of three councillors per ward. The amendment will result in an unreasonable interference in a council's right to determine, in consultation with the community, the number of councillors that best suits the needs of the area. While the Act currently permits a council to have between five and 15 councillors, under the bill being proposed by The Greens, a council divided into wards of three or more councillors per ward could never have less than six councillors. Furthermore, many councils that have wards have three or more wards. Consequently, if the amendments were made, those councils with three wards would be forced to have at least nine councillors, and those councils that have four wards would be forced to have at least 12 councillors. This number would increase by one if those councils also chose to have a popularly elected mayor.

The amendment bill does not recognise or deal with the fact that there are already 10 councils in New South Wales that have two councillors per ward. Under The Greens proposal, those 10 councils would be forced to increase the number of councillors to at least nine. This is despite the Government's expressed commitment to encourage councils to engage in structural reform. The Government is also committed to assisting councils in reducing their administrative costs. The Government recognises that reducing councillor numbers may assist councils in reducing such costs. These commitments have recently been reflected in the enactment of the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Act 2011 which, among other things, provides councils with a limited opportunity to reduce councillor numbers prior to the 2012 ordinary elections by making an application seeking approval, rather than by holding a constitutional referendum, which involves incurring considerable costs. Thus, I would argue that the bill essentially contradicts the Government's policy.

During debate on the Local Government (Shellharbour and Wollongong Elections) Bill 2011 The Greens expressed their satisfaction that the changes to the constitution of both Shellharbour and Wollongong councils would result in a change in the voting system for those two councils to proportional. The Greens also asserted that the previous voting system for those two councils—being optional preferential—contributed to their dismissal due to the lack of an effective opposition on those councils which reduced accountability. The real issue for the Greens seems to be the use of optional preferential voting for wards where there are one or two councillors to be elected. The Government proposes to examine the current system of optional preferential voting in two councillor wards. There is a better way to achieve the outcome sought by The Greens. The Government is currently exploring those options. As I indicated, the Government opposes the amendments sought by the bill.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [11.56 a.m.]: I rise on behalf of the New South Wales Labor Opposition to oppose The Greens bill, the Local Government Amendment (Local Democracy—Ward Representation Reform) Bill 2011. I will be brief in my contribution. I find it ironic that the bill has the words "local democracy" and that the member who introduced it is asking members of this place to support the mandating of three-member wards for the 10 local councils affected. I believe this is a decision that should be made by local ratepayers of the councils affected, not by the State Parliament.

"Democracy" generally means that people get to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. The word "democracy" comes from the Greek word "dēmokrati", meaning the rule of the people. This word combines "dēmos", meaning people, and "krátos", meaning power. I believe in democracy, and I believe that the people should make the decision about how their council is structured.

In New South Wales there are 152 local councils, many with different types of structures. Some councils have wards, and others do not. Some councils have a popularly elected mayor, and others do not. I challenge The Greens member who introduced the bill to urge his party to participate in the Botany Bay local government council elections next year. I challenge him to put up his party's policy platform and go out and talk to the people of Botany Bay. Some councils have popularly elected mayors and others do not. How a council is structured is a local decision and should be decided through a referendum of the ratepayers. Have The Greens or Mr David Shoebridge consulted the mayors of Cabonne, Conargo, Guyra, Ku-ring-gai, Botany Bay, Tenterfield, Wakool, Walcha and Weddin?

A few months ago when this bill was introduced I contacted several mayors, including the mayor of Ku-ring-gai at the time. When I contacted him I asked him whether he knew about this bill and whether he had been consulted about it. The mayor did not have any idea. He had not been consulted about the bill and he was unaware of a bill that would affect his council and the 108,000 ratepayers in the Ku-ring-gai local government area. This is in the Premier's backyard. Did the Premier know that Mr David Shoebridge's bill would have the effect of expanding Ku-ring-gai Council to 15 councillors—an increase of five new councillors?

Mr David Shoebridge: It is untrue and you know it is untrue.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I would like Mr David Shoebridge to explain it.

Mr David Shoebridge: Read the bill and you will know how the Act works.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: Here we go again—another smart alec. I spoke with the mayor of Conargo council, who was not aware of the bill. He had not been consulted. When I spoke to him he said that it would add a huge cost for the ratepayers of Conargo. He said, "They are a small community—

Mr David Shoebridge: After you misled him and confused him.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: Mr David Shoebridge should pick up the phone and consult with mayors rather than sitting on Woollahra council in the eastern suburbs and dictating to rural communities how they should run their councils. The mayor of Conargo said, "They are a small community, getting on with the job of the real bread and butter issues."

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: It is difficult to hear members' contributions when interjections are coming from both sides of the Chamber.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! I uphold the point of order. Members will cease interjecting. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis has the call.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I spoke with the mayor of Guyra Shire Council, who also was not consulted. How can we consider this significant change to ward structures when these communities have not been consulted? Like the mayors of rural communities who are sick and tired of Macquarie Street making decisions without consultation, I stand shoulder to shoulder with them to fight against this bill. Let local democracy prevail. Let communities have their say. The Local Government Amendment (Elections) Bill 2011, which was debated in this place a few months ago, provided a special exemption of five months for councils to reduce councillor numbers and abolish wards without the need for a constitutional referendum. I quote what Mr David Shoebridge said at the time:

Mr David Shoebridge also said:

That is consistent with The Greens party policy about democratic reform. Mr David Shoebridge is on the record as opposing provisions that impose structures on councils from this place rather than letting councils make decisions through a constitutional referendum. So I was surprised when Mr David Shoebridge, in his second reading speech on this bill, said:

So provisions in a bill were opposed by The Greens because they denied local people a voice in how their council is structured, but when The Greens have an eye to the upcoming local government elections in 2012 they propose a bill that is consistent with the Government's legislation and that denies local people their voice and their right to a constitutional referendum. I wonder whether this issue would have even arisen if the matter were left to local ratepayers. I understand that 10 councils in New South Wales have two councillors in each ward, and these are the councils that would be affected by Mr David Shoebridge's bill. As the shadow Minister for Local Government I have not received one representation, letter, email or phone call from a ratepayer or councillor on these councils asking for the measure proposed in this bill.

However, I have been inundated by representations, emails, phone calls and delegations. As members know, I have been visiting councils throughout the State; indeed, I visited Blayney shire a few weeks ago. The concern there is about jobs and services, not mandating three-councillor wards. Local communities, ratepayers, local government workers and pensioners are worried about the O'Farrell Government's direction for local government. They are uncertain about where the Government is heading. Some 55,000 local government workers are worried and their families are upset about the uncertainty regarding their employment protections. They are worried because the O'Farrell Government will take the "local" out of local councils and replace it with "corporate". The O'Farrell Government's proposal to outsource road maintenance will impact on regional centres. Local government workers and their families—

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Where did you get that from? You were doing all right for a while.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I have to be honest about everyone. Local government workers and their families in regional communities will be affected. I say to The Greens and Mr David Shoebridge: This is an uncertain time for the local government sector and mandating three-councillor wards will not provide certainty of jobs and services. We all know what this is about. The collateral damage will impact on eight rural council communities. These communities will pay the price because the cost of extra councillors will further strain tight budgets. Rural communities are getting on with the job of serving their vast communities, fighting for jobs, fighting for funding and standing up for better services.

Then a councillor from Woollahra council in Sydney's eastern suburbs—the wealthiest local government area in New South Wales and possibly Australia—tells the struggling communities of Guyra, Tenterfield and Walcha that they should have more councillors. Mr David Shoebridge should stop telling rural communities such as Guyra, Weddin, Cabonne, Walcha and Tenterfield what they should be doing. The O'Farrell Government's attack on local government workers and services is far too important. We need to be united and stand shoulder to shoulder with them to fight against the O'Farrell Government's attacks on local government workers. Labor will continue to fight in this place and across the State.

Ratepayers and pensioners are worried about the direction of the O'Farrell Government. This will be the death knell for local and regional communities, small businesses and sole traders. The Government is gutting services, undermining the financial sustainability of councils and cutting funding for upgrades to local infrastructure, such as upgrades to local baby health centres and other facilities that could have received funding from the Community Building Partnerships Program. Ratepayers and local councillors speak to me daily about these issues. That is what I am focused on and what Labor is focused on. We are working with local communities. We visit local communities and talk to the people. We fight for the issues that matter to them because that is democracy.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I welcome into the gallery students and staff from Nowra East Public School. On behalf of all members I welcome you to our Chamber. I hope you enjoy your time.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [12.10 p.m.]: Students from one of my best local schools in the Shoalhaven, Nowra East Public School, are in the gallery. Welcome to Sydney. It is great to have you here. I hope to see some of you in this position in the years to come. On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I contribute to the debate on the Local Government Amendment (Local Democracy—Ward Representation Reform) Bill 2011. The overview of the bill states:

Local Government Act 1993

This piece of legislation does not allow flexibility, discretion or consideration of the needs of different councils. One size does not fit all. I do not know what it will take to convince people, but for the past 16 years we have said that in local government one size does not fit all. Rural, regional and city are different and need different approaches. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis asked for democracy to be allowed to operate, to let people have a say. That is democracy. Let the ratepayers have a say and choose how they want government to operate. If I were a suspicious person—

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: But you're not.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: No, you're not.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I know I am not, but if I were—

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: He is a good member; an excellent member.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I acknowledge that interjection by the Hon. Sophie Cotsis.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: And a great mayor.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I acknowledge that interjection by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox. If I were a suspicious person I would think that this bill was more about advancing The Greens agenda and representation rather than considering the interests of local council and ratepayers. In places such as Marrickville, which has an overrepresentation of a green agenda, it does not necessarily serve well the purposes of local government to have an overrepresentation of different areas.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: It is difficult to hear the member's contribution with interjections from both sides of the Chamber, which probably are encouraging the member to respond. I ask that members be directed accordingly.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. The Hon. Paul Green has the call.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I could take the very selfish view that this bill serves the agendas for group representation, but as a mayor independently elected by the people I believe that the people should have their say. We may not like that say, and at times I do not like it, but our duty is to serve the people. However, in saying that I also acknowledge that the majority decision rules. Occasionally we learn that hard lesson in this House, particularly the Opposition and The Greens. Although the minority groups, such as the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Christian Democratic Party have only a few members in this place, proportional representation at least works on this system.

Mr David Shoebridge: Power corrupts.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: What is that saying? Absolute power corrupts absolutely? Is that right?

Dr John Kaye: Absolutely.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: We do not regard it as power; it is a position of prayer and responsibility. That is the big difference between us. Far above roads, rates and rubbish, local government does so much more in delivering services. Local government needs people elected from across its broad communities instead of being dictated to by a few to favour certain situations. I err to say that as far as The Greens are concerned it is consultation by stealth unless it suits them. We should consult the community on what it wants and how it wants its representatives to be elected. If the community wants what Mr David Shoebridge has been attempting to legislate I have no problem with that. But the fact is that the people across New South Wales have not spoken on all of these issues.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: There are far too many interjections and comments being made across the Chamber. They are impacting on the member's contribution.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. While I appreciate the passionate nature of the debate, members are required to abide by the standing orders. The Hon. Paul Green has the call.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: It is commendable to have different views in this House and that we can present those views.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Truthfully.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: Truthfully—that is another debate in its own terms. I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak in this debate. I disagree with Mr David Shoebridge on this occasion. The Christian Democratic Party does not support the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [12.17 p.m.]: With great pride I support the Local Government Amendment (Local Democracy—Ward Representation Reform) Bill 2011. Members from other parties have spoken constantly about lack of consultation. Who consulted the people of Botany? They have not even been to the polls for 11 years.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Because no-one stood against them.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The shadow Minister's interjection is quite accurate: No-one stood against them. Why? Because they have no hope under Ron Hoenig's legalised gerrymander—the system where the winner takes all. Achieving only 50 per cent of the vote but getting 100 per cent of the outcome is not democracy. If members believe that that equates to consultation and democracy we should agree to disagree on the meaning of democracy. Fifty per cent of the votes delivering 100 per cent of the representation is the absolute opposite of democracy. Botany is run by a self-perpetuating clique because its members cannot be challenged. A massive, legal wall of two members per ward has been erected around them. That cannot be changed unless this bill is passed. The same happens at Ku-ring-gai and other councils. Clearly, across this State when a ruling council clique becomes aware of imminent defeat it re-examines the two-member ward option.

Time and again this happens with Randwick council. Each time the ruling Liberal-Labor coalition clique may lose power the chains begin rattling to move to two-member wards, locking out the independents, The Greens and all other voices. The last thing the people of New South Wales want is a council with no voice of dissent. It has happened already with university governing bodies: this House and Parliament knocked out dissenting voices.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Be careful there. You misled the House on Tuesday.

Dr JOHN KAYE: If you think I misled the House, you move a motion, otherwise let me talk. What I am saying very clearly here is that this House has an obligation to the people of New South Wales to restore democracy. What happens when you do not have democracy is what happened in Wollongong—

[Interruption]

Dr JOHN KAYE: Madam Deputy-President, can you call your Whip to order?

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! There are far too many interjections. If members continue to interject they will be called to order.

Dr JOHN KAYE: What we owe to the people of Botany Bay, Ku-ring-gai and the eight other councils around New South Wales is to give them a say in the future of their local government area. How often did I go down to Wollongong and talk to people in Wollongong? They told me there was no way the council was going to do anything other than come to grief—this was the end. It was an undemocratic council with two councillors per ward. The two councillors per ward system allowed the formation of a council that was not representative of the local community. The only way to have proportional representation rather than a winner-take-all situation is to have a system of more than two—three or more—councillors per ward in order to allow for the diverse range of opinions in a council. It is disenfranchising for those people in Botany Bay who happen to not be Labor voters—maybe they are Coalition voters, maybe they are Greens voters.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: They should stand up and run.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Maybe quite sensibly—I am going to finish this sentence, Madam Deputy President; I am determined to do so—they do not like any of us. Maybe what they are really interested in is Independents. But they do not get the opportunity to vote for such people because nobody in their right mind stands in that ward system.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: They have. I have got the documents.

Dr JOHN KAYE: They have not stood for 11 years. Nobody in their right mind stands. Why?

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I call the Hon Sophie Cotsis to order for the first time.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Because the reality is that with two councillors per ward you cannot get a seat unless you get over the 50 per cent barrier. So up to half of the electorate is entirely disenfranchised. Former Minister Ernie Page—a good local government Minister—introduced the local government bill but he was rolled in the local government caucus by Ron Hoenig, who was then and is still and probably will be forever, until he puts his feet up, the mayor of Botany Bay. Why? Because he is unassailable: he cannot be got at.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: The people love him.

Mr David Shoebridge: The people loved Gaddafi too.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Point of order: I ask that Mr David Shoebridge take that back about the mayor of Botany Bay.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! Mr David Shoebridge will apologise. He remarks were quite offensive.

Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order: I was not addressing the mayor of Botany Bay; I was addressing a previous Libyan dictator called Gaddafi.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: And you referenced—

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! Interjections are disorderly at all times. I ask members to refrain from interjecting.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The reality is that the minority cannot be consulted. It is possible to find out what the majority wants, but that disenfranchises the minority. When Ernie Page, the former Minister for Local Government introduced the current legislation the intent was proportional representation, that a variety of voices be heard. When someone is concerned by a development application or a local government matter that person has a chance of going to a local representative, who at least respects and reflects where that person is from in that community. That was the idea behind the Act. He was overruled in the Labor local government caucus by Ron Hoenig, who wanted to maintain his stranglehold on power. I think that even under a three councillor per ward system Ron Hoenig would still be the mayor of Botany Bay. But that is not the point. There is no other voice: only Ron Hoenig and his Labor colleagues are on that council. That is completely inappropriate. I am not attacking Ron Hoenig; I am attacking the idea that large groups within communities are disenfranchised when they are told they cannot have a say.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Are the people of Botany Bay revolting?

Dr JOHN KAYE: You may dislike the people of Botany Bay. I do not think they are revolting at all. I have some good friends there. I do not think they are revolting at all. The reality is that until we bring this rort to an end, until we restore democracy to those 10 councils, people will continue to be disenfranchised and a large proportion of the community will be without a voice on council. If we believe in democracy—particularly in this Chamber, a proportionally represented Chamber with a threshold of 4.55 percent—then we should support this legislation to give the people in those 10 councils an opportunity to be heard in their local government area, to have councils that reflect the community they come from.
The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Through constitutional referendum.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Two councillors per ward does not reflect those communities. I congratulate Mr David Shoebridge on bringing this legislation forward. I know why he is doing it. Whenever I went to Wollongong, Botany Bay, Ku-ring-gai or the other councils I constantly heard, "We are not represented. We people with different views are not represented on a council which is dominated by a single viewpoint." It is time to bring that to an end and it is time to restore democracy. This bill does that. I commend the legislation to the House. I congratulate the member on introducing it.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [12.25 p.m.]: I am in the Sophie Cotsis faction on this one. I have spoken to David Shoebridge on this bill and I expressed my concern that it might disadvantage some of the smaller shires. I do not think that concern was taken on board at the time. I mention to him that Guyra shire was one of those shires. I have spoken to the Mayor of Guyra, Hans Hietbrink, and he is vehemently opposed to increasing the number of councillors per ward from two to three. My office has also contacted the Mayor of Tenterfield, Toby Smith. He was even stronger in his opposition to the increase. Two councils in my backyard—and I acknowledge the Hon. Sarah Mitchell as the duty member of the Legislative Council for Northern Tablelands—have come out very strongly against the proposal. It is not suitable for the smaller shires. It would add a considerable cost burden to those shires. It is not necessary and it is not asked for. As far as I know those councils were not consulted by The Greens. This is obviously a power grab by The Greens. For that they are prepared to trash the costs and the configurations that are working so well in regional New South Wales. I strongly condemn the bill.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.27 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Sophie Cotsis on her contribution. What a great speech that was. Never were truer words spoken. I oppose the Local Government Amendment (Local Democracy—Ward Representation Reform) Bill 2011 introduced by The Greens.

The Hon. Niall Blair: Point of order. I am really looking forward to this contribution by the member and, unfortunately, because of the interjections I am having difficulty hearing over the noise.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! Once again, I uphold the point of order. I remind members that all interjections are disorderly at all times.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: Many people are saying that the provisions in this bill, allowing councils to bypass the wishes of ratepayers by denying them a referendum, are a denial of democracy. Many people are saying that given half a chance The Greens would restructure the election process of the lower House of this very Parliament to get more Greens into the place. What many people are saying is dead right. The Greens talk about grassroots democracy but they are denying local ratepayers a referendum. What political frauds The Greens are, what political hypocrites and what political humbugs. They say: We will have a grassroot vote of residents if it suits us but we will not if it does not. That is the policy of The Greens that they have dished up here today. It is during times like this the true nature of The Greens becomes crystal clear. It is times like this that their vision splendid for this State and nation becomes clearer too. One would think after their fiasco in Marrickville Council they would be more circumspect about sprouting comments about democracy in local government.

If The Greens get this bill through it will be like a dagger plunged through the heart of consultation with the community. The Greens talk about gerrymandering but by that they mean gerrymandering by the Coalition, by Labor, by Independents—by everybody except their pure, noble, upright selves. Give us a break from The Greens. Some people are suggesting this bill is about Green gerrymandering and community consultation being butchered by The Greens and I agree with them. I oppose this bill. We should reject this bill as a power grab by The Greens in New South Wales.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM [12.31 p.m.]: I support the Local Government Amendment (Local Democracy—Ward Representation Reform) Bill 2011 and note with interest some of the comments that have been made in the House today. I support the comments of my Greens colleagues. Part of democracy is taking the leadership role to inform people of their rights and the responsibilities of government. When we recognise the system is flawed we are obligated to amend it. Very often people have asked me why it is they have no choice in their councils; you get one or the other and that is it. The lack of understanding of the electoral process should be addressed because people expect their vote will make a difference and they will have a choice. At the moment they walk away with the same old outcome, because the choices are not there. This bill seeks to ensure that people's votes count.

The present system sets up the inequity that someone with 49 per cent of the vote can be denied representation. The Greens are putting forward a sensible approach to have at least three councillors for each ward. Comments have been made that it is more costly for local government. It would not be costly because, rather than any duplication of the bureaucracy, it would involve a restatement of an area to allow for three members per ward rather than two. This has happened. This Government recognised the unrepresentative nature of two-member wards in Shellharbour and Wollongong. How can a principle be supported in one place but not generally? This has not been addressed by members of the House and it is of considerable concern. It is something that members of the community frequently ask about. Why is the system flawed and skewed towards an undemocratic outcome? I thank Mr David Shoebridge for introducing this bill so we can debate the issue. The comments made by some members on both sides of the House will be of great interest to those in the community wondering why we retain a system that does not serve the people and is undemocratic. The Greens are taking a leadership role to try to improve the system and ensure democracy. When people vote they want their vote to count. The bill will help to achieve that outcome and I support it.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.35 p.m.]: The debate on the Local Government Amendment (Local Democracy—Ward Representation Reform) Bill 2011 has been very revealing. The shadow Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Sophie Cotsis—a paragon of Greek virtue, a shining light of democracy—took us back to where democracy came from. The Greeks set high standards. The comments from the Hon. Sophie Cotsis are most appropriate about a bill that strikes at the heart of democracy. The Hon. David Clarke spoke passionately about the bill. A bipartisan mistrust is manifesting in this place of The Greens agenda, which is demonstrated in this bill. That is for good reason. The Greens have shown their form on this issue. Anybody in doubt should vote Greek before they vote Green—something we should remember when council elections are held in 2012. Perhaps by then there will be a new faction—the ABG faction, Anyone but Green.

This private member's bill proposes that the Local Government Act be amended to provide that the number of councillors in any ward must not be less than three. As the Act currently stands, the voting system in a contested election of councillors is optional preferential if the number of councillors to be elected is one or two, and proportional if the number of councillors to be elected is three or more. The motivating factor behind this proposal appears to be The Greens concern about the use of the optional preferential voting system in wards where two councillors are to be elected. Currently, 10 councils in New South Wales, including metropolitan and rural councils, have wards with two councillors. To deal with these councils, the bill proposes that at least six months before the 2012 ordinary council elections the councils either alter their ward boundaries or change the number of councillors or both. The proposal interferes with a council's right to determine, in consultation with its community, the number of councillors that best suits the needs of the area.

As the mayor of Shoalhaven pointed out, the idea of one size fits all is a problem when applied to rural councils. Rural areas have different needs that must be met in different ways. The bill also undermines the Government's commitment to assist councils in engaging in structural reform and reducing their administrative costs. That is an important factor that must be thought through. This Government commitment was recently reflected in the Local Government Amendment (Elections) Act 2011 which assists councils in reducing councillor numbers and abolishing wards. The proposals in the bill before us may result in councils increasing their councillor numbers, and that would result in increased administrative costs. For example, if the Council of the City of Botany Bay—one of the 10 councils affected and the subject of considerable discussion—wants to retain its current councillor numbers, it will be forced to alter its constitutional structure from the present three wards with two councillors per ward, to two wards with three councillors per ward, or abolish all wards.

Alternatively, if the council chooses to retain its three-ward structure, it will have to increase its councillor numbers from the current six to either nine or 12, plus a popularly elected mayor. As members already have mentioned, another of those 10 councils is Ku-ring-gai Council. If it wished to retain its five-ward structure, it would be required to have an additional five councillors, which would cost council up to $83,200 a year extra. Rural councils in the same position may be required to pay up to $9,970 a year extra in annual fees for each additional councillor.

The Government believes there is a much better way to achieve The Greens stated objective of this bill and is currently examining the options. Unlike The Greens, the Government will consult widely with affected councils in developing its legislative response. I note in particular that the Hon. Sophie Cotsis sought to consult with a range of councils and visited them during her crusade across New South Wales—or, rather, the scare campaign she has engaged in as far as local government employees are concerned. I have received feedback from a number of councils about those meetings and discussions. Perhaps it is overstating the position to describe those meetings as rallies: I doubt that groups of two or three people could be described as a rally. I received interesting feedback on her unfounded scare campaign and the groups of people who had coffee with her.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: No, they have been working hard.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I give the Hon. Sophie Cotsis credit for rattling the cage, but the fact is that the manner in which she is rattling the cage is misleading. However, that is a separate issue. The reality is that we have a responsibility to ensure that local councils are consulted, and that is the problem with The Greens bill. Accordingly, the Government opposes the amendments sought by the bill.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [12.41 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who contributed to quite a feisty debate that has flushed out a number of different views about how democracy should work at local government level. At the outset I will dispel a number of myths. The first is that this bill does not impose any particular model on any of the 10 councils that currently have two-member wards other than that they cannot retain two-member wards. They can move to three-member wards, four-member wards, or remove the wards and have no wards across their local council area. It is simply a matter for the council to determine what it wants to do in response to this legislation. To suggest that it imposes a one-size-fits-all model on even those 10 councils that have two-member wards is either disingenuous or an accidental misreading of the bill. The bill does not do that. It allows the 10 local councils that it will affect to choose for themselves what they want to do.

The Hon. John Ajaka suggested that this legislation will lead to additional costs for councils. That is entirely untrue. There is no obligation under this bill for the 10 councils to have a single additional councillor. The example of councils that currently have three two-member wards proves the point. In response to this bill, a council that currently has the undemocratic structure of three two-member wards could choose to either reduce the number of wards to two and have two three-member wards, without having a single additional councillor and without costing ratepayers a single dollar in additional expense, or it could remove the wards and have an election across the council whereby all six councillors are elected across the council. That would get rid of the deeply undemocratic structures that exist in those councils currently.

As I stated during my second reading speech, the current system with two-member wards means that as soon as one side gets 50 per cent plus one of the vote, they get both members elected in a two-member ward whereas another player in the election might get 49 per cent of the vote but gets no-one elected. That proves how undemocratic the current system is. It is even more undemocratic than first past the post. With first past the post, when a candidate receives 50 per cent plus one of the vote, one candidate is elected in systems that do not have proportional representation. However, in the current two-member ward system, a player who receives 50 per cent plus one of the vote does not get just one person elected, but gets two people elected, which compounds the lack of democracy. An example of that is Botany. For a decade there has not been an election in Botany, and that is only because of the deeply undemocratic nature of the two-member ward system. In at least two wards in Ku-ring-gai, there has not been an election. Ku-ring-gai has the same undemocratic system.

This bill is not about imposing any particular model other than insisting that local councils have a model that allows for democracy and does not allow for the two-member gerrymander. Some contributions to the debate criticised new subsection (6) of section 224, which allows for councils, which have to change their wards or councillor numbers and who choose to have additional councillors to get rid of two-member wards, to do that without a constitutional referendum. The reason for that is very clear. There are 10 councils throughout New South Wales where at the moment there is no democracy at local government level. If a constitutional referendum were required, that would not take effect until the local government election in 2016.

Because of the way in which the Local Government Act works, if there is a requirement for a constitutional referendum, those 10 councils would retain their deeply undemocratic structure until 2016. That undemocratic gerrymander would continue to operate for another five years in those councils, and that is unacceptable as far as The Greens and local democracy are concerned. It is for that reason that, in a very narrow set of circumstances, there is an exemption in new subsection (6) of section 224 from a constitutional referendum being held. If the bill is passed, the provision will enhance democracy and will allow local residents to participate genuinely in contested local elections in 2012.

It is very clear from contributions to this debate that this bill will not pass. I accept that that is the majority view of the House. Much of the debate and individual contributions show that reasons for opposing the bill are founded on a fundamental misunderstanding of the bill, which is unfortunate. I undertook statewide consultation in relation to this bill, but I primarily consulted with the Local Government and Shires Associations. Initially the Local Government and Shires Associations passed a resolution to support the bill. However, afterwards its Labor and Coalition members on the executive decided that this outbreak of democracy may not benefit them, so at the next executive meeting a resolution was passed that the Local Government and Shires Associations would not support the bill.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: That is not right.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: That is the exact pattern of what happened at the Local Government and Shires Associations. It is unfortunate that party politics removed the initial genuine and non-partisan assessment of the bill and a resolution to support it, but that is the history of the Local Government and Shires Associations. It is an organisation that has some internal politics. I respect the organisation, I respect the determinations, but I respect more its earlier determination than its subsequent decision regarding this bill.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis suggested consulting with the mayors who are currently in a position of power because of the operation of two-member wards. But what if those mayors say, "Well, actually, I like the way the current system operates. I have a local gerrymander and I get elected with hardly any contest. Therefore I'm deeply opposed to a change that would make the system democratic"? Her suggestion that that is the type of consultation we should be engaging in before insisting on having genuine democracy in the local government sector shows a different approach to consultation between what the Australian Labor Party thinks is consultation with the community—to wit, not even having an election in Botany last year and no-one having a contest—and what The Greens believe is consultation, which is ensuring that people have a genuine say.

The Government opposes the bill in its current form. I note on the Notice Paper another local government amendment bill which includes a provision that removes the undemocratic way that elections are undertaken in two-member wards. The existing proportional representation system is that once a party has 50 per cent plus one of the vote it has two members elected. The bill would remove that system and have genuine proportional representation in two-member wards. I acknowledge that is a positive response from the Government. The Government has consulted with the local government sector in putting forward that positive response. If this bill does nothing more than raise for the people of New South Wales the issue of democracy at local government level and receive a positive response from any quarter, then in the eyes of The Greens it has been a successful use of parliamentary resources. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion negatived.

Bill not read a second time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Paul Green agreed to:

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Paul Green agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 12 in the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

TRIBUTE TO HORACE YOUNG

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [12.51 p.m.]: I move:

Horace Young was one of the members of Operation Jaywick, a team pivotal in boosting national morale during World War II. He was on the Krait, which did amazing things in Singapore in taking out Japanese boats. I raise this matter today because I wanted to be respectful and conclude an adjournment speech I had commenced. I thank the members of the House for their courtesy. Sadly, Horace Young passed away in mid-July this year at the age of 90. He is survived by his three children, Dianne, Neil and Brian. My very brief recount of Horrie Young's life can barely do justice to what this man has done for our country and what we owe him and others like him. In no short terms, he was a hero, and all the more because he always felt that others were more deserving of that title. Lest we forget. Once again, I thank members for the courtesy they have shown me. I invite members to read in Hansard of 10 August 2011 the tribute I paid to the late Horace Young. In consideration of the time and courtesy given to me by the House, I seek leave to have my speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.
__________

Krait

I thought it was the most dreadful thing I'd seen in my life. Even my trawler days, when I think of them, I thought they were bad enough, but nothing could equal the Krait She was dirty, untidy, full of cockroaches, the like of which I have never seen in my life. They were monster big cockroaches. You could almost hear them walking around they were that noisy. I don't know whether you can find words to describe how it really looked.

Krait

To have seven ships taken out of the war effort would have been a blow for any country. Australia was virtually on its knees and we were expecting a Japan landing at any time … Anything that could be done to lift the morale of the country was valuable.

Krait

I have the peculiar feeling that everybody owes their country something. The country gives them certain things, education, medical facilities and things like that, so surely it should be entitled to some sort of return. If you can serve your country in whatever way, why not do it? A bit of payback.

__________

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

Motion agreed to.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell) left the chair at 12.54 p.m. The House resumed at 2.00 p.m.]

BANGKOK FLOODS

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on behalf of members of the Legislative Council and the people of New South Wales, I have sent a message of condolence to the Consul General of the NSW Royal Thai Consulate expressing sympathy to the relatives and friends of the people of Bangkok who suffered the loss of loved ones during the floods.

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

REPRESENTATION OF MINISTER ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I advise members that during the absence from the Chamber today of the Minister for Roads and Ports I will answer questions relating to his portfolio.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 2.00 p.m. for questions.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
__________

KEMPS CREEK RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITE

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I direct a question to the Minister for Finance and Services. Is the Minister's insistence on dumping radioactive waste from Hunters Hill in Kemps Creek merely an exercise in targeting a factional enemy, namely, the member for Mulgoa?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The member for Mulgoa, a sensational member, got rid of a useless Labor member. She got rid of a completely useless member of the Labor Party. That is what the member for Mulgoa did.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: The Minister for Finance and Services is misleading the House. The former member for Mulgoa retired. The Minister obviously does not know that and he ought to withdraw his misleading comments.

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

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: She threw in the towel.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is right; she retired when she heard that Tanya Davies would be running against her.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: She ran a mile.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The former member for Mulgoa ran a mile. She chickened out, just as a bunch of others chickened out before the last election. They were not game to face the election. However, the Hon. Steve Whan, to his credit, did not chicken out. He took his medicine, unlike Diane Beamer who chickened out when she heard that Tanya Davies was running against her. Tanya Davies is a great local member.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Why are you dumping radioactive waste on her and making her a oncer? Why are you doing that?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Leader of the Opposition, as usual, is saying anything he likes just to try to create a scare campaign. Let me put on the record the facts relating to the matter that he is talking about. The site at Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill, was used by a private company—the Radium Hill Company—to process uranium ore in the early part of last century. Some of the waste from this process remains onsite and contains some residual radiological material. The original polluter, the Radium Hill Company, no longer exists so the former Government purchased the properties at Nos 7, 9 and 11 Nelson Parade, and the State Property Authority began to manage the process and is still managing the process. But, just like Diane Beamer, the former Government ran away from dealing with the problem. Members of the former Government ran away like a bunch of cowards because they were not prepared to face up to the problem.

Since I have been the Minister the State Property Authority has been actively investigating the disposal of waste to determine the most appropriate option. Faced with this difficulty the gutless former Government ran away from the problem. From the information provided by the authority on investigations undertaken by the previous Labor Government, Kemps Creek was determined to be the most appropriate site to dispose of the waste. That occurred under the former Government which comprised a mob of cowardly mugs. Where is Eric? Under the former Treasurer it was determined that Kemps Creek was the appropriate place in which to dispose of the waste. Instead of acting on the advice the former cowardly Labor Government ran away. [Time expired.]

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I ask a supplementary question. Channel 7 has asked for more footage of this bloke. Could the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I am pleased to do so. Under the former Government—that cowardly bunch opposite—the waste was left at Hunters Hill which cost the taxpayers of New South Wales hundreds of thousands—

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Look at the camera.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The former President, the Hon. Peter Primrose, never appeared on television. He did not even appear in the background of a single television clip. When the Liberal-Nationals Coalition formed government it received advice that disposal of the waste at Kemps Creek was the only option available.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is far too much interjection. I cannot hear the Minister's answer.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: In light of community concern I commenced a review of all available options. Rest assured this Government will leave no stone unturned. We might even discover the Leader of the Opposition under one of those stones. A decision is expected in the future. I am pleased to inform the House that the Leader of the Opposition is showing interest in a number of things. I notice that he will be addressing the Thirroul branch of the Australian Labor Party at its annual dinner on 29 October, which is having trouble getting people to attend.

I want everybody to know that the contact person is Chris Lacey who can be reached on 0409-044-487. Believe it or not, Chris Lacey is also my assistant adviser on matters in the Illawarra. Whenever I have questions relating to the Illawarra I ring that number to try to obtain advice but I can never get through because so many people are trying to get tickets to the annual dinner of the Thirroul branch of the Labor Party to hear the address of the Leader of the Opposition. I will have to get Chris Lacey to change his telephone number as it is being used to collect people—

The Hon. Luke Foley: You just put it on the public record. He will thank you for that.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Absolutely. I want people to go because clearly the Thirroul branch is having trouble filling the 80 seats that are available. [Time expired.]

INTERNATIONAL SEARCH AND RESCUE ADVISORY GROUP

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House about the United Nations International Urban Search and Rescue exercise in November this year in Seoul, Korea?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The International Search and Rescue Advisory Group [INSARAG] is an advisory group to the United Nations Office for the Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs, which in turn is responsible for coordinating international assistance during times of major disasters. The International Search and Rescue Advisory Group maintains a registry of disaster assistance and recovery capabilities that can be deployed all over the world to assist following major disasters. A major part of the New South Wales multiagency Urban Search and Rescue [USAR] capability is registered with the United Nations for international deployment in accordance with International Search and Rescue Advisory Group guidelines. Members would well remember the recent significant and highly successful New South Wales Urban Search and Rescue team deployments to Christchurch in New Zealand and to Fukushima in Japan earlier this year.

Additional to formal United Nations registration, the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group has recently implemented a classification system for registered Urban Search and Rescue teams, known as the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group External Classification. The International Search and Rescue Advisory Group External Classification assesses registered Urban Search and Rescue teams for their appropriateness to operate at light, medium or heavy capacity in disaster environments. In November this year the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group External Classification is currently scheduled to formally assess the Korean Urban Search and Rescue team in Seoul. As part of the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group External Classification transparency of assessment a number of registered International Search and Rescue Advisory Group assessors carry out assessments of other Urban Search and Rescue teams.

I am informed that currently New South Wales has three registered International Search and Rescue Advisory Group assessors. In that light, it is with pleasure that I inform the House that the United Nations recently requested that Chief Superintendent John Denny from Fire and Rescue NSW—one of our current registered International Search and Rescue Advisory Group assessors—form part of the formal assessment team in Seoul this coming November. Not only does this validate the broad skills and experience of our own New South Wales Urban Search and Rescue team's capabilities but it is also very timely as New South Wales recently applied for full International Search and Rescue Advisory Group External Classification assessment. Therefore, the attendance of our own International Search and Rescue Advisory Group External Classification assessor will obviously greatly assist with the New South Wales Urban Search and Rescue assessment next year.

The full International Search and Rescue Advisory Group External Classification process takes 12 months to complete, and we have recently been advised that the New South Wales Urban Search and Rescue team will be assessed for heavy capability in September 2012. Providing support to this International Search and Rescue Advisory Group External Classification request, the Australian Agency for International Development [AusAID] has confirmed that it will absorb all travel and associated costs for Chief Superintendent Denny and an International Search and Rescue Advisory Group External Classification assessment assistant. This travel funding is part of AusAID's existing broader support for our own New South Wales Urban Search and Rescue team International Search and Rescue Advisory Group External Classification assessment in 2012. I congratulate the recognition of our New South Wales International Search and Rescue Advisory Group External Classification assessor in this formal United Nations request, and I look forward to providing the House with more information in the future.

PORT KEMBLA STEELWORKS INCIDENT

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra. What action has WorkCover taken to respond to the explosion of the No. 4 coke battery at the Port Kembla steelworks on Tuesday, and was any toxic material involved or affected by the explosion?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I will take the question on notice and give the member a fuller answer at the end of question time.

HEARING HEALTH INQUIRY

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Disability Services. As the House is aware, this is National Week of Deaf People and Loud Shirt Day—although I think yesterday was also recognised as Loud Shirt Day. Will the Minister advise what action is being taken to implement the Commonwealth Government's recommendations from the Hear Us—Inquiry into Hearing Health in Australia, noting that the Commonwealth Government was meant to contact the States in regard to those recommendations?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the honourable member for her very important question and for her interest in this area. I note that the Hon. Rick Colless started Loud Shirt Day yesterday. I apologise that some of us are not embracing the concept and wearing a loud shirt.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: That is loud for a finance Minister.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, this is loud for a finance Minister. Obviously I try to stay as pure as I can with the sort of work that I have to do.

The Hon. Luke Foley: It's his TV shirt for the news.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Are we on the news, are we? The Opposition is very good at monitoring the media. This is a very important issue and I will get the honourable member a full answer from the Minister.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA REGIONAL LEADERS SUMMIT

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. Will the Minister inform the House about his recent address to the Regional Development Australia Regional Leaders Summit?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: On Tuesday I was invited to open the third annual Regional Leaders Summit in the Illawarra. I was privileged to be able to speak to so many businesspeople and local leaders about this Government's plans for the Illawarra and to hear the concerns and aspirations of local leaders in the Illawarra. We are getting on with the job of making the region function and grow again. I was able to announce that the first grant to be approved by the New South Wales Government's new Regional Industries Investment Fund is $50,000, which is to be used to create a new business incubator as part of the University of Wollongong's StartPad program. The program will foster entrepreneurship by providing support for up to 20 budding information technology businesspeople and it takes advantage of the fact that the university has the highest number of information technology graduates nationally.

The Government has also committed substantial funding to bring professional cycling to the Illawarra. The Gran Fondo will put the Illawarra on the international sporting map. The 160 kilometres of track will highlight the natural beauty and tough terrain of the region. As has been reported in the media, the Gran Fondo is an opportunity to showcase the region to the world. This event was only possible thanks to the Brand Wollongong initiative this Government committed to. Brand Wollongong will provide initiatives to stimulate a revitalised city centre marketing campaign and a centralised events strategy. Last Saturday I attended an engagement at Stockland's new residential community at Brook Breach in Horsley Park where I was able to discuss this Government's commitment to supporting the growth and development of the region by providing affordable housing. Stockland expects to deliver more than 1,800 homes in due course in the West Dapto urban release area and generate more than 3,000 jobs for the region—I note that the West Dapto release was delayed for 15 years under Labor.

I also reiterated this Government's belief in Port Kembla as the centrepiece in the enhancement of the Illawarra region. Through the outer harbour development we will ensure that Port Kembla continues to be one of Australia's leading ports and a major centre for jobs and productivity. Accompanying this redevelopment we are looking forward to the construction of the Port Kembla Biodiesel Production Facility. Because the Liberal-Nationals Government has raised the biodiesel mandate from 2 per cent to 5 per cent from next year, new life has been given to this important project. The $220 million Biodiesel Production Facility will bring 1,000 jobs to the region and potentially increase trade through the port by approximately $700 million. These are some of the projects and commitments that I have secured for the Illawarra in addition to increased funding in the 2011-12 budget.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: You did it all yourself, did you?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I acknowledge the Hon. Penny Sharpe's interjection. I did not do it all myself; I did it with the revitalised leadership in the Illawarra. The revitalised community is now responding to the O'Farrell Government after 15 years of being ignored and beaten by that mob opposite. The community is delighted that we have a new government. Amongst other things in the budget, the Government has delivered $4.7 million for the TAFE college at Nowra, a $5.59 million upgrade to Illawarra Industry Training College, an additional 192 nurses in the local health districts, 21 more acute care beds at Wollongong Hospital, and a $103 million investment in roads. I thank the honourable member for giving me the opportunity to inform the House about my address to the Regional Development Australia Leaders Summit and the plans that this Government has for the Illawarra region.

PIPI HARVESTING

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I direct my question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Roads and Ports, who, in turn, represents the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of concerns about "new management arrangements for commercial harvesting of pipis"? Will the Minister inform the House what rigorous scientific studies were relied upon to implement those new arrangements? Will he also provide the evidence that establishes that there has been a material change in the size of the mollusc population as opposed to the movement of molluscs from the accessible intertidal zone into deeper water?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I understand that that question may well have been asked before.

The Hon. Robert Brown: It is different.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The member assures me that it is a different question. In the true tradition of the Hon. Duncan Gay, I will get an answer from the responsible Minister in the other place and provide it to the Hon. Robert Brown as soon as possible.

MOTOR ACCIDENTS AUTHORITY

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I direct my question to the Minister for Finance and Services.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Happy birthday, Penny.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: We've got a week of celebration for your birthday, have we?

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: It's a festival. Given that the Motor Accidents Authority is funded from a levy on compulsory third party premiums, how will cutting the authority's budget generate savings for the workers compensation scheme?

The Hon. Luke Foley: Her birthday present is a ticket to see me at the Thirroul branch.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Hon. Penny Sharpe makes such a wonderful contribution to question time, particularly when I am on my feet, that I am prepared to fund her visit to the Thirroul branch to hear the Hon. Luke Foley. Of course, that donation would need to be disclosed, so I will probably have to route it through the Labor Party, so to speak. I will speak later about what the Government is trying to do with compensation authorities. The member's question is obviously either deliberately designed to muddy the waters or it demonstrates a level of ignorance—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: My point of order relates to the Minister's continually debating the question every time we ask him one. Mr President, will you please ask him to desist?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As I said, I will speak later about what the Government is trying to do. I was alerted to the need to rationalise the various tribunals in this State to generate savings, to ensure they were delivering properly, to ensure that people were receiving an appropriate level of service from the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and to ensure that we were utilising tribunals effectively by none other than the Hon. Justice Boland of the Industrial Relations Commission. On one of those occasions when he was able to send a letter—

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question explicitly referred to compulsory third party premiums and budget cuts; it had nothing to do with Justice Boland.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the point of order: I understood that the question related to the Government's reform program and I was outlining the background.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is in order.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As I said, my interest in this area was heightened by the contribution of Justice Boland, who indicated that he thought one of the ways we could better utilise the Industrial Relations Commission would be to look at amalgamating some of the other tribunals. That was the trigger for reviewing the tribunals and how they fit into the various schemes. That review was then extended to consider the administration of the schemes. At that stage we were looking not at the benefits but at their investment processes and the rules that surround them. We have now asked the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which includes two or three Labor members, to conduct a public inquiry into this issue to ensure that all stakeholders have an opportunity to have input into what could be very important reforms for the State. Rather than making political gain out of nonsense about transferring greens slips, this is about serious reform that most stakeholders support. I encourage the Hon. Penny Sharpe to participate— [Time expired.]

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I direct my question the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on the actions the New South Wales Government is taking to improve dispute resolution processes in this State?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I told the Hon. Penny Sharpe that I would be talking more about this issue, and now I am. What a wonderful coincidence. The Attorney General, the Minister for Fair Trading and I have looked at options to reform the number of tribunals, including consolidation. The matter has been referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which will consider a range of options and report back to the Government early in the new year. The number of tribunals in New South Wales has made dispute resolution in New South Wales complex and created inefficiency and duplication across government.

In 2002, the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission recommended that tribunals in New South Wales be consolidated, but since that time only minor changes have occurred—which is yet another example of Labor's all-talk-and-no-action government. The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government is committed to quicker, cheaper and more effective tribunals, and today's announcement is the next step in making that happen. The parliamentary committee has been tasked with considering opportunities to consolidate tribunals, reviewing current tribunal workloads—including the Industrial Relations Commission, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and the Health Disciplinary Tribunal—reviewing the operation of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, and considering any consequential changes that may arise.

Of particular importance is the consideration of improvements that will benefit New South Wales residents. This Government is determined to make any dealings with the New South Wales government easier and seamless, including dispute resolution. The inquiry will look at whether a single point of contact for all tribunal-related dispute resolution functions has advantages for the community. I have no doubt that that will be of particular interest to regional residents. Options for a more consolidated approach also have the potential to increase decision-making quality and to achieve efficiencies across government. With significant changes in the jurisdiction of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, including the introduction of the Fair Work Act and the national occupational health and safety system, opportunities already exist to allow the commission to hear other matters.

In response to an earlier question I referred to the views of Justice Boland. On 19 July 2011 in his address to the Australian Labour Law Association he commented on the need to augment the Industrial Relations Commission's current workload. He has made these comments on a number of occasions and was an advocate for the consolidation of the functions of the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal and the Transport Appeal Board in the commission before that merger happened. It makes sense that we use the resources we have more effectively and create a simpler service for New South Wales residents. A number of opportunities also exist to improve NSW Fair Trading's framework for resolving disputes between tenants, landlords, traders and consumers.

The Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal is used by tens of thousands of New South Wales residents every year and the inquiry will provide an opportunity to determine whether we can make any improvements. This approach is tried and tested, and has been operating in Victoria for some years. The Government looks forward to receiving the committee's recommendations on these issues. I note that the Hon. Peter Primrose and the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane are members of the committee. I wish the Hon. Peter Primrose a very interesting December and January as he works through this issue.

TAFE FACILITIES LEASING ARRANGEMENTS

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Will the Minister assure the House that there are no plans under development or consideration by the Department of Education and Communities or by the TAFE Commission to lease out any TAFE facilities for the use of private providers? If the Minister cannot provide this assurance, will he provide the House with details of those plans?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the member for his question. I will get an answer for him as soon as possible.

LAMAN STREET FIG TREES

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. What actions has the Minister taken in his capacity as the Minister for the Hunter to ensure the protection of the Laman Street fig trees?

Mr David Shoebridge: He did nothing in Laman Street.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Greens are trying to suggest I do not give a fig. That is simply not true. I am concerned about the way in which police in that area particularly were treated while fulfilling their roles. I will continue to support police in that regard. At the end of the day, this is a matter for council. We have let it be known that this is a matter for council. We will continue to work with council locally to ensure that, where possible, there is a resolution. The Hon. Mick Veitch asked me what I have done. I have spoken to the local member and to the Minister for the Environment, and Minister for Heritage. I have also received information about the way police have been treated as they have tried to fulfil their roles and responsibilities. I am disappointed with the way some people within the community have treated their hardworking local police. But I will continue—

The Hon. Robert Brown: The rent-a-crowds.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I do not know who those people are, but let me assure members that police were disappointed with the way that they were treated. They were simply trying to bring about a resolution to the matter by ensuring that there was no flare-up but, unfortunately, people decided that they wanted to turn their frustration toward police.

Mr David Shoebridge: They did a good job. It was a tough job.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I acknowledge the interjection by Mr David Shoebridge. Police did a good job.

Mr David Shoebridge: And they should not have been put in that situation.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Let me assure the member that New South Wales police are always the ones who rush in whilst others rush out. They were prepared to step into that situation to try to ensure it did not escalate. I will continue to provide whatever assistance police need. I will continue to encourage the local community and the local council to work together to achieve a resolution of the matter.

BUSHFIRE HAZARD REDUCTION

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the Government's work to minimise bushfire risk?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. This Government is committed to supporting and strengthening existing bushfire hazard reduction programs in New South Wales. The State's fire services remain resolute in their commitment to protect life and property from the threat of bushfire. In support of the valuable work carried out by our volunteer firefighters, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service has a range of strategies in place to help minimise the risk of fire, such as hazard reduction works including burns, mechanical and manual clearing, responding to community complaints about bushfire hazards, public education and engagement with at-risk communities, and improving standards for assessing developments in bushfire-prone areas. As I previously announced in the House, the Government will strengthen the existing programs with its own innovative strategy to reduce bushfire risk. The strategy will include the creation of an independent hazard reduction audit panel, as well as an increase in the amount of hazard reduction being carried out overall.

The independent hazard reduction audit panel will use an evidence-based approach to audit the performance of agencies in meeting hazard reduction targets and other mitigation efforts. At this stage panel membership will comprise an independent chair, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service Commissioner, a representative of the Rural Fire Service Association, an environmental expert to provide advice on managing hazard reduction for national parks, and other experts as requested. As set out in "NSW 2021: A Plan to Make New South Wales Number One", the Government also aims to increase the number of properties protected by hazard reduction works across all bushfire-prone areas by 20,000 and to increase the area treated with hazard reduction activities by 45 per cent by 2016. The Rural Fire Service informs me that more than 6,500 hazard reduction activities in New South Wales were completed in the 2010-11 financial year.

The Hon. Robert Brown: A top effort.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Robert Brown. It is also encouraging to know that more than 1,200 hazard-reduction activities have been completed since 1 July 2011, protecting more than 14,000 properties. Because the ability to carry out hazard-reduction burns is dependent on favourable weather, the rain falling over the State in recent months has—as honourable members would appreciate—interrupted planned hazard reduction schedules. With these rains producing ideal conditions for abundant growth of vegetation it will take only a few days of hot, dry and windy weather for fuel to dry out and become capable of feeding major fires.

For this reason, the Rural Fire Service is using every opportunity to complete hazard-reduction works, including burns when the weather is favourable. I am told that this weekend will be no different. For example, hazard-reduction burns are scheduled to be carried out over the next week across the Blue Mountains, up into the Hunter, and down into Eurobodalla and the Clarence Valley. The Government's new bushfire hazard reduction initiatives I have outlined, together with the other ongoing programs of the Rural Fire Service, will contribute to more effective management of this State's bushfire risk.

NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE FORCE DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SERVICES, RESIGNATION

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Has the Minister received an explanation and, if so, has he been satisfied with the explanation provided concerning last week's sudden departure of the police Director, Corporate Services, who previously reported directly to Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn, Corporate Services?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am advised that the chief financial officer of the NSW Police Force has resigned. There seemed to be some confusion, not by the member, but in the wider community, that he had not resigned when he in fact had. I understand that today is his last day of service. The Police Force is committed to recruiting to fill the chief financial officer's position. The question asked whether I have received information and whether I am satisfied in relation to it. I have not received any information to suggest anything other than that this person has resigned from the position. If the member has a concern I would be more than happy to speak to him about his options, depending on its nature. But I have had no allegations put to me that have warranted my making any written requests for information about this resignation.

OCCUPY SYDNEY PROTEST

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. What resources has the NSW Police Force expended to control the ongoing Occupy Sydney protests?

The Hon. Robert Brown: Bring in the sniffer dogs.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Hon. Robert Brown mentioned dogs. I will not comment on the operational aspects of policing—that is a matter for the commissioner. I do not think that I should outline in the House what operational resources are going to be deployed and made available in relation to any matter.

The Hon. Steve Whan: She said "has".

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: "Has"? At the end of the day that is a matter for the Commissioner of Police. When I talk to the commissioner I do not sit down and ask him how many officers he deployed to a certain operation or how many he sent out to the shooting at Maroubra. But there were discussions in the House about police dogs. Angel was mentioned. On Saturday I had the pleasure of going to visit the Police Dog Unit. I wanted to see how Angel was doing.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: My question was specifically about how many police resources have been used in the Occupy Sydney protests. It has nothing to do with the Minister's visit on Saturday is to see a dog.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: These are the sorts of resources that we have at hand in the NSW Police force and whether I go to the Mounted Police Unit, visit a police station or go to the Police Dog Unit, I want to ensure that all necessary resources are on hand, and I want to check their wellbeing. On the weekend I went out and took a family photograph of Angel.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Is Angel the black one?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: You would assume Angel was going to be the black one but no, surprisingly, look into those loving eyes and you can tell that Angel is clearly not the black one.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: My first point of order relates to the use of props in the Chamber. My second point of order relates to relevance. As fascinating as the Minister's tirade is about a dog, I fail to see that it has any relevance. My question was specifically about resources that have been used by the police.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is not immediately apparent how the welfare of Angel is generally relevant to the question asked. Perhaps the Minister might tell us or come back to the subject of the question.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As I have indicated, I think that New South Wales police have to have the best possible resources available to them, whether they are attending to situations like the one in Martin Place or indeed any other place throughout New South Wales. My role as the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is to make sure that we provide the police with the resources to do their job. It is not that, as members opposite suggest, somehow I have to have this running commentary with the commissioner on how he uses the resources that this Parliament gives him every year. He is the chief executive officer of the organisation. The fact is, members opposite had their chance in Government but they made a mess of it. They tried to control the Police portfolio by micromanagement. The Labor Government went through police Ministers—one in, one out, every week. I tried to take this opportunity to inform the House about the progress in relation to one aspect of policing that I thought would be important to all members—particularly the Hon. Amanda Fazio. [Time expired.]

SYDNEY WATER PRICES

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on the inquiry of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales into Sydney Water prices?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Government made statements on water pricing at the time Sydney Water made its submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. It has been open in articulating its concern about Sydney Water's proposed price increases and the forecast impact on households. The Government will make its submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal in the coming weeks. I was very interested to see a submission from the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot remember a time when the member has actually agreed with me but his concern about the impact of price rises on families echoed the concern I raised some weeks ago. However, the similarities stop there.

First, if the Leader of the Opposition had actually read the Sydney Water submission, he would have noted that the largest component—making up one-third of the proposed Sydney Water increase—is for maintaining and upgrading ailing infrastructure. He ignores the fact that the previous Labor Government, of which he was a member, albeit a junior member, did not invest enough in the network over the past 16 years and now households may have to pay for the catch-up. I thank the honourable member—perhaps he needs a new nickname, Foley the Forgetful. Sydney Water's submission is an example of the costs residents and households are now being asked to bear because of Labor's under-investment.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Charlie's cooked the goose.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I did not know that the Hon. Charlie Lynn had called the Leader of the Opposition a goose. But if he did, fair enough. This year the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government will invest $707 million in water infrastructure and is getting on with securing the supply of water. The Leader of the Opposition referred to dividends to the Government. If only he did a little research he would find that under the Liberal-Nationals Government, the dividends are $5 million lower than Labor hoped for in the same period. Further research and some analysis—which his submission is clearly lacking—would also highlight the fact that, as a proportion of profits, the dividends from the Government over the next four years are, on average, 10 per cent lower than they were under Labor in the previous four years. We are actually allowing Sydney Water to invest more of the money it makes back into the network.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition clearly does not see value in thorough research and analysis. He is not just forgetful, he is Foley the Flippant. Sydney Water's submission also reveals the impact of the Federal Government's carbon tax on water bills. The submission states that, of the forecast requested increase, the carbon tax would contribute as much as $10. It is further proof that this ridiculous tax will add to the cost of everyday essentials and place increased pressure on household budgets. The Leader of the Opposition ignores this altogether. Clearly, he is still obeying the orders of his boss, John Robertson—and the unions—to keep shut on anything to do with Labor's carbon tax. It is a farce—Foley the Farcical.

The ultimate decision on any price increases will lie with the independent regulator, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which will make the final determination in June this year. The New South Wales Government will make its submission in the coming weeks, outlining our concerns and in particular our concerns as to the additional imposts to be placed on New South Wales households. Rest assured, it will not be along the lines of what can only be described as Foley's Folly, but it will comprise a thorough discussion of the core issues impacting households, and the provision of water and waste services in Sydney.

STRATEGIC REGIONAL LAND USE PLAN

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. Recent media suggests that the stakeholder reference group formed by the Department of Planning to oversee the implementation of the strategic regional land use policy is nothing short of dysfunctional. How does the Government take a policy that I understand was strongly supported by the NSW Farmers Association and the NSW Minerals Council and let bureaucracy thwart its intentions to the point where key stakeholders are threatening to withdraw support from the process? Will the Minister ask the Premier to intervene in this failed process to ensure that the commitments that were made to the people of rural New South Wales are upheld?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the member for his question and his interest. I have not heard that from other people. I would be happy to have a more detailed discussion with the member. I can assure him that, if there is substance to it—and I am sure that he would not have raised it unless there were—I will raise it with the Premier.

HUNTER EMPLOYMENT

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicates that the unemployment rate in the Hunter has risen by almost 2 per cent. What action is the Government taking to address this problem?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Trying to get rid of the Federal Government as quickly as possible.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I ask a supplementary question. On the basis of the Minister's answer, will he also comment on why unemployment therefore has reduced on the North Coast?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: There is an old song called You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet and when the carbon tax kicks into the Hunter, watch the unemployment queues get longer and longer as people get more desperate. They are going to be forced into a difficult situation when all of the major employers in the Hunter start to look offshore and start to take 18,500 jobs out of that region. It is an absolutely frightening prospect for areas like Cessnock, Kurri Kurri, out through the western areas of the Hunter, and all the way into Newcastle itself. It is an absolutely frightening prospect for the people of the Hunter region, probably more than any other region in this State.

The Illawarra has concerns, but without doubt there will be a bigger impact in the Hunter and a bigger impact on the economy of New South Wales. We from that region understand that the Hunter is the heart that drives the New South Wales economy and, indeed, a great deal of the Australian economy. Given what this mob and their mates in Canberra are going to do, it is the height of hypocrisy for a member of the Labor Party to be drawing attention to unemployment in the region and starting to raise the question of why one region is worse off than another.

NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE FORCE DISABILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House on the New South Wales Police Force Disability Advisory Council?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The New South Wales Police Force has recently announced it is seeking expressions of interest for membership of its Disability Advisory Council. This is an important initiative that I am delighted is being reinvigorated with new members. Information regarding the council can be found on the New South Wales Police Force website, www.police.nsw.gov.au. The council is the main advisory body for the New South Wales Police Force on disability issues. Members will have input into key police policy documents and will assist police to identify emerging issues for those people with a disability who come into contact with police.

As detailed in the information to potential applicants, 10 members will be appointed for a term of three years and they will be remunerated in accordance with the Premier's guidelines. Members will be expected to attend meetings, participate in working groups, provide on-call advice and assist with community consultations. As with all persons working with the Police Force, applicants who are chosen to become members will be subject to a rigorous National Criminal History Record Check prior to taking up their duties. I am advised that meetings will be held four times a year at police headquarters in Parramatta. Assistance with travel expenses will be made available for people from regional New South Wales. I strongly encourage people from outside Sydney and the big cities to consider this vital forum. It is very important to have the voices of people living with a disability who reside in regional and rural areas represented on these statewide councils.

The New South Wales Police Force has indicated that it may also host community consultations on disability issues in both metropolitan and regional areas. This will be another opportunity to put all the concerns and ideas for improvement on the table. Successful applicants who become council members will have their travel and accommodation expenses for these consultations covered by the New South Wales Police Force. This is to ensure that people with a disability are not put off from applying to be on the council for fear of the costs to them in attending meetings. People working in the disability sector are also welcome to submit an expression of interest for membership of the council. Assistant Commissioner Denis Clifford, the New South Wales Police corporate spokesman for vulnerable communities has said:

Assistant Commissioner Clifford also said:

I encourage people with a disability to apply, and we will ensure that any support base will be accommodated.

Applications must be received by the New South Wales Police Force by 4 November 2011. Applicants must also obtain an information package and complete an application form. I am sure there will be a large number of worthy applications and I thank applicants in advance for their commitment and interest in working with police in this manner. I also look forward to the outcomes of the first meeting and hearing of the progress of the council. I wish it well in its endeavours over the coming years.

FIRE AND RESCUE NSW INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister meet urgently with the Fire Brigade Employees Union to seek to resolve the current industrial dispute over staffing levels that has seen up to 20 Fire and Rescue NSW fire stations across Sydney being ordered by management not to respond to emergencies?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Over the past couple of days I have been in regular contact with the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW, and spoke to him shortly before coming into the House. He has sent a letter statewide through Fire and Rescue NSW to all members to encourage the union to meet with him to discuss these issues. If the commissioner decides or believes that I can offer some assistance in that regard—we have had discussions about progress over the past couple of days—I would be more than happy to offer what assistance I can if he requests me to be there. At this stage he is hopeful that there can be some resolution to this matter and that it will not escalate.

It is an important issue and we have been monitoring it very closely. We are not the only ones monitoring what is going on in relation to this issue. I was interested to read a tweet yesterday by the member for Maroubra, Michael Daley, who asked a very sensible question of the Fire Brigade Employees Union. He has obviously had an interest in the matter. He asked, "What happens if there is a serious fire near one of the closed stations?" I am not going to name the union representative but he tweeted last night, "Then there is a very real chance people will get hurt, or worse. Fire and Rescue NSW bosses are playing with community safety tonight." That was last night. That is an outrageous statement and all members would honestly be angry to see those sorts of statements being made.

I can tell the House that that was the last time the member for Maroubra participated. Until then he had been offering the union some support in terms of solidarity. I can understand that a Labor member would probably want to do that. Once he saw the response that there is a very real chance of people getting hurt, or worse, the member for Maroubra was quite right to step away from any further public support for the union in this matter, which he had given prior to the statement being made.

I urge members of the union to sit down with the commissioner today. The Industrial Relations Commission has made its decision. I find it amazing that only a short time ago—a few weeks ago—we were being told by those opposite about the sovereignty and independence of the Industrial Relations Commission and how we had to protect it and maintain its role as an independent arbiter. Yet as soon as the Industrial Relations Commission brings down a finding that this union does not like they thumb their nose at the commission. They cannot have it both ways. If the Industrial Relations Commission is sovereign and its word is god, then back it when the words are spoken. I have not heard one word from those opposite in relation to this matter. They should be calling on the union, now that these foolish comments have been made about public safety, to get to the table with the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW and resolve this damn issue now.

POLYCYSTIC OVARY SYNDROME

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health. Polycystic ovary syndrome affects one in five Australian women of reproductive age and is linked to infertility, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and impaired mental health. Given that 70 per cent of Australian women go undiagnosed, what health education programs exist to increase awareness of polycystic ovary syndrome in New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Once again, the member asks a very important question in relation to the Health portfolio.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: As he often does.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Yes, as he often does. He has a genuine interest in this field, as he does across many fields in New South Wales. As the member continues to raise matters I will continue to raise them with the Minister for Health, or the appropriate Minister at the time, and get him a reply to his questions as quickly as possible. If the member has any further questions he will continue to dialogue with the Minister through the House.

PORT KEMBLA STEELWORKS INCIDENT

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I direct my question to the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra, representing the Minister for the Environment. Why has the Minister for the Environment failed to provide any information to the community regarding the explosion at the Port Kembla steelworks of BlueScope Steel earlier this week, in particular as to whether levels of toxicity were carried into nearby residential areas?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the member for his question, which followed an earlier question I undertook to get an answer to. WorkCover held discussions with BlueScope Steel after an incident occurred in its No. 4 coke oven battery—which is currently being decommissioned on the Port Kembla site. I am advised that no-one was working in the vicinity at the time of the incident, and that there were no reported injuries. I am further advised that WorkCover has been told that BlueScope Steel is conducting its own investigation, which is ongoing. WorkCover is not conducting a formal investigation at this time, although an inspector has visited the worksite. WorkCover has also advised that BlueScope Steel will provide updates as to the progress of its investigation and that the area of the oven will continue to be isolated. Any employees who wish to discuss workplace safety should contact WorkCover.

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

The House continued to sit.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer as to whether levels of toxicity were carried into nearby residential areas?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I answered the first question. It is the end of question time so I will take the supplementary question on notice.

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

COAL AND GAS EXPLORATION

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: On 16 September 2011 the Hon. Cate Faehrmann asked the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, a question regarding the coal and gas exploration. The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following response. On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay, I incorporate the answer in Hansard.

Questions without notice concluded.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.03 p.m.]: I move:

DECENTRALISATION

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR [3.03 p.m.]: I inform the House of an initiative by a Leeton resident, supported by the Leeton Shire Council, to offer up a commercial building in Leeton rent-free for 12 months. So passionate is Kevin Lehman—the owner of the old State Bank building at Leeton—that he is offering the building rent-free for 12 months to allow a local business to become established in the community, with virtually no start-up costs. It is a two-storey building: the ground level is zoned commercial and the upstairs is zoned commercial and residential, which allows for extra office space or personal living space. I am familiar with the property as my wife was housed there when she worked for the division of general practitioners at Leeton. Mr Lehman would like to see it used as a professional space. He is even offering to pay half of the outgoings for the first year to attract a suitable business to Leeton.

This initiative, along with the Coalitions' decade of decentralisation, signals that decentralisation has begun in regional New South Wales. The Regional Relocation Grant was introduced by the O'Farrell-Stoner Government whereby city dwellers who move to regional areas receive a grant of up to $7,000. The grant is beneficial to both regional communities and those who move to them. By escaping the big smoke, families are more relaxed; they can escape the high costs of city living and the stresses of city life. Imagine children having time to ride their bikes, feed the horses or go surfing before school rather than commuting across a busy city. The grants also benefit and support local infrastructure, services and economies. Enrolling children in local schools, shopping at local stores and working in local businesses ensures not only the maintenance but the growth of regional areas.

The New South Wales Coalition Government has also ensured that regional New South Wales will see the benefits of 40,000 new jobs under the Jobs Action Plan. This initiative will see payroll rebates given to small businesses to the tune of $4,000 for each new full-time employee employed under the scheme. It will not be long before city dwellers realise the enormous benefits of relocating to one of the State's beautiful regional areas with the Government working with local communities and offering these incentives. If local councils were to work with local businesses and support initiatives such as leasing buildings rent-free for 12 months it would make the process easier for those contemplating the move.

Local councils, including Leeton Shire Council, are supportive of decentralisation and many of them do offer business and community incentives. Peter Kennedy, the Economic Development, Tourism and Events Manager at Leeton Shire Council is working in conjunction with Mr Lehman to attract a new professional business to Leeton. I have spoken to Mr Kennedy about this exciting initiative. I hope this type of initiative will catch on in other local areas. We have also seen the emergence of $1 rents in many country towns. Now that businesses, councils and government are working together we should see more people moving to regional areas. The challenge is to get people to see our amazing regional areas for themselves and to imagine how they too could be happy living outside our major city centres. This is a fantastic initiative by a great community. Leeton is where I established my professional career and where I met my wife. It is also the town where my son was born. I recommend the township of Leeton to anyone willing to move their business and take up this wonderful offer—they should get in touch with the fantastic Leeton Shire Council.

NSW MANUFACTURING COUNCIL

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [3.08 p.m.]: The website of the Department of Trade and Investment confirms that New South Wales has the largest manufacturing sector in Australia, accounting for 32 per cent of the national industry. The State leads the exports of advanced manufactures, such as medicinal and pharmaceutical products worth $1.4 billion and professional and scientific equipment worth $907 million. The State also has strong manufacturing capabilities in renewable energy and sustainable building products. Manufacturing is the second largest industry in New South Wales, accounting for more than 30 per cent of national manufacturing output. It is a skills and knowledge-intensive sector, driving research and development for the whole of Australia. New South Wales manufacturing is also a significant export earner, representing a quarter of New South Wales's total exports.

Until recently this vital New South Wales industry was supported by the very important work of the NSW Manufacturing Council, which was established by former Premier Iemma. However, in June this year the Deputy Premier quietly wrote to members of the NSW Manufacturing Council to tell them that he would "discontinue" the council, replacing it with the New South Wales Export and Investment and Advisory Board. This week the Deputy Premier also announced the establishment of a Manufacturing Industry Action Plan Taskforce and the members of the New South Wales Export and Investment and Advisory Board.

While I do not doubt the ability or commitment of anyone on the board or the taskforce, it is extremely concerning that not one of them has been drawn from anywhere other than employers in the business sector. Until it was "discontinued", the NSW Manufacturing Council represented employers, industry, academia, trade unions, government and industry associations and met six times each year to provide a vital link between the manufacturing industry, trade unions and government. Organisations as apparently diverse at the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Australian Industry Group, worked successfully together with others on the manufacturing council to support local manufacturers.

The Australian Industry Group is the peak industry association in Australia. With its affiliates it represents the interests of more than 60,000 businesses across manufacturing industry. The New South Wales Australian Manufacturing Workers Union represents around 30,000 workers and is a key voice for manufacturing industry. It has also been a strident voice for strong and effective industry and innovation policies for manufacturing and engineering at the State and Federal level. Along with the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union was a key advocate for the establishment of the NSW Manufacturing Council to advise the New South Wales Government on investment facilitation, industry development, export capability, support for start-ups and smaller manufacturing businesses, government procurement and approaches to innovation. This was not a narrow, protectionist campaign aimed at propping up inefficient local industries afraid to face the new globalised marketplace.

Together with other industry representatives, academics and Unions NSW, the NSW Manufacturing Council played a key role in coming up with strategies to deal with the very complex issues arising from the recent global economic meltdown, coming in, as it was, off the back of more than a decade of neglect by the former Howard Government, with its policies that actively discouraged local manufacturing. Supporting local manufacturers not only supports local jobs; it also supports local research, development and investment and it creates skilled work with a future for our young people.

As one of the largest purchasers of goods and services, the Government should be supporting local industry and employment targeted at economic activity—the creation of local jobs, technology transfer and the provision of training rather than a short-sighted, price-based incentive. This can be done while still complying with our trade and treaty obligations. This was the basis of the Rees Government's Jobs First Policy, a strategy to use the massive purchasing power of the Government to support local industry, local jobs and local skills.

It takes time to create good jobs so I hope that the new Minister will recognise the value of this policy and agree to its extension. Good jobs are sustainable jobs which offer workers and their families long-term financial security and career options, not the indignity and pointlessness of pretend jobs. We are again experiencing a new and possibly prolonged period of significant pressure on local manufacturing. It is essential that the Minister's disbanding of the Manufacturing Council does not diminish the State's role in supporting manufacturing.

FOOD SECURITY

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [3.13 p.m.]: Food security is now a catch-all term serving many agendas. This week we heard The Greens pointing to the expansion of mining in the Hunter Valley and suggesting there was a food security aspect to the issue. Food security is important, and this Government is developing the legislation and regulations that will give planning structure and certainty wherever possible to ensure New South Wales values and utilises its resources appropriately. But the term food security is routinely bandied about with little regard to the facts. In 2009-2010 Australia had a food surplus of $14.2 billion—down from the five-year average of $16.6 billion, mainly due to lower grain prices and a higher Australian dollar. New South Wales alone exported $3.9 billion worth of food last year. In 2009 Australia was ranked fourteenth in the world as a food exporter and twenty-fifth as a food importer. This is an amazing achievement as Australian farmers produce only 1 per cent of the world's food.

But the key question in many people's minds is: Is our food security deteriorating? Listening to some of the excitable commentary, you could be forgiven for thinking Australians will go from feeding 60 million people a day outside this country to foraging in the rubbish tips for scraps of food. The reality is that Australia has comfortably maintained a strong food surplus, notably on the back of an average 2 per cent annual growth in agricultural productivity over the past 30 years. There is a legitimate concern that this growth will level off at 1.5 per cent to 1.7 per cent per annum. This may happen for a number of reasons. Obviously, lower research and development will not be helpful, and governments have an important role in that space. But much of the low-hanging fruit was captured after the Second World War with quantum leaps in productivity from fertiliser inputs and pest and disease controls. With Australia's population increasing by around 1.3 per cent every year, and agricultural productivity growing by at least that figure, our status as a strong net exporter is unlikely to be under serious threat in the decades ahead.

But the commentary includes the possible loss of prime agricultural land and threats to consumable water. All States are grappling with definitions of "prime agricultural land". Good quality agricultural land—a Queensland description—is thought to comprise 1 per cent to 2 per cent of the country's landscape. This land is highly productive and environmentally resilient. Most Australians would agree agricultural land of this type has an important role and its future land use must be carefully considered.

To be sure, if you are in a mining hotspot such as Singleton, Gunnedah or the Darling Downs your view of the world could be that our agricultural resource is facing an uncertain future. The reality is that there is no data to back the assertion that mining or any extractive industry is threatening agricultural production. Mining occupies around 0.1 per cent of the landscape. The net figure is barely changing even with the expansion of mining in New South Wales and Queensland. As new mines open old mines are closing and being rehabilitated. The overall impact on our State or national food production is minuscule. The loss of a farm or farms is quickly replaced by increased production elsewhere in the country. The mood to ring-fence prime agricultural land also raises the interesting question of the liberty of property owners to dispose of their land as they choose. Will heavy-handed regulation discriminate against farmers who choose to enter into mutually beneficial arrangements with miners or coal seam gas companies?

Many Australians are genuinely concerned about any challenges to our water resources. Our society has moved from regarding surface and groundwater as a resource to be exploited with few limitations to managing water on a sustainable basis. The emergence of mining or coal seam gas will have minimal impact on the volumes of water extracted on a basin-wide basis. In New South Wales the Liberal National Government has quickly moved to require these industries to hold irrigation entitlements just the same as any agricultural enterprise. The Government is also developing aquifer interference regulations. Currently the New South Wales Government has a moratorium on fracking and has also banned the use of BTEX chemicals for coal seam gas production. These measures are part of a suite of controls that will give us confidence that our food production will not be compromised by mining or the coal seam gas industry. The Government has repeatedly said it will not allow extractive operations to proceed if there is a threat to surface or groundwater. I do agree we may not have all the knowledge about issues such as connectivity and we must proceed cautiously.

By all means let us have a debate on food security, but it should be based on facts. Today our greatest impediment to maintaining our healthy food surplus is not mining or coal seam gas but weaker agricultural productivity growth, urban encroachment, biosecurity threats, lack of commitment to trade liberalisation, the high Australian dollar, a profligate Federal Government, ageing and inadequate infrastructure to support agricultural trade, protectionism through misplaced nationalism, deteriorating salinity in some areas, and workforce availability and skills. Let us ensure our extractive industries are appropriately regulated and responsible, but we must not be distracted from addressing those influences that will ensure Australian agriculture has a profitable, sustainable future.

SNOWY SCHEME MUSEUM

GOVERNOR OF NEW SOUTH WALES

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [3.18 p.m.]: This evening I want to join another member of this place in congratulating the organising committee for the Snowy Scheme Museum in Adaminaby, which opened last weekend. I had the great pleasure of joining the Governor-General, the Hon. Dr Mike Kelly, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox and many others at this event on the weekend. It was a terrific event. This project has been the subject of ten years of hard work by the community, a community that does not let any setbacks stop it from achieving its aims. The museum highlights the great Snowy Mountains Scheme, and it has a number of items of machinery that the community was able to buy at auction and collect from other sources some years ago.

The community started off with much grander plans for the museum but over the years has tailored the plans to fit the budgets that were made available from community fund-raising and from various levels of government. I was pleased, when I was member for Monaro, to help source some of that funding. The museum is very well situated at Adaminaby, which is one of the central areas of the Snowy Mountains Scheme. That is the location of the first blast more than 60 years ago by then Labor Prime Minister Ben Chifley, accompanied by then New South Wales Premier Sir William McKell.

It is interesting to note that no member of the Liberal or Country Party turned up at the scheme's opening ceremony, because they vehemently opposed the Snowy Mountains Scheme at the time. Fortunately, many did turn up for the Snowy Scheme Museum opening. I acknowledge that the Hon. Gary Nairn as a Federal member of Parliament was able to secure funding for the scheme. Adaminaby is very well suited for this museum. In my speech I mentioned a number of reasons for this. For Adaminaby the Snowy Mountains Scheme was very challenging because, as we know, the town had to be relocated. What many people did not know for many years was the sense of dislocation in the community. People in the community had the feeling that the town was being used for a great experiment; that they were the first and the decisions were not always the best. However, there is great pride in the scheme, and there is no better way of celebrating the scheme than establishing the museum and celebrating Adaminaby's starring role in particular.

The Adaminaby community fought for this museum, as it fought for 50 years to get a decent water supply, which was supplied by the last Labor Government, and as it tackled the rebuilding of the Catholic church after it tragically burnt down not long ago. The committee has done a great job. I pay tribute to the committee members. Jill Madew, who was the founding chair, has been tenacious throughout the years to ensure that funds were obtained to get the job done. The current chairperson, Peter Taylor, and the committee members, Paul, Beverley, Eduard, Tim and Maureen, have done a fabulous job, along with their predecessors. Many former Snowy workers were present on Saturday. It is always fabulous to see those workers and to hear the stories they tell about their history.

While the Snowy scheme is a great engineering achievement—in the 1960s it was declared one of the engineering wonders of the world—the greatest reason to celebrate the scheme is its social impact, introducing multiculturalism into Australia in a big way and bringing together so many people from different nations who formed such wonderful relationships. Tragically, many of the 100,000 people who worked on the scheme died, and we remembered those people on the day. I congratulate all those involved in getting the museum established.

In the remaining time available to me I will comment on a contribution made in this place last night by the Hon. David Clarke. I am a republican, and I am proud to be a republican in Australia. Last night the Hon. David Clarke expressed his view on monarchies and republics. He is entitled to his view. What offended me about the way he expressed his view was the hostility in his tone of voice and his approach to all those who dare to disagree with his position. I put on record that republicans or monarchists have the right, in free Australia, to have their position and to not have it howled down by people who do so in aggressive terms. We are able to express our views. Many republicans respect the Queen and her representatives in Australia, but we hold strong views. I feel sorry for people who think that the symbols of a country are the country and not just the symbols of the society we should be. On that basis, I found the Hon. David Clarke's contribution offensive. [Time expired.]

SCHOOL FUNDING

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.23 p.m.]: We seem to be in the midst of the decade of dangerous ideas in education funding. Driven by the ideology of mindless application of markets and competition to schooling, combined with the seemingly insatiable appetite of the private schooling industry for public money, it seems that every week we see a new and yet more dangerous idea emerging to get money out of public education and into private schooling. Uniquely among publicly subsidised industries in Australia, private education is given public funding without being required to establish that the funds will be for the benefit of the public. The ideas have now been extended into vocational education and training in the university sector with the entitlement model, which would inevitably bring a flood of dollars out of public provision and into the private sector.

The latest and most frightening example of the dangerous ideas is that contained in a report by the Allen Consulting Group to the Gonski review, which advocated for a national school recurrent resource standard [NSRRS]. Defined as the cost of educating an average student to achieve the goals of schooling under the assumption that the money is well spent, the national standard will be used to establish funding for private schools. Students with additional needs, such as those from a language background other than English, low socioeconomic status families and communities, Indigenous students and students with disabilities would require a larger amount of money.

The Allen Consulting Group report defines how to calculate and speculates on a number of uses, including establishing a student entitlement. Under this scheme schools would be provided with funding so that the government funding per student would top up the fees and other private funding and contributions per student to equal a national school recurrent resource standard. Students with additional needs would receive a higher rate of national school recurrent resources and, hence, higher government funding. Schools with fees greater than the rate of national school recurrent resources would get no public funding, at least in theory. Of course, the political reality would be what we have seen in the past, where a new private school funding model comes in and those schools will never be protected.

It would also allow low and no fee schools to set up in direct competition with public schools. Of course, any use of the national school recurrent resource standard to set school funding would inevitably lead to the creation of a large number of low or no fee private schools—to go into direct competition with public schools. While this incentive always exists under the socioeconomic status funding model, the national school recurrent resource standard model would make it much worse. Governments would never hybridise any national school recurrent resource standard system with a no disadvantage system, such as a system maintaining funding, creating the worst possible of both worlds. For example, while not funding non-government schools that operated above the national school recurrent resource standard would be a step forward, it is much more likely that those schools would be allowed to maintain their existing funding.

The research paper reveals some dangerous thinking. Some of the ideas would make Australia's already overly private and competitive school system even less fair. The review panel would inflict untold damage on public education if it adopted the resource standard and allowed yet more money to flow into non-government schools. Any funding system that emerges from the school recurrent resource standard would contain a thinly veiled invitation to private schools to deliberately impoverish themselves to attract yet more public funds. Guaranteeing schools an entitlement that tops them up to the government school level for student funding or beyond would lead to a proliferation of low fee private institutions that are almost fully publicly funded. Every public school would live with the risk of a low fee private school setting up next door. The promise of government funding to top that up to the total per student funding of the resource standard would give private schools a massive and unfair advantage over their public neighbours.

It is disappointing to see the Government's submission in response to the Allen Consulting Group report. It is notable for its complete absence of recognition of the unique role and vulnerabilities of public education. By stating its support for the resource standard model contained in the Allen Consulting Group report the O'Farrell Government is signing up New South Wales to a prescription for voucher based funding, which would allow yet more money to flow into non-government institutions. It would destroy public schools and lead to an ever greater concentration of advantage and disadvantage. Every public school would live with the threat of a low fee private school setting up next door. The promise of government funding to top up the total amount would be an open invitation.

The submission of the O'Farrell Government shows that it is living in a fantasy world where all schools face the same challenges. The harsh reality is that public education accepts all students, and many of them present much higher resource demands than their peers in the non-government sector. The O'Farrell Government has not only failed to recognise the underlying inequality between government and non-government schools; its recommendations would entrench and exacerbate that disadvantage. Unless there is an understanding in governments that the heavy lifting done by public schools— [Time expired.]

NEW SOUTH WALES PARLIAMENT SPRING BALL

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.28 p.m.]: I have great pleasure in thanking everyone involved in the organisation of New South Wales Parliament's inaugural Spring Ball.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Hear! Hear!

Dr John Kaye: It was excellent.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I note those wonderful interjections. I thank you, Mr President, and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Shelley Hancock, for your support. The proposal was that, similar to the Canberra Winter Ball, we cross party lines and hold an event to celebrate the mother Parliament and enjoy its various spaces. One of the delightful aspects of the Spring Ball was to showcase the Parliament's fountain by having dinner served at tables set up around that beautiful area. Many people need to be thanked and congratulated on putting the evening together. First and foremost, I thank the Hon. Helen Westwood, who was in charge of entertainment. My upper House colleague is a trooper and worker who came up with some brilliant ideas, including performances by the Bankstown performing arts students, which was the most special treat on the night.

We must thank also Ann Lewis from my office who was inspired to call on NSW TAFE city campus for the services of event management students, who worked tirelessly for about two months in the lead-up to the night and were supported by staff on the night, to help with table service delivery. I congratulate also the parliamentary staff, led by Phil Freeman, Manager of Catering. When we first put the idea to him to hold the ball around the fountain, he seized the idea despite the challenges it presented. He was an absolute trooper throughout the entire proceedings. I thank Rob Stefanic, Executive Manager, Department of Parliamentary Services, who joined the preparation late, along with Kim Smith, Director of Finance and Members Services, who accommodated our needs. Organising the distribution of corporate sponsorship finances was a complicated process. I thank Julie Langsworth, from the Legislative Council Procedure Office, who was part of the executive committee towards the latter part of proceedings and helped superbly on the night.

Almost $60,000 was raised for New South Wales charities, including the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the Royal Far West, SHINE for Kids from western Sydney, and Camp Kookaburra, which provides relief for children living with families affected by mental illness. The evening got off to a great start with the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, and the Leader of the Opposition, John Robertson, delivering entertaining speeches in a bipartisan, deprecating manner. The night concluded wonderfully with entertainment from Kevin Anderson, the member for Tamworth, and his fabulous rock band, Splashpool, from the country and western capital. We are calling now for nominees to organise next year's ball.

NEW SOUTH WALES PARLIAMENT SPRING BALL

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.32 p.m.]: I too had an enjoyable time at the Spring Ball, as did everyone who attended. I commend those who volunteered to be part of the committee to organise the inaugural Spring Ball because they had to do everything from scratch, including devising the template, which will be followed for future years. I thank particularly the Hon. Melinda Pavey, the Hon. Helen Westwood and the staff of the Department of Parliamentary Services for all their good work. It is nice to acknowledge the good time everyone had and that the night was successful. As the Hon. Melinda Pavey said, over $60,000 was donated to charity. Parliamentarians find it difficult to be involved in such activities, so we should commend all those who were on the organising committee for their great effort to provide us all with a great night.

[Time for debate expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 3.33 p.m. until Tuesday 8 November 2011 at 2.30 p.m.

_______________

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 21 October 2011, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links