The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge that we are meeting on Eora land.

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following communication from His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor:

Dear President Sydney 2000

I have the honour to inform you that I have received a letter from the Honourable Patricia Forsythe MLC tendering her resignation as a Member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales with effect from 21 September 2006.

I have acknowledged receipt of the letter from Mrs Forsythe and have informed her that you have been advised of her resignation.

A copy of the resignation is attached.

I have acknowledged the communication. An entry regarding the resignation of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe has been made in the register of members of the Legislative Council.

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 25 September 2006 the Hon. Robyn Parker was elected chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 in place of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, resigned.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe tabled, on behalf of the Chair, a report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 12 of 2006", dated 26 September 2006, together with minutes and extracts for Digest Nos 10 and 11 of 2006.

Report ordered to be printed.

Petition supporting an independent National Art School and opposing the amalgamation of two institutions, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.
Petition praying that the House reject legislative proposals that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion and the employment of persons whose beliefs and lifestyle are consistent with religious doctrine and values, and retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Petition urging the Government to withdraw the building sustainability index [BASIX] exemption for high-rise development and to require high-rise buildings to meet the same sustainability standards as free-standing homes, received from Ms Sylvia Hale.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [2.39 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 139 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the replacement of the royal arms in the Chamber with the State arms, be called on forthwith.

The eleventh day of October 2006 marks 100 years since the granting by royal warrant of the State arms of New South Wales. The grant was made by King Edward VII in London, and the arms were sent by dispatch to the New South Wales Governor, Sir Harry Rawson, on 23 November 1906. My motion will allow the centenary of the granting of the State arms on 11 October to be celebrated by replacing the royal arms in this Chamber with State arms of a similar size and quality. The royal arms will be placed in a prominent position in the Jubilee Room. My motion is urgent because this week's sitting—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Hon. Peter Breen should be addressing whether debate on this matter should be given urgency. So far he has not mentioned anything about why his motion is urgent.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Peter Breen is making the point that the 100th anniversary of the granting of the State arms will occur before the next sitting of Parliament. He is in order and may continue.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You make the point better than he does, Madam President. It is something he has failed to do.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had been listening, he would have heard the last words I spoke before he took his point of order, which were "My motion is urgent because". My motion is urgent because this week's sitting is the last opportunity before the 11 October centenary to secure the approval of the House to the proposal outlined in the motion. Honourable members will be aware that funding for the manufacture and installation of the State arms has been arranged through the Parliament. The decision is an administrative one; there are no politics involved in the motion. I point out that the political debate took place in 2003, when the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Bill became law. The legislation was assented to on 2 March 2004. My motion seeks to replace the royal arms in the Chamber with the State arms. This motion is urgent because section 5 (1) of the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act provides:

As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, any Royal arms of the United Kingdom used to represent the authority of the Crown in right of the State … are to be removed and replaced by the State arms.

That provision is in the legislation passed by the House and assented to in March 2004. The reason for the legislation was the haphazard use of the royal arms and the State arms in the affairs of New South Wales.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: The Hon. Peter Breen is supposed to be addressing the question of urgency, not the reasons for the legislation in the first place. In the past minute and a half he has revealed that budget moneys have been supplied in order to create a new crest. He is now talking about why the legislation was introduced. The Hon. Peter Breen should be stating why his motion is urgent.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Peter Breen that he must speak only to urgency.
The Hon. PETER BREEN: My motion is urgent because the object of the legislation needs to be fulfilled. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.43 p.m.]: This motion is clearly not urgent. It is all about the fact that the Government is looking for a distraction. It is all about the fact that two weeks ago the results of a poll that Labor did not like were reported in the Sunday papers. This motion is all about covering up the fact that Government members dipped into the bucket of filth last week to demean people in public office, and they have been found wanting. This motion is not urgent. It is about creating a distraction in New South Wales to allow the Government to shift attention from matters that it would rather ignore.

A truly urgent motion would address issues such as health, police numbers or the drought. Labor members did not support a no-confidence motion in the Minister for Health concerning the deaths of patients in the New South Wales hospital system. How can this motion of the Hon. Peter Breen be deemed urgent when a motion relating to the deaths of citizens of this State was deemed not to be urgent? I recall the Hon. Jan Burnswoods stating as her reason for not supporting the urgency of the no-confidence motion that there were a number of important motions on the Notice Paper that needed to be debated. I suppose she will not support this motion for the same reason. However, I note she is not in the Chamber. Interestingly, the Hon. Peter Breen did not support the no-confidence motion either. He said that he could not support it because he had received only—

The Hon. Henry Tsang: This is outside the debate.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Stay out of it, Henry, or we will give you one as well. It is better to lie low.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Point of order: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is merely criticising the Government. His contribution has nothing to do with the substance of the motion or the centenary of the granting of the State arms. He is waffling in a last-ditch attempt to keep the Queen in the Chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he must not make imputations against other members of the Chamber. He will speak to urgency.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is interesting that the Hon. Peter Breen said he could not support the motion because he had received only press releases about the matter.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: As much as it pains me to save the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from his own waffle, I point out that he is reflecting on a vote of the House, which I believe is outside the standing orders.

The PRESIDENT: I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of Standing Order 91, which states:

A member may not reflect on any resolution or vote of the House, unless moving for its rescission.

The House passed the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Bill. Accordingly, unless the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is moving to rescind the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act he is out of order.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Madam President, thank you for telling me not to do something I was not doing anyway. This motion, of which the Coalition has received no notice, is not urgent. In fact, I have not seen a single press release or statement about it. I have not received an email or even a telephone call on the matter. The Hon. Peter Breen said that he could not support a motion because he had received only press releases about it and therefore did not deem the matter to be urgent.

The fact is that this motion is just a devious ploy by the Government. It waited for crossbench and Opposition numbers to be depleted by the absence of a member of the Christian Democratic Party and by a vacancy in the Liberal Party, and then it brought this motion on. The people of New South Wales should make this choice. Labor members are elitists who want change and who are seeking a distraction. The poor Hon. Peter Breen was silly enough to join the Labor Party and he has now been enticed to play the Government's grubby politics. He is silly enough to interfere on behalf of the Labor Party and provide a distraction. The Hon. Peter Breen may have left the Labor Party but he is still part of Labor's re-election team. The Hon. Peter Breen has been used and abused once again by the Labor Party. [Time expired.]
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.49 p.m.]: I support the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In a nutshell the motion is nothing more than a distraction; there is no urgency in relation to this matter. On the Notice Paper is a very urgent matter that is awaiting the support of members of the crossbench: a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Health, the gravest motion of censure that can be voted upon by the members of this House. Further, the Government does not want to discuss a matter of considerable urgency—the Sydney bushfires that took place over the weekend. The Minister for Emergency Services, who has responsibility for that portfolio, is the leader of Government business in this Chamber. He would know that volunteers and citizens of this State put their lives at risk over the weekend. What is the priority?

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Bring on the debate. You have no argument; you are just desperate. You must be absolutely desperate.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I acknowledge the contribution of Ms Lee Rhiannon, who does not appreciate the risk people posed to their lives over the weekend to protect their property and the property of others. But is that considered a priority? No, it is not a priority! That is not an urgent matter!

The Hon. Peter Breen: Point of order: Whether some other issue might be urgent is hardly relevant to the question of the urgency of this motion, which has been on the business paper for a considerable time. The Leader of the Opposition is raising issues that have no history on the Notice Paper. It is completely irrelevant in this debate to compare anything else with this motion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition must not make imputations against other members of the Chamber.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is relevant to consider past contributions of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods on the matter of urgency. I commend those comments to Government members. This debate to decide the urgency of this motion is a test for the Government. It will be determined by the Government's position in relation to the matter.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: It is so irrelevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Opposition is opposed to giving this motion urgency. It can be debated in the natural course of events, along with every other motion on the Notice Paper. This will be a test of the Government's priorities for New South Wales. Parts of the Sydney metropolitan area have been at risk over the weekend—that should be a priority for the Government, but the Minister for Emergency Services has not even commented on it. Instead, members will debate the coat of arms in this Chamber. We have just been told that the replacement coat of arms has already been constructed, or at least ordered. The fact is the deal has been done and no-one, including you Madam President, has been honest with the people of New South Wales about it. This is a done deal!

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.52 p.m.]: I take objection to the Opposition simply running a distraction on any cause it likes. The Opposition knows that the people of New South Wales want the crest of New South Wales displayed in its Parliament. I think, basically, they want a republic as well. This is not some sort of Government stooge; it is the Hon. Peter Breen wanting to debate a matter that he has consistently pursued since he has been in this Chamber. He introduced legislation dealing with crests and coats of arms, and he has now—at the time of the centenary of the crest—drawn attention to the fact that the changes that were agreed to in this House have not been implemented, and they should be. Indeed, at the centenary of the crest he is making a timely plea for action. This motion should be supported. The Opposition knows that the people of New South Wales want the crest changed. The Opposition is filibustering and is wasting the time of this House by opposing this motion.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.53 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is firmly opposed to this motion. The bill that has been referred to was assented to on 2 March 2004 and the honourable member has had plenty of time, more than two years, to raise this matter. The motion was put on the Notice Paper on 31 August—not a long time ago—and I do not believe it is urgent. Madam President, have you or the Clerks followed the requirement, as I have been advised in correspondence from the Clerk, that the parliamentary precinct be officially added to the State Heritage Register on 7 May 2004? If so, are not the representations of the royal coat of arms in the Chambers of Parliament covered by Heritage Orders? Has approval been sought and given for work to be undertaken in relation to them? If so, who gave that approval, and is that approval in writing? Will the document giving that approval be tabled in the House? The motion is not urgent and should be defeated to allow further consideration of the issue.

The PRESIDENT: In answer to the matters raised by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile I advise that the relevant heritage authorities have been totally aware and have been involved in the making and affixing of the arms.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Was that approval given in writing? If so, could that correspondence be tabled?

The PRESIDENT: Yes.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [2.55 p.m.]: The question is whether this matter is urgent. We know where certain members of the crossbench stand because they do not come to this House to represent the interests of the majority of voters. Rather, they seek, for the most part, a niche in the community to represent. The challenge is whether the Government believes it represents the interests of the majority and considers the decoration of this House to be a matter of such urgency that, first of all, it not only delays Government business but brings forward an item of private member's business on a day other than private member's day to superintend every aspect of Government business and to be given a higher level of priority than a debate relating to the competency of the Minister for Health.

This State faces enormous challenges with its economy, infrastructure and health services. Apparently the Government believes it needs to bring this House to a halt today to discuss an item of decoration of this House that almost no person would notice if it were changed. The Government must address whether that matter should be given priority and whether a matter of private member's business should superintend every aspect of Government business, including debate on the Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill, the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Parent Responsibility Contracts) Bill—on which apparently the young people of this State are awaiting a decision—other legislation that will soon be tabled in this House relating to majority verdicts, and so on. It seems the Government is willing to devote two hours to a debate about how the upper House will look at its 100th anniversary.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Are you filibustering?

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: It is not a filibuster. This motion is about the importance of having a particular emblem removed and replaced with another that has already been purchased. The Opposition will hold the Government accountable for its decision on this debate, first, because it was prepared to waste the time of the House and, second, because the Government, notwithstanding all sorts of services that make members effective being stripped because of lack of funding—for example, we have been told that committee hearings have to be held up and staff recruitment curtailed—can find money to replace the coat of arms, even though the people of New South Wales have expressed no particular interest in seeing it changed. Since when is such a matter urgent?

I urge the Government to think again, because as a member of the Opposition I will take great pleasure in telling the public that it does not consider issues such as disability services, infrastructure, water and its budget more important than the trinket that appears in this Chamber. This matter is not sufficiently important to warrant priority. If this is the way the Government wants to market itself—as a government more concerned with the decoration of this House than it is with the needs and priorities of the people of New South Wales—so be it. Not in a long time has a government demonstrated such a lack of interest in the people of New South Wales and been so out of touch with the priority of matters it ought to be addressing. In the run-up to the 1988 elections, which brought about a change of government, the Labor Government led by Barrie Unsworth was more concerned with monorails, cakes in King's Cross and other decorations relating to the Bicentennial.

The Hon. Peter Breen: Point of order—

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: If this is the way the Government wants to behave, so be it. I look forward to condemning the Government for this move.
The PRESIDENT: Order! When a point of order is being taken all members except the member taking the point of order must resume their seats.

The Hon. Peter Breen: Madam President, I think the time for the point of order has passed. I was going to make one about relevancy. All the issues raised by the Hon. John Ryan, though very interesting, had nothing to do with the question of urgency of the motion. As he has finished his address to the House, the point of order passes into history.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: To the point of order: I object to the use of the word "trinket" as it is offensive to the people of Great Britain and the Queen of England. I request that the member be asked to withdraw it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will not treat that as a serious point of order. I would like to thank the Hon. John Ryan for speaking in a manner such that, despite my poor amplification system, I was able to hear every word he said.

Question_That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly Ms Fazio

Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson

Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Mr West Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Breen Mr Primrose

Mr Brown Mr Clarke Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Jenkins

Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Mr Ryan Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Roozendaal

Ms Cusack

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: For the information of members, I will answer a question asked of me earlier. Vincent Sicari, the Manager of the Conservation Team of the Heritage Office, has advised in writing:

It is the opinion of the Heritage Office that the proposed works comply with the exemptions and definitions of 'minor works' in the Protocol, that the works are being undertaken with the advice and guidance of relevant external heritage advisors, and that the works are being undertaken in such a way that will ensure there is no material affect on the significant fabric of the building and of the Coats of Arms.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What works are these?

The PRESIDENT: The removal of the coat of arms and the fixing of the State crest.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: How much?

The PRESIDENT: That was the question that was asked.
Motion by the Hon. Peter Breen agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 139 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [3.11 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(a) notes that the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act No. 1 of 2004, received assent and commenced on 2 March 2004,

(b) notes that 11 October 2006 marks the centenary of the granting of the State arms,

(c) authorises the President, within the spirit of the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act 2004, to:

(i) relocate the royal arms in the Legislative Council Chamber to the Jubilee Room,

(ii) locate in the position occupied by the royal arms, the State arms of New South Wales of similar size and quality to the royal arms.

Since the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act became law use of the Royal arms has been gradually phased out in New South Wales. For example, court judgments and court stationery now bear the State arms. All Acts of Parliament now bear the State arms. All depictions and representations of the authority of the State now include State arms. The Royal arms have been consigned to history by legislation. The Royal arms of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland are no longer an appropriate representation of the authority of the State of New South Wales. The passing of the Australia Act in 1986 put an end to any doubt that may have persisted about the authority of the British crown in the Australian States. All legal ties with the British crown went when the Australia Act became law.

The Australia Act includes a provision that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has no responsibility for the Government of any State. Accordingly, it is no longer appropriate to make laws in New South Wales under the ostensible authority of the Royal arms. The Royal arms are readily distinguishable by the lion of England and the unicorn of Scotland, with the harp of Ireland depicted on the shield. The State arms of New South Wales includes the lion of England in recognition of our dominant cultural heritage, but also the kangaroo, the golden fleece, sheaves of wheat and the rising sun. This Parliament derives its authority to make laws from the people of New South Wales, not the British crown. The sovereignty of the State should not be represented in this Chamber by the Royal arms beyond the centenary of the granting of the State arms. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.13 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes the motion. During the debate on the suspension of standing and sessional orders my colleague the Hon. John Ryan indicated that if anyone wanted to kill the republican movement this would be the way to do it. The Government is looking for a distraction. It is out of touch. Its arrogance and that of its fellow travellers is alarming. The people of New South Wales should make this type of decision at an election. Within the Coalition are people who are republicans, monarchists and constitutional monarchists, but all of us believe that it is wrong for an elitist group to make a decision on behalf of the people of New South Wales without consulting them.

The intent of the legislation introduced by the Hon. Peter Breen and sneaked through this place by the Labor Party should have gone to the people. I would be happy to support the Government taking this issue to a referendum. It is neither a republican nor a monarchist issue. Last weekend the Labor Party had bad polling results. When the Labor Party is in trouble it does one of two things, but this time it has done both. The first thing was to dip its arm in the filth bucket—

[Interruption]

The Hon. Tony Catanzariti knows all about it. Country Labor has been part of it. The Labor Party dipped its arm into the filth bucket and tried to demean a public servant in New South Wales. That was unsuccessful, so it is now trying to cause a distraction. We will not be party to it. We will not run with this issue forever and ever. It will die today. We will make the point that the Labor Party is an arrogant group that does not want to go to the people. We will let it ride. We will then talk about bushfires and houses burnt outside Sydney, people dying in our hospitals and the lack of police numbers, which is what the Leader of Government Business should talk about. They are the issues. We will get to the bottom of why a new State crest was made before a motion was passed in this place saying that the old one should be removed.

The President of the Parliament deemed to spend money on a new State crest in the same week that redundancy offers were handed out to food and beverage personnel in this Parliament. People who serve the committees and the Parliament are being pushed for money, yet the Government, through its President, decided that we should have a republic and that the historic crest should be taken down. The Labor Party is arrogant and out of touch. Today 92 per cent of New South Wales is in drought. In question time we will highlight the dubious practice of the Government in relation to farmers. However, the Government decided that it was more important to try to operate with spin to try to remove bad headlines. The Government used the Hon. Peter Breen to introduce the motion because it is not happy that it is out of touch. Peter Breen was silly enough to join the Labor Party and he should have learned from his mistakes.

The Hon. Peter Breen: I could have joined The Nationals.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He could have joined The Nationals, but we refused the Hon. Henry Tsang. A tweed coat does not make one a member of the Country Party. One has to have simpatico with the people.

[Interruption]

We would not have Ms Lee Rhiannon, even with a tweed coat, riding boots and passion. There is no way! The Labor Party would have her.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should not be diverted by interjections.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will try not to be. The motion is part of the Government's spin cycle. As I said, the filth did not work and the Government is now trying to use diversionary tactics. The Hon. Peter Breen has been a part of that. We will highlight the issues that should be discussed. We will highlight that the Government has spent money without the authority of the people, money that would have been better spent on the staff of this Parliament. At a time of stringency within the Parliament the Government has not told us how much the new crest will cost. It appears that even the Treasurer did not know the money had been spent. In conclusion, I indicate on behalf of the republicans, the constitutional monarchists and the monarchists that the Liberal Party and The Nationals will oppose the motion.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [3.19 p.m.]: The motion is wrong in so many ways, it is difficult to know which argument to advance first. This motion has been sneaked into this House and is an absolute ambush. It seeks to take away from the people of New South Wales something that they own. One would have thought that a better way to make changes to the fabric of this House would be by some level of consultation, adequate notice and some capacity for consensus. But, no, what we have is a stunt.

Apparently in secret the crest has already been replaced and the money has already been spent. All that is required of this House is a rubberstamping of action that has already been taken without consultation. This Chamber belongs to the people of New South Wales. It does not belong to members of Parliament. On a previous occasion when the constitutional monarchy was a matter placed before the people of New South Wales, they made it very clear where they stood. I was somewhat disappointed with the result of that referendum but it was nevertheless pretty obvious what the people of New South Wales thought about the issue. This motion has been sneaked into the House. In addition to secret expenditure, consultation has been conducted in secrecy about whether this motion would accord with heritage laws to which this Parliament is subject.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: It has not been done in secret.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: It has been done secretly. There has been no attempt to give members of this House notice. If the motion represents a popular measure and something that one would expect all the people of New South Wales to celebrate, why was the substance of the motion not explained in advance? Instead this motion has been moved today to take advantage of the Coalition having one fewer member in the Chamber and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes being absent from the House for a day. Those who support this motion have sprung this motion on the House and in doing so have associated themselves with one of its known fruitcakes, the Hon. Peter Breen.

The Hon. Peter Breen: Point of order: I have been called many things since I have been a member of this House, but nothing so offensive as a fruitcake. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: To the point of order: A former Treasurer of this place used to take great delight in referring to a former Coalition member as tutti-frutti. I think that the remark made by the Hon. John Ryan was most appropriate in this case.

The Hon. Peter Breen: Further to the point of order.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: It's a term of endearment.

The Hon. Peter Breen: If it is a term of endearment, and if I am to be associated with a former member of this House, Brian Pezzutti, that is an honour. I do not take exception to the remark and I withdraw my objection.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members of my ruling on many occasions that the term "Tutti-frutti Pezzutti" is unparliamentary. Members may refer to the policies or strategies of other members as fruitcake, but they must not refer to the members themselves as fruitcakes.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: If the Hon. Peter Breen finds it offensive to be referred to as a fruitcake, I withdraw any offence. However, the simple fact is that the Hon. Peter Breen is proud to espouse a number of extremely minority proposals that do not have the respect of the people of New South Wales. If the Government has chosen him to introduce this motion, it must take responsibility for associating itself with not just this motion, but with everything else for which he stands. It is interesting that the President of this Chamber has already made arrangements. Section 5 (3) of the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act 2004 states:

Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a building or place in respect of which the Premier, after consultation with the Heritage Council, determines that the Royal arms of the United Kingdom there displayed form an integral part of an item of the environmental heritage of the State.

It seems that the Premier has been involved. If Government members are so proud of this motion, why are they riding on the coattails of the Hon. Peter Breen? Why does the Government not introduce this motion itself? I suggest the Government is not proud of this motion. It is a mere diversion, as mentioned earlier. It is a stunt that is being pulled on the people of New South Wales as much as it is anything else. This House will have no opportunity to decide on the expenditure associated with this motion because apparently the cost has already been incurred. The expenditure must be so outrageous that the President is not prepared to confess the amount.

If the Government is prepared to support the motion, it should tell the House why it considers this motion to be more important than 10,000 young people who have fallen into the care of the State, more important than providing family support, more important than assisting 1,000 people who are turned away every year from supported accommodation, more important than replacement of the failing schools infrastructure and the rotten school buildings that this State's children are being educated in, more important than the State's congested roads system, and more important than providing funds for our hospitals system.

Obviously the Government is not proud of the position it has taken and that is why it has not openly associated itself with the motion other than to vote for it. Not once, not yet and not at all has any member of the Government justified the introduction of this motion. Such is the arrogance of the Government that it has not been prepared to defend this matter being treated as urgent There can be only two reasons why the Government is not prepared to defend this motion.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: They are ashamed.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: In the first place, Government members are ashamed of this motion and, in the second place, the motion is indefensible. The motion is a complete waste of time. It is a mere diversion. It demonstrates how out of touch the Government is with the important issues affecting the people of New South Wales. Demonstrably the Government is incredibly out of touch because it wants to give this motion precedence over Government business by ambush.
The Hon. Tony Kelly: The debate could have been over half an hour ago if you had not said so much.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: The Leader of the House should not make such an appalling interjection to suggest that the debate could have been concluded half an hour ago if I had not spoken. Why would the Leader of the House not expect the Opposition to challenge the Government's position in relation to this motion? When will the Government defend its decision? The Government might be riding on the coat-tails of the Hon. Peter Breen, but this motion is the Government's decision—one which the Government is not prepared to defend for the simple reason that it is indefensible.

Another reason that this motion should not be passed today or presented in this fashion is the widespread querying in the community of the credibility for the existence of this House. All honourable members have read reports in the Daily Telegraph and elsewhere questioning whether this House does a good job. Public opinion depends on how issues are dealt with and highlighted, so guess what will be highlighted as the greatest achievement of this House this year? People will focus on changing the State arms and symbols—a decoration—not the work done by the committees of this House, not the legislation that it passes, not the debates that are undertaken, and not this House making Ministers accountable. The benchmark of the performance of this House will be the action we are taking to alter an unnecessary decoration in this Chamber.

If members who support the motion wish this matter to be at the forefront of public discussion as a benchmark of the issues discussed in the upper House that concern honourable members, I suggest they should vote for the motion, and the public would be justified in asking whether there is a valid reason for the existence of this House. The lower House also has many historical relics, but it is not prepared to discuss them as a matter of urgency. Honourable members are asked to deem it appropriate to interrupt the priority of debates in this House to discuss this matter. Sadly, this motion will become the benchmark of issues that the Government is interested in and what this House stands for.

For the information of members who support this tomfoolery and are motivated frequently by some type of misdirected republican spirit, I point out that the arms sought to be replaced are royal arms. The motion is not even a clear statement of republicanism. I believe that Australia needs its own head of state. I believe Australia is a nation that is capable of standing for a set of values that should be represented by someone who watches the sport that Australians watch, is aware that half of Sydney did not have an electricity supply yesterday, is aware of where bushfires are occurring, and, as his or her primary responsibility, is interested in matters Australian. I pray that Australia will become a republic soon.

It is going to be a lot longer if the Government keeps removing by stealth the symbols of this House. Removing them does not make the point that Australia needs to be a republic; rather it makes the point that Australia, apparently, already is a republic. Yet the Government continues to remove the formal vestiges that represent the British Crown, including the royal arms. Even if the Government were motivated by some misguided republican to support this motion, a republic would be even more distant, particularly when the Government chooses to remove the symbols of this House by stealth.

Nothing browns off people, or persuades them there is an ulterior motive behind such a motion, more than the Government's constant failure to give honest notice and allow public consultation, while taking these decisions out of the public's hands. The public will not trust the Government when it suggests that nothing terrible will happen if this country becomes a republic. The motion and the proposed action are misguided and wrong in so many ways. The motion represents the wrong priorities and does not have the support of the people of New South Wales: Apparently the motion is a rubber-stamped fait accompli because the Government has already arrogantly organised for the expense to be met. Evidently the Premier must have been consulted and has already agreed to this tomfoolery.

If the motion is but a misdirected effort to demonstrate that Australia ought to be a republic, it has further set back the cause of republicanism in this country. The Government continues to suggest there is some alternate agenda. There may not be an alternate agenda—and I do not believe there is one—but the Government attempts to give that argument credibility every time it pulls a stunt like this and introduces changes to symbols without consulting the people honestly, in what is perceived as an ambush. We all know that two members of the House who are unable to vote on this motion would be unlikely to support it, and that the Government will support it because of that advantage.

This is a private member's motion. Some time ago the Government promised that that member would be replaced when appropriate, and it has already tried to stymie that promise. However, to move this motion for some phoney purpose and without proper consultation is utterly wrong. The motion deserves not to be supported and I urge honourable members who might want to further the interests of this State to not support it. Given that Government members are yet to speak to the motion, they too might see sense and change their minds.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Peter Breen had not given a contingent notice to suspend standing orders. However, no point of order was taken. The House, which is sovereign, has agreed to the matter proceeding, and that is what must happen.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.32 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is completely opposed to the motion to remove the royal coat of arms from the Legislative Council and to relocate them in the Jubilee Room, which in another place is called the parliamentary museum. Putting the royal coat of arms into a museum would imply that they are dead and buried; whereas they are alive and well, because they represent the Queen of Australia and of New South Wales. That is why the symbol is called the royal coat of arms. Earlier I sought advice from both the Clerk of the House and the New South Wales Parliamentary Archives about this very serious matter. I received a letter from the Acting Clerk of the Parliaments, Ms Lynn Lovelock, who had sought advice from the Crown Solicitor on this matter. In her reply to me she included extracts of that advice from the Crown Solicitor, including:

While there seems to be no legal requirement to obtain the authority of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom in order to use the Royal Arms as proposed [ie to place them on display in the Parliamentary museum (Jubilee Room)] if they are removed from the chambers, protocol might suggest that the authority of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom should be sought.

That Sovereign is also the Queen of Australia. The Crown Solicitor's advice continued:

Unless the Sovereign of the United Kingdom has delegated authority to the Governor to authorise the use of the Royal coat of arms, I think the Sovereign would have to be approached personally for such authority. I do not consider any power that the Sovereign of the United Kingdom has to authorise use of the Royal coat of arms is a power "in respect of a State" exercisable only by the Governor pursuant to s 7(2) of the Australia Acts.

It is likely that the objects comprising the representations of the Royal coat of arms are owned by the Crown in right of this State and the agreement of the Crown in right of this State as owner of the representations should also be obtained before they are used in some other way.

In this House we argue about how important our standing orders, conventions and protocols are. The Crown Solicitor says protocol might suggest that the authority of the Sovereign should be sought. He said that the royal coat of arms is owned by the Crown, not by the Minister for Justice, and not by the Hon. Peter Breen.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Are you suggesting we send them back?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: No, it is owned by the Crown and is displayed in this Chamber for a purpose. Before any decision is made to remove or store the royal coat of arms, we should seek the approval of Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Australia and of New South Wales, to do so. I urge honourable members to take note of that.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: We sorted this out with William and Mary, Fred.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I am quoting the Crown Solicitor's advice relating to the present time, not to the days of King William III, and that cannot be ignored. The advice I received from the Manager, New South Wales Parliamentary Archives, Mr Robert Lawrie, in answer to the question of when the royal coat of arms first appeared in each Chamber, stated:

1. Legislative Council: It appears from the available evidence that the Coat of Arms was placed there as part of the original furnishings of the Chamber at the beginning of 1856, when the first Council met there at the inception of Responsible Government in New South Wales.

That was the point I made earlier when I asked the President to give advice and to table the document that gave approval for the removal of the coat of arms, because the Acting Clerk's advice to me stated:

… the Parliamentary Precinct was officially added to the State Heritage Register in May this year [7 May 2002].

That important decision was made to protect this Chamber and these historic buildings from future vandalism by those who might seek to bulldoze this Chamber or Parliament House to build motel-style chambers with offices, desks, et cetera. That might well be the whim of a future government or president, and that is why protection was extended to the whole parliamentary precinct by listing it on the State Heritage Register. Therefore, approval is needed for any changes. The Acting Clerk's letter further stated:

Subsequently, the representations of the Royal coat of arms in the chambers of Parliament are covered by heritage orders and approval must be sought for work undertaken in relation to them.

In response to an earlier question the President said that various bodies had helped to make the State arms, or something like that. To me that does not constitute approval for its removal. If the Government gave a body $20,000 and ordered it to make the State arms, that body would not question the order; it would just do it. I do not take that as approval for removing the royal coat of arms. All that the President said was that that body agreed to make the State arms—something that it was directed to do. I ask the President to table in the House a letter under her signature stating that the House wishes to remove the royal coat of arms and that it requires approval to do so under the State Heritage Register.

If the President had written such a letter I am sure she would have received a reply to the effect that the issue had been carefully examined, that the building had been inspected, that a whole lot of other things had been done, and that the body concurred or did not concur. I do not believe that the President's earlier explanation that this body went ahead and made the new State arms warrants approval for the removal of the royal coat of arms. Those are two separate issues. I ask the President to table such correspondence and any reply that she has received. If that correspondence is not available and this was a verbal agreement, debate on the motion should be adjourned until a later hour so we can be assured that we are acting within the law in proceeding with this motion. I will insist on that process being followed.

Whatever the Legislative Assembly does is its business; we are not briefed on what it does and it is not relevant in this Chamber. The royal coat of arms is not in this House as a decoration or as a trinket; it serves a function. The function of the royal coat of arms is to identify the head of state. In the case of New South Wales it is the Queen or her representative, and in the State it is the Governor. That is the point of the royal coat of arms. It should not be removed from this House until such time as there has been a Commonwealth referendum to establish whether the Queen should be removed as the Queen of Australia and as the Queen of New South Wales. When the people of New South Wales vote in that way—and I do not believe they ever will—we will remove the royal coat of arms and the word "royal" from every organisation in this State that has a royal charter. That would include the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and all those units identified with the Crown and to whom they swear an oath of allegiance. We must not trifle with the royal coat of arms. The royal coat of arms should not be referred to as the United Kingdom arms—a tactic that has been used by the Hon. Peter Breen.

The Hon. Peter Breen: That is what they are called.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: They are described as the royal coat of arms. The royal coat of arms represents our head of state, Queen Elizabeth, in her constitutional position as the Queen of Australia, not as the Queen of England. The royal coat of arms is symbolic of our heritage and our history as a State. The New South Wales Constitution recognises that the Queen of Australia is the official head of state in New South Wales. Under our Constitution, part 1.3, definitions, states:

The Legislature means His Majesty the King—

obviously that will become Her Majesty the Queen—

with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly.

So the Legislature includes the Queen and the two Houses of Parliament—a serious matter. As such, the function of the royal coat of arms is to identify the head of state—in the case of New South Wales, the Queen, or her representative in the State, the Governor. We urge the continued use of the royal coat of arms. The motion that is being debated in this House should be defeated, thus enabling the President to supply written approval relating to the heritage issue. For the reasons given by me and by other honourable members, the royal coat of arms should be retained in this Chamber. The royal coat of arms is a better representation of our national and State founding, culture, history and heritage. Its replacement with a State coat of arms is a different matter, as the State coat of arms has a different role.

During the inquiry of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice into the use of coats of arms a number of questions were raised. I supplied answers to those questions, to which I now wish to refer. Earlier some honourable members said in debate that the Australia Act 1986 changed everything. It did not. The Australia Act did not remove Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, Queen of Australia, as Australia's head of state; I believe it strengthened the role of Queen Elizabeth II. The Australia Act simply removed the power of the British Parliament to legislate with regard to Australia. It also clarified the powers and functions of Her Majesty and governors in respect of the States. It is therefore appropriate to display the royal coat of arms as it represents the Australian head of state, Her Majesty.

Since 1982 the Queen has been referred to as the Queen of Australia. All honourable members would be aware that the Australian military is still referred to as the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Army. So British sovereignty is not the issue; Australia is a sovereign nation under the Crown. In correspondence dated 8 May 2002 the Garter Principal King of Arms, the foremost authority on coats of arms in the world, stated:

The Royal Arms displayed in Australia are the Arms of The Queen as Sovereign of Australia: they are used throughout the Commonwealth where The Queen is Head of State.

Similar concerns have been expressed about the State arms as were expressed when the Government wanted to remove the Governor from Government House. It wanted Government House to be called the Government's house. The New South Wales State coat of arms, which the Hon. Peter Breen and the Labor Party want to use in this place instead of the royal coat of arms, were granted by King Edward VII on 11 October 1906. The royal coat of arms, which is engraved in stone, is still displayed on many of our court buildings. Judges still see themselves as operating under the royal coat of arms and under the authority of the Crown, which gives them authority as judges in our legal system.

For the reasons I mentioned earlier, all honourable members should vote against this motion. I do not believe sufficient consideration has been given to the heritage issue to which I referred earlier and to the symbolism of the royal coat of arms. Even though I strongly oppose the motion I will move an amendment to it. It would be an insult to many honourable members if the royal coat of arms was removed from this Chamber and put into what has been called the parliamentary museum. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting paragraph (c) (i) and inserting instead:

(c) (i) relocate the royal arms to another prominent position in the Legislative Council Chamber, as it is part of the property of the Chamber.

As such, the royal coat of arms should not be thrown out.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.49 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of my "niche", which is how the Opposition referred to the crossbenches. My niche is probably slightly bigger than that of the Hon. Peter Breen, but I will not hold that against him. I cannot support the motion as it stands. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's amendment may ameliorate some of my concerns. The royal coat of arms does not necessarily need to be removed from the Chamber. We could probably lower the Chamber by two feet by removing the top two steps of the dais to allow the new State arms to be displayed above the Vice Regal Chair. Removing the royal arms from the Chamber will cause disruption and disturbance. There is a danger that the arms may be damaged during removal, and it is probably not appropriate to place them elsewhere. Therefore, I do not support the motion of the Hon. Peter Breen.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.50 p.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Peter Breen on his work on this issue. I think we should put the motion into perspective. This is a housekeeping measure. It is the responsible thing to do. I hear more laughter from the Opposition benches. There has been much guffawing from Opposition members this afternoon, which does them no credit—just as their conduct during the debate has done them no credit. This is a housekeeping motion. We have a responsibility under the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act to clean up by removing the royal symbols that appear on State buildings and institutions. Section 5 (1) of the Act, under the heading "Replacement of Royal arms of the United Kingdom", states:

As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, any Royal arms of the United Kingdom used to represent the authority of the Crown in right of the State or the State in or on any public building or public place that is the property of the Crown in right of the State or of the State and is intended to represent the authority of the Crown in right of the State or of the State, are to be removed and replaced by the State arms.

I emphasise the final phrase and the fact that the replacement must occur "as soon as practicable". That legislation was assented to in 2004. This motion seeks to do the right thing.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It was just passed. The House was divided on it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, but the bill was still passed. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is aware of that. This motion simply calls on the House to do the right thing.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: These things should be done by consensus.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: All of a sudden Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is committed to consensus—it happens whenever he loses an argument. This debate has revealed the inadequacy and irrelevancy of the Coalition. I listened to the contributions of Coalition members. It was as though I was witnessing the Coalition's last stand. Coalition members had their backs against the wall, crippled by lack of leadership. The troops were desperate for a good argument but there was disagreement in the ranks about whether they should fight the motion with pro-monarchist arguments or simply accuse the Government of diversionary tactics. The Coalition's last stand was rather sad to watch—an example of irrelevancy if ever I saw it. As I said, this motion is a housekeeping measure. It calls on the House to do the right thing. Those members who oppose it so ferociously should remember that relevant legislation was passed. It has been an interesting debate. As other members have said, the royal arms are being removed from court and government buildings.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: The Queen is still the head of State—whether you like it or not. And you don't like it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The legislation was passed. Those opposite are the ones who have a problem with it. It is like watching Custer's last stand, with bad tactics all round. This debate is a sad reflection on the Coalition, which is divided in its response to the motion while clearly stuck in the nineteenth century. I congratulate the Hon. Peter Breen on his work on this issue.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [3.54 p.m.]: The motion moved by the Hon. Peter Breen concerns the removal of the royal coat of arms from the Chamber. He is correct in saying that this matter was dealt with by legislation. Madam President, you made a statement about a determination of the Heritage Council in this respect. However, I must re-emphasise the position outlined by the Hon. John Ryan. The State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Bill, which was enacted in 2004, makes it clear that the Premier must make this determination. The expenditure associated with this initiative has been approved by the President of the Legislative Council, a member of the Government, presumably with the full knowledge and authority of the Treasurer. The people of New South Wales need to know that they will be paying for the removal of the royal arms and their replacement by the State arms. They should be aware also that the Premier and the Treasurer believe this is appropriate.

The incredible thing about this debate is the fact that not one Government member has defended the motion. Not one Government member spoke in support of the suspension of standing and sessional orders yet they voted to debate the substantive motion this afternoon. Everyone knows that this is an initiative of the Government, which has the full support of the President. We can only conclude also from the wording of the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act that it has the full support of the Premier. Yet, amazingly, not a single Government member has defended what is clearly a Government initiative. It is true that the Hon. Peter Breen introduced the original bill. But in taking this step this afternoon the Government has revealed that it is involved up to its neck—and the people of New South Wales will foot the bill.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: We don't know how much they're paying, though.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: The Hon. Robyn Parker has pre-empted my next point. I was about to come to that issue. We have not heard from a Government member in this debate and we also have not heard what the cost will be.

The Hon. John Ryan: They're ashamed of it.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: They are absolutely ashamed.

The Hon. Michael Costa: No, we'll have to close the canteen.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: The Treasurer interjects to say that the Government will have to close the canteen. That is a surprise. The Treasurer has now told us that the staff canteen on level 6 of Parliament House will be closed. He interjected at the exact moment that I was discussing the likely cost of this measure. The Treasurer has said that the Government will shut a facility that is used principally by the staff. Madam President said that the cost of this exercise would be met from the budget allocation of the Legislature. Honourable members have mentioned in this debate the severe budget cuts that have affected the catering staff and other areas of the Parliament. Yet money is being found for this initiative. It is absolutely extraordinary!

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Where from?

The Hon. DON HARWIN: Where from, asks the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile? Perhaps the Treasurer is telling the truth and that shutting the level 6 canteen will pay for it. What else can we conclude? The amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, which provides that the coat of arms be relocated to another prominent position in the Legislative Council Chamber, should be seriously considered by honourable members before they vote on the substantive motion. I come back to where I started my contribution. The people of New South Wales will be paying for the new coat of arms, and under the Act the Premier is required to make a determination. Not one Government speaker has spoken in this debate to defend what is happening today.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Did the Minister at any stage make contact with the Minister for Police to express either his concerns or those of his departments about the decision to shut down Strike Force Tronto? Was the Minister, the Rural Fire Service or the New South Wales fire department ever informed by the Minister for Police or the Commissioner of Police that Strike Force Tronto was to be axed, despite investigating approximately 1,800 fires and collecting a substantial data base on serial arsonists?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My understanding is that Strike Force Tronto, like any other strike force, was established when it was needed following the 2000-01 fires. It was disbanded when its job at that time was completed and was re-established and later disbanded a second time. I have had the utmost co-operation from police. Fire investigators of the NSW Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Service refer some matters to the police, from whom they receive the utmost co-operation. Indeed, recently a former head of Strike Force Tronto was conducting a particular investigation.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Natural Resources. Will the Minister inform the House what is happening with the Barren Box Swamp project in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: This is a timely question, with the Barren Box Swamp project recently winning the environmental and heritage section of the Engineering Excellence Award for 2006. URS Australia Pty Ltd and Murrumbidgee Irrigation won that category. I offer my congratulations on what is a major large-scale water-saving initiative in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of Dick Thompson, an architect of that project. Yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald reported:

Not only does the Barren Box Swamp Project not take any water from [those] farmers, it in fact gives it back to the environment. It is one of the largest water infrastructure projects in Australia and will generate an additional 20,000 megalitres of water a year in nationally significant river systems …

The Iemma Government is about creating significant water saving projects with benefits for both irrigators and the environment.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What about Menindee?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes, I am working on that. Despite the efforts of the naysayers in The Nationals opposite, Barren Box has been great for irrigators and the environment alike. As Murrumbidgee Irrigation chairman Dick Thompson said in the Sydney Morning Herald article, "Barren Box marks the beginning of a new era of water management." It is a new era and a new Government direction that will see long-term benefits for New South Wales with award winning infrastructure in place to help us achieve this goal. Barren Box is an iconic example of what we can achieve when we work together—it has seen great improvements in management and efficiency of water storage and will reduce downstream flooding. As a result there will be a more natural flooding regime, which will see a more diverse wetland.

Only a few weeks ago I commissioned the Brays Dam and Barren Box projects—a $29.15 million scheme that will see up to 20 gigalitres in water savings each year for the Snowy River—that is 20,000 Olympic swimming pools worth of water a year. I was proud to be with Dick Thompson and the hardworking local member of the Legislative Council the Hon. Tony Catanzariti to launch this project. I cannot congratulate URS and Murrumbidgee Irrigation enough on their fantastic vision, drive and delivery.

[Interruption]

I would not be saying too much about Menindee Lakes if I were a member of the Opposition. The Coalition did nothing about it during its seven years in Government. Features of the Barren Box scheme include improving the management and efficiency of water storage and restoring a more natural flooding regime, thereby encouraging an ecologically sustainable and diverse wetland. Attention has also been paid to respecting, preserving and enhancing archaeological sites of indigenous significance in the area. I also point out that the Barren Box area is a culturally sensitive heritage site of the Wiradjuri people. Without the efforts of the local indigenous population and their collaborative efforts with URS and Murrumbidgee Irrigation, the 50 kilograms of invaluable artefacts found at the site would have been lost.

But this area is also valuable for another reason. Barren Box is the main irrigation and urban drainage water recycling plant for the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. But the 3,200 hectare site had become an inefficient storage basin with high water loss through evaporation of its shallow broad surface. Clearly steps had to be taken and that is exactly what this Government, Murrumbidgee Irrigation and URS have done. Works for the Barren Box involved splitting the site via internal embankments into three cells, which included a wetland cell covering 1,650 hectares or 50 per cent of the site. It also involved deepening the swamp itself to help reduce the amount of evaporation. The end result; a significant water saving project and a win-win situation for everyone. By investing in new technology and infrastructure, the whole community reaps the rewards. In terms of this project, there are great sideline benefits as well. Sea eagles are just some of the wildlife expected to return to the Barren Box area in big numbers. [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that the Rural Assistance Authority has heavied farmers over the telephone to sign an authority that their Federal Government exceptional circumstances drought relief payments automatically go towards any outstanding State Government Darling Electrification Construction Agency, soil conservation and natural disaster relief loans? Given that some farmers are struggling to put food on their tables, why is Country Labor facilitating this heartless and cruel act of bastardry? Will the Minister put a stop to that activity immediately?

The Hon. Michael Costa: He is acknowledging Country Labor.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I would stay out of this, Treasurer, if I were you. You are party to this as well.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Sit down, your time is up! I am not aware of any "heavying" of farmers by the Rural Assistance Authority. I am sure that, as usual, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has got it absolutely messed up. On the information I have available—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are denying it?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not denying anything.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes or no?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a joke! Everything the honourable member has said in this House has been proved wrong. I have no information that the Rural Assistance Authority is heavying anyone and I do not believe it.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: They are.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not believe it. I want to see the evidence instead of listening to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raving all the time.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question is addressed to the Minister for Natural Resources. Given that Port Jackson has been omitted from schedule 1 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 by regulation in Government Gazette No. 111 in accordance with section 42 (2) of that Act, do Port Jackson fishermen still have the right and power to exercise the procedural safeguards of subsections (4), (5) and (6) of section 42, which relate to compensation for the cancellation of their provisional shares?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question. I make it clear that two offers made earlier this year, in April or May, were extended. The first offer was to the Port Jackson fishers, and quite a number accepted it at the time. I extended that offer in a second offer, and a number of other fishers took it up. In fact, the overwhelming majority of fishers have taken up the option. In recent times there have been discussions with one party. I think those have been satisfactorily concluded, although I have not followed up that matter in the last few days. But we have not had, and do not have, plans for a third offer.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister's reply, is it not true then that he has purposefully negated the use of division 4B of the Fisheries Management Act 1994, entitled "Acquisition of Commercial Fishing Entitlements", so as to deny fishermen the procedural safeguards and natural justice intended by this Parliament?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: A number of fishers have taken up the opportunity for buyouts, and our position was that that would be handled by way of those buyouts. Plenty of opportunity was given for those fishers to take up the offer at that time.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Minister please advise the House what impact the Commonwealth's recent announcement about changes to WorkChoices will have on New South Wales families?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Federal Government has moved to modify a very small number of the provisions contained in its unfair WorkChoices legislation. Why has it done this? Because it knows that these laws are hurting Australian working families and it sounds loud and clear that the Federal Government is in electoral trouble. We know, because the Iemma Government's Fair Go hotline has taken more than 100,000 calls since these laws came into place in March this year. But these paltry changes will fool no-one; they are merely window-dressing; they do nothing to relieve the burden felt by thousands of New South Wales families who are suffering under WorkChoices. If anything, these modifications expose the real intent of the WorkChoices laws—that is, to drive wages down.

One of the modifications now requires employers to pay the higher minimum standards for the cashing in of sick leave and compassionate leave that applied prior to WorkChoices coming into effect. Let me repeat that for the benefit of those opposite. Employers are now legally required to pay existing workers the higher entitlements that applied immediately before the WorkChoices Act came into operation. This is an acceptance that WorkChoices has lowered entitlements. But the changes will apply only to sick leave and carer leave, and will not cover new employees entering the work force, that is, they will apply only to existing workers. Here is an open admission that the Howard-Debnam industrial relations changes are designed to cut the working and family leave conditions of Australian families.

The changes also reflect the fact that there are unethical employers who have already taken advantage of these changes at the expense of worker entitlements, namely, sick leave and annual leave. No amount of window-dressing can disguise that WorkChoices has removed many hard-won working conditions of Australian families. Under WorkChoices a base rate of pay is not protected, Saturday penalty rates are not protected, Sunday penalty rates are not protected, public holiday penalty rates are not protected, overtime is not protected, and rest breaks, annual leave loading and roster protections are not protected.
If the Federal Government were serious about fairness in the workplace, it would scrap these laws completely. And if the member for Vaucluse had any compassion, he would stand up to John Howard and say, "We are not going to cop your laws and we will maintain the fair New South Wales industrial relations system that has served New South Wales employees and employers well for over 100 years." If you can believe members of the Opposition, they will protect public sector workers from the impacts of WorkChoices—yet they will not do that for the vast majority of working families in New South Wales. They plan to sack 29,000 public sector workers—but claim they will maintain the system that could protect them.

The member for Vaucluse is committed to handing over hard-working New South Wales families to the unfair WorkChoices system. This is despite Peter Debnam's conservative colleagues in other States having the spine to stand up and say no to WorkChoices. But Mr Debnam does not have the guts to stand up to his political masters in Canberra. He will not stand up for New South Wales families.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of media reports that the Government has been served with a wish list by the State's peak environment groups that includes a claim to have the Millewa, Moira, Perricoota, Koondrook, Euston and Werai forests converted to national parks? Can the Minister confirm whether the Government has received such a log of claims? If so, can he assure the people of New South Wales, and specifically those who live along the Murray River, that these forests will not be fed into the insatiable moor of Green extremism—that ever-growing, ill-managed national parks estate?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his question and commend him for his keen interest in communities in regional New South Wales. I have not personally seen such a list; I do not know whether anyone in the Government has. I can say there has been no decision by this Government to convert those forests to national parks. I make that clear. In fact, I applaud the highest standard of environmental management being undertaken in red gum forests on the Murray, even as a valuable industry is maintained that serves people living in communities along the Murray, where my colleague in another place, the honourable member for Murray-Darling, serves his constituencies so tirelessly—and takes it right up to The Nationals!

The environmental values of the Riverina red gum forests on public land have been acknowledged, progressively accommodated and even enhanced in more than 150 years of purposeful management. New South Wales has pioneered the management of environmental water to enhance environmental, social and economic values of the red gum flood plain dominated wetlands of the Central Murray region. In 2001, Forests NSW was awarded a certificate of achievement in the New South Wales Premier's Public Sector Awards for its restoration of environmental flows and wetland values in the Millewa forests of the central Murray River. In May 2003 some 84,000 hectares of State forests located in the Central Murray were added to the list of internationally important wetlands under the Ramsar Convention. New South Wales is also participating in the Living Murray initiative and manages the Millewa, Koondrook and Perricoota State Forest icon sites under this initiative.

During 2005-06 New South Wales participated in managing 500,000 megalitres of environmental water to achieve outcomes under the Living Murray objectives. Waterbird feeding, flora health improvement and native fish spawning have occurred in the very same forests where sustainable multiple-use forestry, including sustainable timber harvesting, grazing, apiary and forest-based ecotourism continues.

I am further advised that NSW Forests, working in conjunction with a range of agency and community interests, has applied a second Barmah-Millewa environmental flow to the New South Wales State forests in the period from September 2005 to February 2006, with spectacular environmental results. The Government applies a high level of environmental management to the Riverina red gum forests. We also accommodate a valuable industry, worth around $60 million per year to the New South Wales economy, and support almost 400 jobs in locations where they are badly needed. That industry uses red gums from these forests for a range of high-value and specialty products, including poles for bridges and wharves, veneers, kiln-dried flooring, furniture manufacture, heavy construction and decorative building features. Industry and Government are both committed to the best use of available products that aims to maximise the value of this resource and put the industry and the dependant communities on a secure and sustainable footing. We are committed to the wellbeing of people in these communities, as we are committed to the wellbeing of people across New South Wales and a sustainable environment.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that the Federal Government has increased its funding for rural financial counsellors in New South Wales by 33 per cent to $3.2 million, or 50 per cent of total funding required? Why is the Minister heartlessly tearing away 25 per cent of funding—the community contribution that he picked up last year—which will result in the sacking of three New South Wales rural counsellors, at a time when 92 per cent of the State is drought declared? Will the Minister stop telling the media that the Federal Government directed him to reduce his funding allocations, given that is a blatant lie? How does the Minister expect those communities to pick it up this year when they could not pick it up last year?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Isn't that amazing! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said I directed the Federal Government. What an absolute piece of nonsense! That just shows his lack of understanding.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is not what I said.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: He said that the Commonwealth had directed us.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You can't even listen. You have got it wrong.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: He said that the Commonwealth directed us on it. The Commonwealth did not direct us on anything. I have been making—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have been telling the media that.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have not.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes, you have.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have not.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You told The Land that.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: You have got it wrong—as usual.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Well, tell The Land they have got it wrong.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: You have got it wrong. For many months I have been raising two issues on behalf of rural financial counsellors. One issue is that the Commonwealth instituted an inquiry to change the management structure of the Rural Financial Counselling Service. The inquiry was bitterly opposed by each and every one of the rural financial counselling services across the State. The second is that the Commonwealth would not—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Where is your money?

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not at Crookwell screaming down an empty main street so that someone might recognise him! On numerous occasions we have made the point that the Commonwealth had to come forward with its funding, but it took a long time and it was surrounded by a lot of uncertainty. We pay each of them a considerable amount of money every year.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Stop stuttering and answer the question.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Get off it!
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: My question is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister advise the House on the work of our emergency services over the weekend?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: If the wild weather we saw—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: This was not urgent an hour ago. The question has been asked only because we raised the matter.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I was hoping that the Leader of the Opposition would have asked me a question first off. If the wild weather we saw on Sunday was a warning of what we can expect in the months ahead, then we face an extremely long and difficult summer. It was a particularly bitter warning for the men and women of our emergency services, who know that this sort of weather in September could mean that far worse is to come. This fear is reinforced by experts from the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre who flagged concerns that fire seasons are starting earlier and lasting longer. More than 50 fires were reported in a number of areas on Sunday. At its worst, a new fire was being reported every eight minutes or so.

More than 800 firefighters from the Rural Fire Service and New South Wales Fire Brigades responded to fire emergencies declared in the Hawkesbury, North Baulkham Hills, Newcastle, Wollondilly and Shoalhaven. Rural Fire Service Commissioner Koperberg reported that conditions for firefighters were horrendous as they battled flames 20 metres high in winds of more than 100 kilometres an hour. It is all but impossible to fight fires in that sort of weather. As honourable members can imagine, water that they tried to pour on the fires was blowing back in their faces. There were reports of firefighters clinging onto the backs of their tankers as they were blown off their feet. I am sure the House joins with me in commending our firefighters for their superb efforts in such dangerous conditions.

The courage and strategy of these men and women were, as always, beyond compare. Nowhere was their commitment more obvious than in the actions of Rural Fire Service volunteer David Lemon, who, when he realised he could not save his home, joined fellow brigade members to go to the aid of others in the line of the fires. That is typical of the unstinting dedication of our volunteers. It was through their tremendous efforts that the losses were confined to seven homes in total, along with a number of sheds, motor vehicles and farm machinery. The losses were terrible for all the families involved, but given the intensity of the fires, the weather conditions and the location of a number of the buildings, the toll could have been much higher. In fact, it could have been hundreds of homes. Many hundreds of homes and lives were saved. While local communities are rallying to help the victims, the Government is providing them with an immediate grant of $10,000 to help them get back on their feet in the short term.

Yesterday the Premier, the Deputy Premier and I joined Commissioner Koperberg to visit Picton and to inspect the fire scene and thank the firefighters for their hard work. We were joined at that visit also by State Emergency Service Director General Philip McNamara. With the wild weather the State Emergency Service received more than 3,300 calls for help, and had 500 volunteers in the field. Again, I commend the work of all our volunteers. The Government has played its part by providing record budgets to ensure our firefighters are the best equipped in the world. Over the past 12 years the Government has invested a total of $6.1 billion in our emergency services to ensure they can carry out there work effectively and safely. The SES budget increased by some 16 per cent last year. This year the Treasurer has given us a 20 per cent increase in the budget for the Rural Fire Service. I am sure all members of the House will join with me in thanking and congratulating our dedicated volunteers who continue to risk their lives to protect our lives and their property.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. In the past five years how many babies in New South Wales have been born with foetal alcohol syndrome? Given that the Department of Health and Ageing estimates that it could affect two or three babies per 1,000, how serious is the problem? Will the Minister provide figures estimating the financial costs borne by the State and families with children who are severely affected by this syndrome? Is the Minister aware that the United States of America has health warnings on alcoholic beverages about the effects of alcohol consumption during pregnancy? Will the Minister advocate to his Cabinet colleagues that warnings on alcoholic beverages be mandated in New South Wales? If not, why not?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I do not have any of the statistics the honourable member has referred to, although I understand that his question referenced some statistics. This issue was before the Ministerial Council on Drugs and Alcohol when it last met in Perth. A working party is considering the issue, and will report to the next ministerial council meeting in November. Two matters need to be resolved: first, whether total abstinence is the appropriate approach or whether some limited approach during pregnancy can be tolerated; and, second, depending upon the outcome, what should be the content of any warning placed on an alcoholic beverage. I am not in a position to respond to those issues. When the working party reports in November I will be in a position to outline the council's recommendations and a possible Government response.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. Which detention centres have experienced disturbances since the sudden removal of pay TV?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Obviously I am not aware of whether there have been any disturbances or whether there is any validity to the honourable member's question. If there is, I will report back to her.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I ask a supplementary question. What was the cost to taxpayers of riotous behaviour over the past two nights at Reiby detention centre? How many staff have been called in to attend? How many detainees have been charged?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is a separate question. There is no link between that question and the previous question.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: My question was how many disturbances have been experienced since the removal of pay TV, and the disturbance at Reiby has been experienced since the removal of pay TV.

The PRESIDENT: Order! A supplementary question may be asked of a Minister to elucidate an answer. As there was no answer, there can be no elucidation.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. What is the latest information on medical graduate doctors in the public health system?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Today I was pleased to announce that 600 new medical graduates will take their place as interns in our public hospital system. These graduates will be trained at more than 18 of our hospitals and rotated through many more hospitals, particularly in regional and rural New South Wales. The State Government is proud to play its part in training well-rounded medical practitioners. New South Wales Health guarantees employment for new graduates for three years to support continued training and supply of doctors. The first two years of post-graduate employment and continued training for doctors are vital to developing a highly skilled medical work force in New South Wales. All first-year medical graduates and international medical graduates must complete an internship in a public hospital before they can gain conditional registration. Some 478 first-year interns will take up their positions in 2007.

For the first time, students from rural clinical schools have been able to undertake their internships largely in rural hospitals. The Rural Preferential Recruitment Pilot Project is a new direction for training new doctors in rural locations. As a result, 15 medical students who specifically requested rural practice have been given extended terms in country hospitals. Eight of them have been recruited to Wagga Wagga, four to Orange and three to Tamworth. While 478 first-year intern doctors will take up their positions, which is an increase of two doctors from the previous year, the numbers do not go anywhere near matching the increased demand for hospital services.

We really need the Federal Government to create more university medicine places, but the Opposition's apologists for the Commonwealth's inaction will not assist. The New South Wales Government has been a staunch advocate for more doctors in our public hospitals. We have taken up the fight to the Commonwealth to obtain increased funding for higher education contribution scheme university training places for doctors and nurses. We have held robust discussions with the Royal College of Surgeons to argue for a fair number of surgical training places in our public health system. We have persuaded the ministerial council and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to become involved in that issue.

The New South Wales Government has consistently represented the interests of the community in pursuing more doctors for our public health system, but the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for North Shore have been noticeably silent, demonstrating that they are completely unwilling to stand up to Canberra to obtain a better funding deal for our State. In those circumstances, New South Wales has been forced to look elsewhere for doctors, despite having a plethora of talented young people who want to take up a career in medicine. An additional 110 international medical graduates who have passed the Australian Medical Council examination are expected to be recruited to our hospitals next year.

I thank the New South Wales Institute of Medical Education and Training [IMET], which has been responsible for allocating medical graduates to intern positions. IMET was established in September 2005 to improve the quality and delivery of medical training in New South Wales. I look forward to updating the House on future work force recruitment success.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Given that climate change stands to have great impacts on the environment and economy of New South Wales, will he commit to funding programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2012?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: While leaving aside the provocative statement in the first part of the question, I point out that this State already funds programs on climate change.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for the Hunter. Will he inform the House and the community of the cost of relocating the existing royal coat of arms from this Chamber to the Jubilee Room and the cost of the manufacture and installation of a new State coat of arms for the Legislative Council?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not know whether a decision already has been made to relocate the State coat of arms. A debate is under way. I inform the House that no money has been budgeted forward to move any coat of arms.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I address my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will he update the House on the Government's assistance to employees and employers in rural industries across New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question. The Iemma Government has introduced a new initiative, Working on the Land, to assist rural employers to better understand their workplace rights and obligations. Working on the Land has been developed by the New South Wales Office of Industrial Relations to provide industry-specific support and assistance to meet the needs of rural business operators and rural employees. Along with Compare What's Fair and the Fair Go Advisory Service, Working on the Land is part of the Iemma Government's efforts to ensure that workers are treated fairly in the workplace and to provide employers with practical assistance in dealing with the impact of the Commonwealth Government's WorkChoices legislation.

The Office of Industrial Relations inspectors will be speaking to farmers and growers throughout the State, offering information and advice that is aimed at helping them to meet their workplace obligations. The rural industry is unique. Much of its work force is employed on a casual and itinerant basis. It is important that workers in those industries receive their correct entitlements and fairness. In the 2005-06 financial year, the Office of Industrial Relations inspectors detected wage and entitlement underpayment by more than 1,000 rural and regional businesses and their actions resulted in the recovery of more than $1.3 million in back pay for rural workers.
The Working on the Land web site initiative will support the work of the inspectors and meet the special requirements of rural business operators and their workers by providing a one-stop access point for relevant information. Through the Working on the Land telephone advisory service, a rural employer or employee will be able to speak to an Office of Industrial Relations advisory officer or leave a request for a call-back response at a specific time to suit them. Through the Working on the Land section of the Office of Industrial Relations' web site, they will be able to access information in respect to specific rural awards.

Employers will be able to request a visit by an Office of Industrial Relations inspector who will work with the employer to check that the workplaces practices being carried out are correct and respond to any questions that the employer or his or her employees may have. A number of Working on the Land seminars are being conducted in regional areas to provide specific workplace information for rural industries. Bookings for these free seminars may be made through the web site. The Working on the Land rural assistance program is part of the Iemma Government's ongoing commitment to maintaining fairer and productive workplaces throughout New South Wales.

The New South Wales industrial relations system always has been based on a culture of education, co-operation and collaboration, supported by an independent umpire and backed by the safety net of the award system. This system lies in stark contrast to the Howard Government's WorkChoices regime. The New South Wales Office of Industrial Relations' advice hotline has received more than 100,000 calls and many of those have been from employees who have had their entitlements stripped away, have been threatened with the sack, or in fact have been dismissed. One in three of the calls is from people who are working in rural and regional New South Wales. The Office of Industrial Relations is also receiving plenty of calls from small business owners who are confused about WorkChoices and are unable to obtain answers from the Howard Government.

The Working on the Land initiative will go some of the way to providing rural business operators with access to information and assistance on industrial relations issues. The Iemma Government will continue to take whatever action is possible to ensure that people are treated fairly in the workplace and will protect workers, their families and small business owners—all of whom will suffer if the WorkChoices legislation is allowed to continue. We have already successfully used State legislation to protect the working conditions of young people under the age of 18 years. We are committed to using every means at our disposal to curb the excesses of WorkChoices and protect the families of New South Wales.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I address my question to the Minister for Emergency Services. Given CSIRO predictions that climate change will result in the number of extreme fire danger days in New South Wales increasing by up to 25 per cent by 2020 and 70 per cent by 2050, what is his department doing, other than providing more funding for firefighting, to help reduce the impacts of climate change? How will a 70 per cent increase in extreme fire days impact upon his department? What planning is being done to prepare for the financial and social costs of more climate-change-induced fires? What discussions has he had with his ministerial colleagues to explore a more effective whole-of-government approach to reducing greenhouse pollution that results in catastrophic events, such as last weekend's bushfires?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am pleased that Ms Sylvia Hale asked all those questions in one minute. During question time, members are allowed to ask one question, not a great series of questions. The Rural Fire Service, the State Emergency Service and the New South Wales Fire Brigades are prepared for any eventuality. As I pointed out in an earlier answer, the Government has spent billions of dollars on emergency services in the past decade.

This year alone the Government has invested an additional 20 per cent of expenditure in the Rural Fire Service, which is now the best trained, best equipped and most dedicated emergency services group in the world. It is prepared for any eventuality. If Ms Sylvia Hale is worried about the greenhouse effect, I suggest she speak to her Victorian counterparts and try to convince them to desist from using dirty brown coal to produce electricity and instead use New South Wales coal to produce Victoria's electricity, which would dramatically reduce the greenhouse effect.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. Will the Albatross Road respite facility at Nowra close? Will all of the users of the Albatross Road facility be directed to an alternative facility at Bomaderry? Will the Bomaderry unit have the same number of beds as has Albatross Road? Why did the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care recently accept the donation for the unit of a specialised bed, worth $2,800, from the Nowra Lions Club when it was known that the unit had been earmarked for closure?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The New South Wales Government and the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care are very appreciative of the assistance provided by the local community and the Lions Club of Nowra in donating a motorised four-stage bed to the department's Albatross Road respite centre in Nowra. Unfortunately, there appears to have been miscommunication between the department and the Lions Club in arrangements for the formal presentation. The department regrets the distress caused to the Lions Club by this misunderstanding and stands ready to make new arrangements for a presentation and public acknowledgment.

This view was expressed to the president and secretary of the Lions Club at a meeting with the regional director, James Christian, on 19 September 2006. In relation to the relocation of the Albatross Road centre, the department recently secured a new house to relocate the existing service. All equipment used at Albatross Road will be transferred to the new respite service. The new respite facility will allow for the establishment of an additional fifth bedroom, allowing a greater level of respite for people with a disability in the area. The bed donated by the Lions Club of Nowra will be fully utilised for the original purposes intended.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister inform the House of the latest efforts that the Government is taking to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As Government members would recognise, the Iemma State Government is 100 per cent committed to addressing climate change. The Government has taken innovative steps to ensure New South Wales is a leader in this area. That is why I announced just last week during a field day near Forbes that the State Government would invest $2.5 million in climate research. The property of Farmer of the Year, Gary Johnston, was the perfect place to launch this important package. The Johnston property, Merriment, is a perfect example of what can be achieved with the right balance between productivity and the environment. It is to help farmers such as Gary Johnston that the Iemma Government will spend $2.5 million during the next three years in an effort to shed light on the management of climate change.

This is an important step for both the State's primary industries and the environment, and is just one part of the New South Wales Greenhouse Plan. However, to our farmers and regional communities, it is crucial, especially during the worst drought in living memory. This important research will be conducted at some of our leading regional research centres—namely the Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute and the Tamworth Agricultural Institute.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What about Narromine?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I think it has a role; it may. Scientists and researchers will look at a range of subjects from soil and pasture management right through to educating farmers about understanding climate change predictions. Research projects include investigating ways to measure and manage soil carbon stocks in agriculture and forestry to offset greenhouse emissions in line with Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, members of the Opposition are not worried about the Kyoto Protocol; they cannot even acknowledge that there is a problem with greenhouse gases or get their mates in Canberra to sign the agreement. Well, the New South Wales Government does care and we are doing something about it.

This research project will also see a system developed to allow catchment management authorities to act as "pool managers" and trade carbon credits on behalf of individual landholders. Researchers at Tamworth will quantify the impact of zero-tillage summer-winter response cropping on the cracking clay soils of north-western New South Wales on soil carbon storing. Meanwhile, at Wagga Wagga, researchers will gauge the impact of perennial pastures in southern New South Wales on soil carbon storing. Department of Primary Industries staff will deliver regional forums in partnership with catchment management authorities, Landcare and local government, to help farmers and rural communities understand current climate change predictions. There is no doubt that climate change and greenhouse gases are now characteristics of our environment and for this reason they deserve our researchers' full attention.

The current drought has led to higher temperatures and greater rates of evaporation than previous dry spells. Climate change is expected to further increase the severity of droughts in the future. I add that the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries is no stranger to greenhouse research and has already had success in cattle breeding research that has identified genes that reduce methane emissions from cattle. The New South Wales Government is also a participant in the Coal 21 National Action Plan. The action plan identifies a number of emerging technologies that hold the key to reducing or even eliminating emissions from coal.

I point out that the Department of Primary Industries is also active in this area through the Government's Exploration New South Wales initiative in identifying potential geological formations for the disposal of C0₂. The Department of Primary Industries is also working with the New South Wales Greenhouse Office and the New South Wales Minerals Council to identify fugitive emissions of greenhouse gases from coalmines and develop strategies to reduce these. In March last year Forests NSW became the first body in Australia authorised to create and sell carbon credit certificates based on its forest plantations. Forests NSW is recognised as a leader in the development of carbon accounting models, providing a high level of confidence and security to the marketplace regarding our carbon products. Forests NSW continues to work with international companies to deliver carbon offset solutions, including the Tokyo Electric Power Company, TEPCO, and the Italian-based semi-conductor manufacturer, STMicroelectronics.

It is obvious that New South Wales is at the front of the pack when it comes to managing greenhouse gas emissions. The State Government was the first government in the world to introduce a mandatory emissions trading scheme, the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme. I also remind those opposite that New South Wales is the first State in Australia to identify goals for big cuts in greenhouse emissions such as achieving a 60 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The Hon. JON JENKINS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. On or about 16 September 2006 did the Greens political party have its official political party campaign launch inside the Cape Byron Marine Park? Was that not clearly a breach of the regulations governing the use of marine parks? Did the Greens political party have a permit to conduct that event inside the Cape Byron Marine Park? If it did have a permit, will other political parties also be issued with permits to conduct political campaigns, including photography and other advertising material inside the Cape Byron Marine Park or any other marine park? If the Greens political party did not have a permit, will the organisers of that event be charged under paragraphs (a) and (d) of regulation 24A and/or regulation 261 (b) at least? Were the Cape Byron Marine Park authorities aware of that blatant breach of the park's regulations? If they were so aware, why did they not remove the persons conducting that illegal activity under regulation 33 (1) (a)? Does that now mean that all political parties can organise campaign launches inside what are really now political parks?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am sure it was not a big political gathering. How many were there?

The Hon. Jon Jenkins: You can see from the photo in the newspaper.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That question has not exercised my mind in recent times. However, I found it very interesting that the Hon. Jon Jenkins has all that information.

[Interruption]

I do not charge anyone. I will refer the question to the department for consideration and will give the honourable member a reply in due course.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Last Monday in Griffith's newspaper, the Area News, the Rural Fire Service [RFS] Zone Commander, Kevin Adams, stated that because of the big dry "there were a lot of chances for fires to take off." Yet, just five days later in the same newspaper, the RFS announced that the official fire season has been put back from 1 October to 15 October, because of, as he said, "the generally low fire danger existing over much of the district areas." How does the Minister explain the inconsistency?
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: The question seeks an opinion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The point of order is upheld.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. What is the latest information on the New South Wales Government's efforts to target drug use by truck drivers?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On Sunday, with the Minister for Industrial Relations, I released a report which revealed that one in five truck drivers uses illegal drugs to help stay awake on long-haul trips. I announced in response to that report that the Government had established a task force to examine the issues surrounding that report. The task force will build upon the significant work the Government has already taken, including laws that place responsibility on employers for managing fatigue relating to drivers whom they engage, and also the new roadside drug testing laws. Clearly, more needs to be done, particularly because of the Howard Government's WorkChoices legislation, which will place additional pressure on drivers to carry out more work for less pay.

The Iemma Government is seeking, through the High Court, to protect New South Wales families from these extreme industrial relations laws. The study it released on the weekend demonstrates, yet again, why it is protecting workers and why protecting workers is so important. The report commissioned by the Government and by NSW Health, which was undertaken by the University of New South Wales Injury Risk Management Research Centre, disturbingly found that one in five truck drivers is using illegal drugs to stay awake on long trips. More than half the truck drivers surveyed used stimulants at some stage during their driving career. Another 25 per cent had used them in the past six months.

Drivers using drugs are driving longer hours per week and are more likely to be paid per load or per trip. The report revealed that drug use was associated with a higher risk of fatal crashes and that drivers who take drugs are more likely to be the culpable drivers. One of the reasons for this is the sudden loss of alertness experienced by drivers when the stimulants wear off. During late 2005 about 200 long distance truck drivers were surveyed at nine truck stops within 200 kilometres of Sydney. The surveys found that drivers who were paid on the basis of work carried out by trip or by load were two to three times more likely to use stay-awake drugs such as speed.

This is where the effects of John Howard's WorkChoices legislation will compound the problems for drivers. Australian workplace agreements can be used to make drivers work longer hours and travel longer distances and to earn the same or less. The Federal Government's legislation will add additional pressure on drivers to carry out more work for less pay. On 26 September the Transport Workers Union stated:

The taskforce is a step toward reducing the number of people killed in heavy vehicle accidents on our roads ... Coroner's inquiries, government reports and numerous drivers, through their Union, have confirmed that excessive client pressure is the cause of drug use in long distance transport where it occurs.

Unlike the Federal Government, the New South Wales Government has been increasing its efforts to drive home the safety message to the long haul trucking industry. The Minister for Industrial Relations implemented legislation that forces big companies to take responsibility for how their goods are being transported. Recently the Minister for Roads and the Minister for Police introduced new random roadside drug testing laws to identify the presence of speed, cannabis and ecstasy. The Iemma Government implemented those practical measures to save lives.

The task force the Government is convening will include representatives from relevant government departments, including the Roads and Traffic Authority, police, WorkCover, NSW Health and the unions. They will respond to the report and build on the work we have already done to develop strategies to address the widespread use of stimulants among long distance truck drivers. This issue must be addressed across the whole of government and involve all relevant authorities. It is not an issue that will be helped by the desire of the Leader of the Opposition to hand over to John Howard the industrial relations system of New South Wales. The Leader of the Opposition clearly will not stand up for New South Wales, but we will. [Time expired.]
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Did the Gender Centre Inc., which is located at 75 Morgan Street, Petersham, provide funding and support for Noel Crompton to undertake a sex change operation while he was imprisoned for murder, at a cost of $25,000? What total funding does the Gender Centre Inc., including its needle exchange, receive from the New South Wales Government or from any New South Wales government department? What action does the Government take to audit the financial and other activities of the Gender Centre Inc., especially the members of its transgender youth support group who are aged 16 to 25? Does the centre actively encourage sex change operations?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Clearly, I need to seek advice in relation to this question, and I will.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is very wise.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The advice I have been given is that it commenced as a Commonwealth-State funded organisation. I will obtain the details and provide them to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. Is he able to advise the House on the major disturbances experienced at Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre on Sunday and Monday night?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Earlier the honourable member asked me a question about the juvenile justice centre and about the removal of pay television—an issue that she raised in the media where she said what a terrible thing it was. When I found out that pay television was installed at the detention centre I had it removed. The honourable member then asked me what would be the cost of riotous behaviour to the taxpayers of New South Wales. I have been advised that since the removal of pay television there have been no riots at any juvenile justice centre.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister outline the Government's initiatives to assist young people with a disability living in nursing homes?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for her interest in a matter of great importance to the community. The New South Wales Government acknowledges that there are widespread concerns in the community about younger people with a disability living in residential aged care with older residents_that is, in nursing homes.

[Interruption]

Opposition members are living in fairyland. According to latest data from the Commonwealth Government, currently 13 people under the age of 30 years are living permanently in residential aged care facilities in New South Wales. Recently the Iemma Government announced Stronger Together—a 10-year plan for disability services that will change the way people with a disability are supported—which includes a significant boost in funding, an additional $1.3 billion over the first five years, unmatched at the moment by the Opposition. Stronger Together supports the agreement reached by the Council of Australian Governments in February 2006 to reduce the number of young people living in residential aged care.

To address this issue a new five-year program has been established to provide accommodation and support services for young people with a disability in residential aged care facilities. The Council of Australian Governments agreed to commence the new five-year program from July 2006, with funding of $80 million in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government will match the Commonwealth dollar for dollar in this important program. The Government will use this money to provide the greatest amount to help the largest number of people by using the funds to prevent more young people entering residential aged care, improving the lives of those who remain in residential aged care, and developing new services that will enable young people living in residential aged care to move to more appropriate accommodation and care options.
The investment will assist up to 300 people over the next five years. Young people under the age of 50 who are the most inappropriately housed will be prioritised for assistance under the program. The New South Wales Government is currently negotiating a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth, which will include an implementation plan to roll out the program. It is anticipated that the first year of the program will focus on strategic planning and assessing young people living in residential aged care who wish to participate in the program, to identify their long-term support needs. It is expected that a variety of support models will be available, including in-home support for families who seek to have their family member return home.

Under the program capital expenditure will be available for purpose-built accommodation and to modify existing facilities to meet the needs of some of these young people. In the first year the planning and assessment process will identify the areas to locate accommodation to facilitate movements out of residential aged care and to gauge the spread of support that can be provided with available resources. By the end of year one it is anticipated that 10 young people will be assisted to transition from, or be diverted from, entering residential aged care, and up to 25 young people who remain in residential aged care will receive specific disability support services to improve their lives. These initiatives will be implemented in close consultation with younger people, their families and their carers. Mechanisms will also be developed to engage government agencies, disability service providers, and advocacy services.

[Interruption]

The Hon. John Ryan is never in a rush for anything. The program is an important step in improving the circumstances of younger people with very high support needs.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Roads.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: He is not here. I will answer the question for him.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: On 14 June 2006 the Minister announced that options were being considered to rectify the unsatisfactory and unsafe pedestrian crossings at Falcon Street as a result of the Lane Cove Tunnel works. The Minister stated that work on the pedestrian bridge was expected to begin in early 2007. As the opening of the tunnel is rapidly approaching, what progress has been made with the underpasses and overpasses? When does the Minister anticipate that work will commence and be completed? Can local residents and schools be guaranteed that work will start before the March 2007 election?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Ms Lee Rhiannon has asked a series of quite important questions. I recall the Minister for Roads responding to a number of those queries with a considerable level of detail. I know the Minister for Roads to be a person both of great judgment and of great honour.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: What did he say? Did he say that it will happen before the State election?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am repeating to Ms Lee Rhiannon her quotation of the Minister for Roads. If I have misunderstood her, I apologise. I was saying that the Minister for Roads is a person with considerable judgment and a great sense of honour. If he has publicly committed his department to taking those actions, I am certain that it will. As for the timetabling, that answer is within the province only of the portfolio Minister. I will ask him upon his return to give Ms Lee Rhiannon details in a prompt fashion.

If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Earlier in question time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about the Rural Assistance Authority. I can inform him that applications for assessment for exceptional circumstances interest subsidies are not influenced by whether the applicant has existing loans with the authority. Any decision as to whether a successful applicant makes repayments is reached by agreement with the client. I am advised that there is no pressure for any adjustment to necessarily occur. I am happy to examine any specific examples—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But it is happening, isn't it?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that there was bullying.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is happening and it should not be happening.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No. People are not being bullied.

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claimed. If there is any suggestion that has occurred I will be happy to examine any specific examples provided to me. The Rural Assistance Authority is well aware of the difficulties of the existing season, and I expect it to continue to take a flexible and sensitive approach to these issues.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Earlier in question time the Hon. Don Harwin asked me a question about the bushfire danger near Griffith.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ruled that question out of order.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: I do not mind if the Minister for Rural Affairs wants to give me an answer outside the Chamber but he surely cannot provide a supplementary answer to a question that you ruled out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Don Harwin is absolutely correct: The question was disorderly.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about Strike Force Tronto. On Wednesday December 2001, following the Christmas 2001 bushfires, NSW Police established Strike Force Tronto, led by Assistant Commissioner John Laycock. The 26 strike force investigators investigated 502 fires, 154 of which were identified as suspicious. Some 132 people were detained for breaches of the Crimes Act and the Rural Fires Act, and 26 people were charged. Strike Force Tronto was reactivated on 9 October 2002, following the Engadine bushfires. So my recollection earlier was roughly correct when I said that I thought the strike force had been activated and deactivated twice.

NSW Police will establish a specific bushfire arson task force when fires occur. This is clearly a sensible way to approach the bushfire season. There is no point having a standing bushfire arson task force as bushfires are a seasonal phenomenon. NSW Police has formed such task forces twice before, and had considerable success. Commissioner Moroney has now agreed to re-establish the task force in light of the weekend's bushfires. I was also asked whether the Rural Fire Service was aware that the task force had been deactivated. It certainly was.

Questions without notice concluded.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 139 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the replacement of the royal arms in the Chamber with the State arms, be called on forthwith.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 139 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [5.05 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this vocal and highly charged debate. The motion is supported by legislation—a fact that has been forgotten in the debate. The State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act is deliberately not republican in purpose, it is not republican in its drafting and it is not republican in its effect—nor is it monarchist.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It's sneaking republicanism.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: It is not sneaking republicanism. The Act is consistent with either form of government and detracts from neither. These issues were widely canvassed during the parliamentary inquiry into the proposed legislation. I recall that the Hon. John Ryan was a member of the relevant committee, and my recollection is that he supported the principle and various issues that arose. This legislation clearly requires the royal arms to be replaced by the State arms not only in this Chamber but across New South Wales government. The Act is intended to recognise our separate sovereign status—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Government House as well?

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Yes, Government House as well. Specifically, it recognises our separateness from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Act was assented to by the Queen of Australia. The royal arms, so-called, are not the personal arms of Queen Elizabeth II, who is both Queen of Australia and Queen of the United Kingdom. She is also Queen of Canada, New Zealand and various other countries. She never uses her personal arms, which are the arms of a branch of the House of Saxony. This is where Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile consistently misleads people about this issue.

The royal arms are the arms of dominion and sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and are used by the sovereign of that kingdom to represent that kingdom and its territorial possessions. The royal arms were the arms of sovereigns during the period when Australia was a territorial possession of the United Kingdom. The sovereigns of the United Kingdom were then also the sovereigns of Australia, but that is not the case today. Australia has not been subject in any way to the United Kingdom since at least the passing of the Australia Act in 1986. That Act was assented to by the Queen of Australia. The United Kingdom Parliament passed the legislation and it was assented to by the Queen of the United Kingdom in that country. The royal arms have not been the arms of the Queen of Australia, and in particular the Queen of Australia in right of New South Wales, since at least 1986.

What, then, are the arms of our sovereign? There has been a muddle on this issue since at least 1986, and it is a muddle that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has promoted. Clearly the arms of our sovereign are not the arms of dominion and sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which the High Court of Australia has repeatedly acknowledged to be a foreign entity. The State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act 2004 provides the answer for New South Wales. Under that Act, the arms representing our sovereignty are the State arms of New South Wales. Section 4 (1) of the Act states:

Whenever … arms representing the authority of the Crown or the State are to be used for any official purpose, the State arms are or a State symbol is to be used …

Section 4 (4) provides:

The State arms may be used with such external ornaments as are consistent with their status as arms and symbols of dominion and sovereignty.

The State arms are the arms of the dominion and sovereignty of New South Wales. The State arms are the arms of our sovereign. It is appropriate that those arms be displayed in this Chamber, not the royal arms of the United Kingdom and its dominions. We are no longer a dominion of the United Kingdom. I urge honourable members to support the motion in its original form and to reject the amendment moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Mr Brown Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Miss Gardiner Mr Jenkins

Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Mr Ryan Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly

Ms Fazio Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid

Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Breen Mr Primrose

Mr Gallacher	Mr Roozendaal
Mr Gay	Ms Sharpe

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly Ms Fazio

Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson

Mr Tsang Mr West Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Breen Mr Primrose

Mr Brown Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Miss Gardiner Mr Jenkins

Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Mr Ryan Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Gallacher Mr Gay

Mr Roozendaal Ms Sharpe

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.
Debate resumed from 20 September 2006.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.20 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Education Amendment (Financial Assistance to Non-Government Schools) Bill. The purpose of the bill relates to New South Wales per capita grants to non-government schools being governed by section 21 of the Education Act. The bill inserts a new section 21A to prevent the payment of grants to non-government schools that operate for profit. The Christian Democratic Party agrees with that principle. Our concern with the legislation is its workability, because there seems to be a grey area where companies want to set up schools. Though this bill is designed to prevent those schools from getting government funding, they still must go through the registration process. However, if the school is a profit-making school, it will not be eligible for State funding. There is another question about Federal funding, but this matter deals with State funding.

I have noted that various organisations that have tried to set up schools already are anticipating this legislation. The regional organisation ABC Learning Centres has helped set up another organisation called Independent Colleges Australia. I understand that organisation is planning to build a private school in Kurri Kurri, in the Hunter Valley. It tried to register the school in Queensland, but the Queensland Government prevented it from doing so. The chief executive of Independent Colleges Australia says the organisation has been set up as a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, which means it has no shareholders and cannot be sold to or owned by anyone else. The question for the Government is: Would Independent Colleges Australia be eligible for funding under this legislation because it has set up its organisation as a not-for-profit company? The organisation claims that its schools are not-for-profit schools. I ask: Where do surplus funds, if there are any, go? The organisation must have some method by which funds can be distributed, whether as directors' fees or by some other mechanism. I bring to the Government's attention that such groups may already have moved to use some loophole to avoid the impact of this legislation.

Also, many large private schools—they may have been called church schools previously—are also registered as companies. Others are not companies but are run by parents. I understand that the large majority of non-government schools are operating as companies. If they are companies, do they technically come under this legislation? It may be argued that they are for-profit schools, even if they do not make a profit. This is a major issue where large organisations are involved. One that I am concerned about—and I would be asking the Government now how it can distinguish this particular school and whether it would be affected by this legislation—is the Malek Fahd Islamic school in western Sydney.

There has been some controversy about this private school, which receives more public funds than any other school in New South Wales. I understand it receives more than $11 million a year. I have not been able to ascertain whether that is only Federal funding. There was a suggestion it included State funding, but my suspicion is that it is all Federal funding and that there could be another $3 million in State funding. However, I have not been able to confirm that suspicion. Nevertheless, the school would receive State funding.

I am not in any way critical of the school itself, which I believe is being exploited by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. The Islamic school is situated on land owned by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and is supposed to operate as a separate, not-for-profit organisation. However, the federation of councils is charging the Islamic school a huge amount of money every year for rent, accounting fees, cleaning costs and other charges, and the money raised from those charges account for two-thirds of the budget of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils of more than $2 million a year. This school, which gets Federal and State funding, is located on land owned by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, which I believe is abusing the school by overcharging it this huge amount of money.

This matter has been investigated. I understand the average commercial rent for land of this quality should be $240,000—yet the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils is charging the school $2 million. That $2 million is funding the operation of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils; that is, the Federation of Islamic Councils is living off the money raised by the school. I understand the money is then used to finance bodies affiliated to the Federation of Councils. The question is: Is this an attempt to make a profit from the school? I would say it is. Because there was some controversy about who really runs the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and divisions within the organisation, and as they were arguing about who were the valid officers of that organisation, there has been a court inquiry, and Mr Robert Smith, a forensic accountant, was appointed to investigate the exorbitant rent being charged by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils and the finances of the organisation. An investigation by Mr Smith revealed that rental income is used to support the political activities of dozens of Muslim groups and individuals in the country. The report states:

Arguably there is a diversion of "profit" from the school to AFIC [Australia Federation of Islamic Councils].

Such a diversion is what I have speculated that governments will be concerned about—educational funding being diverted to other entities for purposes other than education.

AFIC has nine Islamic councils and dozens of smaller affiliates as members. It spends its funds on a range of activities, including grants to Islamic societies and donations to individual imams around the country.

I understand that the Mufti of Lakemba is paid a salary from funds supplied by the Federal and State governments. A large percentage of funds are transferred from the school to the council, and the council uses the money to finance its activities and the activities of other Islamic councils, as well as to pay the salaries of some of the imams. The bill is designed to stop the abuse of State funding, but could Government funding, which is taxpayers' dollars, be diverted to companies though rent and passed on to shareholders as profits? The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill. However, the way in which organisations can circumvent the objects of the bill should be investigated. We urge the Government to investigate the points I have raised to ensure that funds for genuine educational purposes are not channelled into other areas.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Health) [5.32 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate and for their strong support for the bill. I thank the Opposition particularly for its support. This important legislation provides parents and the wider community with an assurance that New South Wales government school funding will be for the benefit of students. It sets the ground rules for the future to ensure that anyone who wants to open a non-government school in New South Wales will be absolutely clear on what the Government will and will not fund. As a matter of principle, the Government has no intention of preventing the establishment of profit-making schools, but they will have to meet the full range of standards and requirements for school registration. Parents will ultimately decide if this type of school has a future role in our education system. The bill enables non-government schools and school communities to structure themselves in ways that best meet their needs, as long as they meet one fundamental principle: schools receiving State funding do not pass profits to a for-profit entity.

I reject the assertion that the bill has a number of significant loopholes. It requires all transactions with for-profit entities to be at market value to ensure that profits are not taken out of schools. The bill will be supported by an audit and certification process to ensure the rules are kept. Long experience has taught us that if we try to proscribe a particular structure, another structure can be devised by clever lawyers and accountants to overcome that proscription. The Government's response is measured and appropriate and based on a balanced assessment of the broader public interest. The bill will provide for a more transparent and accountable system—a move that will be welcomed by parents and the wider community. Again I thank members for their contributions and support for the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.36 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1, line 10. Insert "if its proprietor is a company limited by shares or" after "profit".

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1, line 16. Insert "(other than a body corporate)" after "person".

The first amendment will exclude a company limited by shares from receiving Government funding, and mirrors the Queensland legislation to which I referred in my contribution to the second reading debate. The Queensland legislation has a great deal of merit. The New South Wales Government would have been wise to follow that legislation much more closely. Amendment No. 1 will make it difficult for education providers to be established in a way that enables revenue or profits to be distributed to shareholders rather than to the school. Amendment No. 2 will tighten up proposed section 21A (3) (a), which in its current form provides that a school cannot be considered to operate for profit just because of payments made by the school to people on the governing board, as an honorarium or as a reimbursement. The problem with the proposed section is twofold. First, the legal definition of "person" includes a corporation and could therefore include a for-profit corporation. Amendment No. 2 therefore limits proposed section 21A (3) (a) to restrict the definition of "person" to living persons—that is, persons other than a body corporate. The Greens believe that the amendment is necessary if the intent of the bill, as outlined by the Minister, is to be realised. If the Government is serious about tightening up profits that can be made from Government funding, clearly the amendment is necessary. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Health) [5.38 p.m.]: The impact of the proposed section referred to in amendment No. 1 is to define that any non-government school is taken to operate for profit if its proprietor is a company limited by shares. Therefore, it will not receive government funding. The amendment focuses on the corporate structure of the proprietor rather than the real issue of whether school funding is diverted to profit making. Proscribing a company that is limited by shares from running a school will not necessarily stop non-government schools from profiting from government funding. The bill achieves the purported aim of the amendment in a more focused way. Long experience has taught us that if we try to proscribe a particular structure, another structure can be devised by a clever lawyer or accountant to overcome that proscription.

The bill targets transactions of schools rather than corporate structures. The thrust of the bill is that schools would not be able to pay part of their income or assets to another person unless transactions are at market value. Any person or organisation can establish a school and have it registered, with all the usual requirements of the Board of Studies, but if the school wishes to receive State government funding, the assets and income related to the school must not be used for profit making.

The impact of amendment No. 2 will be to specify that a person receiving an honoraria must not be a body corporate. The Government does not support this amendment because it would have little impact. Members of a school's governing body are likely to be persons, not a body corporate. It seems quite unlikely that proprietors of schools would have members of governing bodies that are themselves bodies corporate. It is much more likely for a school's governing body to comprise representatives nominated by bodies such as the Catholic Church.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [5.40 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not support the amendments.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Cohen Ms Hale

Mr Brown Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Ms Cusack Mr Donnelly Miss Gardiner

Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Ms Robertson Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.47 p.m.]: I move:

Page 3, schedule 1, line 34. Omit "operating". Insert instead "utilising that financial assistance".

The amendment has been proposed by the New South Wales Parents Council Inc,, which supports the bill but has expressed the view that the term "operating" is not sufficiently clear. The council suggests that the word "operating" should be replaced by "utilising that financial assistance for profit". The concept of utilising financial assistance gives a Minister great flexibility in deciding whether a school should or should not receive funding. A school may not be operating for profit, but may utilise financial assistance for profit.

The purpose of the amendment is to assist in expressing the Government's intention. I agree with the council's interpretation that the provision is not sufficiently clear. The council agrees that every child has a right to share equitably in public funding that is allocated for schools, and that public funding for schools should be allocated for each child on the basis of the educational needs of each child. The council also agrees that parents have the right to exercise choice of schooling for their child without financial disability being imposed upon them or the child by the Government, and that funds from public and parent resources should be expended on services and facilities that are related directly to the teaching and learning operations of a school.

The council supports a prohibition on public funds allocated for schooling being expended on activities of a for-profit nature and believes that schools must demonstrate appropriate expenditure in their financial disclosures to the Government. The council supports the discretion given to the Minister to be satisfied that public funds allocated to a school are in no way being utilised for profit. For those reasons the council prefers the term "utilising that financial assistance". The amendment will not in any way diminish the bill. Rather, it will assist in providing the Minister with wider discretion in making decisions in the grey areas in which some of the for-profit groups operate.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Health) [5.50 p.m.]: The Government is unable to support the amendment because it is inconsistent with the definitions in the bill. The bill inserts a new section 21A, which provides that State financial assistance may not be paid to schools that operate for profit. The bill defines "for profit" to mean, in the school's context, a proprietor's assets or income, as they relate to the school, being paid to any other person. It confirms the Minister's authority to call in information about any school contract or commercial arrangement. If the Minister is of the opinion that a school is operating for profit, the effect of the amendment would be to reduce the scope of the Minister to call in information about any school contract. The amendment limits the Minister's ability to call in information only to circumstances in which the Minister is of the opinion that the school is utilising the State's financial assistance for profit. Additionally the amendment would impose an onerous accounting burden on proprietors and schools; they would have to document every expenditure as to whether it was funded from the State or from other sources to allow for it to be traced. The original bill is supported by two key stakeholders representing non-government schools, the Catholic Education Commission and the Association of Independent Schools.

Amendment negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.54 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 39:

(5) For the purposes of subsection (3) (a), payments that are made to a person are taken not to have been made by way of honorarium if the total of any such payments in any one year exceeds $500.

The amendment relates to honorariums. Unfortunately, "honorarium" is not defined in the bill. Therefore we have a problem in that the honorarium is not limited in size. Greens amendment No. 3 sets out the need for a limit to the honorarium, and we propose that it should not exceed $500. We believe that $500 is a very generous amount to offer to board members. I know of no public school that offers any honorariums to board members, and that is why I am saying that our amendment is very generous. The amendment means that payments to board members cannot be used as a way to siphon off funds from any school. Clearly we need to close loopholes and that, again, is the intent of this amendment. I urge honourable members to think about this carefully and to support the amendment, which is not unreasonable. If the major parties cannot support the amendment, the Greens must ask why. Why will they not agree to something that is reasonable, in fact very generous, for board members? It allows them to pick up $500. What could be the concern of members that would cause them not to support the amendment?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Health) [5.54 p.m.]: The Government cannot support the amendment. Schools have the right to determine appropriate honoraria for managing boards, particularly as the management of schools is becoming an increasingly complex exercise. There is no evidence that school payments have been directed to profit-making entities through a mechanism as transparent as this. Fees paid to directors of companies have to be publicly disclosed to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. School boards already can pay honorariums and compensate for out-of-pocket expenses. There is no evidence that that discretion is being abused. The original bill is supported by two key stakeholders representing non-government schools, the Catholic Education Commission and the Association of Independent Schools. I am not aware of the mischief that Ms Lee Rhiannon is seeking to address in the amendment. Frankly, I think it is misconceived.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [5.55 p.m.]: The Coalition does not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and report adopted.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Health) [5.57 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.57 p.m.]: I oppose the third reading of the Education Amendment (Financial Assistance to Non-Government Schools) Bill, and I oppose the bill. It does not have the appropriate foresight in that quality education is the issue, not profit. Profit, in itself, is not a bad word. We are all aware that in education many things could be questionable, including whether profits are being made. In saying that, I absolutely support the private education system and every penny that it gets from government, at both State and Federal level; it deserves every penny it gets.

If governments are to pay a certain amount per student for the education of a student, there is no reason why that amount should not be paid to private individuals who are responsible for educating children. A private institution that has profit as its end purpose is just as entitled to the payment as is a non-profit organisation, if one takes the view that the outcome of education and the quality of that education is what is important, not whether someone makes a profit at the end of the day. If a profit can be made and quality education can be delivered, that is not a bad thing. Indeed, if parents are not getting what they want, not getting what their children deserve and not getting what they expect from a particular educational facility, they will not send their child to that facility; a profit will not be made; and, indeed, the facility will go out of business.

In a sense, we are saying that a school that is not all that great, because it does not make a profit can be paid; but we cannot give money to an educational facility that, in theory, could be a magnificent facility because it is making a profit. The fact that it is making a profit is somehow against it. I reiterate, profit itself is not a bad word. The fact that a school is making a profit does not mean it will not do a good job. Any school that attempts to make a profit, provided it is an appropriate facility or institution, clearly would charge a substantial amount. Currently, private schools—which I support—charge thousands of dollars per term and in theory are non-profit, as we understand them to be. Thousands of dollars are paid to them. Imagine what a for-profit school would charge: many, many thousands of dollars.

At the end of the day, if schools are providing quality education children will be sent there and parents will pay a fortune to send them. If they are not providing quality education they will not exist. If the Federal Government and governments at large provide X number of dollars for the education of each child in this State or this country there is no reason why that figure cannot go to a profit-making concern. The issue relates to education and quality and not to whether someone makes a profit. It could be suggested that taxpayers who choose to send their children to a profit-making facility and who pay a fortune for the privilege of doing so will be discriminated against because the taxes they pay are not being paid over in any amount to the school in question.
If people pay their taxes and they expect that part of the money will go towards education, wherever that education may be, those taxpayers have a right to expect that that amount of money will go to any school regardless of whether it makes a profit. I reiterate that I completely support the private school system; I think it does a wonderful job and it deserves every penny it gets. I do not include in this argument the private school system. In itself the word "profit" is not bad word. If this issue really is about education it does not matter whether schools are paid something towards the education of a child. If they are no good they would not exist and this situation would not occur.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [6.02 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Della Bosca: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

In this the 150th year of parliamentary democracy in New South Wales we can be very proud of an electoral system that is free, fair and independent. But there is always room for finetuning. In that spirit, I am pleased to introduce the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Bill, a piece of legislation that aims to strengthen the conduct of elections in New South Wales and to improve the functioning of our State electoral authority. This bill implements recommendations made by the New South Wales Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the electoral districts commissioners and the Council on the Cost and Quality of Government. It also includes numerous changes proposed by the Electoral Commissioner as well as measures arising from an extensive consultation process. In fact, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters received a number of submissions and held two public hearings as part of its inquiry into the administration of the 2003 State election. In addition, the bill was released on 3 July as a consultation bill for public comment, and 17 submissions were received by the Cabinet Office. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who made submissions on the draft bill.

Turning to the substance of the legislation, the bill makes a number of changes to modernise the arrangements for the conduct of elections, perhaps the most visible of which will be a change in the name of our electoral authority. Under this bill the State Electoral Office will be renamed the New South Wales Electoral Commission to bring our nomenclature into line with other States and Territories. Another important reform will be a change in the way that the Electoral Commissioner's term of office is decided. Currently the Electoral Commissioner's term is age defined—that is, he or she must retire at the age of 65 even if that falls just before an election when it would be highly inconvenient. This amendment will ensure that the Electoral Commissioner is appointed initially for 10 years and is eligible to be reappointed for any period up to another 10 years.

An appointment of 10 years is considered appropriate as it will ensure that any Electoral Commissioner will be in office for at least two general elections. This means that any given Electoral Commissioner will have time to gain the confidence of key stakeholders and will provide stability in the electoral administration of New South Wales. Transitional provisions will be required to ensure that the current Electoral Commissioner is appointed under the new provisions for a period of 10 years. When passed, the bill will mean that the current commissioner will remain in office from late 2006 until late 2016, allowing him to oversee the general elections in March 2007, 2011 and 2015 plus the local government elections in September 2008 and 2012. The Electoral Commissioner may also be reappointed for a further period—for example, long enough to oversee the local government election in September 2016.

The bill will redefine the roles of the Electoral Commissioner and the returning officers. Under current legislation many of the important functions associated with running an election are vested in individual returning officers, who have wide discretion. This reflects a bygone era when it was not possible to communicate readily with the State Electoral Office. This situation has persisted even though most people see the Electoral Commissioner as bearing the ultimate responsibility for conducting elections. The amendments will increase the Electoral Commissioner's control over the conduct of elections and therefore reduce inconsistent decision making by various returning officers. The bill will make it clear that returning officers are subject to the direction and control of the Electoral Commissioner.

The bill will also make several changes relating to enrolment. Under the legislation New South Wales residents will now be able to check their enrolments online. The bill will also clarify the Electoral Commissioner's power to obtain information from State agencies so that he can notify people about their obligation to enrol and also pass on this information to the Commonwealth. The rights of registered parties, members of Parliament and candidates to have access to the roll will be codified. The sale of the New South Wales electoral roll will be prohibited. Importantly, the Electoral Commissioner will be able to provide access to the electoral roll when this is in the public interest—for example, for the purpose of medical research. The bill will introduce a new requirement to collect date-of-birth information as part of the enrolment process, which will ensure consistency with the Commonwealth. The requirement for voters to state their occupations when enrolling will also be retained for statistical purposes in line with a request made by the Electoral Commissioner.

A number of provisions in the bill have been designed to improve postal and pre-poll voting arrangements. For example, silent voters will be permitted to make pre-poll and postal votes and postal votes will now be able to be issued and received by the Electoral Commissioner as well as by returning officers. The eligibility criteria for becoming a registered general postal voter will be made consistent with the Commonwealth, which will reduce confusion for voters. Another important aspect of the bill relates to the use of certain licensed premises as polling places. The bill will permit premises with a liquor licence to be used as polling places in certain circumstances—a provision that was requested by the Electoral Commissioner and that has been modelled on the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

The Government wants to be clear about this: This provision exists to give people in rural and remote areas the best possible access to polling places. In many communities town halls and community halls have some type of a liquor licence, generally because they are used for functions such as wedding receptions and dances. Under the law as it stands the possession of such a licence rules them out as potential polling places even though they may be the only suitable location for a polling place in a town or hamlet. Under this clarification to the law such premises may be employed by the Electoral Commissioner as polling places but only under strict conditions—and I emphasise the word "strict". The first and most obvious of these conditions is that alcohol may not be served in the polling place during the hours of polling. Furthermore, the area in which alcohol is kept or served must not be accessible from the place where voting is occurring.

I turn to other aspects of the bill relating to how-to-vote material. The bill extends the current registration requirements for how-to-vote material so that all election-related material to be distributed on election day in a public place must be registered by the Electoral Commissioner. Currently the legislation requires only the registration of materials concerned with the technical aspects of how voters mark their ballot papers. While those provisions will continue to apply, the bill will also require all other election-related material to be registered. That material must meet three reasonable criteria in order to be registered. The material must contain the name and address of the author and printer. It must not be obscene or offensive and it must not encourage informal votes.

Currently there is nothing in the Act that compels returning officers to make registered material available for inspection. The bill improves transparency by providing that all registered material proposed to be distributed in electorates must be available for inspection on election day at the office of the returning officer. The registered material may be requested by any scrutineer or by any person enrolled in that electorate. These reforms implement the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that all registered material should be available on election day. Following the consultation process, the bill has been amended to provide that when election officials attend declared institutions, such as nursing homes, to provide residents with a vote they must have a folder that contains the registered electoral material of candidates, parties and groups and they must ask each voter whether he or she would like to view any how-to-vote material.

This amendment will ensure that voters in declared institutions have access to how-to-vote cards to assist them in making a formal and informed vote, just as they would at a regular polling place. This bill will also change the laws governing election posters. For example, the bill will abolish the existing size restriction on posters so that posters of any size may be displayed on election day. We do not want returning officers running around with tape measures sizing up posters. They have better things to do, and the Government trusts political parties to apply a commonsense approach to the size of posters.

The bill will also abolish the power of returning officers to remove illegal posters on public and private property, except at polling places. This should be a matter for property owners to deal with because returning officers should not be required to divert resources to undertake this task. I add that all political parties can do better when it comes to cleaning up their posters after election day. We all can and must do better. This amendment will not, however, affect the ability of election officials to remove illegally placed posters on polling day at a polling place. Indeed, in accordance with the recommendation of the joint standing committee, enforcement powers are being expanded to ensure that election officials have the capacity to confiscate all unregistered material that is being distributed on polling day at polling places. There will be no requirement under the bill for posters to be registered, which continues the current practice.

Another recommendation of the joint standing committee that has been adopted is the proposal to prohibit the canvassing of votes within six metres of the entrance to a polling place. The amendment will ensure consistency with the Commonwealth and will therefore reduce confusion for persons handing out electoral material on polling day. The bill also carefully defines the entrance to the polling place as being the entrance to the actual building and not to the enclosed grounds where the building is located unless the returning officer puts up a notice to the contrary. Several recommendations of the electoral district commissioners arising from the recent electoral redistribution have been adopted in this legislation. In particular, electoral boundaries will now be shown in map form instead of being described in words using the traditional "metres and bounds" approach.

The bill also makes a number of provisions concerning local government. In particular the bill allows the Governor to make a regulation requiring local councils to contribute to the cost of maintaining the electoral roll. In response to concerns expressed during the consultation process, the Government proposes to consult further with local government about the amount and timing of this contribution before making any such regulation. I note that the Local Government (General) Regulation will be amended to codify the right of local government candidates to obtain a copy of the electoral roll for their area once an election is called. When this bill is passed the Government will also need to consider which of the new State electoral laws should also be applied to the conduct of local government elections. This will involve amending the Local Government Act and any regulations made under this bill. The Government proposes to consult further with local government and other stakeholders about the appropriate changes with a view to putting any changes into place well before the next general local government election in September 2008.

A number of other procedures will be streamlined under this bill. For example, registered political parties now have the option of lodging nominations for all endorsed candidates at the same time with the Electoral Commissioner instead of having to lodge individual nominations separately with each district returning officer. I note that bulk nominations of this kind will have to be lodged before noon on the day before the close of nominations. Similar amendments are to be made to the Election Funding Act so that registered parties will now have the option of applying for bulk registration of all candidates with the Electoral Commissioner at the same time as they nominate those candidates. Deposits for both Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly elections may now be returned to political parties and groups rather than individual candidates.

The bill will also provide that the form used to nominate scrutineers and the declaration form that scrutineers must sign are to be combined into one standard form. The bill will also provide for an elector to make an oral declaration instead of a written declaration that he or she fulfils one of the eligibility requirements for pre-poll voting. In addition, minor amendments to the ballot papers will ensure that the same ballot paper may be used for both postal votes and on polling day, which will save on printing and administration costs. The bill will also provide that a vote recorded by a voter placing numbers outside the squares but clearly beside the name of candidates is to be treated as a formal vote instead of as an informal vote, as is the case now. This is consistent with other Australian jurisdictions.

The bill also implements a proposal of the Council on the Cost and Quality of Government that the Electoral Commissioner no longer conduct elections for statutory boards or industrial organisations. Those elections will be conducted instead by external service providers who are accredited by the Electoral Commissioner. This reform will assist the Electoral Commissioner in focusing on his core responsibilities of conducting State and local government elections. The Electoral Commissioner has identified a number of additional minor and technical amendments that are required to be made to the legislation.

This legislation is about improving the conduct of elections in New South Wales to ensure our electoral system remains not only free and fair but also efficient and effective. I commend the bill to the House and once again thank all those who have contributed to the creation of these important reforms.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.03 p.m.]: The Greens have a number of serious concerns about the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Bill. I foreshadow that we will move a series of amendments to it during the Committee stage. Elections are an important opportunity for citizens to engage and to exercise their voice. As members of Parliament we have an obligation to ensure that citizens can vote in a fair and honest system—a system where each party has an opportunity to communicate with voters on polling day and where citizens are able to cast an informed vote. This bill makes technical and administrative changes to the conduct of elections in New South Wales and to the functioning of the State Electoral Office.

The Greens are not opposed to many of those technical changes. However, mixed in with those more technical changes are a number of substantive changes that will seriously affect the way in which election day is conducted. I understand that some of the changes will attempt to bring the legislation closer to the Federal electoral provisions. But the Commonwealth Electoral Act is not problem-free. Just because a certain formula is used on Federal election day does not mean we should automatically import those laws at a State level. The Greens are concerned that a number of proposed changes in this bill will skew the results on polling day. I am speaking specifically about proposals to remove the restriction on the size of posters and to prohibit putting up posters and canvassing for votes within six metres of a polling place.

These changes will advantage larger parties, so let us be honest about whom we are talking. On polling day these changes will particularly advantage the Australian Labor Party and disadvantage small parties and some Independent candidates. If the bill remains in its present form, on polling day larger parties, propped up with corporate donations, will be even more dominant at booths, and smaller parties with fewer resources will scramble to reach voters and canvas effectively for votes. These changes will have an adverse impact on how informed the electorate is on polling day and ultimately this will undermine the quality of democracy in New South Wales. The Greens are committed to grassroots democracy. We are committed to empowering the community through involvement in government decision-making.

The Greens are also mindful of the rights of smaller parties and of Independent candidates. The ability of a number of parties to campaign effectively is a basic and fundamental tenet of democracy and that right must be protected. For that reason I will be moving a number of amendments in Committee. Let me outline the broad areas in which I will be moving those amendments. One area of concern relates to the size limit on posters. The Greens are concerned about the attempt in this bill to remove the size limit on posters. The bill seeks to repeal certain sections and to amend certain sections in the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act. The consequence of that is that the size limit on election posters will be removed. The current size limit for election posters is 8,000 square centimetres, or about one metre by 0.8 metres.

The Greens are comfortable with removing the size restrictions on posters for the purpose of advertising on commercial billboards or at rallies. However, we believe it is important to maintain the size restrictions for posters at polling booths to ensure that super-size posters do not smother polling booths. Maintaining size restrictions at polling booths will avoid the problems experienced by voters and candidates at Federal elections. I imagine most people know what I am referring to. Major political parties roll out big pieces of plastic right around the polling booth at the local school or wherever the booth is located and there is no room for a minor party or an Independent candidate to put a few posters on a fence, which is highly inappropriate.
We do not need that sort of Federal provision in our State law as it will prevent parties and candidates from having an equitable share of space at polling booths. From my experience, it can even create ill feeling between canvassers at polling booths. Over the years that I have worked at polling booths I have found that there is usually fairly good spirit or a good atmosphere between people from different parties, but when one party has such an unfair advantage the day does not start off with good spirit. If this provision is included in State law I am concerned that sooner or later it will lead to unpleasant incidents occurring at polling booths. The environmental benefit of maintaining a poster size limit at polling booths should also be a consideration. I will move an amendment that seeks to retain current size restrictions for posters at polling places on election day.

Another matter relates to the placement of posters at booths. I will also be moving an amendment to add a new section that requires that no posters are affixed at polling booths until 6.00 a.m. on polling day. At the last Federal election posters were affixed to some polling booth boundary fences the evening before the election and in at least one case that I know of security guards were hired to protect them. I was disappointed that things got to that stage in an Australian election. Clearly, this practice should be discouraged to ensure an equitable share of space for election posters at polling booths for various candidates and parties. My foreshadowed amendment, which is one that is worthy of support, would help to bring equity back to the conducting of elections in this State. I will move another amendment relating to the size of posters.

The Greens are also concerned about those provisions of the bill that prohibit postering and canvassing for votes within six metres of the entrance to a polling place. Six metres is a considerable distance from a polling place. Members of major parties may not be aware of that as they usually have many supporters at the entrance to polling places, who are able to approach voters coming from all directions. But imagine a scenario where only one worker is staffing a polling booth. Under this bill, that worker would be positioned six metres away from the entrance to the polling place, trying to hand out material to voters who are coming from different directions. Unless that worker has very long arms indeed, he or she will miss many people. If booths are positioned close to the entrance of the polling place a lone worker can cover the majority of voters who enter.

At some polling places there are three different directions from which voters might approach a gate. The six-metre requirement means that more booth workers would be needed to staff each gate or entrance adequately and inform the electorate. This proposal will make it more difficult for voters to receive all how-to-vote cards on offer and will make it more difficult for candidates and parties to staff polling booths adequately, particularly in rural electorates. This proposal will result in more people voting without the benefit of how-to-vote cards. In turn, this will have an impact on the choice of primary vote, as well as preference flows, probably increasing the number of exhausted votes. The majority of voters want to receive how-to-vote cards and the legislation should not create further barriers to this occurring. If we cannot amend that part of the bill democracy in New South Wales will be diminished. A limit of two metres leaves more than enough room for voters to access a polling place unobstructed. The two-metre limit is more stringent than the existing regulation. It would allow voters to approach the polling place unencumbered and would not give a political advantage to the larger parties.

I am also concerned about the bill's provisions regarding the inspection of election material. The bill requires that a copy of election material and the certificate of registration must be available for inspection at the office of the returning officer for the district during the hours of polling on polling day. The Greens would like to expand this provision to require electoral material to be available for inspection at the State Electoral Office both on polling day and for four days prior to polling day. This is in the interests of electoral openness. Voters, journalists and the public have a right to know—and to scrutinise—what political parties are doing with their preferences. We must state that requirement clearly—as our amendment seeks to do—or this provision will be interpreted very narrowly.

The Greens are also concerned about local council contributions. The bill requires that local councils contribute up to one-half of the amounts payable by the State of New South Wales to the Commonwealth under joint roll arrangements for the cost of maintaining the electoral roll. This cost may be significant. We all know that local government is the level of government least able to pay, and there is a strong argument that the cost allocated to local councils should be borne by the New South Wales Government. If local government were better funded, a different conclusion could be reached. However, the present regime simply shifts the cost of maintaining the electoral roll—I believe in an underhanded manner—to local councils when the New South Wales Government should pay for it.

I foreshadow that the Greens will move a series of amendments in Committee. We believe a robust democracy requires an informed electorate. The bill in its present form shifts costs and makes it more difficult for people to access electoral information. All political parties and candidates should have the opportunity to communicate with voters on polling day. No one party should be assisted in increasing its dominance at polling booths. The Greens are concerned that this is a self-serving bill. I fear that the Australian Labor Party is trying to use the bill to bolster its electoral chances at the expense of the smaller parties and Independent candidates. Voters at the last State election gave the Government no mandate to do this. If the bill passes as it stands there is a danger that the electorate will lose more confidence in the democratic process. People get browned off with the political process—from what occurs in Parliament, to donations to political parties, to how laws are changed to give certain parties a political advantage. Unfortunately, this bill is in the latter category, and the Greens feel strongly that it must be amended. I look forward to considering the amendments in Committee.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.15 p.m.]: The stated object of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Bill is to amend the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 with regard to electoral administration, redistribution and the general conduct of State elections. The bill implements some of the recommendations of the New South Wales Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which I am a member, and some of the changes proposed by the Electoral Commissioner. In order to shorten my contribution a little, I refer honourable members to my speech in the House last Wednesday 20 September about the committee's report. At that time I said that the committee's terms of reference were extremely narrow in order to preserve the bipolar nature of politics in this country and the huge gerrymander that I believe exists in favour of the major parties. This leads to the demoralisation of the electors, who believe it does not matter how you vote because you get much the same result.

Both major political parties are competing for the middle ground. The lower House is structured in such a way as to rubberstamp the policies of the government of the day. A campaign has been launched against the continued existence of the upper House. Indeed, there is a gerrymander in this place such that the major parties get more seats than they deserve in terms of votes. Legislation cannot be varied and members of the major parties must toe the line dictated to them by the ruling clique. That is a travesty of the electoral process and I believe it has led to widespread voter disillusionment. The bill, which fiddles at the edges, will not change the reality of politics in New South Wales, and I make my comments in that context.

The bill restructures the State Electoral Office, transferring many functions now performed by returning officers to the Electoral Commissioner. It renames the State Electoral Office the New South Wales Electoral Commission. About the only matter worthy of comment is the continuation of the requirement to register how-to-vote material that can be distributed in a public place on polling day. Unfortunately, election material does not have to state who authorised it and is required to carry only the name and address of the printer. I do not know why. It would be far more instructive if party material carried the name of the relevant party.

I have a poster from a previous election that is totally misleading. It does not identify clearly who was responsible for its promulgation and says simply in black and white, "No War—Vote 1 the Greens and 2 Labor". Honourable members may remember that the Iraq war was a big issue during the 2003 campaign as the election occurred shortly after the invasion. The poster has a name on it but gives no clues as to who or which party produced it. It is totally misleading. The Australian Democrats took a very strong stand against the Iraq war—I believed it was an extremely important issue—but Labor did not. Labor was dragged into the debate, kicking and screaming. The Left wanted the party to do something but could not convince the dominant right wing to do much at all.

Another aspect of the bill to which Ms Lee Rhiannon alluded is the distribution of election material within six metres of a polling place, which is consistent with Commonwealth legislation. If party workers are prohibited from approaching within six metres of the entrance to a polling place it will be impossible for a lone person to cover voters entering from all directions. Therefore, the provision favours political parties that have more workers to hand out how-to-vote material. Although the bill appears to be neutral, that provision favours the major parties.

We continually see that in the way the electoral system is run in this State. There is no restriction on the size of posters. We have seen the size of posters grow_huge posters are rolled along a fence for sometimes hundreds of metres around schools. Thugs_which is not too strong a word_keep anybody from interfering with their posters that take up all the space. Perhaps during the next election giant banners will hang from trees, and it will be turned into hoopla.
Not much more is worth commenting on in regard to the bill. In a modern age it should be a given that that candidate's name is placed on the commission's web site, as should the publication of government contracts, in the interests of open government. I remind the House that I unsuccessfully tried to have membership of political parties stated on the ballot papers for local government elections. My suggestion was opposed by the major parties in this House, but surely voters have a right to know. This bill is fundamentally a lost opportunity. I was very disappointed that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters was not prepared to tackle more interesting issues when it was established in 2004. I refer honourable members to my speech to the committee's report, where I outlined the issues I tried to get on the committee's agenda, but I was voted down. Once again, the major parties combined numbers to preserve the status quo. Why would they not when a government can be delivered power on just more than one-third of the voters in the State?

I refer to the 1999 election. The Government got 37 per cent of the vote in the upper House, a result it thought was entirely unsatisfactory. Yet with the people voting Liberal or Labor in the Legislative Assembly—because there is no point voting for a minor party in the other place—it got more than 40 per cent. That is a comfortable working majority in the Legislative Assembly in its own right. However, the upper House polls showed that only 37 per cent of people cast a primary vote for the Australian Labor Party. I therefore suggested a number of matters for discussion and investigation by the committee, but the status quo was preserved. I suggested that the primary objective of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act should be to deliver an election outcome resulting in a composition of Parliament that accurately represents the voting intentions of the population.

Once the statement of intent were developed it would be necessary to examine how that could be best implemented. I tried to get an index of validity of elections as a result of some statistical work that I had done to compare two sets of numbers to get a calculation of the variants of those numbers. However, after some discussion with statisticians if a number of Independents cannot be equated they had to be lumped together as non-majors to get an index. If there were a lot of variation in the Independents, such as they were right wing, left wing or other characteristics it would be more difficult to get an index of the validity of elections. That is a shame because it means that gerrymanders cannot be quantified. I intend to provide numbers to back up that point.

I also wanted the committee to examine political advertising. How much political advertising is there? When is it done? Just before an election a spike in government advertising appears. The Government tries to pretend that the advertisements are public information campaigns, but they are a fig leaf for taxpayer-funded government propaganda. Certainly the Howard Government has been very bad with that practice, as has the Carr and Iemma governments. Indeed, the payment of huge amounts of public money for media monitoring and spin doctoring at taxpayers' expense has given the incumbent a huge advantage. The past 19 elections in Australia have been won by incumbent governments. It is extremely worrying when governments are so sticky that they cannot be changed. Obviously, incumbency is a huge advantage_although I do not see people dancing in the streets over the excellence of our governments.

I suggested to the committee an investigation at a neutral level of political advertising. How much? When is it done? Perhaps it should be controlled by the State Electoral Office [SEO] or by a parliamentary committee whose membership, whatever else could be said, could certainly argue the merits of political advertising. Naturally the committee should not be dominated by government members. The voting procedures need to be looked at, as do the role of the SEO, voter identification and electronic voting. On my trip to Ireland I learnt that electronic voting is a sensible and good idea. Electronic voting results in fewer informal votes. I do not believe the potential for corruption is a huge problem because the number of people voting at one computer can be calculated and checked. How people vote is produced in a small computer packet, about the size of a packet of a cigarettes, and can be counted.

The counting of votes is already carried out by computers. Presumably the counting could be fiddled by computers as they go through repeated difficult complications, particularly upper House counting. If the computers are not right, the horse has already bolted. They could not provide an honest result. The two separate components are the collection and recording of votes, and then the counting of them. Under the Irish model these two separate procedures were carried out and seemed very good. That issue has not been addressed significantly by the committee, and more attention needs to be paid to it.

I turn to the issue of compulsory and non-compulsory voting, which has not been addressed but needs to be looked at. I confess that I am in favour of compulsory voting because it forces politicians to address the whole community rather than endlessly targeting swinging voters in marginal seats, which distorts the priorities of the voting process and of resource allocation in the political system. What electoral funding should be allowed and declared is a very important issue. I think we also need to look at foundations that collect money, such as the Freedom Foundation—freedom from accountability presumably—and then give that money to a major political party so the donors cannot be identified.

The political education fund has become a slush fund. Political education ought to be carried out in a neutral and transparent fashion by the SEO or, under its new name, the NSW Electoral Commission. Civics should be taught in schools and more generally in education, rather than let political parties have it as just another way to carry out its political propaganda. A compulsory civics course should be taught at school and there should be some discussion as to the best time to deliver it. The best age is when school students are about to start voting but, on the other hand, they also have a very crowed curriculum because of examinations near the end of their schooling.

The bottom line is that this bill has not done all the things it could have done. I want to look at the possibilities and try to put this into some historical context. New South Wales has 135 State members, more than any other State or Territory. Of the other States with two Houses, Victoria has 132 members; Western Australia, 91; South Australia, 69; and Tasmania, 40; and of the single House States, Queensland has 89 members; the Northern Territory, 25; and the Australian Capital Territory, 17. At present the New South Wales Parliament has 21 Ministers. Its history is very interesting. New South Wales has the oldest Westminster-style Parliament, with a history of responsible government dating back to 1856. From 1824 to 1855 New South Wales was governed by the Governor and a body known as the Legislative Council. Until 1842 the Legislative Council was a small group of men chosen by the Governor to help him rule the colony. The first Legislative Council had only five members. In 1829 the number was increased to 15. In 1843 the Legislative Council was made larger again, increasing to 36 members, two-thirds of the members being elected. This body was replaced by the new bicameral Parliament that opened in 1856.

New South Wales was given responsible government in 1855, when the British Parliament agreed to the New South Wales Constitution Bill. This bill had been drawn up by the New South Wales Legislative Council in 1853. The new bicameral Parliament of New South Wales met for the first time in 1856. The original Legislative Council had 21 members, all appointed by the Governor. The Legislative Assembly originally had 54 members, all elected by male voters who owned property in the Colony or who paid substantial rent.

From 1856 to 1934 members of the Legislative Council were appointed by the Governor for life, and there was no limit on the number of members. The Council reached its highest number of members in 1892-93 when, due to stacking, the numbers reached 126. In 1934, following a successful referendum, this changed, with the number of members being limited to 60. The original proposal was to have the upper House elected by proportional representation, but the members of the Legislative Council thought this would diminish their importance and legitimacy and threatened them as the only democratically elected Chamber.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Amanda Fazio) left the chair at 6.31 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.00 p.m.]: It took until 1978 for the Legislative Council to be democratically elected by proportional representation, and the term of members was further reduced to eight years. In 1991 there was a referendum that reduced the number of Legislative Council numbers from 60 to 45. This was further reduced after the 1991 referendum to 42, with half of its members being elected every four years. The number of Legislative Assembly members steadily grew from the original 54 to its high point in 1903 of 125. This number was reduced to 90 by an overwhelming majority in a referendum in 1903.

Let us look at the history of referendums in New South Wales. There have been 16 referendums in New South Wales since the first in 1903. Seven of the 16 had to do with parliamentary numbers, and five had to do with alcohol. The 1928 referendum on whether New South Wales should have prohibition was soundly defeated. The others were about opening hours and Sunday trading. In 1967 the question was put as to whether there should be a new separate State of New England. That was quite close at 800,000 to 1,000,000. The others were daylight saving, in 1976, disclosure of members' pecuniary interests, in 1981, and the independence of judges, in 1995, which were approved. As I said, there have been seven referendums to do with Parliament. The question at the 1903 referendum was: What shall be the number of members of the Legislative Assembly? There were three options: 90, 100 and 125. The result was overwhelmingly in favour of 90.

The Hon. Don Harwin: The Government did not have the gumption to put up in that referendum the option that the people wanted, or the number would have been even lower.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I acknowledge the interjection. In 1933 there was a referendum of the Legislative Council that reduced the number and term of members. In 1961 there was a referendum to abolish the Legislative Council. This was defeated 1,089,193 to 802,512 in a close result. Honourable members would be aware that Queensland is the only State that has so far abolished its upper House. This was done in 1992 by Labor. I remember on many occasions in this House the ever-entertaining Treasurer Egan saying he wanted to abolish this House.

In 1978 there was another referendum, which approved the election of Legislative Council members by the people. It is staggering that it took New South Wales so long to do this. The referendum was overwhelmingly carried 2,000,000 to 400,000. In 1981 the term between elections was raised from three to four years. In 1991 the number and term of members of the Legislative Council was approved to be reduced. The last referendum was in 1995, and it instigated the full four-year terms of government.

Let us now look at electoral systems around Australia. We have five bicameral Parliaments in Australia. We have three single-House Parliaments. Queensland and the Northern Territory operate single-member electorates, elected by optional preferential voting. The Australian Capital Territory, the Western Australian upper House and the Tasmanian House of Assembly have multi-member electorates elected by proportional representation. It is interesting to reflect on this exchange between Marian Saliba, Chair of the Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, during a hearing of evidence from representatives of the Proportional Representation Society:

Mr WEBBER: … On a major issue, would you stand up and vote in Parliament against the policy of your party if the majority of voters in your electorate said, "I don't like that"?

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: I would stand up here in this room in caucus and vote against it. In any party system once a decision is made—

CHAIR: In a democratic system this is where it is done.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: For the Labor Party.

CHAIR: We would stand up and have our say and the majority—

Mr WEBBER: I understand that.

The question really is what system should New South Wales have, and what should happen if we were to put before the House a bill to hold a referendum at the next election to deliver to New South Wales a true representative democracy. The question to be put is:

Are you in favour of the Parliament of New South Wales passing legislation that provides for the replacement of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly with a single Parliament consisting of 50 members elected from 10 electorates by proportional representation?

The mistake Queensland made when it abolished its upper House was to retain single-member electorates and optional preferential voting. This resulted in the famous Joh Bjelke-Petersen gerrymanders of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1972 Joh's Coalition managed to get a majority of seats with only 42.2 per cent of first preference votes. Even worse, Joh's Nationals only had 20 per cent of the primary vote!

In New South Wales we have a situation not unlike Joh's Queensland in that the Labor Party at the 2003 election managed to get 61 per cent of the seats in the Legislative Assembly with just 42.69 per cent of the primary vote. It gained 55 seats, but in a straight vote-to-seat ratio should have got only 40 seats. In the Australian Capital Territory, which has a three-electorate multi-member system, the ratio of votes to seats is much fairer. In the 2004 election the Labor Party polled 46.8 per cent of first preference votes and was delivered 52.9 per cent of the seats. That is a majority of nine of the 17 seats in the Australian Capital Territory Assembly. However, in the 2001 Australian Capital Territory election, the Labor Party polled 41.7 per cent of votes and won eight seats, which again was not a majority.

If the figures from the last New South Wales election were translated into a new 50-seat single House, then on Labor's primary vote of 42.9 per cent in the Legislative Assembly it would win 22 seats in the new New South Wales Parliament, the Liberal-Nationals would get 16 or 17 seats for its 33.2 per cent of votes, and the non-major parties and Independents would get 11 or 12 seats for their 23.3 per cent of the vote. The Australian Capital Territory figures indicate that, in its 17-member Chamber, to gain an absolute majority the Labor Party would have to poll around about 46 per cent of the vote. It would presumably be carried over the line with Green preferences.

On its present first preference the Labor Party would have to rely on the minor parties or Independents to form a Government. That would be a fair result and an accurate representation in the new Parliament for voters in New South Wales. As has been said in past referendums, the people of New South Wales are more than happy to vote for fewer politicians, but they were reluctant to vote for the abolition of the Legislative Council in the 1961 poll. This reflects an understanding that a single House, a single member electoral system, as in Queensland and the Northern Territory, does not deliver true representative democracy. My proposal, which is to have proportional representation in a single House, combines the best of both worlds—fewer politicians and true democratic representation. In the 1972 Queensland election the ALP got 46.8 per cent of the primary vote, the Liberal Party got 22.2 per cent and the National Party got 20 per cent. On a two-party preferred vote the ALP should have won, yet such was the gerrymander that Joh Bjelke-Petersen won.

Just look at the gerrymander in New South Wales. In the 2003 election Labor got 42.69 per cent of the vote and it won 55 seats, which is 61 per cent of the seats. On a percentage basis it should have got only 40 seats. The Liberal-National party got 34.65 per cent of first preference votes and it won 32 seats, which was 34 per cent of the seats. It should have won 32 seats. Non-major parties got 22.76 per cent of the primary vote and won six seats, which is 6.5 of the seats, when, on the basis of their primary vote they should have got 21 seats. They were robbed of 16 seats. Even in the Legislative Council there is a considerable gerrymander. In the last election the optional preferential system, so beloved by the major parties and upheld by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, despite my trying to change the terms of reference, gave Labor, which got 43.5 per cent of the primary vote, 10 seats, which is 47.6 per cent of the seats. Had it got seats in proportion to its vote it would have won only nine seats.

The Liberal-National party polled 33.2 per cent, it won seven seats, which is 33.3 per cent of the seats, and it should have had seven seats on a proportional basis. However, the non-major parties polled 23.3 per cent of the primary vote, they won four seats, which is 19.1 per cent of the seats, but they really should have won five seats. The optional preferential voting system delivered Labor an extra seat. My concept of a 50-seat Parliament with multi-member electorates with 10 seats of five members each would render Labor 43.5 per cent of first preference votes based on the Legislative Council result for the 2003 election and 22 seats. The Liberal-Nationals would get 33.2 per cent of first preference votes and 16 or 17 seats. The non-major parties would get 23.3 per cent of first preference votes, and 11 or 12 seats, which is far more equitable. We have a badly gerrymandered electoral system, which tends to favour major parties in particular and the Labor Party even more so. Single-member electorates lead to this winner takes all, as does optional preferential voting.

When such an important committee is dealing with major changes to the electoral system we should try to get a democratic system where the number of votes cast relates more closely to the number of seats won. If such a system were in place we would have to argue each issue on its merits. If we had such a system we would have a far better democracy. The electorate would not be cynical. The suggestion that some bills would not be passed is a nonsense. Some bills would be modified as they were debated clause by clause and voted on. They would be modified and improved to reflect more closely the mixture of values in the community because the Parliament would be a far better representation of the community. The bill has made absolutely tinkering changes. The terms of reference of the committee were minimal, which is convenient for the Government, the Opposition and a binary system. It is not real democracy. It is time somebody said so. The bill is another missed opportunity.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.14 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Bill 2006, which will make a number of changes to the current legislation to streamline the conduct of elections in New South Wales and improve the functioning of the State Electoral Office. The bill seeks to implement some of the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, electoral district commissioners and the Council on the Cost and Quality of Government. It also includes some changes proposed by the Electoral Commission. The amendments will modernise the structural arrangements for the conduct of elections, and extend the current requirement for how-to-vote material so that all election-related material that is distributed on election day in a public place must be registered. It will give the commissioner power to obtain information from any State agencies for the purpose of notifying people about their obligations to enrol, and also regulate access to the sale of the roll. It will make various changes to the enrolment provisions consistent with the Commonwealth regarding showing the voter's date of birth on the roll. It will make postal vote arrangements consistent with the Commonwealth.
The bill will regularise the current practice of permitting polling places to be located on licensed premises, subject to stringent conditions, which raises the dangers of the effect of alcohol on voters if liquor were available. I assume it would be available in licensed premises. I know that was a problem in the United Kingdom in previous centuries. It will also prohibit the canvassing of votes within six metres of the polling place. Again, this is the same as the Commonwealth requirement. The Christian Democratic Party is concerned by some of the provisions. It is important that electoral reform be fair and transparent, and assists citizens to be fully involved in the electoral process. However, I am concerned by the witch-hunt that seemingly is being conducted against a conservative Christian denomination known as the Brethren by the Greens and certain individuals, such as David Marr of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Mardi Gras. Individual members of the Brethren have opposed the Greens legislation to legalise same-sex marriages between two men, which the Brethren regard as blasphemous.

Apparently members of the Brethren campaigned during the Tasmanian election, which antagonised the Greens. Senator Bob Brown, leader of the pagan Greens, recently moved a motion in the Federal Parliament calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the activities of the Brethren during the election. Thankfully, Bob Brown's motion was soundly defeated by the combined votes of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Labor Party. Only the Greens voted for the inquiry. If his motion were successful I wonder who would be next on the Greens hit list. Would it be the Baptists, the Catholics, the Presbyterians the Jews or the Muslims—or anyone the Greens do not agree with? The Brethren is a very conservative religious organisation, similar to the Amish in the United States of America. Members of the Brethren are not allowed to vote. They are not allowed to support any political party, which is what we would not be happy about. Its members are discouraged from voting, similar to Jehovah's Witnesses.

I call on the Greens, David Marr and others to stop slandering members of the Brethren. Like similar religious groups in the United States of America and Russia, such as the Amish, the Brethren follow very strict rules. They do not want to use modern equipment, and if that is their way, so be it. However, during elections, freedom of speech and freedom of activity should be permitted so that people are able to exercise their democratic rights. I have used the term "Brethren" because that is the name that the group prefers. They do not use the term that people who do not belong to the organisation sometimes use, Exclusive Brethren, to distinguish that group from the Open Brethren, which has different practices.

There are some concerns relating to the bill, including the provision relating to election-related material having to be registered. Quite a deal of material is policy produced well before elections. I am concerned that this provision will prohibit material being displayed on tables or distributed, and it is unclear whether every piece of material produced by a political party has to be registered to cover distribution of material as pamphlets or leaflets. The term "election-related material" is very vague. I interpret election material as material dealing with how to cast a vote in an election. Material providing guidance on how to vote should be distinguished clearly from other material that is produced by political parties to explain policies. Even individual candidates produce background material some months before an election.

I note that how-to-vote material may be inspected only on election day at the office of the returning officer. That seems to me to be a strange restriction, considering that there is usually a lot of interest in political party material that provides guidance on how to vote. I note the Greens have proposed an amendment to provide for the material being available four days before an election, and to my mind that would be an improvement. With all the rush and excitement of an election day, it would be difficult to go to an electoral office and examine material closely. It is very difficult to know at short notice whether the material is legal, misleading or likely to be misinterpreted. There may be a hint or a suggestion in the style of a how-to-vote card that it has been provided by the Liberal Party whereas it may have been provided by the Greens. If this bill is passed, that would not be known until the day of the election.

However, in contrast to that, if the material is available four days before the election, each party could have its own lawyer examine the material and decide whether the material is designed to mislead voters. There also would be sufficient time in which to have inappropriate material withdrawn prior to the election. The amendment providing for four days notice would take pressure off all political parties. I am sure that all political parties have an interest in ensuring the factual basis of how-to-vote cards and other material and in avoiding attempts to deceive. I am not suggesting that major political parties would distribute misleading material, but it has been done in the past by some minor parties or Independents, and more so in other States. Acceptance of the Greens amendment would prevent such occurrences. Hopefully no-one would produce misleading material, but if some individuals are tempted to try, the amendment would provide interested parties with an opportunity to address the issue.
The bill seems to go to an extreme by abolishing any prescription relating to posters, and that is a matter of concern. The bill deletes section 151B "Exhibition of posters", which lays down some requirements. Section 151B (6) states that the prescribed size means an area that is not more than 8,000 square centimetres, or approximately similar to an A1-size poster. The bill provides for those sections to be omitted and seems to go to an extreme by applying no form of control. I am sure honourable members recall a Federal election a couple of years ago when the Australian Labor Party produced rolls of plastic sheeting. I remember arriving at Town Hall where I normally attend the Christian Democratic Party's stand and where each party is allocated a specific space in which to present election material.

Upon arrival early in the morning, I found that the Labor Party had rolled out plastic sheeting virtually right around the Town Hall, had wrapped it round telephone posts down the street and had even put it in all the areas where the other parties had spaces allocated. The Christian Democratic Party's stand was surrounded by Labor Party election material, and I was not able to have the plastic sheeting removed. I believe that the design of this bill opens the way for that to happen in New South Wales State elections. Perhaps next time it will not be the Labor Party, but it may be the Greens, the Liberal Party or some other party. If a political party produces plastic sheeting that is hung on the fence surrounding the polling place, obviously no other party will be able to put up any posters unless the plastic sheeting is removed. That would constitute removing another political party's material, and I suggest that that would be resisted with physical violence. No political party would be happy about the removal of its election material. It is challenging when a political party takes over all the polling place areas, which could be the case if extensive plastic sheeting is rolled out. I support the restoration of provisions relating to posters. I believe they are important provisions and provide for fairness by providing all candidates with equal opportunities.

The other area of controversy is the of canvassing votes within six metres of the entrance to a polling place. The Government is adamant that the provision will apply to the entrance to the polling building, but it is not clear on the face of the legislation that that is the case. If a provision is not clear, its interpretation will be determined by the returning officer at the polling place. Some officers may interpret the provision strictly and declare that it has to be six metres from the gateway to a public school and that the polling place includes the grounds of the school—and most polling booths are at schools—so that the school itself and the school grounds constitute the polling place. By virtue of this bill, all persons canvassing votes and handing out how-to-vote cards, which is the usual practice on election day, will have to be six metres from the gate of a public school.

The Government suggests that that will not occur, but I believe that the legal interpretation of the provision should be made absolutely clear tonight. As significant weight may be attributed to a second reading speech, I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary obtain a statement from the Minister to remove any grey area from the interpretation of this legislation by clarifying, during his reply, that the provision refers absolutely to the entrance to the building. I am sure all honourable members of this House would appreciate having that clarification. Having outlined my reservations, I indicate that the Christian Democratic Party will support the bill.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [8.28 p.m.]: This bill is really the most significant rewrite of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 in at least 16 years and arguably longer. Major changes were made in 1990 under the Greiner Government, but in a sense those were not nearly as far reaching as the changes provided in this bill.

In leading for the Opposition, I say that by and large the changes to the Act are welcome and are, on the whole, likely to produce better practice in electoral administration. I will not say "best practice", as the jury is still out in that regard. We will see how it goes at the 24 March 2007 election. Given the provenance of the bill, one can state that, and state it fairly. Why do I say that? I emphasise, as did others who preceded me in this debate, that the bill follows on the work of several bodies that have had a concern for the nature of electoral administration in New South Wales—a concern that for some time the State Electoral Office has been below par, has not been best practice, and has required considerable change.

First, the Council on the Cost and Quality of Government has had an involvement in these changes. With the then Leader of the Opposition I was happy to meet with Professor Allan, the Chairman of the Council on the Cost and Quality of Government, to discuss, on behalf of the Liberal Party, our concerns with the operation of the State Electoral Office. The newly appointed Electoral Commissioner, Colin Barry, was present on that occasion and gave us the benefit of his views. We had good dialogue about how we thought the State Electoral Office could be improved. A number of the matters we spoke about have come to fruition in the bill.
Second, I note that the Electoral Districts Commissioners have had input into the final shape of the bill. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, who will follow me in contributing to the debate and will make some observations, and I have had extensive involvement in electoral redistribution processes. I welcome the recommendations for legislative change that were embodied in the report of the Electoral Districts Commissioners, which was dated December 2004. The commissioners made five recommendations and I am pleased that four of them—relating to the display of maps, the registration of maps, the tenure and meeting time of commissioners, and the clarification of certain matters to do with the redistribution process—have been embodied in the bill.

Finally in terms of provenance, I note that following the work in this House of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner and I, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters was established. Those members have also had an involvement in this process. It is a matter of record, and was discussed during debate on committee reports in this House last week, that the committee's first task was to inquire into the administration of the 2003 election and related matters. A number of the 34 recommendations of that committee have been incorporated into the bill, although perhaps not as many as we might have hoped for; there are some omissions. I again note, as I did during debate on committee reports last Wednesday, that a number of matters did not make it into the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and I thought that was unfortunate.

Despite evidence from the Electoral Commissioner and the noted election analyst, Antony Green—who I note is present in the public gallery tonight—and others in favour of electoral reform, the Government used its numbers to stop those matters from being embodied in the final report of the committee. I will address the omissions later because it is important to consider them briefly. A very large number of the 19 schedules to the bill could be said to be housekeeping amendments. They are sensible amendments that resulted from the very detailed examination of electoral administration undertaken by the new Electoral Commissioner, the Council on the Cost and Quality of Government, and, in part, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.

The Opposition applauds those necessary and desirable changes. For example, we do not quibble with, as best as I can tell, schedule 5 to the bill, which refers to the provision of information to the Australian Electoral Commission. Neither do we object to schedules 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 18. They are sensible and provide for better management of our election process. Schedule 2 to the bill, along with one of the provisions of schedule 19, adopts the recommendations of the Electoral Districts Commissioners so far as I can determine. Although I have noticed no variation from recommendations 2 to 5 of the Electoral Districts Commissioners, I would be grateful if in his reply the Minister would outline any departure from the recommendations. As best as I can tell, they are as per the recommendations.

Schedule 3 to the bill deals with enrolled persons overseas. The amendments will better tally with the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and, therefore, have greater uniformity and greater simplicity in the management of the joint electoral roll. They are certainly to be supported and applauded. Schedule 4 to the bill will, perhaps, be the most visible of the changes, in some senses. Many people have felt frustrated over many years with the quality of the administration that individual district returning officers have applied. I know my colleague the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai in another place talked about immense frustrations with the count in Willoughby. Last Wednesday my colleague the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner spoke about some of the frustration experienced eight years ago in Dubbo. The changes in schedule 4 to the bill are very significant and very worthwhile.

Some would say that the change of name from State Electoral Office to the New South Wales Electoral Commission is window-dressing. However, I prefer it to be seen as a culture shift in electoral administration in the State. Hopefully the new commission will be a best-practice organisation in every sense of the word. However, it is the changes in arrangements to district returning officers that are most significant. They relate to some of the frustrations I mentioned earlier in individual seats.

The Opposition takes issue with one of the proposed changes to schedule 7. Most of these changes are housekeeping in nature, but the Opposition does not agree with changes relating to licensed premises, a matter with which I will deal in a minute. There has certainly been a change to schedule 9, which was recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, as it relates to the registration of general postal voters. Those changes are welcome. In the past we had different arrangements for registration at a Commonwealth and a State level. That was a ridiculous arrangement as it led to confusion and to people not having their democratic rights—they thought that they were enrolled at both a Commonwealth and a State level when that was not the case.
The Opposition also takes issue with the change to schedule 13 relating to poster sizes. Earlier Ms Lee Rhiannon and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile spoke at length about that issue, and Opposition members agree with their well-founded comments. No doubt Opposition members will expand on that matter at greater length in Committee. Schedule 15 relates to the accreditation of election service providers, and that is certainly a good thing. There is a practical reason for this change. The State Electoral Office, or the New South Wales Electoral Commission as it will become, must be able to give responsibility for an election to another body when the election clashes with a State or a local government election. At the moment under the Act there is no flexibility, and that is clearly nonsense. It would be impossible for the State Electoral Office to cope if, all of a sudden, it had to deal with a trade union election, as it must under the Act.

This change is sensible as it relates to the financial position of the State Electoral Office in the future. I have dealt with the main provisions in the bill and I now wish to deal with matters to which Opposition members object and to some omissions that we believe should have been dealt with. As I said earlier, schedule 7 deals with licensed premises. The Government's briefing note to members on the crossbenches states that this is about regularising the current practice of permitting polling places to be located on licensed premises, subject to stringent conditions. Opposition members disagree with that proposed change and will be moving amendments in Committee in that regard. Rather than detaining the House now I will deal with the rationale at some length in Committee. I mentioned earlier that the Opposition objects to schedule 13. I indicate that the Opposition will support amendments foreshadowed by the Greens relating to the prescribed size of posters and to the 6.00 a.m. start for the placing of posters outside polling booths.

I refer now to the omissions in the bill. I would like to know—and I expect the Minister when replying to debate on this bill to state—why the Government has not taken up recommendation 1 in the Electoral Commissioner's report. I inform honourable members that this recommendation relates to that part of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act that provides for a margin of allowance in each State electoral district as it relates to projected electoral enrolments. Currently, the margin of allowance is 3 per cent. The commissioner recommended that the projected quota tolerance in New South Wales be changed to a 10 per cent margin of allowance above or below the average electoral district enrolment at the projected time. In his report the commissioner outlined why he thought this was necessary. He looked at the situation in other jurisdictions and he also noted that, while the provision at a Commonwealth level was 3.5 per cent, 3.5 per cent of a Commonwealth seat with an enrolment higher than 90,000 is a different story from 3 per cent of a State electoral district with a much lower enrolment.

Frankly, 3 per cent is too low; it produces curious boundaries and it means that the geographic criteria in the Act are not given sufficient weight. Too often, particularly in rural areas, that leads to boundaries that do not reflect community of interest and that are not serviceable by a member. That, of course, reduces the representation of constituent interests in this Parliament. As this is an important matter I would like to know why that recommendation was not taken up, unlike the four other recommendations in the commissioner's report. The second omission, which I think is a problem, I referred to last week when the House dealt with committee reports. It was raised also by Mr Antony Green in a hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It has to do with the timing problems with the issue of writs. I will paraphrase some of the key points referred to by Mr Green in his submission, which is reported in that committee's report as follows:

It is noted that the introduction of fixed term parliaments had resulted in a maximum period of three weeks for election campaigns from the issue of writ to polling day. Section 68 of the Parliamentary Electorate and Elections Act 1912 provides up to four days for the issue of the writ after the dissolution. Mr Green notes that it would be more appropriate for the Act to specify that the writ be issued on the same day as the signing of the dissolution (i.e. the Friday before the first Saturday in March). This will then enable the Electoral Office to know on which day it may call for nominations. Mr Green noted that as the fixed terms is an entrenched provision that it is not possible to lengthen the period of the campaign without a referendum but that a longer period can be obtained by amending the Act by bringing forward all defined dates such as the close of nominations and the beginning of pre-poll, postal and mobile voting.

This good suggestion had the strong support of the Opposition members on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Last week, when we were debating committee reports, I said that there was a very practical reason for this change. Too often electors in remote areas who submit postal votes are disenfranchised and not able to participate in State general elections because these provisions have not been changed. Frankly, it is all about partisan advantage. It is a disgrace that this issue was not taken up. I would really like the Minister to give me a good reason why the Government chose not to act on this—that is, other than the reason we all suspect is the case: partisan advantage.

I want to know whether there is a good public policy reason why this cannot be done. Antony Green was right on the money in raising this issue in his submission—an issue that Opposition members certainly support. As best as I can tell, recommendation 25 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has also not been taken up by the Government. Recommendation No. 25 has to do with declaration voting. Mr Green noted in his submission:

Pre-poll voting is unnecessarily complex at New South Wales elections in that two declarations are required: (1) when applying for a pre-poll vote citing the reason and (2) on the actual vote.

Mr Green is of the view that pre-poll voting and other forms of declaration votes should be simplified and brought into line with best practice in other jurisdictions that have simplified the procedure. The committee raised this matter with the Electoral Commissioner. He had no objections, so it was embodied in the committee's recommendation No. 25. As best I can tell, it has not been taken up in the bill, but I am happy to stand corrected.

The bill deals also with voter disqualification. I note in this context that the Opposition has had a policy for some time on disqualification as it relates to prisoners. On 18 March 2004 the honourable member for Davidson introduced in another place a private member's bill entitled the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Prohibition on Voting by Criminals) Bill. We adhere to the position in the bill as it relates to prisoners, and we will move amendments to that effect in Committee. I will expand on the issue then.

Finally, I note that an omission from the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and therefore from the bill, is the excellent submission by Mr Scott Macfarlane, former State Director of The Nationals, about the conflicting advice that was provided in the lead-up to the 2003 Federal election in relation to statewide how-to-vote cards. This matter was raised last week when we discussed committee reports. In December 2002 the Liberal Party and The Nationals were given one piece of advice but on 7 March 2003 the former Electoral Commissioner, Mr Wasson, changed that advice. It was a disgrace. It is not appropriate to speak ill of the dead—Mr Wasson has since passed on—but it was not one of the State Electoral Office's finest moments. We will move to amend the bill in Committee to qualify this area further. It is not good enough to leave this matter to the interpretation of the Electoral Commissioner. We should remove any doubt by clarifying it absolutely in the Act. I reiterate that the Opposition will not oppose the bill, but I look forward to what I think will be a very lengthy consideration in Committee.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [8.53 p.m.]: The Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Bill amends the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912. The legislation has not been updated comprehensively since its enactment, so this amending bill is obviously long overdue. The bill covers the administration of the electoral laws in New South Wales, the redistribution of electoral districts, the conduct of State elections and related matters. The bill rectifies a number of anachronistic provisions in the Act, as well as those that cause considerable confusion to electors, by resolving several inconsistencies between the State and Commonwealth electoral Acts.

The current Electoral Commissioner, Mr Colin Barry—whose role will be, in my view, strengthened appropriately by the passage of this bill—previously played an important role in Victoria, where he was the Electoral Commissioner and where the electoral laws similarly needed to be brought into the twentieth, let alone the twenty-first, century. The laws in Victoria were updated, with Mr Barry driving much of the process and supported by the three major parties in the Victorian Parliament. Mr Barry's vision for an updated Electoral Commission has been echoed and bolstered by the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which I am a member, which has made scores of recommendations aimed at updating the New South Wales electoral laws. Many of those recommendations, which have multi-party support, are embodied in the provisions of the bill.

The work and role of the State Electoral Office, as it is currently known, have been reviewed by the Cabinet Office and the Council on the Cost of Government. The bill also incorporates some of the recommendations of the electoral district commissioners, who conducted the most recent redistribution of electoral districts in New South Wales. Those recommendations include updating the means by which the exact determination of the boundaries of electorates can be promulgated in a computerised or a digitised form. The bill replaces the State Electoral Office with the new New South Wales Electoral Commission, which will be headed and administered by the Electoral Commissioner. The bill revises the provisions for the appointment, tenure and functions of the commissioner and also updates the provisions for the appointment of returning officers.

In the past returning officers in New South Wales have, frustratingly and anachronistically, been a law unto themselves. For example, when the Deputy Electoral Commissioner, if not the Electoral Commissioner, was on hand in a seat for a close count he had to defer at all times to the district returning officer [DRO] because under the current law the DRO is in charge of the booth. The Deputy Electoral Commissioner or the Electoral Commissioner may offer advice but the DRO is under no obligation to take any notice of it. I refer honourable members to the close and very controversial count in the electorate of Dubbo when Mr McGrane was narrowly elected. Mr Wasson was on hand during the count but was at no stage in charge of it.

The bill provides for the appointment of polling place managers and election assistants and abolishes the position of principal returning officer. Those designations have existed for a long time but they are now to be updated. The bill also replaces references to various officers, such as the deputy returning officers, the poll clerks and similar officials, with the new designations of polling place managers and election assistants. The bill improves some of the Act's provisions in relation to the joint roll arrangements with the Commonwealth. Importantly, it provides for State agencies to give information to the Electoral Commissioner for purposes connected with the roll, with a view to eventually having a smarter enrolment system in New South Wales. Some of those provisions will start to apply during the forthcoming State election. Hopefully, New South Wales will start to catch up with other jurisdictions such as New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America in that regard.

When this bill is passed the electoral roll will include electors' dates of birth. Although electors' occupations will be provided on the enrolment form, that information will not appear on the electoral roll. One other aspect clarifies the situation of people who suffer from unsoundness of mind. If a person is incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment in voting, that person's name can be removed from the roll with the production of a medical certificate. That is an important provision that protects people who suffer from mental illness.

With respect to the elections to the Legislative Assembly, the Electoral Commissioner will be responsible for the conduct of elections, but the bill makes it clear that a returning officer for a district is responsible to the Electoral Commissioner for the administration of the election within that district. Last week district returning officers who will be appointed from throughout New South Wales were brought to Sydney to undergo training, no doubt in anticipation of the passage of this bill. I am sure that some of them will find their role significantly changed. They will be relieved because they have suffered the stress of being at the receiving end of a lot of angst on the part of many people associated with the voting procedures. There have been inconsistent rulings and the like, to which the Opposition referred in this Chamber recently.

Various other parts of the electoral process will be centralised with the Electoral Commissioner, which is sensible. For example, rather than each district returning officer advertising the details of an election in a district, the Electoral Commissioner will have the power to do that of his own volition. The various aspects of registration of candidates and the nomination of candidates will be more centralised, which will make it easier for political parties and others. Interestingly, a significant change in the bill is that the place of residence of each nominated candidate is to be included in the announcement and the public notice of a poll.

The bill also updates some aspects of elections to the Legislative Council. As my colleague the Hon. Don Harwin mentioned, the Opposition will move an amendment in relation to the vexed question of the how-to-vote cards across the State that would wish to be distributed by parties that have joint tickets. Certainly The Nationals are very unamused that that particular provision is not in this bill, given the controversial change of mind—apparently because it was inconvenient to the Australian Labor Party and Country Labor—in the last State election. A ruling that had applied to previous elections was suddenly overturned, but too late for the Liberal Party and The Nationals to publish material across New South Wales. The decision by the former Electoral Commissioner, quite frankly, brought the office of the Electoral Commissioner into disrepute because many people thought that that showed partisanship. Of course, we want to have an Electoral Commissioner and an Electoral Commission that is beyond reproach, that is seen as non-partisan and that is possessed of great integrity.

The Nationals certainly have problems with using licensed premises as polling places. That is why we will be supporting some amendments. The requirement that ballot papers be initialled on the front, instead of signed or initialled on the back, will be good news for scrutineers across the State. It will possibly speed up the count as people want to make sure that the ballot papers are in order, as is their responsibility and right. "Formal votes" and "informal vote" are defined in the bill. From now on a ballot paper will not be informal merely because the elector has placed a number, tick or cross adjacent to but outside the square if the elector's intention is clearly indicated. Sometimes that phenomenon has caused confusion at booths; it has now been clarified in the law.
The Nationals have particular problems with the failure of the Government to address what is probably the most aggravating aspect of the Act that has existed for years_that is, the problem of electors in more remote parts of the State. Even though they have the capacity to go on the general register of postal voters—pleasingly the criteria for eligibility to go on to that register will, with the passage of this bill, be brought into line with the general register of postal votes applying in Commonwealth elections—nevertheless the fact that the Government has failed to address the question of the timing of the issue of writs is extremely disappointing. Unfortunately, the State Electoral Office sees this as a problem more for Australia Post to work out than the Electoral Office. I do not think people in Murray-Darling and Barwon under the new configuration that will apply next year, and in many other electorates, will see it that way.

That is probably the most important single reform for the elector who has the democratic right not only to get a ballot paper but also to have his or her vote counted. That is what the fundamental system should be about. The fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of electors have been disenfranchised under the existing legislation is obviously a giant hole. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Mr O'Farrell, asked that the relevant Minister in the Legislative Council answer his question about the lack of action on this matter—for example, not bringing forward the timing for the issues of the writs for the election so that it would be more feasible for remote voters with scarce postal services—many people have only one postal service per week—to exercise their fundamental democratic right not only to vote but to have their vote counted. I read through the second reading speech of the Minister for Justice and I cannot find any answer from the Government to Mr O'Farrell's fundamental question, a question the Opposition wants answered. We want to give the answer to everybody in Murray-Darling and Barwon, for a start.

The bill also provides improvements to the administration of scrutineers. They will sign a form on a daily basis that appoints them at the place that they act as a scrutineer. The bill removes the limit on the size of posters and other printed electoral material that may be exhibited, which the Opposition is not happy about. I foreshadow that the Opposition will move amendments in relation to that issue during the Committee stage. Other provisions relate to the register of candidates and some concomitant amendments to the Election Funding Authority, which streamlines some of those laws. In the other place, the honourable member for Wyong made some comments about the 1981 election in Bathurst.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I read those comments. They are interesting.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: They are interesting comments, but they are also pretty wide of the mark. He spoke about Mr Clough contesting the seat after a redistribution in which Lithgow was included in the Bathurst district. The honourable member for Wyong mentioned that Mick Clough had as an opponent Clive Osborne from The Nationals, whom he described as "a rare opponent because he was a pleasant fellow, a tough campaigner and extremely well liked in the Bathurst area". Indeed, that is true. Clive Osborne, after the addition of Lithgow to the seat, had to increase his primary vote by, I think, about 8 per cent. As Mr Crittenden pointed out, it was a tough campaign and literally came down to 43 votes. It was an extraordinary result that Clive Geoffrey Osborne achieved.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Particularly in 1981.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Particularly in 1981. Mr Crittenden went on to say:

Prior to the closure of postal votes, radio stations reported that for some unknown reason a whole bag of votes had mysteriously appeared in Orange and would be arriving in Bathurst the next day. Mick Clough immediately went on radio and said that if any votes from Orange mysteriously appeared the next day, someone would be going to gaol.

I do not know whether Mr Crittenden got his story mixed up, but one reason why the Electoral Office must have some of its processes changed is that during the count, which was extraordinarily close, in fact a ballot box was found in the District Returning Officer's office, where the count was going on, quite a long time into the count. It had been buried under a heap of rubbish in the corner of his office. Of course, that was an extremely suspicious event, and my party complained that an entire ballot box had appeared in the rubbish. The electoral commissioner of the day, I think it was Mr Cundy, was called in and he asked the district returning officer in charge to ensure security at the count was improved. From that day onwards, every day after the count, the ballot boxes were taken to the Bathurst lock-up, where they were guarded overnight. Then the scrutineers would appear each morning to escort them to the place of the count. Maybe that is where Mr Crittenden got his lock-up reference, but I can assure the House that it was at the Bathurst police lock-up where the ballot papers were. In fact, Mick Clough can confirm that story because his wife was one of the scrutineers, along with was David Simmons and me.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: It must have been very pleasant for you!

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: David Simmons was very pleasant. The Opposition supports the thrust of the bill. We certainly welcome the fact that the Act is being substantially updated. In conclusion, I endorse the remarks made by the Hon. Don Harwin about the failure of the Government to include the recommendation from the Electoral Districts Commission in relation to the strictures placed upon the commission regarding the margin of tolerance for electorates—3 per cent in the State Act and 3½ per cent in the Commonwealth electoral Act. We have just had a Federal redistribution and, in the first map that the Federal augmented electoral commissioners proposed, the commissioners proposed the abolition of the seat of Gwydir. There was an unprecedented uprising throughout New South Wales, particularly in the north and north-west of the State, from electors who believed that was a completely unnecessary redrawing of the boundaries. So a lot of people have paid more attention to the provision—in that case 3½ per cent—than had previously done so.

I think there is consensus that that should be taken out of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. We believe the 3 per cent iron rule of arithmetic should be amended in the New South Wales electoral Act as well. Fortunately, the outcome of that redistribution was that the commissioners were moved by the campaign of all those thousands of electors and have resurrected the seat of Gwydir in the final map. Nevertheless, the narrowness of the tolerance in both the State and Federal electoral laws needs revisiting for the very reason that it does not allow for the criteria written into both electoral Acts in relation to community of interest to be duly respected. With those comments, I commend the bill. However, we wish to address its shortcomings by way of amendment in Committee.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.15 p.m.], in reply: The Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment Bill aims to streamline the conduct of elections in New South Wales and to improve the functioning of our State electoral authority. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I should like to reply to comments made by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. Proposed section 151J carefully defines the entrance to the polling place as being the entrance to the actual building and not to the enclosed grounds where the building is located. While the returning officer has discretion to include the grounds, the electoral commissioner has advised it is only intended that this will be used in exceptional circumstances_for example, where there is a safety issue. If necessary, returning officers can be issued with a direction as to how the discretion will be exercised.

The Hon. Don Harwin has requested confirmation by the Government that recommendations 2 to 5 of the Electoral Districts Commissioners report 2004 have been implemented in the bill. I confirm that recommendations 2, 3 and 5 have been implemented. Recommendation 4 proposed that consideration be given to a review of the tenure and meeting times of the Electoral Districts Commissioners. This has not been implemented. It is not considered necessary given that the current system appears to be working well. The Hon. Don Harwin asked the Government to explain why the Electoral Districts Commissioners' first recommendation has not been implemented. While the Electoral Districts Commissioners' concerns are noted, a change in the quota tolerance could undermine the principle of one vote, one value. It seems unlikely that any electorate will grow by 13 per cent—which is the maximum growth permitted between the present and future quota tolerances—between the time a redistribution is carried out and the next general election. As such, the recommendation has not been adopted.

The Hon. Don Harwin asked a further question on the issue of the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that procedures for pre-poll and postal voting should be simplified so that a voter needs to declare only that he or she cannot attend on election day. My response is that pre-poll and postal voting should not be available to simply anyone who declares they cannot attend a polling place on polling day. A voter should be required to show a geographical or other real barrier to attendance on polling day. The grounds for being able to make a pre-poll or postal vote that are set out in the amending legislation are appropriate. These grounds include being a silent voter, being ill or infirm or being a carer of someone who is ill or inform, being out of the State or more than 20 kilometres from a polling place, and being precluded from voting on the day by one's religious beliefs.

On the matter raised by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner and the Hon. Don Harwin, as was noted, a change in the date for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly would require a referendum. Changing the date would shorten the period for nomination, which is already less than one week. Some parties objected to the shorter nomination period. The bill also contains amendments that will facilitate postal voting, including provisions to enable postal votes to be distributed centrally as an alternative to individual returning officers. Further, the Government has increased resources for the State Electoral Office, which should lead to the improved administration of postal vote applications. I seek leave to table the draft regulation and summary, as referred to in my second reading speech. They have already been circulated to honourable members.

Leave granted.

Documents tabled.

Other issues raised in the debate relate to amendments that will be discussed in the Committee stage. The Government will deal with those matters at that stage. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to5 agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [9.23 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 9, schedule 3. Insert after line 11:

[4] Section 21 (b)

Omit "for 12 months or more".

As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, this section deals with disqualification from voting. It refers particularly to the entitlement to vote of people who are incarcerated. The Opposition has a longstanding policy on this issue. In 2004 the honourable member for Davidson introduced the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Prohibition on Voting by Criminals) Bill in the other place. At that time he said:

The right to vote is a privilege for any citizen in this State. The right to influence the outcome of the democratic processes at a State parliamentary or local government level is a very significant privilege. That right to vote is provided and available to citizens over the age of 18 who respect the law and continue to respect the law. This bill will take away that right of privilege to vote from those who have not respected the law and from those who have not respected the rights and property of their fellow citizens.

I note that the object of the bill was to prohibit voting by all people incarcerated, which is the intention of Opposition amendment No. 1. On that occasion the honourable member for Davidson noted that the number of New South Wales prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or more who are already not entitled to vote at State or council elections numbered 5,000, which was significant. He also noted that another 13,000 or more offenders who were serving one form of punishment or another retained the right to vote and, therefore, the right to influence the democratic processes. We adhere to the position we took in 2004 and seek to amend the bill accordingly to omit the words "for 12 months or more" so that all prisoners are covered by the disqualification to vote.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.26 p.m.]: The right to vote is an important democratic right, not a privilege, and it should not be taken away lightly. The amendment would apply to those convicted of relatively minor offences, including shoplifting. Most of the States provide for prisoners who are serving shorter terms ranging from one to five years to be permitted to vote. The Government believes that the current position in New South Wales, which enables prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or less to vote, strikes the right balance. The Government does not support the amendment.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.27 p.m.]: The amendment is another reminder of the sorry state of the Opposition. The right to vote is most definitely a right. Yes, it is a privilege, but it is a right. The Opposition is trying desperately to differentiate itself from the Government. But the Opposition must remember, and I am sure that some of its members understand it and I imagine that some of them are quite embarrassed by the amendment, that offenders who are sent to gaol are punished by their loss of liberty. However, that does not mean that we should take away their fundamental rights, such as the right to vote. If anything, denying them the right to vote would alienate prisoners and make it harder for them to be rehabilitated when they move back into society. The amendment deserves to be defeated outright. The Opposition really should learn its lesson, and stop trying to treat prisoners extremely. Offenders who have been sentenced to gaol have lost their liberty, and that is their punishment. It is time the Opposition understood that.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.29 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Opposition's amendment. The previous speaker referred to the issue of law and order and that is one of the reasons why the Christian Democratic Party supports the amendment. The Greens and the Labor Party espouse soft policies on law and order, which obviously is attractive to prisoners, but the policies of those parties have an electoral purpose in encouraging prisoners to vote for them. Prisoners take the attitude, "We are unlikely to vote for the Coalition, so give us the vote and we will vote for the Greens." I believe that the better approach is for prisoners, who have broken the law, to forgo privileges that other citizens have.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Brown Mr Clarke Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Ms Parker

Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Mr Ryan Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Dr Burgmann Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly

Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Jenkins Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon

Ms Robertson Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Ms Cusack	Mr Roozendaal
Mr Gallacher	Ms Sharpe

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.37 p.m.]: I move:

No. 1 Pages 21-22, schedule 5 [3], proposed section 21E, line 16 on page 21 to line 32 on page 22. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment deletes a requirement in new section 21E for local councils to contribute up to one-half of the amount payable by the State to the Commonwealth under the joint roll arrangements to meet the cost of maintaining the electoral roll. The Greens are concerned that the cost to local councils may be significant. As all honourable members know, local government is the level of government that is least able to afford that type of expenditure. New section 21E should be deleted because there is a strong argument that the cost proposed to be allocated to local government should be borne by the New South Wales Government. If local government were better funded, a different conclusion may be reached. In considering the present state of funding for local government, this amending provision is inappropriate. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I urge members to support Greens amendment No. 1.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.38 p.m.]: The Government does not support Greens amendment No. 1. The bill allows the Government to make a regulation requiring local councils to contribute to the cost of maintaining the roll. This represents the fair principle of costs sharing. In principle it is only fair for councils to contribute towards roll costs because councils benefit from having access to the roll for local government elections. In response to concerns expressed in the consultation process, the Government proposes to consult further with local government about the amount and timing of the contribution.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [9.39 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.40 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 31, schedule 6. Insert after line 11:

[7] Section 32 Addition of names to rolls

Omit section 32 (2) (c). Insert instead:

(c) either:

(i) be attested by an elector or a person entitled to have the person's name placed on a roll (who must sign the claim as witness in the witness's own hand writing), unless subparagraph (ii) applies, or

(ii) be supported by the evidence of the claimant's identity that is required by the regulations, if regulations for the purposes of this subparagraph are in force when the claim is made.

[8] Section 32 (6)

Insert after section 32 (5):

(6) The regulations may:

(a) require a claim to be supported by evidence of the claimant's identity for the purposes of subsection (2) (c) (ii), and

(b) impose additional requirements in relation to identification for enrolment, including requirements as to:

(i) the attestation of a claim, or

(ii) the inclusion in a claim, or the attachment to a claim, of particulars or material regarding identification.

The proposed amendment will enable regulations to be made prescribing alternative identification requirements for people enrolling to vote. The present enrolling requirement in New South Wales and the Commonwealth is that those enrolling to vote must have their application attested to by a witness who is already on the roll who knows the applicant. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the New South Wales enrolment requirements can be modified in future when the Commonwealth electoral enrolment requirements change. The Commonwealth recently enacted legislation that enables regulations to be made to change the requirements for enrolling to vote in Commonwealth elections.

The Commonwealth regulations may require an applicant to prove identity by recording his or her drivers licence number on the application rather than having it witnessed. The Commonwealth regulations may also prescribe alternative proof of identity arrangements when the applicant does not have a drivers licence. The Commonwealth has not provided the Government with information about the precise details of the proposed changes. In theory it is desirable to maintain consistency with the Commonwealth so that voters may continue to use the same form to enrol to vote in New South Wales and Commonwealth elections.

However, the Government has expressed concern about previous Commonwealth proposals to increase enrolment proof of identification requirements because of their unfair impact on particular groups in the community, for example indigenous groups. Given that it is every adult citizen's right to vote, the New South Wales Government will need to scrutinise carefully any Commonwealth regulations before deciding whether to adopt them for New South Wales. As such, the proposed amendments do not commit the New South Wales Government to adopt the Commonwealth's new enrolment requirements when they commence. However, the amendment will ensure that New South Wales is in a position to amend its enrolment requirements promptly if it decides to do so.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [9.41 p.m.]: Madam Chair, as you know indeed, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters received a reference from the Government in relation to the Commonwealth's changes on proof of identity in relation to enrolment. As that committee has not yet reported, it would not be appropriate for me to go into any detail. However, I note that the committee has held a public hearing, that transcript is publicly available, and the Electoral Commissioner outlined at some length some of the problems to be faced if there become substantial differences between enrolment arrangements at the Commonwealth and State level and the implications for the joint electoral roll.

In light of that, while Opposition members are somewhat uneasy about an open-ended regulation in relation to alternative proof of identification requirements, we believe it is justified in these circumstances. Obviously, it would be silly if there were too large a discrepancy between requirements at the Commonwealth and State level and if the number of people who could vote at the Commonwealth level were substantially different from the number of people who could vote at the State level. Bearing in mind that this is a regulation-making power and is subject to disallowance by either House, the Opposition is prepared to support the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.43 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Government amendment, which deals with the procedure for the addition of names on the roll. We support having uniformity with the Commonwealth legislation and, as proposed by the Commonwealth, having stricter requirements to ensure that there is no electoral fraud by any illegal enrolment of individuals. We support any tightening up of the requirement to ensure that the rolls are genuine.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.44 p.m.]: The Greens do not support the amendment. The present system is working adequately. No information has been presented to the Committee that there are great problems with the present system. I understand the problem is getting people on the roll and what we should be addressing is how do we ensure that the majority of people are on the roll? Unfortunately, this amendment takes us in the other direction. The regime that is set up under the amendment has the potential for making that harder.

Another problem that the Greens have with the amendment is that it puts this matter into regulations. This is such an important matter, it should be before Parliament, it should be in legislation, and that is how it should work. We need to remember that if we make it tougher—and that could well be the direction that the bill is taking—certain disadvantaged groupings will be further disadvantaged. Homeless people, indigenous people and others will fall off the rolls. This amendment is very much a backward step and the Greens do not support it.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [9.45 p.m.]: Bearing in mind that this is a regulation-making power, while the Ministers are tied to some extent by the timing of the Commonwealth regulation, if that in itself does not present a problem I ask the Minister for an assurance that this regulation will be made before the House rises prior to the forthcoming election, so that there is an opportunity to move disallowance if honourable members are unhappy with the regulation as proposed by the Government.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.46 p.m.]: The remarks of the Opposition spokesperson anticipate the difficulty in giving a firm commitment to that effect. Certainly there is no intention by the Government in taking this route to do anything that would be other than transparent. Our only anxiety is that in a general sense—somewhat consistent with but maybe not as militant as the anxiety that Ms Lee Rhiannon has—the Commonwealth may choose to introduce procedures that become unnecessary and unfairly onerous for certain members of the community. That is our concern.

We certainly do not believe in differentiating our procedures from the Commonwealth simply for the sake of so doing. Where practical, it will be better to have the same procedures in place, but we do have a fundamental issue of principle. If the Commonwealth puts in place procedures which make it difficult to enrol, clearly we would be inclined to act to make sure that people could still enrol legitimately in a reasonable and practical way. Subject to confirmation with my Cabinet colleagues I would be prepared to give the Hon. Don Harwin a general commitment that subject to the Commonwealth's timing, which is outside my control, if the Commonwealth makes determinations before the end of this parliamentary session we would be in a position to make our regulatory intentions very clear.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.46 p.m.]: To confirm what I said earlier, the danger is that the State may have different requirements, as the Minister is hinting. If so, we could finish up with two different rolls, and that could undo the whole system. There would then be a grade A enrolment and a grade B enrolment. I believe that would not work. The Government may be forced to accept the Commonwealth's proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [9.50 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3 in globo:

No. 2 Page 42, schedule 7 [33]. Insert "(other than a hotel or club)" after "liquor" in line 10.

No. 3 Page 42, schedule 7. Insert after line 24:

[34] Section 85 (4)

Insert after section 85 (3):

In this section:

club means the premises of a registered club within the meaning of the Registered Clubs Act 1976.
hotel means any premises that are the subject of a hotelier's licence in force under the Liquor Act 1982.

The bill will regularise the practice of allowing polling places to be located on licensed premises. Currently, premises that have any kind of liquor licence are technically excluded from use as a polling place. According to the Government, in many rural and remote areas this prevents key local buildings such as town halls and community centres from being utilised as polling places. The bill seeks to enable the Electoral Commissioner to employ these venues as polling places. However, this change raises some concerns.

I note that schedule 7 places conditions on the use of such localities as polling places; precludes the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on the part of the premises to be used as a polling place; provides that the section of the premises to be used as a polling place be segregated from the part of the premises where intoxicating liquor will be available for sale or consumption; and provides that access to the part of the premises to be used as a polling place will not involve passing through the part of the premises where intoxicating liquor will be available for sale or consumption. That is of some comfort.

Opposition members consulted with members in the other place, in particular, those who represent remote and geographically large electorates, which revealed that this has not been an issue in the conduct of recent elections. No challenge to voting has occurred in such town halls and community centres. For example, Sydney Town Hall is licensed to hold functions at which alcohol may be served yet there has been no issue with the use of that hall as a polling place. This is an instance in which the Opposition believes that the bill has been poorly worded and the proposed change is unnecessarily broad.

Consequently, the Opposition's proposed amendments to the bill will allow the use of some licensed premises, such as town halls and community centres, as polling places but will prevent the employment of others, such as pubs and clubs, for that purpose. We do not think it is necessary for the provisions to be that broad. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.52 p.m.]: I referred briefly to this problem when I spoke in debate on the second reading. The Christian Democratic Party supports the Opposition's proposed amendments. It is hard to imagine a hotel or a registered club operating as a polling booth. I do not believe that these amendments will change the Government's intention; they will simply eliminate those two possible venues, which I do not believe would have been used in any case.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.53 p.m.]: The Government opposes Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3. The bill's provisions to permit licensed premises to be used as polling places have been requested by the Electoral Commissioner. If the existing provisions are not changed the Electoral Commissioner will be unnecessarily limited in the premises that he is able to use as polling places. As the honourable member anticipated, this is a problem in rural and regional areas.

The Opposition spokesperson pointed out earlier that town halls and community facilities, including bowling clubs and golf clubs, have some type of liquor licence, primarily for functions. The new provisions are almost identical to those in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. They will be subject to a number of stringent controls, which have already been outlined and anticipated by the Opposition spokesperson. The premises in question must not be used to serve alcohol during polling hours. Further, voting cannot take place in any part of the premises where there is direct access to the area in which alcohol is kept or served.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why do we need them? We have enough polling places without them.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: There is a proper umpire in these matters—the Electoral Commissioner. This is something he asked the Government to put into the legislation and the Government is proceeding on that basis. In an earlier division members were referring to past by-elections and it was evident that some honourable members have a fair bit of experience of disputed returns. While we do not wish that on anyone, the fact of the matter is that technicalities like this have resulted in disputed returns in the past. It is better to have clarity than ambiguity in the Electoral Act. For that reason the Government is following the general submission of the Electoral Commissioner.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [9.54 p.m.]: For the Minister to suggest that the Opposition's amendments do not provide clarity—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Rubbish!

The Hon. DON HARWIN: As my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, it is rubbish. The changes proposed by these amendments are quite clear. There is no capacity honestly to say that they will cause any confusion or be the basis of possible action in the Court of Disputed Returns. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Brown Mr Clarke Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Jenkins

Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Mr Ryan Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Dr Burgmann Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca

Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid

Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Ms Cusack	Mr Roozendaal
Mr Gallacher	Ms Sharpe

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Schedules 8 to 12 agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.03 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 2 and 4 in globo:

No. 2 Page 89, schedule 13 [15], line 9. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:

Omit section 151B (1) and (2). Insert instead:

(1) A person must not exhibit or post or cause to be exhibited or posted any poster of any size exceeding the prescribed size on the outer wall, fence or other boundary, or within 5 metres, of:

(a) a polling place, or

(b) the grounds of an enclosure in which a building used as polling place is situated, at any time on the day of polling for an election.

Maximum penalty: 3 penalty units.

No. 4 Page 89, schedule 13 [17], lines 13 and 14. Omit all words on those lines.

These amendments concern the size limits on election posters. As we know, the bill seeks to repeal a certain section of the Act. As a consequence, the size limit on election posters—which is currently 8,000 square centimetres, or one metre by 0.8 metres—is removed. I raised some of these issues in my speech during the second reading debate. The Greens do not have an issue with using large posters for the purposes of advertising on commercial billboards or at rallies. However, we want to retain the limit on the size of posters at polling places on election day. This will avoid the problems that we have witnessed during Federal elections, when at least one party has produced large rolls of plastic posters that they have affixed to the perimeter fences of polling places. These posters sometimes stretch for 10 or 20 metres—indeed, I have seen them surround an entire school. That is not fair and something must be done about it. We certainly do not want that system replicated in New South Wales. When these long rolls of posters are displayed it monopolises the space available to other groups. The Government is after a monopoly, and we are concerned about that.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Do you believe in competition now, Lee?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, I believe in competition all the time. This practice is clearly unfair. It restricts the ability of a range of parties and candidates to campaign on polling day when one party moves in and takes over. It can also add to tensions between different party workers on polling day. I am sure that we have all arrived at a polling place and enjoyed the atmosphere there. People get on well. They share the contents of their thermos flasks and their sandwiches—

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Not with the Greens we don't.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am glad to get that interjection on the record. That is very disappointing. Many of the Minister's colleagues share with the Greens, and we reciprocate.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: There are no Greens where I vote.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: There you go. I am sure that the Hon. John Della Bosca is happy to enjoy our coffee at his polling place. Workers from opposing parties have a good relationship at many polling places. But large posters can cause tensions. They are simply not appropriate. The Greens amendments seek to retain the current size restriction of 8,000 square centimetres for posters at polling places on election day. I commend them to the Committee.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.06 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports Greens amendments Nos 2 and 4. I explained in my speech during the second reading debate the problem with the Labor Party strategy of erecting at polling places long rolls of how-to-vote posters and other election material. On one election day party workers covered the entire town hall with the posters—even the areas that had been allocated to other parties. We do not want to see that happen at State elections. All parties must have the opportunity to display their posters around polling places. That is fair and democratic. These amendments will retain the specifications that are currently in the Act, which have been there for many years. The Act limits posters to a size of 8,000 square centimetres, which is about the size of an A1 poster. I do not understand the Government's claim that returning officers will have to run around on polling day with tape measures, ensuring that all posters comply with the size specifications. That is an exaggeration—I have certainly never seen it happen. All political parties are careful to produce posters of a legal size.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.07 p.m.]: The Opposition supports Greens amendments Nos 2 and 4, which also enjoy the support of the Christian Democratic Party—and we will hear from other honourable members in due course. I implore the Hon. Robert Brown, the Hon. Dr Peter Wong and the Hon. Jon Jenkins to support these amendments as well. They have the wholehearted support of the Opposition and of the Christian Democratic Party. This area of the Act is working well. It relates to the period after the issuing of the writs and there is no need for change. We do not need to introduce in New South Wales the provisions that were adopted at a Federal level under a previous Labor Government. We believe the current law should remain unchanged and we urge the Committee to support the amendments.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.08 p.m.]: The Government does not support Greens amendments Nos 2 and 4. The intention of these amendments as drafted is to limit poster size only on election day and only within five metres of a polling place. In a moment I will explore whether the amendments would achieve these aims. The logic behind the amendments is flawed. They would allow a party to erect an imposing billboard six metres from a polling place but only a small poster one metre closer to the polling place. Who will measure the distances? Who is going to enforce the law?

The Electoral Commissioner has advised previously that he objects to any proposal along these lines—and he has reconfirmed that objection—because it is difficult to enforce. Surely the Electoral Commissioner should be allowed to focus on what really matters: running a fair and efficient election. It is consistent with the principles of free speech to allow posters of all sizes to be used during the election period.

The Commonwealth does not impose poster size limits and that does not appear to cause visual pollution or have a significant environmental impact. The effect of this amendment as drafted is also very unclear. I am advised that the amendment may permit posters of any size being put on the actual grounds provided they are not within five metres of a building used as a polling place. That is, the amendment will stop people putting up large posters within five metres of the building being used as a polling place. It will also stop people putting up large posters on the boundary or the fence of the grounds of the polling place. It will stop people putting up a large poster within five metres of a boundary or a fence. This amendment will not, however, limit the size of posters that can be put up inside the remainder of the grounds. In this case the Government is extremely concerned about the chaos and confusion that would cause. Poster boys would be allowed to put up gigantic billboards in the middle of a school ground in which a polling place is located, but would have to put up a pint-size poster on the perimeter fence or fences, or once they stray into a five metre zone surrounding a polling place. Clearly such an outcome is a nonsense and should not be supported.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.

Mr Brown Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Ms Hale Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Dr Burgmann Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca

Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Obeid

Ms Robertson Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Ms Cusack	Mr Macdonald
Mr Gallacher	Mr Roozendaal
Mr Ryan	Ms Sharpe

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.18 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 3:

No. 3 Page 89, schedule 13. Insert after line 9:

[15] Section 151B (4)

Insert after section 151B (3):

(4) A person must not exhibit or post or cause to be exhibited or posted any poster on the outer wall, fence or other boundary, or within 5 metres, of:

(a) a polling place, or

(b) the grounds of an enclosure in which a building used as polling place is situated, at any time during the period commencing with the day following the issue of the writ for an election and ending at 6 am on the day of polling for the election.

Maximum penalty: 3 penalty units.

This amendment seeks to prohibit the placement of posters at polling booths before 6.00 a.m. on polling day. I moved this amendment to stop the phenomenon that happened at some booths at the last Federal election when a number of election posters were fixed to the boundary fences at polling places the evening before the election, and security guards were hired to protect them during the night. This amendment seeks to ensure that various candidates or parties have an equitable share of space at polling booths. This is another amendment that will make our election system fairer and more co-operative and will lessen the tension on the day of voting. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.19 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendment. If we did not have the 6.00 a.m. provision, the Labor Party would have the signs up at 2.00 a.m.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: That is what we do in the country—get up early!
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I know. Whatever time we get there, you have arrived earlier. We support the amendment.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.20 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. The intention of the amendment as drafted is to prevent booth dressing before 6.00 a.m. on election day. As I will explain, the amendment will not achieve this aim. But, in any event, there would be significant difficulties with enforcing any proposal to limit booth dressing until after 6.00 a.m. on election day. Is it suggested that the commissioner should make an inspection at 5.30 a.m. to see who is putting up polling booth material? Inspections at one minute to six, or whatever time of day, is really taking the whole thing to a silly extreme. The point is: early to bed, early to rise. If you think your politics are important, you should get out of bed and dress your polling booth.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Vote early and vote often. That is the ALP.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That is up to you.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: You are trying to dress up mutton as lamb.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: If you will not even get out of bed, you cannot expect to win an election. Enforcement by election officials would take away valuable resources from the administration of the election. The Electoral Commissioner advises against this amendment for this reason. It is absurd to expect enforcement by the police at 2,700 polling places across the State on election day. This would divert resources from the important work of New South Wales police. The police would have better things to do on any day of the week, let alone polling day, than patrolling polling places at 4.45 a.m. to see whether the law has been broken. It is worth pointing out that the amendment would impact on others in the community. The definition of a "poster" contained in the Act is broad. As a result, this amendment could require a school that has a sign up saying "Support public eduction" to pull the sign down before the writs are issued or face criminal prosecution.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I acknowledge the interjection by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The effect of the amendment, as drafted, is also very unclear. I am advised that the amendment may permit posters of any size to be put on the grounds on which the building used as a polling place is situated. As I said to the Chamber in relation to this matter, if your politics are important you get out of bed early. To make a mandatory rule about when you can and cannot dress a polling booth seems to me to be an admission by its proponents that they are not even prepared to get out of bed early enough to compete in an election. Why bother nominating?

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Ms Hale

Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan

Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Brown Dr Burgmann Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca

Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Jenkins Mr Kelly Mr Obeid

Ms Robertson Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Ms Cusack	Mr Macdonald
Mr Gallacher	Mr Roozendaal
Mr Lynn	Ms Sharpe

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.29 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 5, 6, 7 and 8 in globo:

No. 5 Page 89, schedule 13 [18], proposed section 151D, line 23. Omit "6 metres". Insert instead "2 metres".

No. 6 Page 93, schedule 13 [33], proposed section 151H, line 20. Omit "6 metres". Insert instead "2 metres".

No. 7 Page 94, schedule 13 [33], proposed section 151H, lines 11 and 26. Omit "6 metres" wherever occurring. Insert instead "2 metres".

No. 8 Page 95, schedule 13 [33], proposed section 151I, lines 6, 8-9 and 17. Omit "6 metres" wherever occurring. Insert instead "2 metres".

The Greens propose to change the restriction from six metres to two metres for placing posters and canvassing at a polling place. The amendments seek to change all references in the bill from "six metres" to "two metres". The amendments will prohibit candidates from placing posters and canvassing for votes within two metres of a polling place. We seek to change the requirement in this proposed section because a six-metre requirement would make it difficult for one booth worker to adequately cover an entrance, as voters may approach from different directions and there may be multiple entrances.

These amendments seek to ensure that voters have access to a range of election materials from parties and candidates. The proposed requirement of six metres would mean that more voters would vote without the benefit of how-to-vote cards, which will have an impact on the choice of primary votes and preference flows. A limit of two metres is more than enough to provide voters unobstructed access to a booth. The two-metre limit is more stringent than that which currently exists. I hope that honourable members regard the amendments as a good outcome. Agreeing to the amendments will assist parties that do not have large numbers of members and supporters. They will be able to cover every entrance to a polling booth and cover every direction from which people might approach just one entrance. The amendments make the system much fairer. It is a modest change. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.31 p.m.]: The Government opposes Greens amendments Nos 5 to 8 prohibiting canvassing of votes in an area just two metres from a polling place. Obviously, it would restrict voters from being overcrowded, crushed, prodded and poked by overeager campaigners. The current provisions in the bill, which will prohibit canvassing for votes within six metres of the entrance of a polling place, sensibly allow a reasonable space for voters to enter a polling place. Furthermore, the current provisions are modelled on the Commonwealth provisions. This was the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The Government accepts that it is desirable to have consistency with the Commonwealth laws to avoid confusion of parties, voters and candidates on the day. These amendments will create confusion and potentially bring about chaos on polling day.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.33 p.m.]: I support these very sensible amendments. If the Government were concerned about people being crowded on polling day, perhaps it could abolish how-to-vote cards and give all parties an equal chance. However, it wants more people at the polling booths, all paid for by property developers, so that there can be more people to hand out cards, because fewer people cannot cover the same booth and two people are needed to cover the same entrance. That is what the Government wants—all adequately funded by its property developer mates. It will have plenty of people staffing the booths. This superficial concern about people not being harassed is a cynical exercise. If the Government really did not want people to be harassed, it would do away with how-to-vote cards. People could make more reasoned decisions without being targeted on polling day.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.34 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not see a need for these amendments if the bill is clear. The "entrance to a polling place" literally means a school building in the school grounds; it does not mean the gate to the school grounds. As long as that definition is quite clear, there is no problem.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.34 p.m.]: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has hit the nail on the head. This is the big issue. Where is the six metres measured from? Is it from the door to the hall or is it to the gate? It is an issue of ongoing disputation and confusion. It is not good enough for New South Wales to just replicate what the Commonwealth does. At the moment the Opposition is minded to vote for the amendments. If we were satisfied that the interpretation would be consistent and thus avoid these sorts of fights on polling day, we might have a different view. I urge the Leader of the Government to make it clear, because at the moment my instruction is to vote for the amendments.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.36 p.m.]: I hope I can make the matter clear for the Committee. New section 151J "Application of provisions to grounds of polling place", states:

(1) If

(a) a building used as a polling place is situated in grounds within an enclosure, and

(b) the appointment under section 84 of the polling place does not indicate whether or not the grounds are part of the polling place,

the grounds are not, but the building is, taken to be part of the polling place for the purposes of sections 151D, 151H and 151I.

The limited discretion comes into the next section, which, because there are 2,000-odd polling places and there must be some small discretion, states:

(2) However, those grounds are taken to be part of the polling place for the purposes of those sections if the returning officer causes to be displayed throughout the hours of polling at each entrance to those grounds a notice signed by the returning officer stating that those grounds are treated as part of the polling place.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.37 p.m.]: This is exactly why the Opposition will not support the Government's position but will support the amendments. New section 151J (2) is not satisfactory. If new section 151J (1) stood alone we would be happier, but we have trouble with the clarification in subsection (2). It will inevitably lead to the sorts of problems to which Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile referred. We have problems with it as well. We would be delighted to hear further from the Minister if he has anything else to add. However, at the moment we are minded to support the amendments because two metres would be more appropriate than six metres.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.38 p.m.]: The only other comfort I can give the Opposition is that the returning officers referred to in new section 151J (2) are subject to the direction of the Electoral Commissioner, who has advised that the provision, which presumably the Opposition is concerned about, will be used only in exceptional cases. I do not know whether I can take the matter further.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.38 p.m.]: The comments of the Minister highlight the importance of these amendments. He has not clarified the situation; he has merely referred to the returning officer. I am sure that members have had the experience at polling booths where a returning officer has made rulings that have put members at a disadvantage, where there have been inconsistent rulings with polling booths down the street and where they have argued how far away people have had to stand. There is an inconsistency. The amendment would make the system more workable, and it is important to the democratic process. It is only a small change, and I commend it to the Committee.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.39 p.m.]: Is the Leader of the Government prepared to accept an amendment to remove subsection (2)? If not, we will leave it at six metres.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.40 p.m.]: Our concern is the interpretation by polling officials that a fence in a school, for example, is the outside of the premises. A large school area could have several gates a long way away from the premises that have to be manned. It should be two metres from that point, but if it is a building with a single entrance then, yes, it can be six metres from that point. That is only sensible. It becomes confusing when different polling officials have different interpretations as to what constitutes the entrance to the polling place. The Hon. Don Harwin has asked for subsection (1) to stand, which would provide that the building where the poll is being conducted, rather than the perimeter of the area in which the polling place is located, is the polling place.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.41 p.m.]: In the spirit of attempting to satisfy the concerns of those in the Chamber, my strong advice is that the Electoral Commissioner wants this measure only for exceptional circumstances, for example if construction work is going on or if a building is within large school premises.

If we were to add the words "with the concurrence of the Electoral Commissioner" at line 18 the discretion would be defined and specific, and used only if the polling place had a particular set of problems. Would that satisfy the concerns of the Opposition? The returning officer could not make an arbitrary decision; he or she would have to have the concurrence of the Electoral Commissioner.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.42 p.m.]: It would be the building, except where there is concurrence?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.42 p.m.]: Yes, it would be the building, except where the Electoral Commissioner, or the returning officer with the concurrence of the Electoral Commissioner, advises that it should not be.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.42 p.m.]: How would that work? We know what election days are like. They are intense and decisions have to be made. How would it work?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It has to be preordained.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, clearly, it has to be preordained. Polling booth officers are very powerful. They have a job to do; the election has to be held. How would it work in practice? I remain concerned.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.43 p.m.]: I recall that quite a few years ago in both Commonwealth and State Acts returning officers interpreted and defined the start of the polling place. The system worked fairly well, although there may have been occasional arguments. The only discretion the Electoral Commissioner is interested in is a predetermined decision. The only example I can think of is if construction were taking place on a site, or something was happening near or on the site on polling day.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [10.44 p.m.]: In my home town two primary schools are used as polling places. The two schools take up one town block. They have about four gates, but there is only one door into the hall. Polling officials have decreed that each of the four gates on that town block is an entrance to the polling booth, which means that each of the four gates has to be manned. However, there is only one door into the school hall where polling occurs, and that should be the entrance to the polling booth, not the four gates around a whole city block. The other booth in Inverell is the Masonic Hall, which has one door. It is logical to do whatever we have to do to ensure that the entrance to the polling booth is the entrance into the building, not the four gates that surround a city block.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.45 p.m.]: Given the consequences of the debate, which it seems is being conducted on the run, I urge the Government, the Opposition and the Greens to come to some arrangement. If one had a building with only one entrance, which is the example given by the Hon. Rick Colless, one could only imagine what would occur if the exclusion zone were a two-metre radius around the entrance. One only has to see what happens in this place during a division. Take two metres behind the Clerk's chair as a radius and imagine 10 or 12 of us trying to get through. I would hate to have Shooters Party polling booth workers accused of poking anybody.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.46 p.m.]: I foreshadow an amendment to page 96, line 18: inserting the words "with the concurrence of the Electoral Commissioner" after the words "returning officer".

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.47 p.m.]: We have made progress. The amendment foreshadowed by the Minister takes us forward. The only remaining concern is when candidates and other interested persons will be advised of determinations made by the returning officer with the concurrence of the Electoral Commissioner. Amplification of that matter would be useful in clarifying what the Electoral Commissioner said is his preference in relation to so many of the other provisions we have been dealing with tonight.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.48 p.m.]: It is my understanding that this will be changed only in the event of, for example, there being building work on a site. As a matter of course, the building will be the premises rather than every electoral official having the ability to carte blanche make a change. This deals only with the example given by the Minister—construction or some other problem—which would lead to a boundary change.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.49 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the proposed amendment by the Government to add the words "with the approval of the Electoral Commissioner" but, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, section 151J (2) should be an absolute exception. Out of 2,700 polling booths it might happen to one, two or five, but it is not the rule. The returning officers need to be advised just what the Parliament's intention is so there is no confusion.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.50 p.m.]: I do not know whether I can make the Government's intention any clearer, other than to suggest that the legislation is meant to provide—which is clearly supported in principle by the Opposition, and I think by the Greens as well—that the building is the boundary for the purposes of defining the rule about distance.

The only point is that the commissioner requires—and we obviously would want the legislation to reflect his requirement—some administrative discretion in the case of polling places where it is obviously not possible to anticipate, for whatever reason, the nature of the boundary fences or perhaps construction being under way. The very fact that it is not possible to anticipate every set of circumstances is why he wants that discretion. I think the Parliament has made its view clear. On behalf of the Government I will be happy to convey that to the commissioner, and I am sure he can then make administrative arrangements. I think that amendment makes very clear Parliament's intention in relation to the primacy of the building being the defining point in relation to the rules governing distance from the polling place.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.52 p.m.]: I move:

Page 96, schedule 13 [33], line 18, insert at the end "with the concurrence of the Electoral Commissioner".

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.52 p.m.]: To gain some further clarification and hopefully to help the process when we come to the election: I understand that an announcement is made about the polling booths and their location. Surely, at that time an announcement can also made about this very issue so that we are able to clarify the boundaries. Could we get an agreement that that is how it will play out?

The Hon. Don Harwin: The draft list is already out.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes. That is the draft list, but then the actual announcement is made.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.53 p.m.]: I am happy to repeat to Ms Lee Rhiannon the commitment I gave to the Opposition: that I will relay to the commissioner the terms of tonight's debate and the attitude of the Parliament to these provisions, and I am sure he will put in place administrative arrangements to reflect our intention and the way the legislation is now to be drafted. I cannot give an absolute commitment, but it would seem to me to be a sensible arrangement that, when the final list of polling places is gazetted and advertised, annotations could be made about any exceptions to the rule we have decided upon tonight.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.54 p.m.]: I thank the Minister for those comments and for moving this amendment. I note his remarks and the fact that the intent of the House will be conveyed to the commissioner. I further note that if the commissioner believes that the provision is still too open-ended, there will be time before the House rises for the Government to introduce a very short bill to clarify the situation—if that is absolutely necessary. But, given the Minister's assurances to the House, I suspect that will be sufficient.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.55 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 4:

No. 4 Page 93, schedule 13. Insert after line 14:

[33] Section 151GA

Insert after section 151G:

151GA Registration of electoral matter involving joint tickets

(1) Assembly elections

Nothing in section 151G prevents the Electoral Commissioner from registering under that section electoral material to which section 151G (8) applies that contains directions or suggestions (express or implied) as to how to vote in accordance with the joint ticket of two or more participants in respect of one or more electoral districts, so long as:

(a) one or other of the participants has nominated a candidate for each one of the districts, and

(b) the material does not direct or suggest that a candidate nominated by none of the participants should be given the first preference vote, and

(c) the application for registration of the material was made jointly by the registered officer or official agent (as the case may be) of each participant, and

(d) the application for registration of the material otherwise complies with the relevant requirements of section 151G (apart from subsection (8) (c)).

(2) Council elections

Nothing in section 151G prevents the Electoral Commissioner from registering under that section electoral material to which section 151G (8) applies that contains directions or suggestions (express or implied) as to how to vote in accordance with the joint ticket of two or more participants in respect of a periodic Council election, so long as:

(a) each of the participants has nominated at least one candidate for the election, and

(b) the material does not direct or suggest that a candidate or candidates nominated by none of the participants should be given the first or highest preference or preferences, and

(c) the application for registration of the material was made jointly by the registered officer or official agent (as the case may be) of each participant, and

(d) the application for registration of the material otherwise complies with the relevant requirements of section 151G (apart from subsection (8) (d)).

(3) Concurrent elections

Nothing in section 151G or this section prevents the registration of one set of electoral material that contains material of the kind referred to in both subsections (1) and (2) involving the same participants and relating to elections being held concurrently.

(4) Definition of "participant"

In this section:

participant means a political party registered under Part 4A or a group of candidates registered under the Election Funding Act 1981.

This amendment has to do with the registration of electoral material involving joint tickets as they relate to Legislative Assembly elections. I referred to this matter in the second reading debate, but I will restate, for the benefit of honourable members who were not present then, what it arises from. I will paraphrase an excellent submission prepared by Mr Scott McFarlane, the former State Director of The Nationals, in that respect.

At a State Electoral Office briefing on 5 December 2002 The Nationals staff were advised that they would not be permitted to advertise another party on their how-to-vote material, and therefore the Liberal-Nationals Coalition could not produce statewide how-to-vote cards. This advice was confirmed by The Nationals staff once the writs were issued, and they were again advised that the Liberal and National parties would not be able to produce joint statewide how-to-vote cards. On Friday 7 March 2003 the former Electoral Commissioner, Mr Wasson, contacted the office of The Nationals to notify them that, due to complications with the Australian Labor Party [ALP] and Country Labor, the interpretation had changed and that the Liberal and National parties would now be allowed to produce combined statewide how-to-vote cards. However, at that point The Nationals, and the Liberals I understand, had already sent their statewide how-to-vote cards to the printer.

Given that in previous general elections The Nationals and the Liberals had been prohibited from producing joint statewide how-to-vote material, the sudden change in the State Electoral Office's advice in relation to the 2003 election, due to the reported complications between the ALP and Country Labor, give rise to questions about rulings by the State Electoral Office affecting the non-Labor parties in this regard. In the second reading debate my colleague the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner referred extensively and precisely to this and the whole issue of how the perceived impartiality of the State Electoral Office was affected. That was a very serious concern to the Coalition. The Opposition has moved this amendment because we believe it should be made absolutely clear in the Act.

The Opposition does not believe that this should be left open so that the electoral commissioner can change the interpretation. Frankly, we do not even think that an assurance from the current Electoral Commissioner—even though we think he is doing a pretty good job—is enough. We want it in the Act and we want it clear that the interpretation that was given by Mr Wasson at the end of the 2003 general election campaign is the law. I urge honourable members to vote for the amendment.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.59 p.m.]: The Government opposes Opposition amendment No. 4. There is no need to amend the bill to ensure the registration of material that is distributed by joint parties who run joint tickets because this is already permitted under the Act. The Electoral Commissioner advises it is his view that when two parties run on a joint ticket for one House, the Act permits those parties to have electoral material registered which recommends a vote for a candidate for the other House, if either candidate is nominated by either of the parties on the joint ticket. It is unlikely that there would be any deviation from that. The Electoral Commissioner is prepared to give written assurances to this effect to any parties.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.59 p.m.]: The question that arises, if in fact that is the case, is: Why not make it absolutely clear in the Act and put it beyond doubt? That is the position that the Opposition adheres to. I urge the Committee to support the Opposition's amendment.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.00 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendment which will allow the Liberals and The Nationals to hand out how-to-vote cards recommending a vote for each other. The amendment will remove uncertainty, and that is very important. Clearly there has been uncertainty about the matter, and when it is possible to clarify matters in the bill, it is important to do so. The Greens think it is fair enough when parties are in alliance, such as the Liberals and The Nationals, to have such a provision. It is worth noting that the bill does not remove the prohibition on Independents in the lower House handing out how-to-vote cards for a party in the upper House.

Parties or candidates in an alliance should be able to have on a how-to-vote card a recommendation for their ally in a district or upper House election in which the first party or candidate is not standing for election. The issues should be addressed on a future occasion. The Greens note that although the amendment advantages the Coalition in the present system of parties' arrangements running up to elections, it is more democratic to support the amendment than to oppose it. However, from the Greens point of view, the amendment does not go far enough.
The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.01 p.m.]: I should have noted that this is the arrangement in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. If the amendment is passed, New South Wales will maintain uniformity between both levels of government. There is no such prohibition at the Federal level.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.02 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Opposition's amendment. It is not correct to say that it gives an advantage to the Liberal Party and The Nationals. This is simply natural justice that applies to any coalition and includes the Labor Party and Country Labor.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.02 p.m.]: There was no advantage to the Liberals and The Nationals. The change of mind by the Electoral Commissioner from one election to the next was a disadvantage to us and the lack of clarification in the law as it exists is the problem. That is why the Coalition would be very grateful to have the matter clarified by the Committee so that we do not have to rely on a future Electoral Commissioner who may decide to change his mind at the very end of an election campaign before any political party, regardless of whether that might be the Liberal Party or The Nationals or anybody else, can change the material that has already gone to the printer.

Amendment agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.03 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 93, schedule 13 [32], proposed section 151G (12A), lines 10-14. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

must be available for inspection at the head office of the Electoral Commissioner and at the office of the returning officer for the district during the hours of polling on polling day (and on all days to which polling is adjourned), and during ordinary office hours on the 4 days before polling day, at the request of any person enrolled in the State.

This amendment seeks to amend part of the bill to increase the period during which registered electoral material is available for inspection. This amendment requires that registered electoral material must be available for inspection on polling day and for four days prior to polling day at the request of any person enrolled to vote in New South Wales. The amendment provides that electoral material should also be available at the head office of the Electoral Commissioner as well as at the office of the district returning officer. It is in the interests of electoral openness that voters, journalists and the public are able to inspect electoral materials and scrutinise preference flows.

If parties and candidates have made principled preference decisions, they should have nothing to hide. In Queensland and Victoria there is an opportunity for the public to inspect registered how-to-vote cards before polling day. Clearly this is the most important amendment that will provide important information to the public in a timely way to enable voters to make an informed decision. I will be amazed if members cannot support this amendment. If members cannot support this amendment, we have to ask what they want to hide and why they want to keep this material away from the public. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.05 p.m.]: This is an extremely important amendment. The idea of having hidden how-to-vote cards which do dirty preference deals that come out magically on election day is not transparent, not accountable and really is an outrageous anachronism. It does not happen in other States and it should not happen in New South Wales. The amendment will fix the problem. I cannot see why anybody who is not into dirty deals and behind-the-scenes types of activities would not support this amendment, although that does not mean that the amendment will be supported in this Committee.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.05 p.m.]: The Government does not support Greens amendment No. 1.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: What are you hiding?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: We will give Ms Lee Rhiannon a pleasant surprise on polling day. Implementation of the amendment will take up the valuable time and resources of the Electoral Commission during a crucial and exceptionally busy week before an election. The amendment risks the State Electoral Office being bombarded with requests to see registered election material. There is no clear right of public access to register how-to-vote material under the current Act. The bill provides an improvement in the transparency of the registration process and clearly establishes that an elector has a right to access how-to-vote material that is registered at his or her electorate at the returning officer's office on polling day. Scrutineers will also be able to access this information. The reform implements a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that all registered material should be available on election day.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.06 p.m.]: The characterisation of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans frankly beggars belief. He has forgotten one small detail: pre-poll voting. How-to-vote cards are available well before polling day. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans's suggestion is absolutely ridiculous. The Opposition is not persuaded.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.07 p.m.]: I really need to respond to that point. There have been a number of cases when the pre-poll how-to-vote materials have not been the same as the ones that were produced on election day. A number of different ones are registered. What sort of duplicity is this? Why will the major parties not confess to whom they are giving their preferences and make that clear before the election so that the poor old voter has some idea of what is intended?

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Cohen Ms Hale Mr Jenkins Reverend Nile Dr Wong Tellers, Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Rhiannon

Mr Brown Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly

Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Mr Obeid Ms Parker

Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Ms Robertson Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 13 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 14 to 19 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.
The Hon. Peter Primrose tabled, on behalf of the Hon. Penny Sharpe, a report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 13 of 2006", dated 26 September 2006.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.18 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.18 p.m.]: Last Friday night I had the great pleasure on behalf of the Government to welcome exhibitors of the Australia Needs Skills expo at my old stomping grounds, the Sydney Town Hall. These skills expos are being held in major cities and are designed to target prospective skilled migrants already in Australia on temporary visas. Such temporary visas cover backpackers on working holidays, overseas students, employees on long-term temporary visas and tourists. The Sydney expo was a co-operative effort between agencies of the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments: the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Department of State and Regional Development and the Community Relations Commission. As I mentioned last week in a speech relating to the activities of the New South Wales-Asia Business Advisory Council, the expo is one of the initiatives under the Government's Drive for Talent Program to attract highly skilled migrants to New South Wales. These migrants will be increasingly needed because of the changing nature of our economy and also the combined phenomena of an ageing population and a low birthrate.

New South Wales is the engine room of the Australian economy and it is heavily dependent on knowledge, an economy in which a skilled work force is essential to meet its needs. Over the years the skill levels of migrants coming to Australia have been rising. Contrary to the view held by some, migrants do not take the jobs of the local population. Although they provide an increase in the supply of labour, importantly, they also add to demand in the economy and contribute to economic growth, which further generates employment. The Drive for Talent Program is designed to meet the continuing needs of our economy by supplementing the work force with skilled migrants who bring talent and investment to New South Wales. The first Australia Needs Skills expo in Sydney is part of that process.

Governments need co-operation to ensure that the education infrastructure is set correctly to train our young people in the right areas of a growing economy. Governments must continue to prime the skills pipeline to meet the continuing needs of a growing economy. Education is one prong in that approach; skilled migrants are another. Many visitors to Australia are attracted to the possibility of working and living here, but they may not know what employment opportunities exist for them. The Australia Needs Skills expo can help them to begin the process that will result in the desired outcomes for themselves and also for their potential employers.

The Sydney expo was the largest held by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, with more than 60 exhibitors showcasing opportunities. I am glad to note that the expo was not the sole domain of Sydney employers. There was also a strong contingent of exhibitors from regional New South Wales, including seven regional development boards, two regional councils and large regional employers such as Country Energy. Other exhibitors from the private and public sectors included Westpac and OneSteel Limited from the private sector, and RailCorp and Correctional Services from the New South Wales public sector. Employment areas covered the health care, engineering and hospitality sectors.

When the Premier announced the Government's Drive for Talent Program, its objective was to attract highly skilled migrants to Sydney and to regional New South Wales. For several years the Government has sponsored business migrants who wish to set up new businesses in New South Wales. In 2005-06 more than 320 business visa applications were sponsored. These business migrants are expected to bring in more than $80 million in investment and create more than 1,000 new jobs. In 2005-06 regional offices supported visa applications from 491 skilled migrants to work in regional New South Wales. These visas secured a range of trades and professional staff that could not be found in the local labour market, including accountants, engineers, cooks and welders.

Since March this year, for the first time the New South Wales Government sponsored skilled migrants to settle in Sydney under the State-Territory Nominated Independent Visa Program. These migrants will work in the fields of finance, information communication technology, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. The Government is forming partnerships with recruiters, expatriate groups and universities both in Australia and overseas to secure the best graduates and professionals. These domestic and international graduates will supplement skills for businesses in New South Wales in conjunction with those from the local work force. I congratulate the organisers and sponsors and, more importantly, the exhibitors for hosting this expo and for reaching out to skilled visitors and potential migrants. [Time expired.]

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [11.23 p.m.]: I am a keen supporter of a significant organisation, the New England Regional Art Museum, known locally as NERAM. Until recently NERAM, a fabulous facility for the Northern Tablelands, was administered by a community-based trust chaired by Mrs Thelma McCarthy and its Chief Executive Officer was Mr Joe Eisenburg, both well-known Australian Labor Party identities. The trust voluntarily resigned after it had overextended its budget and ended up with a debt totalling approximately $500,000, and management was transferred to a committee of the Armidale Dumaresq Council. A community organisation known as the Friends of NERAM was formed to advise the council on management and to assist in raising funds to cover the debt.

The New South Wales Government funded, by way of a loan, the installation of much-needed airconditioning for the museum at a cost of $110,000. I acknowledge the role of the Minister for Rural Affairs in that funding, of which $45,000 was subsequently converted to a grant and $11,000 of accrued interest was written off in recognition of the museum's accrued debts and the contribution the museum makes to the arts community in the north-west. Therefore, the New South Wales Government has contributed some $56,000 in grant and interest subsidies to the museum, in addition to the annual contribution to NERAM funding. The communities of Northern Tablelands very much appreciate the Government's generosity for that funding. The financial problems of NERAM continue, and one of the options to resolve this problem is to sell off a one-half share of one of the major works held by the museum. The work is titled Mosman's Bay by well-known New England artist Tom Roberts, which is valued at over $1 million.

Tom Roberts created many of his most famous works in the Inverell district, including Bailed Up and Shearing the Rams, which were painted on or in the vicinity of the well-known property Newstead. At that time Newstead was owned by Mr Duncan Anderson, great-grandfather of former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson. Duncan Anderson and Tom Roberts were the best of mates and as a result of that friendship Tom Roberts spent a lot of time at the Anderson property and drew inspiration for many of his finest works from the beautiful and picturesque countryside of the western slopes of the New England highlands.

Part of the deal to sell a half-share of Mosman's Bay to the Art Gallery of New South Wales is that the painting would spend some of its time in the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney and other times travelling around other galleries in New South Wales. While that outcome may appear to have some merit, it splits a collection of important works put together by Howard Hinton early last century for the benefit of all people in the New England. As such, the Hinton collection is extremely valuable and should remain intact in the New England Regional Art Museum. A concern that has been expressed to me by local supporters of NERAM is that if a half-share is sold and Mosman's Bay moves around other galleries, it may be seen only rarely in NERAM and that arrangement may be the thin edge of the wedge with other valuable works meeting a similar fate. If that were to happen, the Hinton collection and other important collections at NERAM would end up being severely diluted and ultimately the unique nature of the museum would be lost forever.

There are some disturbing issues surrounding NERAM. One concern relates to a contribution that NERAM made to the re-election campaign funds of the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, with $1,300 clearly identified in Mr Torbay's election funding return as originating from NERAM, Kentucky Street, Armidale. Mr Torbay has refuted in public that he received $1,300 from NERAM, claiming that it was a donation of two prints from Mr Joe Eisenburg's personal collection, and that his campaign volunteers recorded it as a donation from NERAM. The questions that must be answered in relation to this matter are, first, were those prints produced by NERAM as part of its program to print copies of major works as a method of raising funds for the museum and, second, why did Joe Eisenburg mysteriously leave his position as chief executive officer of the museum shortly after? Was he misappropriating funds from the museum?

Mr IAN COHEN [11.27 p.m.]: In the Australian environment there are 2,800 exotic plants, and 20 more are found each year. The cost to the taxpayer in lower farm incomes and higher food costs is $3.9 billion per annum according to the Weeds Co-operative Research Centre at the University of New England. Each year a further $116 million is spent by Commonwealth, State and local governments on monitoring, control, management and research on weeds. Invasive plants and animals are one of the biggest threats to biodiversity after habitat destruction caused by land clearing, and climate change. Weeds degrade the landscape and displace native plants and animals, pollute waterways and create bushfire hazards. They can cause serious health problems through increased allergies and asthma. Seventy-six per cent of weeds come from home gardens and they can be spread by wind, water, animals and birds, people's shoes or machinery, dumping of garden waste or, more recently, by Internet orders of plants from overseas.

Some popular plants such as freesias, forget-me-nots, pampas grass, gazanias and many succulents and cacti are weeds. Better education of home gardeners would, hopefully, lead to disposal of exotics and their replacement with native Australian plants. Nurseries could help with this education by having invasive plant displays and encouraging the sale of natives. Greatly reduced water usage in the garden is another benefit of growing native plants. In Australia there are more than 15,000 native plant species which host specific insects, mites and spiders that in turn provide food for reptiles, birds and mammals such as bats, gliders and possums.

According to the World Wildlife Fund [WWF], escaped invasive garden plants make up two-thirds of the foreign plants now established in Australia as weeds. Over 1,000 weedy plant species were advertised for sale in the late 1990s. While recent improvements in quarantine laws and procedures should stop the import of new invasive garden plants by the end of this year, many earlier legal imports remain and continue to be traded. These weeds remain a threat to natural and agricultural areas. Too often consumers and gardeners are unwittingly causing environmental damage because plant labels currently omit information about invasiveness and responsible management techniques. Mandatory labelling would empower gardeners to make informed choices when buying new plants. Most garden plants are sold with a label that provides the customer with important information. That label can become a communication tool to manage responsible use and care of garden plants, some of which may pose a threat due to toxins, allergens or thorns or may harm the environment as weeds.

The WWF proposes a mandatory national invasive plant labelling scheme that seems to be well supported by industry and consumer bodies, as well as having in-principle support from some State governments. Efforts should be made to encourage and expand a retro-fitting scheme of safe removal of existing invasive plants from gardens, combined with replacement with safe and/or native alternatives. I commend the Grow Me Instead initiative of the Nursery and Garden Industry New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory, which was assisted by the New South Wales Government through its Environmental Trust. I urge the Government to mobilise the garden industry to respond to the invasive weeds challenge by encouraging gardeners to grow native plants, to work towards phasing out the continuing trade in invasive garden plants and to assist local communities to deal with new and existing infestations of escaped invasive garden plants. I also wish to speak of an editorial in the Northern Rivers Echo on 4 April 2006, which states:

More extraordinary still is the crude spray against the Greens issued by north coast Liberal MLC Catherine Cusack on the eve of Mr Tuckey's visit last Friday. Judging by her speech to Parliament, Ms Cusack draws her authority on Bryon issues from Sydney's Daily Telegraph, which is strange when any of the north coast papers could give her a more informed view.

Ms Cusack criticised the Greens for an ambivalent attitude to drink spiking and drug abuse, and for their "anti-tourism stance". She said the "Green controlled Council" has failed to deal with drink spiking because they are too busy "harassing tourists and property owners with disastrous results for the local economy. If the Greens were to attack drugs with the same fervour as they attack tourists and property owners, Byron would be crime free." The MP seems to overlook the police's responsibility in this area.

Ms Cusack's ire seems to have been raised by minimal response from Council in 2004 to her letter recommending an anti drink spiking campaign run by Manly Council. She overlooks—or has no knowledge of—Mayor Jan Barham's fine work on community safety plans and with local sexual assault services, her work on the drug and alcohol summit and with the community drug action team.
She is also unaware that Council is not controlled by the Greens—they represent only four votes out of ten. Ms Cusack's further supposition that negative national media "generated" by the Greens has resulted in a downturn in tourism numbers is a very low bow to draw. In fact Tourism NSW has been appreciative of Cr Barham's proactive approach to tourism, which includes attending the Local Government and Shires Association tourism conference in Penrith …

The editorial continues:

In February this year Cr Barham told The Echo, "Council will be working with Tourism NSW for the first time and we will be looking at ways of marketing to those who appreciate the unique beauty of this area. We hope to highlight the positive aspects of the Shire.

The editorial goes on:

In her inaugural speech to Parliament in May 2003, Ms Cusack said, "I ask to be judged on the honesty of my work, the calibre of my research and the integrity and creativity of my ideas." In her bagging of the Byron Greens most judges would find her wanting on all counts.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [11.32 p.m.]: Of all the laws that are passed by parliaments and legislatures around the world, the one law that politicians often fail to fully appreciate and take into account is one of the most important and profound: the law of unintended consequences. I am sure it is related in some way to the statute of the slippery slope. On 27 July 2006 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [HFEA] in the United Kingdom issued for the first time a licence to the North East England Stem Cell Institute [NESCI], enabling it to offer discounted in-vitro fertilisation [IVF] treatment to women if they are prepared to donate ova for embryonic stem cell research. The new scheme will allow women to halve the £3,500 cost of IVF treatment offered by the NESCI.

Since last year the Newcastle-based research team has been allowed to ask women having IVF treatment to donate "spare" ova if they produced 12 or more eggs. The egg-sharing arrangement that has been permitted up to now has operated on the basis that donated ova were used by another woman undergoing IVF treatment. The research team, headed by Professor Alison Murdoch, has initiated the scheme because the number of ova produced under the existing program was too small. However, we ought not to think that the scientists wish to draw the line underneath their latest announcement. The NESCI team have asked the HFEA to consider "altruistic donations". This proposed arrangement, if permitted, would enable women not undergoing IVF to donate ova. Ms Angela McNab, Chief Executive of HFEA, said:

We know there are a wide variety of views on the subject of donating eggs for research and we anticipate a strong response to the consultation from professional groups, scientists, clinicians and patients as well as the public.

How interesting! I would have thought that, if for no other reason than to express specific concern for those directly affected by the new research initiative, the HFEA spokesperson would have listed women and women's groups as being particularly interested in making a contribution to the consultation process. The proposal raises many medical, health and moral issues. I would think that due process would dictate that consultation, discussion and debate take place before any research licence was granted. One can only wonder why the cart is being put before the horse. Pegging out new boundaries and then working back to something that the public will cop is obviously a good strategy that the scientists have picked up from spending time with politicians.

The scientists, however, have some way to go when it comes to media management. Whilst Professor Murdoch, when commenting on the announcement of the licence, said most sincerely, "We are helping them"—that is, women—"to have treatment they may not otherwise be able to afford", another less media-savvy scientist on the research team acknowledged that access to fresh ova presented opportunities not available when working with embryos that had been frozen and were months, if not years, old. A strong advocate of embryonic stem cell research was recently quoted in a Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece as saying:

The "embryo" we are talking about? It is something smaller than the full stop at the end of this sentence. That resembles something from any species, even a sea urchin.

Those who advocate embryonic stem cell research make a fundamental mistake when they conclude that people with a religious belief who oppose such research are blind zealots who are trying to hold back the advancement of medical science for no purpose other than outdated theological reasons. For those who believe in God, both faith and reason—not one or the other—help shape their views when looking at difficult and complex social and moral issues. Science tells us that a woman, over the course of her fertile years, releases around 400 ova. Given that at puberty a woman has approximately 300,000 ova, crude arithmetic suggests that her surplus requirements of ova are in the order of 750:1.

I will not be so crass as to put a dollar value on this surplus, but the figure would be substantial. Some may say that as a male I am trespassing into territory where I do not belong. Perhaps I should have remained on firmer ground and examined the commodification of male gametes. In both cases we are looking at issues that go to the very core of what we are—human beings. We must not abrogate our responsibilities as politicians and leave it to scientists, economic imperatives and utilitarianism to fit us up with something that, in the end, does not respect our shared humanity.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [11.37 p.m.]: Tonight I had the honour of representing the Leader of the Opposition at the launch of Navy Week by Rear Admiral David Thomas. I congratulate the Navy on its work on the launch of Navy Week. Rear Admiral David Thomas was born in Newcastle and joined the Royal Australian Navy College from that city in 1974. He was promoted to lieutenant in 1979 and served in a number of postings around Australia and in the United Kingdom before being posted executive officer of HMAS Adelaide in 1980, where he participated in the first Royal Australian Navy contingent to the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Desert Shield. He was awarded the Australian Service medal and promoted to commander in December 1990.

In July 1996 Rear Admiral Thomas attended the United States Naval Command College and completed a Masters of Science (Management) at Salve Regina University, Newport, Rhode Island. He was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross on Australia Day 1997 and was promoted to captain in July that same year. He returned to Australia in January 1998 to take up a posting with the Strategic Command Division of Australian Defence Headquarters as the Director of Joint Planning. He was promoted to the rank of commodore and made a member of the Order of Australia in 2002. Then he was promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral and appointed Maritime Commander of Australia in July 2005. Tonight as Maritime Commander he launched Navy Week at HMAS Manoora. In the speech he made tonight he said:

Over the past 12 months there have been a number of highlights in the fleet that are worth noting. It has been hallmarked as a year of redefinition, as we commission new ships and decommission those that have completed their service. In the Surface Combatant Group we completed the Anzac Build Program with the commissioning of Perth in Fremantle last month. Last November we paid off Canberra after nearly 25 years of service. Our oiler Westralia left us last month and was replaced by a converted oil tanker called HMAS Sirius, the first RAN ship to bear that name. That event also established links with Norfolk Island.

Our patrol boats have also been going through a significant period of change as we introduce the Armidale class into service. In the past year we have commissioned HMAS ships Bathurst, Larrakia, Albany and Pirie and next Friday we commission Maitland in Newcastle.

We have now decommissioned 10 Fremantle patrol boats with another five to go over the next 12 months to complete the transition. Many of these ceremonies are attended by our veterans, be they from major ships such as Perth, Westralia or Canberra or the corvetters that form the basis of the Armidale and Fremantle named fleet units. I make mention of this because it is a real privilege for us to be able to honour them on such occasions. They help make us who we are as a navy today, and make us feel better about ourselves because of their contribution, helping to solidify that essential sense of community and family, that is so important to a successful navy. In turn, it allows us to think what sort of legacy we will leave to our successors. Operationally our navy has had another busy year.

We are currently on operations in the northern Arabian gulf assisting with the rehabilitation of Iraq with HMAS Warramunga, an Anzac frigate, and a command element led by an Australian commodore. In May this year the fleet deployed the amphibious task group in support of operation astute, into East Timor. This was the first time such a group had been formed as one since WW2 and as such was an important milestone for our navy. Other groups have also been at work. Our patrol boats have made significant contributions in our north as part of border protection and illegal fishing patrols. Earlier in the year we deployed patrol boats to Solomon Islands as part of the contribution to the regional assistance mission there. Our minehunters have participated in numerous exercises and engagement activities both at home and overseas and our hydro graphic ships have maintained their "quiet achiever" status in pursuing their never ending surveying tasks, much of it in northern Australia.

Our aviation community has worked hard at a major reform program whilst still providing essential helicopter support to the fleet, the highlight probably being a 3 aircraft embarkation in this ship for the Rimpac exercise in Hawaii. Our submarine arm also participated in that exercise, which is aimed at honing higher end warfighting skills. In fact we expect to see HMAS Rankin back on the east coast next week. So you can see your navy has been doing hard, but rewarding work. In closing, can I say a special thank you to our navy reserve cadets from training ship Sirius here in Sydney. These young people represent our future. Thanks for your efforts and the efforts of those that take the time to train and develop you.

I extend the thanks and appreciation of this House to Rear Admiral Thomas and all naval personnel. I have two nephews serving in the Navy—young Jarrah Parker, my sister's son, and Dale Lynn, one of my brother's sons. Our family is very proud of the service that they give. We as members of Parliament can be very proud of our Navy. I wish everyone the best for Navy Week.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.42 p.m.]: On 14 September I was invited to participate in a debate at the Seymour Centre organised by the Socratic Forum of the Universities—an idea that originated in Griffith University in Queensland to improve debate on substantial issues in Australia. The topic for debate was that we should keep religion out of Australian politics. John Cleary, of the ABC's Sunday Nights, hosted the night and I debated the topic with Reverend Robert Forsyth, the Anglican Bishop of South Sydney. He was reasonably sympathetic to the idea of the separation of church and State, but said little about the financial aspects which are crucial and about which I want to speak tonight.

The charity sector in Australia is worth between $30 billion and $70 billion—$30 billion represents the Australian Tax Office [ATO] figure and $70 billion represents the figure from the Business Review Weekly [BRW]. The ATO figure represents the major churches and the BRW figure, a broader figure and takes into account all charitable entities that do not pay tax. The Howard Government has presided over an unprecedented growth in government grants to religious institutions. The Government gives more than $10 billion a year to fund church schools. In 1996, when the Government closed the Commonwealth Employment Service, it awarded million dollar contracts to church-based employment services.

Faith-based organisations have also recently benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for counselling services for custody dispute mediation under the new Family Law Act. Religious organisations will also now receive $20 million annually to provide abortion counselling services. The figures of revenue earned in 2005 for the major churches make interesting reading. The Catholic Church heads the list and is a clear leader with a staggering $16.25 billion. The Uniting and Anglican churches come next, with about $2 billion. In the $600 million bracket come the Salvation Army and the Baptists.

Hillsong Community Church has the biggest revenue growth of 23 per cent from 2004 to 2005, and it now earns $60 million a year. The concern about these figures is that religious groups are largely unaccountable and secretive about the money that they make and how they spend it. Recently the Salvation Army, through its Employment Plus agency, was forced to repay grants of $9 million for falsely made claims. Hillsong Emerge, a business offshoot of Hillsong Church, was suspected of allegedly misappropriating Commonwealth grants from Indigenous Business Australia, a government organisation encouraging Aboriginal people in business.

Sanitarium Foods, a commercial offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, operates with all the tax advantages of a charity. The Seventh Day Adventist Church earned $537 million in 2005 and it is unclear whether any of this comes from Sanitarium Foods. Sanitarium Foods supposedly has a turnover of $330 million a year but it receives concessions from the Federal Government on income tax, including capital gains tax, GST, fringe benefits tax and deductible gift recipients. Federal Treasurer Peter Costello wants the States to account for every cent of the $35 billion in GST revenue, but he does not seem to care about accountability in church revenue.

State tax concessions exist for land tax, payroll tax, some duties and local government rates. When I asked the Government for the cost to the church of land tax concessions the answer was that it was too expensive even to find the answer. So much for accountability in New South Wales! This support by government at all levels—Federal, State and local—for charities and churches without any form of accountability or any clear definition of what is a charity or what are charitable works is a matter of serious concern. One of the Australian Tax Office definitions states that a charity is an institution or fund established for altruistic purposes that the law regards as charitable. Charitable purposes are: the relief of poverty; the relief of the needs of the aged; the relief of sickness or distress; the advancement of religion; the advancement of education; the provision of child care services on a non-profit basis; and other purposes beneficial to the community.

Having the advancement of religion as a charitable purpose is plainly wrong. That is why Australia needs a charities commission at a Federal level—as exists in the United Kingdom and as will soon exist in New Zealand—that can demand that charities provide yearly returns to show how much money they receive and on what it is spent. A charities commission would also be able to decide fairly what was a charity or charitable purpose. Giving tax concessions to an organisation like Sanitarium Foods on the basis that it is a charity makes no logical sense.
Interestingly, the Mormons have gone on record as stating that their agricultural business, AgReserves, will pay taxes on any profit it makes in the future. At a State level I believe that tax concessions to charities should be reviewed by a new State body along the lines and in conjunction with a Federal charities commission. If there is a reluctance to establish a commission at the Federal level it might be still worth proceeding with a collection and standardisation of State legislation that deals with tax concessions to charities. Members of the public who give money to charities have the right to know whether that money is going to the cause for which the money was collected. The Democrats support the idea, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Some honourable members might be aware of the origin of that statement, but for the benefit of those who do not it is to be found in Matthew 22:21.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.46 p.m.]: I commend to the House the exhibition "In Living Memory", presented by the State Records Authority in conjunction with the New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs. This fantastic photographic exhibition entitled "In Living Memory" displays the records of the New South Wales Aborigines Welfare Board from 1919 to 1966 and depicts photographs of many aspects of Aboriginal life. Some honourable members might have seen in the media photographs of mass weddings where the brides and grooms were dressed in the same clothes. On the brochure is a photograph taken in the 1940s of the boys at Kinchela Aboriginal Boys Home. These photographs, which are of superb quality, go back a long way and deal with many of the missions and other centres where Aboriginal adults and children were incarcerated.

[Time for debate expired.]

Motion agreed to.