3138

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 24 October 2007

______

The President (The Hon. Peter Thomas Primrose) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

LAW ENFORCEMENT (POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL 2007

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

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

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL

Membership

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the Clerk has received the following nominations for membership of the Joint Select Committee on the Royal North Shore Hospital:

Government: The Hon. Amanda Fazio

Opposition: The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the nominations.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

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

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT (BREASTFEEDING) BILL 2007

Second Reading

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.07 a.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Della Bosca: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

This bill provides for amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act to remove any doubt that discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding is unlawful.

2007 marks the 30th anniversary of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Thirty years ago, the New South Wales Parliament moved to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of race, sex and marital status in the areas of employment, the provision of goods and services and accommodation, and race discrimination in education.

24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3139

Since then the New South Wales Parliament has responded to deal with other forms of discrimination. The Anti-Discrimination Act now applies to discrimination on many grounds, including age, religion, disability, carers' responsibilities, pregnancy, homosexuality and transgender status.

Discrimination on these grounds is rendered unlawful in the areas of employment, State education, goods and services, accommodation and registered clubs. Both direct and indirect discrimination are against the law.

Honourable Members, the bill before the House seeks to further enhance the coverage of the Anti-Discrimination Act by removing any doubt that discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding is unlawful.

Discrimination on the grounds of a person's sex or a characteristic that pertains to a person of that sex, or is generally imputed to a person of that sex, is already unlawful under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Pregnancy is specifically cited as a characteristic that appertains generally to women.

This bill will insert a new provision into the Act to make it clear that breastfeeding is also a characteristic that appertains generally to women. The bill also provides that breastfeeding includes the act of expressing milk.

The bill also makes it clear that a person is not to be treated as having unlawfully discriminated against a man on the ground of sex merely because that person grants a woman rights or privileges in connection to breastfeeding.

It is timely for New South Wales to clarify the law in this area. There is now considerable evidence to suggest that increasing levels of breastfeeding will bring important benefits for the health of the Australian community.

Clearly prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of breastfeeding will ensure that women who choose to breastfeed are protected from any discriminatory conduct which may impact on that choice.

In 2003 the World Health Organisation and UNICEF jointly endorsed their Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding, which drew attention to the need to provide facilities for breastfeeding women to be able to engage in employment outside the home, while continuing to breastfeed.

Enacting legislation to remove any doubt that discrimination on the grounds of breastfeeding is unlawful will make an important contribution to achieving this global goal.

Honourable Members, these amendments will provide breastfeeding mothers with the protection of the law, helping to ensure that children in this State are given the best start in life. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [11.07 a.m.]: On behalf of the Coalition I contribute to debate on the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Breastfeeding) Bill 2007. I note that we are debating this bill during National Breast Cancer Week, when many fundraising functions are being held, so this issue is on our minds. This a motherhood bill that beats all other motherhood bills. When we want people to agree with something we come up with a motherhood statement, something that everyone would agree with and no-one will object to. Of course, no-one will object to this bill. The Coalition, of course, supports breastfeeding and the Anti-Discrimination Act. However, this bill is simply a ploy by a government in trouble, a government that is failing on many fronts.

The Government has made a very poor effort, belatedly and unnecessarily, at a time when it is really in trouble. The Government's failure with the Royal North Shore Hospital, its failure to match Commonwealth funding, its failure to equitably provide infrastructure, its transport disasters and its policing issues have led it to come up with a motherhood bill. The bill is important, nevertheless, but it is an example of the Government's ability and desire to distract the public's attention from its other failures. However, it is a pretty poor effort, because the bill could have been passed a long time ago.

Basically the Government has copied the Federal Government's amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act, and it has taken four years to come up with this amending bill. The bill is virtually word for word the Howard Government's amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act, passed four years ago. The Government took four years to come up with these laws and it basically copied Federal legislation, which states—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Don't you support harmonisation?

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Of course the Coalition supports harmonisation. However, this Government took four years to come up with these laws, which is pretty poor. The Government timed the introduction of this legislation to coincide with the anniversary of the Anti-Discrimination Act. I remind members that the Federal Government's amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act states:

To avoid doubt breastfeeding, including the act of expressing milk, is a characteristic that appertains generally to women.

3140 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

The Iemma Government's legislation, which was introduced four years later, states:

The fact that a woman is breastfeeding or may breastfeed is a characteristic that appertains generally to women. For the purposes of this Act, breastfeeding includes the act of expressing of milk.

The Iemma Government announced this legislation with great fanfare just in time for the thirtieth anniversary of the Anti-Discrimination Act. It took this Government four years to come up with these laws, and then all it did was copy the Howard Government. This Government should copy the Howard Government in the areas of financial management, the management of infrastructure and other areas—abilities that the Federal Government clearly has and that the Iemma Government does not. If this Government were serious about promoting breastfeeding it would do other things such as providing more funding to educate people about the benefits of breastfeeding and providing more funding for additional lactation nurses and advice.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing recently released its report entitled "The Best Start". The inquiry looked into the health benefits of breastfeeding. The Iemma Government could take on board some of the recommendations that were made in that report. Australia is experiencing a baby boom. The number of births in 2006 was at its highest level since 1971, and at its second-highest level since 1911. During the 1971 baby boom breastfeeding rates were at their lowest. As an enthusiastic supporter of breastfeeding I am encouraged to hear that a greater number of women are now engaging in that activity, but this Government could do a lot more to promote the scientific benefits and the long-term and short-term health benefits of breastfeeding. The entire community should be given information about the best nutrition and health and women should be given information about the advantages of breastfeeding.

I am delighted that the New South Wales Parliament has now received accreditation from the Australian Breastfeeding Association, the former Nursing Mothers Association, which is welcome news. We all are enthusiastic about providing an environment in Parliament so that more women can participate in politics while managing competing demands. Nevertheless, this legislation was introduced as a distraction. On 3 October Anita Quigley wrote an interesting article about this bill in the Daily Telegraph. She said that, with all the matters we could be discussing in this Parliament, we are being distracted by legislation that obviously is supported. She also pointed out that antidiscrimination laws already protect women. The Government could examine other issues and provide women with more support. As I said earlier, this bill states:

The fact that a woman is breastfeeding or may breastfeed is a characteristic that appertains generally to women. For the purposes of this Act, breastfeeding includes the act of expressing of milk.

I support these amendments to the antidiscrimination laws. It is unlawful for anyone to discriminate on the grounds of breastfeeding. When I refer to the advantages of breastfeeding I am not pointing to women who, for a number of reasons, are unable to breastfeed. I am sure that no member would be able to establish who has been breastfed and who has not. It is not possible to differentiate between someone who has been breastfed and someone who has been raised on a bottle. However, we are all aware of the overwhelming advantages of breastfeeding. We want to encourage the nurturing that is associated with breastfeeding but we are not pointing to women who, for a number of reasons, have been unable to breastfeed.

Let us examine the advantages of breastfeeding, encourage more women to breastfeed and provide an environment that is more relaxing and nurturing. I breastfed my three children but the world has moved on since then and breastfeeding in public places is generally more acceptable. Some people still need to be made aware of the fact that breastfeeding is natural. It is a nurturing and maternal process that should be encouraged by us all. When I was breastfeeding my children facilities were not provided in many shopping centres and women were not encouraged to breastfeed. Many mothers, including me, often sat in hot cars and all sorts of other unpleasant places to breastfeed their children. I remember that when I was teaching I rushed home at lunchtime to breastfeed one of my children.

We are providing an environment in Parliament and in other workplaces to enable women to breastfeed their children. Employers must give women that flexibility and make it known that it is unlawful to discriminate against breastfeeding and the expressing of milk. I referred earlier to a report released by the House of Representatives into the health benefits of breastfeeding. Breastfeeding protects babies from illness and infection and can reduce the incidence of diabetes; it aids in the development of eyesight, speech and intelligence; it provides enormous nutrients in the early development of a child, reduces feeding costs associated with formulas; and it is also good for mothers. The House of Representatives report includes some interesting statistics, a few of which I have already mentioned, and it notes that breastfeeding levels have increased, particularly over the last 15 years. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3141

Campaigns that highlight the nutritional and health benefits of breastfeeding must be encouraged. This Government must allocate more funding to provide an environment in which first-time mothers can obtain advice from lactation experts, settle into becoming mothers, and learn how breastfeeding works so they get off to a good start. It is usually in those very early days and weeks that breastfeeding becomes an issue. That is the area in which this Government must provide more funding. The Government must put its money where its mouth is and support breastfeeding and its health benefits across the board. Any money that is spent in this area that achieves better health outcomes will be money well spent. Funding must be allocated now.

The Australian Breastfeeding Association, formerly the Nursing Mothers Association, has made a number of recommendations in its press releases. I encourage the association and support its work in advocating breastfeeding and the encouragement of women. That great organisation, which has trained counsellors, helps thousands of mothers every year. As mothers themselves they are passing on their knowledge. They know that breastfeeding is not always easy, and they need to be supported in their role. Certainly women could be given more information, for example, at antenatal level, and more funding could be provided for support for advice and education.

The Coalition supports this amendment, but notes the delay in its passage. Anti-discrimination legislation already is in place, but it would be a good thing generally for women if by the changes this bill proposes we can set an example that breastfeeding is an accepted part of life. We can encourage more women to participate in breastfeeding and make it easier for women in the workforce, including in the Parliament. This Government could go further and accept that we need to make things different by encouraging more women into politics. I do not believe the ability to breastfeed in the Chamber is the deciding factor for many women entering politics. Certainly that is a barrier for some and it is all well and good if we remove that barrier, but a range of other things could be considered to encourage more women into Parliament.

We could better use our time if there were flexibility in hours of sitting and a whole range of things. We support breastfeeding and women's rights to breastfeed or express breast milk for their babies. We encourage employers and the community to embrace these initiatives, although belatedly, on the anniversary of anti-discrimination laws. Certainly we encourage the speedy passage of this bill, noting that it is well and truly behind the Federal Government initiatives on this issue. I support the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.21 a.m.]: The Greens support the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Breastfeeding) Bill 2007. I cannot imagine that anyone will say they will not support the bill. Obviously the Greens support the principle that it should be clearer that discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding is unlawful. However, introduction of this bill is a big con job because the Anti-Discrimination Board has been gutted. It has been given a whole layer of additional work and in the year it is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary it has meagre resources and few people to do the job. In many ways it is a hollow gesture for the Labor Government to hand new breastfeeding powers to a gutted Anti-Discrimination Board. In 2003 Labor slashed the Anti-Discrimination Board's funding by $750,000—a quarter of its operating budget. The agency these days is a shadow of its former self.

It will take more than amending legislation to raise breastfeeding rates in New South Wales and to reduce discrimination against women who breastfeed and the problems of the Anti-Discrimination Board. For this bill to make a real difference to the rights of breastfeeding women the Anti-Discrimination Board needs to actively promote the new breastfeeding laws with an extensive public education campaign. One must doubt that that is actually possible from the current Anti-Discrimination Board. Women need access to information resources to help them to assert their rights to breastfeed, and employers need to be made aware of their obligations to provide flexible working conditions and appropriate facilities.

It is good that things have changed in this Parliament but, without undertaking qualitative research, many women would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to breastfeed at their place of work. A woman's fear of being unfairly dismissed or of being discriminated against because she is still breastfeeding when she returns to work will not be reduced merely by the passage of this bill. Those breastfeeding mothers who have to juggle the responsibilities of a new baby and the return to work often are under enormous financial, emotional and time pressures. They are in a very vulnerable position, and their capacity to work and breastfeed requires active support from the Government. The bill does not make it clear that that support will be made available. I will be interested to hear the Minister in reply on this very matter.

If the Government were genuine about this initiative the Attorney General would restore funding to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board. I do not see how Labor can explain that it will follow through on 3142 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

this change if it does not address the serious underfunding of the Anti-Discrimination Board. Providing funding for a public education campaign on breastfeeding as a human rights issue in partnership with New South Wales Health would deliver the outcome needed to make this bill have meaning across New South Wales. Regrettably, inadequate staffing and resources at the Anti-discrimination Board will mean missed opportunities to support women who are breastfeeding, to raise awareness of the rights of breastfeeding mothers in the community, to develop new policy resources and to advocate for women's breastfeeding rights in the workplace.

I note Pru Goward's boast that the Howard Government amended Federal breastfeeding discrimination laws in 2003. I find this a bit rich, given how much uncertainty the WorkChoices legislation introduced by weakening the bargaining power of working women who breastfeed. I imagine women seeking special breastfeeding provisions in their workplace agreements would feel very intimidated under WorkChoices.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Oh rubbish! Rubbish!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: They would not get too far on that one.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: You are living in the Stone Age.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I think it is WorkChoices that soon will be in the Stone Age. Many breastfeeding women simply would not have the time or the energy to exercise their rights. Ongoing staff and budget cuts at the Anti-Discrimination Board could mean that women will have their babies weaned and out of nappies by the time their complaint is conciliated by the board, or before a decision is handed down by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. It is disappointing that the Government has reached for a headline-grabbing initiative rather than one that would result in a real difference to women's confidence to breastfeed in public. Some sections of our community also would have a right to feel angry that the Government is creating new grounds of discrimination while failing to move to close archaic loopholes in the Anti-Discrimination Act.

This Government has refused to support a Greens private member's bill to close loopholes in the anti-discrimination legislation that allow small businesses and private schools to discriminate on the basis of a person's sexuality, disability, gender or age. With so much work still to be done to remove discrimination from our society, there is an urgent need to restore funding to the Anti-Discrimination Board and to increase funding to community legal centres that share the burden of this important work. Funding for community legal centres has been at a standstill for the past 10 years and, as I have stated, in 2003 funding for the Anti-Discrimination Board took a nosedive by $750,000. Yet the board's workload on discrimination issues has increased dramatically since the introduction of WorkChoices. The board needs more resources to undertake its important work.

In this thirtieth anniversary year of the Anti-Discrimination Act we see the workload of the board increasing as its capacity continues to be run down. As a birthday gesture, why not restore the Anti-Discrimination Board's funding and increase its staffing levels and its policy and legal capacity? This would be the best step the Government could take to enhance the rights of breastfeeding mothers in New South Wales. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. The Greens certainly will support this bill, but it is disappointing that the Government did not include closing the loopholes in those many other areas of ongoing discrimination in our society.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [11.28 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Breastfeeding) Bill 2007. The bill outlines the fundamental rights for women to breastfeed their children when they need to without hostility or criticism from society. It is a poor reflection on our culture that we actually need to have tougher and more explicit legislation such as this to protect breastfeeding mothers and infants. Regrettably, some current attitudes toward breastfeeding mimic past attitudes towards pregnancy when it was taboo to openly speak about pregnancy, and when women who were in the family way were confined and not to be seen out in public for months on end. Thankfully we have moved on from those archaic attitudes. I believe that this bill is a necessary move for the wellbeing of babies, breastfeeding mums and their families. I believe it will encourage and support women to continue breastfeeding past the baby's first six months, which is the recommendation of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council's dietary guidelines for infant feeding. Of course, those guidelines reflect the World Health Organization and UNICEF's "Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding".

Despite the comments made earlier in this debate, I have heard reports of women being asked to leave public places because they are breastfeeding and it is appalling that that happens. When I was Mayor of 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3143

Bankstown, I received a delegation of breastfeeding mothers who, as part of their campaign to ensure that public places accommodate the needs of breastfeeding mothers, approached local shops and businesses to display signs welcoming breastfeeding mothers. Clearly that campaign was necessary because attitudes of discrimination against breastfeeding mothers still exist in our community. Unfortunately, it is no wonder that more than 40 per cent of mums who, according to the Australian Breastfeeding Association, actively want to breastfeed their babies discontinue before the baby is 12 weeks old. By the time babies are six months old, only 48 per cent of them are receiving some breast milk.

It is very important that we as a Government do everything we can to support breastfeeding mothers to ensure that infants are breastfed for as long as possible. There are great health benefits of breastfeeding and they are widely known. Research has shown that babies who are breastfed have lower risk of cot death, they show a decreased likelihood of developing allergies, they have a lower risk of developing diabetes or becoming obese, and we certainly know that families save money on infant formula and feeding equipment. Breastfed babies are also less likely to fall ill, which decreases costs of medical bills for parents, and certainly that saves money for parents who are working because parents are able to avoid lost time at work.

It is also important to acknowledge that archaic attitudes can lead to social isolation faced by new parents, nursing mothers in particular. Many of us have experienced this type of social isolation or we certainly know members of our own family and social networks who have. Following childbirth, parents need to feel connected to their communities for their own wellbeing and that of their child or children. While being at home with the baby is a wonderful experience, sometimes it may be the first time that a parent has had to deal with a sense of restricted freedom. They may even be the first in their family or social network to have had a baby and may experience a sense of social isolation because they are not able to just pop out for a coffee without packing up a container load of supplies and other children. I certainly recall those days!

When parents are confronted by the reality of attitudes discouraging mothers from breastfeeding a baby when they are on an outing, I can say from personal experience that that discourages parents from wanting to go out. It is a real shame that previous speakers in this debate, while claiming to support the bill, have chosen to be negative about it and refer to it as unnecessary, a hollow gesture, and headline grabbing. Some honourable members have failed to recognise that it is important for us to show leadership on this matter. As a Government and as political leaders, we should be showing leadership on this issue. We should be out in the community explicitly saying that discrimination against breastfeeding mothers will not be tolerated. That is what this bill does.

Despite criticisms of the bill, the Government should be commended for explicitly stating that breastfeeding mothers should be supported and encouraged. Allegations that the Government is grabbing headlines are unfair. The Hon. Robyn Parker suggested that the Federal Government had been very supportive of mothers with infant children. Those of us who have been paying close attention to the effects of WorkChoices on breastfeeding mothers and new mothers know that that is absolute nonsense. Thankfully in a few weeks the Australian people will be able to demonstrate that they reject WorkChoices and the negative impact that it has working families, particularly on young mums and mothers with infants who certainly would not have the power to be bargaining good conditions to ensure that they can continue to breastfeed their babies.

It is important to acknowledge the provisions of the bill that recognise past discrimination. People have asked why the bill's provisions to proscribe discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding are needed. Australian women do not breastfeed at rates jointly recommended by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Protecting women from discrimination because they choose to breastfeed is one strategy to achieve better health and economic outcomes for Australia. Discrimination on the grounds of a person's sex or characteristic that pertains to a person of that sex, or is generally imputed to a person of that sex, is already unlawful under section 24 of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Pregnancy is specifically cited as a characteristic that pertains generally to women. This bill removes doubt that discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding is unlawful sex discrimination.

As with other forms of sex discrimination, discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding will be rendered unlawful in the areas of employment, which is very important, State education, goods and services, accommodation and registered clubs. As I say, I know personally of examples when women have been asked to leave public places because they are breastfeeding, so discrimination actually occurs. The argument has been advanced that discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding is already unlawful. Section 24 of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act proscribes discrimination on the ground of sex. Under this provision, discrimination on the grounds of a person's sex or a characteristic that pertains to a person of that sex, or is generally imputed to a person of that sex, is unlawful. 3144 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

It could be argued that breastfeeding is a characteristic that pertains generally to women and is therefore unlawful under the sex discrimination provisions of the Act. Alternatively, it might be argued that it is unlawful under the carer responsibilities provisions of the Act. It is important to recognise that this bill removes doubt that discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding is unlawful sex discrimination. Prohibiting discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding will ensure that women who choose to breastfeed are protected from any discriminatory conduct which may impact on their choice. The bill also ensures that New South Wales anti-discrimination laws are consistent with comparable laws in other Australian jurisdictions.

Ms Rhiannon referred to resources necessary to implement the bill. I think it is unlikely that the implementation of this bill will be more resource intensive than are half the current provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act. It can be argued that discrimination on the basis of breastfeeding is impliedly proscribed under the existing sex discrimination provisions of the Act. Alternatively it might be argued that it is protected under the carer responsibilities provisions of the Act to which I have already referred. If either argument is accepted, employers of women, including the New South Wales Government, are already obliged to provide adequate facilities for breastfeeding, but many of us are aware that does not necessarily happen in many workplaces throughout New South Wales.

It is also worth noting that the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act already has a provision relating to discrimination on the grounds of breastfeeding. Accordingly it is already unlawful for businesses and other organisations in New South Wales to discriminate against women on the grounds of their breastfeeding: But, as I have said, breastfeeding mothers have experienced the opposite. There is a possibility that this proposal may lead to a renewed focus on the provision of time and facilities to enable working women to breastfeed babies and infants. Nevertheless, the financial costs associated with the obligation of employers including the New South Wales Government to provide adequate facilities arguably is an existing one.

The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act allows complaints of discrimination to be made to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board. Complaints to the board can be resolved by conciliation between the parties. If conciliation is unsuccessful a complainant may proceed to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. Remedies available in the tribunal include compensation and other non-financial remedies, including conduct orders. The Anti-Discrimination Board is able to assist anyone with queries about how to make a complaint of discrimination under the Act. At this stage it cannot be anticipated how many complaints will be received. I hope that the bill and the publicity surrounding it will encourage women to complain when they are discriminated against. The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board estimates that there have been only five complaints of discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding since 1995. But that is not surprising given that the issue has not received much publicity until now. Breastfeeding mothers, particularly working mothers, may be reluctant to lodge a complaint as they have many responsibilities. However, we should do all we can to encourage women to complain whenever they are discriminated against.

There was one reported case in Victoria of discrimination involving unfavourable treatment due to the characteristic of breastfeeding. The ground of discrimination relied on in that case was general parental status. The facts in the case were that the complainant, a businesswoman and nursing mother, was verbally abused for breastfeeding her baby in a hotel and subsequently refused service. The complaint on the grounds of parental status was upheld, although no damages were awarded. It is possible that the low rates of complaints about breastfeeding discrimination are due to the fact that most Australian mothers do not breastfeed their children for significant periods. I certainly hope that that trend will change. There is now considerable evidence to suggest that increasing levels of breastfeeding in the Australian community will have a significant positive impact on the health of our community, and hence its productivity. Proscribing discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding will ensure that women who choose to breastfeed are protected from any discriminatory conduct that may impact on that choice.

We should do all we can to show some leadership in this area of law and encourage women to continue to breastfeed their babies for as long as possible. In my experience breastfeeding was one of the greatest parts of motherhood. It was certainly more convenient in the middle of a cold winter's night to collect my baby from her crib and breastfeed her rather than having to prepare formula and warm up a bottle. It was also healthier for my baby. As the Hon. Robyn Parker said, the bill refers not just to breastfeeding but also to expressing milk. One of my children was born at 26 weeks and I had to express. Mothers of premature infants must express as often as possible to ensure a good flow of milk. That is often difficult to do when mothers have other small children and other commitments. It is important to acknowledge that breastfeeding also involves expressing milk for the benefit of both the mother and the infant—particularly infants who are sick in hospital and separated from their mothers. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3145

It is important that working women are able to continue to breastfeed their babies for as long as possible. My daughters had that experience, and it certainly makes for a happier home when mum continues to breastfeed for as long as she wishes and believes is in her baby's best interests. Women should never be made to feel ashamed or forced to hide away when they are breastfeeding their children. We must offer them support however we can, and this bill does that. Most importantly, it makes a public statement on behalf of the Government and the State's political leaders that we support breastfeeding mothers and will not tolerate discrimination against them under any circumstances.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.44 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Breastfeeding) Bill. The object of the bill is to remove any doubt that discrimination on the grounds of breastfeeding is unlawful. As members know, my party strongly supports motherhood and the role of mothers. We support a mother's right to breastfeed her child and the right of the child to receive the benefits of a mother's milk. It is not always possible for women to breastfeed for physical reasons. The bill adds to the types of discrimination adjudicated by the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board. This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Anti-Discrimination Act. It originally covered discrimination on the grounds of race, sex and marital status but has been expanded over time to include other grounds such as age, disability, carers' responsibilities and pregnancy. It also covers two areas that we consider to be controversial: homosexuality and transgender status.

The bill makes it clear that breastfeeding is a characteristic that appertains generally—it should read only—to women, and provides that breastfeeding includes the act of expressing milk. Almighty God as creator made the female—the mother—to perform this role. It was obviously never a role intended for males. I am often concerned—and I am sure that female members in this place would be upset also—about the abuse of women in magazines that are displayed in newsagents and petrol stations and that concentrate on displaying women with big breasts. I think this has led to the belief that breastfeeding is not normal or is unacceptable. I wish those magazines could be covered—there was an attempt to do that sometime ago in this place. I believe it is wrong to portray women in such an offensive manner and to treat them as sex objects who are desirable only because they have big breasts. The bill applies to workplaces, including Parliament House, but it gives mothers the right to breastfeed their babies anywhere—whether it is a park, cafe, meeting hall—

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Church.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Yes, I assume in a church. I am sure that mothers would breastfeed their babies discreetly and modestly. Babies obviously derive tremendous benefits from breast milk but, as I said, some mothers have physical limitations and must feed them formula. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [11.48 a.m.]: The Opposition supports the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Breastfeeding) Bill but we note that the Government's move to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act specifically to make unlawful any discrimination against women who breastfeed comes four years after similar laws were passed in the Federal Parliament, as the Hon. Robyn Parker pointed out. Why has it taken so long? We are congratulating ourselves on how wonderful we are for finally making a move that people expected from us years ago.

The State Labor Government has copied the Federal Government's amendment word for word. So much for leadership! I cannot be hypocritical and say that shows great leadership. This amendment has been announced to mark the thirtieth anniversary of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The Government has had four years to make a very simple amendment but failed to do so, preferring to leave women in New South Wales in doubt while saving it for a media opportunity on the legislation's thirtieth anniversary. How hypocritical! We heard about the under-resourcing of the Anti-Discrimination Board, and that is a concern. If the board is under-funded, how on earth can new legislation be policed? It really becomes farcical but one would hope that the resourcing will be adequate to ensure that the legislation is implemented in public areas.

Nevertheless, the Opposition is pleased that the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Breastfeeding) Bill provides for amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act that will remove any doubt that discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding will be unlawful. Certainly in this day and age such clarification of the Act is necessary. This is the thirtieth anniversary of the passing of the Anti-Discrimination Act, legislation that is based on many discrimination grounds including age, religion, disability, carers' responsibilities, pregnancy, homosexuality and transgender status. Discrimination on these grounds is unlawful in the areas of employment, education, the delivery of goods and services, accommodation and the operation of registered clubs. 3146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

Discrimination on the grounds of a person's sex or a characteristic of that sex, such as pregnancy, is already unlawful under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. This bill inserts a new provision into the Act to make it clear that breastfeeding, the process of expressing milk, is also a characteristic that relates generally to women. Many of my colleagues are surprised when they hear that this characteristic generally relates to women. If any sensitive and new age caring men actually want to breastfeed, it is medically and physiologically possible. There are men who suffer from endocrinological disorders, have hypothalamic tumours, secrete prolactin and produce breast tissue, who have been known to lactate. So it is possible for them to do this, but generally it is not recommended.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Has it nutritional value?

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: That is a good point. Nutritional value in that regard has not been studied. I would not like to recommend it to men. This bill, once passed, will also make it unlawful to take action against a person in, for example, a place of employment allowing women to breastfeed in an area under their control or supervision. It is ludicrous to suggest that the Federal Government's WorkChoices legislation will do harm, given that the Federal Government led the way in this field and would not allow contravention of its own legislation. It is a ridiculous, farcical and a waste of time to make a political point on any piece of legislation that comes into this House.

Making discrimination against women on the ground of breastfeeding illegal will ensure that women who choose to breastfeed are protected from harassment, intimidation, ridicule or just plain social stupidity. It is often difficult for women to find a suitable location to breastfeed their babies and this will play a role in restricting their postnatal movement, especially with regard to their employment. Such restrictions are completely unwarranted and archaic in today's more relaxed society. Breastfeeding has been going on since mammals existed on the earth. An important reason for encouraging breastfeeding is that it protects the child, particularly in the first 6 to 12 months of its life. It has been claimed by leading medical investigators, in particular the American Academy of Paediatrics via their statement on breastfeeding, that breastfed babies are less likely to develop intestinal infections and eczema, a red, itchy skin condition that can be a sign of food intolerance.

Breast milk provides the right balance of nutrients to help an infant grow into a strong and healthy toddler. Breast milk is easy to digest and contains antibodies that can protect infants from bacterial and viral infections. Breastfed infants have fewer deaths during their first year of life and experience fewer illnesses than babies who are fed formula. Some of the nutrients in breast milk also help protect an infant against some common childhood illnesses and infections, such as diarrhoea, middle ear infections and certain lung infections.

Breastfeeding also benefits the mother: in response to the baby's suckling, the mother's body releases a hormone that makes her postnatal uterus return to normal faster. Many women also get emotional benefits from breastfeeding because of the closeness of the interaction with the baby and the satisfaction of helping to nourish the baby. Some research suggests that mothers who breastfeed their babies have fewer episodes of postnatal depression. There is evolving evidence to indicate that certain types of cancer, such as breast, uterine and ovarian cancer, occur less often in mothers who have breastfed their babies. So it is only right that all members encourage the sustainability of suitable conditions and environments to foster breastfeeding in New South Wales.

The World Health Organization and the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund endorsed their Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding in 2003. This report stressed the need to provide facilities for breastfeeding women to be able to engage in employment outside the home while continuing to breastfeed. In conclusion, these amendments will provide breastfeeding mothers with the protection of law, helping to ensure that children in New South Wales are given the best start to life. The Coalition does not oppose the bill.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [11.56 a.m.]: I support this bill. I think it is fantastic that the New South Wales Government has introduced this legislation and I see no problem in a celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of the Anti-Discrimination Act. I do not know why members opposite have a problem about moving to a national standard on this matter. If only there were a national standard on a paid maternity leave scheme, maybe that would be a lot better for working mothers, mothers working in factories, and mothers who may not have the luxury of being able to take their children to work and to breastfeed them there.

The average age for women having children is 30, which is a peak time for women in their career progression. When we talk about women wanting to break through the glass ceiling we need to understand that 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3147

the world has to move ahead. Women need to be accommodated in the workplace. The key years when women are having children are the years when they are moving through their careers and earning middle-management progression. It is a great thing to have a standard that reaffirms that women do not constitute only 26 per cent of the workforce, as they did in the 1960s, but actually constitute 46 per cent of the workforce, and to have that fact defined by this legislation.

If only women could have more flexibility in their choices—about when to go to work and when to take paid maternity leave—rather than having to negotiate under Australian workplace agreements and WorkChoices. When working mums do not have an option to negotiate because they have to pick the kids up, they will always have to sacrifice money, and they will always be behind the eight ball in their income. I congratulate the New South Wales Government on this legislation. It is very appropriate that its introduction comes on the thirtieth anniversary of the Anti-Discrimination Act. I hope that some scheme is set up for the working mums who are out there in factories, who do not have the luxury some other mums have of being able to take their kids to work.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.59 a.m.]: I certainly endorse the remarks of the previous speaker about the absence of paid maternity leave for very many people in our community. I think that extraordinarily important provision should apply generally across the community. It had not been my intention to speak to this debate, but I decided to do so because some 12 days ago my daughter gave birth to her first child at Lismore Base Hospital.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Congratulations. Is that your first grandchild?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Thank you. No, but it is my daughter's first child. I know that our hospitals are being criticised, very deservedly, for the many indignities that many patients have suffered. However, on this occasion I am obliged to commend the maternity unit at the Lismore Base Hospital, particularly the midwives who worked there, because they have been so extraordinarily helpful to my daughter as she has begun to breastfeed her child. She is a fortunate person, as she is an academic who worked at the University of Western Sydney. As a result of the agreement that was negotiated by the National Tertiary Education Union she is enjoying paid maternity leave that is quite extensive.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

CENTRAL COAST SCHOOLS AND POWER LINE CONSTRUCTION

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. What action has the Minister taken to protect students at Wamberal Public School and the Tumbi Umbi Campus of Tuggerah Lakes Secondary College from the possible harmful effects of the 132,000 volt power lines that EnergyAustralia is proposing to erect alongside both schools? Will the Minister guarantee to the staff, parents and children that they will not suffer any injuries or effects if the power lines go ahead?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Department of Education and Training is committed to upholding the health and safety of staff and students in all schools across the State. EnergyAustralia lodged a development application with Gosford City Council in August 2006 for a new electrical substation to meet the growing electricity demands in the Wamberal-Terrigal area. This proposal would see the construction of a 132-kilovolt overhead power line near Wamberal Public School and Tumbi Umbi Campus of the Tuggerah Lakes Secondary College. The Leader of the Opposition well knows that there has been significant opposition, particularly in the Wamberal school community, and by other residents to this proposal. Indeed, one of his colleagues had a lot to do with activities concerning this matter.

The department has a policy of "prudent avoidance" with regard to high voltage power lines and requires that the electromagnetic radiation generated by any electrical infrastructure near schools does not exceed Australia's stringent guidelines. The Department of Health supports this policy of prudent avoidance. EnergyAustralia has indicated that prudent avoidance measures could be achieved by locating the power lines further away from school boundaries, on the opposite side of the road to the schools. The department will continue to closely monitor the progress of EnergyAustralia's process. The Department of Education and Training remains committed to extensive consultation and information exchange with school communities. 3148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

WORKCOVER PREMIUMS

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Minister outline the latest reduction in WorkCover premiums and further benefit enhancements for injured workers?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Greg Donnelly for his ongoing interest in workers compensation matters. Today the Iemma Government announced a $165 million boost for New South Wales workers and employers. The WorkCover scheme has returned another strong performance in the six months to June 2007, including a surplus of $812 million. The scheme's continued strong financial performance, coupled with the lowest injury rates in 20 years, has allowed the Premier to announce a fifth consecutive reduction in WorkCover premiums and a further enhancement to benefits for injured workers. The average workers compensation premium will be reduced by a further 5 per cent for all policies new or renewed after 31 December 2007. This will result in an annual saving of about $110 million for New South Wales businesses.

The five premium rate reductions in two years amount to a 30 per cent discount, saving New South Wales businesses $785 million per year. The package delivers on the Iemma Government's commitment to help working families and to keep New South Wales open for business. As the Premier announced earlier today, the Government will put before Parliament a package of benefit reforms that will increase the level of permanent impairment lump sum payments, with the maximum rising by more than 38 per cent to $390,000 and is available to a greater number of severely injured workers. The reforms increase the lump sum paid by more than 28 per cent, to $425,000, if a worker dies from a work-related incident, which will be the nation's highest payment in those circumstances.

The reforms will ensure that all workers sustaining a compensable permanent impairment also receive an additional amount for the pain and suffering arising from their injuries; provide for permanent impairment and death benefits to be indexed annually, to ensure their value is maintained across the time of receiving the benefit; streamline the permanent impairment assessment process to ensure compensation for pain and suffering is consistent and equitable for all workers, and will allow more workers to have their ongoing benefits commuted in a one-off payment. This is the most comprehensive reform of New South Wales workers compensation benefits since 2001, providing more than $50 million more each year direct to injured workers and their families.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: What about occupational health and safety?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: This is in addition to the $250 million set aside from the December 2006 scheme surplus for initiatives to assist injured workers. The scheme's strong financial performance has been aided by the best workplace safety results in 20 years. I acknowledge the interjection by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox and advise that injuries are at their lowest levels since the WorkCover scheme commenced in the 1980s with the incidence rate for serious injuries dropping to a record low of 11 injuries per 1,000 employees. Work-related fatalities have more than halved. Employment injuries reduced by 6 per cent from the previous year, while the incidence rate reduced by 11 per cent. Serious workplace injuries, those requiring more than five days off work, were down by 13 per cent.

Respected economic consultants, ACIL Tasman, have calculated that the New South Wales Government's reform of workplace safety laws in 2001 has led to a $5.58 billion annual saving to the State's economy. The report examined claims data and found that improved workplace safety performance and a significant decline in the number of injury claims could be directly linked to the reforms. Far from being a burden on the State's economy, the report found occupational health and safety is an investment that provides direct financial benefit not only to families but also to the State's economy as a whole.

The New South Wales Opposition voted against both the workplace safety reforms of 2001 and the major workers compensation improvements. Both have resulted in multi-billion dollar enhancements to the New South Wales economy and real and dramatic benefits for individual workers and their families, resulting in fewer deaths; fewer injuries; more of the compensation dollar going to the injured. By the way, today, Kevin Rudd is releasing his policies on workplace safety. The policies include a genuine independent tripartite body to drive further harmonisation. [Time expired.]

TRAILER EXCHANGE FACILITIES

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that in May, more than five months ago, the Roads and Traffic Authority indicated that it would 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3149

review the safety standards and number of trailer exchange facilities for truck drivers along the Pacific Highway? Does the Minister consider that review to be a priority, in light of the fatality of a truck driver at a trailer exchange facility on the Pacific Highway in August? What is the authority doing to increase the number of trailer exchange facilities for truck drivers along our highways? What is the authority doing to improve the safety standards of existing trailer exchange facilities for truck drivers along all highways in New South Wales?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Part of the brief of the Roads and Traffic Authority is to ensure the safety of all road users, in particular for people who use our highways. The Pacific Highway has had substantial upgrades over many years by the New South Wales Government. Currently we are undertaking a joint funding upgrade with the Federal Government, to the value of $1.3 million, for the Pacific Highway. As to the specific details of the question, I will take that on notice and give a specific answer.

POLE DANCING

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I ask the Hon. John Hatzistergos, on behalf of the Minister for Women, a question without notice. Is the Minister aware that in New South Wales children as young as seven are pole dancing in a trend that has sparked outrage among family groups? Is the Minister aware that this new form of fitness regimen has contributed to the sexualisation of young children? In particular, is the Minister aware of a recent report conducted by the American Psychological Association entitled "Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls", which states:

Virtually every media form studied provides ample evidence of the sexualisation of women, including TV, music videos, music lyrics, movies, magazines, sports media, video games, the Internet and advertising … In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner and are objectified.

Will the Minister indicate what measures the Government is taking to further prevent this disturbing trend? [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am aware of the issue, but not of the studies. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Women and obtain a response. However, I think the member's question should have been directed to the Minister for Youth rather than to the Minister for Women.

COMMUNITY CONFERENCING FOR YOUNG ADULTS PROGRAM

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on the Community Conferencing for Young Adults Program?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. Lynda Voltz asked an important question. In September 2005 the Government began trialling a new community conferencing scheme for young adult offenders who have pleaded guilty or who have been found guilty of a non-violent offence and who are aged between 18 and 24. In the 2006-07 financial year, 157 offenders were referred to the program and 133 conferences occurred. The trials were run at Liverpool Local Court and Tweed Heads Local Court circuit. Following these trials a number of comments were made. Ken Marslew of Enough is Enough, in a paper presented at the conference entitled "Partnerships in Crime Prevention" had this to say:

The Principles of Restorative Justice and their application as seen in the Conferencing process go a long way to see the word "justice" addressed in the true sense.

The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research published its evaluation of the program on 11 September 2007. Overall, its findings were very positive. Victims who participated in the program were overwhelmingly satisfied with the way their cases were dealt with and the intervention plans that were agreed to. In fact, 93 per cent of victims said that they were treated with respect at the conferences, and 91 per cent said that they were satisfied with the intervention plan and that the outcomes were fair. Preliminary data shows low rates of reoffending among offenders who participated in the program—just over 4 per cent charged with another offence after completing a conference. While the evidence points towards the success of conferencing it is regrettable that Opposition members do not appear to support it. On 21 May 2007 the shadow Minister stated:

Most offenders are teenagers who, if caught, escape appropriate punishment due to the alternative procedures of cautions, warnings and conferences under the Young Offenders Act.

He ignored the fact that a study by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research on juveniles who receive a youth justice conference showed that they were significantly less likely to reoffend than those who were referred 3150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

to a court, just as the recent report on young adult conferencing found it to be effective in victim satisfaction and reoffending. The Government plans to expand community conferencing for young adult pilot programs statewide. The expansion to all the State's Local Courts will be staged over five years, beginning in 2008-09. Examples of actions in the intervention plans include: community work; cash payments to victims for damages; a written apology; a drug treatment program for the offender; and attending a traffic offender program. Both offenders and victims reported that one of the best features of the way these conferences were run was that offenders understood the consequences of their actions, and victims had an opportunity to express what impact an offender's actions had had. Comments in the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research evaluation report included:

One victim said, "The perpetrator was able to realise the extent to which his actions impacted on the community."

One offender said, "You get to hear how it affected the other side."

And from an offender, "The victim makes you feel what the impacts of your actions were."

Over 80 per cent of offenders completed the intervention plan to which they had agreed. Most stakeholders involved, including magistrates, conference facilitators and police, were of the opinion that the conferencing program is effective and operating well. I look forward to informing about the House of future successes of this program.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT HERITAGE LISTINGS

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government a question without notice. Have councils such as Parramatta and Canada Bay declared 1960 red brick suburban houses as heritage buildings without any consultation or approval by the owners? Have such heritage orders dramatically reduced the value of these houses and prevented any improvements or extensions, which makes them very difficult to sell? Will the Government adopt local government regulations to protect homeowners from these heritage orders and ensure there is consultation with and agreement by the owners under the authority of the New South Wales Heritage Office?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will refer the honourable member's question to the appropriate Minister. I understand that the member for Toongabbie made some comments about this yesterday. It was proposed that this would be done, but only with the consent of the owner of a house. I will refer the member's question to the Minister and obtain a speedy reply.

GOVERNMENT SECTOR NET DEBT

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for Infrastructure. Yesterday, in answer to my question about this Government's fiscal strategy, as outlined in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, he said that one target would not be met for 12 months. Did he deliberately mislead the House or is his budget, which projects a breach of the net debt target for each of the four years of the forward estimates period, simply wrong?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I stand by the answer that I gave yesterday. I thought the honourable member would have asked me today about something that is of great significance, not only to the people of New South Wales but also to people in this nation—that is, the underlying inflation figure that has just come in that shows there will be an inevitable interest rate increase in the next four weeks. The underlying inflation rate came in at 1 per cent, which clearly shows that the poor economic policies of the Howard-Costello Government will impact directly on homeowners in New South Wales. Even the Reserve Bank—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. My question was about the ratio for the net debt target, which according to the budget papers and not the Treasurer shows that the ratio will be breached in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. The Treasurer misled the House yesterday and he misled the House today or else he simply does not understand his budget—or he is walking away from it already?

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I am focusing on inflation because anyone who has read the budget would know that we make assumptions about inflation rates in the next 12 months and they impact directly on the budget. I did not realise what ratios the member was talking about, but now that he has mentioned them even 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3151

these ratios are affected by interest rate rises. I state clearly that if we see another increase in mortgage interest rates this year's budget will be affected. We said at the time the assumptions were that there would not be any further increases in interest rates. There will be increases in interest rates—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Putting our budget under pressure.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yes, our budget will be put under pressure but so will every citizen in New South Wales, every citizen in the nation and, more importantly, every voter who has to go to the polls in November. They will remember the incompetence of this Federal Government in managing the economy. This is not something that we jumped on in the course of the election; I said at the time of the last set of tax cuts that they were inflationary and that they would put pressure on mortgage interest rates, in particular, and they did. We are now facing another blow to the State's economy because of the mismanagement of the Federal Government. It should be remembered that Opposition members take credit for every statistic—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: Mr President, the Treasurer is flouting your ruling to be generally relevant to the question, which he conceded he now understands relates to the net debt target. He conceded that he has been misleading the House, or he has walked away from his budget.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. The Minister will continue to be generally relevant.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I know it is embarrassing for Opposition members to acknowledge that national interest rates affect State budgets, but they do. Any targets, any ratios that we put into our budget, have built within them an assumption about interest rates rises. The incompetent Howard-Costello Government has put taxpayers, voters, and people with poor mortgage debts in a position where they will face the sixth interest rates increase since that famous promise by the Prime Minister that interest rates would not increase. Opposition members are incompetent. They like to take credit for good economic news but they run away from bad economic news. There will be nowhere for you to run on 24 November except out the door to the Commonwealth employment service or its equivalent for new jobs because you will be thrown out of government.

CROWN LAND PARKS AND RESERVES

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Can the Minister update the House on the Government's commitment to maintaining parks, reserves, caravan parks, showgrounds and walking tracks on Crown land?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: A key priority of the Iemma Government's State Plan is to ensure that more and more people enjoy our parks and sporting and recreational facilities. This State has about 33,000 Crown reserves with a total of 2.5 million hectares, or about 3 per cent of the landmass of New South Wales. They encompass a diverse range of facilities and public spaces: everything from beaches and showgrounds to lighthouses, caravan parks and community halls. The Iemma Government is committed to maintaining and improving the reserves and facilities on these public lands. This commitment is backed by the Government's annual funding program, the Public Reserves Management Fund. This year's budget of $12.7 million builds on last year's $12.3 million, and more than doubles the budget of two years ago.

This year around 100 projects will be funded through the Public Reserves Management Fund. The fund makes a tremendous difference, particularly in country New South Wales where the lion's share of funding is directed. This year more than 95 per cent of the total of the Public Reserves Management Fund will be directed to country New South Wales. Much of the funding is directed towards volunteer trust boards, another helping hand for those who give their time freely to make a difference for their communities. Highlights of this year's program include $6.9 million for Crown caravan park improvements, $2.5 million for improvements to sporting grounds, parks, reserves and walking tracks, as well as $337 for showground maintenance and improvements.

Crown reserves are a wonderful resource for the people of New South Wales. They are a focal point for many smaller communities where people can come together for sport, social gatherings, trade fairs and country shows. The Iemma Government's Public Reserves Management Fund ensures the upkeep of these reserves and public spaces for the communities that use them most. For example, earlier this year the Government provided loans totalling $750,000 to Kempsey Shire Council for new facilities, plumbing and electrical and road upgrades for the Hat Head and Stuarts Point caravan parks. Another $655,000 was provided to Wyong Shire Council for similar improvements to four coastal holiday parks on Crown land. 3152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

Members would be aware of the $1 million allocated earlier this year to assist drought-affected communities to improve local reserves while tapping into local skills to carry out these works. These targeted programs deliver practical assistance to communities, some of which are suffering greatly in the face of the terrible drought. Much of the funding may not attract major headlines, but it makes a difference for the communities it assists. The Hon. Michael Veitch will remember the $20,000 grant for the Young Community Arts Centre Trust last year that went towards a conservation study and plan to assist the trust to manage the community asset, which accommodates the local Historic Museum Society. Again this is funding for local communities that lend a welcomed helping hand.

Only recently I visited the Central Coast and announced a further $90,000 for the Great North Walk. I was joined by the fine candidate for the Federal seat of Robertson, Belinda Neal, who was pleased on behalf of her community to see the Iemma Government continue to invest in this iconic track that links Newcastle, the Central Coast and Sydney. With more than 40,000 local, interstate and international visitors each year, the Great North Walk also connects with other tracks, such as Pokolbin in the Hunter wine district. The Iemma Government is getting on with the job of working with the community in getting practical, on-the-ground improvements to our Crown reserves. With $12.7 million set aside this year, the community can rest assured that the Iemma Government remains committed to the ongoing improvement of our wonderful Crown reserves.

LITHGOW COALMINING NON-COMPLIANCE INCIDENTS

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Is the Minister aware that there have been 923 non-compliance incidents under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act over the past five years for eight licensed coalmining operations in the Lithgow region? Is the Minister aware that no prosecutions are recorded on the Environment Protection Authority licence register for any of those incidents of non-compliance, and that there are similar levels of Environment Protection Authority non-compliance in the mining regions near Mudgee and Muswellbrook? Will the Minister consider introducing a levy on mining companies to fund the creation of three new full-time Environment Protection Authority offices in Lithgow, Mudgee and Muswellbrook to undertake monitoring, investigation and prosecution of breaches of Environment Protection Authority licences by coalmining companies?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: One thing that must be remembered is that because there might be some instances, it does not necessarily mean—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Some? There are 923, Minister!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Well, they could be very minor problems. A lot of these issues could be addressed by rectification means other than prosecution. Prosecution is not the only way. I have not heard of any serious breaches of the environmental protection arrangements in the Lithgow area or, indeed, in the Hunter in recent times. Many of these are probably are resolved on site quite amicably between the authorities and the company. I will get the details and give the member a breakdown on the situation. I would think the reputation of New South Wales mining regarding the environment is up there with best practice—absolutely with best practice. Many mines I have visited have in place very high levels of environmental controls.

For instance, I visited Mount Arthur coalmine, which is an Xtrata mine near Muswellbrook. That mine has in place an incredibly strong environmental regime and also occupational health and safety protocols. It has a strong environmental department that not only monitors incidents on site and ensures compliance, but also is proactive in developing mining practices that ensure we will have a high level of environmental outcomes in the future with rehabilitation.

The member's question is one of those nitpicking types of questions at which she is very professional. It is in reply to a statement this morning by her Federal leader, Senator Brown, when he was caught on the hop about a question on closing down the mining industry. Senator Brown was asked, "Well, what are we going to do if we close down the mining industry? What are we going to do in the future about the tens of billions of dollars that are derived from mining, particularly coalmining, in Australia?" He absolutely was caught for words. Then he said, "Oh, well, there are 200,000 jobs in renewable energy and maybe we can be part of that." That is no strategy. The mining industry, particularly the coal sector, cannot just be closed down without having a viable strategy for the future. Unfortunately, the Greens always are hot on rhetoric and short on practical detail. The Greens again are showing prejudice against the mining sector in this State. I will be referring this question to the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, which gives me good advice all the way through on mining, forestry and other issues. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3153

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. When the Minister visited Mount Arthur was he aware that on many occasions the company at that mine site has broken conditions and been involved in non-compliance incidents because of insufficient water trucks with the resulting dust rising over Muswellbrook. How does the Minister justify that this is best practice for environmental conditions?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: To my knowledge I have not had many complaints from the people of Muswellbrook. In fact, whenever I visit there and talk to the good people of the Labor Party branch, and others—in the past, John Jobling—I have received only positive comments about the mining industry, its impact on the town and the long-term future the children have in that area.

INLAND RAIL FREIGHT ROUTE

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Lands, and Minister for Regional Development. Is he aware of the projections for increased freight in New South Wales and the fact that much of the freight that currently moves through the metropolitan area by rail is not destined for use in Sydney? In his capacity as the Minister for Regional Development, has he studied the proposal for an inland rail freight route linking Melbourne and Brisbane?

The Hon. Michael Costa: Oh!

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The groan from the Treasurer is noted.

The Hon. Michael Costa: That would be like the Alice Springs to Darwin line.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Which is now turning a profit! What, if any, level of support has been given to that proposal by the Minister and the State Government? What specific New South Wales Government support is proposed for the future to help to advance this important regional development project?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for her question, which has been quite amply answered by the Deputy Premier previously in his capacity as the Minister for Transport. The comments he has made are quite relevant. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of transport moves in a corridor along the coast. It would be appreciated if, for a change, the Federal Government would start to invest in our transport links along the coast.

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SUSTAINABLE PURCHASING POLICIES

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: My question is addressed to the Minister for Commerce. Will he outline recent initiatives to encourage sustainable purchasing by government agencies?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for his question. Governments are substantial purchasers of goods and services and hold significant market buying power. In OECD countries, government procurement is estimated to account for between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of gross domestic product. Within Australia, State, Territory and Federal governments spend approximately $100 billion per annum on goods, services and construction. New South Wales Procurement, which is a division of the New South Wales Department of Commerce, provides a range of services for government agencies. It develops efficient and effective processes and procedures for the management and/or procurement of the New South Wales Government's assets, information and communication technology, goods and services that deliver value, and minimises costs as well as manages risks across the Government.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Charlie Lynn will cease interjecting.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Key services provided include establishing and administering whole-of-government goods and services standing offer contracts and client-specific contracts, designing and delivery of online procurement tools, solutions and services including smartbuy and eTendering, providing government advertising, publishing and information services, developing strategies and plans for information and communication technology, and delivering key information and communication technology infrastructure across the New South Wales Government, including the State Broadband Service, the Government Radio Network and the New South Wales Government's web portal.

The magnitude of expenditure on procurement presents governments with a real opportunity to respond to heightened community expectations and, when possible, serve the market for green goods that are the product 3154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

of environmentally sustainable processes. On 14 September this year the Australian Procurement and Construction Council released the Australian and New Zealand Government Framework for Sustainable Procurement. The council comprises government agencies that are responsible for procurement, construction and asset management policy for the Commonwealth, States, Territories and New Zealand. The New South Wales Department of Commerce played a key role in the development of the framework. It is the first framework between the Australian governments and New Zealand to establish a shared response to current major global issues, such as climate change, through procurement. It lays the foundation for stronger collaboration between Australia and New Zealand on implementing sustainable procurement practices and, by supporting suppliers and products that promote sustainability, sends an unambiguous message to the market that governments are open for sustainable business.

The New South Wales Government has taken a leading role in the establishment of the sustainable procurement framework. It demonstrates a strong commitment to sustainability by participating governments and recognises the potential for government to contribute toward mitigating the impact of climate change, delivering benefits to the community, encouraging responsible suppliers and, most significantly, creating a viable trans-Tasman market for sustainable products.

WILDLIFE MEAT CONSUMPTION

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: In directing my question to the Minister for Primary Industries, I emphasise the word "primary". Is he aware that the London Daily Mail newspaper has quoted a report commissioned by Greenpeace claiming that Australians can dramatically reduce their carbon footprint by eating more local wildlife, namely kangaroos? Is he also aware that kangaroo meat is low in cholesterol and fat and high in protein, iron and zinc, and helps to reduce blood pressure? As the Minister responsible for the marketing of kangaroo meat, as the main supporter of the kangaroo industry, and as a supporter of reducing greenhouse emissions, will he make representations to the Presiding Officers to have this healthy organic food reintroduced to the dining room menus at Parliament House, thus reducing global warming?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The honourable member has asked me an excellent question. I must say that when kangaroo meat was first put on the menu, I had a taste of it and I thought it was pretty good.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Ian Armstrong did that.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: He does a lot of good things and that was particularly good because honourable members should realise that kangaroo meat has a lot of good health qualities and is low in fat. I support any effort by members to have kangaroo meat returned to the menu. I am highly surprised that the Greens were able to have it taken off. How outrageous! It just shows how out of touch the Greens are when Greenpeace argues that more of our kangaroo meat should be consumed.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: It may help with climate change.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The added advantage of kangaroo meat is that it does not contribute as highly to climate change as does beef production. The quicker this issue is addressed, the better. I am sure that the President and the Presiding Officer in the other House will be able to get their heads together and sort this out for us. We want kangaroo meat back on the menu at Parliament House, or at least we want the opportunity to have it, and if the Greens do not want to eat kangaroo meat, there are plenty of alternatives for them to eat, such as mung beans, lentils and vegetarian pasta. Let us have kangaroo meat back on the menu at Parliament House. I make the offer to hold a barbecue very shortly featuring kangaroo meat and other forms of Australian natural product.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Wombats too!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, no, no! I will ban the Treasurer because I am sure he will turn up with one of those road kill cookbooks of Peter Black, the former member for Murray-Darling. We will not be having any of that! This will be a sensible approach to the issue for people who want to taste a real bit of Aussie cuisine. Let me make it very clear that in this State kangaroo culling is conducted with integrity and is carried out under very strict supervision in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

ISOLATED SCHOOL STUDENTS BOARDING ALLOWANCE

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Has he made a determination on whether New South Wales will follow the Queensland and 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3155

Western Australian model that allows students in disadvantaged and isolated communities to access the Commonwealth Government's assistance for isolated children boarding allowance program so that they will be able to attend a school that meets the individual needs of the student? Following his meeting with the Isolated Children's Parents' Association in June, is he now able to inform the House of a decision so that parents and families can plan for the 2008 school year?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Once the determination is made by me about that matter, obviously I will be directing it to the parents and families and not announcing it to the House until I have done so. I thank the honourable member for her question. I will provide her with a detailed answer at the appropriate time.

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROJECT

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for State Development. Are New South Wales companies having any success in their efforts to secure contracts in the United States of America joint Strike Fighter project?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am pleased to report that a well-known Western Sydney company will play a very significant role in the United States Air Force's F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft project. Broens Industries at Ingleburn has secured an agreement to supply specialised tooling to BAE Systems, a company based in the United Kingdom and one of the major contractors to the joint strike fighter project. The project has the potential to be worth $50 million to the company. The work to be undertaken by Broens and its partner companies is expected to create 100 jobs in New South Wales, including apprenticeships. Broens is an advanced, high-tech engineering company that provides precision engineering tooling, special-purpose machinery and automation solutions across key industries in the industrial, commercial and defence sectors. I had the honour of dining with the owner a couple of weeks ago.

The win is a result of the skills and expertise of Broens workforce and its experience working with major international aerospace companies. There is strong competition for defence contracts, and Broens had to compete with companies from across the world, especially the United Kingdom. This is a great achievement for the company and a credit to its workforce and its commitment to engineering excellence. Broens Industries is a great Australian success story. The managing director, Carlos Broens, established the company in 1979 with just two employees, providing subcontract tool-making and general engineering services to a range of clients. When the company moved to Prestons in 1982 it began operations as a manufacturer of precision tooling, dyes and general engineered products. The company moved to its current location in Ingleburn in 1987.

Today Broens is still a family-owned business and now employs 150 people, including about 30 apprentices. It exports to more than 16 countries and has a network of sales and service centres throughout Australia, the United States, Asia and Europe. The company's commitment to training apprentices was recognised last year when Broens Industries won the Federal Minister's Award for Excellence for Employers of Australian Apprentices in the Sydney Region. Last month Mr Broens was inducted into the Macarthur Business Hall of Fame in recognition of his entrepreneurship and his contribution to the economic and community strength of the Macarthur region. Mr Broens said recently that his company's international experience and its competitive pricing helped to secure the joint strike fighter contract. He said that the project will showcase Australian and New South Wales industry capabilities to the world and provide opportunities for many talented tradespeople to upgrade their skills further into the global aerospace industry.

Significantly, Mr Broens thanked the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development for its ongoing support and assistance in winning this bid. But Broens Industries is not the only New South Wales company to be successful in winning work on the 3,000 joint strike fighter aircraft expected to be built over the next 15 years. Sydney company Goodrich Control Systems Australia is manufacturing weapons bay door uplock actuators, which are the mechanisms used to open and close weapons bay doors quickly. The Varley Group in Tomago near Newcastle is supplying ground support equipment. CSC Australia, Partech Systems and Total Aerospace Solutions in Shoalhaven are supplying hardware and software to test avionics components on the aircraft. GKN Aerospace Engineering has been designing parts of the joint strike fighter in Sydney and Melbourne, and Thales Australia at Garden Island is carrying out simulation work. These New South Wales companies demonstrate clearly the strength of the manufacturing sector in our State and the fact that we can compete successfully in the highly competitive global marketplace. They are also strongly supported by the Iemma Government through the Department of State and Regional Development. 3156 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ORGANIC AGRICULTURE NOTES

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Has the Department of Primary Industries produced an agriculture note to help macadamia growers go organic after his department was inundated with requests for help? How many macadamia farmers are in the process of converting to organic growing and how are departmental officers assisting them? Is the department preparing other agriculture notes to help growers of other produce convert to organic growing? Can the Minister inform the House what these notes are and when they will be available?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As to the last part of Mr Ian Cohen's question, I do not have the program for the preparation of agriculture notes. As Mr Ian Cohen pointed out, these notes are useful and assist many farmers, particularly with newer crop types. We are doing a lot more work on organics, as Mr Ian Cohen knows. We have formed the Organic Ministerial Advisory Council, which is networking our activities in the Department of Primary Industries to ensure that the organic industries receive far more attention. They are important niche markets that the farming community must supply. Some extensive premiums can be sought and gained by farmers who are prepared to go organic and engage in the significant range of enhanced activities that will give them certification. The council is backed by the establishment of our Centre for Organic Farming at Bathurst, where we propose to produce organic wines. Given the great interest that many people have in organic wines the department has been upgrading its efforts in the organics area, and that is one of our many activities. I thank Mr Ian Cohen for his question and assure him that we will be producing more agriculture notes on organics about which I will give him an outline in the near future.

TRACTOR CONDITIONAL REGISTRATION

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that if a farmer owns more than one tractor requiring conditional registration, he or she must obtain a 47-page permit and photocopy this permit for each individual vehicle, thereby wasting valuable time, money and resources? Will the Minister consider reviewing this onerous and wasteful registration system?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the Hon. Trevor Khan for his question and I will seek advice from the Roads and Traffic Authority in response.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BASIC SKILLS TEST

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. Will the Minister inform the House about the record achievements of New South Wales primary school students in the latest basic skills test?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Primary school literacy, numeracy and writing standards are at a record high, as confirmed by the release of the 2007 basic skills test results. The basic skills test assesses the abilities of year 3 and year 5 students in writing, reading, language and numeracy. The results demonstrate that the State numeracy plan, the State literacy plan and the New South Wales curriculum are delivering improved academic achievements. Year 3 and year 5 students recorded the highest overall literacy results ever this year, and year 5 numeracy results are also the highest on record. The result is pleasing but we still need further improvements if we are to reach our 2008 goals.

The Iemma Government has made a commitment to students and parents that we will lift literacy and numeracy rates in our schools—and we are doing that. In order to achieve our goals for the future prosperity of the community and the State as a whole the Government is investing $616 million over the next four years specifically to improve student literacy and numeracy levels. The 2007 results are proof that we are delivering on that commitment and are on track to achieve our ambitious numeracy and literacy targets. These ambitious, yet deliverable, targets include the following. By 2008, 92.2 per cent of year 3 students are to achieve band 2 or higher in the numeracy section of the basic skills test. Some 91 per cent of year 3 students achieved band 2 or higher this year. By 2008, 94.2 per cent of year 5 students are to achieve band 3 or higher in the numeracy section of the basic skills test. Some 93 per cent of year 5 students achieved band 3 or higher this year. By 2008, 89.6 per cent of year 3 students are to achieve an acceptable standard or higher in the literacy section of the basic skills test. Some 91 per cent of year 3 students achieved an acceptable standard or higher this year. By 2008, 94.2 per cent of year 5 students are to achieve an acceptable standard or higher in the literacy section of the basic skills test. Some 95 per cent of year 5 students achieved an acceptable standard or higher this year. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3157

A recent Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] report found that New South Wales students had the second-highest levels of literacy in the world, and the 2007 basic skills test confirms this result. This year the Iemma Government is investing $11.2 billion in taxpayers' funds in the education and training of New South Wales students. That is another record sum. Over the past few days parents across the State have been receiving their children's basic skills test results. The basic skills test offers teachers and parents a valuable insight into students' academic progress. Feedback from the test enables teachers to pinpoint students' strengths and areas where they require additional support.

The Department of Education and Training will target students who are in the lowest band of numeracy achievement with proven numeracy programs like Count Me In Too. While the proportion of children who are struggling has not increased, there is room for improvement to reduce the numbers of young children who struggle with maths. The Department of Education and Training will also be offering a range of professional development programs for primary school teachers to teach them new strategies that they can use in their classrooms to help children who are having difficulty with maths. One of the great benefits of the New South Wales basic skills test program is that the results are supported by state-of-the-art data software. Feedback from the tests enables teachers to pinpoint students' strengths and areas for additional support. They can then use the information to undertake targeted classroom activities to address student weaknesses. I congratulate our students, their teachers, parents, our schools and those who support them on these excellent results.

KILLALEA STATE PARK

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question to the Minister for Lands. Is the Minister aware of yesterday's decision of the Local Government Association of New South Wales condemning the proposed alienation of Killalea State Park land and its lease for 52 years to a private company? Will the Minster finally respond to the widespread opposition to the proposed lease voiced by councils, unions and the community and not proceed with the lease but engage in transparent and meaningful consultations with the community and other relevant stakeholders about any future development of the park?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: That has to be one of the silliest questions I have heard in a long time. The member is misleading the House because the motion that was put forward by the council, and sadly decried by many people, was actually that there would no longer be any commercial development on Crown land in New South Wales. Many councils were very upset about that because they are the main beneficiaries of commercial development on Crown land in New South Wales. For example, Batemans Bay council is about to get $65 million worth of commercial investment on its foreshore area, and this will create many jobs. Councils receive income from the many bowling clubs, golf clubs, restaurants and caravan parks in their areas. Some councils receive income from as many as five caravan parks. That is commercial development. This stupid motion was moved to ban such development, so obviously many councils are very disturbed. The member is misleading the House. The motion might have been put forward by a council that has something to do with Killalea, but the purpose of the motion is to ban all commercial development on all Crown land in New South Wales. It is a stupid motion.

CULBURRA PUBLIC SCHOOL CAR PARK

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Can the Minister explain why a safe car park and drop-off zone has not been constructed at Culburra Public School when the Department of Education and Training bought the land next to the school in 2002 for this specific purpose? Will the Minister undertake to fix drainage problems in the area designated for a car park while parents and students wait for a car park to be built?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Obviously the safe transit of students to school is an obligation of the Department of Education and Training, and it works closely with the other authorities—the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Department of Local Government and the Department of Planning—to make sure that that happens. The last part of the member's question underlines a difficulty with one aspect of her line of questioning—that is, whether I should be expending education funds on digging ditches. I will leave that for her to continue to think through. Obviously this is a matter that the Department of Education and Training takes seriously in its planning of entrances and egresses to schools. I do not have a specific answer in relation to Culburra Public School. However, had the member placed the question on notice, I could have provided her with a very detailed answer by now. I will undertake to give the most detailed response I can as soon as possible. 3158 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

BROADBAND PROJECT OFFICER POSITIONS

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Development. Could the Minister please provide the House with an update on the new broadband project officer positions for country and regional New South Wales?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I would be more than happy to provide the House with an update on the situation surrounding the proposed broadband project officer positions. Last week I mentioned how the community technology centres had been unsuccessful in their bid to attract Federal funding for a much-needed and well-researched broadband project. Senator Coonan has knocked them back and has given no reasons for having done so. Sadly, with regard to the proposed broadband project officer positions, New South Wales has again drawn the short straw.

I am not a naturally cynical person, but when I cast my eye towards Canberra I can definitely see a pattern emerging. New South Wales asked for eight broadband project officers to assist country and regional New South Wales to access many of the services and information sources that are freely available in the metropolitan areas, important services such as improving access to clinical delivery, facilitating improved communication and information exchange between health care providers, improving educational outcomes through collaboration and better access to knowledge resources—and the list goes on. Make no mistake, Mr President, access to new technology is vital to the economic and social sustainability of many small communities around this State. Every one of the eight outcomes originally listed in the bid would have built upon the previous work done by New South Wales with a mixture of Commonwealth and State funding.

We lowered our request to six officers and eventually the Howard Government agreed to just six. But did it deliver? No. In typical Howard Government fashion, it managed to deliver only one of the promised positions. It will come as no surprise that the solitary project officer to be funded by the Federal Government is in the marginal Federal seat of Eden-Monaro, where the hapless Howard Government Minister Gary Nairn sits trembling on a knife-edge margin. Only one position was delivered—but only for a Federal seat in which Mr Howard is trying to protect from the worm of community discontent.

As with the CTC bid, funding for the proposal of six broadband project officers for regional New South Wales was sought under the Connect Australia Program. The fact is that we were not proposing to reinvent the wheel with this submission. The Howard Government had worked with us in the past and had no problem in placing these positions in other States. While New South Wales is funded for only one, Queensland has been funded for four project officers. But not country New South Wales. Once again the Howard Government decided not to help our rural and regional people. What about The Nationals, the self-proclaimed white knights of country New South Wales? The Nationals are still looking for their horses. Not a squeak of support for country people from The Nationals. It is such a shame.

Just think of how much could have been achieved if the six officers requested had been placed around the State. There would be five additional communities in New South Wales with access to important services that they need and do not have. They could have been five Federal seats, for example, and they could have included Robertson, Page, Richmond, Macquarie, Dobell, Cowper or even Parkes—or has the Federal Government already given up on these seats? Once again we are seeing the Howard Government playing politics with the future of those who choose to live in country New South Wales. The message is: If you are not in a marginal seat that is vital to the Howard Government's re-election, then do not expect too much of anything soon. What we are all hoping for is that after 24 November we will get a government that is prepared to look after the welfare of our rural communities; a government that the community can trust to fulfil its commitments. [Time expired.]

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY ASSETS AND CITIC GROUP

Dr JOHN KAYE: Surprisingly, my question is directed to the Treasurer. In the last 12 months has the Treasurer or any officer of his department met with officers or representatives of the company known as CITIC or any of its Australian subsidiaries or affiliates? If so, did he discuss at that meeting the issue of privatising or long-term leasing of the New South Wales electricity industry? In the past 12 months has he, or any officer of his department, met with any of the following CITIC board members and discussed with them electricity industry privatisation or long-term leasing: Mr Chen Zeng, Mr Roger Marshall, Mr Bruce, Foy, Mr Yuheng Wu, Mr Tinghu Guo, Mr Andrew Metcalfe and Mr Kelvin Chan? Will the Treasurer give a straight "yes" or "no" answer as to whether he has held meetings with representatives of any company owned by the Government of China at which privatisation or long-term leasing of the electricity assets of New South Wales was discussed? 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3159

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As the honourable member should be aware if he has been in the House and following these policy issues, the Government has not made any decision about the future of electricity.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: He is doing a Santamaria impersonation.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I do not know what he is on about.

Ms Sylvia Hale: About meetings.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have lots of meetings.

Dr John Kaye: Just answer my question, yes or no.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Let me answer the question. You have had your chance to ask the silly question, let me answer it. Dr John Kaye seems to be obsessed by Chinese connections. I do not know what the relevance of this is. He ought to know that the great Deng Xiaoping made the point that it does not matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches the mouse. I thought that was a very interesting proposition. The great Deng also said, "Poverty is not socialism. To be rich is glorious." It would be interesting if the Greens took that on board.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: My point of order is relevancy. I asked a simple question; I did not want a lecture on Deng Xiaoping. Will the Minister answer the question?

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Government has made no decision to do anything other than respond in due time to the Owen inquiry. Whether Ministers meet with representatives of the Chinese Communist Party, or Castro's Stalinist regime or, for that matter, the North Koreans—and that reminds me that yesterday I was talking about North Korea. I sought to describe—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. I ask the Minister to answer my question. Did he or did he not have a meeting? It is a straightforward question.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: All I can do is again quote the great Deng, who said also, and the Greens should listen to this, "Seek truth from the facts". As I was saying yesterday—

Ms Sylvia Hale: Whose are the facts?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I made them up! Yesterday I was talking about electricity issues and foreign approaches to electricity supply, which is in the context of this question, as I assume any fair-minded person would agree. I have brought a photograph with me that shows South Korea and North Korea from a satellite. Honourable members can pick South Korea and North Korea. There is a dividing line that shows where all the power is. There is just one light to the north.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: How is a Photoshop image relevant to the question as to whether he did or did not meet with CITIC?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Let me finish; it is very relevant. Based on this evidence and quoting the great Deng, "Seek truth from the facts", one would have to be an idiot to ask anyone from a Communist regime about electricity supply.

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

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY ASSETS AND CITIC GROUP

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Yesterday I was asked by Dr John Kaye whether I had met with agents of the Chinese Government in relation to the sale of New South Wales generators. Following his probing 3160 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

and insightful questioning of me in Parliament yesterday, I have to come clean and admit, yes, there is an extreme left-wing cell in New South Wales threatening our power supplies. That insidious group wants to hand over control of New South Wales energy security to an ideologically driven fringe group determined to impose an extreme agenda on the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Name them.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I will in a moment.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: The Minister is reading from a media release. That does not answer the question. On the point of relevancy, he is not answering my question.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Let me finish my answer. I have met with that insidious group that wants to hand over control of the State's energy security to an ideologically driven fringe group that is determined to impose its extreme agenda on the people. He is right.

Dr John Kaye: I was not meaning you.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Let me finish my answer. I met with them yesterday at 4.00 p.m. and also at 12.00 p.m. today, in question time. I take this opportunity also to inform Dr John Kaye and his wacky co-conspirators that I have not met with representatives of Baader-Meinhoff, or the Red Brigade, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or the Irish Republican Army, or the Palestine Liberation Organisation, or the Shining Path about these matters. I have been too busy to meet with them because I have been approached by Howard Hughes and Elvis about buying the Opera House.

HUNTER AND CENTRAL COAST SCHOOL ZONE SPEED LIMITS

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Yesterday the Hon. Robyn Parker asked me a question about school zones. The majority of school zone times are standardised statewide to operate from 8.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. on school days. In special and particular circumstances some school zones operate with non-standard times. The school zone for Tuggerah Lakes Secondary College, The Entrance Campus, Bateau Bay, is a non-standard school zone, which operates from 7.30 to 9.00 a.m. and from 2.00 to 4.00 p.m. on school days. This is because the school, like a limited, small number of other schools in New South Wales, operates significantly outside standard school hours.

The sign at the beginning of a non-standard school zone differs from the standard sign. Signs for non-standard school zones have red writing on a white background rather than black writing on a white background. This helps to differentiate a non-standard school zone from a standard school zone. There are 21 schools with non-standard school zone hours in New South Wales and nine of those are in the Hunter and Central Coast areas.

TRAILER EXCHANGE FACILITIES

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Earlier in question time I was asked a question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition relating to the exchange of trailers by heavy vehicles. I am advised that in August 2007 there was a fatal accident on the Pacific Highway at Clybucca when a prime mover allegedly performed a U-turn on a two-lane, two-way section of highway during a trailer exchange operation. As part of the Pacific Highway upgrading program heavy vehicle rest areas are being provided, generally every 50 kilometres. In addition, the Roads and Traffic Authority is investigating the potential development of trailer exchange facilities as part of the concept design and environmental assessment for the remaining undeveloped sections of highway between Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour.

Rest areas provide places to park safely and refresh before continuing on a journey. There are approximately 1,400 RTA rest areas and truck parking bays around New South Wales. Rest areas are available 24 hours a day all year round and are clearly signposted. That is why, for example, $27.7 million was spent building rest areas and truck stopping bays in New South Wales between 2001-02 and 2005-06. We continue to fund these facilities. The RTA also spends at least $10 million a year on basic maintenance for rest areas. The RTA is always looking at the usage, cost and contribution towards fatigue management of rest areas, particularly in relation to trucks on major freight routes. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3161

CULBURRA PUBLIC SCHOOL CAR PARK

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Earlier in question time the Hon. Robyn Parker asked me a question about the Culburra Public School and provision of a car park facility. After close examination of the budget papers I advise that that provision was announced in the 2007-2008 minor works. It is in the budget and will be done in the near future.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: When?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I undertake to provide further details about starting times for the work as soon as I can.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.09 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Report

The President tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the annual report of the Office of the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption for the year ended 30 June 2007.

The President announced, pursuant to the Act, that it had been authorised that the report be made public.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (SPRAY PAINT CANS) BILL 2007

ROAD TRANSPORT (GENERAL) AMENDMENT (WRITTEN-OFF VEHICLES) BILL 2007

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

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

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Second readings set down as orders of the day for a later hour.

BUDGET ESTIMATES AND RELATED PAPERS

Financial Year 2007-08

Debate resumed from 17 October 2007.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [2.32 p.m.]: The Office of Fair Trading has diverse budget responsibilities. Today I would like to focus on the regulation of retirement villages, which is not so much a responsibility as a saga under the current Iemma Government. Over the past four years four Ministers have undertaken reform programs. Indeed, a large number of reforms have been announced, all of them described as urgent, significant, vital, essential, fair and decent—all very important and all with just one thing in common: that not one of them has been delivered. The Retirement Villages Act that is currently in force received assent on 3 December 1999. The original legislation stipulated a review after five years, which would have meant the review would have been conducted in the first half of 2005. On 19 November 2003 the then Minister for Fair 3162 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

Trading, Reba Meagher, issued a media release announcing legislation to introduce some changes to retirement village fees. The final paragraphs of her media release read as follows:

Ms Meagher said she would also amend the Retirement Villages Act to bring forward by 12 months the statutory review of the legislation to commence in the first part of next year.

The retirement village industry is changing and we have to ensure our legislative framework meets the needs of residents in the future. Bringing the review forward by 12 months will enable all the stakeholders to contribute to this important debate.

Ms Meagher said she would also welcome input from the Ministerial Advisory Council, which includes industry stakeholders.

The Minister legislated to bring about this review, and on 25 February 2004 she told the Parliament:

Since I became Minister I have met with a wide range of interest groups involved with the retirement industry. Many are happy that the Act was introduced and with the substantial improvements to the industry that have taken place since 1999. However, changes are now required to provide greater protection to residents and to those contemplating moving into a retirement village. It is argued that there are certain unfair and inequitable practices within the industry that should be further addressed.

The complexity of contracts, the standard of village management, excessive fee increases, and who should be responsible for the cost of repairs are some of the issues raised more frequently by consumers. All those involved in the industry agree that it would be beneficial for the review to be brought forward. Bringing the review forward would provide residents, village operators and other interested parties the opportunity to comment on the legislation as soon as possible.

The Government intends to amend the Act to bring forward the review to commence upon assent being given to this package of amendments. A report on the outcome of this review is to be tabled within 12 months from that date.

What a great statement! The bill was passed and it was assented to on 23 March 2004. One year and three days later, on 26 March 2005, the next Minister for Fair Trading, the Hon. John Hatzistergos, issued a media release entitled "Review of Retirement Village Laws Released." So the review was completed and the new Minister was releasing the report. I quote what the press release stated at the time:

Fair Trading Minister, Mr John Hatzistergos has foreshadowed increased protection for NSW retirement village residents following a review of the Retirement Village Act 1999. On Thursday, Mr Hatzistergos released a report with 50 recommendations covering a wide range of issues aimed at improving the retirement village industry.

The Minister said:

I am pleased that 320 submissions to the review were received from residents and the industry.

Fair Trading will be discussing the report and recommendations with key stakeholders before moving ahead with any changes.

In August 2005 the Hon. John Hatzistergos was replaced by a third Minister, Diane Beamer. Minister Beamer spent much of the end of that year and 2006 engaged in yet another consultation process over the retirement village amendments, even though the report with the 320 submissions had already been completed. She travelled around the State issuing various news releases which all seemed to have the same heading. On 15 February 2006 her news release was headed, "Minister listens to village residents." On 13 March 2006 her news release was headed, "Minister listens to village residents." On 17 March 2006 her news release was headed, "Minister listens to village residents." On 8 May 2006 her news release was headed, "Minister listens to village residents. On 24 July 2006 her news release was headed, "Minister listens to village residents." On 31 July 2006 her news release was headed, "Minister listens to village residents." Finally, on 12 October 2006, her news release was headed, "Minister listens to village residents."

Minister Beamer issued a further three releases announcing legislation. On 14 August 2006 her news release was headed, "Minister announces retirement village reforms." On 20 September 2006 her news release was headed, "Good news for retirement village residents". On 23 November 2006 her news release was headed, "New rights for village residents". Perhaps the announcement that the Minister made on 14 August 2006 was the most exciting. I quote from that release, which states:

The NSW Government is bringing in new laws to strengthen the rights and security of retirement village residents as well as cutting red tape for village operators.

Fair Trading Minister, Diane Beamer, says Cabinet has approved a wide ranging package of reforms to the Retirement Village Act and she aims to get them through Parliament before the end of the year.

I would have thought that was pretty clear—legislation to amend the Retirement Village Act before the end of 2006. However, it was not so clear because Minister Beamer did not introduce legislation. After more than three 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3163

years of consultation she instead tabled a draft exposure bill telling us that the real thing would be coming in the first part of 2007. But in 2007 we heard nothing further. Earlier this month, on 3 October, Linda Burney, the fourth Minister for Fair Trading, issued a media release that referred to these issues. Her media release, which was entitled "Minister visits Lakefront Retirement Village", reads as follows:

NSW Fair Trading Minister, Linda Burney, today visited the Lakefront Retirement Village to talk to residents about proposed changes to her Retirement Village Act which she aims to introduce into Parliament later this year.

Members would be correct if they thought there was an echo in the room. I have gone through these media releases and compared the wording of Minister Beamer's 14 August 2006 media release with Minister Burney's 3 October 2007 media release. Even though two different Ministers were speaking 14 months apart there are some remarkable similarities. For example, in 2006 Minister Beamer said:

NSW has more than 750 retirement villages, home to more than 40,000 residents.

In 2007 Minister Burney said:

NSW has more than 750 retirement villages which are home to more than 40,000 residents.

In 2006 Minister Beamer said that she "aims to get them"—referring to reforms—"through Parliament before the end of the year". In 2007 Minister Burney said, "I aim to introduce the reforms into Parliament later this year." In 2006 Minister Beamer said:

The measures include protecting residents from village budget blow-outs, better security for their investments, clearer definition of who pays for what.

In 2007 Minister Burney said:

The measures are designed for protecting residents from budget blow-outs, better security for their investments and clearer definition of who pays for what.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Well, that is consistent.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Indeed, as my colleague points out, it is consistent. It gets more consistent. In 2006 Minister Beamer said, "We are determined to ensure residents can look forward to a secure future free from unnecessary hardship and worries." In 2007 Minister Burney was of a similar mind and said, "I am determined to ensure these residents can look forward to a secure future free from unnecessary hardship and worries."

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Continuity.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Continuity, indeed. Continuity, but lack of progress I fear. Minister Burney is the fourth Minister to promise the same legislation foreshadowed four years ago by the then Minister, Reba Meagher, on 19 November 2003, when she said, "The retirement village industry is changing and we have to ensure our legislative framework meets the needs of residents in the future." The State Government's latest announcements of new laws for retirement villages are like episodes of Gilligan's Island, where characters live in eternal but false hope of ever reaching the mainland. Retirement villages have been waiting in vain for four years for these new laws. I call on Minister Burney, who is the fourth Minister to pledge the same reforms, to actually name a real date for introducing the legislation into Parliament and to then actually follow through and do it. The latest ministerial news release—I use "news" in the loosest terms possible—dated 3 October 2007 is a pathetic cut and paste of a previous news release issued on 14 August 2006 by her predecessor. It is way below expectations. This Government is way overdue in delivering on reforms for retirement village operators and residents.

The Hon. IAN WEST [2.42 p.m.]: I am pleased to take part in this take-note debate on the Iemma Government's 2007-08 budget. This budget includes record spending on services and infrastructure, and tax cuts worth $2.4 billion over four years. In total, $44.6 billion is being spent on services. The budget delivers on the Government's election commitments. Health spending will increase by $831 million to $12.5 billion, an increase of 7.1 per cent. Spending on mental health will exceed $1 billion, an increase of $105 million or 11 per cent on last year's spending. Education and training spending is up $517 million or 4.9 per cent to $11.2 billion. Spending on community services is up $131 million or 11.6 per cent to $1.3 billion. Spending on emergency services is up $66 million or 9 per cent to $831 million. 3164 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

Infrastructure investment in 2007-08 is at $12.5 billion, 29 per cent higher than in the previous year, which had 16 per cent higher expenditure than the year before. Investment for 2007-08 includes $2.9 billion on electricity, $1.9 billion on transport, $657 million on health and $617 million on education. The New South Wales budget's allocations, delivering on services and infrastructure, are in spite of the Federal Government's highway robbery of the working people of New South Wales. I take this opportunity to remind the Opposition that, according to the Federal Government's own figures, total payments to the States have fallen to their lowest in the past decade. That is the factual situation. Over the past 10 years the figures have fallen to the lowest in the past decade. The final Federal budget outcome reported in the Australian Financial Review on 11 October 2007—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: You do not read that paper.

The Hon. IAN WEST: I do, actually, quite religiously. It shows that total payments to States and Territories have fallen from a high 7.2 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product in 2001-02 to 6.5 per cent in 2006-07, which we all know is an absolute disgrace. This is the lowest funding the States and Territories have received from the economic geniuses in Canberra since 1996-97. This tightfistedness is despite the Federal Government's $17.3 billion surplus in 2006-07. Since it was elected it has thrown away to the tune of $160 billion in taxes.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Where has it gone?

The Hon. IAN WEST: In giving tax relief. It has thrown away $160 billion over that period that should have been spent on infrastructure.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: You are just making that up.

The Hon. IAN WEST: Tally up the figures over the past 11 years. It has thrown away more in giveaways than, I was going to say, America has spent on the war in Iraq, but that is—

The Hon. Rick Colless: It is not right, is it?

The Hon. IAN WEST: That is not right. The Americans have spent more on the war in Iraq. Actually, over that period they have spent more than a thousand billion.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: How much is it?

The Hon. IAN WEST: I do not know the exact figure, but I can tell you that it is quite enormous. Those well-known experts in that haven of socialism Macquarie Bank went a step further and declared that Canberra's funding of State budgets is as low as it has been in three decades. The final Federal budget outcome shows also that the goods and services tax has made very little difference in the income of the States, despite promises of windfall gains. In 2007-08 the returns to State governments were marginally more—most States were equal to or less—than the amount of income they received before the goods and service tax was introduced.

Figures in February reveal that of the $14.3 billion the people of New South Wales will pay in goods and services tax in 2007-08, they will receive back only four out of every five dollars. To put it another way, Queensland will receive $2,013 per person in goods and services tax while New South Wales will receive $1,723 per person. The bad news from the Federal Government's credentials continues and goes on and on. Not only has the Federal Government's funding of the States dried up; the States have been expected to take up a greater burden in investing in infrastructure, especially in health. For example, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Commonwealth's share of spending on public hospitals fell from 45 per cent to 41 per cent over the past decade while the contribution from the States and territories rose to 51 per cent. According to figures released in August the Commonwealth Government share of funding to New South Wales hospitals has fallen from 50 per cent in 2000 to 45 per cent in 2007.

The figures reveal that in 2000 funding from the Federal Government was 50 per cent of the money spent in New South Wales on hospitals. In 2007, that funding had decreased to 45 per cent. State governments have had to pick up Federal Government shortfalls in funding. The Federal Government keeps hoarding surpluses under the bed and then shouting its mates at the pub. It is giving money in tax cuts while hoarding 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3165

surpluses under the bed. Effectively the Federal Government is short-changing the people of New South Wales by more than $330 million a year.

The Federal Treasurer sees himself as many things: a liberator of repressed businessmen, a stand-up comedian, and, as I noticed in a newspaper earlier this year, Rocky Balboa. But his most delusional claim is that of superior economic manager. If an ordinary person adopted the Costello skills of economic management, they would not take out a loan to buy a house but would live in a tent, if their teeth were falling apart they would refuse to see a dentist, if they were having a heart attack they would refuse to go to a hospital, they would not waste their time and savings on education or books, but would stuff all their money in a mattress which occasionally they would raid to buy a few beers down the pub—or to buy an election or two.

With Costello at the helm, it is a wonder that New South Wales manages to function at all. In contrast, the Iemma Government's running of the State generally is grounded in stronger economic principles than have ever even been thought of by the Federal Government. The Iemma Government knows that productivity gains are made by investment in skills and infrastructure, and the New South Wales 2007-08 budget reflects that. The Iemma Government does not rely on importing skilled people on 457 visas: rather, it invests in skills and training in New South Wales, Australia. In stark contrast, the Federal Government's misguided approach to boosting productivity, according to its propaganda anyway, has been to introduce its regressive workplace laws. [Time expired.]

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [2.52 p.m.]: The 2007-08 New South Wales budget demonstrates the very reason why Labor was returned at the last State election in March. Labor has, and can, deliver the strong financial management needed to support jobs and economic growth. The voters of New South Wales also recognise that it is Labor that has delivered improved services and better infrastructure through its sound fiscal management of the State's budget. This means that in 2007-08 the Government will have delivered 12 successive budget surpluses and kept New South Wales's triple-A credit rating. This effective management has allowed the Government to make significant investments in State public services and infrastructure— something that under State Coalition governments was inconceivable.

This budget invests a record $12.5 billion for capital works in 2007-08 and amounts to nearly $50 billion over the next four years. This represents $34 million invested in infrastructure every single day. This is in stark contrast to the poor investment in infrastructure by the Federal Government, committing only $5 billion nationwide in the last Federal budget. I will outline some of the fantastic commitments that the Government is delivering in the electorates that I look after. On the Far North Coast a total of $41 million has been allocated in this year's budget to be spent on roads in the Ballina electorate.

Significant investments mean safer roads for the local community. I note that most of the funds will be committed to upgrading the Pacific Highway, delivering on the Government's commitments to build dual carriageways from Brunswick Heads to Yelgun and planning for future improvements, including the Ballina bypass, and the Tintenbar to Ewingsdale and Woodburn to Ballina upgrades on the Pacific Highway. These significant investments are real results for improving the Pacific Highway—far better than the pie in the sky announcements made by the Federal Liberal Party.

Unlike the Federal Liberal Party, the Government is making a real difference by improving the vital Pacific Highway. If the Federal Government were serious about its commitment, it would provide funds, regardless of what the State could commit. Another local project that I know the community will be extremely pleased about is the Alstonville bypass. Planning and preconstruction is now under way for this important part of infrastructure.

Improving health care is extremely important. With record money being spent on Health, the State Labor Government is able to give the go-ahead for a new Byron shire central hospital for which $1.05 million has been earmarked to acquire land. When constructed, the hospital will boast 54 in-patient hospital beds, an emergency department, and specialist paediatric and community health services for the rapidly growing population. Also, $4.1 million will be spent on the Ballina hospital's rehabilitation unit. These projects will help to deliver first-class health services to the North Coast.

In Orange, more funds have been allocated to improve local roads as well as $20 million for major roads projects including bridge strengthening on the Mitchell Highway at Molong and the Orange Northern Distributor. Allocation of funds in this year's budget means that development of the new acute hospital at the Bloomfield Hospital site will continue. A total of $12.2 million will be provided for top-class health care services for the hardworking families of Orange and the Central West. 3166 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

Labor's commitment to providing world-class facilities to educate our young people means that Bletchington Public School will receive funding for upgrades, including a new school hall, a new school library, a special programs room, upgraded administration and staff facilities, and additional permanent classrooms. On the South Coast, $4.92 million has been provided for long-awaited upgrades to Ulladulla High School. Students at the school will benefit from the construction of additional classrooms. Milton Public School also received $1.06 million for new classrooms, a library, a hall, a canteen and a covered outdoor living area, a refurbished administration area, a new car park and a new games court.

Other funding commitments delivered in the budget include significant roads funding for the safety of drivers and passengers on the Princes Highway, which is another major road that the Government is committed to improving. Budget roads commitments for the South Coast include $20 million for the Nowra to Nerriga Road upgrades, $14.3 million for the safety upgrade for the Princes Highway from south Nowra to Jervis Bay Road, and $7.5 million for the Conjola Mountain realignment. Also, $60,000 will be spent on maintenance and repair of the Warden Head Lighthouse at Ulladulla. The Government is already committed to providing $200,000 for repairs to the Kiama Lighthouse.

The New South Wales Government helped the Box Built Packaging company to expand its Bomaderry factory and create 13 new jobs in the Shoalhaven. As well, the New South Wales Government has helped a Nowra avionics company, Partech Systems, to expand and deliver 22 new jobs in Nowra. Last, but not least, the Tweed: while unfortunately Labor did not retain the seat, the residents of the Tweed can still expect great results because this Labor Government governs for all. Election commitments that Labor made are being delivered with budget allocations to deliver funding to plan upgrades to Sexton Hill, and $6 million will be invested in major road work projects. These projects will make a real difference to improving safety and traffic flow.

Other projects include $3 million to continue the development of the Clinical Education and Research Institute including a new 30-bed ward, and the Tweed River High School will receive refurbishment of the administration area, the library and agricultural facilities. Banora Public School will receive funding to continue construction of a new hall. These local projects will make a real difference to local communities by improving local facilities and services. As well the State Government has allocated $259,000 to repair the Tweed River breakwater to ensure that we can continue to provide safe public access to the breakwater. These projects will create local jobs and improve the economic strength of the region.

I will also discuss the great work that the Government is doing in special education. I have had an interest in the special education field for a long time, not just because of my previous employment in the disability services area but because the integration policies of having students with disabilities in mainstream schools have done a great deal to change attitudes in young people toward students who have disabilities. More than 33,000 students with disabilities access special education services in New South Wales public schools. The Iemma Government plans to invest $3.3 billion on special education, spending $922 million in this financial year alone.

Students with disabilities need specific support to give them opportunities to reach their potential. Many benefit from closer, individualised attention. This also helps teachers and staff to benefit from a safe workplace. In the last three years the Government has provided more than 730 additional teachers' aides who are targeted at students with special needs. In 2007 every special education class has support from a teacher's aide who is there to benefit the teacher and students. The Government is working to address the 16 recommendations made by the 2006 Auditor-General's report. The department has established three working groups under its special education advisory group to progress the work of the implementation of the Auditor-General's recommendations. These three groups are student assessment, professional learning and support, and service standards and personalised learning needs. The work is being undertaken in collaboration with key education, union and community groups.

The annual process of regional planning is undertaken to develop the best provision of special education services. It is important that we get the balance right and it is important that resources for students with disabilities are located in the areas that require them. That brings me to another matter. No federally funded places are available, either in open employment or in independent supported jobs for New South Wales students who go through and come out of the special education stream. This is a major problem because students coming out of special education classes are work ready. They have been given travel training and they know how to get around in the community. For at least the past eight years Federal Government funding has not been provided to meet the need for additional places to cater for the number of children coming out of intellectually moderate [IO] classes in New South Wales. A minimal number of places have been provided. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3167

We must remember that the needs and expectations of families with children and young people with disabilities are changing. They no longer expect their children to be poked away in a day activity centre where they do not actually get to do anything meaningful or rewarding, and they do not get to mix with people who do not have disabilities. As I said, the New South Wales education system is producing people who are ready to be trained to go into either open employment or independent supported jobs, but the places simply are not available. It is penny pinching for the sake of it, because it does not save the Federal Government any money. It does absolutely nothing; it does not save any money at all. It is a Federal Government responsibility.

If the Federal Government took notice of some of the qualitative reports it would realise that the money it puts into open and competitive employment and independent supported jobs is revenue neutral because people with disabilities who go into those jobs earn money, pay taxes, spend money and participate in society. The amount of money that is saved by their not being on Centrelink benefits, by their paying taxes and their being productive in the community, equals, if not exceeds, the amount of money the Federal Government must put in. It is not a matter of squawking, "Put your money where your mouth is." It is a Federal Government responsibility, and it is time the Federal Government stepped up and put the money in place. The only losers in the system at the moment are the young people with disabilities in New South Wales; we are doing the best thing for them through special education but the Federal Government is leaving them on the shelf. [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [3.02 p.m.]: The 2007-08 New South Wales State budget is a move in the right direction for our State. It recognises that there is a need to plan for our future, focuses on major infrastructure upgrades in areas such as education, health, emergency services and roads infrastructure for New South Wales, and meets key election commitments. In addition to capital works, our State will also benefit from a number of other initiatives, including tax cuts and the abolition of mortgage duty. In the coming year taxes will be cut by $343 million and by a massive $2.6 billion over the next four years. Record spending on services of $44.6 billion and an unprecedented $12.5 billion for capital works are contained in this year's budget. Today I will highlight several areas in the State budget, including small business initiatives and spending on education and emergency services.

It is pleasing to note that small businesses will benefit from a range of assistance measures put in place as part of the 2007-08 New South Wales State budget. About 645,000 small businesses in New South Wales make a large contribution to our communities and our State's economy. The New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring that the sector continues to grow, and the red tape review is a major part of the Government's $19.7 million small business initiatives. The small business regulation review, a sector-by-sector review of small business regulation, will continue in 2007-08, with the review of red tape in three industry sectors. It is important to the Iemma Government to support a business environment that generates jobs, investment and growth.

Further, the Iemma State Government has committed to providing small businesses with a full rebate for the cost of registering one work vehicle for every new apprentice hired—a tax cut worth $5 million over four years. A key election commitment, the vehicle registration rebate, will boost work and training opportunities for young people and help address the skills shortage that is being experienced not only in rural and regional New South Wales but throughout the State. Funding has also been provided to continue programs to support women business owners in New South Wales, including the highly successful mentor program, which is now entering its twelfth year, and home-based businesses and Aboriginal businesses.

Other small business initiatives include a statewide program of business seminars and specific programs tailored to stimulate small business growth. The budget also implements other revenue measures previously announced, including harmonising payroll tax administration in New South Wales and Victoria to reduce red tape. This initiative includes a payroll tax exemption for maternity and adoption leave payment, making it cheaper for employers to provide leave for new parents. The Government will also continue to fund the business advisory service, which offers free guidance to small business operators at 46 locations across the State. Despite the ongoing GST rip-off, since August 2005 the State tax burden in New South Wales has been reduced by an average of $85 million each year.

Spending on emergency services in the 2007-08 budget is $831 million—an increase of 8.7 per cent or $66 million over the past year. It is the Government's thirteenth record emergency services budget, and recognises the tireless work and dedication of members of the New South Wales Fire Brigades, the Rural Fire Service, State Emergency Services and the volunteer marine and rescue services. The Rural Fire Fighting fund is a record $198.6 million, and will provide more funding for our hardworking volunteers to ensure that they 3168 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

receive more tankers, upgraded stations and fire control centres, and more funding for bushfire prevention works. The fund includes $34.5 million allocated for bushfire tankers; $15 million for new and upgraded brigade stations and fire control centres, including the installation of water tanks; and $9.05 million for bushfire protection works.

In the Riverina-Murray region the Jerilderie Fire Station will undergo renovations totalling about $250,000, and works will continue on renovations at the Moama fire station with an allocation of $175,000 in this budget. It is expected that work at both stations will be completed in 2008. The State Emergency Services budget for 2007-08 is $51.5 million, and includes $1.7 million for rescue equipment, $542,000 for 20 new flood boats and $800,000 to help provide safe, reliable vehicles for volunteers. An increase of more than $500 million will see a total of $11.2 billion spent on education in the 2007-08 State budget. This year a record $617 million will be spent on the construction of new school and TAFE facilities throughout the State, including the commencement of 24 major new building projects in schools and 11 new major building projects in TAFE. These projects, together with a $256 million school and TAFE maintenance program, will further enhance opportunities for students.

Rural and regional New South Wales does not miss out, and schools will benefit from the expanded capital works program. For example, in the Murray-Darling electorate the major upgrade of Finley High School continues, and it has been allocated $1.996 million in the 2007-08 budget. The works totalling about $2.14 million include the construction of specialist woodwork and metalwork facilities and will consist of two workshops, two general learning spaces, a covered outdoor workshop and associated storage spaces, and the relocation of two games courts. Students, teachers and visitors at Kooringal High School in the Wagga Wagga electorate are also benefiting from the Iemma Government's commitment to improve educational facilities for rural and regional New South Wales. A major project to provide improved disabled access at the school and a new movement studio will be officially opened shortly. Improved disabled access has been provided through the construction of two new lifts and ramps linking upper walkways at Kooringal High School.

The new movement studio is eagerly awaited as a wide range of performance activities plays an important role in Kooringal High School's curriculum. The multipurpose studio will be equipped with a sprung floor and tiered seating for up to 250 people and will cater for dancing, theatre, music and production activities. It will also be equipped with theatre-style lighting and air cooling. This $3.53 million project has been great for the local community. Not only will it provide a new performing arts venue for students but it has also generated jobs for local businesses.

TAFE campuses throughout rural and regional New South Wales have also received a boost. Campuses at Bathurst, Griffith, Orange, Queanbeyan, Tamworth and Wagga Wagga are among those benefiting from ongoing works, including the construction of new facilities and learning centres, and upgrade works. Works at the Riverina institute's Wagga Wagga and Griffith campuses will provide students with training facilities that meet the needs of the local region. In Griffith the local community has welcomed the construction of a nursing and childcare studies centre at the local TAFE campus: People from the western Riverina who wish to study in these subjects will now have the opportunity to train closer to home. The 2007-08 budget allocates more than $1.6 million to this $3.97 million project. More than $3.87 million has been allocated in the 2007-08 budget for the continuing upgrading of plumbing, community services and general education facilities at the Riverina Institute of TAFE Wagga Wagga campus. [Time expired.]

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT (BREASTFEEDING) BILL 2007

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.13 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Breastfeeding) Bill removes any doubt that discrimination on the grounds of breastfeeding is unlawful sex discrimination. Australian women do not currently breastfeed at rates jointly recommended by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund. The protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding have substantial benefits for babies, their mothers and families, and the broader community. The Iemma Government 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3169

is determined to do all in its power to promote, protect and support breastfeeding. As other members have said, the proportion of mothers who initiate breastfeeding is quite high in New South Wales: close to 95 per cent. The number of babies who are still being breastfed at 3, 6 and 12 months has also increased over the past decade.

New South Wales mothers are doing well but they need as much support as possible to improve breastfeeding rates. Data shows that only slightly more than half of all infants were exclusively breastfed at three months, only slightly more than half were being breastfed at all at six months, and only slightly more than a quarter were being breastfed at all at 12 months. We know that virtually all women can breastfeed so long as they receive help if they experience difficulties. We also know that virtually all mothers will choose to breastfeed if they have appropriate support and accurate information from their families, communities and workplaces. But that is a very big "if". A number of factors can, and do, inhibit a woman's capacity to breastfeed in our society. I will place on record what the New South Wales breastfeeding policy is and what is being done as part of that policy. Following extensive consultation with key stakeholders in 2006 NSW Health adopted a new policy aimed specifically at at least maintaining the current proportion of infants who are ever breastfed, increasing the proportion of infants who are exclusively breastfed to six months, and increasing the duration of breastfeeding generally. The policy is based upon sound research into breastfeeding rates in New South Wales and effective interventions and strategies for promoting, protecting and supporting breastfeeding in the New South Wales context.

The policy also commits NSW Health to funding the Australian Breastfeeding Association to provide peer support services for breastfeeding mothers and to advise on the provision of breastfeeding-friendly workplaces; the statewide dissemination of a NSW Health consumer publication on introducing solids; revision of the Sydney South West Area Health Service "Caring for Infants" manual for statewide distribution to childcare centres; a multilingual consumer resource called "Breastfeeding: Best for Babies and Mothers" on the NSW Health website through the Multicultural Health Communication Service; a breastfeeding component targeting parents and health professionals on the new Healthy Kids website; collaboration with midwifery and child and family health nurse organisations to develop workforce competency standards and assessments of breastfeeding, and of course to ongoing analysis of, and reporting on, population breastfeeding rates in New South Wales in line with World Health Organization definitions.

During the debate Opposition members lauded the Federal Government's so-called commitment to supporting women to continue to breastfeed. It is a bit rich for them to talk about what great work the Howard Government has done on this issue when Federal Government policies such as the failure to introduce paid maternity leave and the introduction of WorkChoices actively undermine women's ability to get support in the workplace to continue breastfeeding. Women are concentrated in low-paid, low-skilled sectors of the labour market, often in part-time and casual jobs. These women, whose pay and conditions were previously determined by the old award system, are among the most vulnerable to the Howard Government's WorkChoices.

Just yesterday the Minister for Industrial Relations and the Minister for Women launched a report undertaken by the Inner City Legal Centre. The report analysed 220 cases of women's work-related cases handled by the State's network of community legal centres. The report found that employees have experienced reductions in pay—and many of them are already low-paid workers—less certainty about wage rates and pay rises, intensification of work, weakening of job security, less financial independence, less money for children and basic household costs, less representation and say at work and in the community, and poorer health and wellbeing. The Inner City Legal Centre also heard directly from women living the reality of WorkChoices. I will give two examples of the impact of these changes.

One client described how her employer asked her to sign an Australian workplace agreement that, first, changed her employment status from casual to part time; second, provided only three weeks annual leave; and, third, decreased her hourly rate of pay from $17.80 to $12.75. The client suffered enormous pressure from her employer to sign the Australia workplace agreement, and subsequently resigned. Another client, who had two years of loyal service and worked an average of 35 hours a week, informed her boss that she was pregnant. Her hours soon dropped to 20 hours a week. When she decided to leave her boss advised her that she was "retiring" two weeks earlier than she wanted, with "pregnancy" cited as the reason for her termination. Those women had little chance of receiving assistance to enable them to continue in their jobs let alone receiving support for breastfeeding their children.

Last week I was pleased to attend the Australian Breastfeeding Association's ceremony that gave accreditation to Parliament House as a breastfeeding-friendly workplace. Parliament now offers its workers lactation breaks, flexible work options and private areas in which all mothers who work in the building can 3170 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

breastfeed or express their breast milk. This is a positive step forward that offers leadership to other employers in this area. This bill furthers the work done by our predecessors 30 years ago when they originally enacted the Anti-Discrimination Act. The bill enhances the Act by ensuring that women who choose to breastfeed are protected from discrimination. As to the point raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon, I am advised that is unlikely that the bill will have a significant impact on the resources of the Anti-Discrimination Board.

In concluding the Government's response to this debate it is clear that a whole-of-community response is needed to address the declining breastfeeding rates that occur throughout the first year of life, and most especially during the few months after birth. Mothers are influenced by the extent to which breastfeeding is recognised as the norm at home, at work and in the community. This legislation is an important step in the right direction. It will encourage many women to continue breastfeeding and provide an incentive for employers and the community more broadly to give them the necessary support. The bill will be better for babies, better for mothers and better for the health and economic outcomes of this State. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

HOUSING AMENDMENT (COMMUNITY HOUSING PROVIDERS) BILL 2007

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.21 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Ian Macdonald: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Today I bring before this House a bill to amend the Housing Act 2001.

This Bill is about developing innovative strategies to deliver more housing to the people of this state.

The Iemma Government is committed to increasing social housing for those in need in NSW and one of the ways we want to do this is by growing the Community Housing sector.

One of the first things I did as Minister for Housing was to release a strategy to grow the sector from 13,000 to 30,000 homes over the next ten years.

We are committed to achieving this goal and it will be done in two ways;

• By transferring Housing NSW stock to the sector and;

• through debt equity partnerships

This Government has invested $50 million dollars in an Affordable Housing Innovations Fund which will be released through expressions of interest over the next three years.

It is through this multiplier effect that the Government gets the best and most effective use of its funds.

Under the first round of debt equity, a total of $3.4 million was allocated to two projects—one in Nowra and one in Artarmon.

24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3171

Acting alone the Government would only be able to deliver 12 properties.

Under this Debt Equity model it will be possible to develop around 40, 28 more than would have otherwise been possible.

I look forward to seeing many more of these affordable housing projects develop as funds are released from this investment by the Iemma Government.

This Bill will give the community housing sector the certainty they require to partner with other not for profit organisations, local government and the private sector on affordable housing projects.

The Iemma Government is committed to laying the foundations for a community housing sector that is diverse, responsive, viable, sustainable and capable of growing into the future.

This Bill will give legislative recognition to community housing providers by:

• Protecting the government's investment in community housing;

• protecting the interests of community housing tenants

• encouraging investment from the private sector; and

• Improving the capacity of the sector to deliver more housing to people in need in NSW.

There are a range of not-for-profit organisations that manage community housing in NSW.

These organisations—community housing providers—undertake all aspects of tenancy and property management.

Nick Sabel, the President of the NSW Federation of Housing Associations wrote to me last month and said:

"This legislation provides the assurance that all stakeholders will require, to participate in a significant expansion of the scope and role of not-for-profit community housing rental providers."

This Bill reiterates the Iemma Government's commitment to developing innovative strategies to increase affordable housing options for the people of NSW.

Despite an increase in demand for housing, the Howard Government have continued to withdraw support: during their time in office they have cut $1 billion dollars from our budget over the past three successive Commonwealth State Housing Agreements and Mal Brough's recent announcement indicates that States and Territories will be forced to stand alongside the private and non government sectors to tender for funding if the Howard Government are re-elected.

This means NSW could lose up to $300 million in funding for social housing each year.

It is now more essential than ever that we develop innovative strategies to do all that we can to maximise the housing available to support those in housing stress.

What do we mean by "housing stress"? We are talking about households on low to moderate incomes spending more than 30 per cent of their gross household income on housing payments.

When housing costs exceed this threshold, a household does not have sufficient remaining income to cover necessities such as food, health care, transport and education.

By "low to moderate income", I don't mean "middle class" and I'm not talking about "middle class welfare".

I'm talking about households earning less than $40,000 per annum as low income; and households earning less than $70,000 per annum as moderate income.

This Bill will provide a strong and robust legal framework through which Government can better regulate community housing providers and provide confidence to potential investors and partners to facilitate the growth of community housing.

The community housing sector in NSW is well placed to grow.

Community housing providers are able to attract funding and capital from sources other than Government.

They can achieve this through borrowings—or by entering partnerships with charitable bodies, local government or private developers.

Community housing providers have charitable tax status which gives them access to a number of tax exemptions meaning they can achieve significant savings if they become involved in the construction or development of new social housing projects.

These additional resources when combined with Government funding and assistance can generate significantly more dwellings than Government funding alone.

In addition to this, the locally based nature of providers means they have the ability to respond flexibly to the needs of tenants.

3172 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

This Government wants to see strong performance from the Community Housing sector so we know that tenants are getting the highest quality service.

Strong performance ensures that providers are accountable to the public for the Government funding they receive and it ensures Government-owned properties are well maintained and managed.

This Bill will help us to achieve this.

My Department has undertaken a series of consultations with the sector and other key stakeholders to ensure that this Bill meets their requirements and will create a flexible and responsive community housing sector balanced with regulatory regimes that provide confidence and security to the Government.

A series of amendments to the Housing Act 2001 are proposed.

The Bill introduces a registration system for community housing providers to be registered, an organisation must be able to demonstrate that it meets appropriate standards proportional to the size and scale of the organisation.

Registration under the Regulatory Code will be essential in order to receive Government assistance but it does not mean that registration will guarantee that organisations will automatically receive such assistance.

Secondly, this Bill establishes a Community Housing Registrar to oversee the regulation of the sector.

The Registrar will be an independent arbiter and will be appointed by me and subject to my direction.

The Registrar will initiate interventions where the Regulatory Code is breached, or where organisations fail to operate to the standards prescribed in the Code.

The Registrar will be able to take immediate action in the rare circumstance where there is an immediate and serious risk to community housing tenants or public assets.

Thirdly the Bill provides the legal underpinning necessary for intervention to occur.

The Bill introduces a system of interventions—so that the Registrar can step in to ensure problems are rectified.

If a provider cannot or will not address these concerns or their performance does not improve this Government will withdraw assistance and transfer their leases to another provider who can better manage them.

This Bill will mean that, in the future, community housing providers will be better placed to develop partnerships and relationships with other community groups and private investors to bring more resources into the social housing system, and assist more people in need.

This Bill enables the expansion of community housing by creating a regulatory environment that allows providers to undertake new and innovative funding and service delivery options while protecting tenants and protecting public investment.

I commend this Bill to the House.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [3.21 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the bill, which is designed to encourage potential private sector partnerships to construct affordable housing. It will recognise community housing as a form of social and affordable housing provision. The current Act recognises public housing only. This bill clearly demonstrates the State Labor Government's failure to provide affordable housing for families across New South Wales that are desperately seeking a home. In fact there is evidence that the waiting list for public housing in some areas has blown out to 14 years. I would like to illustrate the situation by restating a point made by my colleague in the lower House Mr Ray Williams, who said:

The best way to minimise the demand on community housing is to provide people with encouragement to purchase their own home. The best way for people to buy their own home is, first, to give them a job; then give them a job with real wages.

We were advised last week that unemployment figures have reached a 33-year low. This has been achieved because of the skilful management of the economy by John Howard and Peter Costello; they have brought the unemployment rate down to 4.2 per cent. Those who are determined to work can get a job in a economy made possible by the Howard-Costello Government. This rate will continue to fall with the return of the Howard Government after the next Federal election.

Another way of taking pressure off community housing is to make buying a house more affordable. We all know that it is never the right time to buy a house and that when you do try to buy a house you find you can never afford it. That was certainly my experience. Mine was a single-income family. I was in the army for many years, and as a consequence we lived in Commonwealth or State housing commission type houses. I think I had been married about 15 years before we were able to scrape together a deposit for a house—and that took sacrifice. So it is never the right time to buy a house. But eventually you have to make a commitment and you can only make that commitment if you have job security. Well, there are plenty of jobs around now and we can keep the economy growing. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3173

The Affordable Housing Steering Group report found that supply-side measures, such as increasing the availability of land to develop housing through residential land release, would in fact improve affordability. We know that the State Government has a monopoly on the supply of residential land and considerable control of redevelopment opportunities through planning policies. In other words, the Government releases residential land, increasing supply and lowering the cost, making housing more affordable and thereby taking pressure off community housing.

Community housing provides affordable rental housing to people on low to moderate incomes. It accommodates over 13,000 households across New South Wales. The majority of the housing provided is subsidised by government and is part of a broad social housing system that includes community housing, public housing and Aboriginal housing. However, housing associations are increasingly taking on a wider range of affordable housing services. Community housing provides a range of housing, from that which is affordable to moderate income households through to housing for people with very high needs, especially in partnership with a specialised support provider. Increasingly, community housing providers are working in partnership with support providers, local government, public housing providers and private sector partners. Some community housing organisations are very small. For example, some self-managed cooperatives manage only about six houses. Other community housing organisations are much larger, with the largest housing association managing over 1,500 houses. Over the next year or two a small number of housing associations will grow to manage between 2,000 and 3,000 tenancies.

There are three main types of community housing: housing associations, cooperatives and church-owned housing. Housing associations manage the vast majority of community housing tenancies, but the others play a crucial role in making community housing the vital and diverse sector that it is. Housing associations are specific professional not-for-profit housing providers. While they mainly manage rental housing, they may provide other services as well. Cooperative housing is subsidised by government, but is fully managed by the tenants themselves providing real control and ownership of their housing. Church-based agencies, the third category, have responded to need in their local communities and bring church resources to the table. In partnership with government, they have played an important role in providing local solutions.

In conclusion, I remind the House that the New South Wales Coalition in its 1999 State election policy advanced the cause of community housing quite strongly. It was not taken up by the Government at the time. But now it has been decided that the Coalition policy in 1999 was the right policy, and I congratulate the Government on finally adopting a policy advocated by the Coalition as far back as 1999. We advocated also for far greater asset provision and far more attention to be given to community housing. The Coalition advocated in that policy that major public housing estates should be gradually transformed into greater community housing models. That, of course, is the policy now being adopted by the State Government in assessing this great need, for which I thank it.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.27 p.m.]: The Greens support the bill, and we congratulate the new Minister for Housing, Matt Brown, on bringing it to the Parliament. I also thank the ministerial advisers and departmental staff for briefing me on the contents of the bill. The Greens believe that the bill is a significant step forward for New South Wales. It is, unfortunately, also very belated: other States and Territories are far more advanced in this regard than we are. I hope the bill is but the first step on a longer journey. The bill's significance is that, for the first time in New South Wales since the community housing program was initiated, a significant expansion of community housing will be facilitated by allowing access to debt financing arrangements and community housing providers will be permitted to rent to a range of tenants with varying income, thereby generating a surplus that may be used for future expansion. Moreover, it will create a regulatory regime ensuring that the interests of tenants and the public are protected.

The bill takes community housing out of the cul-de-sac in which mainstream public housing is trapped. There is nothing—I repeat, nothing—that stops the Department of Housing from redeveloping via debt financing the Bonnyrigg estate, for example, or any other estate, and increasing the housing stock and paying off the debt over time.

The department could do this by implementing a range of rent and sales policies; instead, it chooses to privatise most of the public land at Bonnyrigg. In the process it adds nothing to the State's social housing stock. It may even reduce it by 134 units, through yet another private-public partnership that gives a free kick to the property lobby. The Government's irrational aversion to debt prevents investment in physical and social infrastructure. So it chooses to do it all by deception, by sleight of hand, and all off budget. The Government proposes to allow community housing organisations to borrow against assets but will not do the same itself, despite its billions of dollars of assets and all the savings that result from economies of scale. 3174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

The Government's stance is not only nonsensical; it is also unforgivable because of the manner in which its policies work against the provision and expansion of social housing. The bill is overdue; it should have been introduced 15 or 20 years ago. The former Director General of Planning in South Australia, John Mant, reflected in a recent paper that when the community housing scheme was established there was a window of opportunity open to the New South Wales Government, but that window soon closed. The scheme's instigators were unable to persuade the Department of Housing to put the framework in place to allow expansion of the scheme. Hence, stock numbers of community housing have, like mainstream public housing, stagnated.

I am sure that many in the community housing sector are thrilled that, some years after the inquiry into community housing and many years after the program was started, another window of opportunity has now opened. The bill will allow the number of community housing households to increase from 13,000 to 30,000. Community housing organisations range from small cooperatives with a dozen members to larger housing associations that manage more than 2,000 home. Some organisations house specific groups, such as Aboriginal people, people with a disability, or people with a mental illness, and some are generalist.

The expansion will be achieved through provision to community housing organisations of 35-year leases on the properties they manage. This, coupled with payment of Commonwealth rent assistance to community housing tenants, which is paid in part to the housing association or cooperative in the form of rent, plus mixed income tenures, will provide an income stream against which associations can borrow. The bill does not rule out the transfer of title, which I understand occurs in other States, notably Victoria. The Greens would support transfer of title if caveats were in place, if tenants approved the transfer, preferably via a democratic ballot, and if a regulatory regime governed the process. Provided community housing remains not for profit, rents remain affordable and the sector operates under government regulation, title should be transferred to community housing organisations.

The Greens support also strong tenant representation on boards of management and the cooperative model whereby housing is totally managed by the tenants themselves. These days we hear a lot about affordable housing problems, and the major parties have finally discovered the issue. We hear also a lot about home ownership. But we do not hear about the need for affordable, secure, long-term rental accommodation. Currently a quarter of a million households are struggling to pay rent in the private rental market. They cannot afford to buy, and many do not wish to do so, given how far distant that accommodation may be from where they work. In Britain, Scandinavia and the Netherlands social housing is available to a range of people at a range of fair rents. In Britain's southeast quotas of affordable homes are reserved for essential service workers. There is nothing like that in New South Wales except for two very small projects: one in Thornleigh run by the Department of Housing and the other in Concord run by the City of Canada Bay Council.

As in Europe, social housing in all its forms could offer an alternative to essential service worker households. At present social housing does not do so because it is so tightly targeted. Community housing, which is not for profit and which can be rented to groups whose income ranges from very low to moderate, can offer affordable rental properties with security of tenure and can allow people to live closer to where they work. If we expand community housing we can house essential service workers. Within that category I include the worst paid employees such as childcare workers, those in clerical, warehousing and retail occupations, apprentices, hairdressers and the like, as well as nurses, teachers, students and older people—that is, a range of people on a range of incomes.

The bill is not about people on high incomes; tenure is still limited to those on up to 120 per cent of median incomes. Those tenants will provide rents that can be used to create a surplus and allow for maintenance and for reinvestment in housing for even more people. Over time it would cost the taxpayer very little, yet it would give people an alternative to the insecurity of the private rental market and the consequential excessive rent increases that many experience. The bill does everything for community housing that the broader social housing sector should also be doing if it were not for the limitations that the Government has placed on the Department of Housing.

The department concerns itself solely with social housing rather than with housing generally. The Department of Housing has been misnamed; it should more aptly be called the Department for Public Housing. The department's approach is equally blinkered. In a budget estimates hearing on Monday 15 October 2007, the Hon. Charlie Lynn asked the Minister for Housing:

What action has the department taken to assist lowly paid essential workers to live within a reasonable distance of high-cost residential areas?

24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3175

Minister Brown's response was:

In regard to making affordable housing available close to the city, the Government has implemented the Inner West Housing Strategy.

Unfortunately, the Minister's answer is somewhat misleading. Let us do a Kevin Rudd here, since we are in election mode, and answer our own questions. How should the Minister have replied? He should have said: Yes, we need to provide such housing, because these workers are essential for our society, towns and cities, and we value these workers. Next question: Are we providing such housing? And the answer should be: No, we're not. Next question: Why was the Minister's answer deficient? And the answer should be: Because he does not understand his own department's eligibility policy.

The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: Just as well we have you there, Sylvia.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: If the Hon. Tony Catanzariti wants to know why he does not understand his policy, it is very clear and I will explain it to him, because he obviously does not know what it is either. The department does not provide assistance to, in the words of the Hon. Charlie Lynn, "lowly paid essential workers living within a reasonable distance of high-cost residential areas". Workers are not eligible for social housing assistance, or for the RentStart program, or for the Commonwealth's rent assistance. Train guards, ambulance paramedics, garbage collectors, hairdressers, retain and clerical workers, bus drivers—workers on low to moderate wages—are not eligible for social housing tenure in New South Wales if their gross earnings exceed $410 a week. So they are not permitted to live in a Department of Housing property. They are not eligible because they earn more than the $410 a week cut-off point.

The Inner West Housing Strategy, which was referred to by the Minister, is a social housing redevelopment strategy to renew and reconfigure stock in the inner west for Department of Housing tenants. It is not aimed at key workers. I know of no new housing earmarked for essential workers. Let us not pretend that the department is doing anything at all for them. Chris Hartcher, the shadow Minister for Housing, alluded to the problem in a recent housing forum that he and I attended. His son, a police officer, wanted to return to Sydney, but has opted to stay in rural New South Wales because he simply cannot afford Sydney's house prices.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: He would be better off living in the country.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: That may be the case but, unfortunately, he would like to live in the city. Chris Hartcher's son is not alone in that regard. Drivers at the Waverley bus depot commute for two hours every day from the Central Coast to get to work. Gardeners working on the Waverley Oval commute for two hours from Sydney's for west. They are homeowners who have to get up at 5.00 a.m. to catch the train to the city. Workers who cannot stomach the travel and the times involved rent privately nearer to their work, but they have no expectation of ever being able to buy a house in the city and, of course, they encounter the pressures of increasing rents. For these key workers it is Hobson's choice: pay high rents and live close to work or try to buy a house or unit at seven times their wages and commute for hours every day. It is starkly indicative of the failure of housing policy in this country.

Community housing, however, has the potential to offer an alternative to these two unpalatable choices: cripplingly high rents or long commutes. The aversion to risk of the New South Wales Department of Housing is, however, another obstacle to the provision of not-for-profit housing. It is a quite illogical fear because with regulation and oversight the so-called risks are minimal. One has only to look at the situation overseas or even in Victoria to see how a not-for-profit housing sector can work. The mistaken attitude in New South Wales has retarded the growth and diversification of social housing for too long. Former Ministers and some officials within the State's Department of Housing prefer to carry on in a monolithic and highly bureaucratised way and have consistently refused to adopt the very sound suggestions that have come from housing activists, the community sector and academics about what could be done.

Since the 1980s the department has adopted a short-sighted strategy that creates and concentrates disadvantage, marginalises public housing, and locks the Government into a no-growth, no-diversity deficit scenario. The State Government has had other options. In fact, if it used its assets correctly and intervened with its own agencies, such as the Department of Housing and Landcom—and if it used debt—it could provide a spectrum of affordable housing that would produce a surplus and result in additional affordable housing for the people of New South Wales. It is possible, of course, that this Government does not want to impinge on the profits of its development sector mates and investor landlords by assisting people to escape from crippling mortgages and overpriced rents. 3176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

Although the Greens criticise the State Government for its lack of imagination and willpower, we condemn the Howard Government for its consistent de-funding, since 1996, of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. That is truly a disgrace. In the past 10 years funding for the agreement has been slashed by 30 per cent. We know what the Howard Government means by housing policy: tax bribes and a focus solely on home ownership. The Howard Government likes to ignore the 30 per cent of Australians who rent and it forgets altogether the 5 per cent who live in public housing. Both major parties support the Federal taxation policies that have contributed to the housing crisis we now have. Negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions have fanned rampant speculation in residential real estate and have resulted in substantial increases in the price of housing and upward pressures on rents. Much of the so-called wealth that has been generated by these policies is illusory and built on a mountain of debt. Moreover, it has been a significant contributor to intergenerational inequity.

We have seen four Ministers for Housing in this State in about as many years. I hope that the current Minister will stick with the portfolio and seize the opportunity to introduce positive legislation such as this bill. I hope also that, if we see a change in the Federal Government and a new Federal Minister for Housing, the New South Wales Minister and department will work with that new Federal Minister to ensure that additional money is made available to New South Wales for new not-for-profit housing projects that will house ordinary Australians, including working people.

To conclude: I again congratulate the Government and the Minister on this bill. It is a noteworthy occasion because it enables the community housing sector to advance and it offers some hope to those working in the sector. Many workers said at the housing conference that was sponsored by Shelter, and which I attended several weeks ago, that they have become disillusioned because of the roadblocks and inertia of the Government. The Greens support the bill and encourage the Minister to assist the sector to reach the target of providing community housing for 30,000 households as quickly as possible. We urge the Minister to modernise the department, to go beyond the pilot project and ghetto mentality that has characterised the past, and to implement new initiatives. There will still be a huge deficit of affordable housing in New South Wales that governments at a State and Federal level must address by actively intervening and giving people an alternative—not-for-profit community-controlled housing being the exemplary model.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [3.46 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the Housing Amendment (Community Housing Providers) Bill, which recognises the role of community housing as a viable and diverse component of the New South Wales housing sector. The bill will provide for a new regulatory framework that focuses on managing risks and facilitating opportunities for community housing providers to grow. Earlier, the Hon. Charlie Lynn and Ms Sylvia Hale referred to the diversity of the community housing sector in New South Wales, the size of the organisations, and the types of housing that they provide. I concur with their comments.

Many years ago, as a community worker in a large Department of Housing estate, I worked with community housing and social housing providers. I acknowledge their good work and am aware of the huge demands that are placed, in particular, on social and community housing providers in New South Wales and in other parts of Australia. Many households are under stress. A range of options must be made available to assist in the provision of affordable housing to families and citizens of New South Wales. My experience of the community housing sector is similar to the experience of a representative of the Community Housing Federation of Australia who, at a recent conference, said:

We believe that the not-for-profit community housing sector can play a pivotal role in delivering low cost housing as well as community development. Community housing tenants have consistently recorded high satisfaction levels with their housing provision in national surveys. The wellbeing of tenants, as well as the increased ability to participate in community life that comes with having security of tenure, are key advantages of community housing.

There was considerable discussion at that conference about the actions that were necessary to expand the capacity of the community housing sector to meet ever-increasing demands for low-cost housing. Those issues were articulated and identified. Despite what the Hon. Charlie Lynn said earlier about land release being the main issue, it is not an issue that was identified. In the discussions that the community has had lately about housing affordability land release has not been identified as a main factor. It is a component but it is not the key component. The community housing sector identified such matters as taxation policy, adjustments to negative gearing and tax incentives to encourage super funds to invest in affordable housing. Those are the sorts of reforms that it wants to see. It also stated:

And at a Commonwealth and State level, Housing Ministers are committed to developing a Framework for National Action on Affordable Housing. A consistent theme expressed by speakers at this Congress has been the need for Commonwealth leadership 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3177

on housing to underpin actions and initiatives at the State and local level. This Framework will provide a national approach to funding and subsidies, to regulation and land use and to capacity building of the community housing sector.

We need leadership at Commonwealth level and we have not had it. Interest rates have increased to the point where more people than ever before are losing their homes. We can look at the numbers of people in the areas around southwest Sydney who are losing their homes because of Federal Government policies that have led to such huge interest rate increases. This is making housing unaffordable in this State. I am very pleased to be part of a Government that is actually doing something and is willing to put funds into this critical question of affordable and secure housing for families in New South Wales.

Earlier this year the Minister for Housing, Matt Brown, released a report with a target to increase the community housing sector from 13,000 to 30,000 homes. I will repeat that for the benefit of members opposite: community housing will be increased from 13,000 to 30,000 homes over the next 10 years. This bill helps us to achieve this target by providing a strong and robust legal framework through which government can better regulate community housing providers. This growth will be achieved through stock transfer programs and a debt to equity scheme wherein the Iemma Government will invest up to 60 per cent of a project and a registered community housing provider will provide the remaining funding through a combination of debt and equity. Providers will be encouraged also to bring private sector and other non-government partners to the table to make up the remaining 40 per cent. Under the first round of debt-equity a total of $3.4 million was allocated to two projects.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order. The Hon. Charlie Lynn was conversing across the back bar with a member of the public, which is not in accordance with the standing orders.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! I remind members—

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: On the point of order, Madam Deputy-President.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! The member should not argue.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: I am not arguing. I was conversing with a member of the public, something that Labor should do more often.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! It is against standing orders for members to converse with people in the public gallery.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: Under the first round of debt-equity a total of $3.4 million was allocated to two projects, one in Nowra and one in Artarmon.

[Interruption]

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! The Hon. Helen Westwood has the call.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: Not surprisingly, members opposite are just not interested in the facts. They are clearly not interested in this very critical issue of affordable housing for New South Wales residents. They are much more interested in throwing insults and playing games instead of focusing on issues of substance that really matter to people. The projects at Nowra and Artarmon are expected to yield 40 dwellings for affordable housing. Had the Government used the $3.4 million to buy or develop social housing, only 12 properties would have been delivered. This bill will provide confidence to potential investors and partners to facilitate the growth of community housing—a sector that is well placed to expand. Its arm's-length status from government provides significant benefits to facilitate growth.

Community housing providers are able to attract funding and capital from sources other than government, such as through borrowings or by entering into partnerships with charitable bodies, local government or private development partners. I know a number of local councils that will endorse this approach and that are keen to work in partnership with the private, non-government sector and other government sectors to provide affordable housing. Of course, community housing providers have charitable tax status and this gives them access also to a number of tax exemptions. Potentially this means significant savings could be achieved if they become involved in the construction or development of new social housing and affordable housing projects. 3178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

These additional resources, when combined with government funding and assistance, can generate significantly more dwellings than government funding alone. It is worth noting that whilst housing affordability continues to be of great concern, the population grows and the number of households in housing stress also increases. Despite this significant increase in demand for housing the Howard Government has continued to withdraw support during its time in office. It has cut $1 billion from our budget over the past three successive Commonwealth-State housing agreements. Mal Brough's recent announcement indicates that the States and Territories will be forced to stand alongside private and non-government sectors to tender for funding, if the Howard Government is re-elected. Of course, thankfully it will not be re-elected. If it is New South Wales could lose up to $300 million in funding each year for social housing.

Opposition members are silent on this issue. They do not have the courage to stand up to their mates in Canberra and act in the interests of New South Wales residents. Thankfully, community housing offers a way to maximise the amount of social and affordable housing available to those experiencing housing stress. It is worth noting also the comments of Ms Sylvia Hale regarding the Bonnyrigg project. She fails to recognise that large public housing estates have significant social issues. Over the years we have learnt that we need to provide affordable housing that mixes private, public and social housing. As someone who has worked in a large community housing estate and who has resided in Bankstown, which has significant public housing—Villawood being one of the early large public housing estates—I know that a lot has been learnt from experience.

We need diverse neighbourhoods of people with a range of resources to support each other in times of need. We do not need a magnification of negative social impact. We have learnt about the need to design our public housing estates with mix and balance. Ms Sylvia Hale should take another look at Bonnyrigg. She will realise that the decision at the time was sound and that it will have good social outcomes. In areas such as Bankstown the old public housing estates had very large blocks of land that are difficult for our older residents to maintain. Importantly, those estates now are being redeveloped and providing an increased number of better-designed dwellings on the sites that are far more environmentally sound than the older homes and much more comfortable for residents.

It is a smart way of using available public housing land. Therefore, the criticism by Ms Sylvia Hale is unfair. Community housing offers a way to maximise the amount of social affordable housing available to those in our community experiencing housing stress. In addition, locally based providers have the ability to respond flexibly to local community needs and opportunities. A well-regulated, high-performing community housing sector is well placed to undertake these types of activities into the future, which means the sector can easily expand. However, regulation is not just for providers who plan to undertake growth activities. Regulation will ensure that tenants receive the highest quality service and that providers are accountable to the public for the government funding they receive. It will also ensure that government-owned properties are well maintained and managed. I am certainly delighted to support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [4.00 p.m.]: In commenting on the Housing Amendment (Community Housing Providers) Bill 2007 I point out that I have spent 50 years of my life involved in different aspects of community housing ranging from my early years when I was associated with people in high-rise slums in Melbourne, where I worked helping people into various forms of public housing, to the first years of the twenty-first century. In 1988 I established Habitat for Humanity Australia, which has been successful in helping hundreds of Australian families to own their own homes without paying interest at all upon the home loans except for what is described as sweat equity. This intriguing and successful program has been responsible for more than one million homes being built around the globe.

The Housing Amendment (Community Housing Providers) Bill 2007 goes part of the way to meeting some of the needs of Australian families, particularly low-income families. It is about giving legislative recognition to community housing providers so they are recognised by the government, private and non-government sectors as a viable option for providing housing. It is about regulating the sector so that we can make sure we are doing three things: first, protecting the interests of current and future community housing tenants and users; second, protecting the Government's investment in community housing; and, third, encouraging potential investors from the private sector to join in housing development.

Experience has shown that, given a chance, low-income families might waste money on many other things in their lives, but if they are buying their own home and have an object of ownership repayments are always reliable. The bill is necessary because the Government wants to see this sector grow. I think this is an admission that the government sector alone cannot be successful in providing housing for people. The most 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3179

effective way to do that is by regulating the environment. Community housing providers are locally based and are very effective in providing housing services. Tenants increasingly have complex needs. Often people in low-income groups are mentally ill or elderly, or they may have disability or other issues. They do not need just a roof over their heads; they need all the support services as well.

Large government-owned community low-income State housing estates are not the answer. In fact, over the years we have seen that these become part of the problem. A regulated environment will encourage private sector investors. There will need to be more partnerships and therefore more houses and services for people in need. Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, the States with the greatest level of community housing, each have legislation recognising community housing and defining the State's powers. In general I believe that the best way of helping low-income families is to ensure employment, thereby enabling renters to become homeowners. But they need support and this bill helps them. It is hoped that some 30,000 families will benefit from this legislation.

The legislation supports the vision, target and direction set out in the new strategy for growth and sustainability in the community housing sector over the next five years—New South Wales Planning for the Future: Community Housing. It also demonstrates the Government's commitment to housing affordability, which is identified as a priority under the State Plan. The Minister for Housing, Matt Brown, has set a target to increase the community housing sector from 13,000 to 30,000 homes over the next 10 years. That does not solve the problems of some one-quarter of a million people in Australia who find mortgages and rents too high, but it will help those who are determined to help themselves.

The bill recognises the role of community housing as a viable and diverse component of the New South Wales social housing sector. Community housing offers secure low-cost housing to people on low-to-moderate incomes or people with special needs. In New South Wales there is a range of not-for-profit organisations that manage community housing of behalf of the Government. As a matter of fact, for many years I led the work of the Wesley Central Mission. I acknowledge the Department of Housing and the excellent way in which it has provided government houses to welfare organisations such as the Wesley Mission. Under that arrangement staff are placed into one of the houses so that there is on-the-spot support for those who take low-cost leases. Charitable organisations or community housing providers undertake all aspects of the tenancy and property management. One of the directors of the department once said to me:

We are good at providing housing stock, but we are not good at handling the problems of people who live in them. In your sector, you are good at handling the problems people have and, given the opportunity of getting the housing stock, you can make a good decision that benefits us all.

The department is very happy to have some oversight of the people who are in the properties. The property renters or owners have some oversight to help them with their other problems, and you as a charity feel that you are benefiting society as a whole. It is a win-win-win situation.

In my experience this helps low-income families to avoid long travel times from remote outer areas to their place of work. It also can help low-income families from being locked into high-cost rent areas that use up all their available income. The changes proposed under this arrangement will provide a strong and robust legal framework through which governments can better regulate community housing providers and provide confidence to facilitate the growth of community housing. The bill will facilitate expansion of the sector by creating an environment that will enable some providers to develop new and innovative funding models by attracting significant levels of non-government and private sector investment in community housing. The regulatory framework will also ensure that tenants receive high-quality services, and that government assets are well maintained and managed.

Under the legislation, registered community housing providers will be eligible to receive a range of government assistance. To become registered organisations will need to meet key performance standards set out in a regulatory code. The legislation also provides for staged intervention in the event that a provider experiences problems. I believe that these particular issues are extremely important. I am glad that the bill recognises that the Government is not just a provider of finance but is also expecting results. In my experience, it is not only what one expects—but also what one inspects. I am all in favour of legislation that enables intervention by those who are providers. The regulatory code for registered community housing providers is currently being developed for adoption as a regulation under the Act.

The regulatory code will focus on managing risks and facilitating opportunities for community housing providers. The details of the regulatory code will be developed in consultation with key stakeholders and, 3180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

according to the Minister's statement, will be proportionate to the risks involved as well as sufficiently flexible to support small speciality organisations and large organisations undertaking development activities. I will be quite concerned to ensure that that happens. I will be keeping my eye on that aspect in the future.

The statutory recognition and regulation of the community housing sector has been widely advocated over many years by stakeholders and those who have been involved in providing housing for low-income families in particular. The Christian Democratic Party supports the community housing sector. The bill has been developed following extensive consultation with community housing organisations. The introduction of the bill fulfils a commitment in the Government's response to a very important Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues report on community housing. A key recommendation of the standing committee's report on community housing in 2003, chaired by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, is the introduction of legislation to regulate and recognise community housing to support the ongoing development of community housing in New South Wales. This bill represents partial fulfilment of the standing committee's recommendations.

Work is currently being undertaken at the national level by all State and Territory governments to align regulatory frameworks for community housing providers undertaking growth and development activities. This national work forms part of the broader commitment that housing, planning and local government Ministers will develop a framework for national action on affordable housing. This work aims to support the emergence of a larger, more independent and more effective community housing sector by creating a national market that enables community housing organisations to undertake development activities across Australia. The proposed New South Wales regulation has been developed to sit alongside the national proposal and the regulatory systems of other jurisdictions.

Over the next three to five years all States and Territories, with the exception of the Northern Territory, which does not have a sector to speak of, have indicated that, subject to final ministerial approval, they will be introducing either statute-based or administratively based registration systems to support the growth of the community housing sector. This reflects consensus across all States and Territories about the need to have clear, transparent and effective systems in place to provide confidence to the private sector to facilitate greater borrowing and investment in affordable housing.

There will always be a need for governments to provide housing for low-income tenants, but the more we help provide affordable housing for low-income people the greater their sense of ownership, self worth and personal dignity. In the United Kingdom social housing provided by housing associations—if I remember correctly, it is more than a century since the sector was founded and established—is registered and regulated by the Housing Corporation, which also allocates public investment funds to housing associations and for-profit developers. The housing associations have seen a remarkable development in the past 10 years of their work. The system has widely been considered a cost-effective tool for facilitating investment in social housing.

A recent review by Professor Martin Cave in 2007 entitled "Every Tenant Matters: A Review of Social Housing Regulation of the Regulatory Arrangements" found that continued statute-based regulation was necessary to protect tenants, support sustainable communities in neighbourhoods with high concentrations of disadvantage and marginalisation, and protect government investments in social housing. Further, the Housing Corporation has found that the current statutory regulation framework has enabled an increase in affordable housing supply by several means. These means include enabling housing associations to leverage more than £35 billion of private investment into social housing. They also include creating a climate of lender confidence to achieve lower interest rates than those available to private sector developers.

Further, the means include facilitating the delivery of an investment program of £8 billion over the past 10 years, enabling the transfer of more than one million dwellings to housing associations from local government and ensuring that residents, taxpayers and lenders have not suffered as a consequence of organisational failure. The New South Wales Legislative Council's standing committee concluded that the current provisions for regulating community housing providers, which includes leasing and funding arrangements, administrative tools and other legislation, are piecemeal and inadequately targeted at the sector. The system, which was suitable for a small sector as it was formed 10 years ago, does not provide the framework to enable organisations to undertake new activities such as housing development and the management of private investment alongside public investment in housing opportunities.

The community housing sector has consistently stated that the current regulatory arrangements hamper its attempts to expand the range of services it delivers and to diversify its income streams. The proposed 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3181

regulation aims to enable organisations to undertake these new activities by focusing on managing the risks associated with the size and scale of an organisation's operation. The proposed regulatory regime has been developed with regard to regulatory best practice and current policy directions aimed at reducing red tape. Specifically with regard to reducing red tape, the approach builds on the existing and successful performance-based registration system administered by Housing New South Wales.

Housing New South Wales has indicated that it will build on approaches taken in other jurisdictions in Australia and in the United Kingdom, as well as best practice studies. I hope that that is the case. It does not attempt to duplicate existing legislation as contained in constituting Acts, for example, the Corporations Law. It is unlikely to increase the reporting requirements for community housing providers; in most circumstances they are likely to decrease. But, as with taxes and other forms of public service reports, I doubt that that will happen. It is confined to an area of the current regulatory framework that is inadequate, particularly providing a predictable path of intervention in the event of failure. However, overall this bill is welcomed. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.14 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The Housing Amendment (Community Housing Providers) Bill 2007 will amend the Housing Act 2001 to recognise, assist and regulate community housing organisations in New South Wales. The amendments will give legislative recognition to community housing providers, protect the interests of current and future community housing tenants and protect the Government's investment in community housing. The bill will encourage potential investors from the private sector, and improve the capacity of the sector to deliver high-quality community housing on an innovative and sustainable basis. This legislation supports the vision, target and directions set out in the strategy for growth and sustainability in the community housing sector released by the Minister for Housing, Matt Brown, earlier this year.

This strategy sets a target to double the sector over the next 10 years to 30,000 homes managed by community housing providers. This target demonstrates the Iemma Government's commitment to delivering new infrastructure and improved services to the people of New South Wales. I contrast that with the commitment of the Federal Government. The Howard Government has robbed this State of $1 billion over the past three successive Commonwealth-State housing agreements. That funding could have delivered 5,000 new homes to people in need across the State. A re-elected Howard Government has committed to ripping up the entire agreement and yanking $300 million from the New South Wales budget. John Howard's idea to rip out one-third of the New South Wales budget means that our department could be forced to sell about 10,000 of our homes to make up the financial shortfall over a five-year period. This will potentially affect more than 20,000 people who have relied on us to help them improve their quality of life.

We will no longer be able to help them. This reckless policy will also add to the affordable housing crisis as working families struggle to find rental accommodation in the private market, add more than 20,000 people to the housing register which we have worked so hard to keep low over the years; stop all purchases and construction of new homes for working families in need; and stop all maintenance for the lucky ones who will still have a roof over their heads. If Opposition members are concerned about waiting lists for social housing basically they should vote for Kevin Rudd, because I can assure the House that a re-elected Howard Government will mean that there will be a lot less social housing in this State. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment. 3182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL

Membership

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

Mr PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly desires to inform the Legislative Council that the following members of the Legislative Assembly have been appointed to serve as members of the Joint Select Committee on the Royal North Shore Hospital:

Government: Mr Daley, Dr McDonald, Ms Tebbutt

Opposition: Mrs Skinner

Independent: Mr Draper

Legislative Assembly RICHARD TORBAY 24 October 2007 Speaker

BAIL AMENDMENT BILL 2007

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 October 2007.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [4.19 p.m.]: The Bail Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Bail Act 1978, first, to create a presumption against bail in respect of serious firearms offences dealt with in sections 44A and 62 of the Firearms Act 1996. These provisions deal with offences against a licensed firearms dealer who allows a prescribed person to be involved in the firearms business, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment; and the offence of shortening a firearm or selling or possessing a firearm that has been shortened, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Secondly, the bill seeks to limit the number of applications in relation to bail that an accused person may make to a court. Thirdly, it seeks to make a statute law revision amendment that updates cross-references to provisions of the Crimes Act 1900, as amended by the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Gangs) Act 2006. The Opposition does not oppose the bill but we will seek to amend it in Committee by inserting new section 22A (6) to the effect that:

… a reference in this Section to a Court does not include a reference to an authorised Justice exercising the functions of a Court.

We note with interest the Attorney General's assertion that the proposed changes are a manifestation of the Government's commitment to delivering on pre-election promises. In recent months the Government has been under significant pressure to amend the bail laws rapidly following high-profile incidents, especially cases of rock throwing and offences committed while on bail. On 23 July the Premier promised a review of the Bail Act. The changes to the Act proposed in schedule 1 [3] fall outside the ambit of reforms promised at the election. The Opposition, notwithstanding that it does not oppose the bill, urges the Government to conduct a thorough review of the Bail Act, including the impact of the changes effected by this bill given that these changes are being made in the pressurised context of high-profile incidents that have created an impetus to expand and toughen reforms.

As to schedule 1 [1], we note the rationale for changing the Bail Act in relation to firearms offences in order to achieve consistency across the Act, particularly given the parallels between section 62 and section 36 offences. Under schedule 1 [3] there is no limit on the number of applications that an accused person may make to a court in relation to bail. These changes will apply only to the Local Court. Under the proposed amendment bail redeterminations will be limited to cases where, first, the accused did not have legal representation when the previous application was dealt with but subsequently obtained such representation and, secondly, when new facts or circumstances have arisen since the previous application that justify the making of another application.

The amendment seeks to introduce a third caveat so as not to take into account bail applications made in the presence of court registrars. This perception is afforded particular weight by the fact that some bail determinations are made by registrars in the Local Court who have a tendency to err on the side of caution and refuse bail when it might otherwise be granted by a magistrate. This means that when the matter comes before a magistrate, either the following day or a few days later, the accused is not entitled to make a bail application to the magistrate. This is why the Opposition is seeking to amend the bill, as I have foreshadowed. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3183

The Opposition is committed to easing the stress on victims of crime and their families. However, it is also dedicated to acknowledging and upholding the rights of accused persons in their dealings with the criminal justice system. To this end, although it does not oppose the bill, the Opposition cautions that disallowing bail appeals may inevitably erode the rights of the accused. The impact of the even tougher amendments on the tenuous remnants of the presumption of innocence will become increasingly disconcerting. Reducing the mechanisms for review and avenues for legitimate redress available to accused persons may give rise to the perception that their rights are not being upheld properly.

As the Attorney General observed, recent changes to the Bail Act have increased the prison population considerably. The proposed changes will exacerbate this trend, placing additional pressure on our already overstretched prison system. Of particular concern is the potential for an increase in the number of persons held in custody who are later found to be innocent, particularly given that the amendments are not limited in their application to persons accused of serious offences. Moreover, given that the proposed change allows for further applications from those who are unrepresented at the first hearing, it may encourage offenders to represent themselves in the first instance and seek legal advice for their reapplication, thus increasing the number of unrepresented defendants. Having noted those concerns, the Opposition also requests that, following passage of the bill, the Government review the effectiveness of the amendment in preventing "magistrate shopping", which the Attorney General cited as a primary rationale for making the proposed changes. For the reasons I have stated, the Opposition does not oppose the bill but it will seek to amend it by inserting new section 22A (6) to the effect that:

… a reference in this section to a Court does not include a reference to an authorised Justice.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [4.25 p.m.]: I will make some brief observations about this amending bill and perhaps some other amendments to the Bail Act that have been made in recent times. The Attorney General observed correctly in his second reading speech on the Bail Amendment Bill that the remand population has increased significantly—I think by about 20 per cent. Certain sections of our community are represented disproportionately in that population. As I understand it, Aboriginal people are refused bail at about twice the rate of those from other sections of the community. Members and the community at large must recognise that when we effect hurried changes to the law the impact on the disadvantaged in our society may be disproportionately great. That is my concern with legislation such as this.

Those who have practised in the law will know of people who were arrested on a Friday night and subsequently brought before a Bail Court where the authorised justice took a passing interest in any representations made on behalf of the accused. In truth, that authorised justice was perhaps motivated more by issues outside the Bail Act, such as how the magistrate would respond on Monday if he or she granted bail. I am always concerned that in those circumstances people who would otherwise be entitled to bail are held in custody for reasons more to do with the politics and the internal machinations of the Local Court than the proper administration of justice and, indeed, the Bail Act.

As the Hon. John Ajaka pointed out, those concerns have led to the Opposition's foreshadowed amendment. I anticipate that the Attorney General will refer the House to section 44 of the Bail Act and its possible implications in terms of the proposed amendment to section 22A. I am certainly concerned that section 22A is not impacted by section 44. While the Attorney General may believe section 44 allows a magistrate to review the decision of an authorised justice, I am concerned that section 22A, which seeks to limit a magistrate in reviewing or reconsidering the issue of bail, may override the implications of section 44.

The proposed amendment at the very least clears up that concern, and it does no harm, if the Attorney General's submission is otherwise correct. These amendments to the Bail Act are being made in haste. I am not sure why we cannot have a thorough and detailed review of the Bail Act rather than a piecemeal approach. I am concerned that all sections of the community should have their rights and interests considered in this House. Victims of crime are entitled to be heard, as are members of the general community, but the disadvantaged, including those who are accused of crimes, are also entitled to have their interests considered when legislation comes before this House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.31 p.m.]: I congratulate the previous speaker, Mr Khan, for his comments on the need for a thorough and overall approach to reform the bail system rather than the piecemeal approach of the current Attorney General, which is certainly disappointing. The Greens are very concerned about the Bail Amendment Bill. Slowly but surely the Labor Government—usually with most of the Opposition cheering from the sidelines—is turning bail laws in this State on their head. 3184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

I should not have to remind members that bail is not about pre-trial punishment. It is not a bauble that can be manipulated and done away with as the tabloids of the day demand. Bail reflects the fundamental principles of the rule of law: the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. Our forebears fought for those principles over the centuries and I believe we have a responsibility to preserve, maintain and enhance them where necessary, not do away with them. In granting bail, a court must weigh up the right of a person to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, against the demands of the State in ensuring public safety. I do not pretend that this balancing task is an easy one, but I am sure it becomes much more difficult when the Government intervenes and uses a blunt instrument to erode the right to bail, a blunt instrument that is designed more to grab headlines than protect the path of justice in New South Wales.

This bill proposes two main measures. Firstly, it imposes a limit on the number of bail applications that an offender may make in the lower courts. Secondly, it augments the firearms offences for which there is a presumption against bail under section 8B of the Bail Act. The Greens are opposed to the proposed amendments to sections 22 and 22A of the Bail Act to limit the number of bail applications that an offender may make in the Local Court. The bill provides that a person may proceed with a second bail hearing only if he or she had no legal representation for the first application or new facts or circumstances come to light.

I am concerned that the Government's reasoning for this bill is misleading. The Attorney General claims that these changes are necessary to guard against "unnecessary, repeated bail applications that serve only to inflict further anguish upon the victims". I can hear the Attorney General's voice, and I can imagine how he crafted those words himself. I have consulted with practitioners in the field on this issue and cannot help but think that the Attorney General's claims are greatly misleading. The lodging of a bail application does not mean that the victim has to come into court and relive the events of the crime. The judge must assess whether the defendant meets the bail criteria, and the Attorney General knows that. Further, I understand that it is rare for applicants to make repeated vexatious bail applications. In a recent interview with New Matilda, criminologist Chris Cunneen said:

Bail is usually refused to people who are poor, homeless or who have intellectual disabilities. Bail conditions generally require that you reside somewhere and these people often can't meet these conditions because they're homeless.

I really doubt whether such people go to and from the courthouse, hire lawyers and make repeated claims for bail. Given that it is very rare for repeated applications to be made and given that the backlog in our court system means that people on remand may be kept in jail for over a year, the Greens do not believe that it is justified to limit applicants to one attempt at bail.

The Greens are also opposed to the expansion of the presumption against bail for certain firearms offences. It is no secret that the Greens are strong advocates of gun control, but also very strong advocates of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. The crimes listed in this bill—shortening a firearm and meddling in firearms dealing businesses—are not benign offences. They are serious crimes that attract serious penalties. However, we have to remember that when people are charged with these offences they have not been found guilty. The Greens will not trample over the presumption for bail for these crimes. I have consulted with the Law Society on this bill. The Law Society has expressed particular concern about introducing a presumption against bail for a section 44A offence. Section 44A of the Firearms Act makes it an offence for a licensed firearms dealer to employ a prescribed person. To be successful, the Crown must prove that the accused person was aware of the prescribed person's status. The Law Society has provided this information:

The strength of the Crown case is an overriding consideration in the presumption against bail cases. It is not uncommon for the Crown Fact Sheet to appear to present a strong case. If there is to be a presumption against bail where a licensed firearms dealer is charged with employing a prescribed person, the bail application will become a quasi-committal in which the extent of the firearms dealer's knowledge of the status of the prescribed person will be extensively argued.

The Greens would question whether this is appropriate for a hearing on the issue of bail. It is unnecessary to further extend the presumption against bail in this bill. A court already has the power to deny bail to defendants who have committed the firearms offences in this bill. It is a matter of judicial discretion. If the police prosecutor can mount a half decent case, it is more than likely that bail will be refused—simple as that. I believe we all know that is how the courts operate. This is a fair system and there is no need to undermine, corrode and overturn it.

The Attorney General admitted in his agreement in principle speech that "New South Wales now has the toughest bail laws in Australia". Is that really something to be proud of, Mr Hatzistergos? Is that really making our community safer? The inmate population has dramatically increased due in no small part to 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3185

increasing numbers of people in jail on remand. The number of remand prisoners has increased by 20 per cent in the past three years alone. The New South Wales re-offending database on bail decisions shows that from 1995 to 2005 bail refusals in the District Court and the Supreme Court almost doubled, increasing from 25.6 per cent to 46.4 per cent. We are now building more jails to accommodate this swelling population. Yet despite this doubling, has crime halved? No.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It has decreased significantly.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the Attorney General's interjection, he argues that it has decreased significantly. They are his words. But the reality is that when you look at it across the board overall it has not decreased and let us remember the increase in prison numbers and the increase in the number of people held on remand.

Being held on remand can have catastrophic impacts on the lives of defendants and on their families. For the person denied bail, it can mean a wait in the brutalising environment of prison for more than a year. It can mean lost jobs, income and family support. It can mean that people actually lose their families, lose their networks. For families, it can mean loss of financial support and personal contact—and this is all before a person has had their day in court. This bill again indicates just how far the current Government has wandered from the values of compassion and justice. As criminologist Chris Cunneen said in a recent interview, what used to be a right to bail has now become a privilege, and it is a privilege only for a certain section of our society. I do not think that that is anything that this Attorney General could be proud of. The Greens do not support this bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.40 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Bail Amendment Bill. The object of the bill is to create a presumption against bail in respect of certain serious firearm offences, to limit the number of applications in relation to bail that may be made to a court by a person accused of an offence, and for statute law revision purposes. As honourable members have said, and as the Government has explained, the intention of the bill is mainly to assist witnesses who are aggravated by constant appeals for bail by various convicted persons. This is a compassionate bill, one that we support.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.41 p.m.]: It was not my original intention to speak on the Bail Amendment Bill 2007. Having listened to debate I find its implications are so horrendous that it demands that one not keep silent. One should put oneself in the situation of someone who is arrested, placed in totally unfamiliar situations, and who may be represented by an overworked, inexperienced and underresourced duty solicitor, or be not represented at all. Such a person finds himself in totally hostile surroundings, and what happens? Although the person may be entitled to speak to legal counsel it may be that the police do not make phone calls on his behalf or the police delay and procrastinate.

A journalist whose views I do not usually subscribe to, namely Miranda Devine, recently wrote about one such example. A fellow was arrested, held without recourse to legal representation and denied bail for a considerable period. During the APEC Summit in Sydney in September people were arrested who usually do not come into contact with the legal system or who do not have a criminal history. Yet one gentleman was arrested on Saturday 8 September, was held, and was unable to contact any member of his family, because the police refused to do so for many hours. He was unable to contact a solicitor, although the police were given a solicitor's phone number. The police said, "We tried to ring these mobile phone numbers, but could not make any contact. No-one answered."

That is absolute nonsense! Everyone knows that a mobile phone records incoming calls. There was no record of police having attempted to phone the gentleman's immediate next of kin, who would have arranged for legal representation. So, what happened? In court on Sunday 9 September the police opposed bail and bail was refused. On Monday 10 September the matter went to court again and lo and behold the police did not oppose bail. That was a form of extra-judicial punishment, someone held in remand for longer than necessary, from Saturday to Monday. I will not even begin to talk about the circumstances under which the man was held, because they were pretty horrific too.

The man, who was held in remand from Saturday to Monday, effectively was punished; and lo and behold on the Monday the police did not oppose bail. That is not appropriate behaviour, and the Attorney General should not even attempt to apologise for it. If that behaviour becomes the norm, so that people who are refused bail on a first occasion will not have an opportunity to apply for bail on a second occasion, they will be stripped of their rights. A person who is subsequently found not guilty of a charge—a difficult task, because it is not easy to prepare a case within a remand centre—effectively will have been imprisoned for up to 12 months for a crime he or she did not commit. 3186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

I find that to be reprehensible. There is a presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty, after all the facts of the case have been adequately explored and the person has been properly represented. This bill does not observe that presumption. To use a phrase the Attorney General is so fond of, this bill will let them rot in jail. I find that to be so offensive.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: When did I say that?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: During the budget estimates hearing, that was one of the phrases that rolled off the Attorney's lips on a number of occasions. I do not see how in good conscience anyone could support the bill, which so undermines the fundamental presumption of innocence and condemns the homeless and the mentally ill—the most vulnerable in our community—to spend time in jail. The Government may say that jails are our new mental institutions, a new form of public housing, but that is not acceptable in this community.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: You are an absolute joke.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: The Hon. Greg Donnelly is a joke. He has no understanding of—

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I remind all members that they should not interject on the member with the call. Ms Sylvia Hale should ignore interjections.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: It is difficult to ignore interjections from people who have so little understanding of the basic principles of fairness and justice, of Christian mercy and behaviour, of the treatment of others that they are prepared to say that anyone who speaks against the bill should be ridiculed. I have absolute contempt for such people.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: The high and mighty Greens.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: It is not a question of the high and mighty. Some issues have such an impact on people's liberty and the way in which society should be organised that one should be prepared to speak out against them. Failing to do so means that we all suffer. For ordinary citizens such as those who may have participated in the APEC demonstrations, whose liberty will be undermined by these measures, this bill is the thin edge of the wedge—and I find it appalling.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [4.47 p.m.], in reply: I have listened very patiently to various members who have contributed to debate on the Bail Amendment Bill 2007. I respect the views of people who may disagree with me, but in response to the contributions by Ms Lee Rhiannon and Ms Sylvia Hale, which commenced with comments that they opposed the bill, I am at a loss to understand the specific basis upon which their objections were ventilated. I make it quite clear that I do not regard a decision in relation to bail as a preliminary determination of guilt, nor do I regard it as the commencement of punishment, as seemed to be implied.

The issue in bail determinations is one of ensuring, firstly, the integrity of the justice system so that the offender does not interfere with witnesses or evidence during the period before the matter can ultimately be determined and, secondly, safeguarding against the risk of flight. Significantly in that assessment, the more serious the crime the more lengthy is the likely period of imprisonment. Thus it stands to reason that the factors that lead to a balancing of discretion as to whether bail should be granted, and if it is to be granted on what conditions, come into play. That is what the bill is all about. If they read the bill, as opposed to ventilating spleen, they would see that the bill indicates that for a number of offences that people would regard as serious and would attract a lengthy period of imprisonment, the ordinary presumption should be against bail, unless of course that is displaced.

I do not find that offensive as it in no way prejudges guilt, and I do not regard it as somehow inflicting punishment from the first opportunity. It is simply going back to the principles that I enunciated earlier: first, safeguarding the justice system to ensure there is no interference with witnesses and no attempt to interfere with other evidence; and, second, ensuring there is no risk of flight. Ms Sylvia Hale professed to the House that she has had some legal training, so she might have an understanding of the Bail Act. It is about managing the risk associated with the fact that a charge has been laid, that it might have serious implications, and that it might ultimately result in a lengthy prison term. The risks associated with such a charge must be managed. The Bail Act manages the exercise of that discretion. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3187

The second aspect of the bill that Ms Sylvia Hale seemed to find offensive—indeed, other members of the Opposition were critical of it in their remarks—I will deal with in greater detail in Committee. However, I want to state now that the principle we should accept is that there should not be forum shopping. The Bail Act does not change; it stays the same. It does not matter who applies it, whether it is a police officer, a registrar, a magistrate, or the Supreme Court; the rules stay the same. The rules do not change or vary in the way they are applied by any of those who make the decisions. They make the decisions according to the principles that are set out in the Act.

We do not have a separate Bail Act for each of those officers. In that context I do not think it is unreasonable to say that the bill should contain some provisions that prevent forum shopping; in other words, every time a matter comes up before a court a fresh decision can be made on the same facts. Ms Sylvia Hale might not receive the kinds of letters that I receive from victims who are concerned about a person who might have been refused bail on one occasion and who can then make another application every time the matter comes back before the court. There can be several occasions, in the Local Court in particular, bearing in mind the processes that involve briefs being prepared, committals, and the various stages of the criminal justice process. I do not think it is unreasonable to state that a decision should be made, if that decision is erroneous, to provide an appeal mechanism, as still exists under these laws.

In the proper exercise of discretion new facts can come to light. Those sorts of changes to events can facilitate a review of a decision or, if necessary, an appeal. I do not think that is objectionable. For all the ranting and raving that we have heard I still do not understand what people find objectionable about this bill. They might object to the fact that some people are refused bail—people whom they believe should be granted bail automatically. That is not my decision; in the end it is the decision of the court or the person making that determination. There is a concept that someone should not have multiple goes on the same evidence. The proposals we put forward today relate to a presumption against bail for serious offences when there are increased risks to the justice system, as a result either of a non-appearance or of interference with evidence.

What is it that is so objectionable about those factors? Nothing in the Bail Act directs that in every case of a particular nature there must be a refusal of bail. Discretion is guided by presumptions and by the balancing factors in the legislation. Quite frankly, I found it surprising that someone who professes to be knowledgeable about these matters—I think Ms Sylvia Hale mentioned to us on one occasion that she has a law degree—ranted and raved in the way that she did and became so emotional about this issue. Such behaviour from a lawyer is not only surprising; it is also disgraceful as it impugns the integrity of judicial officers.

Before I conclude I will make one other comment. Many people would be aware that we have increased the availability of acting magistrates to make preliminary determinations of bail, in particular, at weekends so that early decisions can be made. Obviously there are some circumstances in which authorised justices make decisions in locations in which magistrates might not be available. We have increased the availability of the magistrates who will make those decisions, in particular at weekends, by using acting or retired magistrates. But that does not mean that the legislation as it stands at the moment does not allow a review by a magistrate of a registrar's decisions; the legislation facilitates that. As I said, we can deal with those issues in greater detail in Committee. I make those points to ensure that at the conclusion of my remarks in this debate everyone will be clear about the legislation they are voting for and that they are not sidetracked by the comments that were made, in particular, by Ms Sylvia Hale.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 29

Mr Ajaka Ms Griffin Ms Sharpe Mr Brown Mr Hatzistergos Mr Smith Mr Catanzariti Mr Khan Mr Tsang Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Mr Veitch Mr Colless Mr Mason-Cox Ms Voltz Mr Costa Reverend Dr Moyes Mr West Ms Cusack Reverend Nile Ms Westwood Ms Ficarra Ms Parker Tellers, Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Mr Donnelly Mr Gay Ms Robertson Mr Harwin 3188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

Noes, 4

Mr Cohen Dr Kaye Tellers, Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Committee set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL

Deputy Chair

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I inform the House that at a meeting of the Joint Select Committee on the Royal North Shore Hospital this day Mr Peter Draper, MP, was elected as Deputy Chair.

TRADE MEASUREMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2007

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.03 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Della Bosca: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

I am pleased to introduce the Trade Measurement Legislation Amendment Bill 2007.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Trade Measurement Act 1989 and the Trade Measurement Administration Act 1989 in line with amendments approved by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs for the Uniform Trade Measurement Legislation. The NSW Amendment Bill is based on the model amendment Act prepared by the lead jurisdiction for the Uniform Legislation, Queensland. It was the Queensland model Bill that was approved by the Ministerial Council and has subsequently been passed by the Queensland Parliament, as the Consumer Credit and Trade Measurement Amendment Act 2006 which was assented to on 2 May 2006.

Before explaining the relationship between the NSW Trade Measurement Legislation and the Uniform Legislation, I would like to outline the scope of the two NSW Acts I have just referred to.

The Trade Measurement Act applies to all measurements made for trade purposes and aims to promote fair trading and consumer protection in relation to transactions conducted by weight or measure. For example, the measurements may come from shop scales in the suburban supermarket or corner store, flow meters at petrol stations, liquor dispensers at the local club or pub and public weighbridges used to check the weight of an article, for example, of a truckload of soil supplied by a trader to a consumer.

The Act's coverage includes the approval, use and inspection of measuring instruments used for trade, requirements for the packaging and labelling of pre-packaged articles (for example, bottled or boxed articles on supermarket shelves) and a licensing system for businesses that service and certify measuring instruments or operate public weighbridges.

The Trade Measurement Administration Act provides for the administrative arrangements required under the trade measurement legislation and includes dealing with the employment and authority of Government trade measurement inspectors, the setting of fees and charges for licensees who undertake certification of measuring instruments for their owners and the proceedings for offences against the legislation.

Returning to the connection between the Uniform Legislation and the NSW Trade Measurement Legislation, both are subject to the Uniform Trade Measurement Agreement, which was signed in 1990, by the NSW Government, most of the other State and Territory Governments and the Commonwealth, to enact the Uniform Legislation.

24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3189

The Agreement established the legislative and administrative framework under which the Ministerial Council considers and approves amendments to the model Uniform Legislation which applies in the participating jurisdictions.

The proposed amendments in this Bill have arisen from a review of the Uniform Legislation carried out by the Trade Measurement Advisory Committee. That Committee was formed by the Ministerial Council in 1995 and one of its functions is the ongoing review of the Uniform Legislation. The Committee is made up of the trade measurement managers and representatives of each of the participating jurisdictions and includes representation from New South Wales.

Collectively, the Bill amendments are known by the Trade Measurement Advisory Committee as the "batch two" amendments, to distinguish them from an earlier "batch one" set of amendments to the Uniform Legislation which where approved by the Ministerial Council and assented to in NSW on 4 April 2001.

The current amendment proposals in this Bill are prepared by the Trade Measurement Advisory Committee and the Parliamentary Counsel's Committee. They are mostly of a technical or minor nature to improve the administration of the Uniform Legislation by clarifying its intent or covering identified deficiencies. Several of the proposed amendments will also improve consumer protection, for example the "sale of firewood by volume" provisions.

To assist Members of this House, I would now like to provide an overview of the proposed amendments in the Bill, which can be thought of as comprising three main groups. Most of the Bill amendments relate to the Trade Measurement Act. Two amendments affect the Trade Measurement Administration Act which I will identify separately.

The first group of Bill amendments concern licensing arrangements for public weighbridge and servicing licensees.

Currently under the Act, the owner of a public weighbridge, or a measuring instrument service and certification business, is required to be licensed. The Bill seeks to clarify the following arrangements for these licensees who have chosen to structure their business as a partnership, so that all licensees are treated the same, irrespective of whether they are structured as a sole trader, incorporated body or partnership:

• clarification that all the partner names must appear on the partnership licence and that each partner must comply with the trade measurement legislative requirements,

• clarification that the grounds for refusing a licence apply to each member of the partnership which has applied for a licence,

• provision to enable a partnership to change the names on the licence due to a change in partnership membership,

• clarification of when changes to partnership membership come into effect, and

• clarification that disciplinary action applies to the partnership, if the grounds for disciplinary action exist in relation to anyone partner.

The Bill clarifies that a servicing licensee may apply to the licensing authority, being the Office of Fair Trading in New South Wales, for an amendment to one of the licence conditions. For example, licensees may have a condition on their licence that restricts the classes of measuring instruments they may certify, because they have not completed the relevant training. Following completion of the training, this Bill amendment makes it clear that licensees can apply to have that condition removed from the licence.

A number of the Bill amendments will improve the administration of public weighbridge licensing under the Act, so that a user of the weighbridge can readily determine that it is correctly licensed. The amendments will also reduce the paperwork for public weighbridge owners. These Bill amendments include:

• licensing the individual public weighbridge rather than the owner of the weighbridge to help make sure that each weighbridge meets the requirements under the legislation,

• the introduction of a "weighbridge suitability Statement" and the circumstances under which the Statement will continue to be in force, which rolls into one document the Statement and the licence for the weighbridge,

• setting out the procedure for handling a public weighbridge which is no longer suitable for use as a public weighbridge, for example, because it now contravenes the legislative weighbridge operational requirements, the handling procedure includes the option for written notification of the owner about the problem and the opportunity to reply to the administering authority.

• provision for the surrender of a public weighbridge licence where the weighbridge has been moved,

• provision for regulation making powers and transitional arrangements for the introduction of the proposed suitability Statement, and

• in the Administration Act, to provide for the fee arrangements such as a fee for amending the suitability Statement.

The second group of Bill amendments mainly concern the improvement of consumer protection under the Uniform Legislation in relation to the "sale of firewood by volume" and clarification of who the incorrect measurement and price calculation provisions apply to.

The Bill introduces amendments which will apply to the sale of firewood by volume, for example, where a consumer orders so many cubic metres of firewood from a supplier. Currently, it can be difficult to resolve disputes between consumers and traders 3190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

over the volume of firewood supplied, as the Act does not define firewood or provide a test for determining the volume supplied. The proposed amendments aim to remedy these deficiencies. For example, a firewood trader who States he is supplying two cubic metres of firewood to a consumer will need to ensure that the quantity supplied is at least the volume worked out using the dimensions of a stack of firewood which has as few gaps as possible.

This does not mean that the trader needs to stack and measure each delivery of firewood to determine its volume. However, the trader will need to develop some system or "rule of thumb" that ensures that the correct volume is delivered to consumers. This might involve, for example, the trader doing a once only determination of the volume of wood he can put in the back of his delivery truck.

These Bill provisions do not apply to firewood sold by "weight" or "by the load" and traders may continue to supply firewood by these means if they are acceptable to the consumer. However, if the trader indicates on the consumer's receipt that he has supplied two cubic metres of firewood, these provisions provide a method to check the volume Statement, in the event that it is disputed by the consumer.

This proposal will also provide a "level playing field" for long term firewood suppliers and the "fly-by-night" operators, as both will be subject to the same requirements.

Another reform in the Bill is the replacement of the current provisions of the Act concerning incorrect measurement and price calculation of an article. These will be replaced with a form of words which clarifies when a person using a measuring instrument is guilty of an offence for misleading another person about the measurement and price calculation of an article. The proposed new provisions make it clear that it does not matter whether the person using the measuring instrument is going to sell the article or whether the article will be sold by another person· at any time following the measurement of the article.

For the sale of the article, a person commits an offence if, because of the person's measurement of the article:

• any party to the sale is misled as to the measurement of the article or the calculation of the article's price that results in the party's detriment, or

• the price paid or required to be paid is not the price correctly determined by reference to the correct measurement of the article and as a result any party to the sale suffers or would suffer detriment.

The Bill amendment makes it clear that the penalty only arises where a party or parties suffer or would suffer some detriment, for example, a consumer being charged more for an article than they were going to receive.

The following example illustrates an application of these provisions. A consumer may agree to purchase a truckload of topsoil from a supplier and pay for it by the tonne, based on the measurement of the topsoil's weight. The supplier could use a public weighbridge to measure the weight of the topsoil and calculate the price accordingly. In the event that the public weighbridge operator did not correctly weigh the load of soil, the operator would have committed an offence under the provision.

The third group of Bill amendments concern definitions under the Act and other minor or technical amendments to improve its administration.

The Bill amends several definitions under the Act including the following ones:

• "pack" is amended to clarify who is responsible for making sure that a package complies with the pre-packaged article requirements of the legislation;

• "use" is amended to make it clear who is responsible for meeting the requirements in relation to the use of a measuring instrument, usually it will be the owner of the instrument and not an employee;

• "class 4 measuring instrument" is amended to clarify that the instrument's measurement scale and class 4 identification symbol accord with the legislative requirements. Class 4 instruments are useful for weighing relatively low value goods per unit of weight such as sand or soil; and

• "sell" is amended to enlarge the definition to include "anything else that is a sale" which is in addition to the current definitions which include "agree to sell" and "offer or expose for the purpose of selling".

Other minor or technical amendments covered by the Bill include:

• clarifying the circumstances where a person will not be prosecuted, for example, if they are complying with a notice issued under the Act to rectify a non-compliant measuring instrument,

• clarifying that a class 4 measuring instrument, which includes compliant freight scales, may be used to weigh a variety of freight 8 containers or articles to determine the applicable freight or transport charges, and

• allowing Government licensing authority decisions to be appealed, for example, a decision made by an authority about an application to amend a condition on a licence issued under the Act.

In relation to consultation about the amendments, stakeholders have been consulted through the release of consultation papers and through direct discussions with industry representatives. I am advised that stakeholders either support the proposed amendments or have no concern with them.

It is proposed that the Bill amendments will commence in NSW on a date to be proclaimed. This will allow for associated amendments to the Regulations to be made. It will also enable stakeholders including instrument owners, certifiers, public 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3191

weighbridge operators and Government inspectors to be provided with updated information about the implementation of the amendments.

The amendments contained in this Bill will enable the Government to continue its role in the provision of high quality trade measurement services to the people of New South Wales.

The passage of the Bill through Parliament will also enable the Government to partially fulfil an element of the Council of Australian Governments' agreement on the national trade measurement system. That element concerns the maintenance of the necessary resources for the administration of trade measurement during the transition period to the Commonwealth national system.

I would now like to set out the main elements of the Council's agreement made on 13 April 2007 concerning the national system, as it points the way to the future provision of trade measurement services throughout Australia, including New South Wales. Council's April 2007 agreement, in relation to national trade measurement, comprised the following elements:

• agreement to the Commonwealth's offer to take full responsibility for the national trade measurement system including funding;

• noting the Commonwealth's commitment to ensure the maintenance of existing trade measurement service standards;

• a three year transition period for the transfer of responsibility for the administration of the national trade measurement system, with the Commonwealth administration commencing on 1 July 2010;

• consultation with New Zealand in developing the national legislation and administration to explore opportunities for greater harmonisation in trade measurement;

• the States and Territories agreement to maintain the necessary resources devoted to the administration of trade measurement during the transition period, including staffing and funding, to ensure continuity of service and maintenance of existing service standards; and

• Commonwealth, State and Territory officials working together to develop detailed transitional arrangements, including facilitating the transfer of resources where required, for the operation of the new national system.

While noting the future transfer of trade measurement administration to the Commonwealth, the Bill amendments will enable the Government to continue to provide for the fair and efficient measurement of traded goods for both consumers and businesses in New South Wales. I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [5.03 p.m.]: Australia's standards and conformance infrastructure operates without public fanfare and little media comment. Most Australians would be scarcely aware of its existence, let alone the fundamental role it plays by underpinning the operation of a modern economy and facilitating all our global trade arrangements. Our national infrastructure operates in three parts—measurement, standards and conformance. How important is this infrastructure? If it is operating efficiently, it enables our Australian economy to integrate with the global economy. It is the framework that makes all business and consumer transactions intelligible and reliable. It makes international trade possible. Our standards and compliance infrastructure is the essential component of a functioning market economy. Our States-based system of trade measurement regulation is governed by two New South Wales Acts—the Trade Measurement Act 1989 and the Trade Measurement Administration Act 1989. These Acts ought to have been repealed years ago, and State governance of trade measurement yielded to the Commonwealth.

I will tell honourable members why this should have happened, but in fact has not occurred, and why it will take until the year 2010 to achieve one of the most pressing and significant pieces of microeconomic reform that should have been enacted a decade ago. In her second reading speech the Minister described Australia's present system of uniform legislation governing trade measurement, which dates back to the 1990 Trade Measurement Agreement, which was signed between the States with the Commonwealth Government. In fact, the concept of uniformity dates back earlier than this, to the 1983 review of trade measurement by W. D. Scott and Company on behalf of the Commonwealth and State governments. This review sought to address industry concerns about a lack of uniformity between the States on measurement.

The inquiry recommended the Commonwealth enact national legislation to override the States, but this was rejected in favour of a uniform approach, with each State and Territory government passing mirror legislation. So everyone started having meetings but, as I am finding in a whole range of policy areas where the States have put their hands on their hearts and sworn solemn oaths to uniformity, what actually happens in practice falls well short of expectations raised when agreements are signed with such great fanfare and celebration. Uniformity, and the States failure to fulfil their promises, is at the heart of this story about trade measurement, and it equally applies to other fair trading areas such product safety, licensing and mutual recognition—which is an absolute farce, given that it is more than 17 years since it was promised. But those are matters for another day. 3192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

Basically reform on trade measurement was recognised and agreed in 1983 but nothing significant occurred until after 1988 when Nick Greiner was elected Premier of New South Wales. Members will recall that 1990 was a very significant year for Australian federalism, under the leadership of the States by the only Liberal Premier at the time, Nick Greiner, and of the Commonwealth by then Prime Minister Bob Hawke. These men were able to work together in the national interest. I acknowledge also that this was assisted by an engaged and intelligent attitude from other leaders, most notably Premiers Wayne Goss, Carmen Lawrence and Joan Kirner, all of who played a crucial role in making the theory of cooperation actually work in practice.

It was a very brief but bright period during which genuine vision and leadership was given to microeconomic reform. It coincided with Australia's worst recession in memory, and the pressure on governments to deliver reform was also a powerful motivating and uniting factor. The biggest outcome was development of a framework for reform through the creation of the Council of Australian Governments [COAG]. New agreements were reached and councils, including the Ministerial Council of Consumer Affairs Ministers, were established. This led to the establishment of intergovernmental committees including the Trade Measurement Advisory Committee, which was created to administer the reform process. One of the first initiatives of the COAG structure was that the Commonwealth, territories and States, with the exception of Western Australia, agreed in 1990 to enact model uniform trade measurement legislation. The agreement was a second attempt at uniformity after the 1983 attempt I referred to earlier with all the States working together to amend a model Act—the Queensland Trade Measurement Act 1990. For example, the technical provisions proposed in the bill today have been enacted already and tested in the Queensland Act.

This was as far as the reform process was able to progress. In 2007 we are functioning on a 1990 agreement that promised a framework for further reform, but in fact the process was cut short. This was because the remarkably productive partnership between Premier Greiner and Prime Minister Hawke ended when both men lost their leaderships in dramatic circumstances. The new Prime Minister Paul Keating was an avowed centralist who had been very critical of Bob Hawke's so-called "cuddling up to the States". The agenda for microeconomic reform continued through federally driven competition policy, but the Council of Australian Governments and ministerial council framework stagnated. In 1994 the Keating Government announced a landmark inquiry into Australia's standards and conformance infrastructure. The inquiry report, which was entitled "Linking Industry Globally" but better known as the Kean report, was delivered in March 1995.

The report argued that, of various components of our national standards and conformance infrastructure, it is trade measurement that forms the bedrock. It found there are four elements of a national measurement system: documentary standards or specifications, physical units of measurement and the practical physical standards that represent those units, legal measurement and measurement services in calibration, and testing laboratories. I quote the following from the Kean report, because it eloquently explains the profound importance of measurement to the national economy:

The two key functions are to establish and maintain physical standards of measurement and to provide for the uniform use of units of measurement, where measurement is used for a legal purpose (defined as trade, taxation or regulation). The national primary standards must be traceable to international standards if Australia is to be efficiently and accurately integrated with the world economy …. Measurement equipment that is used for legal purposes must be accurate for there to be confidence in trade and commerce, and in general legal matters. The equipment designs can be tested (pattern approval), and operational accuracy (calibration) to ensure that this is the case.

These functions are a critical element of total infrastructure. They are relied upon extensively in the standards and conformance of testing components and are the building blocks of design, engineering, production, construction and maintenance throughout the economy.

Inaccuracies in measurement and inconsistent delivery of these services can undermine the confidence of consumers and hamper the integration of the national economy. Traceability to international standards assists the integration of Australian firms with international markets.

The public nature of these functions means that the measurement functions are delivered by public bodies.

The Kean Report reviewed 162 submissions from all the stakeholders and identified principal areas of concern. The very first item was Australia's failure to achieve a uniform system of trade measurement. Concern was expressed about a lack of responsiveness and accountability in the standards writing process and a number of consequent problems, including the length of time taken to develop new standards, the development of standards for which there is no real need, the low rate of adoption of international standards, and the lack of rigour in establishing priorities. The Kean report noted "an urgent and growing need for improved coherence and strategic direction for the infrastructure to protect and further the national interest". Mr Kean commented:

The Committee was surprised to find that uniform trade measurement has still not been introduced nearly a century after Federation. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3193

Having listened to industry and documented the shortcomings of the State-based uniformity model, the Kean inquiry's fifth recommendation stated:

The Commonwealth assume full responsibility for trade measurement by amending the National Measurement Act to incorporate the principal elements of uniform trade Measurement legislation.

The Kean report was not proposing a revolution; it was proposing a coherent way of finetuning arrangements into a central authority at Commonwealth level so that the provisions in the uniform code would be simply transferred to the Commonwealth and a single authority would be able to administer it far more efficiently and with far greater certainty. One would imagine it was a fairly straightforward reform. Following the release of the Kean review the Australian Financial Review reported on 31 March 1995:

Australia's confusing and almost hidden system of technical standards has been uncovered in a key report to the Federal Government, with major implications for the way Australia does business internationally and domestically.

"Linking Industry Globally", a wide-ranging report into Australia's system of industrial standards, was released yesterday by the Minister for Small Business… The Committee which produced the report was chaired by former Boral Chief Executive Mr Bruce Kean.

The report found that much of the system was strong but lacked strategic direction which, according to Mr Kean, can only come from the Federal Government…. "The system is too inward looking and has been driven by technocrats," Mr Kean said…

One instance of the confusion is that Australia still lacks a uniform trade measurement system. Even though this was a power given to the Commonwealth under the Constitution, it has been shared with the States under various arrangements.

The 1995 Kean report was a thorough, credible review not only of trade measurement, as had occurred with the 1983 Scott report, but also of the entire system of Australia's standards and conformance infrastructure. It was a report that will never be repeated because it was so comprehensive and eminently logical. All the recommendations should have all been endorsed and adopted in 1995.

I have pieced together some of the story of why this did not happen. It is a salutary case study of how in the past decade, which has been marked by an unprecedented and uninterrupted reign of coast-to-coast State Labor governments, has seen microeconomic reform placed into an induced coma. This dominance of a single party at State level ought to have been a historic opportunity for reform, but instead it has been utterly squandered. As Mike Steketee wrote in the Australian a year ago:

… the co-operation that is supposed to be the hallmark of COAG is looking more and more like coagulation.

The only thing unusual about microeconomic reform of trade measurement is that in this case it shows some prospects of reaching an outcome that has been planned for 2010. Other reforms that achieved in-principle agreement at the Council of Australian Governments 17 years ago—I emphasise, 17 years ago—included mutual recognition of license qualifications and uniformity of Australia's 10 different schemes for occupational health and safety and workers compensation: yet these areas, which so bedevil industry with unnecessary cost and red tape, show absolutely no prospect of reaching any outcome at all.

At a political level during the Keating years, the Council of Australian Governments lost visibility, energy and innovation. However, the agenda for restructuring Australia's economy continued through the Commonwealth-driven package of national competition policy reforms endorsed at the 1995 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments—and trade measurement was certainly part of that mix. Following the release of the Kean report, the Council of Australian Governments endorsed the recommendations and referred trade measurement to the Council of Consumer Affairs Ministers, which is also known as MiCCA. The Ministers referred the issue to their bureaucrats who make up the Standing Committee of Officials of Consumer Affairs, or SCOCA. The Standing Committee of Officials of Consumer Affairs in turn recommended another committee be formed—the Trade Measurement Advisory Committee.

The Trade Measurement Advisory Committee recommended a consultant be appointed to conduct a national competition policy review of trade measurement in stages, starting with a scoping study. By the time this plan for a review was approved by the bureaucrats at the Standing Committee of Officials of Consumer Affairs, three years had elapsed and it was then November 1998. Another States-based committee was formed called the Trade Measurement Review Committee to oversee the staged review recommended by the Trade Measurement Advisory Committee. It included representatives from each State and Territory and the National Standards Commission, the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and Resources, and Queensland Treasury as observers. 3194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

In effect the States had taken the recommendations of the Kean report and the decision of the Council of Australian Governments and organised things so that they were overseeing a process that aimed to critically evaluate their own performance and potentially relieve them of some of their regulatory powers in the national interest. It would be a bit like delegating supervision of Higher School Certificate examinations to the parents of the students sitting the tests. It is just not a great look. It lacks the objectivity that we would expect of such a process.

One of the first things the States decided through the review committee was that a review would be conducted of all uniform legislation and that a public benefits test would be applied to determine which parts were restricting competition. This sounds very responsible, except already we can see how far things had drifted from the original 1995 idea that trade measurement is the constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth and the key issue was a lack of uniformity. Instead the States had changed the topic of discussion by diving into the detail of the uniform Act and debating the problem as a means of avoiding any suggestion of a transfer of their powers.

Economic Insights Pty Ltd completed stage one and a report, Scoping Study into the Restrictions on Competition of Trade Measurement Legislation—Final Report, was completed on 17 May 2000. The Ministerial Council of Consumer Affairs Ministers website declared the existing system to be in very good health in the following statement:

The outcome of the Stage 1 scoping study was that no further investigation was required of most of the trade measurement restrictions to competition. Most of the restrictions were generally justifiable and imposed few if any costs while potentially generating widespread and significant benefits.

The report makes detailed positive findings about the States-based uniform code, except in the case of prepacked goods in non-rigid containers and non-prepacked meat, which it said "warranted further investigation unless they were removed or relaxed". It was as though the Kean report had never happened. It was as if all the industries, all the submissions and all the concerns had never happened. The Ministers reviewed their own legislation and decided it was all pretty wonderful really.

The Ministerial Council's Review Committee then prepared another report responding to the consultants report. This had the very grand title of "Review Committee Report on the National Competition Policy Review of the Uniform Trade Measurement Legislation Stage 1 Consultants Scoping Study and Review Committee Responses and Recommendations."

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Good title!

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: It is straight out of Yes Minister. It took 18 months to prepare and it is dated December 2001. I was amused that such a grand title would be immediately followed by a disclaimer in small print, which reads:

The views expressed in this Report are the views of the Review Committee only and do not represent the views of State and Territory Governments.

It had taken six years, until December 2001, to reach that point, and somehow that disclaimer in the title of the report aptly illustrates how timid and pathetic this so-called reform process had become. Predictably, this report by a States-based committee endorsed everything positive the consultant had to say about the existing situation but disagreed that there was a need for more study of prepacked goods in rigid containers, saying "This restriction is being relaxed and the necessary legislative amendments are in train." On the issue of non-prepacked meat, the review committee decided that a public interest test could be conducted but, rather than allowing the consultant to do it, the committee would do the test itself.

Meanwhile, the Trade Measurement Advisory Committee was conducting its own technical reviews of uniform trade measurement legislation and drafting amendments for the States to consider. These have been enacted in two batches—the first batch, known as batch 1, came into force in New South Wales in 2001. The second batch, known as batch 2, began with a 2001 discussion paper released by the advisory committee. The discussion paper focused on the prepacked goods issue and linked in with eight other papers prepared by the committee on various issues including weighbridges. The bill before the House today is the outcome of the process that began in 2001, and its provisions are known as the batch 2 amendments. It certainly could not be argued that it was a speedy process—six years to get the batch 2 amendments into Parliament! If by this stage one is in any doubt as to whether the ministerial council and its bureaucrats, review committee, advisory 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3195

committees and consultants had totally lost the plot, I refer to page three of the 2001 discussion paper, which states:

You are also asked to comment on the implications that the requirements for firewood sales may have in terms of the National Competition Policy review of legislation. Under the Competition Principles Agreement signed by the States, Territories and the Commonwealth, it was agreed that existing legislation and proposed legislation would be reviewed in terms of its impact on competition in the relevant market …

I ask honourable members to think about what this means. Think about the big important Ministerial Consumer Affairs Council meetings in cities such as Melbourne and Adelaide—I believe the next meeting is due to be held in New Zealand. All these Ministers and their advisers, press secretaries and support staff will fly to Auckland, clear Customs, check into five-star hotels and assemble with great gravitas for the big important meeting being chaired by New Zealand. Then they will sit there and debate what test we should use to prescribe how people selling firewood should measure firewood if they are selling by volume.

This is the so-called power that the Labor States have fought so hard to preserve. Frankly, it is outrageous that consultants and committees of 10 Ministers spent seven years travelling to Adelaide, Auckland or Melbourne to work out what the official test should be for measuring firewood. Then it took six years to get it into this Parliament. That is how long the process has been. That is in the bill before the House today. That is not a hypothetical—it is actually in this bill. Item [3], section 3 (1), in schedule 1 specifies:

Firewood means any wood, including dockings, edgings, mill ends, offcuts and timber products, that:

(a) is intended for use as firewood, and (b) is in billets or lengths of not more than 2.4 m.

New section 25A, which is to be inserted after section 25, states:

25A Special provision for sale of firewood by volume

To apply section 23 to a sale of firewood by volume, the volume stated for the sale of the firewood (the stated volume) is taken to comply with that section if, when the firewood is stacked with as few gaps as practicable, the volume worked out using the stack's dimensions is at least the stated volume.

So there we have it! If you have ever encountered a very large and official Ministerial entourage on its way to a very important meeting and you wondered what on earth they were doing, you need wonder no more.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: There would be more than one bureaucrat in that woodpile.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Yes.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Why aren't they selling it by weight?

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I believe there are three ways of selling firewood: by volume, weight or trailer load. All of these meetings and discussion apply to only one method of measuring firewood, and that is by volume. At the meeting they decided that, basically, firewood should not be stacked loosely but it should have as few gaps as possible. And we needed 10 Ministers to make that decision to bring it back to the New South Wales Parliament so we could have this debate today. They are working hard to define what a piece of firewood is, and determine that firewood should not be stacked too loosely and therefore gaps in a stack of firewood should be as few as possible.

The Hon. Rick Colless: That is bureaucracy gone wild.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Yes. It has been 12 years of Labor hot air, few outcomes and no achievements with this type of legislation. Last year the Council of Australian Governments at its meeting on 10 February 2006 again requested that the Ministerial Council of Consumer Affairs Ministers develop a proposal for a national system of trade measurement that would rationalise the current system of eight different State and Federal jurisdictions and streamline cost recovery and certification of trade measurement instruments. The Premiers and the Prime Minister gave trade measurement priority status as a "regulatory hotspot" and agreed to take a more hands-on role for reform. I believe six regulatory hot spots that had been languishing for years were identified. This was great while it lasted, although I notice that the enthusiasm seems to have evaporated yet again now that all the State elections are over and the focus has moved on to a Federal campaign. 3196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

So again, to give effect to this second request by the Council of Australian Governments, the Ministerial Council of Consumer Affairs engaged yet another consultant, Booz Allen Hamilton and J. M. Bennett Consulting, to conduct the review phase and draft the report for consideration by the ministerial council. They prepared yet another discussion paper entitled "Review of the Trade Measurement System", which was issued in June 2006. To try to assist State governments to wean themselves off the power to determine how large the gaps should be in a stack of firewood the Commonwealth Government has offered full fund management of the sector from 1 July 2010. This is estimated to be at a cost of $29 million over four years. It is a welcome initiative, which seems to have finally given us the clincher in prising these powers over trade measurement away from the States.

This salutary and laborious tale of what happened to trade measurement after it was set on the road to reform in 1995 is a quintessential case study in what has gone wrong with Australian federalism. Business has been dismayed and angered by the lack of progress made in reducing duplication between local, State and Commonwealth jurisdictions. Last year the Business Council of Australia released a report that nominated the inability of the Council of Australian Governments to reach actual outcomes as a major barrier to Australia's ongoing economic prosperity. The cost of duplication was estimated at $9 billion per year. According to the Business Council, new laws and regulations in Australia are increasing at a rate of 10 per cent per year, which is three times greater than the growth of the gross domestic product. Damon Frith in the Business Review Weekly argued:

The National Reform Agenda is essentially that business should be able to traverse Australia without being fleeced by a bunch of State Treasury Officials each time a State border is crossed. It is also about national standards for access to infrastructure systems such as rail systems, ports, roads, power and water and social services such as hospitals and education.

Frith argued that the road maps to future prosperity have been agreed by the two major political parties and:

… can be found in those revolving COAG communiqués. The essential problem with COAG is its unaccountability and lack of direction. Setting an agenda is a pointless exercise if at every meeting a new agenda is formed and previous items have not been acted upon … COAG's problem is that its satellite committees either forget to return or are left sitting in the foyer if they do.

The Council of Australian Governments has had successes, but these have been in the area of competition policy. To put it simply, these have all involved State governments being offered the whiff of a big bucket of money. When it comes to efficiency and infrastructure reforms that reduce State and Federal Government overlap the Premiers have been utterly ambivalent and disengaged. Having drawn attention to the provisions relating to firewood, I will not detain the House with further details of the bill except to say that the changes it proposes have come about in a legislative framework that is indefensible and should have been reformed more than a decade ago. The history of this matter is nauseating and depressing.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: That's because of you lot!

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: No. The recommendations were made in a report dated March 1995, which was the same month that the Carr Government was elected, and the report was released in October. So it has been 100 per cent in Labor's court. Somehow trade measurement has managed to "come in on the grouter"—to the use an old Australian expression. I am sure my colleague the Hon. Charlie Lynn knows what that means. I am reminded of Steven Bradbury's victory in the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympics when he won the gold medal in the men's 1,000-metre short-track speed skating event after all the race favourites fell over each other. Bradbury avoided the debacle by being so far back in the field that he was literally the last man on his feet. Many other more high-profile regulatory reforms such as mutual recognition of licences, occupational health and safety, and workers compensation laws are slumbering in induced comas orchestrated by State Labor governments. Apathy, neglect and misplaced parochialism have allowed them to cling to pathetic fractions of power even though they know their performance is hurting the national interest.

The State Opposition is relieved that at last an agreement is in place to have a single regulator for trade measurement and we call for the same approach to be taken in the area of product safety—another regulatory hot spot targeted for reform by the Council of Australian Governments that has been derailed by another committee and wooden-headed ministerial council that has decided to deflect, derail and avoid it. The period following the Federal election will provide a unique opportunity for hard work and innovation. Believe me, there is a great deal to be done. The Opposition supports the bill before the House even though its background provides clear evidence as to why we should not deal with these issues at all. We plead once again with the New South Wales Government for more focus and leadership on genuine reform and attention to our mutual State and national interests. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3197

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.31 p.m.]: I support the comments of the Hon. Catherine Cusack in relation to the Trade Measurement Legislation Amendment Bill. In so doing, I must comment on the bill's nonsensical provisions relating to the sale of firewood. Anyone who knows anything about firewood will be aware that its weight is determined by its thermal characteristics. So the more heat a tonne of firewood generates the less volume it will occupy. For example, a cubic metre of balsa wood will burn in about 10 seconds and not generate enough heat even to warm my toast but a cubic metre of iron bark will generate enough heat to keep my fires at home burning for three months. Why on earth is firewood not sold simply by weight alone? We would not have to package firewood—removing the air holes and other nonsense—if we simply sold it by weight. Then it would not matter how it was packed. It could be stacked in a plastic bag, for example, and sold per kilogram. I buy my firewood by weight only. I would certainly not buy it by volume because I would not know what I was getting. Introducing regulation that tries to control the sale of firewood by volume is nonsense. Firewood should be sold by weight, and by weight only.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.33 p.m.]: The Greens support the Trade Measurement Legislation Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Trade Measurement Act 1989 and the Trade Measurement Administration Act 1989 in line with amendments approved by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs to the uniform trade measurement legislation. The bill is harmonising legislation that ensures that trade measurement is standardised across the country. I note that the bill was discussed at length in the other place, where the Minister examined its provisions in detail, so I will not cover the same ground here. There are many examples of Federal dysfunction in Australia, and this bill attempts to overcome just one of them. Other examples of Federal dysfunction are disagreement about the entire health system, who funds hospitals and funding for doctor training places at universities, aged care and who funds it, funding for migrant services and migrant education, different rail gauges, different defamation laws, lack of agreement on credit regulations, different safety standards for products—and the list goes on.

It has taken seven years for the legislation to reach this stage despite the fact that the changes it makes are neither complex nor controversial. The progress of harmonisation is clearly glacial. We are happy that the Federal Government will assume control of this policy area in 2010 to ensure national consistency into the future. It is disappointing that, although the Government has a licensing system for businesses that certify measuring instruments or operate public weighbridges, it shuns uniformity with Victoria by declining to support a mandatory code of conduct for funeral directors. Nevertheless, the Greens support the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their lengthy contributions to the debate on what is a relatively straightforward bill. The main purpose of the Trade Measurement Legislation Amendment Bill is to make technical and minor amendments to the New South Wales uniform trade measurement legislation that will improve its administration. I listened to the Hon. Catherine Cusack's treatise on how long it has taken the bill to reach this stage and thought it was most helpful of her colleague the Hon. Rick Colless to point out some of the complexities that faced the committee in making its decision. Stakeholders have been consulted and they support the proposed amendments, which have also been approved by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs. The Parliament of the lead jurisdiction— Queensland—has already passed these amendments. New South Wales consumers and businesses will benefit from the amendments being passed into law. I thank honourable members for their consideration of the bill and commend it to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment. 3198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Order of the Day No. 6 postponed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe.

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL 2007

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.37 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Model Uniform Evidence Bill, which was endorsed as national model evidence legislation by the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in July this year.

The Model Bill is based on the recommendations of the Australian, Victorian and NSW Law Reform Commissions, which reviewed the NSW and Commonwealth Evidence Acts after 10 years of operation. The Commissions' research was wide and thorough. Consultations were held in every State and territory, and submissions were received from 130 individuals and organisations, including the NSW Public Defenders Office, and the NSW and Commonwealth Directors of Public Prosecutions. The Commissions reported that the uniform Acts are working well and there are no major structural problems with the Acts or their underlying policy. They made a range of recommendations to 'fine tune' the law and to promote harmonisation between Australian jurisdictions.

Accordingly, the majority of the amendments which this Bill proposes are for clarification and procedural improvement. Other changes are made to rectify confusing court decisions, or uncertainties in the legislation.

The Bill proposes a number of important reforms including the expansion of certain privileges to pre-trial proceedings, and clarifications regarding the manner in which the jury is to be directed in relation to children's' evidence and the effects of delay. This Bill also proposes a new test of competence to be a witness (to make it easier to determine for example, whether and how children, people with a disability, and people with a cognitive impairment may give evidence).

The intention is to ensure that the rules of evidence in NSW continue to be fair, clear, efficient and up-to-date.

Before addressing some of the Bill's provisions in more detail, it is fitting to provide some background to the proposed amendments.

(Background)

In 1995, the Commonwealth and NSW adopted uniform Evidence legislation. This uniform scheme was subsequently adopted in Tasmania, and in Norfolk Island.

Around the tenth anniversary of the Commonwealth and NSW Acts coming into force, the Australian, NSW and Victorian Law Reform Commissions were given a joint reference to review the operation of the Uniform Evidence Acts.

The Model Bill is based on the recommendations of these three Law Reform Commissions, and I'm pleased to say that many of their recommendations were for NSW initiatives to be adopted in other jurisdictions. For example, the Commissions recommended that the Uniform Evidence Acts incorporate the NSW confidential communications privilege, and our prohibition on improper questioning of witnesses.

The text of the Model Bill has been developed by a working group of officers from around Australia, together with Parliamentary Counsel from NSW, the Commonwealth, and Victoria.

The Model Bill was also reviewed by an Expert Reference Group comprising the former NSW Supreme Court Justice the Honourable James Wood AO QC, the Honourable Justice Tim Smith of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Professor Les McCrimmon of the Australian Law Reform Commission, and Sydney barrister Mr Neil Williams SC, who is also a co-author of textbooks on NSW Evidence Law.

The Government is very grateful to the members of the Expert Reference Group for their generosity in agreeing to review the draft Model Bill, and field queries from our officers.

The Government is also pleased to note that the Model Bill will not only be used to update the Uniform Evidence Acts currently in place in NSW , Tasmania and the Commonwealth. The Victorian Attorney General has indicated that he is interested in joining the Uniform Evidence scheme by implementing the Model Bill. Meanwhile, a number of other jurisdictions are giving serious consideration to joining the scheme.

24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3199

The expansion of the Uniform Evidence scheme will be valuable because it will allow the development of a broad, consistent body of case-law on evidentiary matters. It will also assist in the development of a truly national legal profession across Australia.

As I mentioned earlier, the majority of the proposed amendments are for clarification and procedural improvement. However it is appropriate for me to set out in some detail the intent and operation of the key amendments which the Bill proposes.

I ask for the forbearance of those who don't have a keen interest in the finer details of evidence law.

(Key amendments)

(De facto partners, and compellability)

The Bill proposes changes to the manner in which the Evidence Act addresses de facto couples, particularly in the context of whether the de facto partner of an accused person may be compelled to give evidence.

Currently, section 18 of the Evidence Act, which applies only in criminal proceedings, allows certain categories of witness to object to giving evidence against the accused. Witnesses entitled to raise the objection are the accused's spouse, de facto spouse, parent or child.

The purpose of the section is to excuse these people from giving evidence against the accused if the court finds:

• that there is a likelihood that harm might be caused to the person, or to the relationship between the person and the accused, if the person gives the evidence, and

• that the nature and extent of that harm outweighs the desirability of having the evidence given. The section recognises that couples in intimate relationships should not be forced to give evidence against one another unless the interests of the community require it.

The section also recognises that if a person is forced to testify, they are unlikely to be reliable and accurate witnesses.

Therefore, the effect of the current section is not only to protect family relationships and potential witnesses from harm, but also to ensure the accuracy and reliability of evidence that is placed before the court.

Currently, the Evidence Act does not have its own definition of de facto couples. The Evidence Act refers instead to a definition in the Property (Relationships) Act which includes same sex couples. This ensures the reliability and accuracy of evidence before the court, whether the couple is homosexual or heterosexual.

The proposed amendments regarding de facto relationships in the Evidence Act are twofold:

1) First, references to 'de facto spouse' are replaced with references to a 'de facto partner'. This is to ensure that the language of the Evidence Act is clearly gender neutral.

2) Second, a definition of 'de facto partner' is inserted into the Dictionary, so that the Evidence Act has its own definition of de facto.

Like the current NSW definition, the proposed new Evidence Act definition will ensure that the rules of evidence are not discriminatory, and that they do not prevent the court from ensuring the quality of the evidence before it.

I am disappointed to say that the current Commonwealth Evidence Act does not currently include same sex couples in its definition of de facto couples. Moreover, in July, the Commonwealth Attorney General, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, advised the Standing Committee of Attorneys General that he is preparing an Evidence Act amendment Bill which will not adopt the proposed Model definition, and will continue to discriminate against same sex couples.

His discriminatory stance is not only contrary to the recommendations of the Australian, NSW and Victorian Law Reform Commissions—it is also contrary to commonsense, and to the interests of the administration of justice.

Mr Ruddock has shown that he is reluctant to grant same sex couples certain rights. However, ensuring that same sex couples are included in the Evidence Act definition of de facto does not, as Mr Ruddock's refusal to amend the Commonwealth Evidence Act seems to suggest, constitute a grant of some new or special right. Including same sex relationships in the Evidence Act definition is merely a recognition, firstly of the fact that couples will not always give accurate evidence against each other, and secondly of the fact that it is not the business of the courts to alienate couples and family members from one another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

(Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island traditional law and custom)

The Bill also proposes to introduce new exceptions to the hearsay rule and the opinion rule, for evidence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island traditional law and custom.

In their Report, the Law Reform Commissions found that the Evidence Act should be amended to be more responsive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island oral traditions.

It is not appropriate for the hearsay rule (and by extension, the legal system) to treat orally transmitted evidence of traditional law and custom as prima facie inadmissible, when this is the very form by which law and custom are maintained under Indigenous traditions.

3200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

Similarly, a member of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander group should not have to prove that he or she has specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience before being able to give opinion evidence about the traditional law and custom of his or her own group.

The intention is to make it easier for the court to hear evidence of traditional laws and customs, where relevant and appropriate. The exceptions proposed in the Bill shift the focus away from whether there is a technical breach of the Evidence Act, to whether the particular evidence is reliable.

Factors relevant to reliability or weight will include the source of the representation, the persons to whom it has been transmitted, and the circumstances in which it was transmitted.

The requirements of relevance in sections 55 and 56 may operate to exclude representations which do not have sufficient indications of reliability.

Reliability will also be ensured if courts continue to use their powers to control proceedings to create a culturally appropriate context for the giving of evidence regarding the existence or content of particular traditional laws and customs.

Further safeguards are provided by the court's powers under sections 135, 136 and 137 to exclude or limit the use of evidence.

For the purposes of the exceptions to the hearsay and opinion rules, the Commissions also concluded that a 'broad definition of traditional laws and customs' was desirable.

The everyday meaning of a 'traditional law' or 'traditional custom' is one which has been passed from generation to generation of a society, usually by word of mouth and common practice. However, the High Court has held— in Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422 [46], per Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ, with McHugh J agreeing—that for the purposes of the Native Title Act 1993, 'traditional laws and customs' refers specifically to traditional laws and customs "whose content originates in the normative system of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander societies prior to assertion of sovereignty by the British Crown".

The Commissions considered that for the purposes of the Evidence Act, 'traditional laws and customs' should not be limited to that interpretation. To ensure that the Act covers the full range of matters within the scope of 'traditional laws and customs', a broad definition of 'traditional laws and customs' has been inserted. The new definition is not limited to 'normative rules'. It contains a non-exhaustive list of matters that includes customary laws, traditions, customs, observances, practices, knowledge and beliefs of a group (including a kinship group) of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. The Commissions consider that this broader definition will enable the Court to receive more diverse evidence which can be used to prove the existence and content of traditional laws or customs.

The definition also refers to 'any of the traditions, customary laws, customs' and so on, of the group. This is to make clear that the new exceptions to the hearsay and opinion rules apply to traditions and customs generally, and not only to those whose content has been shown to originate in traditional law and custom in force prior to the assertion of sovereignty by the British Crown. Just like the common law we have inherited from Britain, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island traditional law and custom did not ossify in 1788, but has continued to evolve. Moreover, it is impractical and inappropriate to require courts to inquire whether the content of any given traditional law or traditional custom has its origins before sovereignty, in order to decide whether the exceptions may apply. Requiring such an inquiry would be contrary to the purpose of the new exceptions, which is to shift the focus away from technical obstacles to admissibility, and on to whether the particular evidence is reliable and what weight it should be accorded.

Again, I am disappointed to say that the Commonwealth Attorney General has decided that—contrary to commonsense, and to the interests of the administration of justice—he will not implement any of the Model Uniform Evidence provisions relating to traditional law and custom.

I am concerned that Mr Ruddock's refusal to implement these exceptions to the hearsay and opinion rules stems from a misapprehension that Aboriginal tradition may somehow cause, or excuse, violence against women or children. Such assumptions are offensive, and they are comprehensively wrong.

The great advantage of the proposed exceptions for traditional law and custom is that these exceptions make it easier for community members to speak to the court, and to explain what their traditions really are. If any person tries to misrepresent tradition out of self-interest, community members can much more easily set the record straight in court.

These exceptions are supported not only by the Australian, NSW and Victorian Law Reform Commissions, but also by the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, and the NSW Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council.

These exceptions are consistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and Rex Wild QC and Patricia Anderson's Little Children Are Sacred Report.

If traditional law and custom is a relevant and appropriate consideration in a court case, it is highly impractical to exclude it on the grounds that it breaches the hearsay or opinion rules.

As I mentioned earlier, the exceptions proposed in the Bill merely shift the focus away from whether there is a technical breach of the Evidence Act, to whether the particular evidence is reliable. There is simply no sensible reason to oppose them, and certainly no reason for the Commonwealth Attorney to refuse to implement these exceptions.

In addition to foreshadowing that he will depart from the uniform scheme in relation to de factos and traditional law and custom, the Commonwealth Attorney has already enacted amendments to the Commonwealth Evidence Act that depart from the Model Bill on the subject of the confidential communications privilege.

24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3201

The Law Reform Commissions recommended that the NSW confidential communications privilege be adopted by all uniform evidence jurisdictions. This privilege allows the court, in certain circumstances, to protect private communications to professionals from being disclosed in court.

Earlier this year however, the Federal Government amended the Commonwealth Evidence Act to insert its own new version of the privilege. This Commonwealth version of the privilege is limited to journalists' sources (and therefore does not protect those who confide in doctors, for example).

In light of Mr Ruddock's very public enthusiasm for uniformity in national model legislation, it is most surprising that he should have chosen to depart from the agreed model in relation to this privilege. It is particularly surprising, given that he is on record as having expressed support for the NSW version of the privilege, during meetings of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General.

The NSW provision has been operating satisfactorily for ten years, and already ensures that all important issues, such as, for example, national security, can be taken into account by the court. Mr Ruddock has never adequately explained the need for this departure from the recommendations of the Law Reform Commissions, and from his previous support for the NSW privilege.

(New test for competence to be a witness)

The Bill also sets out a proposed new test for determining a witness's competence to give sworn and unsworn evidence, as well as to clarify the distinction between sworn and unsworn evidence.

Currently, section 13 of the Evidence Act contains two different tests for giving sworn and unsworn evidence, both of which require a witness to demonstrate an understanding of the difference between truth and lies. In their Report, the Law Reform Commissions noted that these tests have been criticised for being too similar and too restrictive. The proposed amendment clarifies the distinction between sworn and unsworn evidence.

The proposed new section 13 provides that all witnesses must satisfy the test of general competence in subsection 13(1). This test of general competence moves away from the 'truth and lies' distinction and focuses instead on the ability of the witness to comprehend and communicate. The purpose of the revised test of general competence is to enhance participation of witnesses and to ensure that relevant information is before the court.

The revised test of general competence provides that a person is not competent to give sworn or unsworn evidence about a fact if the person lacks the capacity to understand, or to give an answer that can be understood, to a question about the fact, and that incapacity cannot be overcome. When considering whether incapacity can be overcome, the court will consider reasonable adjustments, including alternative communication methods, use of technology, or support depending on the needs of the individual witness.

The proposed new test of competence provides that even if the general test of competence is not satisfied in relation to one fact, the witness may be competent to give evidence about other facts. For example, a young child may be able to reply to simple factual questions but not to questions which require inferences to be drawn.

The proposed new subsection 13(4) provides that, a person who is not competent to give sworn evidence about a fact may provide unsworn evidence about the fact. This provision will allow young children and others (for example, adults with an intellectual disability) to give unsworn evidence even though they may not understand or cannot adequately explain concepts such as an 'obligation to tell the truth'. It is up to the court to determine the weight to be given to unsworn evidence.

A number of criteria must be met before a person may give unsworn evidence. First, the person must be competent to give evidence, under section 13(1). Second the court must inform the person that it is important to tell the truth, that he or she should inform the court if asked a question to which he or she does not know or cannot remember the answer, and that he or she should not feel pressured into agreeing with any Statements that are untrue.

The Bill also sets out a new subsection 13(8), which provides that when a court is determining if a person is competent to give evidence, the court may inform itself as it thinks fit, including by referring to the opinion of an expert. This expands on current provisions by specifically referring to information from experts.

This provision is not intended to allow an expert to supplant the court's role in determining a witness's competence. Rather it is intended to emphasise that the court may have recourse to expert assistance (for example, to identify any alternative communication methods or support needs which could facilitate the giving of evidence by a person with a disability).

Under this new general test of competence, rulings as to competence may be made not only before the witness commences to give evidence but also as that witness's evidence proceeds.

(Giving evidence in narrative form)

The Bill also implements an election commitment in relation to the evidence of vulnerable witnesses.

Since 1995, section 29 of the Evidence Act has allowed parties to apply to the Court for a direction that their witness give all or part of their evidence in narrative form, rather than in a question-answer format.

The Law Reform Commissions recommended that the court should be permitted to give such a direction where it thinks it is appropriate, without waiting for a party to apply for it.

Accordingly, the Bill proposes to amend section 29, to provide that the court may direct a witness to give all or part of their evidence in narrative form, either on application by a party, or of its own motion. The proposed new section can be used for any 3202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

witness, but the Commissions emphasised that giving evidence in narrative form may be particularly helpful in the case of vulnerable witnesses, such as child witnesses, or witnesses with an intellectual disability. The proposed new section would also be helpful for witnesses who for cultural reasons are not accustomed to a direct question and answer style of communication.

The purpose of this amendment is to send a clear message that the court can act to ensure the best outcome in receiving evidence from a witness. As is currently the case, before making any such direction the court will have to take into account a range of considerations, including fairness to all parties. The court would also take into account the witnesses ability to comply with instructions about what evidence is admissible, and the other options available to assist the witness to give evidence.

Should the process result in undue delay or inadmissible evidence being given, the court has general powers to control proceedings, and specific powers under sections 135, 136 and 137 to exclude or limit the use of evidence.

New subsection 29(2) does not affect the ability of a witness to give evidence through an interpreter under section 30 or to be questioned or give evidence by an appropriate means under section 31.

(Clarifying the operation of the rule against hearsay)

Another important technical amendment is the Bill's proposed clarification of the rule against hearsay.

Section 59 sets out the rule against hearsay. It prevents evidence of a previous representation from being admitted for the purpose of proving a fact which the maker intended to assert by the representation. The main rationale for the rule is to avoid any unfairness that would be caused by the admission of representations made by witnesses whose evidence cannot be cross-examined directly in court.

The Bill proposes amendments to s59, to clarify the test to be applied in determining whether a person intended to assert the existence of facts contained in a previous representation, for the purposes of that section.

The amendments are intended to counter the approaches to determining 'intention' which were explored by the NSW Supreme Court in R v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359. According to the Court's reasoning in that case, an 'intended' fact could include (1) facts specifically and consciously adverted to by the maker, as well as (2) any fact which is a necessary assumption underlying the fact subjectively adverted to.

The Law Reform Commissions found that this reasoning is problematic. Proof of a subjective State of mind is very difficult to ascertain, and particularly so if a party must argue that the representation was not intended to assert the existence of a particular fact. The policy of the Act is to exclude unintended assertions from the rule against hearsay.

Further, there is a risk that the reasoning in relation to necessary assumptions is too broad and could therefore give rise to practical difficulties. It may result in the exclusion of relevant evidence of implied assertions assumed by a fact adverted to, even though an implied assertion, when considered independently of the fact it supports, could not reasonably be supposed to have been intended.

The proposed amendments have been recommended by the Law Reform Commissions. They are intended to foreclose such difficulties, by clarifying that in determining whether a person intended to assert the existence of facts contained in a previous representation, the test to be applied is what a person in the position of the maker of the representation can reasonably be supposed to have intended, having regard to the representation and the circumstances in which it was made.

Although direct evidence of subjective intention can be considered, investigation or proof of the subjective mindset of the person who made the representation is not required.

(Definition of 'lawyer')

The Bill also proposes to clarify the definition of 'lawyer' in the Evidence Act.

It has been unclear whether the definition of 'lawyer' as 'a barrister or solicitor' means that the lawyer must hold a current practising certificate, or whether it is sufficient to be admitted as a solicitor or barrister on the roll of the relevant court.

The Bill proposes amendments to clarify that the definition of 'lawyer' in relation to client legal privilege includes 'Australian lawyers', that is, those who are admitted but do not necessarily have a current practising certificate, as well as foreign lawyers.

These amendments implement recommendation 14-3 of the Law Reform Commissions' Report. They also adopt the ACT Court of Appeal decision in Commonwealth v Vance [2005] ACTCA 35. In considering the definition of 'lawyer' under section 117 of the Uniform Evidence Act, the ACT Court of Appeal found that a practising certificate was an important indicator, but not conclusive on the issue of whether the legal advice was sufficiently independent to constitute legal advice for the purposes of claiming privilege under the Act.

The policy of the privilege does not justify its restriction to those with a practising certificate, particularly since a range of lawyers may provide legal advice or professional legal services in various jurisdictions. It is the substance of the relationship that is important, rather than a strict requirement that the lawyer hold a practising certificate. The amendment is directed to clarifying that client legal privilege may pertain to Australian lawyers and their employees and agents. However, the amendment is not intended to affect the common law concept of independent legal advice.

This item also extends the definition of 'lawyer' so that it includes a person who is admitted in a foreign jurisdiction. The rationale of client legal privilege is to serve the public interest in the administration of justice and its status as a substantive right means it should not be limited to advice obtained only from Australian lawyers. This position reflects the reasoning of the Full Federal Court in Kennedy v Wallace (2004) 142 FCR 185.

24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3203

(Privilege against self-incrimination)

The Bill makes a number of key amendments relating to privileges.

The first of these relates to the privilege against self-incrimination.

Section 128 of the Evidence Act provides a procedure relating to the privilege against self-incrimination, and the granting of certificates giving a witness immunity in some circumstances.

The Commissions found that the current certification process is cumbersome and hard to explain to witnesses. Comments were also made about the necessity to invoke the process in relation to each question.

To address these concerns, the Bill proposes a new section 128, which has been expanded to cover not only 'particular evidence' but also 'evidence on a particular matter' (subsection 128(1)).

In addition, section 128 has been restructured to simplify the order in which the process of certification is outlined in the section. Rather than including the requirement for the court to inform the witness of his or her rights and the effect of the section, the new section provides:

• that the witness may object to giving the evidence on the grounds that it may incriminate him or her (or make him or her liable to a civil penalty) (subsection 128(1)),

• that the court shall determine whether or not that claim is based on reasonable grounds (subsection 128(2)),

• if the claim is reasonable, that the court can then tell the witness that he or she may choose to give the evidence or the court will consider whether the interests of justice require that the evidence be given, (subsections 128(3) and (4)), and

• if the evidence is given, either voluntarily or under compulsion, that a certificate shall be granted preventing the use of that evidence against the person in another proceeding (subsection 128(5)).

New subsections 128(8) and 128(9) address two issues that arose in Cornwell v The Queen [2007] HCA 12. In that case the accused was granted a certificate under section 128 in his first trial for evidence given by him, that may have incriminated him in relation to other possible charges. After a hung jury, a retrial commenced for the same offence. There was argument over whether the retrial counted as a new proceeding for the purposes of the then subsection 128(7) and therefore whether the evidence for which the certificate had been granted could be adduced in the retrial. There was also argument as to whether the certificate had been validly granted in the first place.

The new subsection 128(9) makes clear that a 'proceeding' under the section does not include a retrial for the same offence, or a trial of the defendant for an offence arising out of the same facts that gave rise to that offence. That is, the new subsection 128(9) seeks to make clear that a certificate is not to be used by an accused to prevent the use of his or her evidence in another proceeding for the same offence, or in a proceeding in which he or she is charged with an alternative count (eg manslaughter, if the first, failed trial in which he or she gave the evidence under certificate was for murder).

In addition to the insertion of s128(9) in response to recommendation 15-7 of the Report, new subsection 128(8) has been included, as a response to the High Court's decision in Cornwell. (At the time the Commissions' Report was published, the High Court had not yet delivered judgement in those proceedings).

The new subsection 128(8) provides that subsection 128(7) applies regardless of any challenge, review, quashing or calling into question on any ground of the decision to give, or the validity of, the certificate concerned. This amendment has been made on the basis that the granting of a certificate under section 128 is not the same as any other evidential ruling. To ensure that the policy of section 128 is carried into effect, the witness must be certain of being able to rely on that certificate in future proceedings.

(Privilege against self-incrimination in interlocutory proceedings)

The second key amendment to privileges under the Evidence Act relates to the procedure for dealing with claims for the privilege against self-incrimination, when these are made in certain interlocutory proceedings.

The Bill proposes a new section 128A, which provides a new process to deal with objections on the grounds of self-incrimination, which have been made by a person who is subject to a search order or a freezing order in certain civil proceedings. Examples of search and freezing orders are Anton Piller orders and Mareva injunctions respectively.

This amendment addresses, but does not implement, recommendation 15-10 of the Report. Recommendation 15-10 was that self-incrimination privilege be abrogated in relation to search and freezing orders. The Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) revisited this issue in its 2006 Report 'Implementing the Uniform Evidence Act'. The VLRC developed draft provisions which did not abrogate the privilege, but rather set out a new procedure to follow when a claim is made. The SCAG working group which developed the Model Uniform Evidence Bill preferred this refinement, and the VLRC approach has been adopted in the Model Uniform Evidence Bill.

Accordingly, the new section, rather than preventing claims for privilege being made, provides a means for evidence to be secured and provided to the court in a sealed envelope. Under these provisions the court is then empowered to require disclosure of that evidence to the party seeking it where, upon consideration, the court determines that the interests of justice require it and a certificate providing use and derivative use immunity is given to the disclosing party.

3204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

The protection conferred by the new section 128A does not apply to documents that were in existence before a search or freezing order was made. Any pre-existing documents annexed or exhibited to the privilege affidavit are also not covered by the protection conferred by section 128A.

(Expanding privileges to pre-trial court procedures)

The last amendment relating to privileges which I will address today also relates to pre-trial proceedings.

The Commissions noted that the introduction of the Evidence Act has resulted in two sets of laws operating in the area of privilege. Where the Evidence Act governs the admissibility of evidence of privileged communications and information, the common law does not apply. In all other situations, the common law rules persist unless a statute expressly abrogates the privilege. This means that within a single proceeding, different laws apply at the pre-trial and trial stages. Individuals' ability to resist or obtain disclosure of the same information may vary depending on the stage of the proceedings in which it is sought.

The Commissions recommended that the operation of client legal privilege, professional confidential relationship privilege and matters of State privilege should be extended to apply to any compulsory process for disclosure (recommendations 14-1, 15-3 and 15-11 respectively).

The Bill proposes to implement these recommendations in part. The proposed new section 131A extends the operation of these privileges to pre-trial court proceedings. However, the provision does not extend the privileges to non-curial contexts. (Extension to out-of-court proceedings may be considered in future, with the benefit of the Australian Law Reform Commission's final report on client legal privilege, which is due for publication later this year).

The last two amendments which I will address in detail are those relating to the manner in which the jury is to be directed in relation to children's evidence and the effects of delay.

(Children's evidence)

The Commissions recommended that the current NSW sections 165A and s165B regarding children's evidence be adopted in the Uniform Evidence Acts.

This recommendation has been implemented, and our provisions regarding children's evidence have been included in the Model Bill. As part of this process however, the two existing provisions have been combined into a new s165A, and some changes have been made to update the drafting, and make it clearer.

Accordingly, this Bill proposes to combine and update the current sections 165A and 165B, so that they mirror the Model Bill.

New subsection 165A(1) provides that in any proceeding in which evidence is given by a child before a jury, a judge is prohibited from warning or suggesting to the jury:

• that children as a class are unreliable witnesses,

• that the evidence of children as a class is inherently less credible or reliable, or requires more careful scrutiny, than the evidence of adults,

• that a particular child's evidence is unreliable solely on account of the age of the child, and

• in criminal proceedings, that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of a witness who is a child.

However, subsection 165A(2) permits the judge to either:

• inform the jury that the evidence of a particular child may be unreliable and the reasons for which it may be unreliable, or

• warn or inform the jury of the need for caution in determining whether to accept the evidence of the particular child and the weight to be given to it.

The judge may give a warning or inform the jury if a party has requested the warning or information and the court is satisfied that there are circumstances particular to that child (other than their age) that affect the reliability of the child's evidence and warrant the giving of the warning or information.

The expression 'circumstances (other than solely the age of the child)' is intended to encompass all of the following:

• characteristics of individuals of the witness's age (such as suggestibility),

• characteristics unique to that child (such as disability), and

• historical or current circumstances unique to that child (such as the manner in which the investigation was conducted, or the manner in which the child was questioned).

(Longman warning and delay)

Finally, the Bill proposes to insert a new provision to deal with the Longman warning given to juries in relation to delay.

24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3205

It is proposed to implement a new section 165B, to implement recommendation 18-3 of the Report. The new section will replace the existing common law on Longman warnings, so as to limit the circumstances in which they are given, and clarify their scope.

In Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79, the majority of the High Court held that the jury in a sexual assault case should have been warned that, as the evidence of the complainant could not be tested adequately after the passage of time, it would be dangerous to convict on that evidence alone unless the jury, scrutinising the evidence with great care, was satisfied of its truth and accuracy. In addition to the warning about delay, the Court also found that the jury should have been warned about the risk of fantasy and the potential for delay, emotion, prejudice or suggestion to distort recollection.

There is considerable evidence that Longman warnings on the effects of delay are given almost routinely and in circumstances where the delay is of relatively short duration. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that:

• there is no irrebuttable presumption of forensic disadvantage arising from delay,

• Information provided to the jury in relation to forensic disadvantage arising from a delay should only be given if the accused has applied for it, and only where there is an identifiable risk of prejudice to the accused. Such prejudice should not be assumed to exist merely because of the passage of time,

• Delay which may lead to forensic disadvantage is not limited to proceedings for alleged sexual offences, nor is it limited to delay between an alleged offence and its being reported.

Subsection 165B(2) provides that if the court is satisfied, on application by a party, that the defendant has suffered a significant forensic disadvantage because of the consequences of delay, the court must inform the jury of the nature of the disadvantage and the need to take that disadvantage into account when considering the evidence.

The section contains two safeguards. First, the mere passage of time is not to be regarded as a significant forensic disadvantage (subsection 165B(4)). Significant forensic disadvantage arises not because of delay itself, but because of the consequences of delay—such as the fact that any potential witnesses have died or are not able to be located, or the fact that potential evidence has been lost or is otherwise unavailable.

The second safeguard is that the court need not take this action if there are good reasons for not doing so (subsection 165B(3)).

Subsection 165B(5) provides that no particular form of words needs to be used in giving the information, but that the judge must not suggest that it would be dangerous or unsafe to convict the defendant because of the delay. These words are considered an encroachment on the fact-finding task of the jury and open to the risk of being interpreted as a direction to acquit.

Accordingly, section 165B has been drafted to refer not to warnings to the jury, but rather to the court informing the jury of the nature of the significant forensic disadvantage suffered and the need to take that disadvantage into account. Use of the phrase 'delay in complaint' in the new section has also been deliberately avoided because of its association with discredited assumptions about the reliability of sexual assault complainants, particularly children.

The court remains bound by the overriding obligation to prevent any miscarriage of justice. As a result, if the judge considered that the requirements of section 165B could be made out and counsel had failed to apply for the warning, the judge would be bound to ask counsel (in the absence of the jury) whether such a warning was requested.

As noted in the Report, if there are factors affecting the reliability of certain evidence, a warning may be sought in accordance with section 165, or in the case of children's evidence, in accordance with new section 165A.

(Concluding remarks)

Though they may be of a highly procedural or technical nature, the amendments which I have addressed today, like all those in the Bill, may be considered significant improvements to the manner in which civil and criminal proceedings will be conducted in our courts.

Lawyers and many others in the community will need time to familiarise themselves with the amendments. In particular, Police prosecutors (who are responsible for approximately 98 per cent of all criminal matters in NSW) will need time to update their training and operating procedures.

Therefore, it is proposed that if the Bill is passed, the legislation will commence by proclamation at least six months after assent. The precise date of commencement will be determined in consultation with the Courts, the Minister for Police, and other stakeholders.

If possible, commencement will also be co-ordinated with that of similar amendments which are planned for the Commonwealth Evidence Act

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [5.37 p.m.]: The Evidence Amendment Bill seeks to amend the New South Wales Evidence Act 1995 in line with the model uniform evidence bill, which was endorsed as national model evidence legislation by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in July. The bill amends the Evidence Act in a number of ways. It replaces the term "de facto spouse" with "de facto partner", recognises that a de facto is not compelled to give evidence against his or her accused partner and inserts the definition of "de facto" into the Evidence Act in line with the New South Wales definition, which includes same sex couples. It introduces new 3206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

exceptions to the hearsay rule and the opinion rule for evidence concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional law and customs, including recognition of oral evidence regarding traditional law and customs, and removes the requirement to prove specialised knowledge based on training with respect to giving opinion evidence about the law and customs of a person's own group.

The bill introduces a new competence test enabling a witness to give sworn and unsworn evidence and clarifies the distinction between the two. It introduces a provision under section 29 to allow a court to direct a witness to give all or part of his or her evidence in narrative form, either on application by a party or on its own motion. The bill changes the definition of "lawyer" to include those who have been admitted as a solicitor or barrister but who do not have a current practising certificate, and extends the definition to include persons admitted in a foreign jurisdiction or for the purpose of client-lawyer legal privilege.

The bill alters section 128 and introduces section 128A to simplify the process of certification in relation to immunity against self-incrimination for witnesses and clarifies several items of ambiguity in the current Act. It introduces section 131A to expand client legal privilege, professional confidential relationship privilege and matters of State privilege to pre-trial court procedures in line with privileges that exist in trial proceedings. It also introduces section 165A to allow judges to direct the jury in relation to evidence given by particular children, encompassing items broader than age, including suggestibility, disability, circumstances, issues surrounding investigation, questioning, and so on. Finally, it introduces section 165B to deal with what is known as the Longman warning, which deals with delay after sexual assault offences, to replace the common law with statutory provisions that will limit the circumstances in which it is given and clarify that there is no irrefutable presumption of forensic disadvantage arising from the delay. This provision will deal with all cases where a significant forensic disadvantage may be evident due to the consequences of delay.

The Opposition does not oppose the bill. The Opposition recognises that people who live in close relationships are entitled to the protection of section 18 of the Act. In so doing the definition of "de facto relationship" has been extended. It is, however, important to ensure that the relationship is bona fide and ongoing. This should not simply open an area for co-offenders to use it as a loophole. In relation to the evidence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people regarding traditional law and customs, there is a concern that there will be a conflict between evidence of different elders. If a conflict does arise—for example, one elder gives one version and another tribal elder gives another—it is a matter that the courts will have to decide.

The bill introduces a requirement of competence for people giving sworn and unsworn evidence. It is well known that that can be a difficult area of law. Children of a very young age may not be ready to take the oath, but they understand what is right and wrong sufficiently to give evidence. This was mentioned in the other House by the shadow attorney general, Mr Greg Smith, who noted that any measure to help clarify this aspect is welcome.

There are many arguments in favour of the legislation. The changes simplify the present arrangements for litigation and evidence in New South Wales and have come from recommendations made by the Australian, New South Wales and Victorian law reform commissions' 10-year review of the Act. The changes will provide consistency of evidence procedures in other jurisdictions and many will assist with streamlining procedures in court and give recognition to several social realities, such as the increasing relevance of evidence given by minors and changing views of evidence in cases involving sexual assault. The changes will be in line with principles of non-discrimination by accepting the definition of "de facto partner" to include same sex couples and allowing for evidence on indigenous customary law in the verbal tradition on which it is based.

There are, of course, arguments against the legislation, namely, that changes to the uniform evidence legislation are not in line with changes that have been made to the Commonwealth Act, thereby defeating the purpose of having so-called uniform legislation. Changes to evidence requirements with respect to children may result in more unsworn evidence being given and further directions to discount the evidence of children by judges. It should be indicated that cross-examination will still be permitted in those situations. As indicated previously, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.44 p.m.]: The Greens will support the Evidence Amendment Bill. We congratulate the Government on bring in many of these amendments. We do, however, have strong objections to the way that the Labor Government is rushing this bill through Parliament. We were only briefed on the bill yesterday and were told that this bill was not on the list of prioritised bills for this week. At 11.00 a.m. today I found that the Government planned to move the bill through today. So the same old bad habits are not just creeping back; they are racing back. This is no way to conduct democracy, especially when it comes to a bill as lengthy, important and far-reaching as this one. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3207

I am disappointed, to say the least, that members have not been given sufficient time to contemplate this bill and discuss it with community groups. Our constituency clearly has a right to have an input and we have a responsibility to seek that input. The Evidence Amendment Bill implements the model uniform Evidence Bill. It is a major overhaul of our evidence laws. It is a lengthy bill running to 58 pages of complex changes to evidence law and it deserves a longer period of consideration. The Greens support a number of the substantive changes in the bill. They represent a step forward and we note that it has been based on recommendations of law reform commissions in New South Wales and other States. In particular, the Greens support the clarification that a child witness must not be considered inherently less reliable than an adult witness. Instead of giving an automatic warning about the evidence of a child witness, a judge will now be able to use his or her discretion based on the unique circumstances of the child.

The Greens also support changes to remove technical obstacles to courts hearing evidence of traditional Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander laws and customs. For too long hearsay and opinion rules have been a significant hurdle for oral evidence about traditional laws to be heard. It is not fair that oral evidence about traditional laws and customs should be found to be inadmissible because it is second-hand. We support moves to make it easier for witnesses to give evidence in a narrative form. The Greens support these changes and believe they will be of significant assistance to witnesses, such as children, intellectually impaired people and Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. There is significant research to suggest that when a person is allowed to tell their story it will be a much fuller and more accurate account than when a person is led through a story. I note that the narrative evidence amendment will not stop a witness from being cross-examined. This is something that we see as extremely important.

Finally, the Greens support moves to change the language in this bill to replace "de facto spouse" to "de facto partner". This will make it clear that same sex relationships are encompassed in this bill and ensure that the rules of evidence are not discriminatory. In a State where neither of the major parties recognise civil unions and where same sex couples are denied equal adoption rights I suppose we must take our small reforms where we can. Basic rights of lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender people continue to be undermined by conservative politicians in New South Wales. Public opinion has changed quickly to demand equality regardless of sexual orientation, yet key laws on marriage, parenting and discrimination in New South Wales are stuck in the homophobic dark ages. That aspect of the bill is a small step but, along with most of the bill, it is welcomed. The Attorney General clearly wants congratulations and I am happy to offer congratulations.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS [5.48 p.m.], in reply: I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

FOOD AMENDMENT BILL 2007

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.50 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Ian Macdonald: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Food Amendment Bill 2007 amends the Food Act 2003. The proposed amendments clarify and strengthen the respective roles of the New South Wales Food Authority and New South Wales local councils in their shared 3208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

work of ensuring the safety and suitability of food for sale in New South Wales. The origins of this bill date back to 2002 when a review of the New South Wales Food Regulatory System, the Kerin review, concluded with a series of recommendations for reform. A key recommendation from that review was that the New South Wales Government should establish a through-chain food regulatory agency for New South Wales. The Government adopted that recommendation and in 2004 established the New South Wales Food authority as the sole State Government agency responsible for food safety from primary production to retail sale.

A further recommendation of that review related to the role of local government in food regulation. The review had found that the participation of local councils in the enforcement of the Food Act was crucial to success at the local level and that council's relationship with local business placed it in a unique position to provide an effective service that was appropriate to local needs. However, the review found also that there was currently no specific role for local councils in food safety work and as a result it had been predicted that with limited resources local council involvement would continue to decline. The recommendation from these findings was that the New South Wales Government should explore with local government the implementation of a model which clearly defined the responsibility of local government for food regulation and appropriately resourced the work which that sector would perform.

In order to be successful the model would need to meet the following criteria: be commensurate with the skills, expertise and range of responsibilities of local government environmental health officers; involve activities for which cost recovery would be appropriate; be funded by a mechanism for cost recovery such as an annual administration charge; be assisted by a New South Wales Food Authority through the provision of tools and training, and be coordinated by that NSW food agency. To advance this recommendation a food regulation partnership was formed between relevant State government departments, local government and environmental health professionals to develop, through consultation with stakeholders, a model for local government food regulatory activity. This bill is the culmination of the efforts of this partnership.

There are three key areas of reform that would be achieved through the passing of this bill. The first area is the creation of a mechanism which would enable the Food Authority to separately appoint, after appropriate consultation, each local council in New South Wales to exercise certain clearly defined functions as an enforcement agency under the Food Act. These functions would vary from council to council and be dependent upon the relevant resources and skills available to the particular council under consideration at the time. The exercise of these functions would be coordinated and supported by the Food Authority.

The second area is the creation of a secure funding base for this program, which would enable the proper performance of these functions. This would include the creation of an obligation on a food business proprietor to pay a prescribed fee for the issuing of an improvement notice on the business and a new regulation-making power for the imposition of an administration charge on food businesses that are not required to be licensed with the Food Authority but are nevertheless inspected by councils or the Food Authority. The third area is the creation of a statutory body to be known as the Food Regulation Forum. This body would consist of representatives from the State and local government sectors and would be tasked with evaluating and assisting the Food Authority in its ongoing support and coordinator roles. I will now deal with each of these areas in turn.

As the remainder of my speech is lengthy I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Firstly, this bill creates a new mechanism which would enable the appointment of each local council to undertake specific enforcement activity under the Food Act. Currently, all local councils, and also the Director-General of the Department of Environment and Climate Change in relation to the Kosciuszko National Park and the Lord Howe Island Board in relation to Lord Howe Island, are prescribed as enforcement agencies under the Food Act. This prescription enables officers authorised by those bodies to carry out any or all of the functions attributed to them under that Act. This includes inspection, compliance and enforcement activity relating to any food business, whether that business is involved in primary production, manufacturing or retail activity.

Similarly, the Food Authority is also prescribed as an enforcement agency under the Food Act and is empowered to carry out the same functions. This current blurring of the roles between State and local governments although long standing, is not desirable. In some areas it creates a duplication of effort. In other areas, there are gaps. In day-to-day operations it can cause uncertainty as to which agency, the Food Authority or council, will take the necessary action. This can be confusing for the agencies concerned and the food businesses involved. It is not an efficient use of our resources.

This bill will overcome those problems by, within 18 months, removing local councils, and also the Director-General of the Department of Environment and Climate Change who has agreed to be involved, as generally prescribed enforcement agencies 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3209

and allowing the Food Authority to individually appoint each one of them as enforcement agencies in relation to a clearly specified set of functions.

These functions may be minimal, such as carrying out of emergency response and urgent food recall activity in a designated area or may be routine work involving the inspection of premises, the investigation of complaints and the taking of necessary enforcement action in relation to food service businesses and retail food businesses in their area.

There is also scope in this process for councils with the requisite skills and resources to be appointed to undertake functions beyond these roles. The routine premise inspection of food manufacturers in a designated area, for example, could be a possible function of a council.

The value of this model is that, in making these appointments, both councils and the Food Authority will have a clear understanding of the work to be performed by the respective agencies. There will be no duplication and it will be clear which areas will require the direct attention of the Food Authority or possibly the appointment of an alternative council to perform the work.

The bill clearly outlines the mechanism for appointment. No appointment is to be made without the Food Authority undertaking appropriate consultation with the council under consideration. Councils will be invited to make representations as to the nature of the functions they wish to perform, if at all and guidelines are to be established to assist councils in formulating their submissions.

Not only will the Food Authority be obliged to consider the resources and skills of a particular council before making an appointment but it will also be necessary for the Authority to consider the willingness of other councils to perform specified enforcement agency functions in that council’s area. This is particularly important for those regions where councils may indicate that they lack the resources to carry out food safety enforcement work at all.

I will now turn to the second key area of this bill—the creation of a secure funding base for food regulatory work.

There are significant indirect administrative costs in undertaking food regulatory work—an up to date directory of food businesses must be maintained, complaints must be recorded and investigated, other enforcement agencies must be consulted and reports must be prepared.

Currently, there is no provision for recovering the costs of this necessary day to day work. Some councils, in recognition of the benefit to the community of food safety work and to lessen the impact on local businesses, are content to cover the costs through general rate revenue. Other councils, however, would not be able to perform the work without some scope for cost recovery. A flexible cost recovery mechanism is therefore required.

The bill creates a power to enable the making of a regulation which will allow an enforcement agency, including the Food Authority, which is undertaking at least routine inspection work to impose an annual administration charge on those food businesses within their area of responsibility that are not required to be licensed by the Food Authority but are subject to routine inspection. This would include most retail food businesses, restaurants and take-away food shops. It also includes food manufacturers who are not operating in the licensed food industries of meat, seafood, dairy and plant products. The charge would not be imposed on food businesses that raise money solely for community or charitable causes.

It will be a matter for the discretion of each council whether or not the charge would be imposed on food businesses and, if so, at what rate. However, it is intended that the maximum fee that could be charged by any enforcement agency will be prescribed under the regulation and will be the same charge as that which would be imposed by the Food Authority.

Further, the power to issue improvement notices is a key regulatory tool for councils and the Food Authority alike. Under the Food Act, authorised officers can require within 24 hours, a food business to put its deficient premises, equipment or transport vehicles into a clean and sanitary condition or risk being shut down. There is a very significant resource commitment to the issuing of improvement notices and ensuring their compliance. However, there is currently no provision to require the recipient of such a notice to pay a fee for the agency’s work. The bill would make it an offence for a person who receives an improvement notice not to pay any fee that has been prescribed by the regulations if the improvement notice contains a requirement to do so.

Finally, whilst the Local Government Act 1993 enables a local council to charge a fee for the inspection of a food premise, if it chooses to do so, the bill expands the functions of the Food Authority to enable it to make a recommendation to councils as to the maximum sum that should be charged. This recommended maximum fee will be set at a rate which reflects full cost recovery for the inspection work. It is intended that this sum also be prescribed by regulation as a fee to be charged by the Food Authority for the inspection of the premises of a food business not required to hold a Food Authority licence.

The third key area of this bill which I now wish to address is the establishment of the Food Regulation Forum.

In commending this bill to the House it is important for me to acknowledge that the policy work behind its provisions was undertaken in collaboration with the peak local government bodies in NSW, namely, the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW, the Australian Institute of Environmental Health NSW Division, the Development and Environmental Professionals Association and Local Government Managers Australia, New South Wales Division. These key stakeholders provided valuable insights into the workings of local councils and their officers in this sphere and enabled the government to prepare a proposal which is both practical and visionary in its application.

For these reforms to be implemented and maintained successfully it is absolutely essential that the resources harnessed within this food regulation partnership not be lost. This bill therefore proposes the creation of a statutory advisory body to be known as the Food Regulation Forum. This Forum would be chaired by a person appointed by the Minister with the concurrence of the Presidents of the Local Government and Shires Associations and who the Minister is satisfied has experience in local government matters. It would consist of representatives of the Food Authority and all of the non-state government stakeholders I have just 3210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

mentioned. Its primary role would be to provide assistance to the Food Authority in the development of guidelines for the appointment of local councils, protocols for the continuing exercise of their functions and programs for the provision of support and assistance. The Forum will also provide an ongoing critical evaluation of the sharing arrangements between the Food Authority and councils as they emerge.

Finally, I would just like to address two matters covered in the bill which I feel require further explanation.

The first is the amendment to section 136A relating to the exchange of information between enforcement agencies and NSW Health. In the exercise of their shared enforcement roles, the Food Authority and local councils need to be in a position where they can freely exchange information that relates to the activities of a food business or the details of a complaint in relation to a food business. Furthermore, in cases involving a food borne illness outbreak, these agencies need to be able to work quickly with each other and with the various sectors of NSW Health to exchange relevant information and act upon it to combat the problem.

Some of this information may include personal information, such as the details of a food business from which the identity of a person can be reasonably ascertained or personal health information such as the symptoms and recent food consumption history of a person suffering from an alleged food borne illness. The amendment ensures that councils, the Food Authority, the Director-General of the Department of Health and any public health organisation as defined in the Health Services Act 1997 are lawfully authorised to exchange such information between themselves.

Such an exchange however is limited to circumstances where the agency providing the information considers that its provision is essential to enable the recipient to exercise its functions under the Food Act or the Public Health Act 1991. In this way I believe an appropriate balance is achieved between the need to protect the people of NSW from illness caused by the consumption of contaminated food and the need to ensure that the privacy of individuals is maintained.

The second matter I wish to raise is an amendment which has been inserted into the bill to omit section 102 (8)-(10).

These provisions are not common in legislation. Ordinarily, a regulation is made and then published in the government gazette with a specified date for commencement. The Regulation Review Committee examines the regulation and either House of Parliament may, within a specified time, disallow it.

The effect of s102 (8)-(10) however is that any regulation which establishes a food safety scheme in NSW cannot specify a precise date for commencement. All the regulation can indicate is that it will commence on a day to be determined in accordance with these provisions. The regulation is gazetted with no specified commencement date and then it waits to see if either House of Parliament passes a motion to disallow it, the commencement date cannot be predicted in advance because a motion to disallow the regulation may or may not be given and if a motion is given, it may or may not be passed.

This is unsatisfactory as it creates a great deal of uncertainty for Government and stakeholders alike as to the commencement date (if any) for offences created under the proposed scheme and for requirements for relevant food businesses to be licensed and comply with any other provisions relating to their activities. It is also impossible to align the commencement date of the regulation with the commencement date of any relevant national standard which may require supporting regulation.

These current provisions are unnecessary and are not standard provisions in regulation. They were carried over into the Food Act from earlier food legislation and were not part of the uniform food provisions on which the current Act is based. If there are concerns about a regulation establishing a food safety scheme then Parliament has section 41 Interpretation Act 1987 available to it to disallow the regulation after it has taken effect and that disallowance will restore matters as they were before the regulation was made. An opportunity has therefore been taken in this bill to seek to remove these unworkable provisions.

In summary, this bill establishes in NSW a new streamlined and coordinated food regulatory system. A system which is flexible enough to enable each local council to participate according to its own skills and resources, a system which is sustainable in that it provides a secure funding base if needed and a system which is responsive in that it provides strong communication links between agencies and a collaborative advisory and assistance program.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.53 p.m.]: The New South Wales Food Authority was established in 2004 following a review of the food regulatory system, known as the Kerin review, in 2002. One recommendation of that review related to the role of local government in food regulation, indicating the necessity of clarifying local councils' participation in the enforcement of the Food Act 2003. The Food Amendment Bill 2007 amends the Food Act 2003 to appoint local councils as enforcement agencies under the Food Act with specific functions that would vary from council to council, depending on the resources and skills available; to establish a funding base for the carrying out of that enforcement work by establishing a fee for the issuing of an improvement notice to a food business and making it an offence not to pay; and to establish an annual administrative charge on food businesses that are not required to be licensed in relation to the exercise of functions.

The Food Amendment Bill amends the Food Act 2003 to also allow local councils to make submissions on the types of functions under the Act that they have adequate resources to exercise, and to establish a Food Regulation Forum, primarily to provide advice to the Food Authority. The Local Government and Shires Associations have supported this bill. They say that the New South Wales Government has allowed them to cover their costs, albeit from their own ratepayers. One concern that the Opposition has with the bill is that with those costs and fees delegated to councils, the councils can collect those fees from local businesses in their 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3211

communities. It will be difficult to try to work out just how much of those fees will be levied on local businesses and what their impact will be.

It costs money to implement regulations such as these, but the Opposition would like a lid to be placed on the amount of fees that individual businesses could be charged. Nonetheless, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. We understand that it has been in the making for quite some time.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.56 p.m.]: The Greens will not oppose the Food Amendment Bill 2007. It is stating the obvious to say that food health and safety it extremely important. Those of us who have suffered from food poisoning from food-borne diseases will know how debilitating and unpleasant it can be. Food poisoning goes beyond mere inconvenience. The Sydney Morning Herald of 12 May 2007 stated:

… contaminated food, whether it be from the home, restaurants or takeaways, puts about 18,000 people in hospital and causes about 120 deaths each year, according to the federal Department of Health …

The national foodborne illness surveillance system, OzFoodNet, reported 8,376 cases of salmonella in 2005, a 13 per cent increase on the mean for the previous five years.

The consequences of poor food hygiene in the preparation of food is debilitating socially and economically, and individually, for a large number of Australians and leads to tragic outcomes. This is not a matter which should be dealt with lightly. Compound that with the horror stories that we hear from time to time, including one reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 May 2007 about a rat-infested sushi factory. It is a basic right of consumers to be able to rely on the quality and cleanliness of food they receive from food outlets. However, that right does not happen in a vacuum and it will not happen without a rigorous system of monitoring and enforcement of food standards in preparation and processing.

However, the overwhelming majority of food manufacturing and processing businesses, restaurants and other public food providers absolutely do the right thing. The vast majority of food outlets maintain a very high standard of hygiene and exercise a huge duty of care towards their clients and customers. The problem arises because a very small number of operators expose consumers to massive risk by cutting corners and failing to implement appropriate practices. It is thus highly important to scrutinise changes to regulatory arrangements, such as those proposed in the bill, to ensure that they provide a high standard of food security.

Our analysis of this bill is that it is largely positive and worthy of support. The first and major provision in this bill allows for some councils not to be the enforcement agency in their local area. Effectively, a neighbouring council or another council can be granted a franchise that allows it to provide food enforcement services within another local government area. That is a good thing, in particular, in situations where a council is unwilling or lacks the ability, the resources and the focus to conduct appropriate food inspections. This problem, which can be overcome, creates a small amount of uncertainty in jurisdictions where consumers are seeking to lodge a complaint. If they cannot complain to their local government authority it might be difficult for them to ascertain who is the appropriate authority.

That problem is able to be resolved if provisions are put in place to ensure an appropriate redirection of incoming complaints received by a council that is not a food enforcement agency to an authority that is fulfilling those functions. I am sure that with a small amount of goodwill and some common sense that is exactly what will happen. There is a risk that this bill may result in some councils being forced to accept more than their fair share of the burden of food enforcement. To some extent that is ameliorated by the provision of full cost recovery fees on inspection and enforcement. There are smaller concerns about issues such as ensuring that the process is not subverted in some way by the local rivalries and turf wars that often occur, particularly in urban areas, where local government authorities are dominated by different political parties.

We must look carefully at all neighbouring councils that express a reluctance to take responsibility for a particular local government area. When no council is prepared to take responsibility for an area it leaves consumers of food at the mercy of the Food Authority. Provisions will need to be included to ensure that such areas receive the attention that they need to ensure food safety. The bill will create a funding base by enabling fees for inspection, improvement notices and infringement notices. Without this extremely important provision, the earlier provision to which I referred simply would not work. We must ensure that councils are not out of pocket for their contribution to safe food and it is appropriate for industry, and not residents, to pay for these activities.

If revenue falls short we require assurances that the State Government will step in and ensure that food inspection and enforcement are not compromised. This will require ongoing monitoring of the maximum fees 3212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

set by the Food Authority to ensure that councils are able to provide services that they are required to provide and to ensure that they are not out of pocket. The key issue is whether this revenue regime will create sufficient incentives for regular inspections. At the moment, inspections of food outlets are patchy. It really depends on how seriously a council takes the issue and it depends on the resources that a council can afford to allocate to the problem. Currently, in many areas these inspections are simply not good enough.

The bill will create a Food Regulatory Forum comprising representatives from State and local government sectors. The job of the Food Regulatory Forum will be to assist the Food Authority to develop guidelines for the appointment of local councils as enforcement agencies, and programs for the provision of support. The Food Regulatory Forum will also be charged with evaluating the sharing of inspection and enforcement arrangements between the Food Authority and local councils. So far so good! However, the Greens believe that two key factors are missing. The first is a commitment that every restaurant and food outlet will be regularly inspected and the second is the easy availability to the public, via a website, of the results of each and every inspection. These results should not just include offenders and the restaurants requiring improvement; they should include the results of all inspections. This is more than the Minister promised in May, but the bill does not even deliver on the Minister's promise. On 24 May this year an article in the Sydney Morning Herald stated:

The minister responsible for the Food Authority, Ian Macdonald, has announced a review of naming, but said it would apply only to outlets fined by the Food Authority, exempting the bulk of fines imposed by local councils.

So a review is to be conducted of restaurants that have failed to conform to appropriate food standards. On 29 May an article on the first page of the Sydney Morning Herald stated:

Last week, the minister in charge of the Food Authority, Ian Macdonald, said the public had a "right to know" about restaurants breaching food standards. But he restricted the policy to businesses which had been successfully prosecuted, meaning it would not apply to businesses like the one in Larkin Street.

That business was issued with an improvement notice. The article went on to state:

Under the policy, the public has no right to know about why fines have been imposed or even why orders have been issued to close a business.

On 30 May the Minister said he was committed to publishing inspection results in line with practices in other countries, but that he had yet to decide what system to use. The trail then went dead, until the introduction of this legislation, which does not contain any provision that will result in the publication of the names and details of restaurants that have been convicted and fined, have paid their fines, or have been issued with improvement notices. We seek an undertaking from the Minister that there will be regular inspections and that legislation subsequent to this will build on these changes and ensure that the results of those regular inspections are made public. That is not such a hard ask.

Full inspection and disclosure results currently occur in the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, and possibly in other jurisdictions. Anyone visiting the website for the Department of Health in New York City will find that it contains the names of 20,000 restaurants and the results of their most recent inspections. Prospective patrons can check on these results before they go to a restaurant by searching the website by neighbourhood. In the United Kingdom pressure from journalists using freedom of information laws to get results of inspections in their local areas led to substantial changes. Those changes were kicked along after the information commissioner made a ruling and insisted that local authorities release those results to journalists. The resulting culture is one of complete disclosure.

The United Kingdom now has in place a system that ensures that all inspections are available on websites. Consumers can check out any restaurants that they go to and they have access to complete results of the food inspection system via the web. This legislation puts pressure on the restaurant and enforcement agencies and, more importantly, individuals will be able to protect themselves from dodgy restaurants and food outlets. Public disclosure rewards the good behaviour of restaurants that pass inspection and it punishes the bad behaviour of those who gamble with the health of customers. Internationally, it has proved quite popular with good operators in the restaurant industry because they have a level playing field, whereas those who cut corners with food safety and are exposed are punished in the marketplace.

Such public disclosures of the results of food inspections also put pressure on the enforcement authorities as it rapidly becomes clear to the public that an enforcement authority has not carried out regular inspections. Poor quality restaurant operators that take a risk and gamble with the safety of their customers must 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3213

be exposed on a regular basis. We require regular inspection standards and the results must be available to the public via a website that is accessible and convenient to help the public and restaurant owners. The Greens do not oppose this bill.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.09 p.m.]: I indicate, as did the Hon. Rick Colless, that the Opposition supports the Food Amendment Bill. I indicate—it would be churlish not to, and my comments relate to areas of concern I raised when I was the shadow Minister for this portfolio—that the Minister's bill goes quite a long way to remove the concerns that fell between the Food Authority and local government. The bill clarifies those concerns appropriately. Of course, my concern with the Minister for Primary Industries is that he is a great expert at pass the parcel. He never provides funds for anyone; he always says he is going to fix it, but the cost gets passed on to someone. Certainly the New South Wales rural lands protection boards people know at first hand this Minister's ability to do that.

When I saw this bill I was concerned and thought, "Here comes another unfunded mandate for local government." However, when I contacted representatives of the Local Government Association during their busy schedule at Coffs Harbour this week, with great alacrity they were able to inform me that that was not a problem at all. The Minister had allowed them to set their fees at what they considered was an appropriate level to recoup their costs. I am happy for local government, but someone is paying for these fees: the businesses in the area and the ratepayers.

[Interruption]

Listen to The Greens bleat. They want to put a whole raft of costs on top of what we have. If we listened a moment ago to the contribution of Dr John Kaye, the costs will not just be for the test⎯ web pages, newspaper publications and a whole new department with bells and whistles to be added to the cost. They do not worry about who pays for it: they said someone has to pay for it. The problem is that this bill is a movement of a cost. A increased cost that once was with the Food Authority has moved to small business and ratepayers. I am highlighting that, once again, this Government has moved an extra cost from its area of responsibility to another area of responsibility. Certainly the Opposition views this with concern.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [6.12 p.m.]: I am pleased to express wholeheartedly my support for the Food Amendment Bill. This is an important bill as it places in the statute book a considered framework under which the long-standing role of local government in food regulation can be recognised, strengthened and improved. At its core the bill represents a partnership between local government and the State Government—a great thing for New South Wales consumers. Under the provisions of this bill councils will be appointed to perform certain defined functions under the Food Act. It provides certainty for councils and consumers alike that the clear duty of a council is to exercise the functions conferred upon it.

Transparency and accountability are promoted as the Food Authority is to publish a record of each appointment of a council and the functions that have been conferred upon that council. Councils also will have clear guidance on their food safety functionalities and will benefit from stronger formal ties with the New South Wales Food Authority, particularly through the newly created Food Regulation Forum. I make special mention of Bankstown City Council, of which I am still a councillor. Bankstown council has excelled itself through its participation in this partnership. It has embraced the partnership and shown a strong and serious commitment to food safety, something of which the Bankstown community will be proud and will support.

The Bankstown local government area shares with many other local government areas throughout Sydney and New South Wales the importance of food as part of its local economy. We all want to attract visitors and tourists to our local government areas to consume food, and to visit restaurants and fresh produce outlets. Certainly Bankstown has a great range of food outlets. The Sydney Morning Herald food writers have been glowing in their praise of Bankstown's variety of food. We have food from an amazing array of cultures and ethnic groups, as would be expected in a community as diverse as Bankstown. Not only do we have great restaurants, but we have excellent fresh produce outlets. Bankstown council has been working with its local businesses to ensure that we provide good quality food. We have held food festivals when many celebrities have visited our city and we have had the opportunity to share our great food culture and love of food with other Sydneysiders and visitors from other parts of New South Wales.

Food safety is very important in Bankstown and businesses recognise that. Certainly the feedback from councils and businesses is that they are happy to ensure food safety. Yes, it comes at a cost, but it is not a huge cost. No doubt that cost will be passed on to consumers, as happens with any other business. I do not accept the 3214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

criticism of the Opposition that the Government is passing on costs. It is absurd. Consumers welcome safety and are willing to pay for that safety. It is not an onerous cost. Consumers are absolutely delighted to have that certainty.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Yes, they welcome the extra costs, don't they? They think the extra costs are fabulous. "Please give us more costs", they say. Come on! What sort of a freaking world do you live in?

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: Perhaps Opposition members should come and visit places like Bankstown and talk to the shopkeepers. Talk to the restaurateurs, the greengrocers and fishmongers⎯they will tell you how pleased they are with the regime that is now in place because they want their consumers, their customers, to know that food safety is guaranteed. That is what this bill is about. Bankstown City Council is very proactive in the surveillance of food activities for all the reasons I have just stated. Recently we appointed two new inspectors who will participate in this important work. The importance of these fees is that they actually contribute to employ additional inspectors to ensure food safety.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: More bureaucrats. We will circulate this one!

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: It is amazing how food safety and the assurance of safe food for consumers is interpreted by the Opposition as bureaucracy. That is simply amazing. You people really are out of touch. Local government supports being able to carry out work on behalf on neighbouring councils or councils in other parts of the State. It is not an uncommon practice. Again, my council has business units where it actually engages in paid work for other councils. It processes development application assessments on behalf of other councils and this brings much-needed revenue back to our council. We are delighted to have the skills and expertise to do the work for other local government areas. We then receive a return to our community, which helps keep the costs of the services we provide to our community as low as possible. Our council welcomes the opportunity to do work on behalf of other councils.

Bankstown City Council has been a very visible participant in the food regulation partnership, proactively developing its food safety network and in developing the skills and capabilities in food safety through attendance at food inspection skills development courses run by the Food Authority. This will ensure that local government continues to provide an excellent service in food safety. I acknowledge the council's commitment to date and encourage it into the future. Many other councils also are actively pursuing food safety initiatives. I take this opportunity to recognise the work, commitment and leadership shown by local government and the New South Wales Food Authority in pursuing and developing this very important partnership. Underpinning this collaboration has been a strong commitment shown by the New South Wales Government ahead of this bill. The Government placed on record its strong support of the partnership through its provision of implementation funding for the food regulation partnership model. I certainly congratulate the Minister and the Government on promoting the partnership concept with local government to facilitate and improve food regulatory services within New South Wales.

In considering this bill in detail I will speak generally on the New South Wales Food Authority and its important and beneficial work for New South Wales consumers in food safety. As the only fully integrated food safety agency in Australia, the authority works to make sure that food in New South Wales is safe from paddock to plate. It works closely with the food industry and undertakes science research and policy development. It is recognised at a national and international level as an innovator in food safety, with the ultimate beneficiary being New South Wales consumers.

Over the past few years the authority has sought to improve food safety and standards through its ongoing surveys, compliance, enforcement and surveillance work. I know that the food regulation partnership proposed by the bill certainly has been an important part of the Food Authority's strategic agenda because it aims to further boost consumer food safety and enable authorities to respond more quickly to food emergencies and recalls. The Food Authority has a strong role in consumer education and has led a number of important initiatives. For example, making sure that consumers know where their food comes from and that it is correctly labelled have been a priority. Another important feature of the authority's work has been its close working relationship with industry.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Did the Minister write this for you?

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I am capable of understanding the effect of the legislation. I live in a community where people consume food, where food is sold, and where restaurateurs are supported and fresh 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3215

produce outlets trade. There are food safety issues in places other than those visited by the Opposition, but I know that members opposite will be surprised to hear that. I proudly have placed on the record my appreciation of the work of the New South Wales Food Authority in recognition of the important work it undertakes in promoting the health and wellbeing of New South Wales consumers. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to the Food Authority continuing to improve food safety in New South Wales.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.22 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Food Amendment Bill 2007. Nothing is more important than that the citizens of New South Wales are guaranteed the safety of food they purchase from cafes, supermarkets and the many food stores that are in shopping centres and malls. It is important for consumers to be given a guarantee of food safety. The Christian Democratic Party believes that the bill will improve food safety in this State.

The bill follows a review of the New South Wales food regulatory system, the Kerin review, which examined the whole issue of sharing enforcement between State and local governments. The review found that the role played by local councils could benefit from a clearer delineation of their functions and a secure funding base. The review recommended implementation of a new flexible model that clearly defines specific roles for individual local councils and provides a means by which the costs incurred in carrying out these roles could be recovered. That is very important.

When shifting responsibility to local councils, it should be borne in mind that it will be impossible for local councils to bear the costs of enforcement. The Christian Democratic Party is pleased that the legislation creates a secure funding base for carrying out enforcement by providing for a fee to be charged for issuing an improvement notice to a food business and making it an offence not to pay the fee. The bill also provides for an annual administration fee to be levied on businesses that are not required to be licensed in relation to the exercise of food business functions carried out by the enforcement agencies. Those provisions are very important.

The Food Authority will publish recommended maximum fees to be imposed by local councils for the inspection of food businesses. Already some local councils are involved in that activity and charge for inspections of food businesses under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993. The Food Regulation Forum⎯comprising representatives of the State, local government and environmental health profession representatives⎯will provide advice and assistance to the Food Authority on the implementation and operation of the scheme. I believe that the legislation is protecting councils from being burdened with additional administrative costs by those costs being borne by food businesses. For that reason, the Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.25 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to the debate. As they acknowledged, the Food Amendment Bill introduces three worthwhile initiatives. The first is a mechanism that will enable the Food Authority to separately appoint, after appropriate consultation, each local council in New South Wales to exercise certain clearly defined functions as an enforcement agency under the Food Act. The second initiative is the creation of a secure funding base for this program that will enable the proper performance of these functions. The third initiative is the creation of a statutory body to be known as the Food Regulation Forum.

In response to the concern of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about costs, I point out that the bill deals with important work that indeed needs to have a secure funding base. Recognising that each local government is different, the Government has ensured that respective councils retain the flexibility to pursue cost recovery from local food businesses or to supplement costs through general rate revenue. This ensures that they can deliver this important service in line with the expectations of the local community and the important businesses that serve the community.

In response to specific comments made by the Hon. Rick Colless about the fee, I inform the House, without going into great detail, that the following fees and charges are indicative and are yet to be approved by the Governor through regulation. They were intimated during consultation. The first is the improvement notice fee, the indicative cost of which is $330. In relation to inspection fees, local councils currently may charge an inspection fee under the Local Government Act. The Food Authority will publish recommended maximum fees in line with Food Authority audit/inspection fees. Currently the fee is $143 per hour plus $35 travelling expenses.

The annual administration charge by local councils is a discretionary charge on food businesses that are not required to be licensed under the Food Act but will be subject to routine inspection by the council. This is a 3216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

maximum charge and councils may elect to charge less. The fee is determined by the number of full-time food handlers employed by the business. If the business employs fewer than five people, the fee is $250. If the business has between six and 50 employees, the fee is $500, and for more than 50 employees, the fee is $2,000. Similar charges may be imposed by the Food Authority.

In response to Dr John Kaye's concern about how consumers will know to whom their complaint should be directed, I point out that the bill requires the Food Authority to publish on its website a list of enforcement agencies and their functions. It will be clear who is the relevant enforcement agency with regards to complaints. I acknowledge the comments by the Greens on the benefits of an expansion of the Food Act's current publication provisions for food businesses that flout food safety laws.

The New South Wales Government wants this State to be the leader in food safety in Australia. The bill is an important platform to ensure that there is consistency in compliance and enforcement activities. It will serve as a proper foundation on which to build any new publication strategies, delivering confidence for consumers and respect as well as responsibility for the food industry. The Government certainly shares with the Greens acknowledgement of the principle that high-quality and accessible information should be available to New South Wales citizens, particularly regarding Food Act breaches. The availability of quality information to fully inform consumer choice is certainly in line with the Government's objectives.

The Government also agrees that consumer awareness can bring with it improved performance in the food industry as the industry responds to very clear consumer-driven signals. The Government has been very proactive on this front. Currently the Food Authority's website publishes details of businesses that have been successfully convicted by the authority for breaking food safety laws. The Government has also been working to finetune this initiative further. It has already commenced the policy development process.

I am able to share with the House that on 15 August 2007 Minister Macdonald, in the company of Councillor Genia McCaffrey, opened a stakeholder forum to consider that very issue. The aim of the forum was to consult with the food industry, local government, consumer advocacy groups and other stakeholders on government proposals relating to the publication of further information such as penalty notices. It was certainly a very powerful exercise. Those discussions certainly could be broadened to consider improvement notices. The Minister has asked me to assure the House that the New South Wales Government is in consultation with stakeholders on those very issues with a view to bringing forward proposals to enable further access to information on food breaches.

The New South Wales Government is prepared to explore fully the balance between the public's right to know and the integrity and reputation of food businesses, with the net effect of raising consumer expectations and industry standards. The bottom line is that the Government will ensure that the Food Act properly informs consumers on the performance of food businesses. The New South Wales Government, in partnership with local government and industry, will continue to take bold moves in making our State a leader in food safety. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.30 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3217

ILLAWARRA ELECTORATE YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT, TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PLANNING

LIBERAL PARTY SOUTH COAST ILLAWARRA TASK FORCE

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [6.30 p.m.]: Tonight I wish to inform the House of some of my observations since being appointed the shadow Minister for the Illawarra some six months ago. On 27 April 2007 Wollongong mayor, Alex Darling, organised a forum on youth unemployment, which made me vividly aware of what I consider to be the Illawarra's most pressing challenge—youth unemployment. The rate of youth unemployment at the time was almost 40 per cent—and that is truly appalling. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics unemployment rates, which were released earlier this week, have Wollongong at 8.2 per cent and the Illawarra at 8 per cent, which is well above the average.

At the forum I met the Mayor of Shellharbour and many Labor politicians—Federal, State and local— who represent the Illawarra. It struck me at the time that with such strong representation, especially in the State Labor Government, the Illawarra should be on the receiving end of huge State Government support, but that is not the case. I have taken a number of rail trips to and from Wollongong since then—I have not once experienced the new trains; fortunately I have not been on one when they were cancelled because of rain—and I know firsthand how the road from Wollongong to Sydney inevitably ends in congestion for many of the 20,000 weekday commuters from the south. Transport infrastructure in the region is a significant problem.

In my meetings with the Illawarra Business Chamber and Property Council, and at functions arranged by the council, I have heard local concerns about the trucks from the port—I acknowledge that the port development is welcome—problems in progressing the release of land, frustrations at the central business district plan, and the adverse impact of developer levies. Although I do not believe I should be an advocate for individual projects, I must say that I have seen firsthand the delays and frustration at what appeared to be lost opportunities with the Australian Ling Yen Shan Temple development and Albion Park airport. I have also met the promoters and visited the site of the proposed hospital at Tullimbar.

New sections of the Princes Highway are welcome, but the slow progress further south and the lack of public transport generally are significant concerns. I have become a great fan of the University of Wollongong, enjoying visits to the campus and meeting various staff and students. It is an impressive university—a real jewel in the Illawarra, something to be proud of and a base for future development of the Illawarra. Driving along Lawrence Hargrave Drive, I have often admired the beauty of the South Coast, but I am concerned that there still does not seem to be serious State Government support for the promotion of tourism in the region. What tourism promotion there is does not seem to offer the sort of package of activities, accommodation and food that one needs to have for a serious tourism push for the region, and there is a considerable gap in that regard in the Illawarra at the moment.

During the year I have shared the disappointment of many St George-Illawarra rugby league supporters, with the disappointment of the team and its lack of success this year. However, I have not given away my St George-Illawarra jersey, which is hanging in my office in Parliament House. I have met many business and local government representatives from the Illawarra, including senior management at Bluescope Steel, Integral Energy and a number of other organisations that are important parts of the community and that provide employment. They also provide many other community services and support programs in the area. It is a great pleasure to see that level of involvement.

I also attended the Liberal Party South Coast Illawarra task force, which was chaired by the hardworking member for South Coast, Shelley Hancock. The first meeting of this group, with a variety of community members who generously gave their time and support to initiate that group's work, was very successful. I firmly believe the task force will provide a good vehicle to highlight Illawarra issues. I attended Shelley Hancock's Older Drivers Forum in Nowra. Shelley does a great job. I have also been working with Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells and her staff. They have been delivering on all sorts of programs from grants to fight obesity to funds for a covered outdoor area at Mount St Thomas Public School. The Federal Government has made great contributions to a region which should be bubbling along, which is working hard and which has fantastic resources, particularly in terms of the beauty of the area, but I do not believe it is getting the requisite level of support from the State Government or from all the Labor members who represent the Illawarra. They should be pushing with a sense of urgency to get a better deal for the Illawarra. [Time expired.] 3218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

TEACHER STAFFING FORMULAS

Dr JOHN KAYE [6.35 p.m.]: The Greens strongly support the reintroduction of discrete staffing formulas in the primary education system, that is, we support separate formulas for the allocation of staffing for the years K to 2 and 3 to 6, known as the infant's primary divide. Following a concerted campaign by New South Wales public sector teachers, parents, the Teachers Federation, parents and citizens associations, and a whole range of other organisations in support of public education in the lead-up to the 2003 State election, class sizes were reduced in the years K to 2 in public schools to a maximum of 20 in kindergarten, 22 in year 1 and 24 in year 2. This had huge measurable benefits, and they are being seen throughout the public education system to this day.

Students are better able to learn, they are more attentive in class, and they have fewer social and behavioural issues. It has been a massive success, and on behalf of the Greens I congratulate those who campaigned so heavily to achieve this wonderful outcome. However, the problem is that in some schools the way the separate staffing formula between infants and primary works is that without sufficient enrolments the staffing formula does not supply enough teachers to maintain sufficient classes. One consequence is that while we have achieved smaller class sizes in years K to 2 at the expense of larger class sizes in the years 3 to 6 in some schools. That has caused inappropriate combinations, and some class sizes are larger than 30.

In many ways in public education the failure to provide an adequate number of teachers and classes in the years 3 to 6 is undoing the huge benefits that have been won in the years K to 2. This problem is relatively easily fixed, and to do so would not be expensive. By returning to separate staffing formulas for the years K to 2, the infant years, and another formula for the years 3 to 6, the primary years, we could undo the damage that was done by the Greiner Government when it combined the two in the early 1990s; we would be able to maintain reduced class sizes in K to 2 in all schools without putting undue pressure on years 3 to 6. By doing this we would ensure that the full benefits of the class size reduction are not undone by a staffing formula that is adverse and creates perverse outcomes.

The Greens are committed to ensuring that public education receives the funding and resources it needs. But this is one area to which funds and resources are simply not flowing. The public educational lines consist of the Parents and Citizens Federation, the Primary Principals Forum, the Primary Principals Association, the Secondary Principals Council of New South Wales and the New South Wales Teachers Federation. To date some 340 letters have been sent from public schools to the Minister for Education and Training, calling on the Minister to adjust the formulas or to separate the two formulas so that class sizes in years 3 to 6 are not compromised. We call on the Government to act on those 340 heartfelt letters that seek to maintain the benefits of reduced class sizes in both years K to 2 and years 3 to 6.

KEITH STANLEY PHIPPS

PARENTS AND FRIENDS OF LESBIANS AND GAYS

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.39 p.m.]: I will start with a quote from Keith Phipps:

To paraphrase Buddha, perseverance, albeit in small chunks, will triumph!

With those words tonight I commemorate the life of Keith Stanley Phipps, who passed away on 10 September at the age of 63. I was privileged to attend his funeral service, which was held at his local church in Carlingford on 14 September. The church was overflowing, with the more than 50 people who listened in an adjacent hall testimony to the many lives that Keith had touched. It was a joyous occasion, with tributes from his family and friends and excerpts from Gilbert and Sullivan and the Goons, which demonstrated both his love of the absurd and his love of his family.

Keith met his wife, Narelle, at the young adults group of the Drummoyne Presbyterian Church in 1969. They went on to marry and to have two children, Katherine and Neil, who had hoped to be present to hear my speech tonight but the scheduling of business in the House did not allow it. An engineer by training and a Master of Business Administration graduate, Keith worked for Castrol for more than 19 years before establishing his own successful small business in security identification. Keith was always active in his local community. He mowed the lawn at his local church, drove the bus to bring residents of the nearby retirement village to and from the church, and served on the property committee. Tonight I especially acknowledge his work as a member and president of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, which is better known as PFLAG. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3219

PFLAG was established in 1972 when a mother, Jeanne Manford, marched with her son Mortie in New York's Gay Pride Parade. Jeanne Manford was compelled to march because her son had been beaten at a gay rights protest two months earlier while police stood by and did nothing. She carried a sign at the pride march that read, "Parents of Gays: Unite in Support of Our Children." Since that time PFLAG has become a movement with local chapters world wide, including in Australia. PFLAG's goal is to keep families together. It does this by giving help, support and information to the families and friends of gay men and lesbians. But PFLAG does more than just provide support. It has some of the most committed supporters and advocates of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender reform who know that the removal of discrimination combined with education is the best way to eliminate homophobia in our community.

Run entirely by volunteers, PFLAG often supports the parents of gay men and lesbians—usually in the period immediately after their son or daughter has disclosed his or her sexuality. Finding out that their child is gay is a life-changing moment for many parents. Emotions run high: there can be sadness, pain, anger and rejection. Many parents feel that their hopes and dreams have been shattered and they are often fearful for their child. Parents often describe finding themselves trapped in the very same closet that their son or daughter has just stepped out of. Through the work of people in PFLAG such as Keith Phipps, parents can get the support they need to keep communication lines open and their family together. Keith Phipps and his wife, Narelle, became active in PFLAG more than 10 years ago. Keith was the president of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays New South Wales from 2005 to 2007 following a five-year stint as vice-president. Friends and colleagues at PFLAG describe him as an intelligent, vibrant and understanding man, who was a true champion of gay and lesbian people and their families. He was an ardent advocate for human rights.

Keith worked tirelessly for PFLAG and the gay and lesbian community, seizing every possible opportunity both to provide comfort to individuals suffering from prejudice and to advance the rights of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. Keith was particularly passionate about countering homophobia in schools and about equal rights for same sex couples. During Keith's presidency PFLAG sent more than 800 information packs to counsellors at metropolitan high schools in an effort to counter the effects of homophobia in schools. In 2004 Keith was instrumental in organising a conference sponsored by the Attorney General's Department themed "Combating Rural Homophobia". The conference was attended by more than 50 delegates from PFLAG groups in Sydney and many country centres throughout New South Wales, Brisbane, Melbourne and Tasmania. The conference recommended strategies to raise awareness and achieve acceptance for gay and lesbian youth in rural communities as the best way to keep young people in those communities. In 2005 Keith and Narelle participated in the making of the film Bouncing Castles. In the words of the filmmaker:

This film entered the lives of ordinary people whose love for their gay, lesbian or transgender children introduced them to new beginnings, friendships and emotional Mardi Gras parades.

Most recently, together with many other PFLAG members, Keith participated in the National Day of Action for Equality for Same Sex couples. He said:

Change will come when parents and families accept their sons and daughters are openly gay and have relationships which are in every way equal to heterosexual relationships.

I extend my sympathy to Keith's wife, Narelle, and to his children, Katherine and Neil. I conclude tonight once again with Keith's words:

In this battle for our children's' rights, silence is not golden—it is surrender.

Keith Phipps, may you rest in peace.

TAIWAN

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [6.44 p.m.]: Wednesday 10 October this year marked the ninety-sixth anniversary of the foundation of the Republic of China and was once again the occasion for a major celebration in Sydney by some of Taiwan's many friends and supporters in Australia. It was a great honour for me to be invited to be present at this great event, which was attended not only by parliamentarians representing all major Australian political parties but also by many civic, business and community leaders and by many from the Taiwanese-Australian community. It was also a time to reflect upon the outstanding success of Taiwan as a land of economic progress, a bastion of democratic values and an upholder of individual liberty and freedom.

As the years go by and in the face of intimidation, threats and obstacles placed in its way by the Beijing Government, Taiwan continues to go from strength to strength. Now firmly established as a First World 3220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

developed society, Taiwan has the world's seventeenth largest economy. It is the world's fourteenth largest exporter and, on a per capita basis, has the second highest foreign currency reserves. While it is not overly endowed with natural resources, Taiwan is nevertheless a sophisticated, industrialised and high-tech economy and is the world's leading producer of personal computers. Unlike mainland China, Taiwan's export success is not enhanced improperly by reliance on massive breaches of international patents and copyright laws. In fact, it is estimated that every year American businesses alone are deprived of in excess of $US250 billion in income due to counterfeit goods, most of which are produced in China.

It should also be noted that, in contrast to China, Taiwan's economic prosperity has unquestionably filtered down far more equitably to all sectors of society. Unlike China, significant wealth has not been siphoned off into the grasping hands of legions of corrupt officials of the Communist Party. It is important also to remember that Taiwan's economic miracle has been achieved in a remarkably short time. Only a few decades ago Taiwan was a backwater, a Third World society and an island stagnating in poverty. Now it stands as a testament to the supremacy of free enterprise over socialism, to the victory of capitalism over communism, and to the triumph of freedom over dictatorship.

Taiwan also stands as a testament to the inventiveness, initiative, work ethic and the achievement capacity of the Chinese people when the shackles are taken off their wrists and the burden of dictatorship is lifted from their backs. We should remember that this economic success has been achieved not at the expense of any other aspect of life in Taiwan—in fact, quite the contrary. Concurrently with economic growth Taiwan has evolved into a fully democratic and genuine multi-party society. It has freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. Can mainland China claim the same? The freedom that Australia and other Western democracies experience is the freedom that the people of Taiwan enjoy as well. Why would they want to surrender their freedom, their economic prosperity and their democratic way of life to the control of a regime in Beijing that can offer none of those things? Why would they give it all up in return for the promises, the enticements and the blandishments offered by the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China?

Beijing is in the market to make a sale but the people of Taiwan are not buying—and the people of the free world should not buy either. The truth is that in the free, democratic world there is increasing concern and resentment about the manner in which China seeks to cajole, hustle and railroad the world community into isolating Taiwan. It has to date blocked Taiwan's submission to the World Health Organization despite the fact that health experts warn that to do so constitutes a potential threat to millions of people through disease and sickness that knows no borders. Despite the fact that Taiwan is a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group, the World Trade Organization, 23 other international government organisations and more than 2,000 international non-government organisations, China seeks to blackball any Taiwanese involvement with the United Nations.

Without getting into the issue of whether Taiwan is part of "one China" or a separate entity, there are several examples of one people or one nation being represented by more than one entity in the United Nations. For decades Germany was represented by both West Germany and East Germany. Korea continues to be represented by both North Korea and South Korea. When the United Nations was established in 1945 the Soviet Union had two additional votes for the Ukraine and Byelorussia, which were part of its territory. Nations of only 10,000 have United Nations representation. Where there is a will there is a way. There is a formula that allows status to be conferred upon 23 million people on the island of Taiwan, who for nearly 60 years have governed themselves.

I have raised this issue tonight because the Taiwanese-Australian community asked me to express its concerns. I have raised this issue because Taiwan's greater involvement in the world community will be of benefit to world humanity. Finally, I do so because justice and decency and the cause of freedom call out for the people of Taiwan to be brought into the company of other free peoples. The cause of Taiwan is a righteous cause, and at the end of the day a righteous cause will usually prevail.

THE GREENS PREFERENCES

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.49 p.m.]: There are a few members of the Labor Party, some of them quite senior, who spend more time trying to undermine the Greens than working to defeat the Howard Government, which surely is the main game in town. I am not talking about policy differences—there are obviously many of those, and I have no trouble with tough and harsh criticism of our policies. That is politics. In Victoria, Labor is going to great lengths to mislead the public with misinformation about the Greens working with the Liberals. In the recent New South Wales and Victorian State elections the Labor leadership in those States grossly 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3221

misrepresented the preference recommendations made by the Greens. Prior to the November 2006 Victorian State election Labor alleged that there was a Greens-Liberal arrangement to damage the Labor Government. There was no deal and the Greens voting recommendations to the public underline this.

The Greens did not preference the Liberal Party ahead of the Australian Labor Party in any upper or lower House seat in the 2006 State election. In 60 lower House seats the Greens how-to-vote cards directed preferences to Labor. In the other 28 seats the Greens suggested that the voters decide how to direct their preferences. In all upper House seats in the 2006 Victorian State election all Greens preferences were directed to the Australian Labor Party ahead of the Liberal Party. The election outcome showed that Labor did not lose one seat as a result of any Greens votes flowing to the Liberal Party.

In the New South Wales 2007 State election Premier Morris Iemma stated that the Greens preference decision could result in the Coalition winning government. His statement in The Sunday Telegraph gave the impression that the Greens were supporting the Coalition when in fact the New South Wales Greens had decided to recommend voters preference Labor in 24 State marginal seats and, in the other 69 seats, the Greens either recommended a preference to Labor or that no preferences be allocated to either Labor or Coalition candidates.

So why did the New South Wales Premier, like his Victorian colleagues, make allegations about Greens preferences? Labor people know that most Greens voters dislike the Coalition more than Labor and, unfortunately, some are working to drive Greens voters away by spreading lies that the Greens work with the Coalition. The Labor misrepresentation has now been extended from preferences to the voting patterns of Greens members of Parliament. Some members of Victorian and New South Wales Labor are trying to make out that Greens and Liberal members of Parliament work together against Labor.

I sometimes speak at forums with members from other parties. On two occasions now a Labor member of Parliament has publicly stated that the Greens and Coalition vote together most of the time, referring to the New South Wales Parliament. I was able to answer this lie with the solid information that more than 90 per cent of the legislation in the New South Wales Parliament is passed on the combined vote of Labor and the Coalition. In Victoria the baseless allegation of Greens and Liberal members of Parliament working together is more elaborate with a website set up in an attempt to give more substance to Labor's dirty tricks.

The website, run by Stephen Newnham, Labor's Victorian secretary, alleges that the Greens and Liberal members of Parliament have voted together 68 per cent of the time. For the record, upper House voting data shows that Victorian Greens have voted with Labor about 32 times out of 37 divisions, that is, 86 per cent of the time; Labor has voted with the Liberals 27 times out of 37 divisions, that is, 73 per cent; and all three parties have voted in unison 27 times out of 37 divisions, that is, 73 per cent. On most occasions when the Greens and the Liberals voted together the Labor Party voted with the Liberals too. The Greens voting behaviour fails to support allegations that there is a deal between the Greens and the Liberals.

While Victorian Labor is obsessed with making out that the Greens are helping out the conservatives, in New South Wales some Labor members of Parliament favour the cold war tactics of whipping up a red smear. We all remember the comments in this place of the former Treasurer Mr Egan about some of the Greens members. Former Premier Bob Carr was known to dredge up the "Trotskyite" label when describing the Greens. Current upper House member and chair of committees, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, in a recent speech described the Greens as "the offshoot of the Communist Party of Australia". This is just another attempt to misrepresent and discredit the Greens.

The Labor Party would have more former members in the Greens than any left-wing party could muster. The reason Labor attacks the Greens using dirty tactics is because it is worried by their vote and fears that the Greens will continue to erode its vote and, in time, win one of its seats. The ill-thought-out tactics coming from parts of the Labor Party are not helping with the main game in town, and that is the defeat of the Howard Government. For the Greens, this means electing a Rudd-led government with Labor and Greens together holding the Senate majority. Unfortunately, much of Labor's spoiler tactics against the Greens is detracting from this vital objective.

PETER COSTELLO AND THE H. R. NICHOLLS SOCIETY

The Hon. IAN WEST [6.54 p.m.]: I am about to speak about an extremist who has dedicated his life to the union movement. This thug, like so many dangerous ideologues, hails from Victoria. It has recently been revealed that he spent his early years flirting with moderation as an office bearer of the Labor Party-aligned 3222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 24 October 2007

Social Democrats at university. However, it was not long before extremist politics dominated his thoughts and his actions. He became obsessed with collective activity by workers and unionism, an obsession that would stick with him for the whole of his life. But this obsession with collectivism was not one aimed at the betterment of wages and conditions for working people; rather it was aimed at the betterment of Peter.

Mr Costello complains about the number of unionists in the Labor Party to the point of delusion, where he cannot tell the difference between a union member and someone who is employed by a union, but what Mr Costello does not tell us is that he spent his years before he became a member of Parliament as a low-level union-busting lawyer. He did junior solicitor work on a number of cases in the 1980s against workers and their union representatives. One example was the Dollar Sweets case, celebrated amongst bloody-minded employers because it opened the door for workers to be sued for taking industrial action. Costello also surfaced as a junior legal representative in the Troubleshooters case, which paved the way for companies to hire staff as contractors, thereby avoiding obligations to take out workers compensation insurance, provide staff with annual leave, sick leave and so on. I do not want to overstate Costello's role in these cases, as he was only a bit of a player. Poor Peter has always been the bridesmaid and never the bride.

Mr Costello was also a founding member of the H. R. Nicholls Society. Costello revealed to the Business Review Weekly in 1986 that the aim of the H. R. Nicholls Society was to pollute public discourse with their extremist ideology, to soften the public up so that the Liberals could adopt their radical policies and stay fashionable. The society's aims have been to bring to an end the Industrial Relations Commission, the so-called the "IR club", which it laughably saw as a hotbed of Marxism. The group may have seen itself as opposed to clubs but the record of who attended its inaugural meeting include some very clubby folk indeed. Amongst the attendees were: John Stone, former Treasury secretary; Hugh Morgan, a mining millionaire and future head of the Business Council of Australia; Ray Evans, Western Mining executive; Charles Copeman, mining executive credited with busting unions in the Pilbara; David Trebeck and Paul Houlihan, both former National Farmers Federation activists who were involved on the employer's side of the 1998 waterfront dispute; Ian McLachlan, a former National Farmers Federation president; Geoff Carmody, who has worked in the Treasury and for the International Monetary Fund; former Governor-General Sir John Kerr; and conservative columnist and former Howard adviser Gerard Henderson.

To give an idea of the whacko mentality of the H. R. Nicholls Society, a reliable indicator of where the Liberals are heading in their workplace policy, its current boss, Ray Evans, believes even WorkChoices is stained by the hand of Marxism. Do not forget: Finance Minister Nick Minchin was apologising to this group last year and promising more industrial relations reforms. While the current Prime Minister promises there will be no further changes to WorkChoices, people are entitled to wonder what will happen when the co-founder of this band of nutters takes over.

A former Prime Minister described the Treasurer as "all tip and no iceberg". Unfortunately for the families of New South Wales, Mr Costello's iceberg—should he be elected—will be further industrial relations changes. The only hope for working families will be the Treasurer's lack of backbone. Costello has lacked the backbone to seize the mantle from the Prime Minister and he has lacked the backbone to use his money to take on some of the genuine challenges Australia will face in the future. Despite the surpluses filling up the Government coffers Mr Costello has lacked the conviction to invest in the true drivers of productivity—skills and infrastructure.

Mr Costello has lacked the backbone to invest in our schools and hospitals. The Federal Government's own final budget outcome revealed that the State's total income from the Federal Government had sunk to its lowest level in 10 years. The so-called economic management of Peter Costello is no management at all. It is the equivalent of someone who stuffs all his money in the mattress while he lives in a tent, does not go to school, has missing teeth and requires heart surgery.

HOUSING LOAN INTEREST RATES

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [6.58 p.m.]: I advise members of this Chamber of some of the history of housing loan interest rates, which they need to keep in mind. I bought my first home in 1976 and paid $25,000 for it. I borrowed $22,000 and was earning about $7,000 a year. At that time the interest rate was 9.8 per cent. Over the next 10 years or so that interest rate blew out to 17 per cent.

The Hon. Ian West: It was pegged at 11 per cent. 24 October 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3223

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The interest rate went to 17 per cent; it was not pegged. Housing loan interest rates rose to 17 per cent. At the time that John Howard was elected Prime Minister the interest rate was about 11 per cent and it continued to decline to the lowest level this country has experienced since 1970. There was a little spike in January 2001 when the interest rate went up to about 8 per cent, and it continued to decline. There is another little spike now. My point is that the interest rate has never gone above what it was when John Howard was elected. It is still lower than it ever was under a Labor Government.

[Time for debate expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 7.00 p.m. until Thursday 25 October 2007 at 11.00 a.m.