16355

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 7 June 2005 ______

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.00 p.m.

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

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

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported:

Appropriation (Budget Variations) Bill Coal Acquisition Amendment (Fair Compensation) Bill Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Bill Dust Diseases Tribunal Amendment (Claims Resolution) Bill Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill National Parks and Wildlife (Adjustment of Areas) Bill Civil Procedure Bill Noxious Weeds Amendment Bill

SESSIONAL ORDERS

Private Members' Business: Conduct of the Draw

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That for the remainder of the present sittings until the adjournment of the House for the winter recess, Standing Order 185 be varied by omitting "12" wherever occurring and inserting instead "24".

TUNNEL AIR QUALITY

Production of Documents: Order

Motion by Ms Sylvia Hale agreed to:

That, under standing order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents, not previously provided to the House, in the possession, custody or control of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR), the Department of Environment and Conservation, NSW Health (including Area Health Services), and the offices of the responsible Ministers:

(a) all documents relating to any internal audit of the RTA's compliance with the approval conditions for the M5 East,

(b) all documents relating to the 13 January 2005 exceedence of air quality goals for the M5 East stack,

(c) all documents relating to communications with the construction and/or operating consortium and their consultants, relating to the design, approval, operation and maintenance of the cross-city tunnel ventilation stack,

(d) all documents relating to communications with the construction and/or operator consortium of the cross-city tunnel and their consultants that makes reference to the cross-city tunnel issues paper prepared by CSIRO Atmospheric Research, included in the documents provided under the return to the order of the House of 24 February 2005 and referred to in the index of documents provided by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources as document 1 (d) (6), and

(e) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

TABLING OF PAPERS NOT ORDERED TO BE PRINTED

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt tabled, pursuant to Standing Order 59, a list of all papers tabled in the previous month and not ordered to be printed. 16356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt tabled the following paper:

Annual Report (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Report of the Wild Dog Destruction Board for the year ended 31 December 2004.

Ordered to be printed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Government Response to Report

The Hon. John Della Bosca tabled correspondence relating to the Government's response to report No. 73, entitled "Report on the Inebriates Act 1912", tabled on 27 August 2004.

COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Report: 10th Meeting on the Annual Report of the Health Care Complaints Commission

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, report No. 8/53, entitled "10th Meeting on the Annual Report of the Health Care Complaints Commission", dated May 2005.

The Clerk announced that, pursuant to the Act, it had been authorised that the report be printed.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [2.07 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The standing orders adopted last year make provision for debate of joint committee reports during the period set aside under the sessional order for committee reports. So far, practice in the House has not caught up with the new standing orders. A great many members of the House serve on joint committees but do not have the chance to comment on reports upon which they do considerable work. My comments at this time relate to all three reports that will be tabled today. I encourage a procedure to be developed to enable members of joint committees to move that the House take note of joint committee reports in the same fashion as it takes note of the reports of Legislative Council standing committees.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Report: Review of the Child Death Review Team Report: Suicide and Risk-taking Death of Children and Young People

The Clerk announced, pursuant to the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998, the receipt of report No. 5/53, entitled "Review of the Child Death Review Team Report: Suicide and Risk-taking Death of Children and Young People", dated June 2005.

The Clerk announced further that, pursuant to the Act, it had been authorised that the report be printed.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [2.09 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 7 of 2005

The Clerk announced, pursuant to the Legislation Review Act 1987, the receipt of a report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 7 of 2005", dated 6 June 2005. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16357

The Clerk announced further that, pursuant to the Act, it had been authorised that the report be printed.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [2.09 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin.

AUDIT OFFICE

Report

The Clerk announced, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the receipt of a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "The Department of Community Services Helpline", dated June 2005.

The Clerk announced further that, pursuant to the Act, it had been authorised that the report be printed.

PETITIONS

Brigalow Belt South Bioregion and Nandewar Bioregion

Petitions opposing the removal of cypress pine and hardwood forests from State Forests management and the degradation of communities within the Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar bioregions, received from the Hon. Rick Colless, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner and the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Freedom of Speech

Petitions opposing any legislation that would inhibit unencumbered discussion and freedom of speech regarding religion and introduce religious vilification in New South Wales, received from the Hon. David Clarke, Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Christine Robertson.

Anti-Discrimination (Religious Tolerance) Legislation

Petitions opposing the proposed anti-discrimination (religious tolerance) legislation, received from Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Christine Robertson.

Crown Land Leases

Petitions requesting the withdrawal of changes to the rental structure of Crown land leases, particularly enclosed road permits, received from the Hon. Rick Colless and the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Unborn Child Protection

Petitions requesting legislation to protect foetuses of 20 weeks gestation and to make resources available for post-abortion follow-up, received from Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Gaming Machine Tax

Petition praying that the House reconsider the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from the Hon. Rick Colless.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Withdrawal of Business

Private Members' Business item No. 7 in the order of precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong. 16358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 4 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Private Members' Business item No. 11 in the order of precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT (X 18+ FILMS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May 2005.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [2.30 p.m.]: The Opposition is opposed to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Peter Breen. The purpose of the bill is stated to be to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995, as follows:

(a) to remove the current prohibition in relation to the sale of films that are classified X 18+ under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, and to remove the current prohibition on the public exhibition of such films, and

(b) to ensure that films classified X 18+ are only sold from restricted publications areas, and

(c) to increase penalties for allowing minors to access adult material.

Effectively, the bill will legalise films rated X 18+ in New South Wales. Provisions in the bill restricting the sale of such films to specific premises and increasing penalties for allowing minors access to such material are merely a sugar-coated overlay, the effect of which is to give the bill the semblance of controlling pornography when its effect will be precisely the opposite.

I believe that the Hon. Peter Breen is a thoughtful and compassionate man, and a person who is well intentioned. But from time to time I believe he reaches conclusions that are way off beam, and on this issue he is way off beam. I believe that he is genuinely concerned with the deleterious effects of the almost universally agreed negative aspects of some X-rated or unclassified films, such as those promoting violence, bestiality or child abuse. But I believe that he is monumentally misguided and tragically wrong in what he believes his bill will achieve. His bill will legalise much of the pornography industry which the State Government purports to oppose but, through inaction, condones by turning a blind eye to the law being enforced.

In his second reading speech the Hon. Peter Breen argued that I show an inconsistency by, on the one hand, supporting freedom of speech in relation to religious matters and opposing religious vilification laws and, on the other hand, opposing the liberalisation of laws to allow greater access to sexually explicit films. He argued that I support a wide freedom to express religious views but a narrow freedom to watch sexually explicit films. I believe that I maintain a consistency. The real inconsistency is in the position of the Hon. Peter Breen himself. On the one hand he supports a greatly expanded freedom to view sexually explicit films, and yet he is probably the leading proponent in this Parliament for the introduction of religious vilification laws in New South Wales, which would have the effect of restricting free speech. In fact, so strong is his view that there should be limits on what people can say on religious matters that he has proposed a bill introducing an offence of religious vilification. It is his position that is contradictory and inconsistent.

The Hon. Peter Breen is wrong in his assertion that my position is one of inconsistency. I believe it is one of total consistency. I believe in freedom to express religious views, even though I might find such views to be in bad taste or unsavoury, and even if such views are unfounded in fact, or ridicule or reflect adversely on the religious views of others. If, however, someone expresses views or comments that breach the civil or criminal law, that is a different matter. If someone is defamed, then there is recourse to the civil law, or even possibly the criminal law. If there is incitement to violence under the guise of religious expression, there are existing criminal laws in place to deal with that situation. So far Australia's tradition of freedom of religious discussion has worked quite satisfactorily; it has been uneventful. There has been no significant disruption to the social fabric. There has been no major outbreak of criminal activity that can be pinpointed to an abuse of freedom of speech on religious matters which could not be dealt with by existing laws. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16359

The Hon. Peter Breen: Point of order: Normally I would not interrupt the Hon. David Clarke on this issue, but the bill is about X-rated videos; it is not about religion. Most of the Hon. David Clarke's contribution thus far has been about religious tolerance, which is the subject of other legislation. I ask you to remind the honourable member that his remarks should be directed to this bill.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: To the point of order: I was comparing the stand of the Hon. Peter Breen with his contradictory views on what he proposes under this bill.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It has been a convention in this House that comments made during debate on a bill may be more general than, say, comments made in question time. However, I remind the Hon. David Clarke that imputations must not be made against another member of the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: There is no strong correlation between religious expression and criminal conduct; there is no evidence of such freedom of speech initiating or fomenting criminality. On the other hand, whilst I believe in a wide freedom to read what we like and watch whatever film we like, from time to time this right may result in the fundamental rights of others being infringed upon or placed at risk. There is, for example, the right of children not to be sexually preyed upon or sexually abused. There is the right of women not to be raped or sexually molested. There is the right of every person not to be subjected to acts of violence.

If there is a very definite or overwhelming nexus between the availability of certain sexually explicit material and the perpetration of crimes against, for example, women or children, that puts a very different complexion on matters. At what level, if any, do we set the bar in allowing unfettered access to such material? The answer is that we need to set the bar at a level necessary to restrict material that has a proven high propensity to produce criminality, the effect of which infringes upon the rights of others. I believe that the Hon. Peter Breen's bill has not set the bar at the right level; I believe that he has set the bar far too low. I believe that his bill will allow the liberalisation of material that has a very strong causation in the perpetration of crimes that infringe on the rights of others in our community. These films are a major contributing factor to such crimes. I believe that there is an abundance of scientific and other evidence to establish this nexus beyond reasonable doubt.

There have been numerous investigations and studies of the deleterious effects of different types of pornography. One of the most comprehensive was the 1,960-page report of the United States Attorney-General's Commission on Pornography some years ago. Among its many disturbing findings, it established a very clear correlation between sexually explicit films portraying the violent abuse of women by men and acts of sexual violence, including sex crimes against women. The report found that, at the very least, such films led to the degradation and humiliation of women. It found that the actions of sexual violence against women contributed to what is known as the rape myth, that is, the idea, believed by some men, that women really want to be abused even when they vigorously deny it.

The report established that pornography was addictive and progressive in nature. It showed that X-rated films eventually, and inevitably, reached a certain percentage of minors despite supposed legal safeguards. One of the report's most disturbing findings was that certain types of pornography are often used by paedophiles to soften children's defences against sexual abuse. It found that paedophiles lure children down a pathway via pornography to accepting as normal the depravities and abuse that are perpetrated on them. The report established that premises used for the distribution of such X-rated materials very often acted as a natural magnet to a secondary industry of support services such as prostitution or drug distribution. A study commissioned and funded by the United States justice department found that even magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler, which are usually not included in the X-rated category, have been responsible for promoting children as sexual objects. The study also found:

… from the very beginning since 1954 (with the commencement of publication) children had appeared in sexual contexts with adults in these magazines.

The report noted:

… over 6,000 depictions of children were found in these 3 magazines alone from 1954 to 1984.

One could also refer to sexually explicit films in which young adults are portrayed as minors. Such films cunningly achieve the desired effect of portraying sexual abuse of children without exploiting children as participants. At present the only legal outlet for X-rated videos in Australia are the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; they are not legally available in any of the States. 16360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

The Hon. Peter Breen promises that his bill will regulate this industry and thereby get rid of the criminal element. I seem to recall that this was the same argument that was bandied around to support the legalisation of prostitution. We were promised that by legalising prostitution in New South Wales we would get rid of the criminal element. And what has been the result? We have had the proliferation not only of legal brothels but also the continuation and, indeed, increased proliferation of illegal brothels. Both legal and illegal brothels are saturated with organised crime. The organised crime element is alive and thriving in both. Would anybody suggest otherwise?

As a consequence, we have more illegal brothels than ever before, and we have more criminals attached to both legal and illegal brothels than ever before. What we have is the worst of all worlds, and we will get the worst of all worlds if this bill becomes law. We will have a proliferation of X-rated videos, many of which will be prodding the law to see how far it can be pushed, but we will not see a reduction in the types of videos and DVDs that the Hon. Peter Breen says he is keen to remove from the marketplace. X-rated videos will continue to reach the hands of minors but in greater numbers because the passing of this bill will simultaneously result in an automatic commensurate proliferation among minors. More severe penalties will be of little consequence.

The bill's intended object of ending the trade in the repulsive categories of films which the Hon. Peter Breen seeks to target will fail. Why would the authorities be any more dedicated to enforcing a new law against these films when they do not enforce the present law under which these films are already illegal? The Hon. Peter Breen's argument that the X-rated video industry in New South Wales is unregulated is just not true. The fact is that the industry is already regulated; it is regulated so that X-rated videos are illegal. It cannot be more regulated than that. Let us be very clear: X-rated videos are illegal in New South Wales, and so are those that fall into the unclassified category. Why is it then that such films are so readily available from outlets in New South Wales? Why is it that the Hon. Peter Breen was able to so freely purchase X-rated videos as well as videos which, because of their perversity, have no classification at all? The answer is: because the law is not being enforced at all.

If the Hon. Peter Breen was so easily able to purchase such films from New South Wales outlets, as he advised this Parliament, then why is it so difficult for the police to locate them? Why do the police not enforce the law? We have probably all received written representations from Fiona Patten on behalf of an organisation called Body Politics, which lobbies for the passage of the bill before us. I do not agree with her views, but she puts the case for this bill articulately and rationally. Many of her statements are factual, but I cannot agree with her conclusions. She does, however, highlight the absurdity of the position in this State, where, despite the large number of illegal videos and DVDs sold from New South Wales outlets, there are very few convictions.

According to the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, in the four years from 2000 to 2003 inclusive there were only 14 convictions for selling or exhibiting X 18+ or refused classification films, with only six receiving what were, in fact, nominal fines. What a triumph of law enforcement that is! Everyone would surely agree that if there is such a widespread illegal activity, but so few prosecutions— whether or not they agree that it should remain illegal—something is amiss. It is not difficult to find a reason for that: It is a reluctance to pursue the offenders; it has nothing to do with difficulties of apprehension or prosecution.

We can all recall the days when New South Wales was top-heavy with illegal casinos. Despite the very occasional stage-managed police raid purporting to close down an illegal casino here or there, they continued to thrive. It was as if those casinos had protection from, shall we say, a highly placed unseen source. But then the State Government decided to legalise casinos and take a substantial cut of the profits. Amazingly, from that time forward the illegal casinos ceased to exist. And why did they cease to exist? It was not because they had no clientele; it was not because the new legal casinos forced them off the market; and it was not a case of market forces at work. It was because the police got the green light to close them down—I mean to really close them down. With the shackles removed, that is exactly what the police did. The veto no longer existed. When there was the will to close down illegal casinos they were closed down. If there were a similar will to stop the New South Wales trade in Commonwealth-classified X-rated videos or unclassified videos it would be stopped. It is as simple as that.

The Hon. Peter Breen's bill proposes increased penalties for exhibiting and selling the perverse and unsavoury films presently refused classification. It proposes penalty increases for those who peddle films involving bestiality, child sex abuse and so forth. Most people agree with that proposition, but we do not need to legalise Commonwealth-classified X-rated films to achieve that effect. The main effect of this bill is not to stop 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16361 the already illegal trade in such films; the real effect is to legalise and encourage the spread of X-rated films. We do not need this bill at all. What we need is for the present law to be enforced. We need the shackles to be taken off the police and for them to locate this illegal material, which I am sure they can do with the ease demonstrated by the Hon. Peter Breen. We need the police to confiscate this material and prosecute those who break the law by exhibiting and selling it.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.45 p.m.]: I support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill, which would remove the ban on X-rated videos—in common parlance, non-violent erotica, material of a sexual nature but not with any violence associated with it, consensual sex. Classification X relates to non-violent erotica; classification R relates to violence, which is either sexual or non-sexual, but generally does not involve close-ups of genitalia and does not concentrate on the sexual aspects of the violence; and RC is refused classification.

This bill reverses only the ban on X-rated material. It does not go as far as the Australian Capital Territory legislation, which licenses sellers of this material and uses the fees from such licences to police the illegal sale of material that is refused classification. It would seem that police in New South Wales are not enforcing this law. There is a three-wise-monkeys policy: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. I have seen shops in Pitt Street, Goulburn Street and George Streets that have erotic videos, videos depicting the infliction of pain and bestiality. They possibly have snuff movies—movies which show an actual murder—although I have not seen any of those. It is possible to hire or buy these videos, and the shops have booths in which people can watch them.

The point made by Fiona Patten and the former chief censor is that there is a difference between non- violent erotica, which is consensual sex of various types, and violence. It always worries me that the religious Right, if I can call it that, is very concerned about the sexual aspects of such material, but neglect the violence. I believe that the depiction of violence is far more serious than the depiction of non-violent erotica, and it is important to separate the two aspects of censorship.

The Hon. Henry Tsang: Are you moving an amendment?

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: No, I have not had time to draft an amendment, but I think an amendment would be a good idea. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile held an information session at which he was to show an R-rated film to demonstrate the evils thereof. I was unable to attend so I asked one of my staff to attend in my place. The staff member reported that there were four people in attendance, but there was a problem and the film was not shown. Apparently a private briefing was offered to the two members of Parliament who were present, but the other two people in attendance simply sat there and wondered what was to happen next, and then left. They were none the wiser after attending the briefing. But the point of the screening was that if this was an R-rated video, an X-rated video was worse.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The screening did not proceed.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The screening did not proceed, but it is a worry that the R-rated video was seen as less serious than an X-rated video in the material provided by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and spoken about by Jim Wallace, Executive Chairman of the Australian Christian Lobby. The other question that needs to be addressed is the availability of this material if the bill is passed and police raid the premises to which I have referred in the central business district and elsewhere. The videos and DVDs that are currently available will be restricted, and a large number will not be classified at all, either because of their content or because it is too expensive to have them classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification in terms of the sales that each individual video is likely to generate, particularly in view of the competition in regard to unclassified material. But even if that should happen, there is still an immense availability of pornography on the Internet.

I am reminded of the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues into the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act, an excellent report on which I spoke in this House on 12 June 2002. The inquiry received evidence that 2 per cent of pornographic material seen in Australia is hosted by Australian Internet service providers. But it would be technologically impossible to make Internet service providers responsible for the content of their sites. It would be beyond their capacity to look at all the files that enter their sites, within a fraction of a second, and to read and vet such a huge volume of material.

As a result of pressure by Senator Brian Harradine and the Federal Howard Government, the model bill contains the foolish measure that Internet service providers should be responsible for the material on their sites. 16362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

Evidence from CSIRO technical experts has shown the impossibility of such a move. However, if they were obliged to do so or if unenforceable legislation declared such sites illegal, the 2 per cent of pornographic material hosted in Australia would move overseas. As the late Doug Moppett famously observed, it would be like closing the window after the wall has blown down.

The 56K modems, which most people use to download images from the Internet, are quite slow. The download takes 20 to 30 times longer than the filming of the most grainy images. Images downloaded using broadband technology are closer to film quality and although some people will prefer to retain videos and DVDs, others may choose this option. I believe the better approach would be to remove violence from videos and allow people to watch non-violent erotica if they wish. I can see no harm in that.

I note the comments of the Hon. David Clarke about the legalisation of brothels. The unsavoury owners of illegal brothels did not become any more savoury when brothels were legalised. However, at least police know where the legal brothels are located. The Sex Workers Outreach Program can provide sex education to those workers and encourage the use of condoms, which has helped to inhibit the spread of AIDS, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Another problem relates to sex slaves, who are brought here usually on visas either by trickery or false contracts, with the promise that they will be allowed to remain in Australia if they perform certain sex acts for those unsavoury brothel owners.

During debate on the Disorderly Houses Amendment (Brothels) Bill I referred to women who charge for personal sex services and do not register their premises as a brothel. Indeed, often the addresses of these small, home-based businesses have been published or given to councils and a great fuss has been made by the somewhat unholy alliance of the more prurient members of councils with the legalised brothel owners, who do not want competition. The women who offer this type of service do not want to draw attention to themselves, and obviously their clients are of the same view. The suggestion that these premises are rowdy or disorderly is a nonsense. Indeed, one might question why neighbours would be so nosy as to want to know what people are doing within the privacy of their own homes.

Unfortunately, the Disorderly Houses Amendment (Brothels) Bill undermined the provision that stipulated that two private workers should work together to provide security. Premises were found to be illegal and workers were hounded out of their houses, I believe in the interests of the large, legalised brothels. For the Hon. David Clarke to suggest that this has led to a decline in the moral standards of society is a nonsense. Why the church continues to hound people for sexual practices that have been entrenched since time began is quite beyond me. I do not understand why this attitude of prohibition exists to such an extent. However, the bill goes some way towards addressing the problem of the purchasing of non-violent erotica between consenting adults.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [2.58 p.m.]: I oppose the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill, which is sponsored by the Hon. Peter Breen. The object of the bill is to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995:

(a) to remove the current prohibition in relation to the sale of films that are classified X 18+ under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, and to remove the current prohibition on the public exhibition of such films, and

(b) to ensure that films classified X 18+ are only sold from restricted publications areas, and

(c) to increase penalties for allowing minors to access adult material.

In my view—and I believe in the view of many others—material classified as X 18+ is hard-core pornography. To sanitise this material by calling it "non-violent erotica", as was tried a few years ago, simply does not wash. Material that is rated X 18+ does not contain any physical sexual violence but it treats women, and in some cases men, as sexual commodities.

If anyone has any doubts about the content of the material I recommend they read the 2003 discussion paper from the Australia Institute titled "Youth and Pornography in Australia: Evidence on the extent of exposure and likely effects". The co-authors are Michael Flood and Clive Hamilton. Pages vii and viii of the summary chapter provide a particularly graphic explanation of what is contained in typical X 18+ videos. Reading the explanation reminded me of a quote from the New South Wales Parliamentary Library research service 2003 briefing paper titled "X Rated Films and the Regulation of Sexually Explicit Material". Chapter 4.3 deals with the debate about X 18+ videos in New South Wales in the mid-1980 and at page 11 it says: 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16363

There followed a screening in the NSW Parliamentary theatre of a video compiled by the Film Censorship Board depicting representative scenes from a range of video classifications. Around 40 NSW parliamentarians attended the screening, some of them walked out early. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that "Nick Greiner and Paul Lander left early, looking decidedly queasy".

The briefing paper noted that while reiterating his Government's commitment to non-censorship, Neville Wran, who was then the Premier, said categorically:

There are certain things that are beyond the pale.

I suggest to honourable members that those words are as relevant today as they were then. I was somewhat surprised when on 26 May the Hon. Peter Breen, through a question without notice, effectively speared the plan of two members of this Chamber to show a cross-section of material that is currently the subject of the debate. He can answer for himself as to why he did it, but I suspect that he does not want politicians to see first hand exactly what is in the material that is the subject of the bill. In light of missing out on our film review, let me quote some excerpts from the Flood and Hamilton discussion paper I referred to above. For those with a weak stomach, now might be a good time to check their messages on their mobile phones. The discussion paper stated in part:

A typical X-rated video shows a series of scenarios, each lasting for anywhere from a few minutes to half an hour …

It then oulines a list of common practices. The paper further stated:

Typical practices depicted in X-rated videos also include "double penetration" (where two men simultaneously have vaginal and anal intercourse with the one woman), one woman kneeling between two or more men and practising fellatio on each in turn, and one woman engaged simultaneously in vaginal or anal intercourse with one man or two men and fellatio with a second or third man.

Two additional sexual practices have become staples in X-rated videos. It is standard practice in heterosexual pornography for the male partner to withdraw from intercourse or fellatio before orgasm to ejaculate onto the body or face of his female partner. These are commonly described as "cumshots", while the sub-genre "facials" refers to images of men ejaculating onto women's faces and women's faces covered in semen …

Across the myriad of pornographic images and texts, there are common classificatory schemes for types or genres of content. Among X-rated videos, there are series focused on particular sexual practices, sexual participants, body parts or other aspects of sexuality. On the shelves of an adult store, one can find videos focused on "teens" and young women, "new" or "amateur" female participants, anal intercourse, fellatio, male ejaculation or "cumshots", breasts, buttocks, "lesbian" sex, Asian and black women, voyeurism, large penises, multiple male partners or "gangbangs", pregnant women …

In looking at the proposed legislation, I had cause to go back and read the 1998 report of the Commonwealth Joint Select Committee on Video Material Volumes One and Two. In commenting on video material similar to that being considered in this bill, the committee said:

The dominant theme of this material also is that it "objectifies" and "commodifies" women. Rather than treating women as free and responsible initiators of human activity, the material in this category, although non-violent, treats women as sexual commodities to arouse the sexual desires of its target audience.

The bulk of all pornographic material commercially available in Australia basically falls into this category. In general, there is little or no plot or character development and if there is a story line it is an excuse for the sex exploits contained in the material.

The Committee, as did the Meese Commission, also refers to this material as degrading in that it frequently "depicts people, usually women, as existing solely for the sexual satisfaction of others, usually men, or that it depicts people, usually women, in decidedly subordinate roles in their sexual relations with others, or that it depicts people engaged in sexual practices that would to most people be considered humiliating.

Women are often depicted as sexually malleable for the purpose of satisfying male sexual desires. This is sometimes manifested by themes involving workplace sexual favours. Women are frequently depicted as eager for sexual experience of any kind and ever ready for any opportunity for sexual activity.

Evidence cited by the joint select committee showed that such material engendered "a sexually calloused and manipulative orientation towards women" and "mediates in the mind of the habitual viewer a perception of women in general as promiscuous and available".

Another aspect of pornography that is being increasingly understood is its addictive nature, particularly among men. Especially with its ease of access over the Internet, researchers are discovering that this material becomes a very serious and painful addiction for some. The article by Jack Cheetham titled "The perils of porn" in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 February 2005 highlights the personal impact on those who become addicted to X 18+ material. Dr Mary Anne Layden, an expert on the impact of this material, in her testimony to an American Senate committee on 18 November 2004, said: 16364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

For the viewer, pornography increases the likelihood of sexual addiction and they respond in ways similar to other addicts. Sexual addicts develop tolerance and will need more and harder kinds of pornographic material.

The testimony is well worth reading. It is not doctrinaire, emotive or reactionary; it simply lays out a strong case against this material and its impact on people. It is only 3½ pages long, and I have spare copies for anyone who would like to read it. Those who argue that X 18+ material should be legally available often put the case that adults should be able to read, hear, and see what they want. The fact is that in Australia there is, and has been for many years, a classification arrangement in place that, although not perfect, provides a framework to classify publications, films, and computer games.

The Hon. Peter Breen asserts that X 18+ videos and DVDs are readily available for purchase from adult shops in Kings Cross, Darlinghurst, George Street, and elsewhere. He also claims that other videos and DVDs that would be refused classification under the current regulatory framework are also available at the same outlets. If this is the case, the best way forward, in my view, is not to legalise the sale of the material but, rather, to improve the co-operation between the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments so that the current laws can be better applied and enforced. The Hon. John Hatzistergos, in an answer to a question without notice from the Hon. David Oldfield on 22 February, made the point well. He said:

I understand the Commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification is responsible for the classification of DVDs and movies. States and Territories are responsible for the prosecution of offences relating to certain materials, but the Commonwealth classification legislation does not assist the police as the Commonwealth does not sufficiently resource its system. For instance, police investigating the sale of DVDs that might be X 18+ rated or unclassified have to apply in writing to the Office of Film and Literature Classification to have that office watch the DVD and decide whether it is X 18+ or unclassifiable. This is cumbersome.

Clearly, through working together more closely, the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments can achieve real improvement in enforcing the current classification laws. The Hon. Peter Breen in his second reading speech said that there is nothing harmful or degenerate about X 18+ material. Of course, this is his opinion and he is entitled to it. However, many others disagree with him. It is interesting to note that at least four behavioural scientists whose work was scrutinised by the Joint Select Committee on Video Material identified harmful effects associated with X 18+ material. Dr Layden also made the same observations. It is worth quoting directly from page ix of the summary chapter of the Flood and Hamilton discussion paper. It states:

A wide range of studies has been conducted among young people aged 18 to 25. One of the most important areas of social concern has been the impact of pornography on men's sexual behaviour towards women, and particularly male sexual aggression or rape. One major study integrated the findings of a broad range of research and concluded that there is consistent and reliable evidence that exposure to or consumption of pornography is related to male sexual aggression against women. This association is strongest for violent pornography and is still reliable for non-violent pornography, particularly when used frequently.

In experimental studies, adults show significant strengthening of attitudes supportive of sexual aggression following exposure to pornography. These attitudes are measured by scales designed to measure 'rape myth acceptance', 'sexual callousness', 'adversarial sexual beliefs' and 'acceptance of interpersonal violence against women'.

On page x the authors note further:

In our view, the research literature's documentation of significant associations between adult use of certain types of pornography and sexual aggression is of real concern. It is likely that similar relationships exist among teenagers …

I also have very serious doubts that the so-called black market for this material would be wiped out if the sale of X 18+ material was legalised. Other members who spoke in this debate provided details of the black market that operates in the Australian Capital Territory, where the sale of such material is legal. Why would things be any different in New South Wales? Indeed, the Australian Capital Territory Government Registrar of X 18+ Film Licences has in the past made observations including: "Many breaches and offences are occurring undetected"; "There has been a significant level of unclassified, or Refused Classification, titles being sold or displayed for sale, or copied, in some licensed premises"; and "The industry is not meeting the requirements of the Act." This is in a jurisdiction where X 18+ material is regulated.

I also make the point that to the extent that criminal elements are involved, particularly in the production of this material, surely nobody really believes that legalising it is suddenly going to clean up these things. Those not inclined to observe our laws tend to operate in the shadows whatever the legislative regime, especially if big dollars are involved. I strongly disagree with the concept of governments earning a revenue stream from taxing the production and/or sale of this material. In my view, this approach institutionalises and legitimises the material and does not serve the common good of our society. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16365

Dr Layden's testimony also provides grim insights into the working lives of pornography performers, including high rates of substance abuse, typically alcohol and cocaine, depression, personality disorder, increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and domestic violence.

Honourable members would know that the scheme for classification of publications, films and computer games in New South Wales is part of a national co-operative scheme. It has and continues to have the support of all Australian jurisdictions. All States in the Commonwealth currently prohibit the sale and public exhibition of X 18+ films. Amending New South Wales enforcement legislation in the way proposed by the bill, without giving due consideration to the situation in other States, runs counter to the Commonwealth-State censorship agreement. The bill would result in New South Wales being out of step with the States and the Commonwealth.

Parliament has a critical role in developing and maintaining laws that take into account the common good of society. Claims by individuals for freedoms to do this or that need to be examined in the light of the impact on others and society in general. Furthermore, laws should also uphold both the dignity and respect of the human person. The bill, in my view, achieves neither. I believe it promotes the opposite.

Moreover, the big challenge we must face up to is how we protect young people from being exposed to X 18+ and much worse material that is now readily available on the Internet. An article in the Weekend Australian on 23 and 24 April highlighted the fact that almost one in six children as young as eight who use the internet have been exposed to online pornography, most frequently through pop-up advertisements. Surely legislators need to turn their minds to how this issue can be addressed. For all the reasons outlined, I urge honourable members not to support the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.17 p.m.]: The Greens congratulate Mr Peter Breen on the work he has done in introducing this important bill. It will legalise the sale and public exhibition of X 18+ videos. Listening to the debate today and on previous occasions, one would have to say that Mr Breen has certainly set the religious right hares running with this bill. Again, I am left wondering why the religious right revel in talking about and watching pornography. It is one of the curious things about life.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: They do not. That is a misrepresentation.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection from the member and I will come to some of his actions later, because I think they prove otherwise. The bill will ensure that films classified X 18+ are sold only from restricted publication areas and it will result in increased penalties for allowing minors to access adult material. Current laws are very inconsistent. It is legal to buy X-rated material in New South Wales, it is legal to possess X-rated material in New South Wales, but it is not legal to sell X-rated material in New South Wales. That is just unworkable.

Again, that is one of the many arguments that expose the religious right. We have a ridiculous system that is not working and cannot work. The bill will allow a clean-up of the industry, and the religious right are refusing to support it. That the Government refuses to support the bill reflects poorly on the Premier and the Attorney General. Their inaction has resulted in a dangerously unregulated industry. Even Prime Minister John Howard has made changes in this area, but the New South Wales Labor Government has not. There has been no attempt in New South Wales to enforce current laws. I do not believe the situation would be any different if the Coalition were in office. Despite the Hon. David Clarke's comments, I do not believe the Coalition would even try to change it. Even if it did, the industry would not be cleaned up.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You speak for yourself. Don't speak for us.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection by Mr Colless. I am sure he would not go so far as stopping me from commenting on the Coalition. Maybe he would. Despite Mr Clarke's comments, I argue that the Coalition would be unsuccessful in enforcing the law. The failure of the Carr Government to enforce current laws has left the door open for the expansion of the black market, with its associated corruption, exploitation, and organised crime—as illustrated very clearly by Mr Breen. Recently the Premier did not mind spending silly money on an advertising blitz to boast of his success in tackling crime. Here we have clear deficiencies in both the law and enforcement practices by New South Wales Police. Yet what do we see from the Premier? He sits on his hands.

The Premier's latest advertising pitch is insulting and meaningless. In October last year when the Government introduced a classifications bill, the Premier had the perfect opportunity to implement some of the 16366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 proposals in Mr Breen's bill, but the Government failed to do anything. Sadly, even with this bill the Government still fails to do anything. Mr Breen's bill provides the Government with a perfect opportunity, and a very well argued one, to do the right thing. Proper regulation will help clean up this industry—as previously occurred with sex workers—and it will have the added benefit of directing much of the illegal profits into the public coffers.

We have seen this happen in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and it would be the responsible approach to take in New South Wales. The markets in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are properly policed to ensure that only legally classified material is sold. It would be logical for the religious right to support this bill. The religious right—Reverend Moyes, Reverend Nile and Mr Clarke—criticised Mr Breen and his bill, and shortly we will see them vote against the bill. I find their attitude very curious.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: You're speaking for the hedonistic left.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Charlie, your interjections are not as good as they were in the past. They are not up to your usual standard.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Spot-on, though.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Not at all, Charlie. We will see the religious right vote against this bill. If passed, this bill would greatly reduce the availability of illegal pornographic films. The bill offers a clean-up of the industry. That is what the Coalition and members at the right end of the crossbench have been calling for. They say a clean-up of the industry is needed. The bill would provide a method of regulating an industry that is totally unregulated at present.

The religious right argue that all pornographic films and films depicting adults having consensual sex should be banned. But let us look at their actions. Last month Reverend Moyes and Reverend Nile were to jointly host a film event for the Australian Christian Lobby but, as we know, the film night did not eventuate. But we still have to wonder about this extraordinary event which was to be hosted by people who express great concern about the availability of pornographic films.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: I did not host it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: But I have seen the invitation with his photograph and name on it. Mr Breen is holding up the invitation. I regret that Hansard does not have a visual record so the invitation could be seen. It is on the record that Reverend Moyes was to host the event. For whatever reason—technical or perhaps cold feet at the last moment—the event did not go ahead. But why would they even contemplate holding such an event? What was the purpose of it? What did they expect to achieve? It is extraordinary.

When I saw the invitation it reminded me of stories I heard when I used to come to Parliament in the 1980s to gain support from upper House members for various campaigns I was working on. On one occasion I was told that members would regularly receive pornography packs from Reverend Nile and that his argument for distributing them was that he wanted to remind members of the types of pornography available in New South Wales. I did not know Reverend Nile at the time and did not agree with what he was espousing, but I remember being quite shocked. I could not understand why this man, who clearly states he is against pornography, the rights of gay and lesbian people and a whole lot of things, would show pornography to other people.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: Standing Order 91 (3) states:

… all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on either House, members or officers will be considered disorderly.

I have never distributed a pornographic pack. I do not know what a pornographic pack is. I ask the member to withdraw the remark.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: I was repeating information that I had been given. Reverend Nile says he did not distribute pornography. I note that he emphasised "pornographic pack", so that may leave it open that he has distributed pornography in some form. I did use the term "pornography pack". I will withdraw that comment if it was inaccurate. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16367

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! I consider the comment as having been withdrawn.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I accept. Don't believe all the hearsay you hear.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection by Reverend Nile. I thought of that story— which I was told some 20 years ago, in 1983—because he was hosting an event at which he wanted to show pornographic films. I find it extraordinary and I am still trying to understand it.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The Australian Christian Lobby was screening extracts.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Australian Christian Lobby was screening it but he chose to host it. We all make decisions about events we associate with, and clearly those events reflect on our work as members of Parliament and the work of our parties.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It was recently held at Federal Parliament for all the members.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Reverend Nile tells us that a similar event was held at Federal Parliament, which adds to the point I have made.

The Hon. Peter Breen: That would have been illegal too.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Mr Breen reminds us that screening such films at Federal Parliament would be illegal. What are all these members of Parliament doing being involved in illegal events? If the Greens did it we would not hear the end of it. By not supporting the bill, members will enable a seriously corrupt industry to flourish unchecked. That is what members will allow when they vote against this bill. X-rated material is being sold in New South Wales. Ever year approximately three million illegal videos are sold under Premier Bob Carr.

If by some miracle Mr Brogden won the next election the situation would continue under him. The situation will not change under this present regime. There has been a proliferation of violent, vulgar and explicit material which is now being widely sold throughout New South Wales at unrestricted locations, such as service stations, stores, and weekend markets, where children can browse this material. That is going on at the moment and nothing that has been said in this House during this debate in any way begins to change that situation.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I have called for the State Government to set up a new vice squad.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: A new vice squad would likely end up corrupt, like previous vice squads. Specialised squads are open to the corruption that goes with the industry. We have had that experience. This bill would effectively clean up the industry, and the Government would be wise to act on it. If the Government will not accept Mr Breen's bill, it should wait a few months and introduce a similar bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.30 p.m.]: The Government does not support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill, which proposes to remove the current prohibition on the sale and public exhibition in New South Wales of films that are classified X 18+ under Commonwealth legislation, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. It seeks to ensure that films classified X 18+ are sold only from restricted publications areas and that the penalties for allowing minors to access adult material are increased. The bill arises because of the concerns of the Hon. Peter Breen that the current prohibitions on the sale and public exhibition of X 18+ rated and films that have been refused classification [RC] are not being enforced in New South Wales. The bill seeks to address the availability of X-rated material for sale in New South Wales under the counter in various adult stores and from other businesses, such as service stations and video stores.

The bill overcomes this problem by allowing restricted sale from adult shops of X-rated material to people over 18. It would not change the law for sexually violent or demeaning material, which would remain illegal. I commence by pointing out a fatal flaw in this bill. It proposes to make it legal to sell and publicly exhibit X 18+ rated films without any visible mechanisms for increasing the level of enforcement of the classification laws. The purported justification for the bill is the availability of X 18+ rated and RC films, often in pirated form, in adult shops in New South Wales. Merely making the sale and public exhibition of X 18+ rated films legal in New South Wales will not solve the problems concerning RC and pirated or illegally labelled films being made available for sale. This is especially so if there is not a co-ordinated response at a national level to these issues. 16368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

The scheme for classification of films, publications and computer games in New South Wales is part of a national, co-operative scheme that has been in operation for almost 10 years, with the support of all Australian jurisdictions. The scheme comprises a Commonwealth Act, the Classification (Films, Publications and Computer Games) Act 1995, which establishes the classification authorities, the Office of Film and Literature Classification, the Classification Board and the Review Board, and sets out the Classification Code. All State and Territory jurisdictions have enacted enforcement legislation that sets out offence provisions enforcing classification decisions made under the Commonwealth Act. In New South Wales this is the Classification (Films, Publications and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995. Enforcement legislation is essentially similar in each jurisdiction.

All States, but not the Territories, currently prohibit the sale and public exhibition of X-rated films. Amending New South Wales enforcement legislation to allow the sale and public exhibition of X-rated films, without giving due consideration to the situation in other States, runs counter to the nature of the national co- operative scheme and would transmogrify its operation. The availability of X-rated and RC-rated films is an ongoing issue being considered by State, Commonwealth and Territory censorship ministers. The forum for this is the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, which provides a venue for ongoing consideration of the enforcement issues raised by the Hon. Peter Breen, ensuring a consistent national response to his concerns.

As I have mentioned, the system of classification is governed by a Commonwealth-State censorship agreement. No other State allows the sale of X-rated material, and this bill would result in New South Wales being out of step with the States and the Commonwealth. In view of the technical deficiencies in the bill, and given that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has not concluded its consideration of this issue on a national basis, the Government does not support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment (X 18+ Films) Bill.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [3.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this controversial bill. I was particularly disappointed in the attitude of the Government. Following the presentation of the film Baise Moi the Premier said:

I don't like the idea of adults being told what they can see and what they can read. I don't like the idea of State police going into cinemas seizing films.

The Premier effectively introduced a policy of allowing people to watch what they like, so far as X-rated videos and DVDs are concerned. This policy is completely hypocritical. The law as it stands is being ignored, as a number of honourable members pointed out. The Hon. David Clarke made a comparison between the enforcement of these laws and those relating to prostitution and illegal casinos. I think they are legitimate comparisons, on one level. The Premier's attitude to this matter—that is, of allowing the industry to operate unregulated—is so hypocritical that it really defies description as to how one should deal with it. Five million videos, both X-rated and refused classification, are sold in New South Wales every year. Of those five million videos, three million are illegal. It is either X-rated material or, by and large, material that has not been classified.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: How can you prove there are five million?

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I can prove that. I asked some of the people in the industry to provide me with verification of those figures. I regret that they have not done so. However, they have assured me orally that they know, because of the number of legal videos that are circulated and sold through the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, compared with how many are produced by the wholesalers. They calculate from the distribution of that material how many are sold and then they make a comparison with those of them that are legal. For example, by examining an X-rated video bearing a classification and number from the Office of Film and Literature Classification one could determine whether or not the video was legal.

I am assured that about two million of those videos are sold in New South Wales each year, and when one takes into account the number of adult shops and video outlets that sell these videos it is not difficult to imagine that two million of them are sold legally. But there are another three million videos, based on the wholesalers' figures, that are sold illegally. Because the sale of this material is unregulated, people are able to watch material that is totally beyond the pale; material that would never be given a classification under the X- rated video definition, which is a very narrow definition. This material has been referred to as "erotic videos and DVDs", but, really, it depicts sex that is not in any way contaminated, if you like, by violence. Any material that depicted such violence would not receive an X-rated classification. In fact the X-rated classification is much more restrictive so far as violence is concerned than the R-rated classification. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16369

Ms Lee Rhiannon spoke about the proposed screening of a film in the Parliament by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. I acknowledge the comment by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes that he was not responsible for having sponsored the screening of that film. Nonetheless, a photograph of him appeared on the invitation, together with a photograph of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. I acknowledge also, however, that administrative matters sometimes mean that such things can slip under the radar.

The presentation was made by Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby. The reality is that the screening of such a film, Anatomy of Hell, in a public place, without approval from the censor, is legal. However, the whole film must be depicted. The censorship classification applies to the whole film, from beginning to end. If you want to broadcast or show an excerpt from the film, you must obtain a separate classification because obviously that excerpt may be taken out of context. When I explained that to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, and I asked a question about it, Mr Wallace accused me of being deceitful and dishonest. But I would like to assure him that I was simply pointing out the law. If there is any deceit and dishonesty in this debate, in my view it belongs with the Australian Christian Lobby.

Although the film Anatomy of Hell is R-rated, it contains some of the most appalling sexualised violence one could ever imagine. Mr Wallace attempted to distribute a document headed "Australian Christian Lobby" that provided an explanation of the film Anatomy of Hell. The document had a cross on it and a representation that looked a little like that of the Federal Parliament. It read:

At 27 minutes a pre-pubescent girl removes her pants and lies in bushes. A medium-distance shot of her naked from the torso down is shown. It cuts to a young boy who implicitly places the arm of a pair of spectacles in her vagina …

At 33 minutes a man draws with lipstick around the anus and vagina of a sleeping woman. He then proceeds to have sex with her.

In my view, that kind of film is much more appalling than an X-rated film because it depicts violence. The document continued:

At 46 minutes the man places the handle of a pitchfork in the vagina of a woman and balances it so that the implement remains suspended in the air.

Such a film is legal; it is allowed under the R-rated 18+ classification.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It shouldn't be.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I agree, it should not be. But I say to Jim Wallace, and anybody else who says that X-rated videos are appalling, that they are damaging to women, that they are dangerous to the community, that they represent a threat to children, and so on: there is no violence in X-rated videos; it is specifically excluded from such material. If we ignore the fact that X-rated videos include footage of genitals, everything else about an X-rated videos is far less damaging than anything one might see in the film Anatomy of Hell.

Twenty years ago it was legal to have X-rated films; there was no distinction between the X-rated classification and the R-rated classifications. I note that today's Sydney Morning Herald published a list of the new X and R classification symbols. Interestingly, they are both black. The representations are very similar: one is R18+ and the other is X18+. The distinction between the two is quite artificial. All my bill seeks to do is allow the law in New South Wales to operate and be policed in the same way as the law operates and is policed in the Australian Capital Territory [ACT]. A number of members referred to the Australian Capital Territory. The law in the Australian Capital Territory operates in a very restricted environment. The censor in the Australian Capital Territory, and those in charge of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, say that there is no evidence of any illegal or criminal activity in the Australian Capital Territory.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly made a thoughtful contribution to the debate. He has obviously researched the matter and I compliment him on his contribution. However, I wish to correct the record in relation to one matter. The honourable member quoted extensively from the Flood report. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes also referred to that report in his contribution. On 24 May Michael Flood, the author of the report, wrote a letter addressed "To Whom It May Concern" in the following terms:

I am writing in relation to the debate taking place in the New South Wales Parliament regarding a Private Member's Bill to legalise the sale of X18+ material in New South Wales. 16370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

I am the co-author of two reports on pornography on which Dr Gordon Moyes draws in arguing against the introduction of this Bill. I wish to draw your attention to three points:

1. I would support the introduction of this Bill.

2. Our reports support the existing system for classifying X-rated material.

3. Our reports argue for an extension of this system to the internet.

The bill does not deal with the Internet. It simply deals with the suggestion that the law as it applies in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory ought to be the same law—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Will you table that letter so we can verify its authenticity?

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Yes, I am very happy to table the letter. The document makes a number of observations about the contribution of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. It makes the point I made: that there is no violence in X-rated videos which means that for many people an X-rated video is much less offensive than an R-rated video. I could not watch Baise Moi; it was so sexually violent. Yet I would have no difficulty watching an X-rated video because personally I do not find such material offensive. I acknowledge that a number of people find X-rated videos offensive, but in my view sex and violence together, which is what we are talking about in R-rated videos, is much more damaging and offensive than straight-out sexual erotica. I seek leave to table the letter from Dr Michael Flood dated 24 May.

Leave granted.

Document tabled.

The campaign that occurred 20 years ago to declare X-rated videos illegal was an emotional one. As the Hon. David Clarke pointed out, the campaign succeeded in pulling on the heartstrings of the then Premier, Mr Wran, and as a result X-rated material was excluded in New South Wales and other States. The object was to prevent X-rated material getting into the hands of young people, families, and so on, and I agree with that object. But the object has not been achieved. In George Street, Darlinghurst, or in Kings Cross, both X-rated and non-classified material—I am talking about thousands and thousands of items—is freely sold and available. As Ms Lee Rhiannon pointed out, to have such a thriving industry operating without restrictions simply brings the law and the system into disrepute.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: We agree. We want the law enforced.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: But the problem is that if the law were enforced as it operates in New South Wales now, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that these people sell the material without being policed.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: They can be charged by the police.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: But the problem is that the Premier's attitude is that people should be able to watch what they like. The system should operate as that which is in place in the Australian Capital Territory, that is, a licensing regime whereby people who wish to sell the material pay a licence fee, and inspectors, such as local government inspectors, make a check of what is being sold to ensure that each video sold carries a classification number from the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The system is very strictly policed in the Australian Capital Territory. One cannot buy anything in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory that would hold a candle to some of the material that is available in George Street, Oxford Street or Darlinghurst Road.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: The police should be there and having a look.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: But police are in a difficult position. In the absence of an organisation like the Vice Squad, which specialises in such matters and has the necessary knowledge to enforce the law, ordinary police officers do not know what material is classified and what is not. Recently, with a person who censors X- rated films, I went into a video shop in Darlinghurst Road and talked to the proprietor of that shop about the fact that he was selling illegal material. His attitude was, "I am a citizen of the Commonwealth. This stuff has a Commonwealth classification. Why shouldn't I be able to sell it? What's the problem?" I do not know whether he was being disingenuous or whether he really believed that he was entitled to sell it, but the fact is that that 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16371 was his thinking. If he were to be prosecuted and he were to raise that matter as a defence, I suggest it would be a good defence to argue and it would be difficult to prove that he had the intention of breaking the law.

All I am suggesting is that the present regime is not working and that my bill seeks to introduce a level of regulation that would enable the system to work. It is no more sinister than that. I am not particularly offended by X-rated material. As I said, I am much more offended by R-rated material because of the violence element in R-rated material. There is nothing intrinsically wrong, in my opinion, with the depiction of people having sex with each other. I may stand corrected by a number of people about that, and I concede that I could be wrong about it, but for me, personally, it is not offensive. And I suspect that the majority of the population, particularly given the number of sales of such videos and DVDs, think, like I do, that such material is not offensive. Indeed, just on a straw poll of my own family, all the members of my family find material involving violence—that is, R-rated, legal material—much more offensive and much more degrading, particularly to women.

I simply say that there are inconsistencies in the way the law and the classifications operate, and those inconsistencies are translated into a regime that operates illegally, without any kind of government control or intervention. Such a flagrant breach of the law in New South Wales reminds me of the old days of illegal casinos and illegal brothels. It provides an environment for corruption, for organised crime, and it brings into disrepute the enforcement of the law.

I urge honourable members to give consideration to this bill and to consider whether the present regime is satisfactory. I hope that members would draw the conclusion that the present regime is not satisfactory, that it ought to change, and that this bill is a step in the right direction to make sure that the system is enforced and operates in the way it was intended. I urge members to support the bill.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 5

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

Noes, 32

Ms Burnswoods Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Catanzariti Ms Griffin Mr Pearce Mr Clarke Mr Hatzistergos Ms Robertson Mr Colless Mr Kelly Mr Ryan Mr Costa Mr Lynn Ms Tebbutt Ms Cusack Mr Macdonald Mr Tingle Mr Della Bosca Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Tsang Mr Donnelly Reverend Nile Mr West Mrs Forsythe Mr Obeid Tellers, Mr Gallacher Mr Oldfield Mr Harwin Miss Gardiner Ms Parker Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived. 16372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

SIDS AND KIDS HUNTER REGION FUNDING

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Hunter. Is the Minister aware that SIDS and Kids Hunter Region last month wrote to the Minister for Health requesting funding for their counselling and support services program? Is the Minister also aware that SIDS and Kids Hunter Region had 70 families referred to them last year, many of them by State government agencies such as hospitals and police? Is he further aware that SIDS and Kids Hunter Region has not received any operational funding from the Government since it was established more than 25 years ago? What action has he taken as Minister for the Hunter to assist SIDS and Kids Hunter Region to receive this much-needed State Government funding?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am not aware of the details the honourable member refers to, but I am happy to seek advice from the Minister for Health and come back to the House. I put on record that I support the work of SIDS and Kids. It is important work and, clearly, if I can be of help, I will be.

BUSHFIRE HAZARD REDUCTION

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House on hazard reduction programs?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Bushfire prevention and management is a year-round activity. With the latest bushfire season just behind them, our fire services are now working with landholders around the State to prepare for the coming fire season. The Rural Fire Service and NSW Fire Brigades are assisting both public and private landowners and managers with a carefully planned and prioritised schedule of hazard reduction. This is part of the State's co-ordinated and cohesive approach to bushfire management.

Hazard reduction is a useful tool in helping reduce the intensity of our fires under moderate conditions. The priority is on carefully targeted burns that protect families and their assets. Last weekend Rural Fire Service volunteers assisted landholders with 14 hazard reduction burns covering almost 220 hectares in the Bathurst, Baulkham Hills, Blue Mountains, Lithgow, Pittwater, Port Stephens, Warringah and Wingecarribee local government areas. Fire Brigades assisted with two of these burns, in the Blue Mountains and Pittwater.

More hazard reduction work is also planned for the Hornsby and Sutherland districts over the coming Queen's birthday long weekend, weather permitting. I note that the weather bureau's outlook at this stage is for rain—and hopefully it is correct—which means that the planned work would need to be rescheduled. Nevertheless, hazard reduction work will continue ahead of the official start of the bushfire season in October. I urge residents and traffic in the vicinity of any such operations to take caution, as there may be some smoke in the local area. Residents should keep doors and windows closed, put outdoor furniture under cover, retract pool covers to prevent ember damage, and ensure that pets are in a protected area.

Many property owners in rural New South Wales also traditionally use the June long weekend to clean up and prepare for the fire season by burning off or to have a bonfire. The Rural Fire Service has warned that fires are likely to escape in the overwhelmingly dry conditions caused by the severe drought. Even if there is some rain, the cumulative effect of the drought means that more than average rainfall is needed to have any real effect on the extremely dry vegetation. While safe burning is encouraged to reduce bushfire hazards, Rural Fire Service volunteers have recently attended a number of incidents where burn-offs have gotten out of control due to dry conditions. They have appealed to the community to be cautious.

The Rural Fire Service provides a free hazard reduction environmental assessment service. People should ask about a bushfire hazard reduction certificate. Simple safe burning tips include asking the Rural Fire Service for advice and approvals before lighting up; checking for windy weather conditions; notifying neighbours and fire authorities 24 hours in advance; ensuring proper fire breaks are created; providing firefighting equipment and water supplies; constantly supervising the fire; and calling 000 immediately if the fire escapes. Our firefighters are highly dedicated and trained. They are there to help the community during emergencies, but if the community can help reduce the risks of fires getting out of control in the first place, their task will be much easier. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16373

BINGARA TIMBER WORKERS EXIT PACKAGE

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is there a special exit package for Bingara timber workers? Is this package different from what is on offer to timber workers in Baradine, Gunnedah, or anywhere else in the Brigalow Belt South bioregion? Are newspaper comments that a special deal has been brokered for the Bingara timber workers correct? If so, will such special deals be open to other timber workers within the Brigalow bioregion?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Government's package on the bioregion, in terms of the restructuring of the industry there, has made it clear that there is a major program of worker assist to help workers through this process and look at their options for the future. If they wish to exit the industry completely, they are eligible for a $72,000 grant plus their entitlements. If they wish to continue on, they will be entitled to a payment of $27,000, potential training and a secure job. The Government has announced around 82 jobs in the package. As for special deals, I am not aware of the special deal as such. The package that we have announced has been a straightforward program that was done in consultation with the work force.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is the same for everyone, is it?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I cannot say to you that it will be exactly the same for everyone. We will be looking at the individual needs of the employees affected and trying to assess their needs and their program. The overall package is the general package that will be adopted, but I do not rule out that in some cases there may be some change or added features. However, it is not, as such, a policy. There will be discussions.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is not special for one area over another?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No.

MS ANU SINGH AND NEEDLE DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that Anu Singh, who was convicted of the manslaughter of her then boyfriend, Joe Cinque, by administering a lethal dose of heroin after spiking his coffee with Rohypnol, is now employed with Cabramatta Community Centre handing out syringes to drug addicts? Given that Singh claims she was suffering from depression, mental illness and drug abuse at the time of the offence, is the Minister concerned that she may not be psychologically fit for the responsibilities associated with needle distribution programs? What psychological evaluation has been undertaken to ensure Singh is suitable to oversee such programs? Is the Minister aware that Singh only served four years of a 10-year sentence and has already breached her parole by continuing her illicit drug use? If Singh is any example of those operating needle distribution programs, might the Minister understand the community view that at least some of the henhouses are being looked after by foxes?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I will refer the Hon. David Oldfield's question to the Minister for Health and undertake to get a response as soon as possible.

REGIONAL CONSERVATORIUMS OF MUSIC

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. What action is the New South Wales Government taking to support conservatoriums of music in regional New South Wales?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Enrolments at regional conservatoriums are increasing significantly as more students from regional areas pursue careers in music. This year the New South Wales Government is allocating $3.2 million to the Regional Conservatoriums Program. Since the Government was elected the number of conservatoriums, and through them the communities that benefit from this support, has increased from 9 to 15 since 1995. They provide opportunities for more than 15,000 students to learn music. Regional conservatoriums are now located in Gosford, Coffs Harbour, Goulburn, Dubbo, Bathurst, Albury, Lismore, Orange, Wagga Wagga, Grafton, Tamworth, Muswellbrook, Wollongong, Young and, more recently, Armidale.

There are also two small music centres supported by the Government, and they are located in Deniliquin and Gunnedah. New South Wales Government funding is used to support instrumental tuition, which 16374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 can be individual or groups, performing ensembles such as choirs, bands and orchestras, and concert programs for the local community. Funding is also allocated for programs, including bursaries and scholarships, property maintenance, property improvement and administration. A number of significant initiatives have recently been made possible by the Government's commitment to the Regional Conservatorium Program.

Some $60,000 was provided to the New England Conservatorium as a contribution towards acoustic treatment of teaching studios, the creation of storage areas suitable for musical instruments and equipment, and improved administrative areas. The Northern Rivers Conservatorium Arts Centre in Lismore received $20,000 for the refurbishment and soundproofing of a recording studio, and $15,000 was provided to the Orange Regional Conservatorium for the relocation of a demountable building, including concrete ramps for disability access, the installation of fire sprinklers and recarpeting. The Murray Conservatorium in Albury received $15,000 for its outreach program to assist schools with the delivery of the music curriculum, through classroom music and instrumental lessons.

The Mitchell Conservatorium at Bathurst has benefited from $6,000 for music therapy programs for children and adults with physical and psychological special needs, and palliative care patients. Most centres also have outreach programs providing services to the wider community for the region. Some of these outreach programs use videoconferencing technology, with the teachers and students in separate localities. Trial videoconferencing programs are under way in regional conservatoriums in Wagga Wagga, Orange and Armidale, and negotiations are under way with the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and the Canberra School of Music on a co-operative approach to future service delivery in this emerging area of support.

Regional conservatoriums are open to all in the community. While they largely support school students, preschooling and adult programs are also provided. Regional conservatoriums have contributed to the development of some of this State's and Australia's leading composers, performers and music educators. Musicians such as the artistic director and leader of the Australian Chamber Orchestra, Richard Tognetti, former composer in residence for the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, Matthew Hindson, and operatic vocalist Anthony Warlow began their tertiary studies at regional conservatoriums. Other institutions such as the Orange, Central Coast, Tamworth and Mitchell conservatoriums have taught students who are now members of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra or who are studying and performing on the world stage, including in London and New York. The Regional Conservatorium Program promotes the development of self-esteem, vocational skills and community involvement. I congratulate all those involved in the development and provision of these initiatives.

SCHOOL HOMOSEXUAL DISCRIMINATION EDUCATION

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware that a 2002 report by the New South Wales Attorney General's Department revealed that 58 per cent of respondents surveyed had experienced homophobic abuse, harassment or violence in the past 12 months and that 85 per cent had at some time experienced abuse, harassment or violence? Considering the Minister's past support for the gay and lesbian community, was it her decision to ban the department's lesson plan "Dealing with Difference", or was she instructed by the Premier or one of his staff to introduce this ban? Will the Minister's inquiry, announced today in the Daily Telegraph, look at developing a statewide plan for how the New South Wales Department of Education and Training can be more active in addressing the serious issues of homophobia and abuse in our schools?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank Ms Lee Rhiannon for her question, which gives me the opportunity to put on record some issues relating to the particular resource that was being used in a school, as well as some of the broader issues the member has raised. A single lesson under the heading "A Guided Journey" was taught by an individual teacher as part of a sequence of lessons on understanding diversity and discrimination. The lesson was based on a scenario described in a publication by Brian McNaught in the United States of America. This publication is not endorsed by the Department of Education and Training. It is not appropriate to be used in schools, and when the Director-General of the Department of Education and Training became aware of the activity he took action to have it withdrawn. I have also asked the department to advise me on ways to ensure that resources used in schools for discrimination education are appropriate.

Having said that, I am fully supportive of teaching tolerance and diversity in our schools. This does happen in our schools. Teaching about sexual diversity, including issues related to discrimination, in New South Wales occurs through the personal development, health and physical education [PDHPE] key learning area. The New South Wales Board of Studies PDHPE syllabus content for stage four, years 7 and 8, states that students learn about "homophobic bullying and the effects of bullying and harassment". In stage five, years 9 and 10, the syllabus states that students learn about "discrimination, harassment, vilification, sources of discrimination, the 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16375 extent of discrimination in the community, and the impact of discrimination, harassment and vilification on individuals and the community".

No doubt this is an area of the syllabus that can be sensitive for some members of the community, and schools need to take that into account in the way they teach this. Many excellent resources are available to teachers to support the teaching of the syllabus. However, the material "The Guided Journey" is not such material. It is not appropriate in either style or content. I believe that the action was appropriate. I want to send the clear message that homophobic bullying is not acceptable in our schools. It has never been, and never will be, acceptable. But the way teachers teach the syllabus where this comes up—that is, the personal development, health and physical education syllabus—needs to be done in a sensitive and respectful way. Many resources are available to teachers to assist them. It also needs to be done in an age-appropriate way. I believe that the particular resource that was used in one school by one teacher was not appropriate, and that is why the Department of Education and Training has taken action to have the material withdrawn.

YOUNG PEOPLE DISABLED ACCOMMODATION

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. What strategy has the Carr Government implemented to start moving young people with disabilities out of nursing homes and into the community following the Premier's comments on the issue after the recent Council of Australian Governments meeting? Will the Carr Government now accept Federal innovative pool funding to get this process started immediately? Is there anything to prevent the New South Wales Government from starting the process of freeing up both hospital beds and much-needed aged care accommodation in this State by getting some young people out of nursing homes now?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I have already informed the House that the Government acknowledges the concerns in the community about younger people with a disability living in nursing homes. While the population of this group is small and admissions have declined in recent years, the Government continues to work towards improving levels of support and reducing future admissions. We have provided this group with priority access to the Attendant Care Program. We have ensured that government agencies collaboratively explore alternative care arrangements over a nursing home placement. We continue to look at ways to support them to maintain links with the community through community access programs.

Recently I met with representatives from the Young People in Nursing Homes Alliance—the same organisation that spoke to the Prime Minister and the Premier's immediately before the recent Council of Australian Governments [COAG] meeting. Following the meeting I requested the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care to review the Attendant Care Program guidelines and to report back to me. Plainly, as has been widely canvassed in the popular media in recent days since the COAG meeting, resolution of this issue is only possible with the development of new and appropriate accommodation models, and the New South Wales Government is currently considering this. I will be hosting a roundtable on accommodation models in July. Further, as honourable members would appreciate, the collaboration of the Federal Government is vital as nursing homes and their funding come under its jurisdiction.

The discussion about jurisdictional responsibility for aged care and disability services that occurred at the recent Council of Australian Governments meeting is a positive step, and I commend all the Premiers and the Prime Minister for tackling this very pressing national issue. Obviously, it will allow us to rapidly progress some of the necessary changes. I shall comment on one or two other aspects of the honourable member's question. The Hon. John Ryan asked me about the innovative pool funding. I think I have already responded to him about that in previous answers to questions. I indicated that I have had discussions with the Federal Minister—they were fruitful discussions at the time—about ways in which the New South Wales Government could take up the Commonwealth's innovative pool funding initiative.

I have indicated, though, as the honourable member fully understands—although he is pretending not to at the moment—that that funding is very short term and most of the people in that position have very long- term needs. We need to resolve the issue with the Commonwealth about funding of the innovative pool. In keeping with my commitment to the Federal Minister, I have also separately embarked on a program of investigating ways in which we can take up the innovative pool funding under the current arrangements, even before the Prime Minister's and the Premiers' new agreement comes into place.

GREY NURSE SHARK PROTECTION

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister please inform the House about the latest efforts to boost the population of the grey nurse shark? 16376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As many honourable members will be aware, the grey nurse shark is one of the most endangered species in New South Wales waters. It is estimated that only 410 to 460 of these magnificent creatures remain in the wild. If urgent measures are not taken to protect the species, the grey nurse shark could be extinct within 20 years. The State Government has made protecting the grey nurse shark one of its priorities. The New South Wales Government was the first in the world to protect the species, giving it protection status in 1984. In 2000 we upgraded that protection status to endangered status. There are also 10 critical habitat zones in place along the New South Wales coast line that protect the areas where sharks feed and breed, but these measures alone may not be enough. Radical action is needed.

The State Government is prepared to think creatively and come up with innovative solutions as we race against time to further protect the grey nurse shark. Last Friday I announced a new artificial breeding program that will attempt to significantly boost the number of grey nurse sharks in New South Wales waters. In a world first, this program will see embryos harvested from wild female sharks and reared in specially constructed artificial uteri. Once the pups reach full development after nine to twelve months they will be released into the wild. This is exciting, cutting-edge research which has received acclaim from scientists in Australia and across the globe.

The New South Wales Government will be working in partnership with the Sydney Aquarium, which has donated the use of its special breeding tanks at Oceanworld Manly. SeaWorld on the Gold Coast has also offered its support, as has the Victorian Department of Primary Industries and the Western Australian Fisheries Department. The NSW Fisheries chief scientist, Steve Keneally, has said:

The population of grey nurse sharks off the east coast of Australia has reached such a critical level that, in combination with their extremely slow fecundity, some form of positive human intervention is needed to rebuild numbers.

Extra protection through restrictions to fishing, while important, tends only to slow the decline. In order to rebuild the population, we need to also increase the wild population.

The General Manager of Life Sciences at Sydney Aquarium, Craig Sowden, told me:

The potential for breeding grey nurse sharks is an exciting prospect. Thank you for the invitation to join in this groundbreaking research.

His opinion was backed up by Trevor Long from the SeaWorld Research and Rescue Foundation, who said:

This is a project that will likely prove to be one of the most important shark initiatives in Australia.

The director of the biology department at Lisbon Oceanarium in Portugal also offered his support. His correspondence stated:

I strongly support the overall goals. If the international public aquarium can assist you please keep us in mind. I hope we can develop something that will ultimately benefit the sharks.

I am astonished that people who claim to have the best interests of the species at heart could oppose a project that aims to significantly boost their numbers in the wild. Instead, these groups—and that includes the Greens— simplistically call for a one-dimensional approach without acknowledging the migratory habits of the species. The State Government has carried out two tagging research programs on the sharks. These revealed that they swim hundreds of kilometres up and down the coast. The latest pop-up tag research conducted by the Department of Primary Industries showed the grey nurse shark is capable of travelling more than 600 kilometres in one journey.

One of the tagged species, Maihi, travelled almost 1,000 kilometres during the space of four months. This was not confined to critical habitat, it was up and down the coast where fishing is going on. This proves that grey nurse sharks do not simply remain in protected habitat zones, but travel widely. We cannot expect that protected zones alone will have the desired effect of significantly boosting shark numbers. I remind Mr Ian Cohen that over the past decade only 10 grey nurse sharks have been caught in the 51 meshing nets in this State. New South Wales already has strict protection measures in place in the 10 critical habitat zones—the most extensive protection measures in the world. We are constantly looking at new and better ways to protect the species.

SURF LIFE SAVING PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE FUNDING

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Is it a fact, as claimed in media reports, that the State Government does not fund public liability insurance for volunteer surf lifesavers? Does the Government meet the cost of public liability insurance for 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16377 other rescue organisations such as the State Emergency Service and the Rural Fire Service? If the Government does fund public liability insurance for volunteer lifesavers, what is the overall cost?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Surf Life Saving Association provides a valuable rescue service on beaches around Australia. However, it is not classified as one of the State emergency services, as defined in the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act, and thus the Government does not fund its public liability insurance. This is not an unusual arrangement. The State does not fund the public liability cover for other non- government emergency service agencies, such as the Volunteer Rescue Association [VRA]. Instead, we provide the VRA with a substantial grant that allows it to arrange relevant insurances that suit its activities. Similarly, in the coming financial year's budget, the Government has provided surf life saving a special $2 million grant as part of a four-year, $8 million initiative for the enhancement of club premises and other lifesaving items.

While I do not have the exact figures at hand, I am happy to seek advice from my colleague the Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation on the Government's continuing financial support. However, in recognition of surf life saving's role, the Government amended the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act to provide protection from liability for surf life saving clubs and members for action taken as part of a rescue or in response to an emergency. The premium for the association's workers compensation insurance is also paid through the budget of the State Emergency Service. This premium, covering a number of rescue groups, will be $3.5 million in 2005-06.

SCHOOL REPORT CARDS

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. When will the Government release details of proposed new school report cards, given that the discussion paper was released months ago? Have concerns about the meaningless language proposed in the discussion paper models been addressed? Will the new school report cards be introduced by the end of 2005, as promised?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I should clarify whether the Hon. Catherine Cusack was talking about the annual reports or individual reports?

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Annual.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Government has already indicated that the annual school reports published by each New South Wales public school need to improve, and New South Wales public school parents need to receive more meaningful information. We do not believe it should occur through the publication of league tables. Extensive research has established that there is too much uncertainty and instability in school averages to allow valid comparisons between schools. The Government's position is that league tables that rank and compare schools are unfair and can be misleading as measures of school effectiveness. I believe the majority of people I have spoken to share this position and it is supported by all State and Territory governments, and the Commonwealth Minister has indicated he does not support league tables.

Nevertheless, I make it clear that parents and school communities have a right to clear and accurate information about schools so parents can make valid and informed comparisons. The Government is committed to improving the quality and amount of information provided to parents. To this end the department is implementing the recommendations of the Audit Office to improve annual school reports. The Audit Office has indicated that school reports are an excellent concept and has made nine recommendations for improving school annual reports. The Department of Education and Training has accepted all recommendations.

These recommendations include reporting within a more rigorous framework for monitoring and reporting the performance of schools; re-examining of the material that schools may report to introduce a degree of school comparison and benchmarking; linking the school's annual report to a school management plan; placing an outcome requirement for school annual reports on school principals, with minimum reporting standards, including a report from the schools parents and citizens president in each school's annual report; increasing the accessibility of school annual reports to the public, as well as a series of other recommendations.

New school annual reports will be piloted in 2006 and implemented in 2007 after consultation with key interest groups. Perhaps the Hon. Catherine Cusack is confusing school annual reports with individual reports. We are also making changes to individual reports. The plan is that a series of schools will use the new annual reports this year but will not report with them until next year. That is because they will wait until the end of 16378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

2005 to obtain the school data that is to be included in their annual report. The annual reports will be available to school communities in 2006, and they will use information and data from 2005. Features of the new school annual reports will meet, and in many cases exceed, the Commonwealth's aims through its new school regulation.

Value added data on school performance is currently provided to all schools. Schools will be required to report on this aspect of their performance in their annual school reports. Many schools already report on value added data. I believe the information given in reports last week has been confusing. Some reports seemed to indicate that various schools felt they could not provide the data to the public. That was clarified by one of the principals who was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying that although he did not personally support league tables he was keen to promote the great performance at his school. We all acknowledge that his school showed a very successful performance. The new technology we have made available allows schools to track how effectively they are adding value. It has confirmed what we have always known: public schools are adding value to students' performances in New South Wales.

MINIMUM WAGE CASE

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House about today's decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in the national minimum wage case?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Ian West for his ongoing interest in industrial affairs. In what may well be the last fair wages case to be heard in Australia, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has increased the Federal weekly minimum wage by $17 to $484.40 per week. Honourable members will recall the Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU] applied for a $26.60 per week wage increase for Australia's 1.6 million workers under Federal awards in this year's national wage case. I am proud that the New South Wales Government supported a $20 increase to Federal award rates. The Commonwealth Government's response was a paltry offer of $11 per week. That represents a 2.35 per cent increase, or an extra 29¢ an hour. That is less than inflation and would result in a real wage cut.

The simple fact is the Howard Government has opposed every minimum wage case outcome awarded by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission since 1996. If the Commonwealth Government submissions were supported by the commission over this period, low-paid workers would be $50 per week or $2,600 per year worse off. And what is the response of the Federal Government in not getting its way in these cases? It is going to take an axe to the independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and replace it with the Orwellian titled Fair Pay Commission. This proposed body will comprise Treasury bureaucrats and economists who will review minimum wages only on a periodic basis, as opposed to the current annual arrangements. Under the Government's extreme approach the wages of thousands of Australian employees will be slashed. That is why the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Workplace Relations refuse to guarantee that individual Australian workers and their families will not be worse off under their proposed industrial relations changes.

The New South Wales Government believes the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's process of conducting the safety net reviews provides transparency in determining wages for workers who lack the bargaining power to look after themselves. The commission has shown itself to be an impartial body with the expertise to award responsible and reasonable increases to the minimum wage and to give consideration to the economic environment and the needs of Australian workers and their families. The Carr Government is committed to an adequate safety net of wages and recognises that workers rely on these increases to make ends meet. The national wage case is the only way people on the safety net of awards ever receive real wage adjustments to sustain their living standards. The New South Wales Government welcomes the decision of the Federal commission as a responsible and meaningful way to assist all low-paid workers. We will support a flow- on of the national wage decision to State awards in the State wage case, which will be heard shortly.

SENATE INQUIRY INTO CHILDREN IN INSTITUTIONAL CARE

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Community Services, and Minister for Youth. Will the Minister explain why the Department of Community Services failed to provide a submission or seek to give evidence to the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into Children in Institutional Care? Will the Minister inform the House who was responsible for making the decision and on what grounds the decision was based?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Minister. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16379

BRIGALOW BELT SOUTH BIOREGION

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Did the Government commission a community impact statement for the Brigalow Belt South bioregion prior to the announcement of the decision on 4 May 2005? What will be the economic impact of the closure of cypress and hardwood mills on those local communities?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I think I have answered this question in the past. The plain fact is that under the Government's proposal there will be more jobs and more economic activity in the region. The Hon. Rick Colless had better get his facts straight before he asks questions like that.

CANOBOLAS RURAL TECHNOLOGY HIGH SCHOOL AND MALIANA HIGH SCHOOL, EAST TIMOR

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Will the Minister provide the House with information on links between one of our rural high schools and a village in East Timor?

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: I happen to know the answer.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: There are many innovative projects taking place in New South Wales government schools. I do not know how the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans knows which one I am going to talk about. The project involving Canobolas Rural Technology High School in Orange and the village and high school at Maliana in East Timor deserves special mention. The project will provide a genetically superior goat herd, farm infrastructure and management and breeding techniques, as well as learning opportunities for students at the agricultural high school at Maliana. The Canobolas Rural Technology High School agriculture co-ordinator, Ms Kerry Pinnell, has been instrumental in this project, which supports agriculture education in East Timor.

Linkages have been made between Maliana High School and the Canobolas Rural Technology High School students, which will ensure positive educational outcomes for both schools. The results are impressive. The Canobolas Rural Technology High School operates an internationally recognised stud featuring Angora and Saanen dairy goats and has been an extremely successful exhibitor at the Sydney Royal Easter Show for many years in these categories. The school has built up the stud over the past 24 years with careful selection of breeding stock and particular attention paid to keeping the pastures free of parasites and other disease-carrying organisms.

A consistent focus on keeping stock and paddocks isolated has led to the stud being certified as MN3 on the Market Assurance Program for Johne's disease. The stud is Caprine Arthritis Accredited, the highest possible rating, and it meets leading industry standards in all livestock management techniques. Livestock from the school and other breeders is to be shipped to East Timor on 1 July 2005. The project aims to develop a livestock herd with superior genetics for meat and milk production, to improve the quality of local stock through a breeding program involving introduced meat and dairy bucks, and to create a focus for community ownership and cohesion through the building of sheds and paddocks to house the animals. A better diet for the village and a reduction in nutritional problems endemic in the local area, especially in young children, will be a focus of the program.

Students and teachers at Maliana High School will be involved in the development of animal husbandry and management skills—especially in the areas of breeding and genetics and cropping and pasture management—in order to establish a sustainable system to support the local community. This ongoing program will develop student skills and lead to an improved agricultural knowledge base in the local community. A further aim of the project is to strengthen relationships between the two school communities, and provide opportunities for professional learning by staff in both schools.

In September 2004 a group of leading East Timorese educators visited the Canobolas Rural Technology High School to participate in a two-day study program investigating farm and animal management techniques. Ms Pinnell, recognising the need for an agricultural and humanitarian aid project, initiated the project following that visit. Since then, Ms Pinnell has been working with the East Timorese Government and a variety of Australian government agencies to obtain the clearances required for the project to proceed, and to negotiate a path through international quarantine regulations. I commend Ms Pinnell's enthusiasm, her leadership and the work of the students at the Canobolas Rural Technology High School. [Time expired.] 16380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

CLEANER FUELS POLICY

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Government committed to its Action for Air policy to promote cleaner fuels? Is the Minister aware that the Euro 3 standard for diesel particulate emissions is 0.10 grams per kilowatt hour or 0.34 grams per kilometre travelled, as opposed to 0.02 grams per kilometre for compressed natural gas [CNG], a difference of 17 times? Is the Minister also aware that the average Sydney bus travels 41,529 kilometres per year and that a diesel bus would add 14.12 kilograms of particulate matter per year, as opposed to 0.83 kilograms for a CNG-powered bus? Will the proposed purchase of 180 diesel buses add 2.54 tonnes of particulate matter per year, as opposed to only 0.15 tonnes for 180 CNG buses? Does the Minister believe that the price of CNG is likely to rise as much as the price of diesel over the next 12 years? Why has the Government chosen to add an extra 13.97 tonnes of particulate matter to Sydney's air annually when it has the infrastructure in place to fuel buses with CNG?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This is obviously a question for the Minister for Transport, but given that I have some knowledge of this matter—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: They were great days!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes, we enjoyed those days.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Melinda Pavey to order for the first time.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: By the way, I heard that interjection; it was a very silly comment. The honourable member should realise that we give out the answers for driving tests; what we do not give is the sequence of questions. The question is quite obviously one for the Minister for Transport, but I remember being asked a similar question when I was Minister for Transport Services. I think the answer to that question was that in some locations there was no natural gas for the natural gas fleet. In relation to the standard, my understanding was that they were moving to a Euro 4 standard, not the Euro 3 standard, but I will be happy to have that checked by the Minister for Transport.

RAYMOND TERRACE DUAL CARRIAGEWAY DEVIATION

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, and Minister for the Hunter. What consultation is taking place between the community liaison group established by the Roads and Traffic Authority and residents affected by the 12.2 kilometre four-lane dual carriageway deviation from the F3 to Raymond Terrace? Does the $1.7 million in funding to 30 June and the $1 million in funding for 2005-06 for this extension include planning provisions for flooding? Will the Minister provide residents with a timeline of the project stages and completion dates as, so far, the community liaison group has failed to do so?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Roads and Traffic Authority has had a long and successful history of consultation with the community and I will leave it to that process of consulting with the community.

SHIRES CONFERENCE

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Will the Minister outline some of the issues raised at today's shires conference?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I had the pleasure this morning of addressing the 2005 annual conference of the Shires Association. During my address I paid tribute to Councillor Phyllis Miller, who is stepping down today as president of the association. During her time as president and my tenure as Minister, we have come to have a very productive and open relationship. Phyllis' forthright manner, particularly her support and input to our legislative program, as well as the difficult period of structural reform, have been invaluable. I know all members of this Chamber would thank Phyllis for all her hard work and we all look forward to working closely with her successor, Col Sullivan. I congratulate Col Sullivan on his election this morning as President of the Shires Association. I also congratulate some other new members of the executive: Councillor Janet Hayes, the mayor of Kempsey, Steve Lowe from Dungog, and Mick Carmody from Yass. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16381

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Is that the prickle farmer's wife?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: It is the former prickle farmer's wife. I would like to briefly touch on some issues I raised during the conference. The first was strategic partnerships. I am keen to see councils working more closely together, whereby they can achieve better service outcomes and more efficient service delivery for their communities. The benefits are there to be seen. The New England Councils' Strategic Alliance—which consists of Armidale-Dumaresq, Guyra, Uralla and Walcha councils—has produced savings of just over $1 million, including recurrent savings of $157,000. In fact, the Queensland Local Government Association was so interested in the successes of the alliance it has invited the New England alliance to make a presentation at its conference in October.

The Wellington, Blayney and Cabonne councils have produced savings of around $1 million to date, with almost half of this amount as recurrent savings. I raised the issue of councillor expenses. Given the Government's strong concern regarding the practices of some councils in this area, the Government will introduce legislation that will serve to better regulate council policies. Previously I announced that these expenses will be determined by the New South Wales Local Government Remuneration Tribunal [LGSA]. After further consultation with the LGSA it has been decided that the new policies will be sent to the Director-General of the Department of Local Government. Where an expense or facility is excessive, honourable members can expect this information will be made public. To assist councils to meet their obligations, the department will develop guidelines that will assist and that all councils will need to follow.

Another area of reform relates to the number of councillors. Of the 152 councils in New South Wales, 136, or nearly 90 per cent, have nine or more councillors. That may be fair enough for councils the size of Blacktown, Newcastle or Hastings, but one council, for example, with a population of 2,147 has 12 councillors—that is one councillor representing every 178 people or almost one per family. Currently the only way the number of councillors can be reduced is through a constitutional referendum held at the time of a general local government poll. We will be looking to give councils a one-off opportunity to reduce their numbers.

I want to refer briefly to the child and his parents who lost their lives in a fire at Coonamble. An announcement was made this morning that the local council has set up a fund to assist the remaining orphaned members of the family. The Premier has announced a $20,000 donation to the appeal. Donations to the appeal for the Coonamble family may be made through any branch of the Commonwealth Bank.

BALLINA TO WOODBURN HIGHWAY UPGRADE

Mr IAN COHEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware of community outrage over the Ballina to Woodburn highway upgrade expressed at a packed Meerschaum Vale hall meeting last Wednesday night, which was attended by Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] representatives? Has the RTA apprised the Minister of accusations of inadequate RTA consultation, inadequate RTA maps, and a lack of adequate distribution with no distribution drops at either Wardell or Broadwater post offices? I ask the Minister: Why were indigenous representatives from the Cabbage Tree Island community in the affected area forced by the community consultation group to miss community liaison group meeting No. 2 while other new members were welcomed to that meeting? Given inadequate community consultation in the Ballina to Woodburn study area, will the Minister at least grant a substantial extension to the current submission deadline of 20 June?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The answer to the second part of Mr Ian Cohen's question is no. In relation to the accusations made in the earlier part of the question, I do not accept them. As I have already said, the RTA has a well-established process of community consultation, and I suspect the RTA adheres to that. With regard to the part of the question that referred to an Aboriginal group that was not informed, I do not know whether that is true or not. I do not know what the implication is. I support the RTA continuing to consult in the matter as it has in the past.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Do you extend the deadline?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No.

PALERANG SHIRE COUNCIL RATE INCREASE

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Is the request by Palerang Shire Council for a 28.5 per cent rate increase an indication that the Boundaries Commission got it wrong with the creation of Palerang council? Is it a fact that the current rate base 16382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 of the shire is insufficient to ensure that the council can deliver basic services? What advice has the Minister received about the future economic viability of the council?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: In relation to the second part of the question, I have received no advice. In relation to the first part of the question, I have not yet received an application.

HOME DETENTION SCHEME

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice. Will the Minister provide an overview of the home detention scheme in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Coalition has long enjoyed politicising the issue of home detention. Indeed, earlier today the shadow Minister for Justice said on radio:

Home detention in our view is the greatest joke.

However, when the Coalition was in government it was a different story. In 1988 Michael Yabsley said in Parliament that home detention was a suitable form of punishment. In 1989 he announced that a pilot home detention program would begin and that newly sentenced inmates would be allowed into the program. In 1992 approval was granted for a trial of the scheme. At that time the then Minister, Terry Griffiths, said:

If you are not allowed out of your house, if you could not go to the football with your kids, if you could not go to the pub, it is a punishment.

The shadow Minister continues to attack the scheme notwithstanding the views of former experienced Ministers, such as Terry Griffiths and Michael Yabsley. On 18 March the shadow Minister issued a press release entitled "Prisoners given 'get out of jail free' cards". In that press release he said:

The public expects that when a person commits an offence, they pay the price.

Following the press release, the shadow Minister said on radio:

The solution is to look at dumping home detention altogether. It's failing completely for whatever reason.

This led to a response from the person who addressed the upper House committee into back-end home detention, rebuking the shadow Minister. On 20 March Mr Jaffrey wrote to the shadow Minister as follows:

Your press release has taken one sentence from 45 minutes of evidence and used that as an opportunity to criticise a system which you appear still not to understand after five years …

Your understanding of the home detention scheme is flawed …

Surely you would agree that the people of this State should be properly informed on issues relating to prisons … and not just exposed to sensationalised rubbish …

Indeed, the shadow Minister does not need to get those views from Mr Jaffrey; he can get these constructive views from none other than that great authority on prison reform, the Hon. John Ryan. In his report on the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population, the Hon. John Ryan said:

Sanctions such as community service orders, home detention or probation may be more effective in addressing offending behaviour, less expensive to the community and just as onerous on the offender.

Home detention is a scheme whereby offenders are subject to an extensive, rigorous and closely monitored community supervision program. Their eligibility is determined by both an assessment by the Probation and Parole Service and criteria set out in legislation. In 2003-04 the cost of the scheme was $64.42 per offender per day. In comparison, over the same period the cost of a minimum security inmate was $156 per inmate per day. This represents a saving to taxpayers of $91.58 per offender per day.

Home detention is also conducive to an offender's reintegration into the community. Offenders engage in rehabilitation programs in a positive environment that also allows engagement in suitable employment. As at 30 June 2004, more than 2,800 offenders have been admitted to the home detention scheme since it began in February 1997. In 2003-04, 426 offenders were admitted to home detention, and 682 offenders successfully completed their home detention orders. Figures show that compliance rates have been consistently high. Since the home detention scheme began, an average of 77 per cent of offenders have successfully completed their 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16383 orders and on occasions the figure has risen as high as 80 per cent. The department has a longstanding commitment to extend home detention to regional New South Wales, and it proposes to pilot the scheme on the mid North Coast in the new financial year.

CROSS-CITY TUNNEL AND BOURKE AND LIVERPOOL STREETS CLOSURE

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Roads. Given that residents of Darlinghurst are deeply unhappy about the closure of parts of Bourke and Liverpool streets in East Sydney, as evidenced by a well-attended public meeting of affected residents and businesses last week, can the Minister explain why the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] proposes to close those streets prior to an assessment of the impact of the opening of the cross-city tunnel, the completion of the Oxford Street and William Street upgrades, and a comprehensive traffic study being undertaken? Is it true that the tunnel's contractors do not require Bourke Street to be permanently closed? Will the Minister make public RTA traffic flow figures for the relevant streets for the periods before and after the opening of the tunnel?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As Ms Sylvia Hale ought to know, the environmental impact study provisions relating to the cross-city tunnel were made clear at that time, and those provisions clearly outline some of the measures that need to be taken in relation to the cross-city tunnel. I am surprised that the honourable member has not had a look at that documentation; it has been available for a long time and it would explain many of the issues associated with traffic flows in relation to the cross-city tunnel. It always strikes me as extraordinary that the Greens take these sorts of views about motorways. Most of the community welcomes the opportunity—

The Hon. Rick Colless: They're your mates.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Hon. Rick Colless is trying to bait me; he keeps saying the Greens are my mates. He has got me on this. I cannot let it pass. The Greens are certainly not my mates. I think I am diametrically opposed to everything they stand for.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Stop taking the preferences, Michael!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: That is a different issue altogether. I thought you said they were my mates.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that interjections are disorderly at all times and he should ignore them.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As I was saying, motorways allow the community to enjoy a better transportation system, and generally they are accepted. In fact, New South Wales leads the way in terms of motorways globally. We have become a model—

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: How can you tell?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Nick Greiner thinks that. The other day he explained very clearly the problems with the cross-city tunnel. I am glad the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner has raised the matter. I thought Nick Greiner did a good job. It confirms my personal view that he was a good Liberal Premier.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: He's better than Bob, isn't he?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: A good Liberal Premier. That does not mean he is better than any Labor Premier, but he was a good Liberal Premier. He understood the need for a proper balance between the private and public sectors, and he should be congratulated. There is a problem with the cross-city tunnel, which the Opposition tried to make political capital of, and it was severely embarrassed at the end of the day. Brogden could not wait to get on the radio and attack the Carr Government over the cross-city tunnel, but by the afternoon he was nowhere to be seen because Nick Greiner had got up and said it was not the Government's fault, that his Government took full responsibility for the issue in relation to the cross-city tunnel. Given that my time has expired, I think that probably answers the question.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I suggest that if members have further questions, they place them on notice. 16384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

DEFERRED ANSWERS

The following answers to questions without notice were received by the Clerk during the adjournment of the House:

SUTHERLAND SHIRE SEX SHOP LOCATION

On 3 May 2005 Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes asked the Minister for Lands, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, a question without notice regarding the Sutherland shire sex shop location. The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning provided the following response:

Yes I am aware of the article in the Daily Telegraph that Reverend the Hon. Dr Moyes MLC refers to.

The Government in 1995 changed the provisions of the Disorderly Houses Act which decriminalised the operations of brothels in NSW. As brothels are now land uses controlled under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, each local council can prepare local environmental plans to provide for their appropriate location. However no council can totally prohibit them from its area.

The operation and control of unauthorised or illegal land uses (including sex shops and brothels) is the responsibility of the local council.

CAROLINE BYRNE MURDER INVESTIGATION

On 3 May 2005 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney General, a question without notice regarding the Caroline Byrne murder investigation. The Attorney General provided the following response:

The issue of recommending a formal charge against Gordon Wood falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Police. However, I understand that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has requested further information from police prior to the Director providing confidential advice to the Commissioner of Police. The matter is therefore still under investigation.

MIDDLE EASTERN GANGS POLICE INTIMIDATION

On 3 May 2005 the Hon. David Oldfield asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice regarding Middle Eastern gangs police intimidation. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

I am pleased to note the Honourable Member's praise for the patience and professionalism of NSW Police. I am advised decisions in the field are made with the knowledge that some people deliberately attempt to provoke a response from police if they know they are being filmed and that a heavy handed response has the potential to escalate a minor situation.

This Government has only ever increased police powers. Not once during our term of office have police powers been cut back. For example, we have introduced the power to insist on a name and address; the power to tell a group of people engaged in anti-social behaviour to move on; and the power to stop and search anyone for a knife.

ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY LONDON 2012 OLYMPIC BID TRANSPORT ADVICE

On 3 May 2005 the Hon. Robyn Parker asked the Minister for Roads a question without notice regarding the Roads and Traffic Authority London 2012 Olympic bid transport advice. The Minister provided the following response:

I'm advised:

1. Yes.

2. No.

HOME CARE SERVICES

On 6 May 2005 the Hon. John Ryan asked the Minister for Disability Services a question without notice regarding Home Care services. The Minister for Disability Services provided the following response:

The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care has continuously provided services to Mr Bell throughout 2005, not including the period 19 and 20 April, when he was in respite.

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT JOHN HARTLEY APPOINTMENT

On 5 May 2005 the Hon. Greg Pearce asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice regarding the appointment of Chief Superintendent John Hartley. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

I refer the honourable member to my recent answer in another place about these matters.

MR GORDON STEWART PERJURY CHARGES

On 3 May 2005 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice regarding a police investigation into the actions of Mr Gordon Stewart. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

I refer the honourable member to my answer to his previous question without notice on this subject. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16385

NSW POLICE SENIOR OFFICERS POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION

On 4 May 2005 the Hon. Peter Breen asked the the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police, a question without notice regarding the Police Integrity Commission investigation codenamed Operation Vail. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

As the honourable member is aware, the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) is investigating an alleged breach of the telecommunications interception legislation. The PIC announced in April that Operation Vail will investigate:

Whether there have been any breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 or other misconduct by persons who participated in a meeting at NSW Police Executive Offices on 5 April 2004.

Clearly it would be inappropriate of me to further canvass matters that are currently before the Commission.

Questions without notice concluded.

POULTRY MEAT INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (PREVENTION OF NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY PENALTIES) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 May 2005.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.01 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Poultry Meat Industry Amendment (Prevention of National Competition Policy Penalties) Bill, although we have some problems with the wording of the title: Prevention of National Competition Policy Penalties. If I were a person with an evil and devious mind I would amend the title because the only reason there was a potential penalty was because of the inadequacy of the Minister and his office not making a proper submission in the first place. Otherwise, that part of the title would not have been there.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: You do not believe that! That is so silly!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do believe that, and I will expand on that as we go through.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I will show you our submission.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We asked for a copy of your submission on several occasions and you have quietly hidden it. I am reliably informed by my sources in Canberra that the total submission from the Government went for one and a half pages. Hardly substantial! Then the Government went on with its great campaign of beating up the Federal Government over its own inadequacies. If the bill were worth supporting and if it were worth paying $13 million because there is a whole industry involved, the Government could have set about defending it. Instead, once again, it took the easy option: it went out and bashed Canberra to cover up its own inadequacies. That is the way it does it.

I state from the outset that in Committee the Opposition will move an amendment to allow a review of the Act after three years to ensure it is working effectively to serve the interests of the industry. As I will detail later, there has been a huge breakout of peace in the industry, which is something I have not been able to say in relation to previous bills. But, quite properly, if there are still concerns that may arise later, it is worth reviewing the Act to ensure it is working effectively. The Government has indicated—and I am sure the Minister will let me know whether I am quoting him correctly—that it is willing to support the amendment, and I thank the Government for that.

The bill proposes a number of amendments that the Opposition certainly hopes will greatly improve the efficiency of the Poultry Meat Industry Act 1996, and improve relations between growers and processors and the overall functioning of the industry. The Opposition has consulted key stakeholders on this bill, including the New South Wales Farmers Association, and individual processors and growers. The feedback we have received has generally been positive. It appears that this is one of the few times the Government has actually listened closely to what the industry is telling it and has effected legislation in accordance with the feedback.

By way of background, the Poultry Meat Industry Act 1996 currently regulates the relationship between poultry growers and poultry processors by means of a scheme under which poultry grown by a poultry grower for a processor must be grown under an agreement that is in a form decided by the Poultry Meat Industry Committee and must be paid for by the poultry processor at rates determined by the committee. The centralised price-setting function of the committee and the fact that it allows both processors and growers to collectively 16386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 bargain are key concerns of the National Competition Council. A related concern of processors is that the committee's price-setting process, whereby multiple processors sit around the table, forces them to share commercially sensitive information.

It was with a profound sense of deja vu that I found myself reading the Minister's second reading speech. This was most prevalent when he asserted that, despite his making strong representations to the Australian Government in 2003-04—I covered the Minister's supposedly strong representations earlier when I said it has been reliably reported to me that they amounted to about a page and a half—the Federal Treasurer accepted the assessment of the National Competition Policy Council that the legislation did not comply with competition policy, and imposed a $12.86 million penalty on the New South Wales Government.

That begs the question: When will this Government stop using the plight of primary producers to score political points? If my memory serves me correctly, it was not the actions of the Federal Government that led to the New South Wales Government receiving this hefty fine, but, as I said earlier, the Minister's own inaction in proving the public interest of the Act in 2003-04. Because this Minister was busy playing politics and not doing his job properly, once again it was left to people of integrity—the Opposition and the New South Wales Farmers Association—to step into the gap left by the Minister's inaction. The Opposition began calling on the Minister to prove the public interest of the Act in October 2003.

It was action by The Nationals that forced the Minister to remove the Poultry Meat Industry Act from the controversial 2004 National Competition Policy Bill and to finally agree to conduct an independent review of the Act to avoid further National Competition Council penalties and deregulation. Despite the Minister's claims that he made strong representations to the Federal Treasurer, in December 2003, through my action, a submission prepared by the New South Wales Farmers Association was sent to Canberra to prove the public benefit of the Act. There was nothing of substance from the Minister. I contacted the National Competition Council and, in conjunction with the New South Wales Farmers Association, we put in a submission to justify public benefit.

In January 2004, by way of an email, I arranged a meeting with the National Competition Council [NCC] and the New South Wales Farmers Association to discuss this submission and workable options. The Minister did nothing except scaremonger by putting out press releases about the regulation. I have a copy of the association's press release, which states:

NSW Shadow Agriculture Minister Duncan Gay must be thanked for his close support of these [poultry] farmers and for arranging an initial meeting between the NCC and the Association.

It is not often over the past couple of years that the New South Wales Farmers Association has thanked the Opposition.

[Interruption]

That highlights the inadequacy of the Minister that the Hon. Amanda Fazio is trying to defend. I cannot believe that a prominent member of the Labor Right would defend an incompetent lefty. After that meeting I made public calls for the Minister to do what the National Competition Council had requested, that is, prove the public interest of poultry regulation. The Minister could not be bothered. Instead, he chose to continue misleading the public with claims that the NCC and the Commonwealth had given him no alternative but to deregulate the industry.

The Opposition welcomes the fact that the Minister has finally come to his senses to adopt the Opposition's policy to conduct an independent review into the Act. It is even more pleasing that the bill is largely consistent with the findings of the independent review and is not opposed by processors and growers. We have come a great distance—from the Minister politicking, to the introduction of a proactive, sensible bill that has the right aims. Having been publicly critical of the Minister's incompetence in the past, I am pleased tonight to commend him for finally introducing a proper bill.

The Poultry Meat Industry Amendment (Prevention of National Competition Policy Penalties) Bill, in line with the findings of the independent review, introduces modified regulatory arrangements that provide safeguards for growers whilst avoiding the use of centralised price fixing and contract approval mechanisms. There are a number of key features of the proposed new regulatory system. First, there is a continued statutory authority for collective bargaining by poultry growers in their negotiations with individual processors. However, rather than being channelled through the Poultry Meat Industry Committee, this will happen at the level of individual processors and their respective cohort of contract growers. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16387

Secondly, growers will be able to choose whether they wish to participate in collective bargaining with their peers or whether they would prefer to negotiate privately with their processor. Under the bill there will be a continued role for the industry-funded Poultry Meat Industry Committee. The committee will identify issues that, in its opinion, will be desirable for grow-out contracts to cover. It is expected that this would include much of the content of the current guidelines for agreements already approved by the existing committee. The committee will identify a limited set of issues that are not only considered desirable that grow-out contracts cover but for which it is recommended there be a statutory requirement for contracts to cover.

In this situation the committee will have the role of making recommendations on default contract provisions to be applied by regulation, unless otherwise agreed by the contracting parties. This is a unique amendment that will provide growers with a safety net, should they require it. The Poultry Meat Industry Committee will develop and promote a voluntary code of practice for contract negotiations for the purpose of promoting co-operative and orderly negotiating procedures between growers and processors. During the Opposition's initial consultations on this bill, the New South Wales Farmers Association raised, as a matter of priority, that the Poultry Meat Industry Committee be given watchdog powers, such as in relation to procedures and protocols for existing behaviour between growers and processors. For the main part, this concern has been addressed in proposed section 6.

The Opposition congratulates the Government on listening closely to industry on this issue and on seeking to implement constructive negotiating measures that we certainly hope will replace the longstanding adversarial relationship between growers and processors. New measures in the bill will enable the Poultry Meat Industry Committee to resolve contract-related disputes between growers and processors. The parties in dispute over the terms of a proposed or existing contract will be able to call upon members of the committee to act as mediators or, in certain circumstances, arbitrators.

The proposed changes also address the second concern raised by the New South Wales Farmers Association, that contracts remain as a requirement for registration rather than simply supply agreements, which can simply be a statement of what growers will supply the processor, as proposed in 2004. The bill proposes a key change to restrict the membership of the committee to independent members, that is non-industry members, to more adequately reflect its changed role. However, the committee will continue to receive expert input from industry stakeholders through the establishment of a seven-member poultry meat advisory group.

The bill proposes a new requirement for processors to notify the Department of Primary Industries within one month of entering into a contract with a grower. The Opposition believes that this is an important measure in light of the growing importance of biosecurity issues and disease control. The proposed provision will hopefully ensure that the Department of Primary Industries always has an up-to-date record of poultry farms and is subsequently well positioned to respond rapidly and effectively to disease incidents.

During his second reading speech the Minister put a number of interesting arguments as to why the Government is amending the Poultry Meat Industry Act. The Minister asserted that the Howard Government has an axe hanging over the head of the State Government. The Minister's claimed main catalyst for amending the Act is that the Federal Government has applied a further $13 million competition payment suspension to New South Wales this year, which may possibly turn into another deduction of $13 million should Canberra not agree with the reforms based on the findings of the independent review.

That is a pretty spurious argument. If the legislation is good enough and is achieving its goal, the $13 million is nothing, compared with having a thriving industry. The Minister should mount an honest argument. This indicates that he is more concerned with playing politics than willingly implementing reforms, which are supported by the Poultry Meat Industry Committee, to improve the operation and efficiency of the New South Wales poultry industry.

The Minister has forgotten that in 1995 the former Federal Labor Prime Minister and Treasurer, Paul Keating, first introduced microeconomic reforms arising from the Hilmer report into national competition policy. He should be hammering one of his own, not the Coalition. The Federal Government's threat of further national competition policy penalty deductions from New South Wales is a lame excuse for amending the Act. If the Minister had any real understanding of his portfolio and the industry he purports to represent, his main argument for amending the Poultry Meat Industry Act would be that it is not working as well as it should be. I assert with great disappointment that the Act is not working, as evidenced by the number of disputes and the number of people leaving the industry. As I said earlier, if the Act was that good, the Minister would have stood up for it, despite the $13 million. 16388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: This is the best part of your speech.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The best part is coming shortly. Before I conclude I take the opportunity to congratulate the new chairman of the Poultry Meat Industry Committee, Mr Stephen Carroll. Mr Carroll has done a tremendous job in uniting processors and growers within the New South Wales poultry industry, through the committee, by arriving at outcomes through negotiation and discussion. I am sure the transformation of the committee's operation has been no easy task, given the longstanding adversarial nature of the relationship between the growers and the processors. Frankly, it was refreshing to hear people from all sides of the industry indicate their support for the chairman, who had initiated action in the industry rather than rely on things to carry on as they had previously, and eventually arriving at confrontation.

I am sure that when I congratulate the chairman I do so on behalf of people on all sides of the industry. In conclusion, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. Unlike the Government, we believe that the bill will deliver much-needed changes to the industry and help to improve relations and contract bargaining negotiations between processors and growers to achieve greater results in the industry as a whole. We hope the bill will enable the industry to deal more effectively with changes in the industry, including a reduction in trade barriers, pressure on industry margins and farm gate prices exerted by large retailers, food safety issues, disease prevention, animal welfare and environmental sustainability.

Like the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Opposition believes that the drafting of the regulations will have a critical influence on the legislation's impact and should deliver a sound collective bargaining process, the mandating of standards for fair, certain and transparent contracts based on price performance and risk, bird supply numbers, price review mechanisms, and dispute resolution processes. Another outcome of the Opposition's consultations with the New South Wales Farmers Association is that it is seeking a New South Wales Department of Primary Industries funded full-time equivalent secretariat to ensure that the Poultry Meat Industry Committee functions efficiently and has credibility in advising the Minister on items such as mandated contract elements. The association has estimated that this function will add no cost to the current budgeted departmental position of Livestock Officer Poultry that was based at Gosford. We urge the Minister to consider this request during his speech in reply. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Mr IAN COHEN [5.23 p.m.]: The Poultry Meat Industry Amendment (Prevention of National Competition Policy Penalties) Bill amends the Poultry Meat Industry Act 1986, which currently regulates the relationship between poultry growers and processors. Under the current legislation, poultry meat grown by a poultry grower for a processor is grown under an agreement approved by the Poultry Meat Industry Committee and must be paid for by the processor in accordance with rates determined by the committee.

As we have seen in some other industries, this practice has now been determined to be anti-competitive under the national competition policy, thus causing the New South Wales Government to be fined by the Federal Government at a rate of $13 million per annum. This is an unfortunate situation. While the Greens do not like to see a weakening of the bargaining power of poultry growers, I understand that paying national competition policy penalties on a continuing basis is not sustainable.

The bill alters the constitution of the Poultry Meat Industry Committee to include an independent person chosen by the Minister and two other independent persons, one of whom is trained in dispute resolution. The committee's functions are also redefined in this bill. They include identifying issues related to grow-out contracts, developing and promoting a voluntary code of practice for contract negotiations, and playing a role in resolving contract-related disputes. The bill also establishes the Poultry Meat Industry Advisory Group, which will be responsible for advising and assisting the committee with its functions. It seems that the Government is attempting to create a fair contract bargaining environment, but it remains to be seen how the bill will affect the industry in practice. The way the industry will be affected will also depend on the regulations, which are not yet available.

I urge the Government, in drafting the regulations, to try to deliver fair collective bargaining processes, the mandating of high standards for fair and transparent contracts, as well as dispute resolution processes. Poultry meat growers in contract situations are already in a position of little power, in an industry with a low- margin, high-volume product. Growers receive only about 6 per cent of the retail price of poultry meat. Processors, on the other hand, see only 8 per cent to 10 per cent of their costs go into contract growing. I understand that over the past two years growers and processors have been negotiating in any case. I have been told by the New South Wales Farmers Association that the whole industry is moving towards a more amicable and professional relationship between the growers and processors. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16389

I hope that this legislation, together with the regulations, will provide a balance between delivering an adequate collective bargaining process and meeting the requirements of the national competition policy. Another amendment made by the bill requires processors to notify the Department of Primary Industries when entering into a contract with a grower. In his second reading speech the Minister for Primary Industries said this provision was linked to disease control. He said:

Poultry in modern production facilities are highly susceptible to outbreaks of disease that can decimate flocks not only on individual farms but also across the industry if not controlled.

This raises the issue of the nature of intensive farming and its associated problems, not least of which is, as the Minister said, the high risk of disease outbreak. The vast majority of poultry meat comes from chickens raised in overcrowded sheds. They are often so tightly housed they can barely move, and they are fed a pelletised, formulated food which routinely includes antibiotics, vitamins and minerals. In 2002, Choice magazine tested 141 chickens bought from supermarkets in Sydney and Brisbane. It found 13 per cent infected with vancomycin-resistant enterococci [VRE], an antibiotic resistant bug that is a particular problem in hospitals and for those with compromised immune systems.

Apart from animal welfare concerns over the conditions these birds live in, there are health implications for humans, especially with the advent of diseases which can spread from birds to humans, such as the avian flu, and antibiotic resistant bacteria such as VRE. We need to look at phasing out intensive farming and replacing it with models that are more sustainable, ethical and less prone to disease epidemics. I have spoken to a number of smaller, free range and organic poultry meat farmers, who generally will not be affected by this legislation as they are more independent of this vertically integrated production system. They tend to deal directly with smaller local processors. This is a much more sustainable method of farming, as well as being more economically viable for the poultry meat growers.

While the product is more expensive, it is healthier, more ethical and has less risk of disease outbreak. We have seen the national competition policy affecting other industries. While it was originally designed to address key services, it is now affecting numerous Acts in New South Wales. We have been fined for breaches of the competition policy in areas from poultry meat to water to farm debt mediation. It has also affected the veterinary industry, with reforms to the Veterinary Practices Act having a negative impact on rural veterinarians. This is unfortunate, but it seems that the Federal Government is moving further and further in this direction. The Greens do not oppose the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.28 p.m.]: The Democrats support this bill because we believe there needs to be legislative support for growers. On 19 June 2002 I spoke on the previous bill. It might be remembered that the growers were put in the chain because growers owning their own sheds and working, effectively, as subcontractors cost less than wages employees, with the sheds owned by the companies. So, having created what amounts to a monopsony—one customer for the product—the growers, who are given the starter chicks and then buy their supplies or food from the processor, who is the customer for their birds, are in a disadvantaged position. I believe there are about 300 contracted growers for six vertically integrated processors, of whom three account for 68 per cent of the market share.

The contract terms and conditions are very unfavourable to the growers. Processors offer family farmers contracts that require significant upfront investment in sheds, and upgrade cycles are five yearly. The contracts omit any reference to income provision, that is to say, bird supply numbers and price. They are only five years or less in duration. They allow processors to unilaterally terminate if imports or legislative change occurs. The contracts apportion liability to growers in the event of abnormal losses when growers have difficulty in obtaining insurance because they do not own the birds. They prevent the growers from growing birds for any other processor.

The problem is that growers cannot afford to decline offers in the face of rising debt repayments. Regional monopsonies mean there are no alternative processors, quite apart from their contract obligations not to sell to anybody else. The dominant demographics of contract growers—that is, their ethnic background and being over 50 years of age—makes it difficult for them to exit a contract. Additionally, they have high ownership of plant. Rearing sheds are "sunk" assets; they are not transferable to other uses. This information, which came largely from the New South Wales Farmers Association, illustrates that without government protection for growers, the dominant position of processors is such that many existing shed owners could go out of business with minimal change to cost to processors. Only about 50¢ of the final cost of the bird in the shop goes to the person who grew the bird. 16390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

This scheme is necessary to provide protection from competition. One wonders about the attitude of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] to competition. It is quite happy for oligopolies and a free market to exist where dominant players completely decimate any real competition and set prices merely by keeping watch on one another rather than actively colluding on prices. The first chapter of every economic textbook talks about the perfect market, which perhaps existed in the farm markets in Europe in the nineteenth century, when every farmer had to take his produce to market. The farmer could not take the produce home and store it; it had to be sold. The shoppers at the market had to spend their money on food The hope was that the money spent at the market was sufficient to pay the farmers for their produce. Of course, there was competition and there was product differentiation.

Every other chapter in the economics books talks about the segmentation of markets, branding, artificial differentiation between products, perceptions, the value-adding of image, and so on—all of which have completely distorted such markets. It is extraordinary that the ACCC wants perfect markets where the big fish eat the little fish until only a handful of fish are left. Be that as it may, in this small industry very powerful processors deal with growers who are in a weak bargaining position and who are very committed to their plant, which cannot be used for any other purpose or sold if orders are lost. The Government has to redress that imbalance by legislative means. I support its efforts in this regard.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.34 p.m.]: The Poultry Meat Industry Amendment (Prevention of National Competition Policy Penalties) Bill amends the Poultry Meat Industry Act 1986 to introduce a new scheme regulating the relationship between poultry growers and poultry processors primarily in the context of negotiations for price setting. The bill varies the constitution and functions of the Poultry Meat Industry Committee by abolishing the positions currently held by poultry growers and poultry processors and allowing the committee to develop matters necessary to negotiations between poultry growers and poultry processors. The bill also establishes a poultry meat industry advisory group.

The National Competition Council was set up by all governments in Australia in November 1995 to oversee the implementation of the national competition policy [NCP]. Each year the National Competition Council undertakes an assessment of each Australian government's progress in implementing the national competition policy and related reforms. An overview is provided by the council as to the level of legislative compliance with national competition policy. In a report handed down in October 2004 the council mentioned that New South Wales had completed a review and reform of 83 per cent of its stock of legislation. The council identified that New South Wales had reformed 83 per cent of its priority legislation and 84 per cent of its non-priority legislation and the State was commended for its "above average" performance compared to that of other jurisdictions. We salute the Government on that achievement. However, the council pointed out a number of areas where the State was lacking in legislative implementation: the regulation of liquor sales, the monopoly on domestic rice sales and chicken meat industry negotiations. The council had the following to say in respect of the poultry industry:

The Poultry Meat Industry Act restricts competition between processors and growers by setting base rates for growing fees and prohibiting agreements not approved by an industry committee. For the 2003 National Competition Policy (NCP) assessment, the government failed to show that these restrictions were in the public interest and to conduct an open NCP review process. The Council recommended, and the Australian Government imposed, a permanent deduction of 5 per cent of 2003-04 competition payments.

A letter from the Minister indicated that $13 million was the permanent penalty imposed solely as a result of the Poultry Meat Industry Act. A further $13 million was "suspended" in 2004-05. It is inevitable, given the continual pressure to comply national competition policy recommendations, that the Government will stand to lose at least another $13 million in 2005-06. On a positive note, however, the successful implementation of reforms by the Government has resulted in a portion of the total penalties, consisting of $25.4 million, being reimbursed by the Commonwealth last year. The council's report indicates that in March 2004 the Minister for Agriculture sought the council's view on the implications for the 2005 national competition policy assessment if the Government finally submitted the legislation for review. It was agreed between the Minister and the council that if an independent NCP review of the poultry legislation was carried out, the council would:

... recommend the application of a suspension to apply to competition payments for 2004-05, rather than another permanent deduction. Moreover, on the timely implementation of NCP compliant reforms, the Council would recommend the lifting of the suspension.

The Minister asked the New South Wales Farmers Association to nominate a consultant to review the Act and report on the legislative changes that would prevent further NCP penalties. The National Competition Council 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16391 recommended that a specific suspension of 5 per cent of 2004-05 competition payments is recoverable on the completion of this review and, where necessary, the timely implementation of NCP compliant reforms. The Minister has indicated that this bill has been directly derived from the recommendations of the consultants engaged by the South Wales Farmers. As the New South Wales Farmers Association represents the voice of poultry growers, amongst other groups, the bill will seek to give expression in the most relevant way to the concerns of poultry growers also implementing NCP recommendations.

The bill introduces safeguards for growers against anti-competitive behaviour by processors, whilst avoiding the use of centralised price setting and contract approval mechanisms. Under the new scheme, growers will have the freedom to choose whether to join with their peers to bargain collectively with their processor or to negotiate privately. Previously, the price of designated poultry was set by the Poultry Meat Industry Committee, which is a body composed of poultry growers, poultry processors and a number of independents. The role and the constitution of the Poultry Meat Industry Committee will change under this legislation in order to accommodate the NCP requirements and to facilitate interaction between growers and processors. For example, the committee will develop and promote to the poultry industry a voluntary code of practice for contract negotiations and will seek to resolve issues relating to grow-out contracts. Processors will be required to notify the Department of Primary Industries within one month of entering into a contract with a grower, in light of the need for disease control and record-keeping requirements.

Although I agree that this bill is needed, I concur with the concerns of poultry growers with regard to NCP reforms. The current Act sought to protect farmers from big business, but, unfortunately, it is clear that unless the bill is passed the State as a whole will suffer financial repercussions. I trust that the bill will mitigate the potential loss that poultry growers will suffer and that it will provide some foundation for fair and equitable marketing conditions. We support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.41 p.m.]: I wish to add to the comments of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. As honourable members know, this issue has been ongoing for many years. We have had a number of briefings by the poultry growers detailing the difficulties they have experienced and the pressures they face from multimillion-dollar poultry processors. I hope that this bill, which will deregulate the system, will work in practice. I know the Government has introduced it under pressure from the National Competition Council and its policies. As I have said previously, if I had my way the National Competition Council would be abolished. The council was discussed at a recent meeting between all State Labor Premiers. It would have been a good opportunity to move a motion to abolish the council.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It has done so much for Australia.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: It has gone beyond its charter. It had an initial charter to deal with government bodies. Now it is putting its nose into other areas, such as liquor, which was not a part of its charter when it was set up. I thank the Minister for Primary Industries for the letter he sent to me on 24 May detailing the background of the bill. We also received a copy of a letter from Mal Peters, President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, addressed to the Minister and dated 6 June, which stated that the New South Wales Farmers Association does not oppose the Poultry Meat Industry Amendment (Prevention of National Competition Policy Penalties) Bill. The letter concludes:

The actual outcome for the industry will depend on high standards of business conduct, assisted by contract guidelines, Codes of Conduct and potentially mandated terms within contracts. The Association does expect some difficulty due to hostility from some processors, to some standards.

NSW contract poultry growers are reliant on the Government to address their concerns in the regulations. These concerns need to be expressed via a credible and efficient Poultry Meat Industry Committee which is well supported by a full time equivalent secretarial position.

That is a strong statement by Mal Peters directed to the Government. For those reasons, the Christian Democratic Party will support the amendment that has been foreshadowed by the Opposition, which, I understand, will be supported by the Government. The Opposition wants to amend the legislation to include a review of the Act to be undertaken as soon as practicable after a period of three years and a report on the outcome of the review to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the end of the period of three years. That positive amendment meets the concerns of the New South Wales Farmers Association. We are pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [5.44 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. As various speakers have noted, the poultry meat 16392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 industry is an important part of the agrifood sector of New South Wales. It would seem that chicken meat is now the most popular meat with Australian consumers. The increase in consumption in recent decades has contributed to the growth of the industry, to the extent it now represents more than $3 billion in gross food revenue and $26 million in export revenue to the Australian economy. It has been estimated that in New South Wales the industry supports as many as 44,000 jobs.

Because poultry meat is such a specialised sector of the food market with relatively few processors in competing outlets at the retail level, there exists a real threat that growers would not be adequately protected under free market conditions. This situation has been addressed by reasonably stable regulatory arrangements since the mid-1970s and the industry has flourished. We are now being forced—and I make that very clear—to make fundamental changes to comply with the somewhat extreme economic rationalist views of the Howard Coalition Government.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is Keating legislation.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The legislation was introduced in the mid-1990s by the Keating Government, but it was introduced to deal with core industry sectors, such as energy, ports and transport. It was not meant to delve into every sector of society. The National Competition Council [NCC], when reporting on complying entities, examined our legislation and said that we had complied with 70 per cent of its demands. The Commonwealth had complied with 33 per cent of its demands. So there are two laws: one that is favourable to the Commonwealth and one that is antagonistic to the States.

The proposals in the Poultry Meat Industry Amendment (Prevention of National Competition Policy Penalties) Bill seek to retain as much in the way of grower protection as possible whilst avoiding further financial penalties being imposed on the State. I am confident, however, that the research and consultation undertaken during the independent review process and the recommendations made to the Government that are contained in this bill were well founded and provide a sustainable framework upon which we can further build the industry.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition did nothing to reimburse or alter the position of the National Competition Council. As he stated, he simply forwarded the New South Wales Farmers Association submission through to the NCC. This achieved absolutely nothing. In December of the same year, that is, 2003, the NCC announced that it would fine New South Wales for non-compliance with the National Competition Policy [NCP], some three months after the letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Because you hadn't opened it.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! The Minister has the call.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am going to give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition a lesson about the inaccuracy of his statements. I convened a meeting between the NCC and the New South Wales Farmers Association, out of which came another review.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I did that.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: You certainly did not. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will learn something. This is the third review conducted into this matter and the third review of net public detriment.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I have the email. I can table it in the House. I could incorporate it in Hansard if you want. Would you like me to incorporate it in Hansard?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: You are absolutely wrong. In other words, the review was required or further fines would have been imposed. Through his comments the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has shown his clear lack of understanding of how the NCC policy actually works. In 1999 a joint industry-Government review was conducted, and in 2001 Hassall's conducted an independent review. Both reviews failed to support the current Act. The New South Wales Government has protected the industry for as long as possible from the changes that the Federal Government are forcing on us.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If you did not believe the Hassall review, why didn't you conduct another one? 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16393

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: We did. We conducted a third.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You should have done it earlier. If you had done it earlier, we would be better off.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has got it so wrong.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, I have not.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Because both the 1999 and 2001 reviews found a net public detriment with this Act. If that had been revealed publicly at that stage, the Commonwealth would have moved on us two to three years earlier. In the case of the earlier 1999 report, it would have moved on us then, and that would have meant that the additional six years that we have managed to keep this Act in place would have been lost. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made some cheap shots in this debate, but he has missed the fundamental fact that those reports found net public detriment and, if released, the Commonwealth would have fined us in 1999 and removed the legislation. That is the point the honourable member has missed all the way through: why did the Government not release the results of the reviews? The Government did not release the results of the reviews because it was protecting the growers from the actions of the NCC and the Commonwealth. That is the reason they were not released at that stage.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why didn't you get the report earlier? Because you are hopeless!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Because I have been interested in protecting the farming community. I actually tried to protect the growers. The interjections of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition confirm how nonsensical he is and how he has missed the point of what has happened in the last few years. The Government has probably saved millions of dollars and has kept farmers under the Act for that additional period of time. Following the meeting I had with New South Wales Farmers and the chair of the NCC we agreed to undertake a review, another review—we were given the chance to conduct a third review.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why didn't you do the review earlier?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Because we had conducted reviews that showed a net public detriment, and that would mean the end of the Act. Had we revealed what those reviews contained, we would have been fined instantly. It is about time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition learned a few things. We could not produce the reports; they were detrimental to the Act. Had we done so, the Commonwealth would have fined us earlier.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Everyone knew that! That is why we needed another review.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No. We went for the third review to give the growers another two years, and we succeeded in giving them that extra time. Unfortunately, for the growers—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You cost yourself $13 million!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It did not cost anything. We have not cost anything.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is absolute nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trying to make himself out to be the growers' friend. We have actually looked after the growers for six years, despite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. As I said, the 2004 review, which has just been completed, confirmed the earlier findings. If the 1999 review had been made public, the Act would have had to be changed at that time. It is nonsense to suggest that the New South Wales Government could afford to pay the $13 million every year to keep the current legislation in place. If permanent penalties were imposed as threatened, the cost to the State would be the equivalent of 90 hospital beds, 300 nurses and 270 drought support workers. How can the honourable member contend that the Howard Government is not forcing our hand on this issue?

The NCC 2004 assessment of the New South Wales Government's position on this legislation makes it very clear that we must fit in with its view or pay another $13 million this year and every year in the future, on top of the $12.86 million we have already paid. In fact, the answer is very simple. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes was absolutely spot-on when he quoted the NCC assessment in the following terms: 16394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

In the 2003 NCP assessment, the Council found that New South Wales had not met its CPA clause 5 obligations relating to this Act. The government had retained significant restrictions on competition without demonstrating that those restrictions are in the public interest.

That is what we have been trying to do.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Without demonstrating! Without demonstrating!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There is no way we could demonstrate it. We conducted two reviews and we received two reports against the growers' interests. I do not know what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is going on about. He lives in gaga land occasionally. The fact is that if we had made public the results of the previous reviews, or submitted them to the Commonwealth for its assessment three years ago, the Commonwealth would have said, "Thank you very much, we will take the money now." We would then have had to move on the Act much earlier. We kept the Act in place since 1999 because we were interested in protecting the interests of growers. The New South Wales Government has protected those growers for six years longer than the initial review. Our case is clear: the reviews found those points and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is in fantasyland if he thinks any other approach could have achieved a better result.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We have caught you out.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: You have not caught anyone out. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is unbelievable! What an unbelievable approach! The reviews that we undertook were imposed under obligations to the NCC. The NCC forced us to conduct those reviews.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If you had done the review earlier, you would not have lost $13 million.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Of course they made us pay for those reviews.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: How much did it cost?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Commonwealth takes money off the States at every opportunity, so I do not know what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trying to say by raising that point. The Government has endeavoured to support the growers for a long period of time. We do not want to change this legislation. We made it clear right from the very beginning that we do not want to change the legislation. We would prefer to keep the legislation in place, because we recognise that there are difficulties in the relationship between growers and processors, particularly in terms of the power of one group over the other. But, the Commonwealth is determined, and Treasurer Costello has signed off on these reports. He could have rejected them; he could have said to the NCC, "I support having New South Wales retain its poultry Act. I do not believe it should go that far."

The Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, might even have been prepared to say to the Treasurer, "Look, Mr Costello, you great Treasurer, how about looking after the poultry farmers in New South Wales?" Well, neither has done that and we have been forced to introduce this bill. We do not want to do it; we make that absolutely clear. We have looked after the growers for the past six years since the first review, which highlighted the fact that, in the end, the Commonwealth would gun us down. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has missed the point right from the beginning and his comments today have not been helpful to anyone. They certainly have not been a credit to him.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.01 p.m.]: I move:

No. 1 Page 8, schedule 1. Insert after line 19:

[14] Section 26

Insert after section 25:

26 Review of Act

(1) The Minister is to review this Act to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16395

(2) The review is to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the Poultry Meat Industry Amendment (Prevention of National Competition Policy Penalties) Act 2005.

(3) A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the end of the period of 3 years.

The amendment seeks a review of the Act after three years, to ensure the bill achieves its objectives. At the moment there certainly is goodwill on the part of processors and producers, and with the best faith in the world we hope that the bill will provide protection and encouragement for the entire poultry industry. I thank the Minister for Primary Industries for his foreshadowed support for the amendment. However, I indicate that had he spent the money on an earlier review, he would have saved a lot of money.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [6.02 p.m.]: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his little backhander. I point out to him that if we had acted on this legislation when it was first presented in 1999, the bill would have been introduced six years ago and poultry growers would have missed out on a standard rate for the last five or six years. The Government supports the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.02 p.m.]: As I foreshadowed in the second reading debate, the Christian Democratic Party supports The Nationals amendment. The legislation needs to be carefully monitored in case there are unforeseen circumstances that will harm the poultry growers of the State.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages.

ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION (SPEED LIMITERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.04 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to allow the delivery of sanctions to responsible persons who allow their heavy vehicles to travel at excessive speed due to speed limiters that are faulty or not functioning as they should. The proposed amendment is sought to enable a status offence by the responsible person to be created when a heavy vehicle, which is required by law to be speed limited, travels at a speed in excess of 115 kilometres per hour. The legislative framework for the bill will provide the general power to make evidentiary regulations in relation to speed limiters. The bill will amend the relevant provisions of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 and the regulations made under that Act to make further provision with respect to compliance with, and enforcement of, requirements for the speed limiting of heavy vehicles.

The responsible person for a vehicle will commit a speed limiter offence when a heavy vehicle, that is required by law to be speed limited to 100 kilometres per hour travels at a speed in excess of 115 kilometres per hour. Currently, under clause 140 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999, a responsible person must not cause, permit or allow a heavy vehicle which is required to be speed limited to be used, unless the speed at which it can be driven is limited to 100 kilometres per hour. As the law stands, however, the fact that the vehicle is detected travelling at over 115 kilometres per hour is not sufficient evidence that the speed limiter is not functioning as required and that the responsible person has not met his or her duty. The passing of this bill will change this situation, so that it will be clear that heavy vehicles that speed in a manner that is impossible with a functioning speed limiter will be deemed not to be speed limited, and that the responsible person is at fault.

The bill will apply to vehicles whether or not they are registered in New South Wales, and to the drivers of, and persons responsible for, those vehicles. It is important that the sanction applies to interstate vehicles as well as those registered in New South Wales, as an estimated 80 per cent of interstate freight travels 16396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 through New South Wales. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

There is community concern about speeding heavy vehicles in this State, and how trucks speed limited to 100 kmh can overtake cars legally doing 110 kph.

The Roads and Traffic Authority speed surveys on major freight routes in NSW show that almost 4 per cent of heavy vehicles are travelling over 115 kph—speeds that in theory should be impossible, but clearly are not.

It is time for the heavy vehicle industry to take responsibility for the impact of their activities on safety, both for the community and their employees. An operator must ultimately be responsible for not only the delivery of goods, but the manner in which they are delivered. This includes the speeds at which their vehicles travel. The passing of this bill will provide an offence by the responsible person when a heavy vehicle which is required by law to be speed limited to 100 kph travels at a speed in excess of 115 kph.

Two defences have been proposed, namely:

1. It will be a defence to a prosecution for the new offence if the defendant proves that the vehicle was a stolen vehicle, or had been illegally taken or used, or

2. That the vehicle is speed limited as required but that the circumstances in which it was travelling at the time meant that the speed limiter did not operate to limit the speed to 100 kph.

The latter defence recognises that the gradient of a length of road or road related area may in certain circumstances affect the speed of a vehicle even if it is properly speed limited.

The speed limiter offence will apply at the time that the speeding over 115 kph is detected. The Roads and Traffic Authority will provide the NSW Police with information on the gradients of major freight routes in NSW so that they will be able to apply this sanction at appropriate sites.

The traffic infringement notice to accompany this offence will be $1,550. If the responsible person elects to go to Court the offence is punishable by a maximum penalty of 30 penalty points for an individual, currently $3,300, and 150 penalty units or $16,500 in the case of a corporation.

Heavy vehicle operators need to conduct their businesses in NSW in a way that is safe. Responsible operators need to have policies and systems in place to monitor the speeds of their vehicles, and ensure they are appropriately speed limited at all times.

Those operators, however, who set unattainable timetables, permit or even encourage their drivers to speed, and allow their speed limiters to be tampered with, must no longer be able to do so.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [6.07 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Road Transport Legislation (Speed Limiters) Amendment Bill 2004. I emphasise "2004" because the bill was introduced in this Parliament in 2004 and it is now June 2005. The Government's incompetence has delayed the introduction of the bill by six months. We have put drivers on our roads at continued risk because of the Government's incompetence. It is a serious issue. It obviously stems from the major ministerial reshuffle that occurred in January, when we had the moving of the deckchairs on the Titanic, so to speak. What sort of legislative program are we running in this place? The fact is that the Government is unable to govern. One need only look at what happened with the New South Wales budget and the rapturous boos it received on its introduction in this Parliament a couple of weeks ago.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You haven't got a speech.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I have a very good speech.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe): Order! I remind all members that interjections are disorderly at all times. The Hon. Melinda Pavey has the call.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: This bill should have been introduced as soon as Parliament resumed in February, but because of ministerial incompetence at the highest and lowest levels it will be another few weeks before it goes through.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: It's John Anderson's fault.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is not John Anderson's fault. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16397

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Of course it is.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: The Hon. Amanda Fazio blames the Commonwealth for everything. The Government presents an argument for the abolition of the States every day when the Premier stands up and speaks. We may as well pack up and go home because it is all the Federal Government's fault! It is not the Federal Government's fault that it took this Government six months to bring this legislation into this place. We support the legislation, but wish it had been introduced in a more timely fashion. It was the Hon. Wal Murray who introduced the first speed limiters bill into the New South Wales Parliament in 1991 when he was Minister for Roads. It was a very necessary piece of legislation and I remember that at the time there was a lot of lobbying and argument against its introduction. But Wal stood firm—as only Wal could do—and said, "No, I am bringing in this bill because we need to have some better standards in the management of our heavy vehicle industry."

Wal Murray said he wanted good, decent, honest operators on our roads; he did not want rogue operators. Good, decent, honest operators do not have any issue at all with speed limiters and they do not have any issue with the strengthening and tightening of the legislation as proposed by this bill. The Nationals do not oppose the bill. We have been calling for this legislation for some time, and it is incomprehensible that such important safety legislation targeting rogue truck operators has been sitting in the Government's in-tray gathering dust for six months. The Carr Government should not put truck drivers and other road users at risk because of its incompetence.

The new laws will make it an offence if the driver of a truck exceeds 100 kilometres an hour by more than 15 per cent, with fines of up to $3,300 for an individual and $16,500 in the case of a corporation. This will send a strong message to rogue operators that they cannot tamper with their truck speed limiters in an attempt to meet unrealistic timetables and encourage speeding. This legislation will ensure that these drivers and operators will be held responsible and punished. Honourable members may remember that a couple of months ago we debated in this Chamber the introduction of the chain of responsibility bill, which was not opposed by the Opposition and has been driven at a Federal level. All State governments are introducing this chain of responsibility legislation to discourage rogue operators from underbidding other truck operators for work and setting unrealistic time limits to meet their contract tender price, thereby creating unsafe driving conditions to win that tender.

This will mean that if a supplier needs to get goods to market and gives an unrealistic contract to a heavy vehicle operator, the supplier and the heavy vehicle operator will be found guilty of an offence. The chain of responsibility legislation puts everybody on notice that they have to do the right thing in making economic decisions and setting contract prices that are realistic and sensible. As I mentioned earlier, speed limiters were introduced in New South Wales in 1991 to limit the maximum speed of heavy vehicles. In this State the maximum speed for trucks that are speed limited is 100 kilometres an hour. However, as a resident of a major mid North Coast city, and one who regularly traverses the Pacific Highway, I sometimes have the dubious pleasure of travelling on our highways with some rogue operators.

I make the point that there are some excellent operators in my region who have for some time fully complied with the chain of responsibility, not only in law but in theory. They were not acting in an irresponsible manner. Two such companies are Lindsay Brothers, which operates out of Coffs Harbour, and Pearsons Transport, which operates out of Port Macquarie. Pearsons has a lot of contracts for Woolworths across New South Wales and Australia. It is a good company, and it meets the highest standards in occupational health and safety, and has very stringent controls on its drivers. I have heard of instances in which these truck operators have received complaints about their drivers—who were very good drivers—and have had to act on those complaints because they take their position so seriously. We must respect and acknowledge those operators who do a good job but at the same time keep the pressure on those who try to push the limit—and very often that limit is the speed limit.

Together with many of my colleagues and many residents across New South Wales, I have travelled the highways—the Hume Highway, the Newell Highway, the New England Highway or the Pacific Highway—and have witnessed some very dubious behaviour by heavy vehicle operators. This amendment to the legislation imposes a real punishment of a fine of $3,300 in the case of an individual and $1,600 in the case of a corporation if a truck travels at more than 115 kilometres an hour. The 15 per cent leeway allows for the increase in speed when a truck is travelling downhill. But there is no reason for a truck to travel at more than 115 kilometres an hour, and this legislation will ensure that those who tamper with and illegally modify their vehicles to meet unrealistic deadlines will be punished in the most severe way. 16398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

Even with the Federal Government's investment of $800 million in railways over the next five years, the capacity of the rail system to carry freight, which is currently around about 17 per cent, will increase to a maximum of about 30 per cent. That means about 70 per cent of our freight—which will double—will still be carried by road. It is very important that we make a number of strategic decisions to ensure that those with whom we share the roads use them safely. We need to punish the Jekylls and Hydes within the transport industry and get them off the roads so that consumers and road users can travel in confidence with trucks, because they are a fact of life. We cannot take them off the roads because we need to go to our supermarkets and maintain our quality of life.

We certainly cannot have a situation in which 100 per cent, or even 90 per cent, of our freight is delivered by train; we need trucks to deliver goods from one place to another in a cost-effective manner. We cannot have 100 or more freight rail links; the freight still has to get from the railway station to the businesses. So trucks are a fact of life, and it is good to see that finally we have the opportunity to discuss this legislation, six months after its introduction. I regret that it has taken the Government so long to introduce this bill, but at least it continues the excellent work of the Hon. Wal Murray, a former Minister for Roads.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [6.19 p.m.]: I speak on the Road Transport Legislation (Speed Limiters) Amendment Bill. The objective of the bill is to facilitate the delivery of sanctions to persons who allow their heavy vehicles to travel at excessive speed because of speed limiters that are faulty or are not functioning properly. Speed limiters were introduced in 1991 to limit the maximum speed of heavy vehicles. A speed limiter is a piece of equipment that can be fitted to a vehicle in order to prevent it from exceeding a particular speed.

The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill. We have all witnessed in some form or another the massive losses brought about by accidents caused by heavy vehicles. It is commonsense that high speeds factor greatly in road accidents. The higher the speed of the vehicle, the less time available for the driver to respond to his or her surroundings. Given this, it makes sense to put measures in place that restrict the speed of heavy vehicles. It also makes sense that sanctions must be kept in place to correct the evasion of these measures.

When I refer to heavy vehicles, the main types of vehicles that come to mind are trucks, semitrailers and B-doubles. Honourable members may be aware that I hold a heavy vehicle and articulated semitrailer drivers licence. I remember the lessons I went through to get that licence and I am conscious of the care required when driving a heavy rig. Professor Michael Quinlan of the University of New South Wales conducted an inquiry into safety in the long-haul trucking industry. In 1999 he released a report on the results of this inquiry. In the executive summary to this report he commented:

… truck driving remains one of the most dangerous occupations and these risks extend, in a substantial way, to other road users.

Most importantly, he noted that in 1999, 189 Australians died in crashes involving articulated trucks, with 51 of these being truck drivers. I remember these drivers every time I pass the national memorial to truck drivers who were killed in the execution of the duty, on the Hume Highway at Tarcutta. Professor Quinlan also noted:

As the most populous state and as the hub of interstate transport on the eastern seaboard, NSW recorded the largest number of deaths (64 including 13 truck drivers) in 1999.

It is quite confronting to note that in the early 1990s it was estimated that the cost per person of a road crash was $750,000 in the case of a fatality and $131,800 for a hospital admission injury. Professor Quinlan pointed out that in current dollar values these figures would be higher, but it is obvious that even using the unadjusted figure, in Australia today it would result in a total cost of injuries and deaths running into hundreds of millions of dollars.

One of the main findings of the inquiry was that speeding heavy vehicles are significantly overrepresented in those crashes. Professor Quinlan found that despite the use of speed limiting devices, speeding by long-distance trucks remains widespread. Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] detection using Culway sites indicated that the proportion of trucks exceeding the speed limit ranges from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of all trucks travelling on that road, depending upon the particular route or highway. The inquiry received considerable evidence to show that speeding trucks represented a pervasive and serious safety issue. Further, the second reading speech stated:

There is strong anecdotal evidence that speed limiters on some heavy vehicles are being tampered with to allow heavy vehicles to exceed 100 kilometres per hour. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16399

It is well known that in the trucking industry operators place many pressures on drivers to induce performance in the minimum time available. Long and unreasonable hours are a common hallmark of this industry. For example, just last week I heard of a driver who had driven for 68 hours without a break or a sleep. Working conditions have been reported to be atrocious. Demands by operators have prompted drivers to delve into drug use to meet expectations. This bill will, in some form, keep a rein on the demands placed on drivers.

Currently, under clause 140 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulations 1999 a person must not cause, permit or allow a heavy vehicle which is required to be speed limited to be used, unless the speed at which it can be driven is limited to 100 kilometres per hour. The second reading speech further stated:

As the law stands, however, the fact that a vehicle is detected travelling at more than 115 kilometres per hour is not sufficient evidence that the speed limiter is not functioning as required and that the responsible person has not met their duty.

This bill will change that. It will now be clear that heavy vehicles which speed in a manner that is impossible with a functioning speed limiter will be deemed not to be speed limited and that the responsible person is at fault. This should be the position and, thus, makes the person responsible for the vehicle accountable for the functioning of the speed limiter. At all times the driver is responsible. An important feature of this bill is that the sanction also applies to interstate vehicles, given that an estimated 80 per cent of interstate freight travels through New South Wales.

It is significant to point out also that certain defences will apply. First, it will be a defence to a prosecution for the new offence if the defendant proves that the vehicle was stolen or had been illegally used or taken. A defence applies also if the vehicle is speed limited as required but the circumstances in which it was travelling at the time meant that the speed limiter did not operate to limit the speed to 100 kilometres per hour. The latter defence acknowledges that the gradient of a length of road or a road-related area may, in certain circumstances, affect the speed of a vehicle, even if it is properly speed limited. Everyone who drives a great deal on cruise control knows that driver response to conditions is required for safe driving, not reliance on speed limiters. This bill is timely and its purpose is commendable. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.26 p.m.]: The Greens support the bill, which will deem heavy vehicles that travel above the speed set by the functioning speed limiter not to be speed limited and for the driver to be at fault. The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] Pacific Highway safety review of May last year reported that the RTA highlighted one spot on the highway where 15 per cent of heavy vehicles recorded speeds above 115 kilometres an hour. Roads in New South Wales are besieged with trucks ploughing along at dangerous speeds. When I see a truck which has a sign that states "Speed limited to 100" overtake me at a speed that obviously defies that sign, I am reminded of the danger that these monsters pose. Speeding trucks have caused far too much human tragedy. I am sure many honourable members would remember the terrible stories of the pre-dawn collision at Grafton where a semitrailer ploughed along the side of a bus, killing 21 people and injuring 22 people.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: At Cowper.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: And there was another one.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: That was two coaches.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I agree that it was two coaches, not a truck. The impact ripped the driver's side of the bus and many passengers were thrown across the road. Many tragedies flowed from this accident. One police officer who had worked on the case committed suicide years later, apparently because of the trauma he experienced that night and the next day cleaning up the debris. When tragedies occur it is not merely those who lose their lives; their friends, family and workmates have to deal with the tragedy for weeks, months and years following the deaths.

One in 20 Australians is hospitalised by a road crash before they turn 25. That is a staggering figure. Approximately 65 per cent of fatal crashes occur in rural areas and country towns, and many of the accidents are caused by trucks. On the Pacific Highway heavy vehicles account for 15 per cent of traffic but are involved in 35 per cent of fatal accidents. One constituent from northern New South Wales wrote to the former Minister for Roads and me expressing concern about the upgrade of the Pacific Highway. The redirection of heavy freight to the Pacific Highway from the New England Highway is causing enormous problems. He reported that because sections of older road do not have the design capacity to accommodate increased traffic, the highway has 16400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 become highly dangerous. Communities from Urunga, Coffs Harbour, Ballina and Byron Bay live with a stream of high-speed B-doubles and semitrailers careering along on ungraded sections of the highway. The constituent called for the rapid upgrade of the Brisbane to Sydney rail freight link. He said:

Rail can become the most effective and environmentally friendly form of freight transport but not while the bulk of long-term planning is focused on road transport.

So while this bill, which introduces speed limiters, is important, the key issue is moving more freight onto our rail system. The Greens are not saying there will be no trucks. We often hear the Minister for Roads and Opposition members say that. It is ridiculous. We are not saying that; we are saying we should have a balance and our roads made safer by getting more freight onto rail. We need to put more money into rail to help get trucks off our roads. Tragically, this Government is not doing that. In April the Minister for Transport announced a piddling $13 million of new money to fix some, but not all, rail branch lines for one annual harvest.

Branch lines were built with public money, and despite 10 years of rapid corporatisation by the New South Wales Government their condition is still a matter of great concern in the bush. Recently I met with the New South Wales Farmers Federation and separately with local farmers from Boree. They told me that rural communities are angry at what they see as their abandonment by the Government when it comes to rail branch lines, which are so crucial to their farming life. Last year I had the opportunity to see some of these branch lines and how important they are to local communities. I also heard from locals about their real fear of what will happen if the branch lines are not maintained and if trucks, particularly B-doubles, are brought in. They are concerned about school buses being overtaken by B-doubles and being forced onto the shoulders of roads. Inevitably, if this happens at an increasing rate there will be accidents and tragedies.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Patricia Forsythe) left the chair at 6.33 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 5

Report: Hunter Economic Zone and the Tomalpin Woodlands

Debate resumed from 24 May 2005.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [8.00 p.m.]: This inquiry commenced, most appropriately, on 1 April 2004, when the committee adopted a self-reference for an inquiry into this matter. The terms of reference were to investigate the conspiracies the committee saw in the actions of the Premier's Department and the National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS], and to look at alternative sites for the Hunter Economic Zone [HEZ]. However, the inquiry did not proceed because at the next meeting of the committee, on 21 April, the reference was rescinded, as some form of commonsense started to prevail and members of the Opposition did not want to be tagged as being anti-development after the involvement of their fearless leader in sinking the charcoal plant at Mogo.

A revised set of terms of reference was put forward and defeated, and then Ms Sylvia Hale tried, unsuccessfully, to have the original terms of reference reinstated. Then we had to deal with an unauthorised disclosure about the committee's consideration on these matters. Finally, at a committee meeting held on 11 May 2004, the Opposition and the Greens voted to rescind the decision not to have an inquiry and together voted to have an inquiry with the terms of reference that were used.

Why did we have this inquiry at all? Quite frankly, because the only successful Greens candidate for Cessnock council had raised it as an issue during the council elections. The only reason the Opposition supported having the inquiry was because the Wilderness Society's Newcastle office had run a campaign asking people to email the Leader of the Opposition to stop the HEZ development, and, seeing a bandwagon, he could not help but jump onto it.

The time and funds of this Parliament were cynically spent to fulfil an election commitment by a lone Green councillor on Cessnock council, and, at the same time, vital investment and job creation were put in jeopardy. This was truly shameful in an area that has been losing industrial jobs over the past few decades. Cessnock council supported the Hunter Economic Zone development by 11 councillors to one. The prospect of new investment, new jobs, and new infrastructure was eagerly anticipated by the majority of local residents. The few concerns they had about the impact the development would have on their homes and the amenity of their villages were exploited and a campaign of fear was entered into. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16401

I turn to the evidence that we heard during the inquiry. The main opponents of the HEZ development are Councillor James Ryan, the lone Green on Cessnock council, and his rather small organisation, the Friends of Tumblebee, which he said was an incorporated association with about 20 members—a residents group. Councillor Ryan is a councillor with seemingly the sole intent of stopping this project going ahead and with no qualms about the measures he uses to achieve that.

During the course of the inquiry we heard some very disturbing evidence from representatives of the Hunter Economic Zone and Hardie Holdings about the difficulties they had encountered when trying to further this project. In evidence on 16 June 2004 at Kurri Kurri, we heard about illegal occupations of the HEZ office in Newcastle, illegal interference with the commencement of works on the site, harassment of Hardie Holdings and HEZ Nominees staff, threatening emails to the HEZ Nominees chairman, and several seemingly vexatious appeals against approvals in the courts that were dropped at the very last minute. Duncan Hardie advised the committee at the hearing at Kurri Kurri that he has about 30 other developments running concurrently with the HEZ development and that all the venom is directed at the HEZ development. He finds this worrying. He said:

It comes in waves. It starts off with threatening phone calls, abusive phone calls … We then generally have stock shot and we have a lot of trespassing that takes place and it goes in a three to four week period. There is a lot of property damage. Vehicles are broken into and fuel tanks leaked. We have had our offices invaded by, incidentally, two of the witnesses who gave evidence earlier. They have invaded our office and have refused to leave our office after they were asked to leave by the police, and the most serious one we had was an attempted firebomb of my home. Fortunately the bomb did not go through my daughter's window. It bounced off the roof and exploded on our back lawn … The last event was a death threat that occurred two weeks ago—and we have had a number of death threats—but there was an arrest made.

It is also interesting to note that the person who was arrested was—I do not know whether " bailed out" is the right term—but helped out of arrest by one of the earlier witnesses.

What is the HEZ development about? And what has got James Ryan and his tiny band so upset? The Hunter Economic Zone development provides an opportunity to revitalise a region that has suffered from low employment since the decline in local coal production. The HEZ development is an example of how a whole-of- government approach is required to ensure that complex projects are able to navigate the various agencies and processes that have a role in New South Wales. The role of the Premier's Department in co-ordinating such an approach seems to have been the crux of the problems that the protagonists had with the development. They simply did not understand the concept of a whole-of-government approach and consequently developed some very specious conspiracy theories about what had taken place.

This was included in the terms of reference and explored at length during the inquiry. Much was made of a letter from the Director General of the Premier's Department to the Director General of National Parks and Wildlife on 12 November 2002. The developer wrote to the Premier's Department after becoming increasingly frustrated at the delays being caused by what he perceived to be a lack of co-ordination. All that the Director General of the Premier's Department did was his job: he wrote to the Director General of National Parks and Wildlife and said:

I urge you to review your Department's position to ensure that there can be no credible claim that a large scale industrial park in close proximity to a large modern deep water port is put at risk.

A large-scale industrial park in an area where the Kurri Kurri Chamber of Commerce has estimated that the true unemployment rate for youths under 24 years is somewhere between 27 to 30 per cent and the unemployment rate for mature-aged adults is in the vicinity of 12 to 15 per cent.

The existence of this letter was exploited by the protagonists to develop some conspiracy theory that undue pressure was being exerted to ensure that the development was approved without the normal checks and balances. This was far from the truth. The existence of most of the threatened species on the site was discovered because of environmental audits undertaken by the developers as part of the development process. They set aside more land than is statutorily required for the riparian zones. Special conditions were placed on the access road to ensure that possums could still make crossings from one side to the other using the tree canopy. In evidence, Mr Somers from Hardie Holdings advised:

In fact, for the vast majority of those threatened species National Parks are happy with the conservation outcomes. The vast majority of the species are adequately represented in the reserve system, but that is never mentioned. It has not been mentioned yet.

He went on to say:

Mention has been made in this forum and others that the vegetation out there represents old growth forest. It is not an old growth forest. 16402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

Evidence was also received that the site was not a greenfields site and in fact was quite degraded. For more than 100 years the site had been used for underground coalmining, and the surrounding trees had been felled for struts and supports for the mines. The land was also being used for illegal dumping and there were still some buildings left over from the mining days. It certainly was not pristine bushland.

The Mindaribba Local Aboriginal Land Council gave evidence to the inquiry that the majority of its members are supportive of the proposed development for economic reasons. The land council also advised that it had no knowledge of any traditional connection to the land that would restrict the development. The relationship between the land council and Hardie Holdings was described as good and the council was confident that the development would lead to improved outcomes for its members. The fact that this inquiry was politically motivated is supported by the one recommendation that came from it—the one recommendation that found that the actions of the Director General of the Premier's Department were proper and in accord with his role.

The director general has subsequently written to the chair of the committee to clarify a few misunderstandings about the role of the regional co-ordinators within his department. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Finally, when I opened the Daily Telegraph earlier this year—on 21 January, in fact—I saw an article entitled "Truck fears for village". The village was Pelaw Main and the person raising concern was none other than Councillor James Ryan. This was yet another beat-up. What we need to remember is that this project will be developed over a 20-year period and could generate more than $1.5 billion in employment, infrastructure, and investment. A work force of up to 14,500 is projected. Shame on the Greens for trying to sink such a worthwhile project! I commend the resolve of Duncan Hardie and those associated with the Hunter Economic Zone in continuing to support this development in the face of continual attacks, and I commend the report to the House. The letter from the director general states:

I wish to draw your attention to errors of fact contained in your Committee's Report and to the consequent incorrect conclusions/observations made as a result thereof.

Specifically, I am referring to the contents of Clauses 3.57 to 3.62 and Clause 2.18 of the Committee's Report.

At the outset let me state for the record that I stand by the evidence that I gave to your Committee on 2 July 2004 and reaffirm its correctness.

My evidence that your Report quotes at 3.57 was in response to a question from yourself, as Chair, where you put to me "… when the Hunter representative of the Premier's Department, Ben Chard, personally helped choose the location without studying an alternative site? …". My response was correct on 2 July 2004 and remains so.

The Premier's Department did not have any Regional Coordinator in the Hunter Region until Mr Ben Chard was appointed as the first such Regional Coordinator on 19 May 1997 …

In his letter of 1 February 2005 the Director General of the Premier's Department goes on to correct other issues that were raised in paragraphs 3.60, 3.61 and 3.62. He refuted the statements made in paragraphs 3.61 and 3.62 and the assertion that he left any questions unanswered. He said:

At no time did the Committee question me on any activities that Mr Chard may have been involved with in his prior employment and, if it had done so, I would have been in no position to comment. At all times the questions asked of me were in relation to the Premier's Department and its involvement and at all times I have responded appropriately …

For the public record, let me state that at no time did the Premier's Department have a direct involvement in the selection of the HEZ site …

In conclusion I would seek to place on the public record that your Committee's Report does not reflect the correct situation … I would seek that in the interest of fair reporting of the facts your Committee takes appropriate steps to amend the public record accordingly.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Report: Inquiry into Issues Relating to Redfern and Waterloo: Final Report

Debate resumed from 22 February 2005.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [8.10 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak first on the take-note debate on the final report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo. In accordance with the original resolution of the House, the committee tabled an interim report. Debate on that report commenced in November last year and concluded in March this year. In the meantime the final report 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16403 was tabled in December last year, four months after the interim report. To make a complex series of reports on this matter even more complex, I place on record the fact that the Government responded to the interim report and the final report and that the Government response was tabled in February this year.

Therefore, we can now take note of the final report and examine the actions taken by the Government in the weeks prior to the tabling of this report. At that time lengthy and detailed debate took place in this House on legislation to set up the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. In addition, there has been detailed debate in this House and in the community on other aspects of Redfern and Waterloo. I am sure it must irritate and distress the people of Waterloo that so often they are paired with Redfern but, unfortunately, the Redfern issues appear to attract greater public emphasis than those of Waterloo. Indeed, the committee discovered during its site visits and in evidence that there are very real problems in Waterloo, and it would be unfortunate if those problems were overlooked because of a concentration on matters to do with Redfern.

The terms of reference of the inquiry into Redfern and Waterloo were to inquire into and report on policing strategies and resources in the two areas; to look at the Federal, State and local government programs, as well as the amazing variety of non-government services in the two suburbs; to examine the strategies of the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, which was set up under the auspices of the Premier's Department; and to look with particular reference to the needs of the local indigenous community and the, unfortunately, longstanding proposals about the future of the Block.

The inquiry resulted from the very tragic death of a young Aboriginal man and the riot that followed in February last year. On behalf of committee members I reiterate our deep regret at the death of that young man. The inquiry highlighted issues that have been raised many times about the considerable disadvantage experienced by the Aboriginal community, much of which lay behind the tragic death and some of the incidents that followed. It also noted the disadvantage of the non-Aboriginal community.

The way we structured the inquiry meant that some issues were dealt with more fully in the interim report that was tabled in August, and others were dealt with more fully in the final report. I shall now turn to the specifics. The final report has six chapters. The first comprises the introduction and the last is an attempt to sum up and look forward. The other four chapters deal in detail with policing issues. Nevertheless, many major policing issues were dealt with in the interim report and a large number of recommendations were made. Also at the time we had the advantage of the response from the former Minister for Police, John Watkins, and recommendations that arose out of announcements he made. Those who read the response also need to read the interim report.

It is interesting to also consider matters that have come to light since then. After completing an inquiry, members often continue to be interested in the area and sometimes the Standing Committee on Social Issues plays a useful monitoring role after completion of a report. For instance, I was interested to read the report of the NSW Ombudsman, tabled in April this year, entitled "Working with Local Aboriginal Communities—Audit of the Implementation of the NSW Police Aboriginal Strategic Direction". Committee members, and the Hon. Ian West in particular, will remember that we spent some time looking at that Aboriginal strategic direction policy. Indeed, we raised concerns about its implementation in New South Wales, and in Redfern in particular.

The Ombudsman's report tabled this year contains a reference to the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues and a number of positive references agreeing with some of committee's recommendations. The interim report and the final report referred to Aboriginal community liaison officers [ACLOs]. We attempted to grapple with the important role these people play—the almost impossible position they are placed in often as intermediaries, in a sense, between Aboriginal people and the police force. Often they are placed in a position in which it is almost impossible to please both sides. There has been too long a delay in addressing issues relating to ACLOs, including their training and problems associated with filling vacancies in many areas. However, I was pleased to read in Red Tape, the wonderful journal of the New South Wales Public Service Association, that after a 15-year fight big improvements in pay and working conditions have been won for the 53 ACLOs in the New South Wales police service.

Committee members who talked to the ACLOs and inquired into their difficult position will welcome the improvements in pay and working conditions that have been gained through industrial negotiation and the commission. It is yet more positive evidence of the worth of the New South Wales industrial relations system and evidence of what we might lose if the Federal Government proceeds with its plans with regard to industrial relations. The final report dealt also with issues that arose out of the human services review, which had been under way prior to our committee starting its inquiry. That review was commissioned by the Government 16404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 through the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project. The consultants took a long time to present their report, and there was another delay before the report and the Government's response were made available.

Chapter 3 of our report deals totally with the human services review and its findings and recommendations. It contains also our critique on some of those findings and recommendations. In general, we found the review useful. Some of our critique picked up points that the authors of the review made, for instance, the difficulties created because that review did not examine core government activities and because some Aboriginal organisations failed to participate in the review. Nevertheless, the useful document is continuing to guide the policies and actions of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. Chapter 4 was devoted to looking at government and non-government services. Again, that was informed by the work of the human services review.

From the beginning it was clear that a complex system operated in Redfern and Waterloo, where a confusing mix of government and non-government agencies have grown up over many years. In some areas there was a multiplicity of specific non-government agencies, sometimes in effect competing with one another, and often the differences in their goals and objectives was not clear to people in the community. That is not to criticise the hard work and motivation of the workers in those agencies. But these areas, as long-term disadvantaged communities, have gradually built up a diverse and complex mixture of agencies. I think all committee members agreed that it was time some of those complexities were sorted out and rationalised.

The chapter's subheadings indicate the important matters into which we inquired: child protection, youth services, specific services for Aboriginal people, drug and alcohol services and mental health services, education, housing, employment, ageing and disability services, services for culturally and linguistically diverse communities and community development programs. That list alone provides an insight into the complex nature of the inquiry. It should also be said that, with the partial exception of specific services for Aboriginal people, every one of those service mixes operates in every community in New South Wales in one way or another, whether they are located close to where people live or are somewhat less accessible. The mix encompasses the range of government and non-government services that exist in all communities in New South Wales. The report's detail provides evidence of the need for the mix of services in Redfern and Waterloo to be rationalised and improved.

The final chapter of this substantial and detailed report deals with the establishment of the Redfern- Waterloo Authority. As I said, the bill establishing the authority was being debated in this place just as the committee was completing its report. If I remember rightly, the authority began its operations in late December or at the beginning of January. So the committee looked back on the role of the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, the role of which was transferred to the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. The committee commented on the way the authority was likely to operate. However, we did not go into much detail because we did not see it as our role to predict the future. We had a big enough task to deal with the issues of that time.

As I said, the establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority is welcomed. While it has been criticised from a number of points of view, it is probably agreed that the suburbs of Redfern and Waterloo have long been identified as amongst the most disadvantaged in New South Wales, with low employment, high drug and alcohol misuse and poor health, diverse ethnic and linguistic make-up, and the richness of cultures and community spirit that go with that. However, it is important that we do not focus on the negatives of Redfern and Waterloo. Many communities in New South Wales would probably envy the community spirit in Redfern and Waterloo. Nevertheless, the emphasis is welcomed. [Time expired.]

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [8.25 p.m.]: This second report followed the tragic death of TJ Hickey and the resultant riots in Redfern. On behalf of the Opposition I again express deep regret at that unfortunate death. The inquiry, like many before it, revealed a history of government neglect, inadequate funding and cover- up in relation to the area. The committee, in its interim report, quoted Dr Col Gellatly's evidence, in which he talked about poor or non-existent co-ordination, inadequate accountability, duplication of services and underresourced, untrained and non-viable services in the area. A critical part of the Government's response was the human services review, which was initially supposed to be completed by June 2004. However, it was completed only in November, and the committee received the report only after another request to the Government. That delay highlighted our concerns about the Carr Government's commitment and capacity to address the deep-seated problems in Redfern and Waterloo.

The Carr Government's history of failure to openly and proactively deal with these problems was apparent during the course of the human services review. The review enabled us to understand the significant problems, but it was not accompanied by any extra money. The Carr Government's major promise was to come 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16405 up with a human services plan. Dr Gellatly told the committee that the business plan, as he called it, would be completed by June 2005 and made public. It is now June 2005 and I look forward to seeing that human services plan for Redfern and Waterloo.

In addition to the delay in completing the human services plan there were a number of other concerns. We heard considerable evidence about the conduct of the review—on the one hand a lack of consultation and communication and, on the other hand, unnecessary bureaucracy and the sopping up of time and resources from non-government agencies. However, the major concern was the failure of the review to include core government services. I refer honourable members to the discussion referred to in paragraph 3.55 and other paragraphs of the report in which it is made plain that key areas such as housing, education and child protection, which need to be improved, were not the subject of the review.

The Opposition's greatest concern is the role of the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project. In the interim report we said it was a failure. Management of the human services review and the failure to get it completed in the final stage confirms that statement. The report makes a number of references to the Redfern- Waterloo Partnership Project. Paragraph 6.13 sums it up in this way:

The Committee believes that a major problem is the lack of trust the community has in the Government and in particular the RWPP.

One wonders at the confidence of the Carr Government in the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project and the establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. Paragraph 5.78 contains a quote from the Minister when he introduced legislation for the authority and made the point that the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project will lead the Government's reform of the human services review system while the focus of the authority is on job creation, urban renewal, improved public amenity and enhanced commercial activity. That shows a lack of confidence by the Government in the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project. One wonders why the Government has stuck with it, given that its announcement included funding for the project only until 2008 and the authority is meant to be a 10-year project, and given that the Premier has talked about a 25-year time frame for Redfern and Waterloo.

The Opposition believes there should be a co-ordinating body. In this respect I refer honourable members to recommendation 30. While the committee was resolute in using its numbers to stick with the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, it had to accept the establishment of a co-ordinating body. Recommendation 30 and a number of paragraphs surrounding the recommendation referred to the project "or a similar co-ordinating body". However, it must be adequately resourced, its performance must be measured and it must have adequate powers. The failure to address those core services in particular disqualified the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. I draw the attention of honourable members to chapter 4 and paragraphs 4.15, 4.19 and 4.22 to highlight the difficulties and inadequacies of DOCS categorising and dealing with kids and their level of problems, and promises made by the Government of further funding for DOCS—funding which has not be provided.

The committee was extremely concerned about the level of drug use and related criminal activity in Redfern and Waterloo, particularly around the Block and Redfern railway station. The Government response to the Coburn report is discussed in this report. A review was supposed to have taken place six months after that decision—around January. Following the review the major concerns remained. The first was that strike force Timepiece, which was set up to deal with the worst people in the riot, seemed to have been terminated early. The second concern related to Aboriginal community liaison officers [ACLOs].

I draw the attention of honourable members to paragraphs 2.102 to 2.105. I urge some caution in reading those paragraphs as I believe that rather than state the true story they reflect the Chair's views of the majority members in relation to what happened with the ACLOs. Also in the interim report we expressed our concern about the necessity to remove the needle van. The Government has promised a new health facility but there is some ambiguity about what is to happen with the needle van. With regard to paragraph 4.76 other needs have to be addressed, particularly the lack of detoxification and rehabilitation facilities close to the area, problems of truancy, the suspension and expulsion of children from schools, the need for a 24-hour youth crisis centre, and the lack of youth facilities generally.

In regard to the Aboriginal Housing Company and the development of the Block, we support the continued ownership of the Block by the indigenous community but we expressed concerns in the interim report about the capacity and objectives of the Aboriginal Housing Company in relation to the development of the Block. The Government's response in creating the Redfern-Waterloo Authority is a farce given that Government 16406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 members of the committee insisted that the Block be developed by the Aboriginal Housing Company without dealing with the issues that have been raised.

We are concerned that the Carr Government sees the Redfern-Waterloo area as a property play rather than an area that has a list of complex social issues that need urgent attention. I draw the attention of honourable members to the evidence of Charlie Richardson and others who expressed their concerns about the way the authority was set up, the lack of consultation and the role of Minister Sartor as the funnel point for any Government funding.

Scrutiny by this committee and the public has produced results in Redfern and Waterloo. The Government has acted but it still has not been able to escape from its need for spin and cover-up. I am pleased that early attempts by the chair and government members to remove the word "riot" from any references failed. Not only does the word "riot" appear in paragraph 2.79 of the report, but also tonight the chair of the committee talked about the riot. The inquiry had some unfortunate experiences, particularly having to hear evidence from people like Lyall Munro, to whom the majority of the committee wanted to give credence. He certainly did not deserve it. I thank the members of the secretariat, who worked very hard on the interim report and the final report. It would not have been possible to produce such reports without them. [Time expired.]

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [8.35 p.m.]: In speaking in support of the final report of the committee I will comment on some of the issues that arose as a result of the committee's hearings and discussions. During the inquiry the committee received 94 submissions and heard evidence from more than 100 witnesses. This included representatives from the Aboriginal community, a broad range of government and non-government service providers and community groups, and young people from the area. The committee conducted a number of site visits and consultations in the Redfern-Waterloo area. I thank the expert witnesses who gave their time to appear before the committee and I thank those who facilitated our site visits. I appreciate that it would not be easy to organise a large number of people, particularly people working in non-government organisations, at specific sites to have discussions with our committee.

The meetings were well organised and those who facilitated the visits made our task of speaking to the many community representatives much easier. In particular, I thank the Jumbunna House of Indigenous Learning at the University of Technology Sydney, representatives from the Aboriginal community, the young people from the area, representatives from the Russian community in Waterloo, Mick Mundine and other employees of the Aboriginal Housing Company, and members of the South Sydney and Koori south eastern Sydney interagencies. Their contribution was vital to the committee's deliberations and final report.

A concern highlighted in both the interim report and the final report was that the residents of Redfern and Waterloo do not regard themselves as being part of a single community. They regard themselves as two well-defined, individual communities with individual problems and issues. That became apparent after speaking with the groups. We must respect the fact that although the communities work together, they are separate communities with separate issues and separate social problems, and each has culturally diverse sectors. It was gratifying that these groups met with the committee to speak about individual issues facing the communities of Redfern and Waterloo. They were frank about problems in their areas and suggested ways to resolve those problems.

Although the two communities face very different issues, not all are unique to either community. They face similar problems of accessing resources through government and non-government sectors. It is difficult to know how many community groups operate within a specific area. It was apparent from our discussions that there were problems with communication between community groups and government and non-government agencies, with the duplication of services and with regard to service gaps.

A number of references have been made to the difficulties faced by Aboriginal community liaison officers [ACLOs] having to deal with their own communities and represent the local area command. Their task is most difficult, as they have to be involved with both sides. They are sometimes viewed with suspicion with regard to their motivation for doing the job. Their job is not an easy one, as it involves policing issues. It is not easy to get a community on side when there are major concerns in various sections of that community. The committee made a number of recommendations in relation to ACLOs. These problems are not peculiar to Redfern and Waterloo. ACLOs throughout New South Wales face similar issues. The committee expressed concern about the adequacy of training for ACLOs and police officers in the local area command to deal with cultural awareness issues. The committee is pleased that additional training has been introduced. I am hopeful that it will continue. It was proposed that the training program be reviewed to assess its appropriateness and whether it assisted the Redfern ACLOs and the police officers attached to Redfern local area command. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16407

The committee conducted several hearings with representatives from NSW Police. In particular, the committee was interested in the implementation of programs at Redfern local area command, the integration of ACLOs with police and whether ACLOs were regarded as playing an important role in the policing process with the local community. The final report of the committee was a unanimous report—a pleasing result, given the issues the committee had to work through during the interim report, the recommendations of which not all committee members agreed with. The committee members have worked extremely hard to produce a final report that reflects the concerns of the community and takes into account the positive proposals and recommendations expressed by the community. I refer in particular to the concerns of young people and the Russian community in Waterloo, many of which related to the provision of services by government and non-government agencies and the relationship between the local community and police. Generally, police have an extremely difficult job, but it is even more difficult in this area, which has been the focus of the media since the unfortunate death of TJ Hickey. I thank all committee members for the work they put into this inquiry and report. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.45 p.m.]: I have much pleasure contributing to the debate on this very good and unanimous report. I take considerable personal pride in my involvement in this inquiry. Honourable members will recall that initially the Government did not want an inquiry at all, and the Opposition wanted an inquiry that concentrated on the response of police to the riots after the death of TJ Hickey. After some considerable negotiation I managed to have the Government and the Opposition agree to more sociologically aware terms of reference that called for an inquiry into not merely the immediate problem of the riots but also the tinder, as it were, that sparked the riots.

I take some credit for negotiating with the Government a more sociological examination of the issues by the Standing Committee on Social Issues. In doing so, the Government had to acknowledge there was a problem and the committee was able to inquire into the matter in an open and honest manner. That was achieved quite well. I was pleased to note that the chapters of the interim report reflected my view of the priorities. Indeed, I spoke about that to the media. But I did not leak the report, which I was accused of having done.

The interim report was more controversial than the final report, so I suppose some progress had been made in that regard. If one looks at the overall situation in Redfern, the Government did have its toe in the water in so far as an awareness of the need for social change is concerned. It had done something, although the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project was very much under the control of an agent of the Premier's Department and, as such, lacked credibility on the ground. This was despite having done some good work. The Government did not have a grip on the number of non-government organisations [NGOs] in the area, despite the fact that they had been working for a couple of years. The Government probably tended to look at the bigger organisations and those with significant assets.

Relations between police and the Aboriginal community was an important issue. The Aboriginal community liaison officers [ACLOs] were placed in a difficult position in trying to bridge the gap, with the Aborigines thinking the ACLOs would be their advocates with the police, and the police thinking the ACLOs would be their eyes and ears in the Aboriginal community. Indeed, one would have to say that the position of the ACLOs and the difficulties they experienced had not been sorted out at the time the report was written. The point has been made that the problems in the Redfern area, which had predominantly an Aboriginal population, were quite different to the problems in the Waterloo area, where there was an ageing population in public housing. While the report dealt with both suburbs, I believe the issues in those suburbs were quite different and had to be recognised as such.

The non-government organisations that were delivering services had grown like Topsy, and it is essential that the delivery of human services be better co-ordinated. The Morgan Disney human services review, although not exactly a state of the art review, certainly looked excellent to me in so far as it examined the services that were delivered and how they were delivered. It was one of the biggest service reviews ever undertaken, in terms of its scope. I believe audits need to be about how whole systems function in practice, and the Morgan Disney human services review attempted that. There was some criticism that the examination of the way non-government organisations were delivering services to the people of Redfern and Waterloo involved a big form and a relatively short interview, but such issues have to be looked at by an independent group in a relatively short time frame.

The Government funds a galaxy of services, and NGOs simply cannot look at the big picture. As I said, the services grew like Topsy and no-one had an overall picture. It was an interesting comment that the Redfern- Waterloo Partnership Project, despite having been operating for two years, did not have a list of all the NGOs in the area. The Morgan Disney human services review made general statements about services and their 16408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 integration. I believe there is a guarantee that no services will be de-funded in the short term, but there is another confidential part to the report, which analyses individual NGOs for good or ill. It probably makes recommendations on whether they should be funded. The general feeling is that there are too many non- government organisations and that some rationalisation is needed so that better integrated services can be developed.

The Morgan Disney report suggests that the regular auditing of services should be monitored in an ongoing way. I believe it would be a bad thing if the monitoring were always to be done by consultants, who could be leaned on to make findings favourable to the Government. My own view is that to achieve continuity and excellence, while retaining the intellectual capital of the ability to do such reviews in the public sector, this type of monitoring of human services and the delivery of services by non-government organisations should be a project of universities; and that such funding should be provided in a reasonably long time frame, say, five years. The methodology of the studies could be developed, they could be longitudinal, and perhaps individual aspects could be studied by postgraduate students.

The Morgan Disney report was a private consultancy, and my understanding is that it was relatively pioneering, but I believe the methodology needs to be widened and that university departments should probably be the resource. I believe that is the model we should adopt. I am aware that the Centre for Health Services Development at the University of Wollongong does quite a lot of work comparing health inputs and outcomes from the States and from the Federal Government under a Federal Government research grant, and I believe that is the model that New South Wales should adopt. I do not believe these types of ongoing surveys should be undertaken by government. In the tendering for some government contracts for the disability sector in the Hunter a ministerial minder effectively overruled a selection process which was conducted by the public service in an exemplary fashion. Such a recommendation is lacking in transparency and should not have occurred.

There will always be difficulties related to co-ordination between non-government organisations, but I think the relationships between government and NGO are much more difficult because the government is the funding body and the NGO tends to want to second-guess what the government wants in order to retain its funding. I think that the Department of Community Services is an offender in this regard. As I say, one thing that is essential is an awareness of social issues, and I am not quite sure that has really been addressed. I believe the problem lies in putting total control in one Minister. Minister Sartor is a good Minister, in that he has a relatively keen awareness of people in society, but it all seems to be developer driven with not much money allocated and real estate concessions being the means of funding these services.

My own view is that the Government should borrow and spend on infrastructure. Provided the return on that capital covers the interest rate, there is nothing wrong with State debt. The idea that the Government must be beholden to developers to do anything is a very bad model. I believe the Government took the committee's report seriously and that its response to the report was reasonable. I felt that the exercise of the Redfern-Waterloo inquiry was most worthwhile. The only thing that worried me a little was that when the riots occurred at Macquarie Fields it seemed that not much had been learned from the Redfern situation in regard to what the Government was doing in other housing commission areas. There appeared to be a tendency to see this as an issue involving the relationship between police and Aborigines. It was almost a racist way of looking at the issue rather than seeing that if all the disadvantaged areas of society are concentrated in one place there will be problems.

The Macquarie Fields inquiry will test my theory and determine whether I am right in my suggestion as to the problems. Some of the early research work of Tony Vinson, which was carried out when I was a medical student almost 30 years ago, was significant. He suggested that if you take the indices of social dysfunction, school truancy rates, unemployment rates, the number of people below the poverty line and those on welfare as a percentage, you will find that crime exists in areas where there are social difficulties. We need social projects to address this issue. [Time expired.]

The Hon. IAN WEST [8.55 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in this take-note debate on the final report of the inquiry into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo. This report follows on from the interim report of August 2004, which responded to the committee's terms of reference, revolving around the tragic incident at Redfern. The committee members took their task extremely seriously. The committee's interim report addressed issues relating to the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, the redevelopment of the Block, the policing strategies and resources in the area, the Pemulwuy redevelopment project, the future of the Block, and the vexed issue of the mobile needle and syringe service, which attempted, and still attempts, to address the drug and alcohol issues in Redfern and Waterloo. The interim report produced some 22 recommendations, a number of 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16409 which are being implemented as a result of the final report, dated December 2004. The interim report's recommendations 15 and 16 referred to the important matter of police undertaking audits and proper intensive training in line with the NSW Police Aboriginal strategies direction document of 2003-06.

The committee's final report, dated December 2004, dealt with police issues, complex issues regarding the human services review, government and non-government sector co-ordination, integration, and methods of delivering services to the community at large, the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, and important issues regarding the future of the Redfern-Waterloo area.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate interrupted.

BUDGET ESTIMATES AND RELATED PAPERS

Financial Year 2005-06

Debate resumed from 24 May 2005.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [9.00 p.m.]: The budget handed down by the Treasurer is another testament to the continuing economic mismanagement of the Carr Labor Government. In my speech in reply to the budget in June last year I rightly predicted that the 2004-05 budget would be Treasurer Michael Egan's last budget. He has now been replaced by Andrew Refshauge, who continues the Labor tradition of delivering an incompetent and irresponsible budget from a tired, old Government that delivers higher taxes, high debt and low growth. It is not a budget to rebuild New South Wales; it is a budget of lost opportunities that provides no answers to the problems created by 10 years of Labor— 10 years of hard labour.

Bob Carr might be going to have a party at the ALP State Conference on the weekend to celebrate his record as Premier, but the community of New South Wales will suffer the hangover. One of the most important services that the State Government provides to the community is the protection offered by a strong Police Force. The latest police strength figures released on 30 April this year reveal that only 15 of the State's 85 local area commands have more police officers now than they had at their highest point in 2003. Of those 15 local area commands, 7 commands have authorised strengths of 10 or more officers fewer than they had actual officers in 2003.

I acknowledge that members of the Hawkesbury community are in the Chamber this evening. Hawkesbury and Mount Druitt local area commands have an authorised strength of 10 fewer officers than they had in 2003. Ku-ring-gai local area command has an authorised strength of 11 fewer officers; Tweed-Byron and mid North Coast local area commands have 14 fewer officers; Ashfield has 16 fewer officers; and lower Hunter has an authorised strength of 18 few officers than it had in March 2003.

At its highest point in 2003 there were 15,168 New South Wales police officers. In April 2005 there were just 14,739 officers. Thus far we have lost 429 officers in less than two years. Comparing authorised strength figures with the high watermark in 2003, that indicates that the community is set to lose a total of 714 officers. It is no wonder the community has become so cynical and sceptical about absolutely everything the Government says. The high watermark will always be the election year. I predict that within 12 to 18 months, in the lead-up to the 2007 State election campaign, we will hear the ranting and raving yet again about record numbers of police in New South Wales. The Government will make sure the money is there, but as soon as the election campaign is over, if Labor is elected the police numbers in this State will drop.

The only chance the people of New South Wales have is by ensuring that a Brogden-led Coalition government comes good in terms of the election result. We will certainly make sure that the people of New South Wales receive massive increases in the contribution that the Coalition government will make right across each portfolio in New South Wales. One of the greatest threats to the Police budget and positive outcomes for a safer community is the failure of the Treasurer and the Minister for Police to budget for the upcoming police pay rise. Officers have been offered a minimum pay rise of 17 per cent over four years, with detectives and senior police to receive a pay rise of up to 24 per cent. It is great to have the Premier in the Chamber. For the first time he is seeing where the rubber hits the road so far as debate is concerned.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Where democracy was born. 16410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As the Hon. Patricia Forsythe rightly interjects, democracy was born in this State, and it continues to be developed in this State. It is good to see the Premier about to take his rightful place as an adviser, in the adviser's chair.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Not in economics.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Not as an adviser in economics—and most certainly not in policing either. It is great to have the Premier in the Chamber without his having any opportunity to interject. He is heading for the back door, trying to get out of the place. He is looking for an escape hatch. There is no escape hatch.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: That's where he's got Michael Egan frozen.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I acknowledge the interjection. Close the back door; Michael Egan might get out again. We do not want to see him back here again. It is great to have the Premier in the Chamber so he can hear what is happening to policing in this State. Rather than factoring the upcoming police pay rise into the Police budget, the budget papers simply state:

In coming months settlements will need to be negotiated for other major employee groups, including public hospital nurses (award expired 31 December 2004), police (award expired as 30 June 2005).

At this stage, there remains considerable risk to budget outcomes unless settlements are consistent with the Government's wages policy. Outcomes in excess of the Government's wages policy could require a structural response such as reduced expenditure elsewhere and/or higher taxation.

It is highly unlikely that a pay rise in the order of 17 to 24 per cent over four years will be consistent with the Government's wages policy. The question that must now be answered by the Minister is: Where is the money coming from? What operations, police station upgrades or new infrastructure purchases will be sacrificed to balance the Police budget? Where will the cuts be made?

Despite the spin being put on the latest crime figures by the Minister, the fact is that since 1995 the level of crime in many categories has increased. Recently I catalogued some of the public reports of crime in our community covering the time since I took up the Police portfolio less than two months ago. In that time there have been at least 21 armed robberies, nine shootings, five stabbings, four incidents of assaults against police, four home invasions, four aggravated armed robberies, three carjackings, two fatal shootings, two fatal stabbings, and one charge of attempted murder of a police officer.

Earlier this year the Minister in another place appointed his former ministerial colleague, Michael Knight, to conduct an inquiry into options for accelerating the construction of new police stations and upgrading existing facilities. Unfortunately, the need for this inquiry is more than likely redundant, given the budget crisis about to hit police. It is ironic that the Minister is appointing a Labor mate to work out how to speed up the replacement of dilapidated police stations when it was his own Government's doing over the past 10 years. The Minister recently admitted in the Inner Western Weekly that his Government had ignored the needs of police. He said:

Care hasn't been taken in looking after police accommodation for more than a decade and it's something we need to rectify … We're rebuilding 27 (stations) over the next few years and that will still be well short of the mark.

The 2005-06 budget papers reveal just how badly the Minister is continuing to handle the upgrading of police stations. In the current financial year he has underspent on upgrading police stations by a staggering $18.77 million—and that is in just one year. The 2004-05 budget promised the community that $40 million would be spent each year on upgrading or replacing 27 police stations, commencing in 2005-06. These include stations in Bowral, Burwood, Ermington, Moree and Tenterfield, which I listed earlier this morning in a notice of motion. Of the 27 stations, only 6 received funding in the budget. The lucky communities were Campsie, Dubbo, Fairfield, Lismore, Orange and Wagga Wagga. At least one of these communities has waited 10 years for this work.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Which one?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Wagga Wagga. One of the first things I did as a backbencher in this place was visit Wagga Wagga police station. A very brave chief superintendent by the name of Eric Gollan—brave because he was prepared to confront the Government—took me through the station and showed 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16411 me first-hand the disgraceful working conditions that police officers had to endure to do their job and look after the public in Wagga Wagga.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: And what government was it, 10 years ago?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It was absolutely disgraceful in 1996. It has been going on for many, many years, but the Government promised it and did not do anything about it.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: We are going to fix it up.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Government promised it back in 1995, 1996 and 1997, but did not deliver. It will cost in excess of $72 million to upgrade or replace these six stations, but they have received only $12.2 million in funding in the budget. That is a $60 million shortfall in just six stations. This does not even take into consideration the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to be spent on the other 21 priority stations or the other 417 or so police stations that did not make the top 27. Not only has the budget for improvements to police stations been underspent by $18.77 million in the current year, but the Minister is again failing to meet a commitment made last year that $40 million would be spent this financial year.

If local residents in Campsie, Dubbo, Fairfield, Lismore, Orange and Wagga Wagga believe they will gain new and improved police stations in the coming year—and I draw this to the attention of the Minister for Justice following his interjection—they should look at the experiences of Armidale, Griffith, Muswellbrook, St Marys and Thirroul police stations. In this budget the completion dates for Armidale, Muswellbrook and Thirroul police stations have been pushed back a further two years; and the completion dates for Griffith and St Marys have been pushed back a further year. As I said, the Minister has underspent on these projects by $18.77 million in just one year and the expected total cost of the project has blown out by almost $2.8 million in just one year.

In 1996 both sides of the political spectrum made promises in relation to Raymond Terrace police station. Of course, the Government made sure that in the 1996-97 budget papers $2.628 million was committed, with $101,000 to be spent on the project in that financial year. The project was to be completed by 1999. This much-needed work was scrapped for a new super station at Waratah. Honourable members may recall that in February 2001 shots were fired through the front door of the police station. In May 2001 the member for Port Stephens, John Bartlett, told a public meeting at Medowie that a new police station was planned. He indicated on a map where the station would be built, next to the council chambers, and he said it would provide extra police resources.

In February 2002 the super station at Waratah was scrapped by the then Minister for Police, the Hon. Michael Costa. In 2003 John Bartlett again promised a new police station. On 11 June 2003 a spokeswoman for police Minister John Watkins said no decision had been made on the police station and no money had been allocated. On 17 June 2003 the member for Port Stephens said:

I am still working on a plan—for which I do not have capital works funding—to lease a new, privately built police station at Raymond Terrace.

In November 2003 police Minister John Watkins said he would know by the end of the year whether the police station would receive extra funding. On 28 November 2003 he told the Newcastle Herald, "Raymond Terrace is important". In June 2004 the Raymond Terrace branch of the Police Association demanded an urgent meeting with the local area commander and northern region commander to discuss concerns over staff shortages. The branch membership passed a motion of no confidence in the member for Port Stephens for his failure to improve policing within the area. The motion stated:

We demand that he end his rhetoric and set in place a timetable to establish new police stations at Raymond Terrace and Lemon Tree Passage.

On 29 April 2005 Raymond Terrace again missed out on the allocation of additional police resources. Not one of the 117 new recruits who graduated from the academy on 29 April went to Raymond Terrace, and no money has been set aside in this budget for the much-promised and much-needed new police station at Raymond Terrace. It goes without saying that Lemon Tree Passage has also been left off the list for new facilities. I am told that Port Stephens Council has approached the Government and indicated that it is prepared to put in the money to build the police station. But the Government continues to drag its feet in a rapidly growing area. Police have indicated they need support in this area, but their request for support is yet again falling on deaf ears. The Hon. Tony Catanzariti is encouraging me to keep going on these issues, particularly in relation to Griffith. 16412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

Three weeks ago I visited a number of stations on the North Coast. I visited five electoral areas and spoke to quite a number of police. They voiced their disappointment that none of the 117 officers who graduated on 29 April were sent to the far North Coast area. The closest was one officer sent to the Manning-Great Lakes local area command. As I indicated in the last sitting week, the police in that area are calling out for help. They are not sure whether the message is getting through from police headquarters to the ministry, and have asked me to raise the matter in Parliament in the hope that the Minister will hear it. They need help and they need it now. The massive population growth in the area is not being matched by police resources. If WorkCover representatives saw some of the cracks in the walls at Kempsey police station they would almost condemn it. It is an absolute disgrace. Wyong police station has been identified in the Sinclair Knight Merz study as one of the 27 highest priorities for refurbishment or replacement. The 2004-05 budget stated:

During 2004-05 planning will commence in relation to each of these priority sites so that a specific plan and timetable can be delivered for each.

Yet the current budget fails to provide any money at all for Wyong police station. Last Friday I once again visited Wyong police station with my colleague Chris Hartcher to highlight the failure of yet another Minister for Police to provide any funding for this station in the latest budget. The Government has long neglected Wyong shire, whether it is the police station, cleaning up Tuggerah Lakes or, indeed, the often touted but never delivered new Warnervale railway station. The Government makes constant promises to the people of the Central Coast but it never delivers.

Another area of concern in recent times is the Water Police. I acknowledge that in this budget the Government has made a commitment to purchase 12 water craft for police, including two high-speed tactical boarding vessels, four harbour patrol boats, and six offshore patrol vessels. The Minister indicated also that another 15 vessels would be purchased over the next four years, including a tactical patrol boat for counterterrorism and 10 fast response boats for search and rescue, and major crime tasks. The question must be asked: Why did the Government sell off the high-speed boats required for the Olympic Games? People expressed their disappointment that shortly after the Olympic Games the Government sold the vessels it had provided for counterterrorism back-up resources during the Games.

It has been some years now since the Olympic Games and, indeed, some years since September 11, yet the Government has only now realised that it must take some action. However, the drums are starting to beat within NSW Police: they are saying that the budget blow-out and the need to fund the often touted pay increases will mean that the much-heralded announcements in the past weeks about vessels for the Water Police may no longer come to fruition as the Government endeavours to save more and more money.

At the end of April I called on the Government to do more to boost the number of Aboriginal officers in NSW Police. Today Aboriginal police officers make up fewer than 2 per cent of all police. My call followed the release of a New South Wales Ombudsman audit entitled "Working with Local Aboriginal Communities", which found that in 2003-04 there were just 144 Aboriginal police officers and 46 civilian Aboriginal staff in NSW Police. Disappointingly, six Aboriginal officers resigned in the last 18 months. On the same day as the audit was released, 117 new recruits graduated from the police academy at Goulburn. Of those, only one officer was of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, despite the police hierarchy asserting that its target is to recruit 20 new Aboriginal police officers each year.

The community can only gain from the employment of more Aboriginal police officers, which will help to build bridges between police and Aboriginal communities. Under the NSW Police Aboriginal employment strategy, any Aboriginal officer leaving the force must be interviewed. On two unrelated occasions a former senior officer and a former junior officer have told me these interviews have not been conducted. I call on the Minister in another place and Commissioner Moroney to contact all Aboriginal officers who have resigned in the past five years to find out the reason for their departure and what measures can be taken to ensure that current and future officers are retained.

I am pleased to have the portfolio responsibility for the Hunter, but in this budget yet again the Hunter has been done over by the Carr Government. The Hunter has 9 per cent of the entire population of New South Wales, yet time and again this Government has failed to allocate to the Hunter its fair share of infrastructure funding. An analysis of the last five State budgets, from 2000-01 to 2004-05, clearly highlights where the Government has failed this region, which once used to boast of being a strong Labor heartland. Despite comprising 9 per cent of the State's population, in the last five budgets the Hunter failed to receive anywhere near 9 per cent of identifiable capital works funding in six major infrastructure portfolios. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16413

Between 2000 and 2005 the Hunter received just 5 per cent of hospital capital works funding, only 3 per cent of the $1.46 billion in school capital works funding, 4 per cent of funding for TAFE buildings, 6 per cent of identifiable transport capital works funding, only 3 per cent of roads funding, excluding funding for the Pacific Highway, and just 6 per cent of funding for upgraded police stations. The Hunter provides an important source of revenue for the New South Wales economy and it is about time this Labor Government stopped thinking that Hunter seats are safe and started treating the region with the priority it deserves.

On 30 May 2005 some Liberal Party members and I held a health forum in the Hunter Valley, and it demonstrated an alarming lack of support for a number of key groups. Groups that deal with people suffering from mental illness do not receive government support and feel isolated. An interesting irony has arisen with respect to the pink ladies at Maitland Hospital. These auxiliary volunteers indicated that recently their uniform was changed, the first change in 30 years. They are in desperate need of support to enable them to continue their vital service in the Hunter Valley, but their call for assistance has fallen on deaf ears yet again.

The budget will do little to reduce elective surgery waiting lists in the Hunter. Royal Newcastle Hospital has one of the State's highest average waiting times for elective surgery, 5.19 months, which is 71 per cent above the State average of 3.04 months. There are 2,312 people on the elective surgery waiting list, with 412 waiting more than 12 months for surgery. The hospital has a long average waiting list of six months or more for neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery, and ophthalmological surgery. In March 2003, 552 people were on the waiting list for surgery at Maitland Hospital. In March this year 579 patients were waiting for surgery. Of those, 13 had been waiting 12 months or more.

Patients on waiting lists at other hospitals in the Hunter also suffer while they wait for a bed. The waiting list for Singleton Hospital has increased from 11 to 93, or 745 per cent. The waiting list for Kurri Kurri District Hospital has increased from 230 to 454, up 97.4 per cent, while the John Hunter Hospital waiting list has increased from 1,171 to 1,307, up 11.6 per cent. Overall, waiting lists have blown out by a staggering 52 per cent under Bob Carr and the Labor Government. Local members should realise that people in the Hunter are sick and tired of constant excuses and spin tactics used to disguise the horrors of the New South Wales health system.

In the 2005-06 State budget a number of major Hunter infrastructure projects have blown out in either their projected total cost or their completion date. They include cost blow-outs in the upgrade of the Hunter Performing Arts High School of $1.83 million, Muswellbrook police station of $368,000, and duplication of the Five Islands Road between Booragul and Speers Point of $9 million. Infrastructure projects that have longer completion times now include the new forensic facilities of John Hunter Hospital, which is one year later than projected; Muswellbrook police station, which is two years over the projected completion time; and stage two of the Nelson Bay Road, Bobs Farm to Anna Bay upgrade, which is one year later than projected.

Another area in which the budget has ignored people in the Hunter is major improvements to public transport infrastructure. The former Minister for Transport Services, now the Minister for the Hunter, announced plans in late 2003 to close the Broadmeadow to Newcastle rail line. It was all part of the lower Hunter integrated transport plan. Since that time neither the former Minister nor the current Minister has allocated one cent to fund Labor's grand plan for Newcastle. Yet again, funding has not been provided to substantially upgrade the Adamstown level crossing. The Hunter rail cars are yet to be delivered, and there is no funding for easy access upgrades at Broadmeadow, Cardiff, and Victoria Street railway stations. In addition, no funding has been provided for the Glendale interchange.

The Government crows about this budget and suggests that it is a budget for the future, when Labor has not cleaned up the havoc wreaked over the past 10 years. With some projects outstanding for 10 years, how can the Government suggest it is moving forward? It should acknowledge that it has long neglected many areas within the Hunter and that money is yet to be allocated to rectify those problems. The Hunter does not have a future under this Labor Government. In conclusion, as I said at the outset, the budget does not seek to rebuild New South Wales; it is a budget of lost opportunities that provides no answers to the problems created by 10 years of Labor Government. It does not provide answers to the problems facing NSW Police or people in the Hunter. I look forward to ongoing debate on the 2005-06 budget.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.26 p.m.]: I speak on the budget on behalf of The Nationals. Frankly, the New South Wales Labor Government has delivered to New South Wales an incompetent and irresponsible budget that lacks vision, guts, and grunt. Premier Carr's eleventh budget is a dud that fails the people of New South Wales. It is a budget that has forgotten that country New South Wales 16414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 even exists. It is a budget that fails to make the Department of Primary Industries a budget priority, which is the fault of the Treasurer and the Minister, who are both incompetent. Instead, the budget focuses on Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong, and it does not do that very well.

Labor has embarked on a $10 billion spending spree. Despite that big spend, Labor has failed to announce any new initiatives to reform its drought or water policies and programs. New South Wales is facing a major water crisis as it battles through the worst drought on record. My home city of Goulburn, near that great metropolis of Crookwell, is about to run out of water, yet the Government has failed to deliver a saving grace. But Labor managed to increase insurance tax, failed to take into consideration the pay increases for nurses and police, and failed to axe the hated vendor tax. New South Wales remains the highest taxed State in Australia.

Interestingly, the Government has directed a measly $16.2 million towards drought relief measures, despite more than 87 per cent of New South Wales being drought declared. Work it out! The Government has pledged $10 billion for whatever, yet only $16 million for drought relief measures. That is pretty ordinary. Does the Government believe that the drought will end next month? Labor has delivered nothing more for New South Wales farmers than a continuation of its existing drought support funding. It has failed to deliver security to farmers. There is no excuse for this lack of future planning. There is no new assistance for low-interest loans or initiatives designed to encourage farmers to store feed and water to help them to survive future droughts, and there are no initiatives to introduce water recycling schemes and increased water storage capacities. The Federal Coalition Government has provided our farmers with record drought relief funding.

The Federal Coalition Government's commitment to drought preparedness and assistance measures now totals more than $2.2 billion. Just last month it announced an extra $254 million over two years. On the other hand, this miserable New South Wales Labor Government and its mean Premier Carr should hang their heads in shame. There is no comparison between the New South Wales Government's miserable $16.2 million and the hundreds of millions of dollars the Federal Coalition Government has provided to New South Wales alone on drought.

The drought is now recognised as the longest and most severe drought in the State's history, and farmers are at the end of their tether both economically and emotionally. Tragically, some farmers are going into their fifth year of drought without a break, and others are suffering from three consecutive crop losses. Labor continues an obsession with the city and shows no interest in country New South Wales. Frankly, the bush deserves more. Labor would be jumping up and down if the price of meat, fruit and vegetables skyrocketed in city shops because of the drought. But until that day comes, this Government will continue to treat country residents like second-class citizens.

The Government has also ripped seven staff from the Rural Assistance Authority, which administers assistance schemes, loans and financial support to farmers during the drought. I could not think of a worse time to do that, yet there is no apology and no explanation from the Minister. Despite New South Wales farmers suffering from the worst drought in 100 years, the New South Wales Labor Government has also ripped the popular joint Federal-State FarmBis program out of the budget. Farmers are in their hour of need and the New South Wales Government is penny pinching from them.

FarmBis is a vital program that allows farmers to undertake training in risk management and natural resources management. Last year the New South Wales Labor Government budgeted to spend $15 million over three years to fund FarmBis, and the Federal Government would have matched it dollar for dollar. Instead, the funding for this vital program has been ripped out of this year's budget and replaced with a $5.8 million insignificant State-run scheme.

So Labor has not only stolen the money from the budget, it has missed out on matching funds from the Federal Government. This shows the Government's incompetence. Because the Minister for Primary Industries and the Treasurer have given up the FarmBis funding, they have lost matching funding from the Federal Government. How good are the Minister for Primary Industries and the Treasurer? They are pretty damned ordinary. New South Wales farmers will now be disadvantaged. The New South Wales Labor Government has shown a complete lack of empathy for New South Wales farmers throughout the drought. Labor's heartless response has proved how out of touch with country New South Wales it is.

The New South Wales Labor Government has failed New South Wales farmers. In delivering this budget, it has given primary producers nothing more than its dirty laundry. Labor has failed to reinstate a $149 million budget cut to the Department of Primary Industries [DPI] over three years. After selling off various 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16415 assets within the merged departments of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry and Mineral Resources, more than $10.5 million has again been slashed from the DPI budget—a department responsible for providing vital front- line services to our primary producers.

The DPI capital expenditure budget has been slashed by 50 percent, or $13.2 million, this year. This will mean less infrastructure and fewer major projects and programs within the DPI. That 50 per cent cut in the DPI budget, in a year when the Government announced a $10 billion borrowing program for infrastructure, shows how much the Government cares about primary industries in this State. The budget shows that Premier Carr and his tired, old Labor Government have no answers, and it continues to show their contempt for the bush and the people who work there.

In my shadow portfolio of Fisheries, the 2005-06 State budget has fallen short of delivering much- needed assistance to another industry that has been doing it tough. First, in April this year the Sydney rock oyster industry on the Hawkesbury River was decimated by the outbreak of the QX parasite. The oyster leases of approximately 20 oyster farmers were wiped out by this unknown parasite. Nowhere in this year's State budget has funding been earmarked for a much-needed oyster lease clean-up and industry restructure program for the Hawkesbury.

While the Government initially indicated that it would implement assistance measures, including the delivery of 200,000 QX resistant juvenile oysters, a $200,000 grant to supply more young oysters next year, and the provision of financial counselling services, the affected farmers have yet to see a single red cent of this promised assistance.

Part of the emergency package was that lease rental fees and other government-related fees would be waived for the remainder of the financial year for growers affected by the April disaster. If the Government thinks that waiving these fees for oyster growers for a period of two months is going to make a significant difference in helping them to recover from this environmental disaster, it is having itself on! What the industry needs, and what the Government has failed to provide, is funding to assist in the clean-up of oyster leases, interim income support to help farmers see themselves through until the next season, an industry exit package, and increased funding for water quality testing and surveillance. Despite the Premier doing the good news television interview on the water at Brooklyn and pledging urgent relief to these oyster farmers, the Government is yet to honour this commitment.

The New South Wales Government has simultaneously slashed vital funding for the New South Wales Shellfish Food Safety Program from $900,000 to $400,000; it has removed half a million dollars in this budget. This has left oyster growers to fork out for a program that provides valuable data on public health risks such as bio-toxins and sewage spills. Individual growers will be expected to pay $3,500 to keep this program up and running. That is unfair and inequitable. The failure of this hopeless, lame dog Minister for Primary Industries, who has not even made it to the Cabinet table, to commit industry's requested $900,000 in funding—

[Interruption]

Well, if he has made it to the table, he is even more inept because his voice is not being heard. Other Ministers are getting money and this bloke did not. You got some funding, did you not?

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: We all got some.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No, this bloke did not. He had a loss. If you got funding, you are a better Minister that he is. We wish we had a good Minister instead of this lame dog, hopeless bloke, who is getting nothing but cuts and is being walked over. I know that the Minister for Justice is embarrassed for him and he wants to try to cover up for his inadequacies, but he cannot.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: We want Melinda!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: She would be a good Minister. The Government has provided little funding to sustain the important and valuable commercial fishing industry. The New South Wales commercial fishing industry generates approximately $500 million to the State's economy and employs about 4,000 people. It has also recently faced some difficult challenges. At a time when the New South Wales commercial fishing industry is facing excessive operation costs and is having to compete against an influx of cheap seafood imports that are slashing local prices, Labor has provided little or no assistance to sustain the industry. This year's budget 16416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 has seen the Government's revenue from fisheries management charges increase from $4.3 million to $4.451 million despite the Minister's acknowledgement that fees are a problem for our commercial fishers. This increase includes new fishing fees from the NSW Food Authority for bi-annual inspection of commercial fishing boats that will be another added cost to the industry.

The economic base of the commercial fishing industry is on shaky ground. It is operating in an uncertain climate and, as it moves to a category one share-managed fishery and full cost recovery, it is not unlikely that we will see further adjustment or, to put it bluntly, a fallout in the industry. Commercial fishermen are under increased pressure to reduce their fishing effort yet still make enough money to be sustainable. In light of challenges facing the industry it is imperative that the Government ensure that both cost recovery and community contributions are affordable and fairly distributed among the industry.

To give some credit, the Government has granted commercial fishermen access to drought support services by way of the New South Wales Rural Financial Counselling Program and drought support. I know this initiative was greatly welcomed by commercial fishers on the North Coast of New South Wales. [Extension of time agreed to.]

I hope the Government continues to provide these important assistance measures, and does not remove them halfway through like it did with the livestock transport-to-slaughter subsidy and proudly re-announced at a rally at Parkes a levy it had removed a couple of weeks before. We were the only people who noticed. I picked it up from the Hon. Melinda Pavey's press clippings, and we were able to take action on it.

I was shocked to learn that funding for half of the conservation managers within the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries [DPI] Aquatic Habitat Protection Unit will cease at the end of this financial year. This decision is a slap in the face for these valuable managers, recreational and commercial fishers, fish stocks, and the environment. Conservation managers ensure that New South Wales has not only sustainable fisheries but also sustainable development in coastal regions. They work with communities to implement the core objectives of the Fisheries Management Act to conserve fish stocks and habitats, threatened species and marine vegetation, and to promote ecologically sustainable development. Any loss of habitat through poor development management and the loss of these key staff will undermine the efforts of fishers and the community to maintain viable fisheries.

I was also disappointed to learn that while six temporary Treasury-funded conservation manager positions will be terminated, the DPI will continue to receive this funding as part of its consolidated revenue funding in perpetuity. It is unbelievable that the Minister for Primary Industries is sacrificing these valuable positions and the sustainability of commercial and recreational fishing in New South Wales to even further cut costs within his department. Had he fought to keep some of that money, he would not now have to make these cuts. It is imperative that the Minister reverse this shortsighted decision and reinstate these valuable conservation management positions.

The last fisheries issue I wish to address is the Government's recent hike in recreational fishing licence fees. I note with some interest that the Government waited until a week after the budget was handed down to announce this revenue raiser. As of 1 July 2005 the cost of a three-year licence will increase from $70 to $75, a one-year licence from $25 to $30, and a weekend licence will cost $6 instead of $5. As nearly one million people engage in recreational angling each year, this increase in licence fees will be a significant cash cow for the New South Wales Government. It is essential that this additional revenue go straight to funding valuable front-line fisheries projects that are supported by anglers and not used to fund the Government's bloated bureaucracy.

To achieve this end, I believe that an independent audit of the New South Wales salt and fresh water recreational fishing trusts is needed to ensure that recreational anglers are getting the best value for their licence fee. The Minister for Primary Industries has indicated that recreational fishing licences over the past year have generated $10 million.

New South Wales anglers have every right to know whether this large sum of money has been spent appropriately and if the independent recreational fishing trusts are, in fact, independent of the Government. They also deserve to know whether the increased cost of wetting a line in New South Wales is justified. Many recreational anglers would be disappointed if the New South Wales Government was slugging recreational anglers with increased fees to compensate for the $10.5 million that Treasury ripped out of this year's Department of Primary Industries budget. The Mineral Resources budget is further proof that Primary Industries 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16417 is the Government's forgotten portfolio. The New South Wales Government has slashed the total expenses budget for Mineral Resources by $12.1 million, from $60.3 million in 2004-2005 to $48.2 million for 2005-2006.

In addition to having a very junior Minister responsible for Mineral Resources in New South Wales—I believe he is all but the most junior of Ministers—this budget is testament to the fact that the New South Wales Government does not consider the industry a priority. Labor's lack of investment in the State's infrastructure, especially in water, energy, ports and the Hunter Valley rail system, has hamstrung the minerals sector, which has been substantially upgrading its production capacity. For example, before the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] began its 60-year lease of the coal rail network on 5 September last year, the Federal Government committed to spending more than $270 million on the Hunter's coal rail network. That is almost double the $150 million capital works program planned by the State before the ARTC began leasing the tracks. It is also a clear indication of a Federal Coalition Government committed to investing in and supporting our natural resources.

The New South Wales Labor Government's lack of investment in our major ports and transport infrastructure has been at a major cost to the State's mining industry. In April this year the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission approved a scheme to allow coalminers in the Hunter Valley to collude to match the capacity of the transport links to the port and the port itself. It is simply not fair that coal companies and coalminers should be penalised and forced to underproduce to cater for the New South Wales State Government's inefficient infrastructure. Prior to the introduction of this capacity-balancing scheme, queues were growing to unacceptable levels, creating crippling demurrage costs of up to $260 million and unreliable waiting times for ships.

New South Wales and Australian coal exports have been clearly affected by underinvestment in infrastructure in and around the State's major ports. This problem is not limited to New South Wales, with Dalrymple Bay coal port in central Queensland also seeking access to a capacity-balancing scheme similar to that operating in Newcastle. Despite its rhetoric, the State Labor Government continues to pay little more than lip service to the capacity of this State to improve its infrastructure now to deal with the crises it faces today and the challenges it will face in the future. The hugely spun infrastructure spend of $356 billion announced in this year's budget is a hastily cobbled together list of previously announced projects, routine maintenance items and Federal Government and private sector funded projects. The Carr Government has failed to ensure a consistent and planned stream of new and much-needed infrastructure projects.

If the State Labor Government were serious about improving our major export industries, including agriculture and mining, it would admit defeat in its failure to provide these valuable industries with efficient infrastructure and hand over this responsibility to the Federal Government. In May this year the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, proposed that the Australian Government extend AusLink to include the effective planning and regulation of Australia's major export ports. His rationale for the Federal Government accepting responsibility for this important infrastructure was that with regard to a number of important ports important decisions about infrastructure spending had taken far too long. For example, in Sydney, the approval process for expanding Port Botany is dragging on while exporters suffer. The Sydney Ports Corporation has recognised the need to expand port capacity, only to see the issue become bogged down in inquiries and debate over how much capacity is actually needed.

The State Government estimates it will receive $370 million in royalties collected from the sale of mineral resources. This can be mainly attributed to an increased demand for export coal over the past year. Demand for coal from Newcastle is set to grow from 85 million tonnes this year to 140 million tonnes in 2009. This increase will undoubtedly deliver the New South Wales State Government an unprecedented windfall in coal royalties and far more than the Government's estimated $40 million it said it would receive in coal royalties this year. The Opposition certainly hopes that the Government will loosen the Treasury's coffers, sooner rather than later, to use this funding to provide much-needed public works in communities in which the coal industry is located. Whenever I travel throughout the State to visit mining communities I am constantly reminded by local residents of their frustrations that none of this revenue is being channelled back into their communities in the form of hospitals, schools, police and other important social infrastructure.

If I could give the Government some small credit it would be for the continuation of the Exploration New South Wales Program, which was established by the Hon. Ian Causley when he was the Minister for Natural Resources. I welcome the fact that the Government will map an additional 45,000 square kilometres during 2004-2005 and 40,000 square kilometres during 2005-2006. The value of New South Wales mineral 16418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 production has also increased by $100 million from $8.7 billion in 20041-05 to $8.8 billion in 2005-06. Mine safety in the industry is a problem, but the Opposition is pleased that the Government and the industry are working together to overcome that problem. There have been good initiatives in this regard. I am pleased that the number of attendees at workshop seminars relating to health and safety in the mining industry has more than doubled from 1,093 in 2002-2003 to an estimated 2,500 in 2005-2006. We certainly hope that the Government implements the 31 recommendations of the Wran mine safety review, which is currently before Cabinet.

In conclusion, despite the hoopla and the smoke and mirrors, the Primary Industries budget fails every test of a budget for our primary producers. The decade of neglect of regional and rural New South Wales and the industries located in those areas continues unabated. I have no hesitation in declaring that the Labor Government has failed people living in regional and rural New South Wales, and it has failed them at a time of great personal difficulty for most of them as the drought continues to tighten its grip. More than ever, this budget confirms it is time for the Premier and this irresponsible and incompetent Labor Government to go. If there were an election in New South Wales this year, this Government would be gone. The great shame is that we have to endure another two years of appalling budgets and appalling management before the next State election. I know that even members of the Labor backbench are embarrassed about the performance of their Government. They cannot wait to get into Opposition and to see good government back in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.56 p.m.]: What happened to the old-fashioned budget: a budget that looked at what the State had to work with and what it had to provide, a budget that reflected a State government that set out to live within its means, a budget that would do what every householder has to do every week—figure out how to meet the essential needs of the household by spending wisely where it is needed and concentrating on long-term goals? The average householder sorts out his or her priorities, reins in spending on luxuries and tries to achieve a long-term goal of better conditions by planning ahead. Unlike this Government, the average householder does not sell off choice sections of the backyard to fund lunches for the kids or to buy play equipment. Unlike this Government, the average householder is not expected to willingly pay twice for the services needed to keep their heads above water. Yet that is exactly what the average householder in New South Wales is being asked to accept in this budget—short-term thinking and wasted opportunities to achieve good things for the future.

The question is: Where are the priorities of this budget, and where is the money? Sydney is being turned into a road freight hub and a parking lot with the assistance of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] and the Sydney Airports Corporation. Where is the money for improved public transport infrastructure? This budget nibbles on the edge of a problem that will shortly bite all of us very deeply, because it fails to address the problems of congestion in a way that leads to long-term reduction. Where in this budget does the Carr Government demonstrate that it knows and understands the impact of congestion on productivity? A dollar figure can be placed on that impact; nationally it will be something like $30 billion by 2015. And as Sydney is our largest city with arguably the worst congestion, a large part of that impact is likely to be felt right here. Seemingly as a response to this, we are witnessing more enthusiasm for privately funded tollway projects.

Can the Government tell me where the money will come from to pay for the consultations, the environmental impact statements, promotional material by the RTA and sundry other items for these private money earners? Can the Government tell me where the money will come from to clear the path for projects like the ill-fated M4 East project? What is the cost of resuming houses at exit points? What is the cost of filtration? Now we have the F6, which will cost the public dearly in terms of amenity. It may even cost one local council its existence. Where will the money come from to compensate Marrickville council for the millions of dollars it has recently spent cleaning up Tempe Reserve just so that it can become a roadbed for Michael Costa's F6 Tollway? Where will the money come from to buy up houses and hotels through Enmore and Stanmore so that thousands of cars no longer have to use a road relic from the 1950s? Where will the money come from to provide alternative sportsgrounds and open spaces for the communities of Sydney's south when the F6 devours existing recreation areas? I do not see it anywhere. Presumably, they will have to do without sportsgrounds.

Where is the investment in rail freight that we have been hearing about? It has been said that 40 per cent of freight will be moved by rail in the "near future". But I do not see any of that happening; I certainly do not see the amenity improvements that will be required to make rail freight a safe and considerate neighbour for the communities through which it passes.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16419

FIRE BRIGADES AMENDMENT (COMMUNITY FIRE UNITS) BILL

COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

CRIMINAL ASSETS RECOVERY AMENDMENT BILL

BUILDING PROFESSIONALS BILL

Bills received.

Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That the bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages and the second readings of the bills be set down as orders of the day at a later hour of the sitting.

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, Minister for Fair Trading, Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [10.04 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

INDONESIAN EMBASSY SECURITY ALERT

THE ROCKS STREET CLOSURES

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [10.04 p.m.]: Last Wednesday, 1 June 2005, like so many other people I was surprised to hear the news that there had been some sort of attack on the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra. As the afternoon progressed and more detailed news became available, it became apparent that the attack was most likely in some way linked to opposition to the sentence received by Schapelle Corby in her court case in Bali. I do no profess to know or really care if Schapelle Corby is innocent or guilty. I still feel compassion for her and defy anyone except the hardest hearted to not react when they see the anguish that she is suffering. But as so many commentators have said, the attack on the Embassy, which turned out to be a hoax, will not in any way help her cause.

What did concern me was the number of media commentators who came out with the usual statements that sending an envelope with "white powder" was unAustralian. Their continual comments that such actions were unreasonable sat uncomfortably with many of their earlier comments on the Corby case. When major media outlets spend day after day and week after week demonising the Balinese and Indonesian justice system why should anyone be surprised when a racist attack is made upon the Indonesian Embassy. Perhaps by recognising the level of near hysteria they have helped to engender in large sections of the Australian community they would actually be performing a public service. They could actually accept some responsibility for the climate of anti-Indonesian feeling they have helped to engender.

Why just talk about boycotting holidays to Bali and Indonesian products? Why not take direct action? It is little wonder that in the climate they whipped up, someone went over the top in their response. It was very naive and self-serving of these media organisations to turn around overnight and try to take the high moral ground by condemning this incident. What was even more interesting for me was watching very late on Wednesday evening the rerun of ABC's Media Watch. Its critical but accurate analysis of the media coverage of the Corby case was, in hindsight, far more revealing than it would have been had I watched the program on Monday evening. For those of you who missed this show, I urge you to check it out on the ABC website.

In any case while so many of these media outlets were so busy drumming up anti-Indonesian sentiment, they forgot to mention the radical industrial relations changes announced by the Howard Federal Government. That is apart from running editorials in support of the changes. That in itself is odd enough. Surely if a Federal Government announcement does not rate a news story, it is a bit rich that editorials are written in its favour—especially when the major offender is a tabloid newspaper that pretends to be targeted at the average worker. But that again is hypocrisy in action. 16420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

Another issue that has caused me concern was highlighted in the Sydney Morning Herald today. I refer to the response to the complaints by new residents of Walsh Bay about the noise caused by so-called car hoons driving up and back along Hickson Road in The Rocks. For decades the ordinary—read "working class"— residents of The Rocks have had to put up with the noise and obnoxious behaviour of drunks on weekends and, particularly, on New Year's Eve. Did the City Council rush in to protect these residents by banning people from congregating in this area? Of course not! The old-time residents did not have the clout or the connections to have put in place such a speedy response to their NIMBY complaints. I guess that your voice and your complaints only count with the current regime in the City of Sydney if you can afford to pay $2 million or $3 million dollars for an apartment at Walsh Bay. The proposed traffic changes and the banning of private vehicular traffic from underneath the Harbour Bridge after 10.00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights is an absolute disgrace. We saw an example of money talking when parking in Hickson Road was banned after 10.00 p.m. But the impact of that ban was so negative in an emerging arts precinct that it had to be reconsidered.

That young people drive around in their cars on Friday and Saturday nights has been a part of any developed culture since the 1950s. If you go to any country town or selected Sydney suburb, you will see young people doing "laps"—showing off their cars. We have already seen bans on cars with powerful in-car sound systems and the possible confiscation of cars driven by street racers. What next? I shudder to think. Adequate powers already exist to deter too many young people in cars from congregating in any particular location. Why are these measures deemed inadequate as a solution to this perceived problem? I understand that the Minister for Police has had to respond to the request from the City of Sydney but I urge the Lord Mayor to look at effective ways in which police can deal with this issue without having to institute street closures.

Street closures, which deprive all drivers of the right to use the streets, is not warranted. Have the people who make these decisions ever ventured to the area in question late on a Friday or Saturday night? If they do, they will find a very broad mix of people—young and old, Sydneysiders and visitors, who park in the area, go for a stroll along the harbour's edge and take in the fantastic view. There are even a few hardy souls who park and then try their luck fishing. Why should they be denied this opportunity simply because the City of Sydney has over-reacted to a perceived problem that could be dealt with in other ways. The idea that The Rocks is an icon and must not be sullied by such a blight as young people driving around in their cars makes me think what will be next. Will we get rid of the last of the old-time residents because they are not trendy enough or restricting them to their homes in daylight hours because some self-appointed arbiter of good taste finds them visually unappealing? Nothing would surprise me in the current climate.

I really think we have to review our response to people who complain about problems that exist in areas into which they move. If you buy a house or a property on a main road, it is a bit rich to try to have that road closed because you do not like the traffic noise. You know the problem exists before you move there. It has even happened that people who have moved into harbourside homes have complained about tugs on the harbour and about noises made by container ships coming in and out of the harbour. If these people like peace and quiet so much, they should live either in the outer suburbs or in country areas. They should not move into congested metropolitan areas and then demand that everything be changed to suit them. That is not an appropriate course of action.

CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [10.09 p.m.]: Recently I was greatly honoured to host in the New South Wales Parliament House an academic symposium on the life and legacy of Joseph Smith. The symposium was sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon Church as it is widely known, on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Joseph Smith. The multi-faith symposium, which was addressed by an international array of world-renowned academics, received many messages of support from prominent personalities, including Her Excellency Marie Bashir, AC, the Governor of New South Wales. Co-sponsors included the University of Richmond in Virginia, Queensland's Griffith University, and Victoria's Monash University.

The legacy of Joseph Smith—founder, first president, prophet, seer and revelator of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—is a unique, lasting and growing one. He was a pioneer of nineteenth century America. He was a builder of cities. But his most enduring legacy is the church that he founded.

Tonight I wish to highlight some of the many positive achievements of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members here in Australia. It is a worldwide church, it is a growing church, and it is a vibrant church, with more than 12 million members found in virtually every nation and territory on this earth, 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16421 including more than 120,000 members in Australia. Its achievements for mankind are now being increasingly recognised. Its educational system is internationally respected, especially Brigham Young University, the largest non-government tertiary institution in the United States of America. Its works of charity, regardless of nationality or creed, are well-known, and it is a prominent participant in virtually every international or regional relief effort—one of its latest being its aid program to victims of the recent South-East Asian tsunami disaster.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an upholder of the Christian concept of the traditional family, and its "Proclamation to the World on the Family", issued by the First Presidency of the Church, is an admirable summation of the place and meaning of the family as a foundation stone of society. The church's missionary force of some 60,000 young people, 18 and 19 years of age, who put a hold on other aspects of their lives to serve for two years as missionaries wherever they may be sent, is an institution in itself. Many hundreds of young Australians serve as part of this worldwide missionary effort. These young people conduct themselves in an exemplary manner. They serve with propriety and without scandal. Their parents can be well proud of them. Never were there better sons and daughters.

Modern societies could learn a great deal from the welfare system pioneered and operated worldwide by the church. During the Depression years of the 1930s no members of the church in North America found it necessary to apply for government welfare assistance. All needy members were fully supported and maintained by the church's welfare system. Currently, through a worldwide program involving hundreds of farms, canneries, factories and other services, the church's welfare system supports needy church members, and in return these members contribute through their time and labour in operating these non-profit programs. This is not a hand-out program; it is two-way effort.

Decades before governments around the world conceived work-for-the-dole type programs, the Church of Latter-day Saints was already operating a highly sophisticated and successful program based on a similar concept. The church is not inward-looking or isolationist in its outlook. It does not encourage its members to withdraw from society; rather, it encourages them to be good and worthy citizens engaged in the community. Indeed, article 12 of the church's Articles of Faith states:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates in obeying, honouring and sustaining the law.

There are many other unique and worthy endeavours and programs for which the church is noted. For example, for theological reasons members are encouraged to research and gather genealogical records of their ancestors so that today the church has the largest repository of genealogical records of the human race ever accumulated. These records are readily accessible to any person for research purposes. By becoming a custodian of such an important part of the historic record of mankind the church is indeed performing a vital service for future generations.

Since its formation 170 years ago, the church has encouraged its members to observe a series of health measures, including abstinence from tobacco. As a result, studies show that on the whole members of the church are healthier, live longer, and are less prone to disease and physical and mental afflictions than are most non- members. These measures, known in the church as the "word of wisdom", were promulgated long before science established their validity and health-promoting benefits.

As a person who is not of the Latter-day Saints faith, I commend the church and its members. I commend their sense of civic pride, of dedication to family values, of loyalty and duty to our nation and its laws, and I commend them for the good and decent way in which they act towards others in our community. They are model citizens. I am moved by their adhering to, and living by, the principles and values that they believe Christian teachings call upon them to uphold. I am, and always will be, an admirer of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

BELLAMBI POINT

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.13 p.m.]: Despite allegedly having a warm spot for the Illawarra and appointing a special Minister, David Campbell, to look after it, the Carr Government has consistently failed to stop overdevelopment in the Illawarra region. We could say that Mr Campbell is not up to the job. But responsibility lies with the Premier. The Carr Government has become accustomed to taking daily strolls, hand in hand, with developers. Bellambi Point, in the Illawarra, is the latest precious place on the South Coast to come under threat.

Bellambi Point has been studied by Australian archaeologists since the early 1890s. They identified it as containing some of the largest middens on the east coast of Australia. This assessment was made before a large amount of material was removed in association with the Water Board and Housing Commission 16422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 construction work in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite this desecration of a significant Aboriginal corroboree ground, burial site and area of habitation for some tens of thousands of years, the Bellambi Point area remains a rich source of Aboriginal heritage that should be protected and preserved. A 2004 archaeology report has identified four areas of land that are significant at Bellambi Point—the sewerage site with its buildings, the sand dunes and lagoon area, the old soccer field next to the sewerage site, and the rock shelf just north of the sewerage site. On 26 November 2001 an agreement was signed between Sydney Water, Vivendi Water and Walter Construction to carry out certain works at the Bellambi sewage treatment works.

I understand that David Campbell, the Minister for the Illawarra, was present at the signing ceremony. It was noted in the Illawarra Mercury on 27 November 2001 that the 10 hectares of Sydney Water land would be made available for public use following completion of the work. At the signing of the 2001 agreement David Campbell was reported as saying:

One of the key features of the project is the demolition of much of the Bellambi plant's infrastructure and creation of a costal headland for community use.

So far as I am aware, no action has been taken by the Government to implement this promise. Earlier this year the Northern Illawarra Aboriginal Collective established a tent embassy at Sydney Water's maintenance depot next to Bellambi Point sewage treatment works to ensure its ongoing protection. I congratulate those involved with the embassy and the Australian Services Union on lending their support to the tent embassy.

This is the second Aboriginal tent embassy, staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that has been forced to be set up in the Illawarra to protect precious land with a strong Aboriginal heritage. But it is not surprising, given the debacle at Sandon Point, that the Aboriginal community is suspicious of what will happen with this land. They fear it will fall into the hands of developers, and they have good reason to hold this fear given the Government's history. The Northern Illawarra Aboriginal Collective has called on the Government and Wollongong City Council to provide $300,000 for a planned Aboriginal cultural centre. It has asked Sydney Water to hand back the land and existing buildings on the site to the local community or offer a 100-year lease. Buildings on the sewerage site could be used for such a centre. The Government needs to avoid another "Sandon Point" by acting now.

We need the Premier, the Minister for the Illawarra and Wollongong council to take the issue seriously and answer the concerns of the local community. The local member, David Campbell, seems to be ignoring developments at the site. It is four weeks today since the former Federal member for Cunningham, Michael Organ, wrote to the Minister seeking a response to community concerns. Michael Organ told me today that he has not yet received a reply. The Government could make a good start by promising to the local community that the land at Bellambi Point will not be sold to private interests for development or transferred to Wollongong council for the same end. The Government could start wide-ranging consultation with residents, develop a plan of management for the area, and conduct a comprehensive assessment of the environmental and cultural heritage values of Bellambi Point. The Government could also ensure that the local Aboriginal community is given the opportunity to participate in the ongoing management of the site.

The Greens would like the Government to consider transferring all or part of the land to this community under relevant State land rights legislation, and to declare Bellambi Point a place of Aboriginal significance. Given the crashing rate of development in the seat of Keira, we must save public lands such as Bellambi Point, with their rich Aboriginal cultural heritage, for present and future generations. I have referred to Sandon Point on a number of occasions in this House. It is yet another area on the South Coast that has already been sacrificed to developers. Sandon Point was one of the last green spaces in the Illawarra to join the craggy escarpment to the glorious coast. Here, public land held by Sydney Water fell into the hands of the housing development giant Stockland. That was a tragedy. It has been a great disservice to the Aboriginal community. We need to learn from the mistakes made at Sandon Point.

DEATH OF MR JAMES LAWRENCE CURRAN, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [10.18 p.m.]: On Friday 20 May Country Labor lost one of its finest stalwarts, Jim Curran, the former member for Castlereagh in the Legislative Assembly, at the age of 78. Jim was a member of this Parliament only briefly, from his election at a by-election in February 1980 until the State election in August 1981. But like so many of the men and women that make up Country Labor and the Australian Labor Party generally, he made an enormous contribution to the party and his community both prior to his election and following his time in Parliament. Jim was born in Gilgandra in 1927, and spent his early 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16423 years on a small farm 16 kilometres out of town. He had an isolated childhood, and had to cycle over 30 kilometres to get to and from school each day, before later attending boarding school at St Stanislaus College in Bathurst. After he finished school Jim won a scholarship to study at Armidale Teachers College, and following his qualification as a teacher he taught at both Bourke and Moree primary schools.

It was at Bourke that Jim met his wife, June Duffy, and they married in 1949. Following several years of teaching in Sydney and overseas Jim and June bought a farm at Gilgandra, where they produced sheep, beef and wheat. Jim had described himself as "a farmer at heart" and soon was active in representing the local farming community. He was secretary and later president of the United Farmers and Woolgrowers Association in Gilgandra; he was a foundation member of both the Gilgandra First Cross Breeders Association and the Curban Farmers Co-Operative; and he was active in the Gilgandra Farmers Co-operative and the Prime Hard Wheat Growers Association. Jim was also a farm commentator for the ABC country breakfast program. After years of farming, Jim went back to teaching, working for the New South Wales Department of Education, where he was the library adviser for Western Area Education.

Jim always had a strong sense of social justice and wanted to help disadvantaged people, with a particular focus on the disadvantage faced by people living in the country. In 1962 he joined the Gilgandra branch of the Labor Party and soon after became the branch secretary. Before long he was a delegate to the Federal and State electoral councils, becoming secretary of Castlereagh State Electoral Council, as well as the annual conference and State Council. Under Jim's leadership the Labor Party grew to levels of strength not seen since the 1890s, with new branches from Brewarrina in the north of his electorate to Warren and Tooraweenah at the southern end. Shortly after the election of the Wran Government in 1976 Jim went to work for Premier Jack Renshaw, who was at that time the member for Castlereagh and also the New South Wales Treasurer. When Renshaw resigned in 1980 after nearly 40 years as the local member Jim was the logical successor as Labor candidate, and he was elected at the resulting by-election.

As the local member, Jim worked hard for all his constituents, regardless of their political persuasion. He regularly toured the small towns of his electorate, meeting people and hearing their problems—and then doing something about them. He actively fought to improve education in country schools, which were at a disadvantage to their city counterparts, and worked hard in other varied policy areas such as water supply for the land and country towns, where he successfully worked for the creation of a weir over the Darling River near Bourke. Jim also worked for the development of a road and transport network linking the bush with the city, and was successful in providing speedier ambulance services to the area by locating the air ambulance at Dubbo. After his defeat in the 1981 election Jim served as the Manager of Industrial Promotion for New South Wales in New York, and then as the Assistant Commissioner for Western Lands.

He also continued to make a valuable contribution to the Labor Party and his local community, continually fighting for issues from Western New South Wales in Labor forums, and also as an active member of the old Rural and Provincial Affairs Policy Committee, where I first met him. Jim was your typical old style country Labor person; someone with more country in him than any members of the National Party ever had.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I bet he was a member of the Labor Party, the old country Labor.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I said he was a member of the old Rural and Provincial Affairs Policy Committee, where I first met him.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Then you called him Country Labor.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: He was typical old style country Labor. Jim Curran was a model for all of us in here. He was someone who fought tirelessly for his community, and for people from all backgrounds. He genuinely wanted the best for country New South Wales and for his electorate. He was a stalwart of his community and of the Labor Party, and is typical of so many of the committed and passionate people that make up Country Labor.

CAMDEN PROPERTY MARKETING PTY LTD

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [10.23 p.m.]: I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about a gross miscarriage of justice involving the Department of Fair Trading and Mr John Leach, a real estate agent at Camden. Mr Leach was driven out of the industry, his business destroyed, his professional reputation shattered, but his pride intact, as a result of a deceitful and ruthless campaign by the Department of Fair Trading. 16424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005

I daresay that Mr Leach would have disappeared without trace if it had not been for a chance meeting I had with him in the main street of Camden in late November 2001 and the support he received from a solicitor who realised that he was witnessing a great travesty.

I have known Mr Leach since I purchased my current house through him in 1996. We lived in the same neighbourhood and trained in the same gym. I held him in high regard and valued my friendship with him. I was obviously shocked to learn that he was under investigation by the Department of Fair Trading. When I learned of the circumstances I called on the Minister for Police to focus on the criminal who committed the fraud and to allow Mr Leach to get on with his business. Instead of pursuing the criminal, Alex Cameron, the Department of Fair Trading brought all its resources to bear on Mr Leach. Once again, Mr Leach would have been destroyed if it had not been for the intervention of a lawyer, Mr Peter Richardson, who took on the case because he believed it was the worst case of injustice he had come across in his 30 years in practice. Mr Richardson had previously acted for the Department of Fair Trading and was well aware of its modus operandi.

I called on the Minister for Police to pursue the criminal but nothing happened. It seemed that everybody knew of Mr Cameron's whereabouts except the Camden police. He was eventually arrested when Mr Leach's lawyer advised them of his address. Soon after his arrest, Cameron featured in a celebrity wedding of the week. However this did not wash with the judge and he was sent to gaol for six years for fraud. The failure of the police to find and arrest him is a sad indictment of the standard of policing in New South Wales under this Government. One can only wonder whether they were under instructions not to find him in order to protect the incompetence of the Department of Fair Trading.

It is now evident that a serious cover-up was in process within the department and its strategy was to destroy the personal and professional reputation of Mr John Leach, who was unaware that he was being set up as a dispensable scapegoat. Under normal circumstances a powerful head of a government department with a compliant junior Minister and unlimited financial and legal resources would be enough to blow the ordinary mortal into oblivion. Under normal circumstances a government which respected the rights of a law-abiding individual to conduct a business in a democratic society would respond to any alarm bells that might be raised by a member of Parliament. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The subsequent court case, which lasted six days, completely exonerated Mr Leach and exposed the gross incompetence of the Department of Fair Trading.

I now wish to address the serious issue of corruption. I have previously referred to the corruption in regard to the investigation process. I refer to the occasion when Mr Leach was called in to the Department of Fair Trading on 8 January 2002 and subjected to an intimidating interview by the department's investigators, which lasted for a couple of hours. Under normal circumstances the evidence recorded during such an interview would be transcribed from a tape or from a shorthand reporter and presented to the investigators for review. It would then be passed to the next level of management, who would be expected to test the veracity of what was recorded. A recommendation would then be submitted to the departmental head, who would make a decision on the outcome. In Mr Leach's case this all happened overnight. The very next morning the director-general of the department, David O'Connor, decided that Mr Leach was not a fit and proper person to practise in the real estate industry. He renewed this decision every 60 days for the next two years and effectively drove Mr Leach out of the industry.

Unfortunately for Mr O'Connor and the Department of Fair Trading, Mr Leach survived long enough to have the matter heard in court. During the process of the case the real motivation for the department to destroy Mr Leach was revealed. It was proved that the department had been negligent in ensuring that the company, Camden Property Marketing Pty Ltd, was not licensed with the department. As a result of the department allowing it to operate without a licence the clients of Camden Property Marketing had no claim on the statutory compensation fund. It was therefore illegal for them to compensate those who had been defrauded by Mr Alex Cameron, who was convicted and sentenced to six years imprisonment on 7 February this year. It was established that Mr Leach had no association with Camden Property Marketing and no responsibility for its day- to-day operation.

When I tried to raise the issue with the director-general during an estimates committee hearing he attempted to mislead the committee. This case has sent such a shiver through the National Real Estate Franchise Association that it has sought urgent answers from Ministers Scully, Aquilina, Meagher and Hatzistergos since 2002. It has been stonewalled by the lot. I have now learned that the association has referred the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] to investigate why the Department of Fair Trading, after opening compensation claim files against Camden Property Marketing, suddenly decided to redirect those claims against Mr Leach's company, Modem Investments Pty Ltd, and then paid those claims. The association wants the ICAC to investigate the basis of the legal advice the department received which caused it to take this action. 7 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16425

I am of the firm view that the Director of Fair Trading and his departmental officers involved in the case acted corruptly in the process of the investigation involving Mr Leach and again in their decision to cover up their incompetence by initiating action against Modem Investments. I support the call of the National Real Estate Franchise Association for a full and proper investigation into the issue and for its findings to be made public.

GOLDBRIDGE CLOTHING COMPANY PTY LTD, BEXLEY, AND TEXTILE, CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR UNION

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [10.28 p.m.]: Tonight I speak on a matter that I have previously spoken about in this House concerning Goldbridge Clothing Company Pty Ltd. Firstly, I take this opportunity to thank the Hon. Ian West for his assistance in this matter. Although my view differs from his, throughout this whole process he has remained genuine in his endeavour to understand the issues and resolve the matter. The case of Goldbridge Clothing Company Pty Ltd attracted a lot of media attention and interest in the community—not just the people involved, but the whole clothing industry.

As I have stated on a number of occasions previously, every worker has a legitimate right to a decent wage. Unions have the right to protect the interests of their members and it is an undeniable fact that in the past the union movement has provided better working and pay conditions. At the same time, employers and those employees who do not wish to be affiliated with any union organisation have the right to be protected by law against bullying, threat or intimidation. Biased and unsubstantiated media reports, as in the case of Goldbridge Clothing Company Pty Ltd, which appeared to target the Asian community, can only damage the interests of everyone concerned.

Having said that, I am sure that the union and others have said far less than what we have read and heard about in the media. Likewise, I have been assured that statements accusing me of being ignorant of the law were not issued by the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia. Since this case was first brought to my attention it has become clear that Mr Tran and Mrs Deng did not run a sweatshop, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and on A Current Affair. In fact, Mr Tran and Mrs Deng have since produced documents showing their legitimately registered company. All the subcontractors, deemed to be employees under the Industrial Relations Act 1996, have signed a statutory declaration denying that they are sweatshop employees. They have stated that they all earned above-award wages, they are all Australian citizens, they all pay their taxes and they do not receive any government benefits. Furthermore, all companies on their payment list exist and they have never demanded any payments from any suppliers.

Although I do not wish to go into any greater detail than I have previously stated in this House, I remain quite concerned that officials of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia entered the working premises of Goldbridge Clothing Company Pty Ltd in February under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 to avoid breaching legislation, as provided under the Industrial Relations Act 1996. Rumours have somehow surfaced suggesting a sinister plot was in the making. I assure the House that there was no sinister plot between any employees and solicitor Rossita Luk, acting for Goldbridge Clothing, nor any other sinister plot that I am aware of.

As a member of this House it is my duty to uphold and comply with the law. Likewise, it is my duty to bring to light and to ask difficult questions when I perceive that legislation brought before this House is being misinterpreted. We must keep in mind that, as legislators of this State, we all have a responsibility to uphold and comply with the law, as set out in the legislation, and ensure that others do likewise. Although I thank the Hon. Ian West, I am saddened that some members of this House were quick to jump onto the sweatshop bandwagon without being fully aware of the information in this particular case or without due respect for the privacy of the individuals involved. I hope that the case of Goldbridge Clothing Company Pty Ltd is a learning process in which the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia should not become involved, especially at a time when Federal changes to the industrial relations system appear imminent.

JEAN ARNOT LUNCH

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.32 p.m.]: On 29 April this year I had the privilege once again of attending the annual Jean Arnot Memorial Luncheon held in the Strangers Dining Room to pay tribute to Jean Arnot, who lived from 1903 to 1995. In her many years at the State Library and the Mitchell Library she was known for her work in a variety of industrial areas in relation to women, particularly in the long campaign for equal pay, with which she was involved since the 1930s. Jean Arnot was a very special woman and for some 16426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 June 2005 years now she has been recognised at this annual lunch, put on jointly by the National Council of Women and Business and Professional Women of New South Wales.

One of the special things about this lunch is that each year it honours a group of women who have also attained the age of 90. It is fascinating to hear about some of their lives and to read the booklet that is always distributed outlining the history of these women, who were mostly born in 1908 or 1910. Each year it is an inspiration to hear and read about their lives and their struggles. The National Council of Women and Business and Professional Women of New South Wales should be warmly congratulated on continuing to organise this lunch. I conclude by stating that sadly this year Val Buswell was unable to attend because of illness, which shortly afterwards led to her death. She had been an important part of this function for many years.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10.34 p.m. until Wednesday 8 June 2005 at 10.00 a.m. ______