ACTING PREMIER REMUNERATION ...... 17921 ADJOURNMENT ...... 17938 ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE ...... 17897 APPS4NSW DEVELOPMENT EVENTS ...... 17921 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT ...... 17898 AUSTRALIA DAY POLICING ...... 17922 BIOFUELS ACT ENFORCEMENT ...... 17915 BUDGET ESTIMATES AND RELATED PAPERS ...... 17938 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ...... 17898 CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BILL 2012 ...... 17897 COURTS AND OTHER LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL 2012 ...... 17898 CRANEBROOK INTERSECTION UPGRADE ...... 17920 CRONULLA FISHERIES RESEARCH CENTRE ...... 17940 DOMESTIC GAS RESERVATION POLICY ...... 17923 EMERGENCY SERVICES CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE ...... 17914 GARDEN ISLAND HAMMERHEAD CRANE ...... 17941 HUNTING IN NATIONAL PARKS ...... 17912 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS ...... 17933 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE VALUER-GENERAL ...... 17933 LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE ...... 17897 MARRICKVILLE STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE AWARDS ...... 17938 MENINDEE LAKES WATER SUPPLY ...... 17922 MILLERS POINT PUBLIC HOUSING ...... 17919 NATIONAL DISABILITY STRATEGY NSW IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...... 17919 NATIONAL PARKS FERAL ANIMAL CONTROL ...... 17920 NATURAL DISASTERS ASSISTANCE ...... 17912 NORTHERN NEW SOUTH WALES FLOODS AND ROAD CLOSURES ...... 17915 OUT TONIGHT? PARTY RIGHT WEBSITE ...... 17917 OVARIAN CANCER AWARENESS MONTH ...... 17942 PARLIAMENT HOUSE UPGRADE ...... 17913, 17915 PETITIONS ...... 17898 POLICE TRANSPORT COMMAND ...... 17918 PROPERTY, STOCK AND BUSINESS AGENTS AMENDMENT BILL 2012 ...... 17908 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 17912 REPRESENTATION OF MINISTERS IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ...... 17897 SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CRONULLA FISHERIES RESEARCH CENTRE ...... 17924 STATE ECONOMY ...... 17916 STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANS ...... 17918 TABLING OF PAPERS ...... 17897 TRIBUTE TO DAVID SINNET HAMILTON ...... 17939 WESTCONNEX MOTORWAY ...... 17923 WOLLONGONG COAST SHIPPING ...... 17922

17897

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 26 February 2013

______

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) 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.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE

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

T Bathurst Office of the Governor LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Sydney 2000

The Honourable Thomas Frederick Bathurst, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that, consequent on the Governor of New South Wales, Professor Marie Bashir, having assumed the administration of the Government of the Commonwealth, he assumed the administration of the Government of the State at 12.30 p.m. on Saturday 23 February 2013.

Saturday 23 February 2013

CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BILL 2012

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

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

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

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

REPRESENTATION OF MINISTERS IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I advise honourable members that with respect to the representation of Government responsibilities in this Chamber, the Hon. Greg Pearce, in addition to representing the Hon. Mike Baird in his capacity as Treasurer, will also represent him in his capacity as Minister for Industrial Relations.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

The Hon Dr Peter Phelps tabled the report of the Legislation Review Committee entitled, "Legislation Review Digest No. 31/55", dated 26 February 2013.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Greg Pearce tabled the following papers:

1. Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Report of State Records Authority for year ended 30 June 2012

2. Legal Profession Act 2004—Report of Law Society of New South Wales Professional Standards Department for year ended 30 June 2012

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

17898 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

The Clerk announced, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the receipt of a financial audit report of the Auditor-General entitled, "Volume One 2013: Focusing on Themes from 2012", dated February 2013, received and authorised to be printed this day.

PETITIONS

Newcastle Port

Petition noting an urgent need for a commission of inquiry into the operation and future development of the Port of Newcastle and its impacts on the economic, social and environmental future of the region, and requesting appropriate legislation to establish a commission of inquiry to address key issues including but not limited to the assessment of regional cumulative impacts of the current operation and planned growth and the failure of the current regulatory authorities, received from the Hon. Cate Faehrmann.

Hunting on Public Land

Petition noting a proposal to allow children as young as 12 to hunt animals on public land and requesting that the House condemn a proposal allowing children to hunt unsupervised on public land in New South Wales as reckless and dangerous and disallow regulations in relation to such a proposal, received from Mr David Shoebridge.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business

[During the giving of notices of motions]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that the order of the taking of notices of motions is set down in the standing orders and that no other principle governs who gets the call.

COURTS AND OTHER LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL 2012

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 February 2013.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.52 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition during debate on the Courts and Other Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2012. As the shadow Attorney in the other place indicated, the Opposition does not oppose the bill, although we have some concerns about one aspect of the bill and the width of the draft provisions of the bill. The bill proposes a range of largely minor amendments to various provisions in the law that impact on the operation of courts in the State. This is quite a usual way of proceeding with minor amendments and is a mechanism used by governments of all persuasions.

The legislation to which amendments are proposed includes the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, the Children (Community Service Orders) Act, the Children (Detention Centres) Act, the Children's Court Act, the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Regulation, the Court Security Act, the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act, the Fines Act, the Inebriates Act, the Jury Act, the Land and Environment Court Act, the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act, and the Probate and Administration Act.

The first of the provisions upon which I will comment concerns the Court Security Act. This amending bill will prohibit the use of devices to transmit sounds and images from a courtroom to anyone not in the room. This is designed to prevent someone sitting in a courtroom from contacting someone outside the room who will be the next witness, possibly alerting them to the evidence being given by the current witness. The usual rule prevents witnesses who are yet to give evidence from being in a courtroom while other witnesses give evidence, which is a worthy and desirable aim.

The concern that has been expressed in the community is that the provision is drafted so widely that it will not only prohibit that undesirable conduct but could additionally capture and prohibit a wide range of 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17899

behaviours that is not objectionable. As I understand it, only one practical incident has provoked the legislation. In a letter dated 23 November 2012 from the Law Society, the society's concerns are expressed in this way:

[The Society's committees] are concerned about the amendment to the Court Security Act 2005 prohibiting the use of a device (including a telephone) to transmit sounds, images, or "information that forms part of the proceedings to a court" from a courtroom to any person or place outside the court.

The explanatory note suggests that the amendment is aimed at situations such as using a phone to "simultaneously transmit court proceedings" to a witness who is waiting outside to give evidence.

However, the definition of the term "information that forms part of the proceedings" is problematic. A legal practitioner may be in breach of proposed section 9A if he or she is in the courtroom and emails a colleague who is assisting with the preparation of the case and provides information on the progress of the proceedings.

These are realistic concerns and stem from the breadth of the terms used in the legislation. I note that the Attorney General addressed this issue during his reply in the other place. He said that some concerns had been expressed about the width of the provision and he said that the exemptions would be dealt with through regulation. He also said that a draft regulation had been circulated to a working party that included the Australian Press Council, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and joint media organisations, and that the working party had no objection to the proposed regulation.

The Attorney General also indicated that, in the view of the Government, enacting the exemptions through regulation was more appropriate than having the amendment in the body of the bill because, given the complexity and potentially dynamic matters of the law, particularly evolving technology and the need to perhaps change regulations swiftly, it would be easier to change the provision if there was a regulatory power as opposed to being limited to what was in a bill that was enacted in a particular point in time.

The Opposition has concerns with this approach on two bases: First, the regulations were not available and were not before the other place when the bill was introduced, debated and passed; secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, given that this is an exercise in regulating free speech, albeit for good public policy reasons—the need to have open and accountable justice—it seems to me that this is too important a matter simply to be relegated only to the regulations.

For example, given the ability of the Government to have a draft regulation prepared and circulated shortly after the introduction of this bill, it could not have been beyond the wit or wisdom of the Government to have included those restrictions in the body of the bill to address the problem that is known to exist, and in addition have a regulation-making power in the future. By doing that, if there was a need to update the provisions, they could be dealt with more quickly than by enacting further legislation, provided that the regulations were not inconsistent with the primary Act. That would seem to meet the needs of the present circumstance, the requirements of open justice—by having the provisions in the bill rather than simply being done by regulation—but still have a regulatory mechanism if new challenges arise in the future. It would seem to me to be a far preferable and more appropriate way of dealing with this issue.

The bill amends the uncommenced provisions of the Jury Act to continue the current situation in which Australian lawyers are not able to serve as jurors and the current right of people who care for a person who is sick, infirm or disabled to claim an exemption from serving on a jury. I acknowledge the existence of arguments on both sides of the debate about whether lawyers should be allowed to serve on juries. The Opposition does not oppose the position adopted by the Government—that in relation to this bill, the status quo should be maintained.

The bill will also make amendments to the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Regulation repeal part 2A of the Act, which is the provision requiring parties to civil proceedings to take reasonable steps to resolve all narrow issues in dispute before instituting court proceedings. The provisions were enacted during the previous session and had not commenced. Previously the Government announced that this process would not be pursued until an evaluation of Federal provisions was completed.

That being the case, there is logic in the Opposition not opposing this provision. However, this provision in the bill discloses that the Attorney has little appetite for supporting alternative dispute resolution, which is a source of significant concern. For at least a decade or more there has been consistent bipartisan public policy on promoting and encouraging the non-litigious resolution of legal disputes. If this aspect of the bill is disclosing a move away from that policy position by the current Attorney and Government that would not be a welcome development. With those caveats, the Opposition will not oppose this legislation. 17900 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.00 p.m.]: In my contribution to debate on the Courts and Other Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2012 I will cover three main areas of the provisions in the bill. I will refer first to the amendment to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995; secondly, the amendment to the Jury Amendment Act 2010; and, thirdly, the amendment to the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. At present, the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages can provide law enforcement agencies with information on registered changes of name. However, in some circumstances, law enforcement agencies need access to information about a change of name application before the change is registered. That is because certain classes of people, such as child sex offenders and former serious offenders, are restricted from changing their names without the approval of the Commissioner of the NSW Police Force. Under the proposed changes to section 46A of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, if a restricted person applies to change his or her name the NSW Police Force will have the opportunity to object to the registration prior to it occurring. This is an important crime prevention initiative designed to ensure that restricted persons cannot evade detection by simply changing their identity.

The Government does not believe that lawyers should serve on juries. Lawyers have technical knowledge relevant to the task of jury deliberation that other jurors do not. Even if an admitted lawyer is not practising, this expertise creates a risk that lawyers on a jury may unduly influence other jurors or that other jurors may tend to defer to them. Where jurors are uncertain about the law, it is the judge's role to provide guidance. If a juror is a trained lawyer there is a risk that fellow jurors may turn to him or her for legal guidance, rather than to the judge. The mere fact that people are legally qualified does not make them technical experts in the criminal law or the law of evidence. Many lawyers specialise in areas such as corporate transactional law, which is unrelated to these areas. That is why judges are best placed to rule upon and advise juries on questions of law. The reputation of the criminal justice system is of paramount importance. If the public sees lawyers sitting on juries, members of the public may question whether the presence of that lawyer might have distorted the jury's deliberations.

The Land and Environment Court is a specialist environmental and planning court with a wide jurisdiction responsible for interpreting and enforcing environmental law in New South Wales. One of the court's key aims is to ensure that its proceedings and dispute resolution services are fair, effective and efficient. In keeping with this goal, the bill amends the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 to improve the efficiency of proceedings in the Land and Environment Court by enabling commissioners whose term of appointment has expired to complete or otherwise continue to deal with any matters relating to proceedings they have heard or partly heard before their term has expired. This means that the court and parties to proceedings are not exposed to additional costs and to the inconvenience of another commissioner rehearing and concluding a part-heard matter. It also will ensure consistency in the ability of decision-makers in the Land and Environment Court to finalise partially completed matters. This brings the provisions relating to full-time commissioners into line with those applicable to acting judges and part-time commissioners in that court. I commend the bill to the House

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.04 p.m.]: I speak in support of the Courts and Other Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2012 on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party. The bill makes miscellaneous amendments to court-related legislation and other legislation administered by the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice. This bill is similar to our statute law bills where a number of minor amendments are executed in one bill in order to save the time of the House by dealing with 20 matters in one bill rather than with 20 pieces of legislation.

This bill amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 to empower the registrar to allow law enforcement officers access to applications to register a change of name and not just to completed change of name registrations. I support that proposition, and I ask the Minister to indicate whether law enforcement officers have the power to recommend that an application for change of name not proceed. For example, people who have been involved in paedophilia or have been placed on the child protection register may attempt to change their name so that they can escape scrutiny. I would hope that in such cases law enforcement officers would be able to make a recommendation to the registrar not to grant a change of name.

The Christian Democratic Party supports the amendment to the Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987 and the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 to allow the State Debt Recovery Office and Juvenile Justice to share certain information about young people in the juvenile justice system who have outstanding fines. Young people, who may be unable to pay a large fine, will be given the opportunity to complete a work and development order in lieu of payment of the fine. We support this positive process.

I also refer to the amendment to the Court Security Act 2005 which prohibits the unauthorised use of any device, including a phone, to transmit sounds, images or information forming part of court proceedings 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17901

without the permission of a judicial officer or a statutory exemption. A device can be used with the permission of a judicial officer, such as a judge hearing a case. The aim of this amendment is to prevent interference in the application of justice in the court. There should be minimum interference in the implementation of justice in our courts. Phone transmissions and twittering create a distraction to the hearing of a case. Those who wish can do so outside the courtroom.

The bill addresses the uncommenced amendments to the Jury Act 1977 to continue the current ineligibility of Australian lawyers to serve as jurors and the right of those who care for a person who is sick, infirm or disabled to claim an exemption from jury service. Those important exemptions should be continued. I am pleased that the Attorney General, the Hon. Greg Smith, brought that to the attention of the House as the bill will enable those exemptions to continue. We support the bill.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.10 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I speak to the Courts and Other Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2012—a genuinely innovative name. The bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to improve clarity and consistency in certain legislation administered by the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice. In large part, these amendments are non-controversial and supported I imagine by every member of this House, if not this Parliament. The Greens support what is generally a non-controversial bill. However, one significant area The Greens do not support is the amendments proposed to the Court Security Act 2005, which have been touched upon in a number of other speeches.

I shall work briefly through the other provisions and return to the Court Security Act 2005. Schedule 1.2 amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1985 basically to allow law enforcement agencies to access applications for change of name rather than completed entries on the register. The amendment intends to support provisions that prevent convicted sex offenders and others from changing their names without approval of the Commissioner of Police. This amendment probably should have been picked up when the original changes were introduced. The commissioner or other officers of law enforcement agencies will have their attention brought to an application for change of name, which contains necessary important supporting information.

Schedule 1.3 amends the Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987 and schedule 1.4 amends the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987. These changes are designed to permit the creation of information sharing arrangements between the Department of Attorney General and Justice and the State Debt Recovery Office. Fines will be put on hold while young people are in juvenile detention and in certain circumstances juveniles will be allowed to work off fines rather than meet the monetary value. The Greens support those changes, which are a good and incremental move by the Government.

Schedule 1.5 amends the Children's Court Act 1987 by removing a defunct reference to rules in the exercise of the function of the President overseeing training of children's magistrates—a general tidying up of the law. Schedules 1.6 and 1.7 repeal the uncommenced provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 that were passed some 2½ years ago and required parties to a dispute to take reasonable steps to resolve or narrow issues in dispute before commencing court action. The intention was that people would try through mediation or some other form of alternative dispute resolution to resolve their differences before filing a statement of claim in a court.

While the intent was good, the legal community's ongoing concern was that, effectively, it was just another hurdle and cost barrier to parties wanting to resolve disputes. If parties think they can resolve disputes by mediation, they will have a go at that before commencing proceedings. Equally, once proceedings commence, almost all New South Wales courts, and most Federal courts, require some form of mediation effort before allowing a matter to progress to listing. On balance, The Greens at this point support the non-commencement and deletion of these provisions. If the legal profession, the Attorney General and other interested parties come up with a low-cost model that will not be an additional expense or delay to parties trying to resolve civil disputes, it should be looked at afresh.

Schedules 1.10 and 1.11 make changes to the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Act and Regulation, and repeal the Inebriates Act 1912. The main concern of The Greens is that this change will remove the only way courts can make orders regarding alcohol treatment and minors. In fact, the repeal of the Inebriates Act may result in a hole in the legal framework, thereby providing no statutory process through which a court can order a minor to undergo alcohol treatment. Of course, it is always difficult to order anyone to undergo alcohol treatment; it is especially difficult when the subject of any such order is a minor.

The Greens raised this matter earlier with the Attorney General and his staff and were advised of specialist programs, including group programs, counselling services and rehabilitation, for young people with 17902 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

consistent drug and alcohol concerns, and which are the preferred options when dealing with minors. The Greens concur with that advice. We were advised also that these programs are voluntary, are provided in settings suitable for minors and are conducted by specialist staff. Currently, the Ministry of Health is finalising its substance use and young people framework, which will provide context, guidelines and principles for working with young people with drug and alcohol concerns. The advice further noted that between 1999 and 2009 only two people under 18 years of age were admitted under inebriate court orders. Currently, no children in New South Wales are being held under inebriate orders. The advice continued:

If a child is found guilty of an offence, the Children's Court has a range of options under the penalty provision Children's Criminal Proceeding Act 1987 (section 33) to make an order that the child participate in a rehabilitation program—

The court may make an order adjourning proceedings and grant bail for the purpose of assessing the person's capacity and prospects for rehabilitation. That is true and I thank the Attorney and his staff for providing that detailed advice, but the capacity of the Children's Court to make an order is predicated on a criminal offence having been committed and a finding of guilt. If a minor is regularly intoxicated and potentially causing self-harm, the absence of provisions in the Inebriates Act provides no other legislative provision to allow the court to make an order for compulsory treatment. Whilst The Greens will not oppose the repeal of the Inebriates Act, given the Government's various policy statements, the legislative framework may have a hole regarding this issue. For example, a crime or offence may not have been committed, but a minor could be a danger to themselves, and a potential danger to others, through regular intoxication. With the absence of power for a court to order treatment, the situation may not be remedied. I hope the Government keeps a close watch on that brief, as will The Greens, in the months and years ahead.

As I stated earlier, the principal concern of The Greens is the amendments to the Court Security Act 2005 set out in schedule 1.8 to the bill. The proposal is to include a prohibition on the unauthorised transmission of court proceedings from courtrooms. The penalty for any breach attracts a substantial maximum of 200 penalty units—$22,000—or 12 months imprisonment, or both. It is proposed also to enact regulations to create exemptions to the operation of the bill. Again, I thank the Attorney and his staff for providing a copy of those draft regulations, as they have provided some clarity in the Government's direction. However, viewed together, The Greens are concerned that, even with the regulations, the proposed amendments to the Court Security Act 2005 will prohibit citizen journalists from making contemporaneous reports on court proceedings. New section 9A of the Court Security Act provides:

9A Prohibition on unauthorised transmission of court proceedings from courtroom

(1) A person must not use any device to transmit sounds or images (or both) from a room or other place where a court is sitting, or to transmit information that forms part of the proceedings of a court from a room or other place where that court is sitting, in any of the following ways:

(a) by transmitting the sounds, images or information to any person or place outside that room or other place,

(b) by posting entries containing the sounds, images or information on social media sites or any other website,

(c) by otherwise broadcasting or publishing the sounds, images or information by means of the Internet,

(d) by otherwise making the sounds, images or information accessible to any person outside that room or other place—

As I read the bill, that would exclude two tins and a string as well as a mobile telephone, a Twitter account or a tablet or simply yelling out the window. The primary concern is transmission by mobile devices such as telephones or tablets. The bill provides that those activities are prohibited whether that transmission, posting, broadcasting, publishing or other conduct occurs simultaneously with the proceedings or at a later time or both. In other words, a person cannot record notes in the courtroom and transmit them later. That is prohibited and attracts a substantial maximum penalty: $22,000 or 12 months imprisonment, or both. Proposed subsection 2 of section 9A contains exceptions. It states:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

(a) a device being used for a purpose other than a purpose referred to in subsection (1),

That means speaking, tweeting or communicating on a telephone about a matter other than the court proceedings. It continues:

(b) the transmission of sounds, images or information by an audio link, audio visual link, closed-circuit link or other technology that enables communication between the room or other place where the court is sitting and another place and that has been expressly permitted by a judicial officer,

26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17903

That is intended to allow the examination of a witness by telephone. Yesterday, for the first time in 2½ years, I found myself in a courtroom acting in my own matter in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Lucky you are not in the Labor Party.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The Government Whip can rest assured I did not bill myself for acting for myself. In those proceedings a witness was examined by telephone link. So, obviously, there needs to be an exemption so that a witness can be examined by telephone link. Proposed section (2) (c) states:

(c) any other transmission of sounds, images or information that has been expressly approved by a judicial officer,

That means the court can grant leave to transmit material. Proposed section (2) (d) states:

(d) the transmission of sounds, images or information for the purpose of transcribing court proceedings for the court at a place outside the room or other place where the court is sitting,

Almost every State court has remote monitoring, so obviously that must be allowed. Proposed section (2) (e) states:

(e) the use by a prosecutor of a tablet computer or other similar device to transmit sounds, images or information only to another prosecutor who either is not a witness in the relevant court proceedings or, if he or she is such a witness, who has already given evidence in those proceedings,

That provision would facilitate the exchange of information amongst police prosecutors or officers of the Department of Public Prosecutions. I do not understand the rationale behind providing an exception for the prosecutor and not for the defence.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Outrageous.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I acknowledge the interjection by the Hon. Amanda Fazio. It is interesting to note that the prosecution can record an exchange, send it to another prosecutor in the Department of Public Prosecutions and say, "This was the exchange. Can you have a look at this?" but defence counsel, for example, an instructing solicitor, cannot record a similar exchange, send it to another solicitor in the defendant's office and say, "This exchange just occurred. It is deeply troubling. Can you have a look at the documents produced last week?" or "Could you have a chat with Timmy Roberts and find out if it is true or not?" The Greens are troubled by the one-sided nature of that exemption. The Government has not given an explanation as to the ability of the prosecution but not the defence to transmit material. The last exemption states:

(f) the transmission of sounds, images or information in any circumstances that may be prescribed by the regulations.

That brings me to the consultation draft of regulations that has been circulated. I note that the Attorney General and his staff have circulated these amendments prior to the bill being passed so that the Parliament can consider the legislation together with the Government's proposed ameliorating regulations. New clause 6B in the Court Security Regulation 2011 provides:

Section 9A (1) of the Act does not apply to the transmission of sound, images, or information:

(a) by a journalist for the purposes of a media report on the proceedings concerned, or

(b) by a lawyer, or

(c) by a person who is authorised to do so by or under a practice note or policy direction issued by the senior judicial officer of the court concerned, or

(d) by a court officer or member of staff of the court concerned (including a member of staff of a judicial officer of the court) acting in the usual course of his or her duties.

Subclauses (c) and (d) appear relatively non-controversial. Indeed, I am pleased to note that the regulation now provides that the transmission of the sound, images or information by a lawyer does not amount to a breach of section 9A. As I read the new regulation, there is a statutory entitlement for the prosecution to transmit material and a regulatory exemption against prosecution for the defence. That means the prosecution has statutory 17904 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

protection and the defence has protection under the regulations. The concern is the limitation in subclause (a), that is, the transmission of sound, images or information by a journalist for the purposes of a media report on the proceedings concerned.

In that regard a journalist is defined in the Court Security Act as "a person engaged in the profession or practice of reporting, photographing, editing or recording for a media report of a news, current affairs, information or documentary character". I am grateful for the assistance of the Attorney General and his staff in navigating my way through this material. There are a couple of elements to the definition of "journalist." First, they have to be engaged in the profession or practice of reporting, photographing, editing or recording and they have to be employed or specially trained to fall within the definition of a profession. The Attorney General placed that interpretation on a similar journalist privilege exemption phrase which was discussed and ultimately enacted by this Parliament in 2011.

The second element is not only do they have to be effectively professional journalists but they also have to be recording for a media report of a news, current affairs, information or documentary character. Those two definitions taken together are designed to exclude journalists referred to as "citizen journalists". If ever there were a proper occasion to refer to Wikipedia it surely must be to look up the definition of "citizen journalist". According to Wikipedia as at 3.30 p.m. today—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: It might be amended by 3.33 p.m.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Yes, it might be amended by 3.33 p.m. Wikipedia says of the concept of a citizen journalist:

The concept of citizen journalism (also known as "public", "participatory", "democratic", "guerrilla" or "street" journalism) is based upon public citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing, and disseminating news and information." Similarly, Courtney C. Radsch defines citizen journalism "as an alternative and activist form of newsgathering and reporting that functions outside mainstream media institutions, often as a [response] to shortcoming[s] in the professional journalistic field, that uses similar journalistic practices but is driven by different objectives and ideals and relies on alternative sources of legitimacy than traditional or mainstream journalism." Jay Rosen proposes a simpler definition: "When the people formerly known as the audience employ the press tools they have in their possession to inform one another."

Citizen journalism should not be confused with community journalism or civic journalism, both of which are practiced by professional journalists. Collaborative journalism is also a separate concept and is the practice of professional and non-professional journalists working together. Citizen journalism is a specific form of both citizen media and user generated content. By juxtaposing the term "citizen", with its attendant qualities of civic mindedness and social responsibility, with that of "journalism", which refers to a particular profession, Courtney C. Radsch argues that this term best describes this particular form of online and digital journalism conducted by amateurs because it underscores the link between the practice of journalism and its relation to the political and public sphere.

Clearly, that concept of a citizen journalist would be excluded by the definition of journalist proposed by these exemptions. But, increasingly, that concept of— [Time expired.]

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.30 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this very important piece of ongoing legislative reform of the courts. I listened intently to a number of the comments made in the debate, but particularly to those of Mr David Shoebridge. He would be aware that section 9 of the Court Security Act already prohibits the recording of proceedings unless the judge so permits or there is statutory exemption. The amendment extends the same principle to the broadcast or transmission of proceedings. Technology is increasingly being used to improve court proceedings. But developing technology also poses a risk, and this is recognised in section 7 of the Act and that is the reason for the insertion of section 9A in the Court Security Act by this amending bill.

I do not intend to waste the time of the House, but I would ask the member to look closely at the speech in reply made by the Attorney General in the other place. The Attorney spoke at length about the consultation that has taken place between his department and the Australian Press Council, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and joint media organisations including News Limited and the Fairfax media, and he placed those matters on the record. That extensive response by the Attorney General makes it fairly clear that many of the concerns raised by Mr David Shoebridge are not warranted given the discussions on this legislation that have been taking place between the Department of Attorney General and Justice and the various peak media bodies. I would make another observation about the member's proposal to remove schedule 1.8 from the bill. If, for example, the member were concerned that prosecution witnesses were able to send to pending prosecution witnesses outside the court, via mobile phone or similar technology, evidence that they had given during cross-examination— 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17905

Mr David Shoebridge: That would constitute contempt.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It obviously would be in contempt.

Mr David Shoebridge: It would already be regarded as contempt, and the Minister knows that. Contempt is much more serious.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Of course, proposed section 9A makes that clear to anyone so minded, not only in relation to the concept of contempt but also of the general understanding of the misuse of technology in relation to courts. Mr David Shoebridge also raised concerns about citizen journalists being restricted from reporting on court proceedings. The Court Security Act already contains a broad definition of journalist: "journalist" means a person engaged in the profession or practice of reporting, photographing, editing or recording for a media report of a news, current affairs, information or documentary character. That is sufficiently broad to catch a person who is either a professional journalist or a person who practises reporting. There is no reference in the provision to the person being remunerated for that practice of reporting, therefore the proposed section would cover persons who are citizens who practise reporting of current or legal affairs.

A person who wishes to publicly report upon proceedings for the first time is unlikely to be covered by the definition of journalist. Nevertheless, such a person should seek the permission of the judge to broadcast the proceedings. I understand that Mr David Shoebridge has indicated he will move amendments to strike schedule 1.8 from the bill. As I have indicated in the course of this reply to the second reading debate, I do not believe the concerns raised by the member are warranted, and therefore indicate to the House that the Government will not support the amendments proposed by Mr David Shoebridge.

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.36 p.m.], by leave: I move The Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet C2013-008 in globo:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 2, lines 5–8. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

2 Commencement

This Act commences on the date of assent to this Act.

No. 2 Pages 10–12, schedule 1.8, line 26 on page 10 to line 14 on page 12. Omit all words on those lines.

These amendments, taken together, would delete proposed schedule 1.8 from the bill. This schedule proposes amendment of the Court Security Act 2005 by the insertion of section 9A. The schedule also proposes a modest consequential amendment regarding the commencement provisions. The merits of The Greens amendments were discussed broadly in my speech on the second reading. The outstanding concern of The Greens is that proposed section 9A would prohibit citizen journalists from tweeting about content, for example, tweeting a key exchange between a witness and counsel examining that witness. Deleting clause 9A would not, by any means, prevent the court from continuing to exercise powers of contempt if someone did—as the Minister suggested in his speech in reply might occur—tip off a prosecution witness. If anyone tries to tip off a prosecution witness that not only would be punishable by contempt but also would probably be consideration of a series of criminal provisions about interfering with the course of justice, which would result in the offending person probably spending longer in jail than the defendant in the original trial, or at least we would hope so.

So deletion of the clause would not in any way limit the court's powers to deal with those kinds of matters. However, it would allow that growing tool of accountability, citizen journalism, to operate within our courts. Courts are meant to be public and open. I noted the contribution of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who wants to ensure that courts do not become a pointless spectacle. He expressed concern about people tweeting 17906 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

from the gallery of the court. From my experience, if a lawyer is in court and running a court case and someone in the gallery happens to be tweeting about it, that will not make a pinch of difference to the way that the court proceeds—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: It could.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: If the prosecution witness is outside watching the tweet from the citizen journalist.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: —unless there is a concern about persons being improperly informed about events that are occurring in court, or concern about certain evidence about which a suppression order might be made. Ordinarily council or advocates appearing in a court are well aware of the potential sensitivity of any evidence and would raise that matter with the presiding court officer well in advance. They do not want the evidence to be reported upon before a suppression order is made because a suppression order obviously cannot retract reporting that has already occurred. Notice will be given about those matters and appropriate action will be taken by a court. The deletion of section 9A will not in any way restrict a court from taking that kind of action, if it has even basically diligent counsel appearing before it.

It is true that there are competing public interest priorities. There is a concern—and I do not dismiss the concern—that if there is open slather reporting, potential future witnesses may be tipped off about the nature of evidence that has been given in court. Against that is the basic principle of open justice that we have in our society: Citizens have a right to be in court and have a right to be informed about how justice operates. Justice behind closed doors is, for many people, potentially not justice at all. Increasingly we engage not just what we see and hear immediately with our own eyes and ears but what we find out through our Facebook accounts, our Twitter accounts and through our social media presence. It is an increasingly important part of being a citizen.

We want courts to be relevant and open in the eyes of not just this generation of people sitting around the Chamber but generations to come. The blanket suppression provisions and the corralling of social media will reduce the public role of courts. I am not saying it will happen immediately as a result of the passing of new section 9A of this bill, but if we do not keep courts relevant and if we do not ensure that people can engage with justice and interested citizens can be aware of what is going on in our courts, over time courts will lose their legitimacy. That is why we always have had open courts under our British legal tradition and under our Australian legal tradition: open courts provide legitimacy for what goes on in courts. Open access and information in relation to what goes on in courts is the ultimate way courts maintain legitimacy. When we seek to gag people and gag the reporting of what goes on in courts, the courts lose a part of their legitimacy. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.42 p.m.]: The Opposition supports The Greens amendments because we also think that matters of this significance should be dealt with in the body of the bill, as we indicated earlier. I note that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services says that in the regulation that has been circulated there is a broad definition of "journalist" and that it is still limited to a person engaging in that pursuit by way of a profession or a practice for a particular media outlet. We believe it is not quite broad enough. We believe it may be unduly restrictive and may suppress reportage that is legitimate and appropriate. We note the mischief to which the bill is directed. As Mr Shoebridge has indicated, those forms of activity are already in contempt of court. But, as I indicated earlier, these matters are of sufficient significance that they should have been dealt with in the body of the bill itself. We have concerns about the draft regulations in their present form.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.43 p.m.]: The position of the Opposition is breathtaking. It should know where The Greens are coming from on many of these issues. The Greens purport to uphold the integrity and openness of the court but the arguments put forward contain no suggestion that the courts are not going to be open. There is no suggestion anywhere at all that courts will be any less transparent today than they were yesterday or than they have been for 100 years.

Mr David Shoebridge: Yes there is.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: No, that is not true. The citizen journalist argument of Mr David Shoebridge has more holes than Swiss cheese. Citizen journalists can immediately disseminate the information being given to a court via mobile phone technology, an iPad or a tablet to ensure it is out there for 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17907

all to read. Mr David Shoebridge spoke about contempt, but if the court is flooded with citizen journalists who are simply transcribing onto their tablet or their mobile phone the evidence that is being given in a court, there is a very strong risk of any future evidence coming from further witnesses being severely under question as a result of the dissemination by these citizen journalists of that information.

What Mr David Shoebridge is effectively doing, with the support of the Opposition, is potentially putting at risk the value of evidence being given in the courts. They want open slather: no protections around the information being put instantaneously into the ether. They say that they support transparency and openness. The proposed legislation recognises that technology has moved on and that there is a greater ability for people to disseminate immediately what they are hearing or what they are seeing. There are even questions about tweeting from this House during debate.

Equally, I would have thought that maintaining the utmost protection around evidence that is being given in a court is absolutely crucial for both the prosecution case and the defence case. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that this is somehow about citizen journalists when so many of the media outlets have been spoken to and have been part of the legislative process undertaken by the Attorney General. The purpose of the Government's amendment to the Act is to allow Sheriff's officers to ensure that characters in court who are using mobile phone technology are not able to automatically do so without there being some ability for the Sheriff's officers to take action in relation to it.

Mr David Shoebridge: Beautifully explained, Mike.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is not beautifully explained—

Mr David Shoebridge: Now we know how it operates.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is a bit different from the conveyancing that you were doing before you came in here. It is a bit rich for The Greens, now aided by the Opposition, to oppose protecting the evidence that is given in courts.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Mr Shoebridge?

The Hon. Trevor Khan: He gets a second turn after the abuse, does he?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.46 p.m.]: I am used to the kind of sledging and petty abuse from the Hon. Duncan Gay, but when I get it from the Minister—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It wasn't petty.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister put up with a whole lot of sledging from a combatant from the lower court and he did not retaliate. Now Mr David Shoebridge stands up and continues the sledging.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Order! Members will not make reflections upon each other. They will confine their remarks to the amendments before the Committee.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I was grateful to hear the Minister's inarticulate explanation about how new section 9A is intended to work. It is clear he does not understand how it would work in practice. I also note that the Minister does not comprehend the issue at stake. We are talking about citizen journalists and their ability to continue to report on events in New South Wales courts. The Minister says, "Don't you worry. We have put these proposed exemptions to News Limited and it is okay with them so citizen journalists should be okay."

The thought that News Limited, Fairfax or any other established media organisation could represent the interests of citizen journalists, who have a diametrically opposed vision of how to disseminate information and hold governments and courts to account, goes to show that the Minister does not have his head around this issue. It is of concern that he says that News Limited is okay with it, therefore citizen journalists, bloggers and people who want to communicate directly and not through media controlled by Mr Murdoch, the shareholders of Fairfax or the board of the ABC should be okay with it. Citizen journalists want to have direct communication between citizens about matters of public interest, including about the administration of justice, how our courts operate and how this Chamber operates. 17908 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

The suggestion is that the wheels will fall off our criminal justice system if someone is dexterous enough at texting to be able to give some sort of real-time reporting of what goes on in a court. The suggestion is that terrible vistas will open up and the entire justice system will collapse. That is rubbish. Other jurisdictions, including most Federal and State trials in the United States, allow for general broadcasting of proceedings. The Federal Court in this country also allows for certain parts of its trials to be broadcast. The idea that people seeing what goes on in courts and having access to information about how our courts operate on a daily basis will somehow irredeemably prejudice the operation of our criminal justice system goes to show how little this Government understands about the concerns of citizen journalists and others who want to hold people to account outside the traditional media. That is what the amendment is about.

Question—That The Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 [C2013-008] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 [C2013-008] negatived.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

PROPERTY, STOCK AND BUSINESS AGENTS AMENDMENT BILL 2012

Second Reading

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [3.55 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Property, Stock and Business Agents Amendment Bill 2012. The bill is part of the Government's continued response to reducing red tape for small businesses in New South Wales. It follows a statutory review of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 in 2007 and 2008. As the second reading speech has been given in the other place I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The review found that, while the Act was working well to achieve its objectives, a number of improvements could be made, particularly with a view to clarifying parts of the legislation and removing red tape for agents.

The Property, Stock and Business Agents Amendment Bill 2012 aims to remove red tape while ensuring at the same time that consumer protection is not compromised.

26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17909

The legislative amendments contained in the bill will clarify the legislation and reduce complexity for real estate agents, particularly in relation to their handling of trust accounts.

Appropriate consumer protection safeguards will be retained and compliance costs reduced.

This bill has been subject to considerable stakeholder consultation, with an exposure draft bill publicly released for four weeks on 30 August 2012.

I am pleased to report that the amendments contained in the bill received strong support from the majority of key stakeholders including the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, Estate Agents Co-operative Limited, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia.

I now turn to the bill's provisions.

The bill's reform in relation to the handling of unclaimed trust money will assist consumers who will now have a 'one stop shop' for identifying and claiming their unclaimed trust money in New South Wales with the Office of State Revenue.

A number of the amendments will enable compliance and investigative resources to be better targeted towards areas of highest risk.

This bill makes good on the Premier's commitment to reduce red tape and allow small business to operate efficiently.

The bill amends the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act to give a Court or Tribunal the ability to allow commission or expenses to be paid to a real estate agent if the Court or Tribunal determines that there has been a minor breach of the agency agreement requirement in the Regulations.

However, before any payment is authorised, the Court or Tribunal must first be satisfied there has been no loss suffered by the consumer as a result of the breach, and that failure to make such an order would be unjust.

For instance, the Regulations require a consumer warning to be placed in a certain position in the agency agreement.

If this consumer warning is placed anywhere else in the agreement, the consumer can refuse to pay any commission or expenses to the real estate agent for work the agent has performed in good faith—often thousands of dollars.

This amendment addresses a present anomaly where the Court or Tribunal does not have discretion to award commission or expenses to an agent for work which has been properly performed in good faith if there has been a minor inconsequential error in the agency agreement.

This amendment provides a workable balance between the needs of the consumer and the real estate agent, while providing appropriate safeguards as the issue must still be determined by the Court or Tribunal.

The bill broadens the qualifications of auditors who conduct annual audits of real estate agents' trust accounts.

The amendment allows for the broadening of qualifications for auditors to include audit companies, and members of professional accounting bodies such as CPA Australia and the Institute of Chartered Accountants, so long as a Public Practising Certificate is held with one or more of these bodies.

This amendment will provide particular relief for those agents in rural and regional areas of New South Wales who have found it difficult to engage a person to audit their trust accounts.

This amendment will reduce red tape by reducing the need for agents to seek exemptions from New South Wales Fair Trading due to their inability to find an auditor in their area.

It will free up compliance resources from considering exemption applications and allow them to focus on addressing compliance on the ground.

The regulatory burden placed on agents caused by the general lack of auditors, particularly in rural and regional areas of the State, will be substantively reduced.

The amendments proposed in this bill go even further towards freeing up real estate agents in this State.

The bill abolishes the current requirement for a licensee to lodge a separate statutory declaration with Fair Trading if they did not hold or receive trust money during the audit year.

This amendment will free up the majority of employed licensees who do not operate a trust account from this time consuming task.

The bill further clarifies that licensees who held or received trust money during the financial year will only be required to lodge an audit report with Fair Trading if it is "qualified" in any way by the auditor.

Licensees will be required to keep a copy of all audit reports for a period of three years so they can be inspected by Fair Trading if required.

This appropriately balances the need to ensure agents are not tied up with unnecessary red tape at the same time as providing the regulator with compliance safeguards.

17910 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

The bill defines the term "qualified audit report" for the purposes of the amendment.

Consistent with the current definition under the Act, report is "qualified" if the auditor discovers that any breach of the Act or the regulations has been committed; that there is any discrepancy in the trust account; or that the records or documents concerned are not kept in such a manner so as to enable them to be properly audited.

These amendments will remove red tape for real estate agents who presently have to meet tight administrative deadlines for submission of audit reports to Fair Trading.

To ensure compliance with the new requirement regarding submission of "qualified" audit reports, both the licensee and the auditor will be required to submit a copy of the report to Fair Trading.

To further support these amendments, the bill also gives the Commissioner for Fair Trading the power to order random audits of trust accounts.

This amendment will provide additional compliance powers for inspectors so the Government can safeguard protections for trust accounts and consumers, and also allow Fair Trading to conduct concentrated targeted audit compliance inspection programs when required.

The bill, for the first time, creates an offence provision under the Act for an auditor failing to notify Fair Trading of any discrepancy relating to the trust account to which an audit relates, or that the records or documents are not kept in a manner enabling them to be properly audited.

This amendment corrects an anomaly in the present legislation which has an offence provision for an agent failing to notify Fair Trading of such discrepancies, but not for the auditor whose primary responsibility was the annual auditing of the trust account records.

The bill will require licensees to formally notify the Commissioner for Fair Trading in writing each time they open or close a trust account at an authorised deposit taking institution—for example, a bank or building society.

These amendments will ensure that Fair Trading has better records of all trust accounts operated by 10 agents and can check the records it receives from the financial institutions.

This will also ensure that financial institutions have remitted the appropriate interest amounts from the trust accounts to the Statutory Interest Account which is administered under the Act.

This is important as the funds accrued In the Statutory Interest Account are used for funding compliance efforts and other essential tasks associated with administering this legislation.

The amendments seek to formalise an informal procedure which has been used by many real estate agents over many years, and the new procedures will be readily taken up by licensees.

As I touched on earlier, the bill amends the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act so that unclaimed trust money will now be dealt with 11 by the New South Wales Office of State Revenue under the Unclaimed Money Act 1995.

The bill makes consequential amendments to that Act to enable this to be achieved.

The amendments bring the handling of unclaimed trust money into line with how unclaimed money held by other enterprises in New South Wales is dealt with by the New South Wales Office of State Revenue.

Consumers will be able to search the Office of State Revenue's dedicated web site to locate details of unclaimed trust money and will be able to claim it directly from that office.

Consumers will have up to six years to lodge claims for the return of any unclaimed money.

It is important to note that this amendment, while cutting "red tape" and making it 12 easier for consumers to locate their unclaimed trust money, still retains protection for those consumers.

The bill retains some current requirements relating to the handling of unclaimed trust money by agents.

These include that amounts under $100, normally not dealt with by the Office of State Revenue, will still be regarded as unclaimed money and agents will be required to lodge the money.

Agents will therefore not be able to obtain "windfall" profits from these amounts, but will still be able to clear their trust accounts of this money.

In addition, trust money unclaimed for over two years will still be regarded as unclaimed money for the purposes of the legislation.

To further cut red tape for licensees, the lodgement period for the unclaimed money declaration will be changed from the calendar year to the financial year, 13 enabling licensees to fulfil all of their financial reporting responsibilities at the same time.

In addition, licensees will now be able to lodge the unclaimed money in their accounts at the same time they lodge their declaration—removing the worry and administrative burden from them.

26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17911

Finally, the bill clarifies the present position in the Act that holders of certificates of registration under the Act can conduct stock auctions under the immediate and direct supervision of the holder of an appropriate stock and station agent's licence who need not be their employer.

The Act presently requires a certificate of registration holder to conduct stock auctions under the immediate supervision of their employer, the licensee in charge of their office.

This is not always practical in a large office, given the other pressing responsibilities of the licensee in charge.

The amendment clarifies that a certificate holder, employed by a stock and station agent, can conduct stock auctions under the immediate supervision of a licensee who need not be their licensee in charge or employer.

However, the supervising licensee must have their licence endorsed as a stock auctioneer.

This amendment will ensure that certificate holders will be able to obtain much needed experience in this most demanding of fields, while ensuring at the same time, that consumers are protected through proper supervision of their conduct.

This amendment is supported by the Australian Livestock and Property Agents Association.

Importantly, the majority of the bill will commence on assent, meaning that licensees can gain the benefits outlined in the bill as soon as the Act commences.

Fair Trading will work with the Office of State Revenue to ensure a smooth transition to the new unclaimed monies provisions, and will provide further advice to industry on the practical impacts of this change. This is important amending legislation.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [3.55 p.m.]: Madam Deputy-President—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: "When I was a stock and station agent."

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: Very good, Phelpsy. I represent my colleague the shadow Minister for Fair Trading, Tania Mihailuk, who has carriage of this bill in the other place. I note at the outset that the Opposition will not oppose the Property, Stock and Business Agents Amendment Bill 2012. The bill arises out of a consequential review of the principal Act, the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002. The Government is operating within the framework established by the Carr Government, and I commend the Minister for continuing the great work of his Labor predecessors. The then Minister for Fair Trading, John Aquilina, stated:

I am privileged to introduce this important piece of consumer protection legislation. The bill represents the first major overhaul of the property services industry in this State since 1941 …

Sellers and buyers alike will benefit from its far reaching and innovative proposals which raise consumer protection to a level that recognises the importance of property transactions in people's lives.

I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Aquilina on his recent Australia Day honour. Mr Aquilina was made a member of the Order of Australia for significant service to the Parliament of New South Wales and to the community. I am sure I speak for all members when I congratulate Mr Aquilina on this worthy recognition of his decades of public service. I also commend the Coalition for its progress in this policy area.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Keep going, Sophie.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: I'm fair. I'll call it as I see it.

Dr John Kaye: She put the fair in Fair Trading.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: Yes, we put the fairness back in Fair Trading. When the original bill was introduced in 2001 the then shadow Minister, Peter Debnam, claimed that the bill was part of the Government's campaign to persecute real estate agents. The former shadow Minister said:

Whenever a problem occurs in the market this Government and other Labor governments … seem to focus on that problem, exaggerate it through the media, market the need for change, and then introduce the lowest common denominator legislation that effectively says that although the problem may have occurred only once or 10 times, regulations will be into place to ensure it never happens again.

The shadow Minister warned that the legislation would become administratively unenforceable. The Coalition seems to have made great strides since 2001— 17912 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

The Hon. Trevor Khan: We have. Just look at our numbers in this place.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: —in getting to this position, and I commend it on its progress in this area. You have come a long way. As members are well aware, a key principle of good governance is the periodic review of legislation and regulations to identify any need for reform or amendment. Unfortunately, this Government is taking a long time to review local government, which is another of my areas of responsibility. I refer the Minister to a number of issues raised in submissions to the review process. My colleague the shadow Minister asked the Minister to confirm for the House whether the issues raised in these submissions had been addressed and to commit to following up any outstanding matters.

The Law Society of New South Wales submission to the review process raised concerns about the intention to abolish the requirement for licensees to lodge separate statutory declarations if no trust money is held during the financial year. It is relatively unusual for a licensee not to have held trust money, so the bill is making it appropriate for this unusual situation to be verified by statutory declaration. Completion and lodgement of statutory declarations assist the monitoring of the population of agencies and whether or not they receive trust money.

The Law Society also raised concerns about the provision to clarify that licensees who held trust money during the financial year are required to lodge an audit report with NSW Fair Trading only if it is a qualified audit report. The Law Society states that one of the issues in regard to the lodgement of audit reports is the detection of agencies which may be struggling and therefore may not arrange for audits to be completed. NSW Fair Trading may detect these firms as a result of late lodgement or non-lodgement; in other words, it is not the report that is received that is the problem but the one that is not received. The Law Society also considers that the amendment to provide a court or tribunal with authority to allow the payment of commission or expenses to real estate agents if there has been a minor breach of the agency agreement may be problematic. In particular, the society raises the potential for disputes over what constitutes a minor breach.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 4.00 p.m. for questions.

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

HUNTING IN NATIONAL PARKS

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in his capacity as the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Did the Minister for the Environment and Minister for Heritage consult with him prior to proposing that amateur hunters in national parks be allowed to use silencers?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I inform the House that the Minister for the Environment and I have many discussions on many issues indeed. In the last couple of days I stated my position in relation to silencers or moderators—call them whatever you want—and my position on that is well and truly on the record. In fact, I think I have even raised that in this House. I adhere to those comments.

NATURAL DISASTERS ASSISTANCE

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will he update the House on the communities affected by natural disasters since the beginning of the year? What is the New South Wales Government doing to assist their recovery?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: This summer has been particularly difficult for communities across the State that have borne the brunt of some devastating natural disasters, such as bushfires, flooding or storms.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: You said this last week.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: But a lot has changed since last week.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Yes. We had another weekend. 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17913

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: That is right. The situation is getting worse for some of those communities. The reality is that the heavy rainfall that occurred during the past 24 hours in Queensland will hit the catchments and rivers and will again work its way down into northern New South Wales. During January 2013 at least 71 local government areas were impacted by bushfires that ravaged farmland, bushland, private property and infrastructure. Fifty-one homes and significant community infrastructure were destroyed in the Warrumbungle area. Ten evacuation centres were established across the southern, western and Hunter-Central Coast regions to provide care and comfort to people seeking refuge.

On the Australia Day long weekend severe storms and flooding impacted on communities in northern New South Wales, particularly the Clarence Valley, where many people were evacuated and suffered damage to their property. This resulted in 19 local government areas being declared disaster areas. As members would no doubt be aware, torrential rains and gale force winds caused havoc across New South Wales last Saturday and Sunday. The massive east coast low caused flooding and damage in Grafton, Taree and Kempsey. Ballina suffered winds of 160 kilometres an hour and received more than 135 millimetres of rain. In Sydney, many trees came down and mini-tornadoes ripped through Malabar in the city's south east. The roof of the Malabar RSL was blown off, and that sent asbestos onto nearby homes and roads.

In the Kiama and Jamberoo area several houses sustained damage due to the high winds and storm rendering them inhabitable. Again in Kiama a number of damaged properties were asbestos affected. In all, 11 local government areas have so far been declared natural disaster areas. Disaster declarations trigger a number of disaster assistance schemes to assist with the cost of disaster relief and recovery. The schemes are made available by the New South Wales Government through New South Wales disaster assistance arrangements and they are supported by the Commonwealth Government through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements.

The major disaster assistance schemes include immediate assistance for households and individuals directly affected by a disaster, grants for essential household contents and structural repairs, concessional rate loans of up to $130,000 for small businesses and primary producers, grants to local councils and Crown Reserve Trusts for the repair of roads and public infrastructure, grants and loans to sport and recreation clubs, and loans to voluntary not-for-profit organisations to restore essential facilities. New South Wales disaster assistance is administered by a number of agencies, including the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services, New South Wales Treasury, the Rural Assistance Authority, the New South Wales Public Works, Roads and Maritime Services, and the Department of Primary Industries.

The Ministry for Police and Emergency Services proactively engages with local councils and other State Government agencies to provide response and recovery and disaster welfare services during emergency events. In some instances, personnel were working with councils prior to an event to undertake pre-emptive assessments and monitor requirements for recovery assistance. This ensures that a declaration can be made as quickly as possible and that access to recovery grants is expedited to enable the commencement of recovery activities. The work of our volunteer and professional emergency service workers goes on unabated, especially during times like those experienced during last weekend's storms. I publicly acknowledge them for their tireless efforts in providing help and comfort to people who have been affected. I thank the Hon. Catherine Cusack for her question.

PARLIAMENT HOUSE UPGRADE

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I direct my question to the Minister for Finance and Services. In relation to the proposed upgrade of Parliament House, why has the Government proceeded with this project when Cabinet advice, which was considered on 2 November 2012, indicated that there was a high risk of failure in seven out of the eight categories against which the particular proposal was assessed?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: It is very interesting that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition purports to know what Cabinet decisions have been made.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: We read it in the paper.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I think he knows full well that it is entirely inappropriate for confidential proceedings of Cabinet to be passed around by people like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If he does have a copy of a confidential Cabinet paper, which he has given to the newspapers—

The Hon. Luke Foley: Greg wants it back. 17914 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Indeed. The Labor Opposition is so lazy—so lazy.

The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: The Minister is debating the question. He is not being generally relevant in answering it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Minister is not being relevant or generally relevant.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is very pleasant of you, Mr President. The point I was trying to make was that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised a question in which he purported to allude to a Cabinet document, which I cannot confirm or deny even exists until the Government makes a decision and an announcement. The point I was getting to is that this lazy mob on the Opposition benches does its research by reading the newspapers. That is the extent of their research.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: That is where we get the news of Cabinet from.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I would have thought that the Hon. Mick Veitch would do better than simply read the newspapers. As I discovered last week, the venerable Sydney Morning Herald now relies on Andrew Clennell of the Daily Telegraph for its research and the veracity of its reporting. I found that astonishing. A number of journalists have speculated about the Government's consideration of future accommodation needs for the Ministry, the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Treasury, Finance and Services and various others. What were we left with when we came to government?

We were left with neglect by the Labor Party. It left us in the situation in which all of those agencies I have just mentioned face being thrown out of their premises at the end of next year, 2014. The alternative is to keep paying the $18 million a year that those opposite were paying for the tenancies they occupied. It is hypocrisy upon laziness, and those opposite failed to do any homework. The Government has not announced any decision in relation to future accommodation of the Ministry or those agencies. When we want to do so we will inform the House and the people of New South Wales of our plans.

EMERGENCY SERVICES CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. A New South Wales Government report published on the Office of Environment and Heritage's website entitled "Climate change impacts in NSW" states that New South Wales is expected to become hotter under climate change, with north-eastern New South Wales likely to experience an increase in summer rainfall, and that higher temperatures, extreme weather events, fire and erosion could change entire ecosystems, accelerate species loss, alter farming practices and affect human settlements and health. The report also stresses the importance of understanding the type and extent of likely impacts so that New South Wales is able to respond. Can the Minister please advise what work the Department of Emergency Services is doing to understand the extent of the impacts of climate change as well as to determine the costs to his department of the increased frequency of extreme weather events associated with climate change?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I can say that the respective emergency service agencies that fall under my portfolio are constantly re-evaluating their approach to the changing nature of the environment. For example, in the past two years, with 75 per cent of the State—an area the size of Spain—under water at a time when we were told we would see significant bushfire threats to the State, those agencies had to change their approach. Now they are looking at the increased fuel levels that have occurred as a result of changing climatic conditions during the last couple of summer periods. There has been a different approach to how the Rural Fire Service addressed the fire threat, both grass fires and bushfires.

I am pleased to say that the level of technology and interaction between the Rural Fire Service and the State Emergency Service, as well as Fire and Rescue, with scientific bodies like the Bureau of Meteorology— together with their work around the country with scientific agencies examining the changing nature of our environment and the approach they take to addressing such issues—puts us in a very proud position. One only has to look at the response of our emergency personnel since the start of this year. They have been dealing with two completely different sets of environmental conditions with different impacts on the community in such a way that after significant flood and fire events there has been no direct loss of life. People have been behaving in flood situations in a manner we would rather they did not, but the response of our emergency agencies has been outstanding. 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17915

NORTHERN NEW SOUTH WALES FLOODS AND ROAD CLOSURES

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister please update the House on flooding and road closures in northern New South Wales?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for her question. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner is a member of one of the communities that has been so dramatically affected over the weekend. As my colleague the Minister for Police and Emergency Services indicated earlier, many communities across our State—up and down the coast and inland—have been affected. State Emergency Services and police have done an absolutely fantastic job. Once again, several of our State roads were affected by flooding after the severe weather.

The heavy rain forced the closure of many roads and the evacuation of work sites along the Pacific Highway. Work on the Tintenbar to Ewingsdale upgrade was temporarily stopped after wind gusts of up to 93 kilometres an hour were experienced and upwards of 225 millimetres of rain fell on the site between Wednesday and Friday. Work also stopped on the Kempsey bypass with more than 235 millimetres of rain falling across the site since Thursday. The Chief Executive Officer of Roads and Maritime Services, Peter Duncan, sent me a photo from Kempsey of the new Kempsey Bridge, the biggest bridge in Australia, which is due to be opened soon. It looks like an island in the river.

After severe storm warnings on Friday from the Bureau of Meteorology and advice from the State Emergency Service, significant Roads and Maritime Services resources were immediately dispatched in northern New South Wales region. I acknowledge and thank Roads and Maritime Services crews and the local council staff who went beyond the call of duty in many instances in terrible conditions, including heavy winds and rain, to open and close roads and clear fallen trees to ensure the safety of motorists and the community. Local traffic operators also worked tirelessly to support road crews and to provide continual updates to motorists through regular live traffic alerts, variable message signs and updates to the live traffic website provided by the Transport Management Centre.

Currently, the Pacific Highway remains closed between Kempsey and Clybucca, with only local or essential northbound traffic being allowed in to Kempsey past a control point at Hastings River Drive, Port Macquarie. The Oxley Highway also remains closed between Long Flat and Walcha and there is a 2.5 square metre width restriction for all vehicles travelling on the Gwydir Highway between Grafton and Glen Innes following a recent landslip in the last lot of rain we had.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Charlie Lynn to order for the first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The good news is that the Pacific Highway has reopened between Grafton and Ballina on the New South Wales North Coast. Yamba Road, Plummers Lane and South West Rocks Road have also reopened. I take this opportunity to ask motorists to be patient and expect delays while Roads and Maritime Services and State Emergency Service personnel work to clear the roads. If at all possible motorists should delay their journeys to these areas, or avoid them if possible when travelling to the north of the State. I encourage everyone who needs to update traffic information to head to the live traffic website, which will tell them which roads are opened and closed and the traffic conditions. I also urge all motorists to exercise a little extra care if they are travelling given the extreme weather that continues to affect much of the State— particularly on causeways where, tragically, we have lost people in each bout of rain.

PARLIAMENT HOUSE UPGRADE

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Service. Why is the Government proceeding to undertake a multimillion dollar upgrade of Parliament when a leaked Cabinet document, as reported in the media, states that the full costs are unknown?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I refer to my previous answer.

BIOFUELS ACT ENFORCEMENT

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I wish to ask the Hon. Duncan Gay, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, a question without notice. Is it a fact that the Government promised the main producer of 17916 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

ethanol—the Manildra Shoalhaven starch ethanol facility—that it would enforce the Biofuels Act? Is it a fact that Manildra has invested $300 million in anticipation of the Government's action? Why is there a complete failure by the Government to enforce the Biofuels Act—a failure that is putting Manildra at financial risk? When will the Government prosecute the oil companies that are failing to observe the Biofuels Act?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question and acknowledge the tireless work of his colleague from the Shoalhaven supporting regional jobs at Bomaderry and in the Manildra township in the Central West, especially the excellent work that Manildra Mills does in that region. Those opposite regard "going west" as west of Sussex Street; they certainly would not travel to this region. People travelling between Orange and Parkes will go past Max Milf Milly on the left before the turn-off towards Manildra, and they will understand the importance of this operation, and its continuation, to the Manildra community and to regional New South Wales. It is quite evident. The point of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's question is important: We need to enforce the undertakings put in place by the previous Labor Government.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You've done nothing.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: What was that?

The Hon. Steve Whan: You've wound it back.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Yes, you wound it back. You've done nothing. You are taking money under false pretences.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Amanda Fazio to order for the first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Like many contributions from the member, they are better not repeated. The question is important.

The Hon. Steve Whan: All she said was that you've taken the money under false pretences.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Steve Whan to order for the first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The question is important. We acknowledge that the scheduled increase in the biodiesel mandate from 2 per cent to 5 per cent has been suspended indefinitely due to insufficient local supply. However, the National Biodiesel Ltd project at Port Kembla is progressing and when complete will supply enough biodiesel to meet the New South Wales mandate requirements. Diversifying our fuel sources remains important as Australian oil production declines from a peak of over 800,000 barrels per day to around 560,000 barrels per day, and our refinery capacity is dropping. In the past four years the ethanol mandate has seen an important and gutsy investment of approximately $200 million in regional New South Wales from the companies involved. Certainly we as a Government need to make sure that a proper process is in place to make the oil majors stick to the mandate.

STATE ECONOMY

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister please update the House on the New South Wales economy?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Are you going to have enough time?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I do not think I will have enough time. Members may have noticed a distinct uptick in confidence in New South Wales since the start of 2013.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Since the State election.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Of course, since the State election but, particularly, since the beginning of this year. Indeed, this increase in confidence invited comment yesterday from the Treasurer, who noted that an improving international outlook means that the State's economy backdrop is better than at any time since the beginning of the global financial crisis—and he is not wrong. I acknowledge that some sectors of the economy continue to experience uncertainty and that the overall economic outlook is uncertain, but this Government's actions to invest in key economic drivers—infrastructure and housing—are having an impact. Employment in 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17917

New South Wales has increased with 73,400 jobs having been created since the March 2011 election. To put this in context, this jobs growth rate is three times that of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania combined.

The Hon. Steve Whan: And one-third the growth of the last Labor Government.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Our unemployment remains the second lowest of all States. Contrary to what the Hon. Steve Whan is whinging about, the New South Wales unemployment rate was, on average, 0.4 per cent higher than the national rate during Labor's last five years in government. Of course, this good outcome by New South Wales has been assisted through the Government's Jobs Action Plan, which has supported 15,000 new jobs already. Since we came to government there has been more housing with private residential building approvals in New South Wales rising 23.3 per cent through the 2012 year to the November quarter—higher than the national average and any other State. Of course, that was assisted by this Government's continued investment in housing and infrastructure. The Building the State package has provided a boost to housing with $500 million worth of additional infrastructure to facilitate the construction of 76,000 new homes. An additional $2 billion has been provided for each of the next four years for infrastructure investment. Housing supply has started to lift: annual growth in investor housing finance remains at its highest levels since 2003.

Overall, this Government's commitment to housing supply is reaping gains. New South Wales had the lowest growth of new dwellings per capita during the last five years of the Labor Government. We are seeing also good consumer confidence figures with the February reading 11 per cent higher than the average of the last 12 months and almost 5 per cent higher than the decade average. We have seen some solid figures in economic growth with New South Wales now becoming the second fastest growing economy in the country with 2.9 per cent growth—second only to Western Australia. This is in stark contrast to the years under Labor when New South Wales recorded its slowest economic growth of any State. In all, the New South Wales economy is giving us cause for hope and the New South Wales Government is doing well utilising the economic tools it has at its disposal to encourage growth.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Steve Whan to order for the second time.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: These are a beautiful set of numbers and this week we have seen other beautiful numbers: Better Premier—O'Farrell 48 per cent up from 44 per cent; Robertson 19 per cent down from 21 per cent.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The Minister has become overexcited once again and strayed from the question asked by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox. I ask that the Minister be reminded that his answer must be relevant.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Only Amanda would defend Robbo.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: And I remind the Hon. Duncan Gay that he should keep quiet because nobody cares what he says.

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

OUT TONIGHT? PARTY RIGHT WEBSITE

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing. Which organisations were asked by the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing to make financial contributions to the development of the Out Tonight? Party Right website? Which organisations contributed and how much?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the member for his question and for his continuing line of questioning about the Out Tonight? Party Right website. I take this opportunity to refer the member to my earlier responses regarding these matters, which are on the record. I am advised by the Minister's office that the statements made in connection with answers to questions from the member are entirely correct. 17918 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

POLICE TRANSPORT COMMAND

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Police Transport Command be staffed by sworn police officers or will the command's operational officers also include special constables?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: This question really demonstrates the lack of the Opposition's knowledge about the role of the NSW Police Force. Operational police officers are fully sworn members of the NSW Police Force. They are given the authority under the Police Act to be police officers.

STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANS

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House about recent reforms to the State's emergency management plans?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As I indicated to the House earlier in question time, 2013 has only just begun but New South Wales has already been severely affected by floods, storms and bushfires. The Government's operational response has been swift, as has its implementation of relief and recovery arrangements, with more than 100 natural disaster declarations made and impact assessments submitted to the Commonwealth Government. That has resulted in the activation of funding under category C of the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements for the Warrumbungles, Coonamble, Gilgandra, Harden, Yass Valley and Cooma-Monaro. It is not possible to have a large-scale, swift and effective response and recovery activity without solid planning. If agencies do not know their role or what partners they need to work with then nothing can be planned or practised.

Whilst we inevitably focus on heroic response activity by our firefighters, State Emergency Service crews and the scale of the recovery operations, an important part of disaster management is prevention or mitigation. The National Parks and Wildlife Service employees played a significant role working with firefighters and combating the firestorms. As part of NSW 2021 the State Emergency Management Committee has conducted a review of the State Disaster Plan [DISPlan] and a new State Emergency Management Plan [EMPlan] has been approved. The State Emergency Management Plan is a major step forward in respect of New South Wales' high level arrangements.

I shall outline the key changes in the move from the State Disaster Plan through to the State Emergency Management Plan. First, preparation, mitigation and prevention are covered for the first time. The State Emergency Management Plan gives agencies broad priorities in these areas, such as training and exercise outcomes, which agencies will translate into their agency's specific plans. A key aspect of this is the Government's commitment to the need for regular exercises. Second, the community is increasingly an important part of disaster management and they are not passive victims. The community plays a critical role in prevention, such as personal bushfire hazard reduction and the preparation by families of bushfire and flood plans. The community is an important partner in agency planning. The community is an important source of expertise and resources and, where appropriate, it will be involved in exercises.

Third, we have given greater recognition to the role of functional areas. It is a rather uninspiring name, but a critical role. Functional areas are important when it comes to getting critical services back on their feet or reducing the risk of them being compromised in the first place. Two examples of functional areas are energy and telecommunications. Functional areas maintain express links to the private sector and work with the private sector to ensure speedy restoration of services, such as electricity. When I went to the Coonabarabran observatory I saw the power workers busily putting poles and wires back in place to ensure that homes had access to power. It was absolutely inspirational given that the fires were still smouldering around them.

Another example is the excellent job done by the New South Wales Government Telecommunications Authority, which rapidly organised for Telstra to deploy "cells on wheels". Cells on wheels are additional deployable mobile telephone based stations, which assisted in the Coonabarabran area during the bushfire. Having now replaced the State level plan, the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services is working with regional emergency management officers to develop guidance for local emergency management committees on a new generation of local plans. 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17919

NATIONAL DISABILITY STRATEGY NSW IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. A key action of the National Disability Strategy NSW Implementation Plan is to improve access for people with a disability affordable to social housing within the next two years. Will the Minister advise whether progress has been made on action 1D (iv) regarding exemptions to the income eligibility rule where a public housing applicant requires a live-in carer?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is a very good question. I have not checked on progress against that item this morning, so I will take the question on notice and give the member the detailed answer that the question deserves.

MILLERS POINT PUBLIC HOUSING

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Last Thursday the Minister told the House that New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation representatives would be at the meeting of tenants in Millers Point. Why did he mislead the families of Millers Point and this House?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I am glad the Hon. Sophie Cotsis asked that question. My advice was that the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation had been attending the various Millers Point meetings. I understood that it had offered to, and was going to, attend the meeting last week but it was told it was not welcome.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: By whom?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: By the organisers of the meeting. My question to the Hon. Sophie Cotsis is: Was she an agent saboteur?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Agent provocateur.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, agent provocateur is the correct phrase.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: They are going to read all this.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes, they will read it all.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order is that the Minister has made imputations about the Hon. Sophie Cotsis, which he should withdraw. He knows that making imputations is not in accordance with the standing orders and is improper.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has made a reflection on the member. I remind all members that they should not make reflections upon members of this House or the other House during their contributions.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Surely the Hon. Sophie Cotsis has to ask that the comments be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT: Order! In response to the point raised by the Deputy Leader of the Government, as the comments were not found to be offensive I do not require them to be withdrawn.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation's portfolio at Millers Point is poorly suited for public housing, being heritage listed older houses that cannot be modified to meet modern requirements and being five times more expensive to maintain than other social housing. The New South Wales Labor Government commenced a leasehold sales program at Millers Point in 2008. The Labor Party started selling 99-year leaseholds of vacant properties with the lessee being responsible for upgrading and maintaining the properties to specified criteria. To date 31 houses have been sold—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the first time.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: —generating revenue in excess of $39 million. That revenue is being used for construction of new social housing in areas of high demand in line with the New South Wales 17920 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

Government's commitment to provide more housing for older and homeless people. The Government is considering whether to make further sales and whether to continue the Labor Party's program and policy. I am disappointed that in the normal course Land and Housing Corporation representatives were not welcome to attend the meeting last week. I am going to seek an explanation from them as to exactly why they were not welcome.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the second time.

CRANEBROOK INTERSECTION UPGRADE

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the upgrade of the intersection of Northern Road and Sherringham Road?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in matters occurring all over the State. I am informed that someone calling himself the Federal member for Lindsay, a Mr David Bradbury, last Friday claimed it was "600 days" since he was told in a letter from me that work on The Northern Road, between Andres Road and Borrowdale Way, would start at the end of 2011. His assertion is that the New South Wales Government has held back from delivering this project. This, of course, is false; and sadly, this person, who is asking his community to re-elect him, knows that.

Here are the facts. The Northern Road, between Andrews Road and Borrowdale Way, is being upgraded by Lend Lease as part of its agreement with the New South Wales Government to increase capacity on roads around new housing areas that the company is developing. The review of environmental factors identified heritage and Indigenous archaeological issues that initially delayed the project by about six months. An amended review of environmental factors was put on public display between July and August 2011, and the community was invited to comment. However, a satisfactory review of environmental factors was not finally submitted by Lend Lease until May 2012.

In the same letter I informed Mr Bradbury that my department advised Lend Lease to progress the detailed design concurrently with the review of environmental factors to avoid further unnecessary delays. Lend Lease has advised that tenders for stage one are expected to be called in early April and that stage one work is expected to start by July 3013. This will include the installation of traffic lights at The Northern Road and Sherringham Road intersection. Mr Bradbury is, of course, well aware of all this.

[Interruption]

If the Hon. Amanda Fazio remains quiet and listens, she will learn.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Amanda Fazio to order for the second time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: In a letter to my colleague Stuart Ayers on 19 April 2012 Mr Bradbury admits:

I have kept in regular contact with Lend Lease and have received numerous updates on the status of these projects.

so he knew what was happening; he also neglects to mention—

The Hon. Walt Secord: He's onto you, Duncan.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Just listen. He also neglects to mention that the Federal Government contribution to the project, a not insignificant $5.15 million, was deferred to the 2013-14 financial year. He says his Labor Government made an "election commitment to this project in 2007". Federal Labor might have made a commitment in 2007, but it is not delivering until 2013-14. I would say that this rooster is hoist on his own petard. When you start telling fibs to the community, it will not matter whether the red leghorns are out there with you at Rooty Hill next week or not: you are a shot duck.

NATIONAL PARKS FERAL ANIMAL CONTROL

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, regarding licensed conservation hunters. It follows on from 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17921

comments in an article attributed to the Hon. Luke Foley in the Australian yesterday, titled "NSW hunters will leave rotting carcases". Will the Minister confirm the fate of carcases of feral animals shot from helicopters and poisoned by National Parks staff and their so-called "professional" contractors? Are the carcasses collected and buried, or are they left to rot on the ground? Have any studies been done to ascertain whether any water streams in New South Wales have been either directly or indirectly contaminated through this method of feral animal control?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question, which is very sensible. In part, I will answer with two words: Guy Fawkes. Who could forget what happened under the stewardship of the former Labor Government? After it mucked up the cull of wild horses, did it go round and collect the carcases? No. The Leader of the Opposition should remember what happened under his regime. I will seek a comprehensive answer from my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries.

ACTING PREMIER REMUNERATION

The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, and Deputy Leader of the Government. In light of the decision to grant an 18 per cent pay rise to the Deputy Premier when the Premier is on leave, will the Minister seek a similar arrangement when the Leader of the Government is absent from the House?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am pleased to announce to the House that two years ago I received a significant pay increase, and every day I say, "Thank you, Eric."

APPS4NSW DEVELOPMENT EVENTS

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister inform the House about the apps4nsw community solutions "hack" development weekend and how the Government benefits from this type of event?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: What a good question from the honourable member. A two-day apps4nsw development event was held last weekend, 23 and 24 February, at the University of Technology, Sydney. The event brought together industry and community developers to design and build applications that use government data to improve service delivery. The theme of the competition is "community solutions". Staff from the Department of Finance and Services, the NSW Office of Water, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and the Department of Education and Communities also participated, sharing their expertise for the duration of the event—as did other stakeholders, including representatives of the University of Technology, Microsoft, Rewired, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Participants were asked to test their skills and imagination. They were given just two days to come up with innovative ideas, using the government data provided. In developing their submissions, they had access to advice from industry and agency mentors, and they pitched their ideas to judges at the end of day two. A number of members opposite would like to be invited to the next event. I am pleased to announce that the judging panel selected two winners on the day. Each will receive a $1,000 cash prize. The first prize was awarded to "Pump Alert". The Hon. Walt Secord will be interested in "Pump Alert". That application supports improved irrigation management with information about water levels on farmers' properties.

Second prize was awarded to "Hide and Seek". Again, those opposite would identify with that. Even our good friends in the Shooters and Fishers Party will like "Hide and Seek". It is an application that helps people identify native animals and report their sightings to the Office of Environment and Heritage. The winners received an invitation to attend the "community solutions" industry pitch, which is being held on 12 March, when they will have a new opportunity to pitch ideas to a panel of industry experts and to discuss new apps. The successful "hack" development weekend was part of the apps4nsw community solutions competition, which closes on 25 March. The categories for community solutions are "Refresh Education" and "Get to Know the Environment". The competition offers cash incentives from the Department of Finance and Services, a people's choice award, prizes for under-18s, and the opportunity to receive mentoring and support from industry and business.

This program is an excellent example of the work being undertaken by the New South Wales Government to make our State a leader in ICT. It is further evidence that the Government is delivering on the goals set out in its 2012 ICT Strategy. This year the ICT Strategy will continue to focus on open government and open data. Those are two priority areas for my department, and I am confident we will be hearing about more successful outcomes generated by the Government's apps4nsw initiative. 17922 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

MENINDEE LAKES WATER SUPPLY

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. What response has the Office of Water had from the Commonwealth to the Commonwealth's proposal to improve water use in the Menindee lakes by having Lake Menindee the focus of water storage rather than the plan to use the smaller lakes for irrigators, which plan would incur more than $100 million in infrastructure works?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his important question. I remember travelling to Broken Hill and Menindee with my colleague the Hon. Rick Colless last year.

[Interruption]

We came back—unlike some of your colleagues. The Hon. Rick Colless is full of good common sense. When we spoke about evaporation from the Menindee lakes he always said that what the community needed to do when the lakes were empty was to put a regulator—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Charlie Lynn to order for the second time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: —between the lakes so that water could be stored in one of the lakes at a higher level rather than let it flow right through all the lakes at a lower level and encourage the evaporation. It is good common sense, and I understand that that is the sort of suggestion that has been put forward to the Federal Government. I will undertake to get a proper response to the question from the Minister.

WOLLONGONG COAST SHIPPING

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Why have up to 13 tankers been anchored off the coast north of Wollongong for the past two weeks?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Interestingly, during the 16 years of the former Government—when there were up to 100 tankers anchored off Newcastle and Port Kembla—there was not a murmur. We had Whan's navy and we had Eddie's navy—that was a floating gin palace.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The Costa Concordia.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Costa Concordia. It is a serious question, albeit very late and concerning a small number of tankers compared to the past. However, I undertake to get a detailed answer for the member.

AUSTRALIA DAY POLICING

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will be Minister update the House on the results of Operation Westchester?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the member for his question and his ongoing interest in the work of the NSW Police Force. In order to ensure a safe and secure day for all on Australia Day, more than 2,000 police officers were deployed across New South Wales as part of Operation Westchester. This highly visible and mobile operation involved general duties police, with assistance from specialist commands including the Traffic and Highway Patrol Command, the Dog Unit, PolAir and the Marine Area Command. Police officers patrolled parks, public venues, Sydney's central business district, beaches, pubs, clubs and regional areas on the day. Police also patrolled roads and waterways, conducting random breath tests.

On the day police focused on managing incidences of drunken and antisocial behaviour as well as people driving whilst intoxicated. Thousands of people turned out to celebrate and enjoy the long weekend, with lots of citizenship ceremonies, outdoor concerts and other activities organised throughout the State. There were thousands of vessels on the water in Sydney Harbour. I am glad to report that Operation Westchester had a positive outcome, with police reporting that Australia Day festivities across the State were predominantly peaceful and family-friendly. Overall, police made 94 arrests for 127 offences, including assault, assault/hinder police, drug possession and supply, drink driving, robbery and outstanding warrants. I extend my congratulations to Assistant Commissioner Max Mitchell, commander of Operation Westchester, and his team for a job well done. 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17923

DOMESTIC GAS RESERVATION POLICY

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. Is the Minister aware of the policy push by the DomGas Alliance for a national domestic gas reservation policy so that Australian gas is available to Australian industry to support manufacturing, agriculture and jobs? Will the New South Wales Government raise the issue of a national domestic gas reservation policy with the Federal Government given the fact that Australia is the only major exporter of natural gas in the world without a domestic gas reservation policy?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am unaware of the particular item to which the member refers, but I will undertake to get a detailed answer to his question. I often wonder, when the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham asks a question like that, whether he spends all of his time trying to stop gas production in New South Wales—leaving taps on in the Pilliga as he and the crews wander through there.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: The Minister is reflecting upon me and making an imputation that I find objectionable. He is making an accusation of industrial espionage—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member has made his point. He will resume his seat.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: I ask him to retract.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As the Minister did not use offensive words I will not require him to withdraw his comments. However, I remind the Minister that it is disorderly for him to reflect on other members.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will take your advice and indicate that in the future I will tell anyone who will listen that the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham insisted that I tell people he is a friend of gas in New South Wales; he wants gas to happen wherever it can in regional New South Wales. As he has requested me to do that, I am more than happy to do that. Let Hansard show that I did what he requested.

WESTCONNEX MOTORWAY

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

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am pleased to report that good progress has been made since we announced the project in October 2012. Friends and colleagues across the Chamber are invited to a briefing at 5.15 p.m. this afternoon in the Jubilee Room. We consider this to be an important project for the State and one that we should all be behind. That is why we are happy to invite friends, colleagues and the Hon. Amanda Fazio to attend. The New South Wales Government has committed $1.8 billion to the WestConnex project. Let us be clear: We intend to build this project. We are getting on with the job and creating opportunities for urban renewal and public transport improvements.

The Sydney Motorways Project Office has appointed nationally and globally recognised firms from across the public and private sectors to help develop the business case on options for how best we can deliver this important infrastructure. The business case team includes experts in the areas of traffic modelling, finance, economics, legal services, and infrastructure development. These are well-known and respected companies including Cintra, Ferrovial Agroman from Spain, Bouygues from France, and Australian companies including Leighton Contractors, Thiess and Baulderstone, and other leading luminaries in the road building space.

Ernst and Young will carry out economic modelling and Macquarie Bank will scope financing options. SKM has been appointed to develop traffic modelling, which will be used for infrastructure development and toll revenue forecasts. This is a $10 billion to $13 billion project. We want to ensure the business case is robust in order to deliver a technically and financially viable solution for WestConnex. So far the Federal Labor Government has committed $25 million to planning for the project—and we thank it for that.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: A 30 per cent contingency.

The Hon. Walt Secord: Ten to 13. What is $3 billion between friends, hey, Duncan? 17924 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, it is a $10 billion project and that is the normal contingency. It was in there when it was released, if you had actually read the document. The Federal Government, with our support, has also put forward the Secretary of the Federal Department of Transport as a member of the WestConnex steering group. We are confident that involving the Federal Labor Government and its officials in the development of the business case at this early stage will facilitate a substantial commitment of Commonwealth funding for this essential project.

I note from an earlier debate about the Pacific Highway that Steve Whan said he was willing to lobby his Federal Labor colleagues for more funding for New South Wales roads. I graciously accept his offer and ask him to join us today in calling on the Prime Minister and Anthony Albanese to match the $1.8 billion of New South Wales funding to WestConnex. Tony Abbott and the Federal Coalition have come on board, so once again members opposite are behind. The shadow Minister for Transport is defending the Federal Government for not putting money into roads in Western Sydney. Shame on you, Penny Sharpe, for not supporting putting money into Western Sydney.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister's time has expired. Does the Hon. Penny Sharpe still wish to take her point of order?

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: No.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The time for questions has expired. If members have further questions they should put them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate on committee reports proceeded with.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CRONULLA FISHERIES RESEARCH CENTRE

Report: Closure of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence

Debate resumed from 19 February 2013.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [5.03 p.m.]: I was The Greens member on the Select Committee on the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre. It was an extraordinary committee to be a part of because we were inquiring into the appalling decision made by the Government. We looked into all of the reasons behind the decision, including the behaviour of the Government, the Minister and the director general. I will address that in more detail later. First, I thank all the members of the committee. We worked well together; it was hard not to given we were dealing with such an appalling decision. I thank Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who chaired the committee in a manner that was respectful to the centre's staff and had regard to what they had been through. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is often our opponent, but on this issue we had many similar views, particularly about the treatment of the staff. I also thank the members of the secretariat who, as usual, did incredibly good work.

From the start of the inquiry we were faced with the difficulty of not quite knowing where the decision had stemmed from to close a fisheries research centre of excellence that is world renowned and staffed by so many well-respected, first-class scientists, some of whom had worked for the centre for decades and whose value to the State and to fisheries science is irreplaceable. We never found out from where in the Government the request had stemmed. That is extraordinary. Despite repeated questions to the Minister and then the director general, after we were told by the Minister that we would have to ask him, we never found out who made the original decision. The Minister said that the director general came to her about the decision. The director general said, "There is a brief on file dated May 2011. That brief was presented to me and I certainly read that brief." When asked by the chair where that brief came from the director general of the department, Richard Sheldrake, said, "That would have been generated from within the department." When he was asked if it came from a particular section, the director general gave a waffly answer that did not respond to the question.

The parliamentary inquiry had been established to examine a decision to permanently close a world-renowned fisheries research centre of excellence which impacted on 150 public servants, and we did not 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17925

get answers from the Minister or the director general. The final report contains a comment that the decision was made in contravention of key government policies. It was also acknowledged that the failure to undertake a cost-benefit analysis prior to closing the centre was a fundamental flaw in the decision-making process. We did not know where the decision stemmed from and we could not obtain a cost-benefit analysis, which is surely a fundamental requirement within government departments when a decision such as this is made.

The committee members, in our search for answers, asked for a cost-benefit analysis. In the end, the Minister and the Director General of the Department of Trade and Investment, Mark Paterson, treated the inquiry with contempt by tabling at the last minute what they said was a cost-benefit analysis. We questioned where it came from and they said it had been finished that morning. It was three pages long. The committee found that the cost-benefit analysis was rushed and unprofessional and it had been created only for the purpose of forestalling the anticipated line of questioning at the committee's hearing. The head of Trade and Investment, a government department, and the Minister were behaving as though they were part of a student union. I do not wish to belittle student unions and some of the work they did, but I was in student politics and saw some of the appalling behaviour. I felt like I was back there.

Dr John Kaye: She is not from the Liberals.

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: The Minister represents The Nationals. It was extraordinary to encounter their behaviour as well as their treatment of 150 professional hardworking public servants. I had numerous conversations with the staff concerned and they spoke of feeling bewildered at the way they were treated. They have dedicated their working lives to giving back to the community. Everyone who worked for this centre of excellence did so because they were passionate about the work they were doing. They wanted to provide a service to the community. They revealed to me in some of our conversations that they wanted to ensure the viability of our fish stocks for the future. They wanted to ensure that their work was for the good of future generations and for the good of the people of New South Wales. They have worked very hard and in a very dedicated manner for their whole working life, yet suddenly they were treated in a manner similar to the way in which the committee was treated, only worse: they were treated with contempt by a very new government of the day.

Although the Minister for Primary Industries appeared at the inquiry, the committee never found out where the decision stemmed from. Despite the fact that a parliamentary inquiry asked where the decision came from, the Minister appeared before us and said only that she had made a decision. The staff of the centre told the committee about the decision and about its impacts on their lives. The Government's response virtually disregarded the committee's recommendations, but one good thing came out of holding the inquiry: Members of the committee were able to hear directly from the staff affected. The staff told the committee that finally they felt they were being heard and finally they felt that they had a voice within parliamentary and government processes. Up to that stage, they had been ignored and their views had been pretty much trampled. The committee held a public forum at which each staff member was allowed to speak for five minutes to tell the committee about how the decision impacted on their lives. That was an incredibly moving experience for all members of the committee.

Staff of the centre were in tears when they told the committee that they could not relocate. Some told the committee they had set up their entire lives in the Sutherland shire. They thought they would be there forever because the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence would be there forever. One of the main reasons for the decision that the Government continued to advance after much questioning was decentralisation. That is absolute rubbish. Of the 150 staff originally located at the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence, the latest statistics show that 79 are still in the public service and 71 have resigned or retired with payouts—and many of those were extremely valuable if not irreplaceable public servants—and that of the 79 who are still employed only 23 have moved to regional New South Wales. Twenty-three staff out of 150 is approximately 15 per cent of the centre's workforce.

Since the time allotted for my speech is short, I conclude my remarks by dealing with the loss to fisheries science that will result from the closure of the centre. This year will see a king hit on fisheries science. The essential status of fisheries resources in New South Wales is documented in a biennial report. The last report, entitled "Status of Fisheries Resources in New South Wales 2008/09", was released in February 2011. The "Status of Fisheries Resources in New South Wales 2010/11" should have been released by now, but the committee was told that work has not even commenced on that document. We will see, beginning with the loss of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence, a complete gutting of fisheries science in this State. 17926 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

I suspect that has been the reason all along that the Minister for Primary Industries wanted the centre to be closed. It is an absolutely disgraceful decision. I commend the committee's report to the House—a very good report on a terrible decision.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR [5.13 p.m.]: I wish to discuss the Select Committee on the Cronulla Research Fisheries Centre report as a participating member of the inquiry. I will pick up on some of the comments made by the member who preceded me in this debate, the Hon. Cate Faehrmann. The Government made it clear in the 2011 election campaign that as an election commitment the Coalition would have a Decade of Decentralisation. The relocation of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence is just one piece of that election commitment being fulfilled.

Throughout the inquiry that fact was lost on some members of the committee, but it is a point I wish to amplify during my speech, along with some other points I will make relating to the committee's report. Although the inquiry provided an opportunity for a number of stakeholders to express their views on the relocation of some of the staff to a number of areas throughout New South Wales, it failed to adequately provide an opportunity for representatives of the commercial fishing industry to give evidence and submit arguments. Given the size and economic importance of the industry, together with the fact that that sector represents one of the largest beneficiaries of decentralisation, the inquiry and the report would have been better balanced if their views had been given more weight in the final report.

The Minister for Primary Industries has drawn criticism from some members who are opposed to decentralisation for her decision to inform the staff at the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence of decentralisation before completion of the cost-benefit analysis. The Hon. Cate Faehrmann referred to that during her contribution. At every stage throughout the inquiry the Minister was very clear about the decision-making process.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Oh, come on! He is defending the Minister.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I let the Hon. Cate Faehrmann have a free run, so she should allow me to have a free run as well. I sat nice and quietly during her speech.

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, can you reel in the Hon. Cate Faehrmann? I cannot hear the Hon. Niall Blair.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! I suspect that the member's point of order relates to interjections. I uphold the point of order. I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times. Members will allow the Hon. Niall Blair to be heard in silence.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: As I was saying, the Minister made it quite clear during her evidence that as soon as the decision was made to decentralise the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence the staff were informed immediately to ensure that they had ample time to plan with their families for their future. Having made that point, I hasten to add that I do not wish to understate the distress that decentralisation of this nature may have on some families, and that was at the forefront of the Minister's mind when she decided to inform staff of the decision prior to releasing the cost-benefit analysis. We know that a cost-benefit analysis showing a net benefit was provided to the committee during the inquiry.

Dr John Kaye: When was it written?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: It had the most up-to-date information. It was a very conservative analysis that did not take into consideration the regional benefits to the host communities nor any benefits to the Cronulla community as a result of the site being used for public benefit. Amendments to the report to reflect that fact were moved by Government members during the deliberative process, but the amendments were unsuccessful. It is important to point out that the most up-to-date information reveals that up to 30 jobs have been created in Nowra, up to 20 additional jobs have been created in Port Stephens, 20 jobs have been created in Coffs Harbour, and five jobs have been created in Wollongong. The significance of those additional jobs to the communities I have mentioned is not truly reflected in the cost-benefit analysis because of its conservative nature. That is another factor that has been lost on some members of this House.

We know that recreational and Indigenous fisheries management is now located in Nowra; commercial fisheries and resource management will be in Coffs Harbour; aquaculture and scientific wild fisheries research 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17927

and the fisheries libraries will be in Port Stephens; and the marine conservation and research section will be located in Wollongong. The comments that have been made in relation to the Minister's approach to the inquiry were not in the brief of the committee. I think they were out of place in the final report.

The commercial fisheries industry, which contributes more than $90 million per annum and provides for over 4,000 jobs across the State, has long argued the need for NSW Fisheries scientists to be located closer to its fishermen, predominantly on the North Coast of New South Wales. Part of this decentralisation acts on some of the industry's suggestions. The functions performed at Coffs Harbour include commercial fisheries management, recreational fisheries management, fisheries research, fisheries business services, the coordination of commercial catch records, fisheries compliance and marine parks management. Fisheries positions have been relocated to Coffs Harbour jetty and the National Marine Science Centre, which is located at the Southern Cross University Coffs Harbour campus.

The committee visited the facility at Port Stephens. I do not think anyone could walk away from that facility without being impressed by its operations and the fantastic work undertaken by the scientists at the Port Stephens Fisheries Institute. The $1 million upgrade to those facilities is now complete. Laboratory extensions have been finished and the upgrade of aquaria is scheduled to be completed this year. The inquiry had an opportunity to make recommendations as to how the process for decentralisation could be improved and how lessons learnt from this process could be passed on to other departments.

Unfortunately, after looking at this issue, the inquiry came up with a number of recommendations that I believe did nothing more than add to the angst of staff. In saying that, I do not detract from the concerns of the staff. Like other committee members, I listened to staff members and I fully appreciate that this type of change in people's lives can be distressing. But I also believe that we can look favourably on decentralisation. Other communities will benefit greatly from these jobs. The committee had the opportunity to look at whether the process could be refined so that when departments are identified for decentralisation in future any concerns, whether real or based on fear of change, can be adequately addressed.

The future for NSW Fisheries is bright. The facilities in Nowra, Coffs Harbour, Port Stephens and Wollongong are more than adequate to take research and fisheries management into the future to well serve the State. Our fisheries are a significant contributor to the New South Wales economy. We must think outside the box to see how we can expand and get the most out of them. With decentralisation, the research and other work that has been undertaken for many years will continue and will ensure the viability of our fisheries sector in New South Wales.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH [5.23 p.m.]: I speak in the debate on the report on the closure of the Cronulla fisheries research facility. From the outset, I thank Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for his chairmanship of the committee. I would suggest it was difficult at times to chair this committee. The conduct of committee members on this inquiry was elucidating. We had our moments; at times we were not at our best. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile guided us through the process with aplomb. I draw on the honourable member's comments when he tabled the report, and we must take heed of his remarks. He said that in his time in this Parliament the decision to close the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre ranked as one of the worst decisions made by a Minister. The report highlights just how appalling the decision was.

I thank my fellow committee members. I especially thank the secretariat because at times the committee was not as nice as others on which I have worked. I thank Hansard for the wonderful work they did, as usual. I thank those who took the time to write and lodge submissions for the consideration of the committee. I particularly thank the people who attended in person to provide testimony and also those who attended the public forum. How one could not have a tear in one's eye after listening to the statements in that public forum I do not know. People's lives have been devastated because of this decision. Families have suffered greatly because of the decision to close this internationally acclaimed research facility.

As I said earlier, I share the chair's indignation at the Minister's contempt for the work of the committee. The Minister, when asked by the chair whether she would take notice of the committee's report, said point-blank it was all too late. That is an appalling way for a Minister of the Crown to treat a select committee of the Legislative Council. It is appropriate that comments about the Minister's performance were noted in the report in order to highlight the contempt she had for the processes of the committee and this Chamber.

The committee's visit to the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre, where we looked at the buildings and archaeological aspects of the site, was a valuable exercise. The informal conversations I had with staff members 17928 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

at the facility really hit home. They openly cried when they conveyed their concerns about the closure of the facility and the way they felt they had been treated. We heard emotional stories about the impacts on people's lives; they said their personal circumstances had not been taken into consideration.

I cannot understand how a Minister of the Crown could not take on board the written submissions and testimony of individuals that were before the committee. Clearly, the Minister did not want to acknowledge the operations of the committee. I found the Minister's attitude towards the committee galling. One sentence conveys my view on the decision to close the centre: This was a terrible decision. We have heard from other members about the cost-benefit analysis. A one-page A4-size document was thrust upon the committee during the hearing. A first-year accountancy student could have done better. The document states that we will have to wait 20 years to see the cost benefit to the State. It did not include redundancy payments; it was a flawed document. How the director general could allow it to be presented to a committee beggars belief.

The Government is committed to a Decade of Decentralisation, which, we were told, was the thrust of the decision. The committee tried to discover, through questioning, who asked for the initial report on the closure of this facility. We could not get to the bottom of it. It was not the Minister; it was not an officer of the department. How it was generated no-one knows. But it was generated and the decision was made. A decentralisation task force from the Legislative Assembly is now traipsing around the State trying to work out how to put into effect a Decade of Decentralisation. Our committee was told the Government had a policy of a Decade of Decentralisation. Yet two years into this Government a lower House committee is running around the State trying to determine how to implement the Decade of Decentralisation. Recommendation 13 of the committee's report states:

That the NSW Government develop a comprehensive policy document defining its "Decade of Decentralisation" policy, setting out its principles, objective and measures of success and that any relocation plans for the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence, or any other agency or site, be assessed against this policy …

The Government's response to the committee's report states:

The Government supports this recommendation.

The NSW Government is committed to the Decade of Decentralisation policy and will further articulate the policy in the coming months.

We are still waiting. We do not know what that policy will be. The Government continues to tell us that decisions are being made under the guise of the Decade of Decentralisation. The previous speaker spoke about the jobs relocated to Nowra. In this instance that is excellent because the very next decision under the Decade of Decentralisation was to move 25 jobs from Nowra to Grafton to compensate for the closure of the Grafton facility. How is that consistent? Government members say, "Let's applaud the decision to relocate 30 jobs from Cronulla Fisheries to Nowra, but don't tell anyone that we're going to take 25 jobs away and send them to Grafton to compensate for job losses up there." The Decade of Decentralisation has no policy. It was a thought bubble at the last State election. No Government member can hang their hat on that decision with pride.

The Hon. Niall Blair made some dissenting comments, which are contained in appendix 11 to the report, "Dissenting Statement Mr Niall Blair, The Nationals". This committee also had two Liberal Party members and their names are not attached to the dissenting report. Niall raises concern about the highly emotive language used throughout the report. How could it not be highly emotive when the decision of the Minister was seriously flawed? If the decision was supposed to be part of the Decade of Decentralisation and a process is meant to be developed on how these decisions are made, this decision about Cronulla Fisheries is a perfect example of how not to conduct decentralisation in this State. Government members must find it difficult to acknowledge this report because the decision was wrong from the start. The Minister followed a flawed process. People's lives have been thrown into turmoil. The Government has married couples travelling in different directions under the guise of decentralisation. And let us not forget where some of those decentralised jobs from Cronulla are going.

Dr John Kaye: Mosman.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: Mosman! How good is that for decentralisation! This is an appalling Government decision and all Government members should hang their heads in shame. Let us hope some lessons are learned from this decision, but I see similarities in the conduct of the inquiry by the Select Committee on the Closure or Downsizing of Corrective Services NSW Facilities. I will not pre-empt the direction of that committee. All I will say is that this report and inquiry is an example of how not to do it. All Government 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17929

members should be ashamed of how this decision was carried out. All Government members carry ownership of the decision. It was not just the Minister's decision; all Government members own the decision. They should be ashamed. It is a disgraceful decision. Let us hope many lessons have been learnt by many people. [Time expired.]

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.33 p.m.]: I echo the excellent remarks of my colleague the Hon. Cate Faehrmann on the report of the select committee about the closure of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence. I congratulate Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Hon. Cate Faehrmann and the other committee members, as well as the committee staff, on producing a truly excellent report. This report reads like a real whodunnit. Clearly this committee did what committees do best: it tried to get to the bottom of a dirty deed, a bad policy outcome, a stupid and dangerous decision and along the way exposed a number of reasons, each of which was completely persuasive for not closing down the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence. Clearly from the outset this was a political decision and not one that was best for fisheries, science, the public sector or for the welfare of the people of New South Wales. We start with the case of the missing memo. Sometime in May 2011 the Minister was briefed. No memo was ever found and nobody was ever able to say from where it came. However, from that point it appears that the department and the Minister were hell-bent on destroying one of Australia's leading centres of excellence in fisheries research.

This centre of excellence married an understanding of the environment and the economics of producing an important and healthy source of protein and a key source of omega 3 fatty acids for the people of New South Wales to the need to sustainably manage fisheries and recreational fishing. From nowhere came the sudden decision to close the centre, without the Minister or her director general ever explaining why. The fascinating case of the cost-benefit analysis then followed, and this appears to have been undertaken in the days leading up to 10 September 2012. Only after the committee demanded the Minister produce a cost-benefit analysis was one written. The Hon. Niall Blair, who, unfortunately, is no longer present in the Chamber, and for whom I have much time, said, in a sense of somewhat irony I suspect, that the cost-benefit analysis was full of up-to-date information. It was so up to date that when it was tabled before the committee the ink was not dry.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: It was still hot from the printer.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am old-fashioned, but the Hon. Mick Veitch is quite right, it was still hot from the photocopier. This cost-benefit analysis was produced in a rush. It reminded me of my student days when I needed to write an assignment the night before it was due to be submitted, taking the old No Doz and producing any old information just to keep myself above a fail grade. The Minister did exactly that, except she and her department did not take enough No Doz. They did not get above a fail grade because they presented an appalling document. I hope that Treasurer Mike Baird, a man of relatively high standards on these matters, gave her the dressing-down she deserved for producing an insult to the concept of cost-benefit analyses. Director General Dr Peter Sheldrake compounded the crime by saying, "Well, we couldn't do a cost-benefit analysis because the benefits were too far off into the future."

Dr Sheldrake has just written the epitaph on 200 years of economics. He said, "You can't do cost-benefit analysis if the benefits are off into the future." What utter comprehensive and total nonsense. Has the good Dr Sheldrake never heard of discount factors? Has he never heard of factoring uncertainty into cost-benefit analyses? I suspect he has. I suspect that the problem is that the Minister twisted Dr Sheldrake's arm and forced him to make an embarrassingly stupid remark to the committee. No attempt was made to even factor in redundancy payments that would necessarily result from closing down Cronulla Fisheries. The process was a complete and total abrogation of the Government's commitment to running the State for the benefit of the people of New South Wales.

The committee was told the Decade of Decentralisation was a policy. I admire the committee members for holding their poker faces and not bursting out laughing. Clearly, only a media release was presented to the committee as a policy. Smashing up some of the State's most important institutions to scatter them to the winds is not policy. Decentralisation plays an important part for regional development and in solving the overcrowding problems of the city. But it does not play a role when only 23 of the 150 jobs of the supposed decentralisation went to regional New South Wales. The SIMS facility in Mosman was one place where the so-called decentralisation occurred. The last time I visited that facility I do not believe it was in regional New South Wales. It is a lovely heritage-based institution that does fantastic work and is no more regional New South Wales than where I live.

The disgraceful way the staff, community and other stakeholders were treated was comprehensively exposed by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile in the report. I congratulate the committee on doing so. We know that 17930 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

no appropriate consultation was carried out because if it had been done the Government would have heard the howls from the international scientific community, which said subsequently, "For goodness sake, do not destroy this important facility." That facility contributes to the welfare of New South Wales and Australia and to the body of knowledge about marine science around the world. It is a scientific endeavour that is crucial to warding off starvation and protecting our oceans as an economic and ecological resource over the next two to three decades.

There is also the issue of the devastation that was wrought upon the staff. Without proper consultation or any attempt to implement the O'Farrell Government's change of management strategies and policies the staff were told, "That is it folks. You have to go this way or that way or leave the service, regardless of whether you have roots in Cronulla and regardless of the quality of work and commitment you have shown to the people of New South Wales through your scientific endeavours. You have to go and your research facilities are going to be broken up and your capacity to collaborate with your colleagues is going to be brought to nought."

What is the real reason behind this? There was speculation by people who gave evidence to the committee. One contributor was the Professional Fishermen's Association in Coffs Harbour. It is cranky about catch limits being imposed on its members and is out to seek revenge. That may or may not be so but the reality is that bag and catch limits are central and essential to protecting our fisheries. We know what happens when fisheries are overexploited. One example is the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, where the tuna population has never recovered. You can see what happens to fishery after fishery around the world when it is not managed appropriately. If members of the Coffs Harbour Professional Fishermen's Association are offended by the catch limits I ask them to talk to their children and grandchildren and ask them if they want to be able to fish. If they do we need the Cronulla facility and we need it to speak out fearlessly and justly and say, "Sometimes we need to back off on the exploitation of fisheries."

I will finish on the following point, and that is recommendation one: reverse the decision. The Government has to show some courage here. It has to reverse the decision not just because it was poorly arrived at but because this is the twenty-first century. The twenty-first century is, as we predicted throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when we would hit the environmental limits and ecological constraints that proved what we were doing pushed species, fisheries, ecologies and ecosystems to the edge of existence. Without quality science humanity will cross that line and reach levels of exploitation of fisheries from which they will never recover. This attack on the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence is an attack on science and an attack on evidence-based reasoning and decision-making. Government must make those decisions for the benefit of the common person, our economy and our ecology. The attack on the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence has to be reversed. I commend the committee for its report.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [5.43 p.m.]: I was not a member of the Select Committee on the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre but a response is needed to some of the conspiracy theories and the personal denigration of the Minister and public servants. The issue should be put into context. I ask members opposite to reflect on where this State was in 2011-12. It was in a terrible situation. The budget was a basket case and the Government had been left with an unsustainable situation. The State's expenses were running at double the rate of inflation and New South Wales was about to lose its triple-A credit rating, which would have increased the cost of borrowings.

This Minister, like all Government Ministers, was faced with some difficult decisions. New South Wales public servants were asked to manage the budget into a situation where the State could live within its means. I know that is a foreign concept for those opposite, as illustrated by 16 years of financial mismanagement. This Minister was responsible and looked at where immediate and future savings could be made. If the Government is to provide the essential services that the Opposition is so keen on, if it is to get borrowings down to ensure New South Wales is not in a situation similar to Europe—where the economy collapses in a cloud of dust, where there is rioting because basic services are not available and where future generations have no hope of getting the services we have enjoyed—difficult decisions have to be made.

I commend the Ministers and the public servants who look across all of their portfolios and make these difficult decisions. They are cognisant of the cost on public servants, but New South Wales employs the highest number of public servants in the country. Those opposite make frivolous statements such as: This is sustainable forever. This is okay.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: What the member is talking about is clearly not Cronulla Fisheries. He must be talking about something else. It is not related. 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17931

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

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: The relevance is the affordability of government services. I understand that is a foreign concept to The Greens. This clearly differentiates the Government from those opposite. They find it is easy to look for conspiracy theories and to personally denigrate the Minister and public servants. The Coalition Government has had two years to bring the budget and its portfolios to a sustainable, viable condition. The Premier was vocal prior to the election as to the Government mandate to live within our means and I support the Minister and her decisions to achieve that electoral promise.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [5.46 p.m.]: The previous speaker in the debate said that the decision to close the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence was about savings for New South Wales. I would like to enlighten him as to the reality: It cost $170,000 per person to move the staff from the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence. We do not know of any savings, because the committee could not be told what the redundancy packages for staff would be. It is costing money to move people away. The argument that this was a budgetary decision is blown out of the water completely by the evidence presented by the Government to the committee. The Government could not show in any way that this was a budget saving and it is a fallacy for the member to argue that in some way this decision was based on budget savings.

As to the member's comment with regard to New South Wales being the largest employer of public servants—in case the member missed it—New South Wales is the largest State in Australia and we have one third of the nation's population. In case the member has also missed this fact, State government delivers services to the people of New South Wales. Public servants are the people that deliver education, health, public transport and policing. If the member is arguing that somehow the State should not be delivering those services then his argument is valid. If you are the largest State, you have one third of the nation's population and you are the largest part of the national economy there is a big chance that you have the largest public service.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.48 p.m.], in reply: I thank all the committee members who have made valuable contributions to the debate: the Hon. Steve Whan, the Hon. Marie Ficarra, the Hon. Cate Faehrmann, the Hon. Niall Blair and the Hon. Mick Veitch. I also thank the Hon. Lynda Voltz, Dr John Kaye and the Hon. Scot MacDonald for their contributions to the debate. I thank the members of the committee for their participation in the inquiry. The Hon. David Clarke is absent as he is on a study tour in Korea. He sends his apologies.

I thank the Cronulla Fisheries staff for their cooperation with the committee. I do not believe I have been part of a committee inquiry that has had such support from the staff. They went to the nth degree to assist us with information. Obviously, it is very difficult for staff to be frank in giving information to the committee because they are putting their jobs on the line: they know they will be targeted in the future. I thank them for their courage in speaking up loudly and clearly at our forum and assisting in other ways with information as they appeared as witnesses.

This was a sad inquiry because the committee was dealing with staff who were going through tremendous emotional upheaval. There were many tears from staff members both at the forum that formed part of the committee's inquiry and when we visited the centre a number of times and met them. You feel so helpless when they are asking, "Why does this have to happen?" in the hope that by talking to us we will, by some magical trick, be able to stop this centre closing. You feel helpless in the face of what was clearly a Government policy that had been devised in some back room.

We never found out who made the decision, or where it came from, or the basis of it. My suspicion is that it is planned that that very valuable peninsula will be developed at some stage. I hope I am wrong. However, I found that to be the case during a committee inquiry into the closure of the Hunters Hill High School. The committee persevered, using freedom of information requests and other means, in obtaining documents. Amongst those documents we found plans for two-storey luxury units on that school site. We have not found plans for luxury units on the Cronulla Fisheries site, and I hope my fears will not be realised at some future time.

I believe the whole argument about decentralisation was a red herring. I called it not a policy of decentralisation but a policy of destruction. It seemed that powerful bureaucrats were hell-bent on destroying the Cronulla Fisheries Centre of Excellence: come what may it was going to be destroyed. Even as I speak that spirit of destruction is still operating. Even now I am getting emails from staff who are still on the site saying 17932 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

they are being ordered to destroy the marine aquarium. You think, "What is the purpose of this?" A heritage body is to be set up to make decisions about the future of the site. It is as if they want to bulldoze the site, leaving just the rocks and no evidence of what was an elite fisheries centre at that location.

I have had a number of emails from David Barker, aquarium technician, Wild Fisheries Program, Industry and Investment NSW. It is hard to believe the orders he is getting from various bureaucrats to destroy the facilities at Cronulla. He has convinced me, and I believe it is true, that if the facilities were preserved—as I hope they will be—this could be a financially viable proposition. The Cronulla Marine Research Facility has produced a business plan that is far better than the scrappy bit of paper that was handed to the committee. I have with me the plan that the facility has produced to show that the centre could still be operated at a profit. I have sent these documents to the Premier and Deputy Premier, and I hope they will give that plan serious consideration.

This was a very sad inquiry. Other members of the committee have already referred to the so-called cost-benefit analysis. It was not an economic appraisal; government officials or public servants who handled it themselves did not carry out the instructions laid down in New South Wales government guidelines. Those guidelines set out how cost-benefit analyses are to be undertaken, and that was not done in this instance. Given the absence of any economic appraisal, the only valuable material about this site is contained in our report. We have put all the facts and figures in our report. They were not supplied by the Minister.

Our main recommendation was to reverse the decision to close the Cronulla Fisheries centre. I still believe that recommendation should have been followed. The Government is now losing the expertise and risking the ability of the State to comply with its legislated responsibility to maintain sustainable fisheries. This decision will have a long-term effect on fisheries in New South Wales. I believe the Government probably has regretted its decision already; it will certainly regret it in the future. No explanation has been given for how it would be possible for the Government to replace the unique wild fisheries expertise that will be lost due to the closure of Cronulla Fisheries.

The majority of wild fisheries scientists on the current program to monitor the status of fisheries resources have left or will leave the department following the closure of the Cronulla centre. This science-based program will be greatly weakened by these losses. Such losses will threaten the department's ability to manage the commercial and recreational fishing resources of New South Wales now and for many years into the future. The Government claims that this problem will be solved through knowledge transfer. Yet our inquiry found that there had already been serious losses of expertise, with little or no knowledge transfer. The Government has decimated the ability of NSW Fisheries to make evidence-based decisions, which were being backed by world-class scientific research.

The inquiry found that one of the most concentrated recreational fishing regions in the world is based in New South Wales. The recreational fishing industry has been valued at 10 times what the commercial fishing industry is worth, and yet the impact on recreational fishing of the Cronulla closure is not discussed in the Government's response. It has ignored this $1 billion per annum industry in favour of the dubious claims contained in the response. Also, we know there has not been any decentralisation because staff are being shifted to Newington, which is in Sydney, and to the Sydney Institute of Marine Science [SIMS] in Mosman. We know that money had to be spent on developing those and other sites at Coffs Harbour, Wollongong and Port Stephens. In addition, the institute at Mosman will charge the department rent. Instead of the department owning a rent-free site it will now have to pay large rentals to the universities that control the Mosman site.

Even now I hope someone has the courage to do a cost-benefit analysis. I would like to know the cost to the State of the Cronulla Fisheries closure, and what can be done to reverse the decision. I am always an optimist. I hope the Government, even now, will think again about the destruction of Cronulla Fisheries. I believe the Government has been led into this situation by certain departmental bureaucrats. Perhaps those bureaucrats had some sort of prejudice against the Cronulla staff. In any event, they did not show much care in their treatment of the Cronulla staff. Maybe the staff had been carrying out their work in such a professional way that they came to be regarded as independent by the Government. I hope, even today, that the Government will reverse its decision. [Time expired.]

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

Motion agreed to. 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17933

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE VALUER-GENERAL

Report: Report on the Eighth General Meeting with the Valuer-General

Debate resumed from 19 February 2013.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [5.59 p.m.]: I continue my contribution to discussion on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Office of the Valuer-General. In my previous contribution I highlighted the point that climate change is a new issue that the Valuer-General's office should take into account in assessing the value of land. I noted that many people live on properties that are still being valued in the millions of dollars but that cannot be built on because of the restrictions of development applications as a result of climate change and lines that have been drawn on maps, which now sterilise those properties because councils have to make predictions. The climate change issue is only one illustration of how the Valuer-General gets it wrong. If obvious factors such as that are not taken into consideration, people—many pensioners, in particular—suffer financial and emotional distress.

I will now refer to the report entitled, "Report on the Eighth General Meeting with the Valuer-General". I concur with other members: The list of findings is quite disturbing. Clearly, this is an area which involves renewal, repair and, quite frankly, a need for increased levels of competence. I also agree with the recommendations of the report. In view of the time constraints, I will not refer to the recommendations. We cannot muck around with these concerns; these issues need to be resolved as soon as possible so that the people of New South Wales can sort out their business affairs as quickly as possible where the Office of the Valuer-General is concerned.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [6.01 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox and the Hon. Paul Green for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the chair of the committee, Mr Matt Kean, and the other committee members: Mrs Leslie Williams—I just cannot think of the others—the Hon. Eric Roozendaal—

Dr John Kaye: How could you forget Eric?

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: How could I forget Eric? I haven't forgotten other people, such as Clayton Barr. I thank the committee staff. There was a change in committee staff, but we are ready to go forward with the next step. I commend the report to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS

Report: Inquiry into Administrative Funding for Minor Parties

Debate resumed from 15 November 2012.

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [6.02 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters entitled, "Inquiry into Administrative Funding for Minor Parties". The committee was established on 13 June 2012 and was asked to look into and report upon matters relating to the administrative funding for minor parties. At the outset, I wish to thank our committee chair, Mr Jai Rowell, the member for Wollondilly, for his management of the committee. I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their diligence in the work of this inquiry. I also thank the committee secretariat for its assistance and professionalism in the preparation of the report.

In what was a relatively short and sharp inquiry, the committee was asked to look into and report upon matters relating to the administrative funding for minor parties and to ascertain whether the annual amount distributed from the Administration Fund to eligible minor parties remains appropriate. The Administration Fund, which is governed by section 97E of the Act, provides funding to parties in circumstances where those parties would otherwise attract fewer political donations but would still require funds to operate. The purpose of the Administration Fund is to alleviate the additional burden that minor parties have faced because of changes 17934 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

made to the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 under the previous Labor Government and, in particular, as a result of the 2012 amendments to the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Act by this Government.

For a number of years now the public has been concerned about undue influence being exerted upon political parties through donations. As a result, the previous Government amended the Act to knock out property developers because they were seen to be part of the problem. Unfortunately, many of the changes that have been made since represent nothing more than political opportunism and a desire by some members to make historic changes to the way in which we do our political business. I do not believe that the voters of this State wanted to make historic changes; they simply wanted the rorts to stop.

In several submissions to various inquiries relating to electoral reform, the Shooters and Fishers Party has been consistent in its position. It has fervently argued, to no avail, that a ban or a cap on political donations will undermine the strength of our democratic processes, will result in every political party having to be more reliant on the public purse and, in the case of minor parties, will drastically increase the administrative costs associated with compliance and processing requirements as a result of the recent changes to the Act. Administrative expenditure items are necessary, regardless of the size of the political party, and while the two major parties can spread their resources and expenditure across dozens of members, the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Christian Democratic Party, for example, do not have this luxury at their disposal. It undermines the fairness and integrity of representative government and the ability of minor parties to perform their functions and give expression to their constituents politically. Minor parties should not be spending their members' resources on ever-increasing compliance costs and bureaucracy.

The committee took evidence concerning the onerous impact the 2011 amendments had on minor parties in New South Wales. It received two submissions from the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Christian Democratic Party and held a public hearing on 24 August 2012, at which it heard evidence from five minor political parties. I thank all the witnesses who took the time to attend the inquiry and for the information they provided. The report comprises two chapters and contains four recommendations based on a consensus among committee members that it was never the intention to adversely impact on minor political parties through any preceding amendments to the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981.

Recommendation No. 1 recommends that should a funding model be introduced with respect to minor parties, the term "minor party" should be defined. Recommendation No. 2 recommends that ongoing access to the Administration Fund should be maintained to ensure the strength of the democratic process in New South Wales. Recommendation No. 3 recommends that the Government review the frequency and time lines of the reimbursement payments from the Administration Fund, with a view to ensuring that members and parties are not disadvantaged by undue delays. It recommends that reimbursements be paid quarterly in arrears, with reimbursements paid within one month of receiving the receipts for administration-related expenditure.

Recommendation No. 4 recommends a new funding formula for payments made under the Administration Fund and maintaining the cap of 25 members with respect to the maximum amount payable from the Administration Fund to a party. According to this new funding formula, the first member of a political party or an independent would receive $200,000, the second member of the same political party would receive $150,000, the third member $100,000, and each member thereafter—up until the twenty-fifth member of the same political party—would receive $83,000. Thus, these changes would apply, in effect, to all political parties. Once again, I thank the chair, my parliamentary colleagues and the committee secretariat for their assistance and professionalism during the inquiry. I urge the Government to act on the recommendations as soon as possible. I commend the report to the House.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [6.08 p.m.]: I speak to the inquiry into administrative funding for minor parties. I point out that the money just referred to by the Hon. Robert Borsak does not go to the individual members of the party; it goes to the party. I thank the chair of the committee, Mr Jai Rowell, and the deputy-chair, the Hon. Robert Borsak. I thank the other members of the committee: Mr Andrew Fraser, the Hon. Trevor Khan, Mr Paul Lynch, Mr Darryl Maguire, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, the Hon. Peter Primrose and Mr Gareth Ward.

On 13 June 2012 the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters passed a resolution to conduct an inquiry into the administrative funding for minor parties. The terms of reference for the committee were to inquire into and report upon matters relating to the administrative funding for minor parties and, specifically, the 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17935

annual amount to be distributed from the Administration Fund to eligible minor parties. The committee identified a number of key points in its inquiry. It discussed the definition of "minor party" and noted that there is no statutory definition of "minor party" in New South Wales. The committee found:

It has been observed that minor parties are parties that consistently fail to achieve inclusion in the government of the day. A similar definition of a minor party is that it is any party other than the Labor, Liberal or National (Country) party. An alternative approach is to look at the number of seats a party has in the Parliament.

...

The committee heard evidence from both the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party that a party with four or fewer members of Parliament could be considered a minor party.

These findings are linked to the first recommendation of the committee, which states:

The Committee recommends that, should a funding model be introduced with respect to 'minor parties', that the term 'minor party' be defined.

The commissioner referred to four governing principles of a democratic political finance scheme. These four principles were: the protection of the integrity of representative government; the promotion of fairness in politics; support of parties to perform their functions; and respect for political freedoms. These four principles were reflected in the second recommendation, which states:

The Committee recommends that ongoing access to the Administration Fund should be maintained to ensure the strength of the democratic process in New South Wales.

The inquiry heard that there were costs associated with maintenance of "registered party" status in New South Wales, and it also heard of issues relating to reimbursement and cash flow. This is echoed in the third recommendation, which states:

The Committee recommends that the Government review the frequency and timeliness of the reimbursement payments from the Administration Fund, with a view to ensuring that members and parties are not disadvantaged by undue delays.

The Committee also recommends that reimbursements be paid quarterly in arrears (and subject to annual audit), commencing in 2013, with reimbursements to be paid within one month of receiving the receipts for administration-related expenditure.

At the conclusion of its report the committee discussed the adverse effects the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Amendment Act 2012 had on minor parties. The committee agreed that the current amount of funding available under the Administration Fund is insufficient to enable parties, particularly minor parties, to comply with electoral funding laws and administer the party. The committee proposed a new funding formula, which the Hon. Robert Borsak spoke about earlier. The Christian Democratic Party agrees that to strengthen and ensure the future of democratic process in New South Wales this report is consistent with the ever-increasing administration needs of all parties, not just minor parties.

Dr JOHN KAYE [6.12 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I address the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on its inquiry into administrative funding for minor parties. It must be said from the outset that the inquiry and the report have to be seen in the light of payback to the minor parties represented in this Chamber for their votes on a number of privatisation deals and legislation deals. That payback comes with a $736,000 price tag each year for the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: The member is clearly reflecting badly on members of this Chamber by suggesting that their votes on bills are being bought. That is an outrageous suggestion and one which has been repeatedly ruled out of order by previous Presidents.

Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: I did not name a specific member. If what the Hon. Peter Phelps has said were true half the things that are said about The Greens would be out of order.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: To the point of order: Contrary to Dr John Kaye's comment, he is clearly referring to four members of this House, who are easily identifiable in his remarks. I find it offensive.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! Dr John Kaye was making general statements. However, I suggest that he take care not to offend members in his comments.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The joint standing committee's report comes with a $736,000 bonus to the Christian Democratic Party and a $736,000 bonus to the Shooters and Fishers Party. 17936 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

The Hon. Robert Borsak: What about The Greens?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Indeed, The Greens get an additional $736,000 this year—as do the Liberals, The Nationals and the Labor Party. I wonder what the people of New South Wales think when they read reports such as this and see a collaboration between the Shooters and Fishers Party, the Christian Democratic Party and the Coalition Government to get more money into their coffers while those two parties have consistently supported privatisations and changes to working conditions inside and outside of the public sector. It strikes me that this is a payback document that rewards parties for their support of the Coalition Government. This inquiry was set up on the eve of one of those hotly contested votes. It was interesting to note that the chair of the committee was changed from the Hon. Trevor Khan to Mr Jai Rowell. One can only speculate as to why the chair had to be changed in the middle of this inquiry.

None of the arguments raised in this report are new, but I want to address one in particular. The Shooters and Fishers Party in its written and verbal submission expressed the need for sophisticated software. I appreciate that a spread sheet or a small database would require a degree of sophistication that might go beyond the Shooters and Fishers Party, but I hardly think they need $736,000 over the four-year electoral cycle to implement a simple database when they are already getting $166,000 of funding a year. The representative of the Shooters and Fishers Party, Mr Stephen Larsson, who is also the party's deputy registered officer, spoke about the changes to the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act and said that the changes had created:

… a more deep-seated corruption of a different kind which sees the major political parties now using electoral laws as weapons against one another and against the emergence of new ideas and players in the political game.

Nothing could be truer of the recommendations in this report than recommendation No. 4 in particular. Obviously Mr Larsson deeply lacks a sense of irony, because the specific thing that his party argued for and achieved is precisely a new form of corruption that sees political parties using voting leverage as a way of getting additional money into their coffers. Yes, the changes to the electoral laws in 2010 and 2012 do impose additional burdens on parties. The Greens have been working through those and we have discovered a number of matters, particularly the matter relating to people under the age of 18 who cannot be members.

[Interruption]

Madam Deputy-President, it is awfully difficult to speak with the level of noise in the Chamber.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! Dr John Kaye will be heard in silence.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It strikes The Greens that instead of trying to adjust to the additional burdens, working out how it will all fit and coming back with constructive proposals about how to fix the issues, the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Christian Democratic Party have put their hands straight into the till at a time when every downsizing is a budget measure. Earlier the Hon. Scot MacDonald said that the closure of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence was a budget measure. Suddenly we see an additional $1.472 million over each electoral cycle being handed out to the Shooters and Fishers Party, the Christian Democratic Party, the Coalition parties, the Labor Party and The Greens.

Of course, every political party likes to receive additional funding—it makes life easier—but at a time when the New South Wales Government is sacking more public servants than any other State, when we are cutting $1.6 billion out of the Education budget and dismissing 800 TAFE workers, including teachers, and taking more than $2 billion out of the Health budget, where does this money come from? Why is the payment justified? An examination of the report shows that it is clearly not justified. There is nothing in this tiny little report that justifies that additional expenditure. I quite confidently make the prediction that we will see legislation before the end of the current parliamentary session that will implement the report's recommendations.

This is not so much a parliamentary report as it is a memorandum of understanding between the Coalition Government, the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Christian Democratic Party that simply represents that this is part of the price, together with shooting in national parks, other changes to firearms legislation and being able to, bizarrely, refer to ourselves as senators, that those political parties are extracting from the O'Farrell Government for their votes in this House. This is an appalling and disgraceful document. It ill suits the reputations of those who were members of that committee. I can only imagine the embarrassment of some of the better members of the committee when they see the report and realise what a dirty deal has been done—and not 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17937

dirt cheaply. This dirty deal will cost in excess of $2.5 million as part of the electoral cycle. When they see this dirty deal that has been done, they will be asking themselves, "How did we get ourselves mixed up with this lot?"

I am sure there are members of the Coalition who are embarrassed by this report and who see that this kind of use of the public purse as a pay-off for votes in the upper House as a disgrace, as an embarrassment to their Government and as a black mark not just against the Coalition but against the political process in general. The Greens will be arguing strongly against acceptance of this report. When the legislation comes through, The Greens will argue against it. We may be the only party that stands up against it, but we will say very clearly that this is not the way that a modern sophisticated democracy should behave.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [6.23 p.m.]: I wish to address only a couple of matters that arise from the contribution to this debate made by Dr John Kaye.

[Interruption]

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! The Hon. Trevor Khan will be heard in silence.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Firstly, I was the chair at the commencement of the inquiry, and it was my decision to not remain as chair. My decision coincided with an increase in the committee's membership.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: There was no conspiracy.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: It had nothing to do with the report.

The Hon. Robert Borsak: I didn't knife you.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Not on that occasion, no. That had nothing to do with the inquiry at all. Secondly, I refer to the minutes of the meeting of the committee on 24 October 2012. The members present at that meeting, which dealt with the draft report, were among others the Hon. Amanda Fazio; the member for Coffs Harbour, Mr Andrew Fraser; the member for Liverpool, Mr Paul Lynch; the member for Wagga Wagga, Mr Daryl Maguire; the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps; the Hon. Peter Primrose; and me. At that meeting there were not only members of the Coalition but also members of the Australian Labor Party. The minutes of the report do not show that there was dissent from the recommendations of the report. I raise that because the contribution made by Dr John Kaye proceeds on the basis of a conspiracy perpetrated by members of the Coalition to achieve an outcome.

It would seem that in the circumstances the conspiracy not only has to involve members of the Coalition but also members of the Australian Labor Party. That in itself is proof of the lie in relation to the conspiracy theory. There was ample opportunity for division and for the matter to be debated, and Labor members did not disagree with the recommendations of the report. Submissions made by the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party certainly sought particular outcomes, but they are not the outcomes that are in the report. Their position was different from the report's recommendations. The committee, having heard the evidence, came to its own conclusions, and those conclusions were different from the outcomes sought by the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Christian Democratic Party as well as other submissions. That is a reflection of the independence of the thinking of the committee.

Dr John Kaye: As I say, it is a memorandum of understanding.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Because Dr John Kaye has again made a slur against members of the committee in relation to a memorandum of understanding, I inform the House that that is a lie. There was no such thing. It is a lie and a fabrication to say that the committee was acting under some form of prior agreement. There was no such thing. As members of the committee, we came to our own independent view on the matter.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.28 p.m.]: I join in debate on report 1/55 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters entitled "Inquiry into Administrative Funding for Minor Parties". At the outset I express my concern about the allegations made by Dr John Kaye relating to the conduct of this inquiry. We cannot, on the one hand, demand that a donations culture in the political funding system be abolished and then, on the other hand, squeal like a stuck pig when an inquiry into administrative funding for minor parties devises 17938 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

an agreed format that does not suit the submissions of most parties but reflects an agreed decision by all members present at the deliberative meetings that they regard as satisfactory. We cannot say that we want to ban corporate donations when we are from the party that has the largest individual donation base and also say that we do not agree with the report on administrative funding for minor parties. The simple fact is if we want a clean culture of funding of political campaigns we have to move away from donations, whether from corporations or from wealthy individuals who attempt to buy influence over parties and policy.

The terms of reference of the joint standing committee were to look at matters relating to the administrative funding of minor parties, and specifically the annual amount to be distributed from the Administrative Fund to eligible minor parties. Having worked for the Australian Labor Party for a long time, I can say that the administrative funds we received in the past were difficult to manage and the whole system needed to be reformed. The committee examined this area in detail and came up with a system of reform to the administrative funding for minor parties. Some constructive recommendations were put forward about the method for payment of these amounts. The amount of red tape involved and the delay in cheques and payments to eligible parties was absurd. It was literally a matter of spending tens of thousands—

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

Pursuant to sessional orders debate on budget estimates proceeded with.

BUDGET ESTIMATES AND RELATED PAPERS

Financial Year 2012-13

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.30 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

MARRICKVILLE STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE AWARDS

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.30 p.m.]: It was my great pleasure to attend the Marrickville State Emergency Service members awards on Sunday 24 February 2013, and to represent the Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Barry O'Farrell. Members of this House are no doubt aware that the Premier, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and many members from both Houses have visited natural disaster areas in various parts of the State. We often see on television and in the newspaper the damage and heartache caused by fires and floods; however, to see in person how it affects people is deeply moving.

I was humbled to be in the presence of the Marrickville State Emergency Service workers. These volunteers put themselves in harm's way to assist others. The past week has seen a return of the threat of heavy rain and flood risks to communities in our State, and once again the State Emergency Service is preparing and responding as needed. The State Emergency Service is an emergency and rescue service dedicated to assisting the community. It is made up almost entirely of 10,000 volunteers and is broken up into 17 regions comprising 229 individual units.

The Marrickville State Emergency Service unit is part of the Sydney South region. Other units in the region are Bankstown, Camden, Campbelltown, Canterbury, the City of Sydney, Fairfield, Hurstville, Kogarah, Liverpool, Randwick, Rockdale, Sutherland, Waverley-Woollahra, and Wollondilly. That is 10,000 volunteers wearing 10,000 uniforms that are bright and reflective so that they can be seen in the dangerous conditions in which State Emergency Service volunteers work. They shine as a beacon of hope when everything is going wrong and people feel they are about to face catastrophe. The skills and expertise of State Emergency Service volunteers are so diverse and renowned that it is unsurprising that they attend a wide variety of emergencies. Whether it is storms, floods, bushfires, rescues or searches, the State Emergency Service plays an important and vital role.

Not only are the volunteers of the Marrickville and other State Emergency Service units ready to face these dangers but they are prepared to do it at a moment's notice, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The main 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17939

activity of the Marrickville State Emergency Service unit over the past 12 months has been storm and flood response, with record flooding within the Marrickville local government area and other areas of New South Wales. Since January 2012 the unit has responded to 242 requests for assistance, including a number of out-of-area incidents.

I am pleased to announce that the awards presented to the Marrickville State Emergency Service included the 35-year State Emergency Service Long Service Medal to Peter McIntosh; the 20-year State Emergency Service Long Service Medal to Debbie Burns; the 10-year State Emergency Service Long Service Medal to Alan Hicks; the Controllers Award to Bob Baker and Denise Tolhurst; the Sean O'Malley Award to Steven Porter; the Trainers Choice Award to Dave Denny and Richard Green; the Rookie of the Year Award to Tiri Grafton; the Absent Companion Award to Lorraine May; the Spanner in the Works Award to Bridget Canham; and the Members Choice Award to Sam Binns.

I also acknowledge another role the State Emergency Service plays, and one that is becoming more essential: preparing communities for emergencies and providing information to people on to how prepare their homes and properties to best survive storms and floods. The New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring that the State Emergency Service is supported in this essential work. That is why we launched the New South Wales Volunteering Strategy, which provides a vision and direction for the development of volunteering in New South Wales over the next decade.

Through this strategy we want to make it easier for people to volunteer, to broaden the volunteering base, to help make volunteering a pathway to employment, to improve the recognition of and support for workplace volunteering, and to value volunteers and their contributions. Volunteering also creates stronger, closer communities. In Sydney 34 per cent of people volunteer and across New South Wales 42 per cent volunteer. Of course, for the benefit of our communities, we want this number to grow. However, the current figures demonstrate that we have a strong base from which to work and that community spirit is strong in New South Wales.

As volunteer numbers dwindle across other organisations, it was heartening and indeed encouraging to be able to present long service medals and awards, some recognising up to 35 years of service. It was my pleasure to convey my personal thanks for the many hours the Marrickville State Emergency Service members have put in to serve and protect the community from harm, and for the many hours it has taken them, and continues to take them, to maintain their level of expertise. Marrickville State Emergency Service has more than 50 members—50 full-time members and five reserves. It was interesting to note that at least half of them were unable to attend their own awards dinner that evening because they were out working as volunteers.

TRIBUTE TO DAVID SINNET HAMILTON

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL [6.35 p.m.]: David "Davy" Hamilton was an Australian Labor Party stalwart, and a very active former member of the Australian Workers Union in Sydney. It is with great sadness that I inform the House that David died at his Oak Flats home on Saturday 12 January surrounded by his loving family, after battling leukaemia for several months. David will always be remembered by his colleagues and friends as a staunch Labor and union man and one who was passionate in his beliefs for the trade union movement.

David was born in Scotland and spent several years living in the Illawarra before permanently migrating in 1980. He was one of nine children born in Westrigg, Scotland, in 1945. He spent 20 years as a machine operator at the Port Kembla steelworks, which inspired his interest in unionism. He quickly became a delegate for the Federated Ironworkers Association and went on to become a local union official, eventually taking on the role of State secretary.

David was elected to Shellharbour City Council in 1991 and spent nearly 10 years on the council, serving as deputy mayor from 1996 to 1999, before being elected mayor in 2004. David never made decisions because they were popular; he always did what he believed was right for the people he was representing. In 2008 he was working with a group of councillors who were not prepared to compromise or negotiate, and after a three-week public inquiry the council was dismissed. As the man at the helm, David subsequently bore intense pressure and personal attacks as a result of this dismissal.

He was very active in the branches of the Australian Labor Party and had a close relationship with a former member for Kiama in the other place, Mr Bob Harrison. Bob Harrison nominated David for life membership of the Australian Labor Party several years ago, describing David in the local paper as a "Labor man of the old type" who was a loyal and decent friend. 17940 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

In his younger days David was quite the football player, even leaving his home in Scotland to move south to England to play semi-professionally for a few years before moving to Australia in the 1960s. I came across him over the years in my capacity as an Australian Labor Party organiser and later as general secretary. He was always at Australian Labor Party conferences and regional assemblies representing his area, always as a staunch unionist.

He worked in a number of by-election campaigns, including that of Gabrielle Harrison when she successfully won the seat of Parramatta after her husband, Andrew Ziokowski, had died. David was a committed industrial advocate who brought his Scottish humour, which enhanced the cultural mix in debate particularly on industrial relations policy. One thing you knew was that wherever you saw David Hamilton, his wife, Moira, would be with him. This happened in all aspects of their life—as branch members, office holders and representatives to the State Conference through to when David was elected Mayor of Shellharbour.

As unusual as it may seem, David and Moira were often found in the company of Noreen Hay, the member for Wollongong in the other place. Factional differences never seemed to wedge them. Years ago they would have been considered political opponents, but they were always good friends. I believe this was because of their obvious mutual respect and camaraderie, which was assisted by Marianne Saliba, former member for the Illawarra. Clearly, David Hamilton's ability to offer support and encouragement was so well respected across the divide that now Marianne is following in his footsteps as the Mayor of Shellharbour. It is a testament to David Hamilton that so many community leaders have recognised his diligence, hard work and friendship but above all—first and foremost—his love for Moira and his family. David Hamilton is survived by his wife, Moira, daughters Yvonne and Louise, and son, Stephen, as well as his four grandchildren. I express my condolences on their loss and wish them all the best.

CRONULLA FISHERIES RESEARCH CENTRE

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.40 p.m.]: The decision to reject the recommendations of the Select Committee on Cronulla Fisheries and continue with the destruction of the Cronulla site is very disappointing and a great shock to all Cronulla fisheries staff and shire residents. One fisheries staff member was Professor Steve Kennelly, who was the Chief Scientist and Director of Fisheries Research, and the Director of Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre of Excellence from 2004. The scientific staff at Cronulla had in excess of 500 years of experience in fisheries research and more than 50 science degrees, including 19 PhDs and one doctorate of science. More than 80 per cent of those scientists have left the centre and not been replaced. Professor Kennelly led research on selective fishing techniques that reduced wastage associated with bycatch and the discarding of huge fish quantities in many world fisheries. He worked in many developed and developing countries, such as Nigeria, Madagascar, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to draft the new "International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Discard Reduction".

Professor Kennelly also led the development of the New South Wales resource assessment process, which annually reviews and determines the status of New South Wales fisheries stocks. This was a major project by the Cronulla scientists, involving research into the life, history and characteristics of 108 key recreational and commercial species in New South Wales and included ages, rates of growth, mortality, longevity and reproductive dynamics of key species. This major task was undertaken in the aquarium and laboratory facilities at Cronulla. The information is used to set size and bag limits, advise on other management tools and feed the resource assessment process that produces the biannual "Status of Fisheries Resources in NSW" report. This is the only mechanism the Government had to report on the status of the State's publicly owned fish stocks and is a requirement of our legislated commercial fisheries management strategies. Professor Kennelly and virtually all the scientists who did this work have now been forced to leave the department.

Cronulla was also a major site for training fisheries professionals in Australia. Many senior fisheries people in Australia learnt their trade at Cronulla—for example, the current Director, Fisheries Victoria began his fisheries career at Cronulla, as did the current director of fisheries research in Western Australia and the head of fisheries research at the CSIRO. The Cronulla facilities were amongst the most modern and effective for fisheries research in Australia. The site was not rundown; it was a modern, state-of-the-art scientific research centre. In fact, the New South Wales Government invested a considerable amount of money in the site over the past decade, including an upgrade of its heritage-listed fisheries laboratory to state-of-the-art standard—at a cost of more than $1 million—to mark the 100-year anniversary of the site in 2006. The site's heritage-listed aquarium facility is unique in Australia due to its size and seawater quality. It has a high-quality seawater flow-through system, which pumps 1.75 million litres a day. A major amount of money was also spent in recent years providing new pumps, pipes, filters, electrics, hypobaric chambers, et cetera. 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17941

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation [ANSTO] at Lucas Heights and the Office of Environment and Heritage Ecotoxicology Laboratory at Lidcombe rely on this high-quality seawater for their work. This aquarium facility cannot be replicated at the proposed alternative location at Port Stephens because that location is in the middle of a mangrove swamp—I have inspected the Port Stephens facility. The Cronulla centre's library was the only fisheries-specific library on Australia's eastern seaboard. It had one of the oldest and most comprehensive fisheries research collections in the Southern Hemisphere, and served many universities and schools in the Sydney Basin.

It housed an extensive and historic range of international and domestic journals and books with more than 6,000 monograph and 422 journal titles, and all the latest interlibrary loan technologies and search engines. It held an archival record of all publications of the centre's scientific staff since research began at the centre more than 110 years ago and supported the research activities of Cronulla fisheries staff, many visiting university students and international researchers. Sadly, much of this material has been simply dumped. Instead of being transferred to a new library, this information was simply sent to the rubbish tip. Now the Government wants to destroy the aquarium and the pools. The Government should carefully review its actions and protect this heritage site that is too important to vandalise and should be protected for future generations. [Time expired.]

GARDEN ISLAND HAMMERHEAD CRANE

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [6.45 p.m.]: In my inaugural speech I stated:

Like most residents of Sydney, I regard the harbour as the jewel of our city, not just for the sparkling blue waters and green harbour side parks but for the infrastructure on the shores which shows that it has been and still is a working harbour. We should be proud of our maritime history, especially the buildings and structures on Garden Island. Garden Island is one of our most tangible links with the First Fleet, and a naval presence should be retained there.

I regard the hammerhead crane at Garden Island as an essential part of our maritime history that should be retained. Therefore, I was very disappointed to read an article in the Daily Telegraph on 22 October 2012 by Senator David Feeney, the then Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, regarding the hammerhead crane, which stated:

The crane has been a part of your city's vista for more than 60 years and for some it may be considered an icon of Sydney's past. More than 60 years old, the crane hasn't been used for 16 years. And the worst part is it costs $720,000 per year just to keep it standing …

To get the ball rolling on removing the crane, I have met with both the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Minister Tony Burke, and former prime minister Paul Keating. Both agree with me that the crane needs to go. It is time for the crane to go.

I have three main concerns with the comments of Senator Feeney: First, he has attempted to influence the Federal environment Minister on this issue prior to any proper consideration of the future of the crane; secondly, he has pre-empted the Royal Australian Navy's consultation process on the future of the Hammerhead Crane; and, thirdly, he, like many others, regards the Hon. Paul Keating as an authority on Sydney Harbour. While I acknowledge the distinction with which Paul Keating is held for his service as Federal Treasurer and Prime Minister, I do not accept that his ascetic vision for Sydney Harbour should be unquestioningly accepted as superior to that of any other private citizen. Andrew Woodhouse, President of the Potts Point and Kings Cross Heritage Society, has stated in relation to the hammerhead crane:

It does not cost $770,000 per year to maintain as claimed by Defence. In fact, this figure is all that is been spent on it in over 50 years as far as we can see and includes costs for consultants and the enquiry.

On 21 January 2013 the Royal Australian Navy announced:

Defence would conduct a period of public consultation for the proposed removal of the hammerhead crane located at Fleet Base East, Garden Island in Sydney, from Monday 21 January to Monday 18 February 2013. The proposal to remove the crane is being assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 … While not heritage listed, the crane is known to have Commonwealth Heritage values and is located outside the Commonwealth Heritage Listed Garden Island precinct.

The National Trust has expressed its strong opposition to the proposal to demolish the hammerhead crane at Garden Island. The crane was listed on the National Trust Register in 1996, and in 2007 it joined the National List of Our Heritage at Risk, being rated in the top 10. The trust believes the crane should be retained and understands that its potential for adaptive re-use as a tourist attraction—similar to the Titan Crane Glasgow, 17942 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

Scotland—can be realised, thus ensuring that it remains an extraordinary and remarkable landmark in the Sydney Harbour skyline. The crane, which was put into service in 1951, stands 61 metres tall and is highly visible from the Royal Botanic Gardens and Woolloomooloo. When built, it was the largest crane in the Southern Hemisphere and remains unique in Australia. With a capacity to lift up to 250 tonnes, it is one of a series of cranes built around the world to service the British Navy fleet and, as such, demonstrates Australia's position in the former British Empire.

The hammerhead crane is an example of excellence in engineering design and manufacture of its time and is impressive in its size and capability. The crane demonstrates the peak of mid twentieth century electrical technology prior to the development of electronic monitoring and control. It is representative of the extreme heavy lifting technologies of the mid twentieth century and is a representative example of the largest size of fixed ship building and repair cranes, of which fewer than 60 were built worldwide. The hammerhead crane remains virtually as it was at the time it was built, without alteration or replacement of any significant elements. It has been out of use since the mid-1990s. The hammerhead crane is one of about 15 such cranes existing anywhere in the world. The five remaining cranes on the Clyde River, Glasgow, have been given the highest-grade protection by Historic Scotland. One crane is being preserved as part of a waterfront redevelopment scheme. The remains of the shipyards on the Clyde River are very impressive. These great examples of industrial architecture should be, and deserve to be, preserved.

The redevelopment of Barangaroo is wiping away any vestiges of the great industrial role of the docks along Hickson Road. We should not be ashamed of our industrial maritime heritage; we should celebrate it. The crane also falls within the 2.5 kilometre radius of the World Heritage-listed Sydney Opera House buffer zone, an area that was set up under the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan [SRPE]. Heritage consultants Godden Mackay Logan conclude in their heritage impact statement:

The removal of the Hammerhead crane will have a significant impact on the historic heritage environment of the Garden Island precinct. The removal of the hammerhead crane will be irreversible, changing the skyline of Sydney by removing an historic element which has been in place since its construction commenced in 1944 and use in 1951.

Considering the Garden Island precinct is a location strewn with heritage buildings, it would benefit the people of Sydney for the working naval heritage precinct to remain as a major asset to the city of Sydney. The Federal Government should retain this iconic working harbour link to our naval industrial past. The hammerhead crane at Garden Island must be conserved.

OVARIAN CANCER AWARENESS MONTH

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES [6.50 p.m.]: I speak this evening on Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, which is held annually during the month of February. This year on Wednesday 27 February everyone is encouraged to wear a teal ribbon to show their support for Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month is a community health initiative run by Ovarian Cancer Australia to raise awareness of ovarian cancer and to recognise women affected by ovarian cancer and acknowledge their families and friends. Throughout the month of February Ovarian Cancer Australia has held a range of functions to raise awareness and funds for research programs. Ovarian Cancer Australia officially launched its awareness month in Sydney on 31 January. The theme for 2013 is Don't Ignore the Big Four. The campaign focuses on the need to educate women about the four main symptoms of ovarian cancer: abdominal or pelvic pain; increased abdominal size or persistent abdominal bloating; needing to urinate often or urgently; and difficulty eating or feeling full quickly.

Research by Ovarian Cancer Australia found only 8 per cent of women are concerned about ovarian cancer, despite the fact that one woman dies every 11 hours from the disease. The facts surrounding the prevalence of ovarian cancer are quite unsettling. Current research shows that one in every 77 women will develop ovarian cancer in their lifetime. Ovarian cancer is aggressive, with more than 1,200 Australian women diagnosed each year—that is an average of three women per day. The report revealed that New South Wales had an average of 408 cases annually from 2002-06, which was the largest average number of ovarian cancer cases diagnosed. Unfortunately, by the time most women are diagnosed their cancer will be at an advanced stage with the cancer having spread, making it very difficult to treat successfully. What is particularly tragic for the 1,200 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer annually is that more than half will not live beyond five years after their diagnosis—around 800 of them will die from the disease.

Ovarian cancer is often referred to as the "silent killer" or "challenging cancer" because, unlike breast and cervical cancer, there is no effective test currently available for population-based screening. Research has 26 February 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17943

shown that almost all women with ovarian cancer experience symptoms, even during the early stages. Therefore, women need to be aware of the symptoms and risk factors. A survey of over 1,000 women aged 18 years and over conducted in 2012 by Ovarian Cancer Australia found only 31 per cent of women feel confident identifying one of the main symptoms of ovarian cancer, compared with nearly 90 per cent being able to identify the symptoms for breast cancer. Findings in the 2010 report on ovarian cancer in Australia, prepared by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre, found that ovarian cancer was the ninth most commonly diagnosed cancer among Australian women and the second most commonly diagnosed gynaecological cancer. It represents over half of the gynaecological cancer deaths.

If ovarian cancer is diagnosed in the early stages up to 95 per cent of women will be alive well beyond five years following diagnosis. More women need to be diagnosed at an early stage when ovarian cancer is very treatable. Over a 25-year period from 1982, when the first national cancer incidence data became available, the number of new ovarian cancer cases diagnosed each year has increased. In 1982, 833 new cases of ovarian cancer were diagnosed among Australian women compared with 1,226 in 2006, which is an overall increase of 47 per cent during that period. The likelihood of contracting ovarian cancer increases with age. In 2006 the majority of cases of ovarian cancer were diagnosed among women over the age of 60. In addition, one in 14 cases was diagnosed in women under the age of 40 and one-third were diagnosed in women between the ages of 40 and 59.

Furthermore, the report predicts the expected number of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer will continue to increase in the future due to an ageing and growing population. The projections suggest that by 2015 the number of new ovarian cancer cases diagnosed will be 1,434—which is approximately 17 per cent higher than in 2006—with an average of four women diagnosed daily. Ovarian Cancer Australia is a not-for-profit organisation founded in 2001 by a group of dedicated people directly affected by the disease. They work tirelessly to advocate for and support women with ovarian cancer and their families.

In addition to the education campaign to raise awareness, Ovarian Cancer Australia raises funds for research through Teal Ribbon Day, which is tomorrow, 27 February. It is an opportunity for members of the community to support Ovarian Cancer Australia and those suffering with the disease by purchasing and wearing a teal ribbon. People are encouraged to hold an Afternoon Teal, which is an afternoon tea event held to raise awareness of and funds for the fight against ovarian cancer. I encourage my parliamentary colleagues to support this worthy cause by wearing a teal ribbon and learning about the symptoms and discussing them with friends and family.

SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENDERS LEGISLATION

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [6.55 p.m.]: It is a fundamental part of our justice system that people only go to jail for crimes that they been proven to have committed, not for crimes that someone thinks they might commit in the future. Prior to the O'Farrell Government's proposed Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill 2013, Hollywood movies are where most people would have heard of "future crime". The bill proposes to expand the current scheme for the continued detention and extended supervision of serious sexual offenders to all high-risk violent offenders who fit within a certain definition. It proposes to remove the current exemption for serious offences committed by a person less than 16 years of age. The bill proposes to define "serious violent offence" as a serious indictable offence that is constituted by a person engaging in conduct that causes the death of another person, or grievous bodily harm to another person with the intention of causing or while being reckless as to causing the death of another person, or grievous or actual bodily harm to another person or attempting to do so, or attempting to commit an offence of that kind. An offence is a serious indictable offence if it is an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of five years or more.

The bill proposes to extend the operation of the existing Crime (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 and rename it the Crimes (Serious Offenders) Act. The current bill empowers the Supreme Court, on application by the Attorney General, to order the continued detention of a serious sex offender or extended supervision of the offender upon release. As I have said, the Government's current bill proposes to extend this to a series of high-risk violent offenders who fit within the definition in the bill.

Earlier attempts by the New South Wales and Victorian governments to introduce preventative detention laws have been challenged by the High Court. In 1996 in the matter of Kable v The Director of Public Prosecutions, the High Court, by majority, struck down legislation which was proposing to enable the ongoing preventative detention of an identified individual after that person's sentence had expired. In 2004 a majority in the High Court upheld the validity of legislation that empowered the Supreme Court of Queensland to make a 17944 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 26 February 2013

continued detention and supervision order for prisoners considered under that statute to be a serious danger to the community. That opened the door to a raft of preventative detention legislation in other States, including the existing Crime (Serious Sex Offenders) Act in this State—an Act that this Government intends to expand, it would appear.

In 2010 the United Nations human rights committee held that the post-sentence detention of two individuals, one under the New South Wales preventative detention law and the other in Queensland, were incompatible with Australia's international human rights obligations. In particular, they found that it breached the prohibition against arbitrary detention and the prohibition against double punishment under the previously respected International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 9 (1), article 14 (1), article 14 (7) and article 15. Despite that finding, there has been no move to wind back this kind of future crime legislation in New South Wales. In fact, quite the opposite. As the Law Society of New South Wales states:

Predicting an offender's future conduct is a notoriously difficult task and the High Court has recognised the unreliability of these predictions.

The Law Society of New South Wales cites Fardon v Attorney General for the State of Queensland as an example. In that case Justice Kirby commented that predictions of dangerousness are, "based largely on the opinions of psychiatrists which can only be, at best, an educated or informed guess." When asked during budget estimates hearings about the fact-finding capacity of courts, the Attorney General conceded quite openly that courts have no proven capacity to guess what will happen in the future. The court's fact-finding role has traditionally been limited to working out what happened in the past. How is it then that the Attorney General wants to give our courts this expanded power to guess what types of future crimes people will be committing? There is further concern that the wider definition of the proposed new laws will expand substantially the prison population in New South Wales.

According to the Sentencing Council that has been the experience in England and Wales, which now have literally thousands of offenders under preventative detention orders swelling their jails and potentially breaking their prison budget. It is a slippery slope once we descend to jailing people based on their psychological profile, rather than on their criminal conduct. If this law passes, there will be little to stop a later government from adopting the same risk management strategy with people who are of interest to police but have not yet been convicted of a crime. The Greens recognise that there are competing public elements at play here; but, as Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither." And that is the nub of the problem with this bill.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 7.00 p.m. until Wednesday 27 February 2013 at 11.00 a.m.

______