Legislative Council

6493

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 8 April 2008

______

The President (The Hon. Peter Thomas Primrose) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President read the Prayers.

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

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

The Hon. Robyn Parker tabled, on behalf of the Chair, a report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 4 of 2008 ", dated 8 April 2008.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Robyn Parker.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Withdrawal of Business

Private Members' Business item No. 120 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Ms Sylvia Hale.

Private Members' Business items Nos 10, 33 and 72 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Dr John Kaye.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1, 2 and 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

FOOD AMENDMENT (PUBLIC INFORMATION ON OFFENCES) BILL 2008

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 April 2008.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [2.41 p.m.], in reply: When a government commences a policy development exercise, it engages the assistance of the Executive branch of government to intensively examine options, carefully explore costs involved and the legal framework, and the economic, social and technological implications of any proposals. The questions one could ask relating to the Greens amendments are: Who would pay for this scheme? Is it fair? Will it assist consumers? Will it make a dent in the food-borne illness statistics? Has it been tested to make sure that it will not needlessly put family corner stores out of business, or punish local butchers unfairly, or place businesses at a serious competitive disadvantage with interstate competitors, or result in the increase of the price of basic household foodstuffs for New South Wales customers? The House should be warned strenuously about the effect that these ill-considered amendments could have. I will not be supporting the amendments in globo, and I certainly do not support the manner in which they have been proposed. 6494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

Moving on from matters of process to matters of substance, I can say that in developing this legislation a range of schemes in other jurisdictions has been examined. It is apparent that there is no perfect solution in existence. Most schemes are at pilot stage only. Some of the schemes have been suggested at pilot stage only in various jurisdictions, and that is all, so it is difficult to gauge how well the systems work and how frequently they are used by consumers. I have been up-front in this debate and have clearly stated that I will continue to pursue examination of any policy enhancements that will properly inform consumers. While I believe that this is done at a national level, New South Wales is clearly at the forefront when it comes to making consumer information available.

However I will not blindly implement a scheme that is in place in some other city, say, New York, just because the Greens say we should. There is no parity in terms of circumstances—and for that I am grateful. I will outline a few factors that the Greens do not mention when they talk about the New York scheme. For example, the scheme is run in the city of New York only. New South Wales needs a scheme that works properly across the whole state of New South Wales, in 152 local councils, and that is respectful to our national system of food regulation. I do not recall the Greens ever mentioning that retail businesses only are covered in New York city. The New York scheme does not cover manufacturers, processors, wholesalers, hospitals and schools, whereas the scheme provided by the bill, and food regulation in New South Wales generally, covers the whole food chain, from paddock to plate. All food businesses will be subject to the new legislation.

The New York city scheme is an inspection scheme only. No ratings are offered—just standardised responses on a report. It is not a penalty notification scheme such as is the scheme provided in the bill. In New York they do not stop and issue a penalty notice. Details of fines imposed as a result of inspections are not published. Who pays for it? The Greens expect that a new government scheme can be magically plucked out of thin air. In New York, retail businesses pay fines that may cost thousands of dollars. On average it costs a New York food business US$1,200 per inspection. Obviously those costs are pushed back onto consumers.

Anyone who has visited New York city will know that when 8 million people are put in a city half the size of Sydney obvious consequences follow in terms of sanitation and waste disposal. I am talking about rats. In New York as many as three complaints about rats in a restaurant must be made before an inspector knocks on the door of that restaurant. In New South Wales it takes, as it should, only one complaint. This illustrates that while other models serve as a guide, every country, state and city has its own context, and there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution. I am advocating a tailor-made solution, one that meets the needs of New South Wales consumers and serves as a platform on which to create national standards.

In response to the arguments suggesting that this legislation is discretionary and should be mandatory, or the "may" versus "must" debate that is encompassed in some of the amendments proposed by the Greens, the provisions of the bill that relate to either convictions or penalty notice use the word "may" to frame the exercise of power. This is important in terms of making registers work properly and fairly and consistently, in line with national drafting and legal conventions concerning the exercise of Executive power in this regulatory arena. Anyone who is familiar with the principles of administrative law would recognise that provisions that are directory in nature, with complete removal of discretionary consideration, result in the inflexible application of law, which in turn can lead to unfairness and, in this case, potentially even perverse outcomes. I do not support mandating the publication of penalties because I believe that flexibility is needed to ensure that no person or business is unfairly punished.

I emphasise that the point of this legislation is informed consumer choice when it comes to food safety performance. It is not about the character assassination and obliteration that happens needlessly to small family businesses, primary producers and restaurateurs in implementing a regime at any cost. For example, the current terms of the bill permit the Food Authority to perform a gate-keeping role in the publication of penalty notices. This means that if a council has been a bit heavy-handed in issuing a penalty notice, firstly the authority will retain a discretion to pursue fairness and, secondly, it will take issue with the council to improve its enforcement standards. These are the right and proper outcomes and objectives to pursue.

People should not get me wrong: if they do not take food safety seriously, their name will be published and it will be up in lights on the web. That is what this legislation will do. But I do not support naming and shaming the local butcher for either a non food safety minor technical breach or when the council has been overzealous and unfair in issuing a bluey. It is important that this Parliament maintains and delivers legislation that is fair and equitable. Moreover, it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to scrutinise and maintain appropriate standards of legal integrity by promoting laws that show due regard for the rights and liberties of individuals and the institution of this Parliament. We say that this balance has been carefully considered in the 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6495

formulation of the bill. I will challenge the amendments for being populist and immature. They are not reflective of good government and do not promote the fairness and even-handedness that we in the House, on behalf of all New South Wales constituents, are tasked with upholding and defending.

In conclusion, on a more positive note I make plain why the Government has introduced this legislation and, more particularly, why comparatively it is reliable, workable and effective. The key benefits of the current legislation are that those who are convicted or penalised wholly fund it. Costs are not pushed back to either food businesses or ultimately to consumers. It is a simple system. It clearly identifies the poor performers and does not oversaturate with needless information, keeping in mind that there are 55,000 food businesses across New South Wales. Publication relates to breaches of the Food Act, which is based on uniform model legislation promoting consistency across Australia. It does not discriminate against food businesses, for example. Because we have a complete through-chain approach we have compliance inspection information relating to restaurants and food safety scheme audits that relates to primary production.

No parity exists between these processes insofar as the information has value for customers or consumers. An inspection rating scheme will increase the regulatory burden borne by food businesses and increase compliance costs, particularly of small businesses. Without a consistent national approach the State-based additional costs will likely disadvantage New South Wales businesses in the national marketplace. This is most likely to impact particularly heavily on the primary production sector and smaller family businesses. What is more, any increased regulatory burden borne by industry will be shuffled back as imputed costs to the consumer.

Overall, the Government's bill encourages food businesses to consider food safety as the priority in conducting their businesses. The New South Wales consumer will be the first in this country—I repeat, the first in Australia—with the required food safety performance information to make informed food choices. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.53 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1]. Insert after line 6:

food safety inspection means an inspection of any premises, or food transport vehicle, used in connection with a food business that is carried out by an authorised officer under this Act.

food safety ranking means a food safety ranking allocated under Part 10A.

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [4], line 17. Omit "and alleged offences". Insert instead ", alleged offences and inspections".

No. 12 Page 7, schedule 1 [4]. Insert after line 2:

133B

(1) The Food Authority must keep a register of information about food safety inspections (the register of inspections).

(2) The register must contain the following information in relation to any food business that has been the subject of a food safety inspection:

(a) the name and address of the food business,

6496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

(b) the results of the food safety inspection (including any previous food safety inspection),

(c) the food safety ranking allocated to the food business on the basis of the most recent food safety inspection or any previous inspection.

(3) The register may also contain any of the following information:

(a) the name of the proprietor of the food business (on the date the inspection occurred),

(b) a description of any notice given, order made or any other action taken in respect of the food business as a consequence of any food safety inspection,

(c) such other information of a general nature in relation to matters connected with food safety or other interests of consumers in food as the Food Authority thinks necessary.

(4) The register of inspections may be kept in such form as the Food Authority considers appropriate.

No. 14 Page 8, schedule 1 [4]. Insert after line 2:

(4) In the case of a conviction relating to the conduct of a food business, the Food Authority is required to remove information about the conviction from the register of offences under subsection (2) (c) only if:

(a) the most recent food safety ranking allocated to the business is satisfactory (or better than satisfactory), and

(b) that ranking was allocated on the basis of a food safety inspection that occurred after the offence occurred.

(5) The fact that an offence has become spent under the Criminal Records Act 1991 does not require the Food Authority to remove information about a conviction for the offence from the register of offences.

No. 16 Page 8, schedule 1 [4]. Insert after line 28:

(6) In the case of a penalty notice relating to the conduct of a food business, the Food Authority is required to remove information about the penalty notice from the register of penalty notices under subsection (5) (f) only if:

(a) the most recent food safety ranking allocated to the business is satisfactory (or better than satisfactory), and

(b) that ranking was allocated on the basis of a food safety inspection that occurred after the penalty notice was issued.

No. 18 Page 8, schedule 1 [4]. Insert after line 34:

(7) The Food Authority may remove any information from the register of inspections if it is satisfied it is reasonable in the circumstances to remove the information from the register.

No. 19 Pages 8 and 9, schedule 1 [4], proposed section 133E (1), line 38 on page 8 to line 4 on page 9. Omit all the words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) If any business named in a register is sold or otherwise disposed of after the date on which:

(a) an offence is committed in the conduct of the business, or

(b) a penalty notice is served in relation to an offence alleged to have been committed in the conduct of the business, or

the Food Authority may add information to the register for the purpose of indicating that the business has been sold or otherwise disposed of since that date.

No. 20 Page 9, schedule 1 [4]. Insert after line 35:

133G

Food safety rankings

(1) As soon as practicable after a food safety inspection is carried out, the Food Authority is to make an assessment of whether the inspection provides evidence of any contraventions of this Act or the regulations and, if so, the seriousness of those contraventions (this assessment is referred to in this Part as the results of a food safety inspection).

8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6497

(2) On the basis of the results of the food safety inspection, the Food Authority is to allocate the food business the subject of the inspection a grade or ranking (a food safety ranking) that summarises the results of the food safety inspection.

(3) The Food Authority must give the proprietor of a food business that is the subject of a food safety inspection:

(a) notice in writing of the results of the food safety inspection, and

(b) a certificate that indicates the food safety ranking allocated to the food business on the basis of that inspection (a food safety ranking certificate).

(4) The proprietor of a food business must cause the most recent food safety ranking certificate given to the proprietor in respect of the food business to be displayed in a prominent place at the main entrance to the premises of the food business:

(a) within 48 hours after receiving it from the Food Authority, and

(b) following the end of that 48 hour period, at all times during which the food business is in operation.

(5) A proprietor of a food business who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (4) is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units in the case of an individual and 80 penalty units in the case of a corporation.

(6) A proprietor of a food business who is aggrieved by a decision of the Food Authority in respect of the results of a food safety inspection carried out in relation to the food business or a food safety ranking allocated to the food business on the basis of those results may apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of the decision.

(7) An application for such a review must be made within 28 days after the day on which notice of the results of the food safety inspection is received by the person.

(8) For the purpose of enabling the Food Authority to exercise its functions under this Part, an authorised officer who carries out a food safety inspection, and who is not appointed by the Food Authority, must provide to the Food Authority a report:

(a) that summaries any observations or findings made by the authorised officer in respect of the food safety inspection, and

(b) that indicates whether the authorised officer is of the opinion that the food business is operating in contravention of any of the requirements of this Act or the regulations and, if so, the manner in which those requirements are being contravened.

(9) The report must be provided to the Food Authority within 21 days after the completion of the inspection.

No. 21 Page 10, schedule 1 [4], lines 4 and 5. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

with:

(a) the keeping of a register under this Part, or

(b) the making public of any information contained on a register, or

No. 22 Page 11, schedule 1 [8]. Insert after line 33:

23 Inspections and food safety rankings

Section 133B and section 133G (as inserted by the Food Amendment (Public Information on Offences) Act 2008) apply only to a food safety inspection carried out on or after the commencement of the relevant section.

In his reply to the second reading debate the Minister made a number of allegations in respect of the Greens amendments and their intent. I will correct a few of those comments. First, the Minister suggested that when I distributed these amendments to the Clerk I embargoed them until the second reading of the bill. Indeed, at 9.13 a.m. on 1 April 2008 I sent an email to the Clerks saying that it was okay to circulate these amendments at the time of the second reading. As soon as I realised that was not standard practice and an inappropriate thing to do I sent a second email, at 1.14 p.m., in which I corrected that error and said it was okay to circulate them at that time. The Minister's suggestion that I was in some way hoping to surprise the House is incorrect. He also 6498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

suggested the amendments were dated from the previous week. That is indeed true; the amendments went backwards and forwards a number of times between Parliamentary Counsel and us. They are quite complex, as is the legislation. We sought some clarification from Parliamentary Counsel and were not in a position to release the amendments until 1 April.

The second allegation made by the Minister was that we were "irresponsible and immature". I appreciate his concession that I may be younger than he is, but I reject his allegation that I was irresponsible and immature to load up the House with a plethora of amendments. I am somewhat surprised by this because I would have thought that part of the job of a member of Parliament is to read legislation, understand it and seek to make it better. If that is in some way irresponsible, perhaps we need to have a discussion about the purpose of Parliament. Maybe this says more about the Government's view of Parliament and executive legislation and less about what we should be doing. As I had foreshadowed on 1 April, it was always my intention to move these amendments—originally in two blocks, but now in three. The Minister knows that this is complex legislation and that making a small change requires changing several clauses of the bill.

Thirdly, the Minister said I did not seek to discuss the bill with him. Indeed, we did not. It will come as a shock to the Minister to discover that he is not the only source of information on food regulation in New South Wales. He and his advisers do not as yet have a monopoly on good advice. We read what Choice, the former Australian Consumers Association, and a variety of other regulatory experts were saying, and their advice was quite clear.

Having cleared up those matters, I want to turn specifically to our amendments. They enable consumers to access the results of food inspections. Let us be clear about this: I am talking about the result of an inspector inspecting a food business and writing up a notice. The amendments will ensure that the public can access the inspection notice and the date on which the inspection occurred. It is possible now in some circumstances to obtain results of food inspections, but to do so requires the use of freedom of information legislation, which is expensive and time consuming, and it is not available to the average consumer.

The bill as introduced provides that offences and penalty notices will be placed on a register. As we said in the second reading debate and as we have maintained throughout, that is definitely a step forward. Our amendments will extend the idea of "name and shame" on offences and penalty notices to public availability of food inspections. Firstly, the amendments would cause the results of the most recent food safety inspection to be created and published. Secondly, they would assign to each of those food safety inspections a food safety ranking. Thirdly, they would cause a certificate to be created and sent to the food business to be displayed on the website or on the front door or window of the premises so that people seeking to use the products of that particular food business can assess the business in situ or, if they are at home, can check the performance of the business on a website.

The Greens introduce these amendments because, under the bill as presented to Parliament, the register of offences and the register of penalty notices at restaurants provide only a limited amount of information. If a diner or a purchaser of a food product at a restaurant does not see a penalty notice or register of offences recorded against that business they may make two interpretations. Consumers will know that either the business has been inspected recently, did not receive a penalty notice, was not prosecuted and has no outstanding offence against it and is therefore a safe place to consume food or the business has not been inspected for a very long time. In fact, it may never have been inspected at all. The absence of the name of the food business on one of those registers could mean that the business is safe and upholds the highest standards of hygiene or it has not been inspected at all. It could be quite dodgy and consistent with the horror stories members have read in the media in the past few years.

The only reliable information penalty notices and the offences register will give is not to eat at a business because it has a penalty or an offence recorded against it. If nothing is recorded against the business, no further information is available. This bill will continue the appalling circumstance in which restaurant goers and other users of food businesses have to play Russian roulette every time they eat. If the register does not name a business it means that the business is fine or it is terrible, but the absence of the naming of the business on the two registers that this bill will create does not tell a consumer that a business is safe. We have yet to really go down the path of providing consumers of food businesses with information that is reliable, enabling people to eat at a restaurant and buy its products with confidence because it recently passed inspection.

The purpose of these amendments is to rectify that situation, to give to food consumers the ability to know that when they eat at a restaurant or buy some produce they can go to the registers to find out when it was 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6499

inspected and the results of any such inspection. People choosing to eat at a food business can do so with confidence knowing when it was inspected and that it passed the inspection. The Minister suggests that these amendments would produce a name and shame outcome for restaurants and other food businesses that have committed infractions of the food code, but that is clearly not true. The Minister used the example of a restaurant having a cracked tile in the kitchen. If an inspection notice says that the restaurant has a cracked tile but everything else is fine that is all the inspection notice will show. Consumers will make their own decisions on whether a cracked tile sufficiently compromises the food hygiene of the restaurant to rule out eating at the restaurant.

In no way can these amendments be said to involve naming and shaming food outlets over minor details. The public has the maturity to make an assessment of the importance of any details identified. The Minister said that the effects of the amendments are untried. A thought experiment will rapidly show their effects. In the first place, the community will know how recently a restaurant or food business was inspected. That means that those food businesses that do the right thing will be enthusiastic about being inspected because it is in their best interests to have a recent inspection notice that identifies and rewards them for doing the right thing. Restaurants that are not doing the right thing will be uncomfortable about being regularly inspected.

The Los Angeles experience was not a pilot program. The 2005 paper by Professor Phillip Leslie made very clear the effects of publishing food inspection results: the number of restaurants that were in the highest standard of food hygiene, in the A category, went from 25 per cent to 50 per cent in one year. Massive pressure was put on restaurants to clean up their act and to provide safe and hygienic food for consumers. These amendments will take away the ability of food enforcement authorities to hide behind the barrier of public ignorance. No longer will it be possible for a local government to say that nobody knows whether it is carrying out inspections so it will not bother to inspect. The amendments will clear up once and for all the anecdotal allegations that are circulated about a number of municipalities not having a professional food inspection officer and not bothering to inspect restaurants. Once and for all it will clear up the story that restaurants and other food businesses in areas of Sydney and New South Wales simply have never been inspected.

The record of the food business and the record of the performance of the food enforcement authority will be on public record. It will show which authorities do not fulfil their duty to protect people within their franchise area. The registers will give customers quality information on which to make decisions. I would have thought this was a major function of government. The registers will also provide protection to the community. The Los Angeles study found a 20 per cent reduction in hospital admissions as a result of food poisoning and other food-related diseases. We could achieve that sort of improvement in New South Wales if these amendments are passed.

I will briefly speak to the amendments to make clear what they provide. Amendment No. 1 defines "inspection", "ranking" and "register". Amendment No. 2 changes the title of part 10A, which is the part under which the registers are established, to make it clear that an inspection is one of the activities included under part 10A. Amendment No. 12 creates a register of inspections, which will contain the most recent inspection. Amendments Nos 14 and 16 make it possible to remove convictions and penalty notices only after a subsequent food inspection is satisfactory. Amendment No. 18 allows a food authority to remove information from a food inspection register if it is reasonable. The Greens amendments do not remove the ability of the food authority to remove information from any of the registers—either the register of food inspections or the other two registers created by the bills—or seek to remove the discretion of the food authority to remove information where that is reasonable.

Amendment No. 19 provides that the food authority may note a change in ownership on a register if a business is sold after a food inspection has occurred. Amendment No. 20 creates a food safety ranking. It takes the result of an inspection, it works out the ranking and safety, issues a notice of the results and a certificate to the food authority which it gives 48 hours to display and creates a right to review within 28 days. Amendment No. 21 extends the liability protections to food inspections. Amendment No. 22 provides that the amendments apply only after the commencement of the Act.

The Minister spoke about the costs associated with the amendments being incredibly expensive. I note that he is not currently listening. I draw the Minister's attention to the 2007 Consumer Attitude Survey, published last week by Food Standards Australia New Zealand, FSANZ. I inform the Minister that the survey found that 32 per cent of people in Australia believed they had suffered food poisoning in the previous 12 months—one in three people. Of those, 87 per cent said that their food poisoning had come from outside the home. Eighty-seven per cent of 32 per cent is 28 per cent: more than one in four people became sick because of food ingested from sources outside their home. 6500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

If we can reduce that figure by even a small percentage, whatever cost goes into setting up a register of inspections, whatever cost goes into the increased inspection activity that the amendments would bring about, would be justified on economic grounds. It would reduce lost work days and the medical costs of food poisoning. But, more importantly, it would be justified on human grounds because it would reduce the intense suffering—in a limited number of cases mortality—associated with food poisoning.

If our amendments can fix those problems they ought to be accepted. We ought to commit ourselves to looking after people in New South Wales. The examples in Los Angeles, New York and the Dine Safe Program in Toronto all point in the same direction: towards the massive benefits associated with giving potential consumers access to information about penalty notices, convictions and inspections. That far richer database would enable consumers to make a far more informed decision. It would also create pressure on restaurants to clean up their act and on food enforcement agencies to ensure that every restaurant is inspected. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [3.13 p.m.]: The Government opposes Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. The information contained in the survey mentioned by Dr John Kaye is very interesting; however, I caution him about making statements with such clarity. There can be quite a gap between people being asked where they think they contracted an illness and a fully investigated incident. For example, recently a member sought an inspection of a food business because he was ill for a couple of days, which he felt was due to eating at that food business. The site was duly inspected. The conclusion of the food inspector was that it was one of the cleanest and tidiest businesses, and no evidence was found of anything that could have led to the illness of the member.

People may contract a 24-hour illness or a virus that may have symptoms similar to food poisoning. I point out that last week I said that there has been a 6 per cent reduction in salmonella poisoning in New South Wales over the past year. I advise caution about surveys that ask people to explain the cause of their illness. The Government opposes the amendments for very good reason. The Government has worked assiduously over the past year to put together a framework that will provide a very solid basis for consumers to be informed about the potential health risks of eating at premises that are below par.

I have made it very clear that the Government is not interested in pursuing people for minor misdemeanours, such as paperwork not being lodged on time or a cracked tile on a kitchen floor. The Government wants a publicly available register containing material that will help consumers to assess the health safety risk of the premises. Given that about 1,000 penalty notices are issued each year through various agencies, many premises would be on the website. Over a short time a considerable number of premises will not have met the criteria. The details will be on the website, providing a very solid base of evidence for consumers to make an informed choice.

Neither the food authority nor local councils have been consulted to assess the workability of the proposed schemes. There is no doubt that Dr John Kaye has put a lot of work into this: adapting the experiences in Toronto, Los Angeles and New York to come up with a scheme for New South Wales. However, the relevant stakeholders have not been consulted. The Government has consulted with the stakeholders. Last year I attended a forum and held several meetings with the Restaurant and Catering Association on these issues.

Neither the industry nor our national food agency counterparts have been consulted about the Greens' amendments. The problem with making wholesale amendments such as these is that hidden consequences arise if the homework is not done. The Greens' amendments have not been developed in consultation with stakeholders, so we do not know the problems sitting behind the Greens' framework as put forward today.

I am concerned about amendments such as these that have been developed without the benefit of community consultation. The bottom line implication of the amendments is that food inspectors will have to spend their time administering this system rather than doing what they should be doing—that is, front-line inspections. I note that the Greens have been silent on the matter of costs, another sign that they are not serious about costs. With these amendments New South Wales would be seriously out of touch with all other States and Territories. Queensland and Victorian businesses that have no such systems in place will have the least regulatory burden, the least red tape and fewer costs, and therefore will have a major competitive advantage over New South Wales food businesses.

New South Wales consumers will be worse off as the costs of local goods increase. Many New South Wales food businesses compete in the national marketplace, and these amendments might encourage businesses 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6501

to cut corners in a bid to make ends meet. That is absolutely not in the interests of consumers. I am greatly concerned about the economic pressures that unfunded and impulsive amendments such as these will have on our community. Have the Greens worked through the amendments to make sure that they will not needlessly put family corner stores out of business or punish local retailers such as butchers and bakers?

The amendments have not been costed, nor has a funding mechanism been identified. There is no empirical evidence to affirm that the information proposed for supply will increase or enhance real consumer choice. The Government has tested its mechanism. The Greens proposals might be good from a philosophical standpoint but are they practicable, workable and effective?

These are the questions that confront good government. Food compliance information can be technical and difficult to interpret, and there will be an enormous amount of information generated—no question. We do thousands of tests per annum. There will be a double handling of inspection reports as councils will have to send all of the information to the food authority. There will be high set-up imposts. Ongoing administration is required to create an information flow system between 152 councils and the food authority, as well as a complex information technology and web-based database system, not to mention the high cost of human resources required to administer the scheme, as distinct from putting the pins that fit into the category of health risk on to the web. These amendments would force New South Wales to be out of step with all other Australian jurisdictions, as I have made very clear.

In relation to ranking, inspectors will have to spend their time administering the system rather than doing what they should be doing. There is more compliance burden for business, which will force costs back to consumers. An inherent flaw is that the food authority is tasked with ranking business performance in comparison with other businesses across New South Wales, potentially without ever setting foot into the premises concerned—a very unrealistic demand indeed. I can see that Dr Kaye has put a lot of work into this, and I commend him for it, but it has not been road-tested sufficiently to be put at the last minute into a bill that fits within a national framework. It will put in place a public register that will very rapidly become a bit of a bible for food goers because every newspaper will follow what is going on. Each week people will look to see the latest additions in their local area. What will that achieve? Information about those businesses that have not met health standards—and I mean health and food safety standards, not minor misdemeanours—will be known widely throughout the community.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.21 p.m.]: The Opposition will not support Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. It is obvious from the work that the member has put into this that it is going to make the whole system overly bureaucratic. I think the Minister raised the issue of the extra red tape and compliance and so on that would be involved in it. I find his comments a little hypocritical in some regards given the overcompliance, red tape and bureaucracy that have gone into some other areas falling under his control over the years where he has been all too ready and happy to overregulate other sectors of the industry. However, in this case—

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Like OJD?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: No, I am thinking more in terms of the overcompliance and overregulation that the Minister put in the native vegetation regulations that are now almost unworkable. I know that he does not have control of that now but he did at the time. Again, it was the Greens that initiated the overregulation of the native vegetation aspect. I do not want to see any more businesses overregulated to the stage where they are almost forced out of business. Introducing a bureaucratic system of food safety rankings and so on would do more harm than good to the industry.

I really have to wonder about the whole issue of having restaurants on a website. I cannot imagine anybody—certainly not anybody I know—that would look up a website to check a restaurant for its food safety before going out to dinner. Many people go out to dinner on a whim. They might be having a few drinks together and then say, "Let's go to the restaurant across the road." They are not going to go to an Internet café first and find out what the food safety ranking is. The Greens think they will, but I think it is absolute nonsense. For those reasons the Opposition will not support the amendments.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.24 p.m.]: I thank honourable members for their comments. Firstly, in respect of the issue of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand [FSANZ] survey, I left out that 13 per cent—I think it is 13 per cent; I have lost my piece of paper—of respondents were not sure whether they had food poisoning or not. So in fact the way I used the data was quite conservative to arrive at the figure of 25 per cent of consumers who had been inflicted with food poisoning over the previous 12 months. 6502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

The Minister spoke about the framework and healthy eating and the 1,000 or so restaurants that would be on the website each year. Certainly, as we acknowledge in our second reading speech, that is a step forward. Our concern is not the 1,000 restaurants that are on the website but the tens of thousands—maybe hundreds of thousands—of restaurants and other food businesses for which there is no inspection material available. We will simply not know whether those restaurants are safe. The absence of the name of a restaurant or a food business on the registers being created by this bill leads to one of two conclusions being drawn. The first is that the restaurant was inspected and passed; the second is that it was not inspected—it may have passed if it had been inspected or it may not.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What happens if you do not look at the website?

Dr JOHN KAYE: I was going to get to that. You were positing the hypothetical situation where you were having drinks with a few friends and then decided to go for dinner, and you said it would be absurd to find an Internet café or pull out your blackberry or laptop, and I totally agree with you. That is precisely why, in our amendments, we include the posting of a food rating on the door of every restaurant, specifically for those people who are making a spontaneous choice of restaurants, so that they can see whether a restaurant passed or not. Very rapidly many restaurants will pass food inspection in that situation. Once they know they will be regularly inspected and that, if they are not regularly inspected, the inspection notice on their door will be out of date, they will seek to be inspected very quickly. The second issue raised in objection to our amendments concerned their being expensive and bureaucratic. The Minister might have been distracted when I made the observation that if you have even 15 per cent of the population, to allow for even further uncertainty in the data, who have food poisoning every year—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: They are not going to go back to the restaurants, are they?

Dr JOHN KAYE: No, they won't—precisely.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Within five years no-one is going to be going to restaurants.

Dr JOHN KAYE: On the contrary, the Los Angeles data strongly showed the exact opposite. Once the inspection notices came in, the profit at those restaurants that received an A-grade rating—bearing in mind that a lot of restaurants moved from B to A in the first year of operation of the scheme—went up substantially. In fact more people patronise those restaurants. By increasing confidence in the hygiene standards of restaurants you increase the number of people who go to restaurants. It is a mirror image of the arguments put forward to oppose the banning of smoking in restaurants in New South Wales, and we remember those well. How many restaurateurs said, "We are going to go out of business if you enforce the ban on smoking"? Once the ban on smoking came in, restaurants in this State went into a boom period simply because people had confidence in going to a restaurant and not having somebody light up a cigarette next to them.

In terms of red tape and being overly bureaucratic, I think that the idea of giving more information to the public is the best antidote to the dull hand of bureaucracy and where you are creating more informed choice by providing more information you are serving a useful public purpose. Maybe you want to call that bureaucratic, but I do not think you can seriously argue that it is creating a greater level of bureaucracy. It is, firstly, creating the ability for food consumers to check the safety of where they are going and, secondly, it is putting pressure on bureaucrats and those people who are involved in food inspection to do their job properly. However, it will increase the occurrence of food inspection.

We have one of two choices: either we think that food inspection is not a good idea and we should not bother inspecting food businesses because it does not deliver any benefits; or we think—like the Greens—that food inspection produces benefits and we should have a uniform and consistent standard. The only way to achieve the latter is to ensure that food enforcement authorities that are not doing the right thing are exposed for not inspecting regularly so that consumers are aware of the frequency of food inspection. Members referred earlier to the complexities of the website. The Minister knows full well that content management systems [CMSs] are easy to set up and cheap to maintain on a website. It takes little expertise and it is a rapid process. I am sure that the Minister's website contains a content management system. It is not difficult to set up content management systems as the software does all the hard work. I appreciate the comments that members made earlier. However, I maintain that these amendments are in the public interest and should be passed.

TEMPORARY CHAIR (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Before I put the question, I welcome a group of rural press cadet journalists from around New South Wales, who are guests of the Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, and Minister for Regional Development. 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6503

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Cohen Dr Kaye

Noes, 26

Mr Ajaka Mr Lynn Mr Smith Mr Brown Mr Macdonald Mr Tsang Mr Catanzariti Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Veitch Mr Clarke Reverend Nile Ms Voltz Mr Colless Ms Parker Mr West Ms Ficarra Mrs Pavey Ms Westwood Miss Gardiner Mr Pearce Tellers, Ms Griffin Mr Primrose Mr Donnelly Mr Khan Ms Sharpe Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 negatived.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.39 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 3 to 11 in globo:

No. 3 Page 4, schedule 1 [4], line 19. Omit "may". Insert instead "must".

No. 4 Page 4, schedule 1 [4], line 22. Omit "may contain any of the following information". Insert instead "must contain the following information (to the extent known or available to the Food Authority)".

No. 5 Page 4, schedule 1 [4], line 26. Insert "(that occurred while engaged by the person)" after "such an offence".

No. 6 Page 5, schedule 1 [4], lines 7 to 9. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 7 Page 5, schedule 1 [4]. Insert after line 9:

(3) The register may also contain such other information of a general nature in relation to matters concerned with food safety or other interests of consumers in food as the Food Authority thinks necessary.

No. 8 Page 5, schedule 1 [4], line 22. Omit "may". Insert instead "must".

No. 9 Page 5, schedule 1 [4], line 26. Omit "may contain any of the following information". Insert instead "must contain the following information (to the extent known or available to the Food Authority)".

No. 10 Page 6, schedule 1 [4], lines 13 to 15. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 11 Page 6, schedule 1 [4]. Insert after line 15:

The purpose of the amendments is to compel the Food Authority to maintain the register of offences and register of penalty notices. We must have confidence that this will happen and that it will not be left to the discretion of the Food Authority or the Minister. Amendments Nos 3 and 8 state that the Food Authority "must"—the bill says "may"—keep a register of offences and a register of penalty notices. Amendments Nos 4 and 9 require that the listed contents of the register must be maintained—again, the bill says "may". Amendments Nos 6 and 7, relating to offences, and amendments Nos 10 and 11, relating to penalties, refer to the list of such other information of a general nature that can be placed on the register. It does not make syntactic sense to say that the Food Authority "must" maintain such other information of a general nature as it thinks necessary. So amendments Nos 6, 7, 10 and 11 simply seek to remove those parts of the bill that have been changed by the earlier amendments to say "must" and to insert "may" instead. 6504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

The Minister said in his second reading speech that the amendments would remove the discretion of the Food Authority in respect of certain minor matters and force the authority to place such matters on the registers. That is simply not correct. I direct the Minister to new section 133D (6), which gives the Food Authority the authority to correct the register. New section 133D (6) states that the Food Authority may remove matters from the register if it deems it appropriate to do so. Therefore, the Food Authority can make changes to the register. By making maintenance of the registers compulsory, as these amendments seek to do, the Food Authority will have the power to correct any inappropriate inclusion of minor matters. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [3.42 p.m.]: Let us be clear about the point Dr John Kaye just made that the Food Authority "may" correct minor matters on the registers. Once these public infringement notices go on the web, they become public information. It will be very hard to correct any wrong that may have been caused or occasioned by the publication of infringement notices on the web. I make it clear that discretionary phasing is consistent with the approach adopted in the national model for uniform food regulation and legislation, which states that the food agency may publish information about convictions. The Greens amendments are not consistent with the national model. They go beyond that and propose, in effect, that the Food Authority must publish information about penalty notices.

Maintaining discretion in the sections of the Act will assist in encouraging other jurisdictions to adopt similar provisions, which could see registers issued in other States and Territories. We are trailblazing with this legislation. I assure the Committee, however, that when the Government's bill is passed the Food Authority will keep a public register of information about offences relating to the handling or sale of food and will keep a register of information about penalty notices. Whilst I do not support the amendments, I trust that my assurances have clarified members' concerns. The authority will keep registers. That has certainly been the case with the prosecution register, which is based on the same drafting convention.

Because the Greens amendments will involve no discretion on the part of the Food Authority, people will appeal both inspections and penalty notices. The courts will become clogged—indeed, many will become full-time Food Act tribunals. The amendments will encourage that response because recording every breach on a public register and an inspection system will make people challenge the process at every step. People will feel challenged and will clog the courts by appealing against minor breaches of food regulatory law. A mandatory publication requirement has no flexibility to ensure that no personal business is published unfairly—I have been at pains to make that point throughout this discussion. There is no inherent fairness in what the Greens propose. The amendments will affect small family businesses and primary producers, in particular.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.45 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendments. The bill simply states that those food outlets found to be in breach of food safety standards may have their names added to the register compiled by the Food Authority. The bill does not discuss what sort of breaches will be put on the register so it becomes a subjective, rather than an objective, issue. It has to be one way or the other. We agree with the Greens amendments: the wording of the bill should be changed from "may" to "must". If it is not changed it will leave the way open for vendors with poor hygiene standards to escape public attention, which is what the bill seeks to achieve.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [3.46 p.m.]: I have been at pains to point out the difference between "may" and "must". Many penalty notices are issued for very minor breaches. For example, a restaurant or food business that does not get its paperwork in on time is subject to a penalty infringement notice. If the wording in the bill is changed from "may" to "must" the Food Authority will be required to put on the register those businesses whose breaches have no health consequences⎯

The Hon. Rick Colless: Where is the line in the sand?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It will be worked out by the Food Authority.

The Hon. Rick Colless: So you do not know; you cannot tell me.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, no. The Food Authority will work it out, case by case. The information will be put up when the infringement calls into question food safety or involves a health issue at the premises. I have given several examples. For instance, a business with a cracked floor tile will be issued with a 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6505

penalty infringement notice. Why would that company be included on a list with others that have cockroaches and rats on the premises, exposing it to sensationalist treatment in the media? There is no doubt that is what will happen. As soon as one newspaper outlet got hold of the list from Woollahra, everything went in and, bang, it was the source of media stories week after week. That is okay in the case of businesses that have been caught with cockroaches in the kitchen or rats around the kitchen because they are serious food safety and health breaches. We want those businesses listed on the website, and the media will drive the issue across New South Wales.

But if the wording of the bill is changed from "may" to "must" the Food Authority will be required to put up every example and every public infringement notice, regardless of whether it is a paperwork issue or a serious food safety issue. It would be an even worse consequence if companies that have not impacted on food safety or customer health and safety were placed up on the same list as companies that have committed serious health breaches. The list will fairly quickly contain well over a thousand companies—perhaps a few more— because that is roughly how many breaches are issued each year.

The problem with the amendments is that they do away with any concept of fairness within the operation of the register. We want to stop people who are breaching health and safety safeguards. That is what we want to get at and they are the people we are after. We are not after people who are responsible for technical breaches. I implore honourable members not to vote for the change that the Hon. Rick Colless supports. It is sad that the Opposition intends to support the amendments. There are about 55,000 food businesses in the State, and we do not want a name-and-shame register on a website that I believe will be subject to huge media attention— no question about it. We do not want that. I know that the Greens are all about naming and shaming, but we do not want small family businesses, such as a small family butcher shop, to receive penalty notices because they forgot to submit their paperwork on time. After all, they receive an automatic infringement notice, and we do not want those notices to be included in the register on the website, mixed in with people who have committed serious breaches of food safety standards.

We want the system to work so that it targets and improves food safety standards. I have given the Committee assurances that, in implementing the legislation, any food business that challenges food safety and health standards will be named in the register of breaches on the website. Equally, I have made it clear that we will not be targeting businesses that have committed minor discrepancies, such as failing to replace a cracked floor tile, that do not pose an immediate threat to the health and safety of consumers. I think the Opposition has lost it in regard to these amendments and has gone a bit too far. The legislation deals not just with restaurants. We are dealing with 55,000 businesses from paddock to plate, including primary producers such as dairy farmers, right across the State to ensure that food safety standards are up to scratch.

We do not want to include on the website's register people who have not committed breaches of food safety standards that threaten the health of consumers. The Food Authority, which is an independent expert body, will make a decision in each case involving breaches listed on the register. However, the Food Authority has a proactive role and a responsibility to place on the register all breaches that affect the health and safety of consumers. I am absolutely amazed that the Opposition intends to support the amendments.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.52 p.m.]: The Shooters Party cannot support the Greens amendments because they are too prescriptive. I understand the point made by the Opposition: we have to make up our minds. However, the Government's bill has enough flexibility to provide for fairness, and that is particularly important as it relates to employees. Individuals, such as a trainee or employee, may make a mistake constituting a breach of health standards and receive a penalty infringement notice. The person may receive a fine and in all probability will lose their job. But the inclusion of their name on a penalty infringement notice register may have severe consequences if the Food Authority has no discretion in the exercise of its authority. That could affect the employee's future employment opportunities in the food retailing business.

We are not concerned about the big end of town—the big owners and big chefs. We are talking about workers who handle food, such as kitchenhands, and who are employed not only in restaurants but also in processing factories—people who are not necessarily highly trained and who may need training. We are not convinced that a prescriptive one-size-fits-all disclosure of all names will deliver justice to people who are caught out under the circumstances I have outlined. The Shooters Party cannot support the amendments.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.54 p.m.]: I state for the record that the deficiencies in the bill are cause for concern. I accept that the Minister does not want minor issues such as cracked floor tiles to be included on 6506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

the public register, but that highlights the deficiencies of the bill because those issues are not clearly defined. It is all very well to say that it will be left up to the Food Authority to work out the implementation, but the Minister has not told the Committee where the line in the sand will be drawn.

Dr John Kaye: Yes, that is a good point.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: At what point will a decision be made on what is a serious offence and what is not? That is a matter of concern for the Opposition. The Opposition is prepared to change its position on the amendments if the Minister gives an indication of where the line in the sand will be drawn.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.55 p.m.]: I draw the Committee's attention to new section 133D (6) in schedule 1, which states:

The Food Authority may remove any information about a particular penalty notice from the register of penalty notices if it is satisfied it is appropriate in the circumstances to remove the information from the register …

The Hon. Rick Colless: That is good.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It is good, and the Greens support it. That is precisely why the arguments advanced against the Greens amendments are vacuous. I cite the Hon. Robert Brown's important example in which an apprentice chef makes a mistake, is dismissed, and later seeks employment elsewhere. I totally agree that it would be inappropriate for that infringement to be included on the register. I hope the Food Authority will take the same view. The Minister should clarify that the Food Authority will exercise the power in new section 133D (6) and remove the name of the individual from the penalty notice. I cite the further example mentioned by the Minister of the cracked floor tile—although I am surprised that cracked floor tiles warrant penalty infringement notices, but I will put that matter aside.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: They do.

Dr JOHN KAYE: But if that really is a minor matter, it will be up to the Food Authority under new section 133D (6) to remove identifying information about the restaurant because the restaurant has not committed an egregious crime against food hygiene standards. A similar provision applies under new section 133D (4), which also provides a discretion for the Food Authority to remove identifying information in the case of conviction for an offence. I agree with the point made by the Hon. Rick Colless. I think he is absolutely right in his assertion that one of the big deficiencies of the bill is the absence of definition indicating whether or not an offence is severe. Clearly the distinction ought to be drawn on the basis that whatever compromises the health and safety of product consumers, those who visit restaurants and others, is registrable; but the distinctions ought to be clarified. Having said that, I point out that new sections 133D (4) and (6), which provide discretionary power for the Food Authority to remove information and avoid unfairness and unreasonableness to a business or an individual, ought to address concerns that have been expressed during this debate.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [3.57 p.m.]: I thank Dr John Kaye for his further contribution and point out that new section 133D will provide the Food Authority, after a specified period, with power to remove the name of a food retailing business from the register. That may arise after a subsequent inspection of premises or a change of ownership. The Food Authority has to be able to remove the name of a business that is no longer transgressing.

In response to the point made by the Hon. Rick Colless, I point out that a protocol based on a matrix to assess the severity of the offence and the risk levels of the food is being drafted. I undertake, when the protocol has been finalised, to have it placed on the web for the information of the public so that people will know the types of offences that are included in the penalty infringement notices system and those that are not. I reiterate the point I have made throughout this discussion: removal is based on the risk or threat posed by a particular incident to the health and safety of consumers.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.58 p.m.]: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but given the Minister's commitment to placing on the web information relating to offences—which the Opposition appreciates—the Opposition will not support the Greens amendments.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 3 to 11 be agreed to—put. 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6507

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Ms Hale Dr Kaye

Noes, 33

Mr Ajaka Mr Kelly Ms Sharpe Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Smith Mr Catanzariti Mr Lynn Mr Tsang Mr Clarke Mr Macdonald Mr Veitch Mr Colless Reverend Dr Moyes Ms Voltz Mr Costa Reverend Nile Mr West Mr Della Bosca Mr Obeid Ms Westwood Ms Ficarra Ms Parker Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Mr Gay Mr Pearce Tellers, Ms Griffin Mr Primrose Mr Donnelly Mr Hatzistergos Mr Roozendaal Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 3 to 11 negatived.

Pursuant to sessional orders consideration interrupted, progress reported from Committee and consideration set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

MERRYLANDS HIGH SCHOOL POLICE LIAISON

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question without notice to the Leader of the Government, and Minister for Education and Training. Can the Minister inform the House when was the last occasion specially trained and specifically dedicated school liaison police visited Merrylands High School to speak with teachers and students in accordance with the Premier's pledge in January last year that "School liaison police will assist general duties police through early warning of problems such as ethnic tensions, drug use, vandalism and other safety related problems. They will play a vital role in the battle against youth crime"?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am very glad that the Leader of the Opposition has asked me a Dorothy Dixer. It really shows that he is here to help us. Members would know of the very disturbing incident yesterday when an armed group entered the grounds of a school in Western Sydney, Merrylands High School. Given this matter is before the courts there are some constraints on what I can say and indeed on what any members of this House should say. Firstly, I express my appreciation and admiration for the bravery and professionalism of the teachers, school leadership, principal and school staff in general and, of course, the prompt response of the police. They acted swiftly to protect students and themselves.

The school has advised us that six minutes after the call to 000 all people were disarmed and in custody. A teacher and a number of students, regrettably, had to be treated for minor injuries but I am advised that they are in good condition. The lock-down procedures that are regularly rehearsed help protect the students and staff. I strongly sympathise with parents, as all members would, who waited outside anxiously during this important safety measure but it is vital that during a lock-down no-one is allowed in. The Department of Educating and Training and NSW Police have already met— 6508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: I am more than happy to provide a Dorothy Dixer. However, this is not the Dorothy Dixer that I asked. I asked a question about the liaison police and when they last visited the school prior to the attack.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Minister to be generally relevant to the question.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: These matters are related to the member's question. Yes, the Iemma Government has 40 sworn officers acting as police school liaison officers. Yes, they are active. Yes, it is a matter of public record—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: When did they last attend the school?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will get to your party's position on this because there is a very important distinction—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: When did they last attend the school? The question was very specific.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As the Leader of the Opposition obviously knows, Merrylands High School was assessed as a low-risk school in this regard. But the Government has considerable resources—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: When were they last there?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It does not matter, Michael.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You don't know when the police were last there.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will provide you with that information in a timely way. The Government has put considerable resources into keeping our students safe and has provided strong legislative protection for students, schools and staff. The Crimes Amendment (School Protection) Act 2002 provides—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The most important question you don't know.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: And you can play the fool. I'm answering the question. Why don't you listen? You've got no bloody brains!

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You go on with this but you can't answer the question.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am answering the question you fool!

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You did not answer the question.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am answering it.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: This is an important matter. The Crimes Amendment (School Protection) Act 2002 provides significant penalties for the assault, harassment, stalking and intimidation of students and staff on school premises or while entering or leaving school premises—450 people have been dealt with under these laws. Between 2003 and 2007 security fencing was installed in more than 500 schools, at a cost of $30 million. How many security fences did our predecessors install at public schools? None. This term of government in New South Wales is building a further 200 fences, with a $39 million investment. In 2002 the Department of Education and Training established a safety directorate and a security directorate. They run simulation exercises to give principals realistic opportunities to rehearse and consider their plans. The Government is thankful that most principals never have to use this training but the reason this incident did not escalate is because the principal involved did. [Time expired.]

PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER SELECTION

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. Will the Minister update the House on measures to give schools more of a say when filling teacher vacancies? 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6509

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: School communities around New South Wales are being given more of a say when filling teacher vacancies in public schools. This is a change parents and principals have told us they wanted. It allows schools to select the qualified teacher that best suits their school. This is an additional option. The existing transfer system remains and many schools will continue to use it. The incentive transfer system—which helps us staff remote schools—remains untouched. Advertising will only be an option when there is no teacher in a remote region wishing to transfer. A meeting of Teachers Federation members today voted to strike late next month for 24 hours unless agreement can be reached. I hope agreement can be reached—but there is a fundamental point of difference here.

The Government believes schools should be given more of a say. I know teachers are genuine in their concerns. That is why I have put a series of safeguards in place, including agreeing with a federation proposal for working groups to examine the implementation of the policy. I hope the federation will agree to participate because it is the federation's idea and it is a very good one. I assure teachers and the House that if there are unintended consequences that emerge from the new policy then it will be modified. I also assure teachers that this has nothing to do with anything previously introduced in Victoria, in Western Australia or anywhere else. It is not part of a change to school budgets, it is not giving principals power to hire and fire: there is no secret agenda. This is a simple change based on a premise that teachers, principals and parents usually agree on: that each school is different and each school has unique needs. A number of regional newspapers have, off their own bat, gone to their local teachers and principals for their unvarnished views. I want to provide some of those quotes without embarrassing each person by name. This is a selection:

I was intrigued to see the wide range of applicants and I thought that was very refreshing. The teacher who was selected was one who was able to meet the needs of the school and the students and our special needs on top of that.

It means teachers can apply for positions they want to and won't be locked out of the interview process.

We have a high population of indigenous children and we need to have teachers with that cultural awareness.

A further quote:

I think it would be a very good policy, eventually across the State, once people sit back and start to use it.

And further:

Some people just aren't suited to teaching in country areas, and principals should be able to choose the best person for the job.

The department and the Government will continue to speak with the federation—as we have since last year— about this matter. I want to avoid any disruption to schools and to families but this debate is worth having. It is modest change to improve public education. Principals support the policy, and I think in time it will be overwhelmingly supported by teachers. It will help bring new graduates into the profession and it will allow experienced teachers to apply for more positions. I hope the New South Wales Teachers Federation accepts the Government's genuine position that the policy will be modified if there are unintended consequences. It will strengthen public education and strengthen the teaching profession.

WORLD YOUTH DAY ROAD CLOSURES

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Given yesterday's announcement that there will be more than 300 road closures during the week of World Youth Day celebrations in July, can the Minister inform the House how much the provision of those road changes will cost? Given that the Roads and Traffic Authority will have to provide advertising and signage to warn people of the closures, provide barriers and other equipment to physically close down the road, will the Roads and Traffic Authority also have to pay overtime rates and provide extra staff to implement and enforce the road changes? Given the road closures will take place over a whole week, including large stretches of George Street, will the Minister inform the House how much the Roads and Traffic Authority has budgeted to pay for the provision of those extra services.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: World Youth Day will be second only to the Olympics in its scale and complexity as a traffic-manage event. For the Roads and Traffic Authority it will be the equivalent of managing six New Year's Eves back to back. The Government's priority in preparing for World Youth Day is to ensure people are aware of the impact this event will have on traffic, especially around the central business district and the eastern suburbs. There will be extensive special event clearways, road closures, and green light corridors for motorcades. This will mean delays and disruptions for motorists between 15 and 21 July. 6510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question was specific to the cost.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Minister to be generally relevant to the question.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: There will be more special event clearways and road closures for World Youth Day than there were for the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Youth days.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: It is actually called World Youth Day. The Hon. Melinda Pavey should just practise getting her numbers to do Duncan over, and leave the policy to others over there, all right? She should stick to what she knows best. There will be 300 road closures and 500 special event clearways. To accommodate pedestrian movements there will be full and partial road closures around the central business district, including George Street, Argyle Street, Macquarie Street and Hickson Road. The harbour bridge will be closed on the Saturday for the procession to Randwick Race Course. The message to Sydneysiders for World Youth Day is leave the car at home and use—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Once again my point of order relates to relevance. The House heard the media release yesterday on what is happening. The question was specifically about what will be the cost to the New South Wales taxpayers.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I again ask the Minister to be relevant.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The message to Sydneysiders for World Youth Day is to leave the car at home and use public transport—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is flouting your ruling, Mr President.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am talking about World Youth Day.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have asked the Minister to be generally relevant and it is the view of the Chair that he is complying with that request.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Mr President, I know of your interest in World Youth Day, and if you are travelling into the city please allow for delays. Detailed information regarding road closures and special link clearways is now available on the Roads and Traffic Authority website, and I urge all members to look at that website to get the latest information. I know that the Hon. David Clarke will look at the Roads and Traffic Authority website very carefully.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Answer the question.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Melinda, stick to doing your numbers. I suggest that all Sydneysiders familiarise themselves with this information and plan for how this event might impact on them. People wanting further information can contact the World Youth Day community information hotline on 1300 993 793. This world-class international event is coming to Sydney. It disappoints me that the whingeing and whining Coalition can only talk about how much it will cost. This spiritual celebration is coming to Sydney, and will make Sydney an international focus. We are working our best to ensure that World Youth Day is a great success for all Sydneysiders.

SCHOOL COMPUTERS

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Did the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, promise to deliver a computer to every Australian schoolchild? Is the cost of the software cabling, rewiring, security, maintenance, et cetera, hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly $100,000 per average school? What is the Government's timetable for the installation of those computers for every New South Wales schoolchild? When will the computers be functioning in New South Wales classrooms?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has vastly oversimplified the question of policy— 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6511

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: So did Kevin Rudd.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has not got it right; Kevin Rudd never made that promise. But that is beside the point, because Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked about the response of the New South Wales Government to Commonwealth arrangements for providing additional information technologies in schools. The Commonwealth Government's arrangement is to have eligible schools apply directly to the Commonwealth. The New South Wales Government is encouraging schools to apply for laptop computers, because that is the model that we believe will give the best educational outcomes for students in our schools and can be delivered most efficiently, particularly in our secondary schools. At this stage we do not know how many computers schools have applied for.

The New South Wales Government is in discussion with the Commonwealth Government about funding and the rollout of additional computers. I look forward to continued cooperation, which is in stark contrast to the now gone and not-at-all-missed Howard Government. The Rudd Government is taking a positive attitude to public education and education at large. Of course, as we know, the great revolution in education started a long time ago in New South Wales and it is pleasing that the remainder of the country is catching up with us. I look forward to continued cooperation with the Rudd Government to make sure that we sort out all the issues in regard to education.

It is important to understand that any additional computers in schools would supplement a framework that has been put in place over a long time, and which builds on the record of this Government as among the first in the world, if not the first, to connect all of its schools to the Internet in keeping with a range of initiatives that Premier Iemma championed at the last election and which we are now implementing. We are putting in place the Connected Classrooms initiative, which is critical. All these things need to be considered along with, as the member's question alluded to, the very important issue of professional development. We need to support our teachers and make sure that they are given training in order to develop their skills at using computer technology to further teaching and learning in our schools. I am very confident of getting support for that as well from the Rudd Government.

AGSTART YOUNG FARMERS PROGRAM FUNDING

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister update the House on funding support for the AgStart Program for young farmers in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the Hon. Tony Catanzariti for his long-held interest in rural issues. The AgStart Program began in March 2006 as a means of providing specific assistance to young farmers and to help attract young people to the agricultural sector. As members on this side of the House are aware, the drought has had a massive impact on our rural sector, and has made it harder to encourage younger farmers to stay on the land. By enabling young farmers aged between 18 and 35 to apply for financial assistance, AgStart has given them special encouragement and helped them to cope with some of the financial challenges of drought.

A ministerial advisory board, chaired by Lynne Gallagher, who has done a great job, oversees the AgStart Program. Its membership includes a range of senior agricultural industry members such as Janet Moxey, the Vice President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, as well as some young representative farmers. To date, almost a million dollars in assistance grants have been administered to successful applicants. This assistance has helped needy young farmers to meet costs such as the reimbursement of stamp duty, or to attend management and financial training courses, as well as implement capital improvements on their properties.

To date, more than 100 young farmers have benefited from this program—and our feedback from industry suggests that the Iemma Government can play a significant role in helping many more by continuing to fund AgStart. Today, while about 43 per cent of the State remains in the grip of drought, I am pleased to inform the House that the AgStart Program will receive a significant funding boost of $2 million dollars. This latest funding boost will enable a further three funding rounds for direct assistance. This will also help ensure the continuation of the advisory board, which plays an important role in determining the most appropriate recipients of this funding.

The new funds will help the Government work with industry and agribusiness groups such as the banking sector to extend and develop the AgStart Partnership Program. By building up a range of partners to 6512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

support AgStart, potentially we will be able to support even more young farmers and provide a more comprehensive financial support network for this vital component of the agricultural sector. Another important initiative designed to support our young farmers is the Young Farmer of the Year award. Applications recently opened for the 2008 award, which offers a $5,000 first prize to an outstanding young farmer aged between 18 and 35 years. This initiative, which is a joint industry and Government effort between the Department of Primary Industries, the New South Wales Farmers Association and the Royal Agricultural Society, is now entering its fifth year. Together with the Farmer of the Year award, this event is designed to raise the profile of our farming sector.

These young farmers are taking the latest research and extension advice and applying that information to their farming enterprises, and achieving good results in spite of challenges such as drought. What makes programs such as the Young Farmer awards and the AgStart initiative work is the cooperative efforts of the partners involved. It is about government and industry working hand in hand to provide as much support and encouragement to our younger farming sector as possible and to help guarantee our primary industries sector a bright and dynamic future. I encourage young farmers to seek more information about AgStart funding assistance that may be available to them by contacting the Rural Assistance Authority, which is also playing an important role in administering this program. Our young farmers are our future, and it is critical that we support them through the financial challenges of farming today.

JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTRES DETAINEE NUMBERS

Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Juvenile Justice. Has the number of detainees in Juvenile Justice centres across New South Wales increased since the amendments to the Bail Act commenced in December 2007? Has that resulted in overcrowding of those centres? Has the number of detainees from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background increased in that time? Is locking up on remand more Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander juveniles consistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will answer the question, although I do not think it should have been directed to me. I am advised that the Department of Juvenile Justice has approached the Department of Corrective Services concerning the proposal to transfer a number of juvenile detainees over the age of 18. Such transfers are permitted under section 28 of the Children's Detention Centres Act 1987, and require the consent of the Commissioner of Corrective Services. Incidentally, this is something that Ms Sylvia Hale ought to have known, if she had bothered to read the answer to the question on notice that she put to me very recently. She would not have had to waste a question regurgitating other information.

[Interruption]

We will hear a little later about her disclosures. In any event, I am advised that in considering any proposals the welfare of offenders is subject to rigorous risk assessments which provide any transfer or otherwise. Also, one of the key reasons that there has been an increase in the number of juvenile detainees is, as the Minister has put on record, the increase in the number of juvenile defendants being kept on remand. The Government makes no apologies for that. The State of New South Wales has the toughest bail laws in Australia. We are committed to ensuring that the community is properly protected while defendants are awaiting trial. That is why we have made a number of amendments to tighten bail law presumptions in relation to serious and repeat offenders, and that has meant that more serious and repeat offenders are being kept behind bars.

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Industrial Relations. Is the Minister informed of every violent act that occurs in schools throughout New South Wales? What criteria are used to assess whether an act is sufficiently violent to be brought to his attention? Is each violent act reported to the police? If not, why?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The member has asked a very interesting question. I hope he is aware—and I think he would be; he is a fairly experienced member of this place—that there are roughly 750,000 students in New South Wales public education, involving 750,000 families and 2,200-plus public school campuses. Obviously, as I have pointed out repeatedly, schools are part of the community. They contend with the same problems that the community contends with on a daily basis, including bullying, sexual harassment, violence, and issues related to drugs and alcohol and mental health. All those issues are dealt with 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6513

every day of the week by teachers, counsellors, principals and other professionals involved in education. It is not surprising, therefore, that occasionally there are violent incidents in schools and occasionally—obviously—they need to be reported to the police.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Occasionally they need to be reported to the police?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The answer to the question is that criminal acts are reported to the police.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Occasionally?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: On the occasion they occur they are reported to the police. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for correcting my grammar. In relation to the reporting system on operational issues of violence in schools, reports are directed to the Director General or, more appropriately, the Deputy Director General, Schools, and obviously on major incidents I am updated and briefed as the Minister responsible.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Are there criteria of what is a major incident?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am happy to give the member the protocols for reporting to me as the Minister. I am happy to make those available to him and to the House generally, but it is very important to understand that our schools remain about the safest places in our community for young people. Violence, threats, weapons, illegal drugs and other criminal activity are simply not tolerated in our schools. The Government acknowledges that students have the right to a safe learning environment and teachers have the right to a safe workplace. As I have said, there are violent incidents in our schools from time to time, and the department has established a regime for reporting those incidents. I think the member is aware that schools report through the school safety response unit and the end report goes to the Director General. It is a dedicated 24-hour, 7-days a week line, and as a result of that hotline immediate help can be given to manage incidents. This means that when incidents occur in public schools they are identified and the department can respond quickly to provide appropriate support and monitor the situation.

In the period 23 April 2007 to 28 September 2007, 238 schools reported serious incidents involving violence, weapons, illegal drugs or criminal activities. Before leaping to the conclusion that 238 is a big number, as I have said, there are more than 2,200 public school campuses in New South Wales, and that means that the vast majority of our public schools, that is 1,983 of them—almost 90 per cent—reported none of these types of incidents during the same period. Most of the information is released without the names of schools being identified to protect the privacy of students, teachers and parents involved, and the serious incidents that were dealt with. I encourage individuals to continue to report any of these incidents in the future.

The number of incidents reported is also the result of improved reporting and the requirement that incidents must be reported to the school safety response hotline. The ease of reporting to the hotline rather than in writing, as was required in the past, and heightened awareness of reporting requirements as a result of training have ensured that we have an accurate understanding of what is happening in our schools. More importantly, there is an appropriate means of responding and helping principals on the ground to manage incidents.

KEMPSEY SHOWGROUND

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Can the Minister inform the House what the Government is doing to upgrade the facilities of the Kempsey showground for use by the local community?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for her question and her active interest in issues concerning the mid North Coast. Kempsey showground has been an important focal point for the Kempsey district since the first show was held at those grounds in 1887. I was advised by some rural journalist cadets who were present at the Parliament earlier that the Kempsey Show is actually on today. In recent years the Kempsey showground has struggled to maintain its heritage listed buildings and has had problems with unreliable and ageing infrastructure. As a result, successive community trust boards over the past 20 years have struggled financially. Rather than let things continue to slide to a point where matters were irretrievable, I took the decision to appoint an administrator, councillor Janet Hayes, to manage the showground.

[Interruption] 6514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

This is exactly the reaction that The Nationals took on the North Coast when I appointed Janet Hayes to manage the showground. It is not a decision I took lightly, but I felt it was necessary to reverse the fortunes of the reserve. The appointment of Mrs Hayes brought an immediate result. She was able to secure a donation of $250,000 from an anonymous benefactor. In light of this private bequest, I did not hesitate to top it up with a grant of $175,000. Consequently, there is now a pool of $425,000 to use to rejuvenate the grounds and the many fine old show buildings.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why didn't you match it?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will be giving more at different stages in the future. The funding will be used for urgent structural and preservation works to the main pavilion, the caretaker's cottage, exhibition halls and the showground ring. Upgrading the showground facilities to a better standard will attract other users to the site and increase the revenue-raising potential of the showground. I thank Mrs Hayes for her wonderful effort in securing the donation to enable these necessary refurbishments. Heartfelt thanks also go to the donor—who has declared that they want to remain anonymous—for their selfless contribution to the people of Kempsey and this historic site.

When I took the step of appointing Mrs Hayes, The Nationals went straight to the local press alleging that there was some sort of conspiracy to flog off the showground to the highest bidder. They are matching the Greens these days when it comes to conspiracy theories and scaremongering. Their shrill cries about the Kempsey showground being sold off is just another example of how far out of touch The Nationals are with the people of New South Wales. Once the funding for the renovation of the showground was announced, did we get a press release from The Nationals congratulating Mrs Hayes on her fine work? No. Did The Nationals go scrambling to the airwaves to thank the anonymous donor for their selfless request? No. Did we get an apology from The Nationals saying, "Sorry, we got it wrong"? No. All we got was deafening silence. It is all politics for the rabble opposite. Fear campaigns, gnashing of teeth and half-cocked bleating to the press is all we get from The Nationals—no plans or anything positive on how to help their communities, just a constant, shrill whine. With the money locked in, urgent works to the Kempsey showground have already commenced and I am told that major upgrade of the showground will commence shortly. [Time expired.]

LENNOX NATIONAL SURFING RESERVE

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Lands. I congratulate the Minister on the launch of the Lennox National Surfing Reserve during the summer break, but I would ask the Minister to outline to the House what actions the Department of Lands has taken and will undertake to adequately protect this newly declared surfing reserve, including cultural values and adjacent terrestrial environmental values. Secondly, I ask whether the environmental integrity of the Lennox National Surfing Reserve can be maintained without decommissioning the Skennars Head sewage outfall situated right in the middle of the reserve.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I do not take Mr Ian Cohen's question glibly. I want to ensure that he gets a decent response so I will take his question on notice and provide him with that response.

SCHOOL STUDENT TRUANCY

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Can the Minister confirm reports that this Government went ahead with the announcement last week of new laws aimed at locking up parents of truant children, despite the fact that he knew the laws were not ready and needed more work? Can the Minister confirm that Premier Morris Iemma was responsible for that announcement, and did the Minister's office draft the policy?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: What an extraordinary question!

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No mock anger this time.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The question is so silly it is impossible to get angry about it. The Premier and I have one view on truancy and one view on the reform package that was announced the other day. It is important for Opposition members to understand that the object of the reform package is custodial sanctions at the end of a process of support and of other interventions. The vast majority of that announcement and the bulk of change—

[Interruption] 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6515

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition again demonstrates his level of ignorance not only about schools and truancy but also about current events. As I said then, it is compulsory for every child between the ages of 6 and 15 to attend school. Proper school attendance gives our kids the best opportunities in life and it helps make them valuable contributors to the wider community. The school attendance policy is about making sure that all children in New South Wales get an education. We are delighted that they will be able to achieve free and compulsory secular education in New South Wales and find their paths and reach their goals.

The new measures will ensure that parents get the help that they need if they have drug and alcohol and mental health problems that might be preventing their kids from taking educational opportunities. These changes, which provide treatment and mediation, encouragement, case management and practical help, seem to break down the barriers between agencies involved in supporting parents who have difficulties organising for their children to go to school. These changes are about ensuring that families who have difficulties with these issues have adequate support. If parents can prove that they are unable to send children aged over 12 to school, we will work with those children to find out what are the issues and, importantly, we will help them to resolve those issues.

If young people are having trouble at school, we will help them to sort things out. Not attending school is not a solution. The new laws will improve the ability of the Department of Education and Training to draw on the resources of government and the broader community and to provide support to families. The new laws will enable independent medical experts to assess whether a child is too sick to be enrolled at school rather than simply rely on the advice of parents. The new laws will give the Department of Education and Training new powers to seek a court order to force a parent to enrol a child. The new laws will ensure that children who are too sick to attend school receive appropriate lessons at home.

The new laws will also provide legal protection to government agencies, neighbours, medical professions and members of the community who inform the Department of Education and Training that they suspect a child is not attending school, and require non-government schools to advise the Department of Education and Training of satisfactory attendance or non-enrolment. When I was reviewing these laws it was somewhat of a surprise to me that that was not a requirement. The new laws will ensure that parents who disobey court orders over school attendance are prosecuted.

These changes are not intended for parents who have planned travel with their kids, and they are not intended for children who miss the occasional day or even occasional weeks. These changes are for parents who, for reasons of dysfunction, personal difficulty or other reasons, have neglected their responsibility or are unable to deliver on their responsibility to provide children with an education—a most basic right for their children. Members would be aware that when it comes to the welfare of kids in New South Wales, their missing school could be the first sign of wider problems.

Schools will now be able to support these kids, and the Department of Education and Training and other government agencies will be able to find better ways of supporting families that have difficulties, thus helping them to thrive. The Premier and I do not shy away from the inclusion of harsh penalties for repeat offenders—those who refuse to live up to their rights and responsibilities. Education provides better opportunities and these changes are for the future of all kids. [Time expired].

HEAVY VEHICLE ROAD SAFETY

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Will the Minister please inform the House about latest initiatives to improve safety in the heavy vehicle industry?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the member for her continuing interest in this important matter. New South Wales is indeed leading the way in digital black box technology to improve heavy vehicle safety. Up to 80 per cent of Australia's long-distance road freight uses roads in New South Wales, and that makes the issue of heavy vehicle safety critical to the New South Wales community and to the nation as a whole. That is why the Rudd Labor Government and States across Australia have joined New South Wales in a pilot digital black box technology project. I am delighted that all governments have strongly supported the leadership of New South Wales on heavy vehicle safety and I particularly welcome the Rudd Government's involvement.

The New South Wales Government and the Federal Government are jointly funding the new technology pilot project, which will improve safety and manage fatigue in the trucking industry. Technical work 6516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

on the black box pilot project started in March, and nationwide on-road trials are planned to commence in October. The black box technology is a digital tachograph that monitors key ignition systems in trucks as well as drivers' rest breaks and work hours. The tachograph is fitted in every new truck sold in Europe. By monitoring the activities of the truck and the driver the system can produce an electronic record of vehicle speeds, driving times, rest breaks, and the days and hours worked by the driver.

Each driver has a unique smart card that activates the tachograph and identifies the driver. If a driver's smart card is not inserted, the truck's engine will not start. The Roads and Traffic Authority in New South Wales will work with the Linfox Group to trial the European digital tachograph technology. I am also pleased to announce that the Roads and Traffic Authority is leading the way with a second pilot project with the Federal Government. The second black box technology pilot project will look at incorporating global positioning system [GPS] technology and developing a nationwide technology platform to help manage driver fatigue and speed.

This major step forward in making our roads safer is one of the first initiatives of the New South Wales Government's recently formed Road Freight Advisory Council, which was established by the Government to improve road safety and economic productivity in the heavy vehicle industry in New South Wales, and to raise the productivity and economic performance of the road freight sector. A number of national leaders in the freight and transport industries, including Peter Fox, Ron Finemore, Peter Lovel and Alan Evans, have been appointed to the council.

As well as working on the digital tachograph pilot project, council will focus on improving safety, managing the sustainability of our road assets, and ensuring high levels of industry compliance and compliance with relevant legislation. Speed and fatigue are two of the biggest safety issues in the Australian heavy vehicle industry and the potential impact of black box technology in these areas could be a major breakthrough in improving safety not only on roads in New South Wales but also roads right across the nation. The New South Wales Government is leading the way in improving heavy vehicle safety and reducing the impact of speed and fatigue on the road toll with initiatives like the Road Freight Advisory Council and digital tachograph trials.

PHUNG NGO CONVICTION

Ms LEE RHIANNON: My question is directed to the Attorney General. Is he considering initiating a judicial inquiry into the conviction of Phung Ngo in light of the revelations contained in last night's Four Corners program? If a judicial inquiry into this case is being considered, will the Attorney General inform the House what measures have to be taken to take this decision forward?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This matter has been the subject of numerous comprehensive and lengthy court proceedings, including a coronial inquest that ran for approximately two months, a number of trials and an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and an appeal to the High Court. Following his conviction for murder, Mr Phung Ngo remains incarcerated at the high-risk management unit at Goulburn. The relevant provision is part 7 of the Criminal Review Act, which contains powers for the Attorney General and for the Governor to direct a review of convictions and sentences following the receipt of a petition.

There has been no petition or request by or on behalf of Mr Ngo. Four Corners investigations are interesting and informative, but they do not substitute for a petition under part 7 of the Criminal Appeal and Review Act. Procedures for review under that Act are available only in exceptional circumstances. An application will be considered when all other appeal avenues have been exhausted but the person still asserts his or her innocence and is able to bring forward fresh material that was unavailable at the time of trial or appeal and has not been considered previously by the court. Should an application be received in this or any other case, it will be given appropriate consideration.

FUNERAL CONTRACTORS ALLEGATIONS

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, and Minister for Commerce. Has the Department of Commerce finalised the tender for the contract for the removal of deceased persons and burial/cremation of deceased persons without means? Did this take effect in February this year? How many of the funeral directors awarded the tender already are under investigation by the Department of Commerce as a result of complaints? Which funeral directors are they, and what is the nature of the complaints against them?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am aware of allegations against certain contractors in relation to the New South Wales Government contract entitled "Contract No. 622⎯Removal of Deceased Persons and 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6517

Burial/Cremation of Deceased Persons without Means". I am advised that allegations have been made against a North Coast contractor providing the services for removal and cremation/burial of deceased persons. I am advised that the matter has been reviewed by the Department of Commerce and the parties will be advised of the outcome shortly.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Do you know what the funeral director did?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Melinda, stick to what you know best. The latest media⎯

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order. I ask you to uphold the dignity of the House. I have noticed that this Minister, every time he refers to members on this side of the House he calls them by⎯

The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order. The member will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Pearce to order for the first time.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The latest media reports regarding photographs taken of a deceased person by an employee of the particular company do not form part of the current review. I understand that in this case the employment of the employee in question has been terminated.

OLDER PERSONS LEGAL AND EDUCATION PROGRAM

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information about the Older Persons Legal and Education Program and the new legal assistance service for older people in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This week is Seniors Week⎯a time when we acknowledge the considerable role of older people in the New South Wales community. To mark this important occasion, last night I had the pleasure of formally launching the Older Persons Legal and Education Program. This new service provides free legal advice, assistance, representation and community legal education for older people in New South Wales. It is designed to help the elderly understand their rights and how to enforce those rights when necessary. The Older Persons Legal and Education Program is a partnership between Legal Aid New South Wales and the Aged-care Rights Service, a community legal centre that provides specialist advice, information and advocacy for older people. The partnership will help to ensure that older people in New South Wales have access to high-quality legal advice tailored to their specific needs.

Every member of the House no doubt is aware that New South Wales has an ageing population. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of people aged 65 years and over in New South Wales will account for approximately 27 per cent of the State's population by 2051⎯a marked increase from 13 per cent of the State's population in 2004. In light of the statistics, this legal education program is a timely and welcome initiative for the increasing numbers of elderly New South Wales residents. Research by the Law and Justice Foundation in 2004 revealed that older people as a group face a number of barriers to accessing justice. These barriers are compounded by characteristics that often affect the elderly, such as dependency on others, diminished self-confidence, and mental and physical incapacity.

The Government's ongoing financial commitment to Legal Aid New South Wales through increased funding over the past 11 years has enabled the creation of this excellent initiative. While the Opposition continues to engage in grubby politics and rampant factionalism tearing apart its party, the Government continues to support valuable initiatives to help the most vulnerable members of the community. The Older Persons Legal and Education Program aims to work efficiently and appropriately with older people by developing specialist advocacy skills and taking a leadership role in providing legal education to older people. The service has planned a number of community legal education forums and legal advice sessions for older persons residing across New South Wales, including a number of forums in May: at Bexley on 12 May, at Banora Point on 20 May, at Ballina on 21 May, at Murwillumbah on 22 May, and at Queanbeyan on 21 and 22 May.

Older persons who wish to contact the service or who would like to attend a forum should contact the Aged-care Rights Service on 02-9281-3600 or, if they live in rural or regional New South Wales, on 6518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

1800-424-079. Legal problems affecting older people in New South Wales are diverse but one thing is certain: all legal problems cause significant distress to older people when they should be enjoying their retirement free from worries. It is hoped that this new service will provide older people with the tools to deal with such problems effectively and efficiently, ensuring they are able to move on and continue to live full and productive lives.

CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister for Energy. Is the Minister aware of comments made by Mr John Boshier of the National Generators Forum—that is, the peak body of generators around Australia—on The 7.30 Report on ABC Television last night in relation to carbon capture and storage? Specifically, is the Minister aware that on that program Mr Boshier said, in part:

I think we all felt a few years ago that clean coal was doable and a great option for Australia? We're now worried about how long it will take and how much it's going to cost on a scale that we're talking about.

Is the Minister aware that Mr Boshier went on to say:

Well, it [carbon capture and storage] certainly is something of a wing and a prayer at the moment for a banker to put any money into clean coal technology.

Does the collapse in confidence in carbon capture and storage in the generator sector mean that the Government now has to review its commitment to clean coal? Does it mean also that it needs to review its commitment⎯ [Time expired.]

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: This is about the tenth time Dr John Kaye on behalf of the Greens has tried to undermine, according to Al Gore, the Stern report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Professor Ross Garnaut and others, who have made it very clear⎯

Dr John Kaye: Not John Boshier.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: He is entitled to his view, and I will read what he has to say. But let us be clear about this issue. I met Professor Ross Garnaut a few weeks ago and we had quite a discussion. He is adamant that clean coal technology is the way forward.

Dr John Kaye: But the generators say⎯

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Hold on a second! There is the debate about the source of funding. Yes, the generators see significant costs if they were to fund it. The technology is ready now from the CSIRO's chilled ammonia system, which we will be opening up fairly shortly.

Dr John Kaye: That is a wing and a prayer, according to Boshier.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, it is not a wing and a prayer.

Dr John Kaye: He says it is a wing and a prayer.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The member is confusing technology development with how it will be funded. The key issue for the generators is how the technology will be funded. The Australian Coal Association put up $400 million and the Commonwealth provided $500 million for this purpose. In my view there will be billions of dollars available under the future emissions trading scheme. Through a combination of these forces the technology will be properly demonstrated and then rolled out across the nation. It is not a wing and a prayer. In fact, Norway sequestered carbon from gas-fired power stations. Norway put it into deep structures ⎯

Dr John Kaye: No they did not. That is not true.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is true. It is part of the North Sea oil wells. Norway is sequestering its carbon. As I understand it, Norway is making it mandatory.

Dr John Kaye: That is not true. 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6519

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is absolutely true. Secondly, it has been proved over and over again in laboratories that the technology for separation exists. We need to move from the pilot programs through to demonstration and that will take some years. But that technology best meets global conditions and it is clearly the best option for Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, which will rely heavily on coal-fired power in the future. We sequestered carbon and we will reduce carbon emissions. I also ask Dr John Kaye to consider that gas resources will be receding because four major gas companies have had state-significant project status conferred on liquefied petroleum gas plants. I imagine the gas will be transported to southern China, Japan, Korea and other places.

Dr John Kaye: That is not true.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is exactly what happened in Western Australia. The price increased threefold. [Time expired.]

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE BLOW-OUT

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Can the Treasurer explain to the House the blow-out in general Government expenses disclosed in the midyear review and confirmed in the February figures? In particular, what comprises other operating expenses that appear to have blown out in the order of $600 million to $700 million?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am tempted to refer to my previous answers, but because it is the beginning of a new sitting week I will state my answer for the record. These matters will be revealed in full detail when the budget is presented in early June.

MERRYLANDS HIGH SCHOOL POLICE LIAISON

SCHOOL SECURITY TRAINING

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. Will he inform the House of the last time a police school liaison officer visited Merrylands High School? Will he outline security initiatives at New South Wales schools?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The Leader of the Government earlier did not know the answer. I would prefer not to waste question time. I suggest that he provide information as a ministerial statement or a personal explanation after question time concludes.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Iemma Government announced the formation of the Police School Liaison Program in 2006, as I was saying before I was so unreasonably interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition during my previous answer. There are 40 officers and they are extremely successful in our schools. The Principal of the Merrylands High School, Ms Lila Mularczyk, who performed with great distinction yesterday, has advised the Department of Education and Training that the officers have been welcomed into her school. They have provided assistance with cyber bullying and other issues that confront high schools in the modern world.

Senior Constable Katherine Riley is associated with the program and was last at the school on 4 April, which is just four days ago. On that day Senior Constable Riley ran a crime prevention workshop. Despite the Opposition's trying to make such capital out of this event, a police school liaison officer visited the school just four days ago. Prior to that Senior Constable Riley was at the school on 3 April, just five days ago.

The Opposition's attempt to slur the police and the Department of Education and Training is regrettable. Everyone involved in this incident performed brilliantly. The principal worked with her executive, the school community and local emergency services to develop effective emergency management plans that can be implemented in response to a range of security breaches. The Leader of the Opposition should listen to what I am about to say. The plans include lockdown, lockout and evacuation procedures, and all the staff and students are drilled in those procedures at least twice a year. That is one reason the lockdown yesterday went so smoothly and students and staff were effectively moved from the school quadrangle to the safest available locations. Two static security guards remain at the school. The department will continue to work closely with Holroyd police. 6520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

As I stated in my earlier answer, a critical element of the incident is that the Department of Education and Training had conducted simulation exercises to give principals realistic opportunities to rehearse and consider their plans in urgent situations. During the exercises principals share and refine their ideas with the objective of improving the already high levels of safety and the professionalism of their school leadership in public schools. When ABC Radio reported on 24 June last year that principals were completing training programs to help them deal with emergency scenarios, including an armed offender entering the school grounds, what was the response of the shadow Minister for education and Leader of The Nationals in the other place? When referring to the training that yesterday may have saved lives, the Leader of The Nationals stated:

This training is a smokescreen—we're not hearing of many incidents involving actual intruders into schools…

What a genius! The New South Wales Opposition, particularly the member for Oxley and Leader of The Nationals, should never be allowed to hold a position in which they are entrusted with the safety of students and staff.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Is he quoting you, Duncan?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, Duncan would not be that silly. On behalf of all parents and students, I thank those on the ground yesterday who worked so well.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I would have thought you would have known this.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I did, but you would not let me say it. I offer my best wishes to those who suffered cuts, grazes and bruises yesterday during the incident. Despite that rare and unfortunate event, schools remain among the safest places in our community.

TWEED CATTLE TICK INFESTATION

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development. Is he aware that in the Tweed electorate in the past four months there have been three cattle tick outbreaks at Burringbar and two at Carool? Why has he failed to respond to correspondence from Tweed farmers who have outlined massive failings of the department, including running out of cattle tick vaccine, misdiagnosis and a turnaround of more than a three weeks in blood tests of affected cattle? Why did his office accuse The Nationals in the Tweed Daily News of scaremongering and claim that the State Labor Government has an excellent track record in controlling ticks when animals are dying, the industry is under threat and correspondence addressed to him remains unanswered?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Listen to the poor old Nationals. They are totally irrelevant right across the State. There are a couple of outbreaks periodically, particularly at this time of the year. Every year there are a few outbreaks. Basically we have shrunk the area of tick infestation to cut down the incidence. The department is performing proactively in the area and has done all the necessary testing and work. We believe that the outbreaks are contained. The Nationals are whipping up complaints from a few of the farmers, but they are sending farmers down a dry gulch. That is about the size of it.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What about you?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I defend the department because it has done a great job in the Tweed. There is a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week camera surveillance system at the border and that is working brilliantly. The department has undertaken prosecutions for breaches. That is why we have had very few outbreaks in each year of the past decade. The Nationals want to amplify the problem when the department is doing a terrific job.

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

KING GEORGES ROAD, BEVERLY HILLS, TRAFFIC DIVERSION

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: On 4 March the Hon. John Ajaka asked a question relating to the Kingsgrove to Revesby rail line quadruplication. I am advised that work is being undertaken by the K2RQ Alliance on behalf of the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation as part of that project. Part of the project requires the widening of King Georges Road over the rail bridge in Beverly Hills. 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6521

As part of the planning stage, the K2RQ Alliance has submitted a proposed traffic arrangement and bridge construction plan to the Department of Planning for approval. At this stage detailed discussions are yet to be held with the Roads and Traffic Authority as to the exact configuration of changes proposed to the network, other than the requirement to reduce the capacity of King Georges Road between Edgbaston Road and Broad Arrow Road. Following a preliminary meeting on 14 March 2008, the K2RQ Alliance has been requested to investigate the feasibility of providing an acceptable right-turn facility in King Georges Road at its intersection with Stoney Creek Road for north to east traffic to help minimise the impact on traffic efficiency through the shopping precinct while the changes are in place.

DEFERRED ANSWERS

The following answer to a question without notice was received by the Clerk during the adjournment of the House:

OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION PROVIDERS

On 28 February 2008 Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes asked the Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice regarding occupational rehabilitation providers. The Minister for Industrial Relations provided the following response:

At present there are 186 currently accredited rehabilitation providers in New South Wales. WorkCover records indicate that there has been no significant decline in the number of accredited rehabilitation providers working in the New South Wales worker's compensation industry over the past five years.

Questions without notice concluded.

FOOD AMENDMENT (PUBLIC INFORMATION ON OFFENCES) BILL 2008

In Committee

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.11 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 13:

No. 13 Page 7, schedule 1 [4], line 23. Insert ", but only when the removal is required or authorised under this Part" after "Part".

The purpose of this amendment is to limit the discretion to remove information from the register to those circumstances where the removal is authorised or required by part 10A, which is a proposed new part of the Act. It limits the power of the Food Authority to removing those matters authorised in part 10A so that it cannot remove anything it wants. This is a fairly broad head of power. Proposed section 133C allows the Food Authority to correct the registers in respect of errors and omissions. Proposed section 133F gives people named in any of the food registers the right to apply for a change and if they do not get satisfaction from that avenue they can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Proposed section 133D (2) says information should be removed when a conviction is quashed or when it expires—that is, two years after an appeal is made or two years after the time at which an appeal could last have been lodged. Subsection (4) gives the Food Authority the right to remove information in respect of a conviction if it feels it is appropriate in the circumstances. Subsection (6) says the authority may remove information about a penalty notice if it is appropriate in the circumstances.

Greens amendment No. 13 does not by way of its structure totally take away the powers of the Food Authority to remove information from a register. All it says is that where the Food Authority seeks to remove information it should do so in the context of the specific powers relating to removal and amendment as prescribed in part 10A. They are the sections I outlined. It is not a particularly powerful amendment, but it makes clear that the rights of the Food Authority to act in this way are constrained by the powers given to it under part 10A. In that sense it gives greater surety to the people of New South Wales—insofar as these two registers would be useful to consumers of food provided by businesses—as to the integrity of the registers and the fact that material has not been arbitrarily removed. It will be removed only in respect of the specific heads of power given to the Food Authority under proposed sections 133C and 133D. I point out again that those powers are fairly broad ranging. It is not as though we are trying to force the Food Authority to maintain material on the registers; we are simply saying that the authority should not have unlimited power to remove such material. I commend Greens amendment No. 13 to the House.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [5.13 p.m.]: The proposed amendment seeks only to doubly clarify what is otherwise the proper interpretation. In other words, the Greens are seeking to paint what could be described as a cream wall beige. The amendment is more about drafting style than anything else. 6522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

I would prefer to rely on the Government's original clause. It has been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel and has been through rigorous and appropriate clearance processes.

To remove any doubt, the intention of the Government's original statements is that the Food Authority's discretion to remove any information from the register should be read subject to the subsequent provisions in proposed section 133D, which set out the circumstances when it must remove the information and the circumstances when it may remove the information. The circumstances when it may remove the information are limited to those occasions when the Food Authority is satisfied it is appropriate to do so. We do not think the amendment adds anything to these clauses.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.14 p.m.]: The Opposition will not support this amendment, principally for the reasons that the Minister outlined. It does not contribute anything to the understanding and clarity of the Act.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.15 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not support the amendment. It seems a bit ironic that the mover, Dr John Kaye, used this section as a strong argument for his "must" and "may" comments earlier in the debate and now seeks to undermine, one might say, the wording of the Act. His arguments seem a little inconsistent.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.16 p.m.]: With regard to the point raised by Reverend Nile, I think he may have misunderstood what this amendment does. Just to make it absolutely clear, in the earlier debate on other Greens amendments I pointed to proposed sections 133C and 133D to say that "must" and "may" will not create a situation in which material that was not important would be on these registers. Nothing has changed. Our amendment No. 13 does not seek in any way to remove proposed sections 133C and 133D, particularly subsections (4) and (6) of the latter. They will remain and we have never sought to undermine the power of proposed section 133D, subsections (4) and (6), to give the Food Authority the ability to remove information relating to convictions or penalty notices if it is appropriate in the circumstances. The Greens stand by our reliance on proposed section 133D (4) and (6) in respect of our previous amendments and there is no inconsistency in seeking to clarify that the discretion to remove information from the registers is limited by proposed sections 133C and 133D. That does not mean we are seeking to undermine those two proposed sections or in any way belittle their role. All we are saying is there should not be any undefined powers to remove material from those registers.

To address the point raised by the Minister and the shadow Minister, all we are seeking to do is to increase confidence in these registers so that when people access them they will know that no information has been removed other than under the sections that were deliberately designed—we support their design—to provide flexibility when it is appropriate in the circumstances.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 13 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendment No. 13 negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment. 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6523

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.20 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

CHILD INTERNET SAFETY

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [5.20 p.m.]: Recently I had the opportunity to attend an address by Ms Susan McLean, who spoke on the issue of Internet safety. She outlined a set of tips for teachers, parents and caregivers. Given the interest in the community in the issue, I thought that I would list the tips that she outlined:

make sure there is no response to inappropriate or harassing emails, keep a record in case the need for further investigation;

advise your child/student to immediately exit any site that makes them feel uncomfortable or worried. Basic protective behaviour principles apply;

if harassment continues … the current email account can be deleted and a new one started. The new email address should only be given to a selected few;

if receiving harassing messages on MSN, have the sender blocked;

PC's should be in a common area of the house not in the bedroom;

parental monitoring is vital. Walk past and see what your child is doing;

if you have found inappropriate content about your child or one in your care on a website or are informed about this situation please contact the ISP and or Police or advise the parent to do so immediately;

be aware the majority of children will not tell a parent/teacher if bullied or harassed online for fear that they will lose internet access;

make sure that your students understand that they will not get in trouble if they tell you about a problem;

advise parents to learn about the internet with their child. Get students to share their knowledge of the internet with their parents in a fun environment;

advise parents to spend time online with children, learn and explore together;

install filters and other monitoring/blocking software to minimise dangers. This is already done in schools but advise parents to have up to date filtering software installed at home;

know the sites they are accessing to ensure suitability. Filters can sometimes fail to protect and can be bypassed by a 'tech savvy' child;

set house rules about what information your child can put onto websites or share with others;

learn the lingo so that you can decipher some of the content if required;

absolutely no exchange of personal information;

social Networking Profiles such as MySpace should be set to private;

MSN contacts and social networking site friends should be people that your child knows in real life. This is one way to reduce possible risks;

teach children that information on the internet is not always reliable;

very close supervision for young children is recommended. Email correspondence should be limited to friends and family that has been approved;

if your child is playing online games it is your responsibility to make sure that you know how to play the game, in case there are problems. Play online games together;

do not let young children 'google' aimlessly with no supervision. Children need to be taught about search engines and how they work; and

the internet and the various applications are a lot of fun and a wonderful tool … maximize the benefits and surf safely together.

6524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

This list of course is by no means exhaustive with no guarantee that adherence to these tips will provide 100 per cent protection for those using various applications on the Internet. The key is for parents to be involved with the use of the Internet by their kids.

On the same theme a new technology guide to help parents protect their children from predatory behaviour over the Internet and cyber bullying is now available in New South Wales. The guide entitled "Click" was a first for New South Wales public schools and can be downloaded by families on the Department of Education and Training website at www.schools.nsw.edu.au. Many parents struggle to keep pace with new technology and often children know more about information technology than their parents. The guide highlights the benefits as well as the risks of technology and provides advice to parents about how they can keep their children safe.

Given strong Internet filters are in place in public schools to prevent access to inappropriate sites and material, the focus of the guide is on the use of computers in the home environment and mobile phones. Safety tips are provided, such as where to locate computers in the home so parents can monitor what their children are accessing online. The guide also sets out the advantages new technology provides for students in doing their homework, researching assignments and communicating with others. It is important that parents not fear new technology but instead take an interest in their children's use of the Internet, computer games, chatrooms and blogs. I conclude by noting that other valuable information can be accessed at the website www.cybersmartkids.com.au. The site is operated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and is endorsed by the Australian law enforcement authorities, including the New South Wales Police Force. It is worth a browse.

DEEPWATER PUBLIC SCHOOL BUS PURCHASE AND MUSIC EDUCATION AWARD

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.25 p.m.]: It gives me enormous pleasure to advise the House of a successful application by the Deepwater Public School in the Northern Tablelands electorate to purchase a bus through the previous Federal Government's Investing in our Schools Program. Deepwater is located almost halfway between Glen Innes and Tenterfield on the New England Highway. It has a population of 330 and is well known for its production of quality beef, fat lambs and wool. With the purchase of this bus students at Deepwater Public School will be able to participate in a wide range of educational activities previously limited by the cost of hiring buses. Mr Danny Spillane was appointed principal in 2003 and on his arrival immediately implemented a full-on music program involving the students and parents in the making of music instruments.

Deepwater Public School has 39 students and three teachers, and together with other school staff and parents they have made and decorated a wonderful resource of musical instruments. They have marimbas, which are xylophone-type instruments based on traditional African designs and up to four children can play each marimba with the keys large and easy to hit for even the youngest of performers. They have echocellos which are single stringed instruments played with a bow, and they are also decorated to represent African animals. They also have wacky percussion instruments made out of a range of materials and there are enough wacky instruments stored in the school to enable every student to join a marching band.

Following the construction of a number of marimbas, echocellos and wacky instruments the Deepwater Public School Marimba Ensemble was formed. The Deepwater ensemble expanded to include other small schools including Wytaliba, Jennings, Mingoola, Bonshaw and Yarrowitch schools on the Northern Tablelands. Dunoon Public School from near Lismore has also become involved in the group. With this investment in musical education over the past four years we have seen students perform at the Schools Spectacular events at the Entertainment Centre and the Festival of Instrumental Music Programs at the Opera House. In 2007 this investment was richly rewarded when Deepwater Public School was awarded the New South Wales winner of the Australian Broadcasting Commission's Flame Award for Music Education in Schools—a truly remarkable achievement by the 39 students and principal Danny Spillane, his staff and the local Parents and Citizens Association under the presidency of Penny McCowen.

Other major excursions have included Sport and Recreation camps at Jindabyne and Lake Ainsworth, with travel to these centres provided by parents. Students also participate in an annual Intensive Swimming Program, which involves bus hire at a cost of $4,000 each year. Now that the bus is a reality the cost will be minimal, thereby allowing every student to participate in this extremely important activity. The bus will also be available for use by other community organisations in Deepwater, as it is the only bus permanently located in the village. As such, it will provide a much wider community benefit than just the Deepwater Public School. 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6525

An unfortunate end to this very good story is that the new Federal Government, through the education Minister, Julia Gillard, has axed the Investing in Our Schools Program—a program which was aimed directly at providing small infrastructure projects for isolated schools that do not have access to facilities normally associated with larger schools in bigger population centres. Unbelievably, the axing of the program was supported also by New South Wales Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. John Della Bosca. That is incredible given that the New South Wales Minister was constantly critical of the previous Federal Government for not investing enough in public education. Yet Minister Della Bosca was happy to see axed the very program that was supporting public education in regional areas.

The Deepwater Public School bus was one of the very last projects to be funded by the Investing in Our Schools Program and credit must go to all involved for the crafting of the instruments, the musical training of the students, applying for the funding and for receiving the awards and accolades. It gave me a great deal of pleasure to be there on that day and to assist with the handing over of the bus to the Deepwater Public School. I am sure that all members of the House offer their congratulations to all involved in the project.

PROGRAM OF APPLIANCES FOR DISABLED PEOPLE FUNDING

Mr IAN COHEN [5.30 p.m.]: Yesterday, the State Opposition health spokeswoman, Jillian Skinner, highlighted the dire situation of disabled citizens languishing in hospital beds while they await the provision of equipment such as wheelchairs, seating support systems and patient lifters. It was revealed that a 27-year-old with spina bifida and brain injuries has been confined to a bed for 13 months while she waits for a manual wheelchair. Regrettably, this is not an isolated incident. Contrary to what the Department of Health has communicated, a number of people are falling through the cracks of the Program of Appliances for Disabled People, known as PADP. Intended device recipients are left in hospital beds for months on end due to program backlogs and underfunding.

The Program of Appliances for Disabled People provides equipment, aids and appliances to eligible residents with lifelong or long-term disabilities to assist them to live and participate in their communities. An inefficient program exacerbates pressure on already strained health resources. Providing equipment in a reasonable time frame empowers patients to move out of the hospital system and to get on with living their lives. Meeting that core objective does not seem to be on the Government's radar. The State Government was committed to spending $367 million on the failed Tcard transport scheme aimed at providing a more efficient transport system. The failed system was designed to enable able-bodied citizens to move faster in the State transport system at a price of $367 million.

Imagine being told by the Government, Treasury and the Department of Health that a funding boost of $25 million per annum to ensure that New South Wales citizens with disabilities can obtain assistance devices such as wheelchairs is not possible. How else can the refusal by the Government and the Department of Health be interpreted other than as a preference to ensure—at a cost of $367 million—that people can commute across the city in an efficient manner over securing the mobility, the human rights and the most basic standard of living for disabled citizens? The calibration of government policy priorities is malignant to the core. With the failed Tcard transport scheme the Government has thrown good money after bad to enable people to move faster. The Program of Appliances for Disabled People desperately needs funds to enable people to move at all. Further exacerbating the issue is a 2006 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers entitled "Review of the Program of Appliances for Disabled People", which clearly provides a moral mandate for increased funding. On page 84 of the report it is recommended:

All things considered, the balance of probabilities calls for an increase in PADP funding. This is strongly supported by our process of consultation described elsewhere in this report, and anecdotal evidence on waiting lists and examples of personal hardship.

The report further states:

It can be seen that there would be a potential demand for the PADP program broadly in the range $50m to $100m (before co-payments or expenses) compared to the current budget of around $21m, if eligibility to the program were unrestricted on the basis of income, assets or entitlement to other programs.

I acknowledge that the Government has implemented a number of efficiency recommendations in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. However, those efficiency gains will continue to be undermined unless systemic underfunding is addressed. But maybe underfunding schemes that are implemented to support disabled citizens is part of minimising overall government expenditure on supporting disabled people. If wheelchairs are 6526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

not provided there is no need for ramps to public buildings or train stations. Dr Peter Gibilisco, who suffers from a severe physical disability known as Friedreich's Ataxia, is the author of "The political economy of disablement: a sociological analysis". In it he makes a cogent comment in relation to the issue of funding and accommodating the needs of disabled citizens, and states:

The point is this: for some of us, the special consideration, equal opportunity and affirmative action, designed to get disabled people into the mainstream, paradoxically brings us to a more exposed and needy situation. This cannot be addressed without more special consideration, further and ongoing application of equal opportunities after training is completed and further affirmative action once we have obtained our qualifications.

To illuminate that point, Dr Gibilisco provided an example of the exponential increase in financial and institutional obligations that stem from rightfully providing opportunities for advancing the standard of living of disabled citizens. He said:

Once a person with a severe disability at TAFE, for example, receives a diploma then society's responsibility to that person is not somehow fulfilled, because at that point the obligations have actually increased. The person may need special support to attend interviews, and when that person is offered and accepts a position of employment it may be necessary for technical and other assistance.

Dr Gibilisco highlighted that supporting basic rights emboldens and expands new and additional rights. By not providing adequate funding for the Program of Appliances for Disabled People the Department of Health and Treasury minimise consequential and ancillary needs and aspirations. [Time expired.]

EVENTS NEW SOUTH WALES

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.35 p.m.]: On Tuesday 1 April 2008 I attended a special forum convened by the Sydney Convention and Visitors Bureau. The forum discussed the very important subject of how Sydney can attract more global business events. The gathering of more than 200 industry representatives heard a briefing by Mr Jon Hutchison, Managing Director of the Sydney Convention and Visitors Bureau. He said that the current international economic situation poses a threat to the business community worldwide. Global economic growth is forecast to decelerate this year, after a long period of prosperity and bullish markets. The sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United States of America has resulted in slumping property prices, banks suffering losses of billions of dollars, and a slowdown in the United States' economy, the world's largest economy.

The European economy is also set to slow, while stock markets around the world have recorded heavy falls. The Dow Jones index and the London Financial Times Stock Exchange, or FTSE, index are both down by more than 20 per cent. Locally, the All Ordinaries index is also lower. Hit by the sub-prime mortgage crisis, business confidence is at a record low in the United States, and its travel market is starting to shrink. Despite the current economic crisis, we should not be pessimistic—rather, there are many reasons for optimism about business in Sydney and throughout New South Wales. A major reason is that Australia's future is in Asia. I saw the enormous opportunities in Asia firsthand when I travelled with the Premier during the business mission to the booming economies of China and India in November 2007, and during my visit to Japan last month.

Already 40 per cent of business visitors to Sydney are Asian, and it is forecast that business events from Asia added almost $2.5 billion in value to the New South Wales economy in 2005. The Sydney Convention and Visitors Bureau is active in the north Asian market, where it has enjoyed healthy results. In Asia, Sydney has a competitive advantage when marketing the city as a tourism and business events destination. That is due to Sydney's similar time zone, short travel distance, affordability, established trade relationships with Asia and the fact that the city offers a different experience compared with Asia. Low-cost carriers will increasingly bridge the gap between Asia-Pacific countries and Australia, making for attractive pricing.

I congratulate the Premier, Morris Iemma, and the Minister for State Development, Ian Macdonald, on Virgin choosing Sydney as the operational headquarters for its new international airline, V Australia. This will create $76 million of additional visitor spending per year in Sydney, an extra 500,000 tourist beds and 1,000 new jobs for the State. That, along with introduction of the A380 super jumbo, will help to bring capacity, competition and attractive airfares for visitors to Sydney. The Premier means business, with infrastructure, brand and marketing high on the agenda.

Sydney's brand image remains as strong as ever, with Sydney recently voted the number one city brand in the world by the annual Anholt City Brands Index. Sydney was ranked ahead of London, Paris, Rome and New York. The Premier has also supported the business events sector through the establishment of Events New 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6527

South Wales in 2007 to market Sydney and our State as a leading global events destination. Events New South Wales will use creative and innovative strategies to identify and attract events expected to bring economic benefits to Sydney and regional New South Wales. It has been given a budget of $85 million over the next three years, and will work to attract events in the areas of sport, culture and lifestyle. I congratulate the Premier on this very worthwhile initiative, which will help to revitalise the events calendar across our State and consolidate the appeal of Sydney and New South Wales as international events destinations.

New South Wales is open for business. The Morris Iemma Government is working hard to bring trade and investment to our State. The Department of State and Regional Development works with business to sharpen the State's global competitiveness, foster investment and job creation and encourage business capability. I thank Jon Hutchison of the Sydney Convention and Visitors Bureau for providing a valuable insight, when he said in essence that despite the current economic crisis, there are many opportunities for Sydney and New South Wales in business.

TAMWORTH ELECTORATE RADIOTHERAPY SERVICES

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.40 p.m.]: The continuing absence of appropriate radiotherapy facilities in Tamworth causes hardship and disadvantage to cancer sufferers in the north-west of this State. The Northern Daily Leader today reported on the distressing case of a 31-year-old mother of two, Nicole Parry-Leahy, who must leave Tamworth for six weeks of treatment at Newcastle's Mater Hospital. In today's edition, the Northern Daily Leader reports:

Mrs Parry-Leahy has come out in strong support of a New South Wales Cancer Council's call for the establishment of a radiation therapy centre at Tamworth Hospital.

This call for a radiotherapy unit follows similar calls at the last State election by The Nationals candidate for the State seat of Tamworth, Kevin Anderson, for the establishment of such a unit, and an even earlier call by the Country Women's Association for the State Government to address the issue. I, too, have previously raised this important issue as a result of representations made to me by the Cancer Council, medical practitioners, citizens and cancer sufferers in the Tamworth region. Sadly, despite these repeated calls, the Iemma Labor Government has refused all requests to address this issue. Today's Northern Daily Leader article quotes the New South Wales Cancer Council's Regional Co-ordinator, Natalie Flemming, as saying:

Tamworth, like many other regional centres across the State, could not offer local access to radiation therapy treatment.

It is a sad fact, as confirmed by Ms Flemming of the Cancer Council, that people living in regional centres such as Tamworth either have to travel long distances and live apart from their families to access treatment, or go without. There is a glaring gap in the north-west of this State in relation to access to radiation oncology services It is a sad fact that, because of this huge burden on the emotions as well as the finances of women suffering from breast cancer, they are far more likely to opt for radical surgery than chemotherapy or radiation therapy treatment. Put another way: women in rural or regional areas are forced by their circumstances to accept treatment that in many cases is both physically disfiguring and psychologically disturbing. As Ms Flemming is reported as saying in today's Northern Daily Leader:

People in rural and remote areas often went without the life saving treatment altogether because it was just too hard to get it.

Ms Flemming continued:

We [the New South Wales Cancer Council] know many people diagnosed with cancer don't access the treatment because it is too far and too expensive to travel to a clinic.

We have found there is a gap in people needing the treatment and people who are actually accessing it.

We believe [the Government] needs to expand existing services and develop new services.

Mrs Parry-Leahy, who yesterday said goodbye to her children for six weeks, said she is more fortunate than most people because she is able to live with relatives in Newcastle while making day trips to the radiation therapy unit. Unfortunately, many people are not in the same situation as Mrs Parry-Leahy and are forced to live in expensive hotel accommodation or look to other less than satisfactory alternatives.

One should not forget that the psychological and emotional health of a patient undergoing aggressive treatment of cancer is important and that being separated from family and friends must naturally impact on 6528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

feelings of wellbeing. During a time as stressful as being treated for cancer who would wish to be away from family for weeks at a time? The sad fact is that not only do the policies of this Government affect the finances and convenience of people living in rural and regional New South Wales, but also its refusal to provide a radiation therapy unit in the north-west of the State potentially impacts directly on the health and wellbeing of the people of this region.

It is time for the Iemma Labor Government to look past the corruption and mismanagement that engulfs it and instead show compassion by funding the immediate construction and staffing of a radiotherapy unit in Tamworth. The establishment of the infrastructure—a radiation oncology unit—is the first step. With this infrastructure in place we can begin to train radiation therapists locally through the university's department of rural health and the upcoming rural medical school, both based at the Tamworth Base Hospital. New South Wales is in desperate need of more highly trained radiation therapists. With the provision of a radiation oncology unit at Tamworth combined with the training facilities already in place, we will have the opportunity to ensure that New South Wales citizens—particularly those in regional and rural areas—have better access to cancer care services close to home. Finally, I wish Mrs Parry-Leahy a speedy recovery from her treatment and a safe return to the loving arms of her family.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS PUBLIC TRANSPORT CONCESSIONS

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.45 p.m.]: In 1999 the New South Wales Government withdrew access to public transport travel concessions from international students. In 2002 the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association commenced a complaint originally in the jurisdiction of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board. This was later transferred to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales. The basis of the complaint was that the transport Minister's refusal to provide full fee paying international students with transport concessions was, and continues to be, an act of discrimination based on race.

In March 2006 the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal ruled in favour of the applicants, finding that the State Government and other respondents were in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. In September 2006 the Iemma Government, supported by the Opposition, responded to the Administrative Decision Tribunal's ruling by amending the Transport Administration Act 1988 so that it could seek to circumvent the tribunal's ruling. Consequently, full-time full fee paying international students continue to be denied this concession entitlement whilst their Australian counterparts enjoy this benefit.

The successful racial discrimination case against the New South Wales Minister for Transport, State Transit Authority, Roads and Traffic Authority and RailCorp highlighted the prejudicial behaviour of the Government and its instrumentalities in its dealings with international students. The effect of the decision is that the Government denied international students travel concessions and overcharged them for public transport fares by 50 per cent. This was nothing short of disgraceful and wholesale discrimination. Instead of challenging the decision on legal principles, the Government took the extreme step of passing special legislation that made the discrimination lawful as from September 2006. This conduct, which is a denial of human rights, has damaged the reputation of New South Wales as a destination of choice among international students. Many are now looking to study in Queensland and South Australia, which do offer these concessions.

In 2006, 383,818 international students were enrolled at Australian institutions. Despite the dramatic growth from China and India in particular, enrolments from five of Australia's top 10 markets—Hong Kong, Malaysia, Japan, Indonesia and the United States—have been in decline in recent years. In 2005-06 overseas students studying in New South Wales contributed total revenue from tuition fees in excess of $680 million, funding the operations of our public tertiary institutions. These students contributed a further $5 billion to the economy of New South Wales through the consumption of goods and services.

Despite the significant financial contribution derived from this market, the New South Wales Government has failed to provide incentives for students to choose New South Wales as their study destination. In recent decades Australia has built a highly successful international education industry. Australia is the fifth most popular study destination in the world. However, Australia's share of the international higher education market remained stagnant from 1999 to 2004, despite the fact that enrolments in Australian institutions doubled. This reflects strong and increasing global competition for international students. The threat to Australia's education export market from growing competition must be considered and the Government must respond to it. For example, a Commonwealth Treasury report commented:

Competition is intensifying in the Asia-Pacific education market as Asian universities are offering modern facilities. 8 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 6529

The Greens do not suggest that Australia's international education market will disappear. However, as countries in our region develop their educational capabilities, Australia's market share is likely to be challenged. The early stages of this effect may already be evident, with the number of students from Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Malaysia in decline in recent years. While growth is anticipated in the face of increasing competition, one concern for industry is that it relies heavily on just a few countries for the bulk of its enrolments.

In light of State and Federal financial assistance packages that are supporting World Youth Day to the tune of at least $100 million, it is our view that similar financial incentives should be considered relating to overseas students and to the higher education market overall, in this case through concession travel entitlements on public transport. State and Federal incentives must be provided to the international higher education market to expand growth in that sector and to protect the economic interests of this State. This Government would be wise to commission a Treasury study to report on the economic consequences of declining enrolments from international students, and on the budgetary estimate of providing concession entitlements for full-time full fee paying international students.

CRIES FROM THE WORKPLACE—20 WOMEN, 20 STORIES BY ASIAN WOMEN AT WORK INCORPORATED

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.50 p.m.]: Tonight I speak about a new booklet entitled Cries from the Workplace—20 women, 20 stories released by Asian Women at Work Incorporated. These 20 stories offer a compelling overview of the difficulties being faced every day by some women in this city who are trying to earn a living. I quote briefly from the introduction that states:

We are Asian women workers. We are skilled and dedicated. We work very hard but we are never treated as we deserve. Our hard working efforts are not recognised. We are bullied and harassed. Often we are not paid even the minimum wage, or our other entitlements.

And because we are migrants and can't speak English very well, we could not tell anybody what is going on. We are scared of the boss. We fear we will lose our jobs so we always put up with whatever happens to us, and feel uncomfortable to speak out or to complain.

We didn't believe exploitation could happen in Australia. We never expected this to be part of our 'new life' here until we experienced it ourselves. We feel like third class citizens. For a long time we have felt like we are not important and we are ignored.

That is why we are speaking out! Through this booklet, our stories will be told and heard by people.

These stories were gathered by an organisation called Asian Women at Work. This network of Asian women workers, which tries to advocate on behalf of a marginalised workforce, has a current membership of around 1,300 low-wage workers across the State. Because these workers have trouble getting their voices heard in the media and in mainstream Australia, this booklet highlights the problems that they suffer. Asian Women at Work came up with the good idea of putting together some funding, speaking to the women involved and asking them to tell their stories. The Uniting Church, Revesby Workers Club and the Social Education and Research Concerning Humanity [SEARCH] Foundation funded the project.

Tonight I wish to refer to one or two of the stories to be found in this booklet. I refer, first, to Lan, a woman in her fifties. Lan and her family left Vietnam in 1980 by boat. When her boat crossed the border pirates attacked it and she and other people lost everything, including money and jewellery. Lan and her family stayed in a refugee camp and in 2000 they were able to move to Australia. The booklet states:

She got a job in a factory and worked very hard. After five years of working she felt very tired and became numb from her right hand to her shoulder. She decided to take sick leave for treatment. She told her boss and hoped that he would understand her situation. After all, she worked at the factory for all those years, and she had always been a good worker ... Unfortunately for her, it was at the time WorkChoices was introduced. Her boss asked her to leave the job immediately without paying her anything she was entitled to.

I refer to the story of another woman called Lan, a single mother with adult children who has been an outworker for 10 years. She worked very hard during the week and at weekends and she has never had any holidays. She has never had any money from social security. As a result of her hard work and looking after her family for a long time she was never able to learn English, which obviously limited her employment opportunities. She said that she recently went looking for a new job after her factory closed. She found an employer who asked her whether she could make clothes. She said that she could and she worked at that factory for a week and demonstrated that she was able to do the job. 6530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 8 April 2008

At the end of the week she was given an envelope with a bit of money in it—obviously not the award rate—and she was told, "We do not need you any more, thank you very much. You have done your training and you have failed." That is just one example of the many stories in this booklet that deserve greater attention. The stories, which speak for themselves, talk about harassment and about bullying in the workplace. Asian Women at Work drew from the stories in this booklet those things that workers really need and it made a total of 14 recommendations. One important recommendation relates to strong legal protection for workers. Nothing will be achieved if legislation is not in place to protect these workers.

Another important recommendation relates to enforcement of the law and to an active inspectorate. Inspectors must be employed to check on what is happening in these workplaces. The final recommendation relates to the desperate need for employers and workers in migrant communities to receive a better education. The women in these stories, who are dignified and who give their bosses a significant amount of leeway, ultimately need to be educated about their rights and about the enforcement of those rights. All members should read this booklet and this Government should attempt to do something to help these migrant workers.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m. until Wednesday 9 April 2008 at 11.00 a.m.

______