New South Wales

Legislative Council

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

Fifty-Sixth Parliament First Session

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

Authorised by the Parliament of New South Wales

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Members ...... 57 Pledge of Loyalty ...... 57 Bills ...... 57 Greyhound Racing Prohibition Bill 2016 ...... 57 Poppy Industry Bill 2016 ...... 57 Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Bill 2016 ...... 57 Assent ...... 57 Governor ...... 57 Administration of the Government ...... 57 Administration of the Government ...... 57 Documents ...... 57 Independent Commission Against Corruption ...... 57 Reports ...... 57 Commemorations ...... 58 Centenary of First World War ...... 58 Members ...... 58 Parliamentary Secretaries...... 58 Presiding Officers ...... 58 Temporary Chair of Committees ...... 58 Motions ...... 58 Belmore Boys High School Trade Training Centre ...... 58 Documents ...... 58 Tabled Papers not Ordered to be Printed ...... 58 Committees ...... 59 Legislation Review Committee...... 59 Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 24/56 ...... 59 Committees ...... 59 Joint Standing Committee on the Office of the Valuer General ...... 59 Report: Tenth General Meeting with the Valuer General ...... 59 Committee on Children and Young People ...... 59 Report: Review of the 2015 Annual Report of the Advocate for Children and Young People ...... 59 Documents ...... 59 Auditor-General ...... 59 Report: Sale and Lease of Crown Land: Department of Industry—Lands ...... 59 Ombudsman ...... 59 Reports ...... 59 Committees ...... 60 Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 60 Government Response: Remedies for the serious invasion of privacy in New South Wales...... 60 Documents ...... 60 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Greyhound Racing Industry ...... 60 Return to Order ...... 60 Claim of Privilege ...... 60 Business of the House ...... 60 Withdrawal of Business ...... 60 Postponement of Business ...... 60 Committees ...... 60 Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 60 Membership ...... 60 Standing Committee on Social Issues ...... 60 Membership ...... 60 Chair ...... 60 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 ...... 61 Membership ...... 61 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 6 ...... 61 Membership ...... 61 Visitors ...... 61 Visitors ...... 61 Bills ...... 61 Fines Amendment (Electronic Penalty Notices) Bill 2016 ...... 61 Second Reading ...... 61 Third Reading ...... 69 Security Industry Amendment (Private Investigators) Bill 2016 ...... 69 Second Reading ...... 69 Questions Without Notice ...... 73 City of Sydney Council Election ...... 73 Central Coast Roads ...... 73 College Street Cycleway ...... 74 Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest ...... 74 Disability Reform Council ...... 75 Port of Newcastle ...... 75 Greyhound Racing Industry Ban ...... 76 Crown Land Reform ...... 77 Sex Education ...... 77 Young Driver Road Safety...... 78 Moonbi and Kootingal Water Supply ...... 78 Lannate L Insecticide ...... 78 Multicultural Health Week ...... 79 Biosecurity Act Regulations ...... 79 Deepwater Ocean Outfall Program ...... 80 Crown Land Rent Arrears ...... 80 Multicultural Community Literacy Rates ...... 81 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

School Zones Flashing Lights ...... 82 College Street Cycleway ...... 83 Deferred Answers ...... 83 Committees ...... 84 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 ...... 84 Report: Reparations for the Stolen Generations in New South Wales: Unfinished Business ...... 84 Members ...... 85 Inaugural Speech ...... 85 Committees ...... 88 Committee on the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission and the Crime Commission ...... 88 Report: 2016 Review of the Annual Reports of Oversighted Bodies ...... 88 General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 ...... 89 Report: Elder Abuse in New South Wales ...... 89 Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 94 Report: First Review of the Compulsory Third Party Insurance Scheme ...... 94 Bills ...... 96 Security Industry Amendment (Private Investigators) Bill 2016 ...... 96 Second Reading ...... 96 Instruction to Committee of the Whole ...... 100 Third Reading ...... 102 Adjournment Debate ...... 102 Adjournment ...... 102 Commercial Fisheries Business Adjustment Program ...... 103 Racial Discrimination ...... 103 Biodiversity Offsets ...... 104 Ms Sally Herman ...... 105 Local Government Elections...... 105 Illicit Drug Use ...... 106

Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 57

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

The PRESIDENT (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 14:30. The PRESIDENT read the prayers and acknowledged the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thanked them for their custodianship of this land. Members PLEDGE OF LOYALTY The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on Monday 29 August 2016 Mr Justin Robert Field presented himself to His Excellency the Governor and took the pledge of loyalty. I further report that the Governor has forwarded to the Clerk a message transmitting the pledge of loyalty for the member. Mr Justin Robert Field signed the Roll of the House. Bills GREYHOUND RACING PROHIBITION BILL 2016 POPPY INDUSTRY BILL 2016 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (GOVERNANCE AND PLANNING) BILL 2016 Assent The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of messages from the Governor notifying His Excellency's assent to the abovementioned bills. Governor ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Hon. Thomas Frederick Bathurst, AC, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales: GOVERNMENT HOUSE Sydney T Bathurst LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR The Honourable Thomas Frederick Bathurst, AC, Lieutenant-Governor of the State of New South Wales, has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that, consequent on the Governor of New South Wales, His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley, AC, DSC (Ret'd), being absent from the State, he has assumed the administration of the Government of the State. Friday, 26 August 2016 ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following message from His Excellency the Hon. David Hurley, AC, DSC (Ret'd), Governor of the State of New South Wales: GOVERNMENT HOUSE Sydney David Hurley GOVERNOR General David Hurley, AC, DSC (Ret'd), Governor of New South Wales has the honour to inform the Legislative Council that he has re-assumed the administration of the Government of the State. Saturday, 27 August 2016. Documents INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION Reports The PRESIDENT: According to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, I table a report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption entitled "Investigation into NSW Liberal Party Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 58

electoral funding for the 2011 State election campaign and other matters", dated August 2016. Under the Act the report has been authorised to be made public. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. Commemorations CENTENARY OF FIRST WORLD WAR The PRESIDENT (14:35): On 15 September 1916 during a part of the broader Battle of the Somme at a place now recorded as Delville Wood something new emerged on the battle field: the tank. The idea of mechanised fighting machines stretched back to a prototype built in the fifteenth century, envisaged in the drawings of Leonardo da Vinci and, like so much of the modern world, predicted in detail by H. G. Wells in his 1903 story The Land Ironclads. Resistance by military traditionalists with a romanticised view of the role of cavalry in warfare, meant that development of the concept did not occur until Churchill and others began to see its potential in the early months of the Great War. In December 1915 orders were given for the rapid development of the machine, which was given the codename "tank" in an effort to mislead foreign intelligence into thinking it was a new "water tank" for use in the Middle East. The new machine was designed to resist machine gun fire, cross contested territory, ride over barbed wire and surmount trenches. By the end of the war the tank had proven to be one of the most formidable weapons deployed by both sides and had redefined modern military tactics to focus on armoured warfare. As a result, the great tradition of Australian troops mounted on their stout Waler horses gave way to a new style of mounted warfare and the creation of the first Australian Tank Corps in 1927. Lest we forget. Members PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I inform the House that on 25 August 2016 the Premier made the following changes to the persons holding office as Parliamentary Secretaries: Mr Christopher Gulaptis, MP, ceased to hold office as Parliamentary Secretary for the North Coast Ms Katrina Hodgkinson, MP, ceased to hold office as Parliamentary Secretary for Southern New South Wales Mr Adam Marshall, MP, was appointed as Parliamentary Secretary for Northern New South Wales and Renewable Energy The Hon. Bronnie Taylor, MLC, was appointed as Parliamentary Secretary for Southern New South Wales and Regional Communications Presiding Officers TEMPORARY CHAIR OF COMMITTEES The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that the Hon. Bronnie Taylor has advised me of her desire to step down from the position of Temporary Chair of Committees due to her appointment as a Parliamentary Secretary. I thank the Hon. Bronnie Taylor for her service. Motions BELMORE BOYS HIGH SCHOOL TRADE TRAINING CENTRE The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS (14:39): I move: (1) That this House notes that on 6 August 2016, Belmore Boys High School opened its new Trade Training Centre. (2) That this House congratulates the principal, teachers, staff, students and parents at Belmore Boys High School on their commitment to education and opportunity. Motion agreed to. Documents TABLED PAPERS NOT ORDERED TO BE PRINTED The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: Pursuant to Standing Order 59, I present a list of papers tabled and not ordered to be printed since 9 August 2016. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 59

Committees LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 24/56 The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I table the report of the Legislation Review Committee entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 24/56", dated 13 September 2016. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. Committees JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE VALUER GENERAL Report: Tenth General Meeting with the Valuer General The Hon. ERNEST WONG: I table a report of the Joint Committee on the Office of the Valuer General entitled "Report on the Tenth General Meeting with the Valuer General", dated September 2016. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. The Hon. ERNEST WONG: I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE Report: Review of the 2015 Annual Report of the Advocate for Children and Young People The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I table a report No. 1/56 of the Committee on Children and Young People entitled "Review of the 2015 Annual Report of the Advocate for Children and Young People", dated September 2016. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Documents AUDITOR-GENERAL Report: Sale and Lease of Crown Land: Department of Industry—Lands The CLERK: According to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I announce receipt of the performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Sale and lease of Crown land: Department of Industry— Lands", dated September 2016, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 8 September 2016. The Hon. MICK VEITCH: I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. OMBUDSMAN Reports The CLERK: According to the Firearms Act 1996 and the Ombudsman Act 1974, I announce receipt of a report of the Ombudsman entitled "Review of police use of the firearms prohibition order search powers", dated August 2016, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 9 September 2016. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 60

Committees STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Government Response: Remedies for the serious invasion of privacy in New South Wales The CLERK: Pursuant to standing order, I announce the receipt of the Government's response to report No. 57 of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice entitled "Remedies for the serious invasion of privacy in New South Wales", tabled on 3 March 2016, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 5 September 2016. Documents GREYHOUND RACING INDUSTRY Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Thursday 11 August 2016, I table documents relating to an order for papers regarding the Government's advertising campaign relating to the greyhound racing industry, received on 8 September 2016 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents for which privilege is claimed and which are available only to members. Business of the House WITHDRAWAL OF BUSINESS Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I withdraw Private Members' Business item No. 832 outside the Order of Precedence standing in my name on the Notice Paper for today relating to greyhound racing. The Hon. WALT SECORD: I withdraw Private Member's Business item No. 860 outside the Order of Precedence standing in my name on the Notice Paper for today relating to Nepean Hospital. POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: On behalf of Ms Jan Barham: I move: That Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 be postponed until 11 October 2016. Motion agreed to. The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I move: That Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 2 be postponed until 15 September 2016. Motion agreed to. Committees STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 9 September 2016 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government of the following change to membership of the committee: Mr Khan in place of Mrs Taylor. STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 9 September 2016 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government of the following change to membership of the committee: Mr Farlow in place of Mrs Taylor. Chair The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 9 September the Leader of the Government nominated the following member as chair of the committee: Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 61

Mr Farlow nominated as chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues. GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 4 Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 9 September 2016 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government of the following change to membership of the committee: Mr Khan in place of Mrs Taylor. GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 6 Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 9 September 2016 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government of the following change to membership of the committee: Mrs Taylor in place of Mr Farlow. Visitors VISITORS The PRESIDENT: I welcome into the President's Gallery Mr Leslie Jeckeln, the former Clerk of the Parliaments from June 1977 until August 1989. We hope you are enjoying your return to Parliament House and find the conduct of proceedings illuminating. Bills FINES AMENDMENT (ELECTRONIC PENALTY NOTICES) BILL 2016 Second Reading The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (15:06): On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: 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 Fines Amendment (Electronic Penalty Notices) Bill 2016 amends the Fines Act 1996 to provide for the issuing of electronic infringement notices by the NSW Police Force and other agencies who are authorised to do so, with the understanding and consent of the recipient to receive a notice in this manner. The amendment follows a successful proof of concept trial in 2013 in which five NSW Police Force Local Area Commands trialled the use of mobile technology to issue traffic infringement notices electronically. While information technology companies have developed products that have been used by law enforcement agencies internationally, it is understood that the trial represented the first "in house" application to be developed by a law enforcement agency in the world. This proof of concept generated wide interest from agencies including Microsoft, IBM, other Australian law enforcement jurisdictions and government agencies. The bill, therefore, amends the Fines Act 1996, to provide that when police are to issue a penalty notice, the police officer may offer the recipient a choice to receive the notice electronically, by email or SMS. Police will only issue electronic penalty notices when the recipient consents to this format. Should the person not understand the offer or choose to receive the notice in the paper format, penalty notices will be issued manually by police and sent by post, in line with current practice. The recipient will be required to provide their email or SMS phone number for this purpose. These details will be stored on the police computerised operational policing system [COPS] as the person's address would be for the paper-based system. Police with access to the mobile devices that will allow them to make the offer of an electronic penalty notice, will do so in the first instance. This will be the preferred method. The amendments: • provide for the voluntary provision of email addresses and phone numbers; and • provide that children under the age of 16 will not be issued infringement notices electronically. Without the legislative amendments, police will be unable to issue electronic infringement notices in the field. The legislative amendments required have been the subject of consultation with the Office of State Revenue, Roads and Maritime Services, Transport for NSW, the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 62

In modern times, customers have an expectation that almost all transactions can be completed electronically. The use of infringement notices as a penalty for certain offences is an inevitable and essential provision for the NSW Police Force, although recipients will now have the convenient option of settling this penalty in electronic format. A number of replacement provisions are included to modify or streamline the language of the Act as a consequence of the primary amendment. These amendments do not change the existing intent of these provisions. • Under section 3 (1) the definition of "penalty notice offence" is amended to "an offence under a statutory provision for which a penalty notice may be issued". This clarifies the link between the Fines Act and those statutes which allow a penalty notice to be issued. • This link is further clarified under amendments to section 19 (1) (a), which now reads "a person is alleged to have committed a penalty notice offence for which a penalty notice may be issued under a statutory provision". • Section 19 (1) (al ) is amended to omit the term "the appropriate officer" and to insert "the officer who may issue a penalty notice". This amendment clearly defines the authorised person who may issue a penalty notice or administer a caution in place of a penalty notice and facilitates the transition to this method by those agencies authorised to issue penalty notices. • Section 19A (1) is amended to remove the term "appropriate officer" and insert "officer authorised to issue a penalty notice". • Section 19A (1) is also amended to remove the term "an offence under a statutory provision for which a penalty notice may be issued" and insert "a penalty notice offence". These amendments modernise the language of the Act in keeping with the new provisions. • Section 20 (a) is amended to define a penalty notice as applicable to the person who has been issued with the penalty notice. • Section 20 (b) is amended to clarify that should a person wish to pay the penalty notice without attending court, they may pay the appropriate amount, within the stated time and to the appropriate person, as specified on the notice. The next clause is the primary amendment for the intent of this bill: • Section 21 (3) is amended to provide for the issuing of electronic penalty notices by a police officer to a person's email address or telephone number. Persons authorised to issue electronic penalty notices by other agencies are also detailed in this subsection. This section provides that a police officer may issue a penalty notice by causing the penalty notice to be sent to an email address or phone number, but only if the recipient elected to have the penalty notice issued on them in that way. The recipient must also voluntarily provide an email address or phone number for the purposes of that issuance. The need to obtain consent to issue a penalty notice electronically is consistent with recommendation 6.2 of the NSW Law Reform Commission's Report 132: Penalty Notices which was tabled in Parliament on 29 March 2012. Recommendation 6.2 proposed an amendment to the Fines Act 1996 to allow agencies to issue penalty notices and subsequent notices, including reminder notices and enforcement notices, electronically where the penalty notice recipient has provided consent in advance. At this time the intent is that only police officers will be issuing electronic penalty notices. However the provisions "futureproof" the amendments so that when another agency develops the capacity to issue electronic notices and authorises their officers to do so, they can commence without further legislative amendment required. • Section 21 (3) (b) allows for other persons who are authorised by a relevant issuing agency to issue a penalty notice, to do so electronically. • Section 21 (4) provides that a police officer, or other person authorised to issue penalty notices, is not to issue an electronic penalty notice on children under 16 years or over 10 years of age. Young people under the age of 16 years (but over the age of 10 years) who commit offences attracting a penalty notice are usually dealt with pursuant to the requirements of the Young Offenders Act 1997. The use of the Act, which encourages young people to take responsibility for their offending, is important. There is not the intent that the proposed amendments should override matters usually dealt with under the Young Offenders Act. This should serve as an assurance to parents that we still expect children and young persons to take responsibility for their offending behaviour, with their parents' support, via the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, which are appropriately tailored to provide suitable penalties in a productive way. While police may issue penalty notices to persons who have committed minor offences, for example, travelling on public transport without a valid ticket, or riding a bicycle without a fitted and fastened helmet, and riding a bicycle on a footpath; the Fines Act in its current form does not apply to children who are under the age of 10 years at the time of the offence. If a young person under the age of 16 years (but over the age of 10 years) or a young person over 16 did happen to receive a penalty notice; this would occur via the paper based system. This provides a higher likelihood that parents may become aware of the notice and can encourage more appropriate behaviour This will also allow parents to assist with paying the fine. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 63

• Section 21 (5) required that a recipient only provide their email address or telephone number voluntarily for the issue of a penalty notice. • Section 21 (6) allows a penalty notice to be issued electronically even if the statutory provision providing for the issue of the penalty notice does not authorise the issue of the penalty notice in this manner. • Section 22 (1) is to be omitted as the new section 21 (1) gives effect to the same provision. • Section 22A (1), (2) and (3) is to be inserted, which clarifies the effect of payment under a penalty notice. Under this section, which also is updating the language of a current provision, if the recipient pays the penalty notice in full within the required time, no further proceedings will be laid against them. Should the incident which caused the penalty notice to be issued result in a civil claim, action or proceeding, the recipient does not provide an admission of liability by paying for the notice. Furthermore, payment of a penalty notice will not affect any disciplinary or other proceedings. This includes liability in the circumstances. • Section 23 (2) and the accompanying note is omitted and a more modern language is provided with the same intent in section 22A (1). • Section 23 (3) is inserted to ensure the amount specified in the penalty notice cannot exceed a fine imposed by the court for the same offence. • Section 23 (4) is inserted to ensure the amount specified in the penalty notice cannot exceed the amount specified in any statutory provision providing for that penalty notice. These existing, now updated, sections avoid any conflict with penalty notice provisions in other Acts that specifically limit the penalty notice amount prescribed by the accompanying regulations to less than the amount that can be imposed by a court. • Section 23 (5) is inserted to provide for the varying amounts specified on penalty notices. This will allow for circumstances where different offences attract differing monetary penalties, as do varying severities of the same offence. • Section 23AA (6) and 23AB (5) are omitted to insert the term "this section applies despite section 22A (1)". This amendment will clarify the Act relating to matters requiring a vehicle or vessel driver nomination. These amendments are consequential to the recently passed Fines Amendment Bill 2016 and are required to ensure no anomaly exists with the provisions of that bill. • Section 23A (3) (a) and section 36 (5) (a) are omitted and replaced with "section 22A (1) ceases to apply in relation to the person". This removes reference to section 23 (2), which is now omitted. The reference to section 22A (1) clarifies that proceedings will occur, as the recipient has elected this option. • Sections 23A (2A), 24, 25, 26, 42 (1) (a) and 42 (1CC) are amended to clarify that a person is "issued" with a penalty notice, rather than "served". This brings the language of the legislation in line with the electronic method of administering penalty notices. • Section 33 is amended to remove a reference to statutory provisions under which the notice was issued. This is unnecessary wording as reference is already made to payment in accordance with the penalty notice. Therefore, by paying the notice as originally instructed the matter is dealt with appropriately. • Schedule 1 and reference to schedule 1 under section 19 (1) (b) are omitted. This amends the current structure of the Act. In recent years new penalty notice provisions have not been added to the schedule, rather, reference is made back to the Act, so its inclusion is now outdated and redundant. However, this does not mean penalty notices cannot be issued for these offences. Instead, the statute which refers to a penalty notice provides for its issuance. This streamlines the legislation without removing the option of issuing a penalty notice, if the relevant Act permits. I now turn to the benefits of these provisions. This amendment will improve administration and customer satisfaction rates, and will ensure we are delivering services that are responsive to the community and meet customer needs. The amendment aligns with the Premier's priority to improve government services by increasing the level of online transactions to 70 per cent by 2018-19. The proof of concept trial proved to be a huge success for the NSW Police Force and the Office of State Revenue with respect to the security and applicability of the technology, and was an efficient and cost-effective way for government agencies to do business. The project returned significant time savings for front-line police by eliminating unnecessary data duplication and entry requirements. The Office of State Revenue has estimated that $1.2 million could be saved each year by eliminating the manual handling of traffic infringement notices alone. The NSW Police Force Highway Patrol has estimated that approximately an hour per day per police officer will be saved through the service of traffic infringement notices electronically. This equates to around 240,000 hours a year, and will allow more time to be spent working on the front line rather than undertaking administrative tasks. This initiative will form an essential component of the Mobile Policing Strategy, which is designed to implement an "Anytime, Anywhere Policing" model. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 64

This strategy will increase time spent by front-line staff in the field and improve access to information, which will in turn improve both response times and officer safety outcomes. I will now describe the process of issuing an electronic penalty notice. Police will first seek a person's consent to send the penalty notice via email or text message, not both; or should the person prefer, by Australia Post. The application contains a number of fields which police populate with all necessary data, in connection with the offence. These include the person's proof of identity—his or her driver's licence details, the location, date and time of the offence, vehicle registration number if required and the offences which are alleged to have been committed. The location field uses GPS technology and a map to pinpoint the exact spot the offence occurred. If the recipient elects to receive the penalty electronically, a PDF of the penalty notice will be sent to the person via email or text message which they will then be able to download and print; or pay via a hyperlink to the Office of State Revenue website. The electronic penalty notice will contain the same information as that found on the existing paper-based notice. A separate penalty notice will be issued for each offence, if applicable, to ensure the recipient understands the concept of receiving each ticket electronically. If the person receiving the notice chooses to pay one and challenge another in court, they will be able to do so using the unique penalty notice number. As with current practice, the electronic penalty notice will provide a number of payment options for the person concerned. If a person wishes to have one or all of the offences determined by a court, then he or she will be required to complete and submit the court election format provided at www.sdro.nsw.qov.au. If submitting the request electronically, the online court election format requires the person to enter the penalty notice number for the matter with which they want dealt at court. It is anticipated that additional paperwork and administration will be eliminated, as the police officer will not be required to re-enter data from his or her notebook onto the COPS when they return to the station. The data will automatically upload to the COPS database from the field. The security model used to protect the application, the device and the Cloud during the trial worked flawlessly and there were no security breaches. This same model will be used in the future. If the person declines to provide a phone number or email address then the officer will issue the infringement notice manually and send it by post, in line with current practice. It is inevitable that officers will encounter vulnerable persons when issuing an infringement notice. If the recipient does not understand the process of paying for an infringement notice electronically, or does not have the technology, the officer will issue the infringement notice manually. Officers who issue infringement notices are well trained and highly experienced in assessing the needs of vulnerable persons and will be more than capable of gauging the recipient's understanding of the process. In the event that a person fails to provide a bona fide email address or phone number then he or she will be dealt with via the Office of State Revenue's follow-up procedures. The Office of State Revenue issues reminder notices 28 days after the initial notice has been issued. These reminder notices are mailed to the person's residential address as shown on their driver's licence. If a police officer believes at the time that the email address or phone number being provided is false, they may choose to proceed with a manual paper notice. In this way avoidance of service, in terms of an electronic penalty notice, will not differ from the current process where issues may occur with the person not receiving a paper fine. In the event that an electronic infringement notice is issued to an email address or phone number which belongs to a person other than the intended recipient, a disclaimer will be provided on the infringement notice with instructions requesting that the person contact police and, quoting the infringement notice number, advise that the notice has been sent in error. A link will also be provided which will take the person to the NSWPF Contact Us page on its website. There, the person will be able to select the area they wish to contact, in this case the Customer Assistance Unit, and enter all necessary details. Should the person wish to provide additional details, such as their name, email and contact number they can, however it is not compulsory to do so. The Police Assistance Line [PAL] number will also be available and PAL staff advised on how to record and deal with issues relating to electronic infringement notices. If a tablet is lost, police will have the capability to locate, lock and wipe the device remotely. Accountability mechanisms have also been built into the infringement notice application to ensure that all of the required fields have been entered and checked prior to sending. This will mitigate any instances of an error occurring. These are straightforward amendments that serve a good purpose: they enable the NSW Police Force to provide a technological response in a highly technological society where electronic communications are fast replacing more traditional methods. I commend the bill to the House. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 65

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ (15:06): The aim of the Fines Amendment (Electronic Penalty Notices) Bill 2016 is to amend the Fines Act 1996 to allow penalty notices to be issued electronically. Provisions which relate to penalty notices will be standardised to meet the legislative changes. A number of consequential amendments have been made in order to modernise the language used. However, this new language does not change the existing intent of any of the provisions. Presently the NSW Police Force has the capacity to issue penalty notices to individuals should they commit an offence. To date penalty notices have been handwritten by the officers and served to the offender. This process is time-consuming and creates some data duplication as the issuing officer must make further notes and records once they have returned to command. It has been estimated that each NSW Police Force Highway Patrol officer could save approximately one hour per day as a result of the proposed electronic penalty notices regime. Presently, this time goes towards performing administrative duties. The key purpose of this legislation is to optimise the existing penalty system, which in turn will allow the NSW Police Force to operate more efficiently. This legislation has taken the appropriate steps to establish the necessary framework to allow other authorised agencies to issue electronic penalty notices in the future without the need for any further legislative amendments. Schedule 1, section 21 (1), (2) and (3) sets out that any authorised officers may issue such penalty notices. This will allow other agencies to take this method on board and take the appropriate steps to modernise their penalty systems and issue penalties electronically. Schedule 1, sections 20 and 21, set out the definitions of a penalty notice and how it may be issued, specifically pertaining to the issuing of an electronic penalty notice. In schedule 1, item [6], proposed section 21 (5) sets out that, for an electronic penalty notice to be issued, the recipient of the penalty notice must consent to receive the penalty in the form of an email or via short message service [SMS]. Should the recipient decline to receive the penalty notice electronically then the existing paper format will be used instead. Further, if the recipient does not understand the offer to receive an electronic penalty notice or if the issuing officer believes that the individual is a vulnerable person then the officer may decline to issue the penalty notice electronically and a paper penalty notice will be issued instead. Should the officer believe that the recipient is providing a false phone number or email address then the officer may also decline to issue an electronic penalty notice, even though it has been requested by the recipient. It is worth noting that the introduction of the ability for authorised agencies to issue electronic penalty notices does not inherently change the penalty system presently in place. Should an individual fail to pay an electronic penalty notice within the 28-day period then the Office of State Revenue will take the appropriate action and issue a paper-based penalty notice to the individual. The same method will be applied should the recipient not receive the penalty electronically. Proposed section 21 (4) sets out that children aged between 10 and 16 cannot be issued with an electronic penalty notice. On top of the enormous amount of time the electronic penalty system will save front-line officers, the Office of State Revenue has also projected savings of approximately $1.2 million each year by eliminating the manual handling of traffic infringement notices. The electronic penalty system relies on a modernised method of delivering documentation, as opposed to the traditional means, which could take days, if not weeks, to arrive at a recipient's address. The system has undergone a proof of concept trial that has been heralded as a great success by everyone involved. Concern was expressed about the security of the devices used to process and issue electronic penalty notices. The NSW Police Force will have the capacity to remotely locate, lock and/or wipe the contents of the device if it is lost, stolen or compromised in any way. When electronic penalty notices are sent to an individual, each offence is sent as a separate file and each penalty will arrive in a separate portable document format [PDF]. The PDF will contain all the information pertaining to the offence, as well as offering the recipient the option to pay via hyperlink. This raises some concern about the inevitable arrival of new scams such as hoax emails and texts targeting vulnerable persons and users who are not technologically savvy. Presently, any kind of email or SMS a person receives from any New South Wales or Australian Government agency seeking moneys for an offence is easily dismissed and flagged as a phishing scam or as malicious content. The inception of an electronic penalty system that instructs a recipient to follow a link to pay their infringement online completely changes the game. Many of us in this House would not be strangers to hoax emails and fraudsters pretending to be from Australian agencies. Those emails often draw the attention of the parliamentary information technology [IT] department. However, most people do not have an IT department at home to keep such content at arm's length. It is not uncommon for scammers to mimic official webpages and PDF files, which are then disseminated en masse. Such actions require very little effort and technical expertise. The average user does not have the knowledge or understanding of how to determine whether the email or message they receive is genuine, particularly if it looks exactly like an official document. That is why the NSW Police Force has a cybercrime section. This is an issue that is not going anywhere any time soon. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 66

Such a document would prompt the user to follow a spoofed hyperlink that would then direct them to the "pay now" section of the fake webpage that mimics the official payment page. This has the potential to open the door to a range of scammers and fraudsters who could steal money, credit card information and an individual's personal information. Cybercrime is a problem affecting many people in our community. If we are to open the door for fraudsters to try to walk through then we need to be prepared and put in place the appropriate measures to safeguard and educate the community. Modern day fraudsters do not need to breach the security system of the NSW Police Force in order to get what they want. All they need to do is to make a convincing enough copy of the system to pull the wool over the eyes of an unsuspecting victim. The essence of this legislation is the modernisation of an archaic system to keep up with the demand and expectations of today's society. I trust that this new system will help to streamline the penalty processes and save many arduous hours of duplication and redundant data entry for hardworking police officers. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (15:14): I speak on behalf of The Greens in debate on the Fines Amendment (Electronic Penalty Notices) Bill 2016. This bill provides for electronic infringement notices to be issued by police and other prescribed agencies by email or short message service [SMS]. The issuing of these notices requires the understanding and consent of the recipient. Details provided for the electronic delivery of fines will be stored in the police database, the Computerised Operational Policing System [COPS]. The claimed intention of the Government is that only police officers will issue electronic penalty notices. However, the Minister said in his second reading speech: … the provisions futureproof the amendments so that when another agency develops the capacity to issue electronic notices and authorises their officers to do so, they can commence without further legislative amendment required. While The Greens do not oppose the bill, we note significant concerns with it. We anticipate that the changes will result in a number of outcomes. There is no doubt that more penalty notices will be issued because of the simplified process. There is no doubt that there will be a saving in police processing time. There is no doubt that there will be efficiency gains for the Office of State Revenue. However, there is equally no doubt that there will be fewer challenges to penalty notices because of a lack of direct access to information on how to undertake that process. It is also likely that there will be an increased number of defaults on payment of penalty notices, with more people having to pay higher penalties as a result. If penalty notices are not paid on time then enforcement orders can be issued. If those orders are not complied with, as we see too often with Aboriginal citizens in this State, further enforcement action is taken that can lead to the loss of a driver's licence, wages being garnisheed, property being seized or a community service order being issued. The loss of a licence, as the Ombudsman has noted on repeated occasions, can then cause a person to commit serious criminal offences when they drive unlicensed. All that can start with the simple issuing of a penalty notice. The intention of the Government is clearly that this will be an opt-in process. The legislation provides for that. People can choose to be issued with the notice electronically and can choose to pay electronically. In his second reading speech the Minister said: Officers who issue penalty notices are well trained and highly experienced in assessing the needs of vulnerable persons and will be more than capable of gauging the recipient's understanding of the process. I have to say that that is an expression of hope over experience when one looks at police practice after they have been given a raft of increased powers. Quite often the training greatly lags behind the rollout of the powers. As we saw yesterday in the report from the Ombudsman on firearms prohibition orders, policy and training can lag years and years behind the granting of additional legislative powers to police. Given the complicated demands made of police when they are out in the field, it is hard to say that police will always be able to live up to the standards that the Minister is so hopeful of achieving. People who are not internet savvy may be wary about whether the emails they receive are legitimately from the agencies in question, particularly given how rarely official information is communicated by email. As the Hon. Lynda Voltz said in her contribution to this debate, there are concerns that the engagement of the Government and police in the soliciting of payment of fines via email and SMS provides the scope for scammers to use that process, to hide behind a mock police email or text in order to take money from vulnerable citizens. There are also reasons to be cautious about the security implications of this change. The 22-year-old COPS system is in the final stages of an overhaul. The only assurance provided by the Minister about the security of data in that system is: The security model used to protect the application, the device and the Cloud during the trial worked well and there were no security breaches. The fact that wiping tablets remotely appears to be a core part of the security of the system is more than a bit worrying. There is also a risk of privacy breaches when notices are sent to incorrect email addresses or phone Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 67

numbers. That could be due to a simple transcription error by the police officer in the field. Even where a person provides their correct details, there is a real risk of transposing numbers or letters. The bill also introduces a new provision that specifies that penalty notice amounts cannot exceed the maximum that could otherwise be imposed by a court for the offence. Of course that concept of having penalty notices that are the equivalent of the maximum fine that can be imposed by a court after a trial is directly contrary to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission's recommendation that penalty notices amounts, as a general rule, should not exceed 25 per cent of the maximum court fine for an offence, which was in the Law Reform Commission's 2012 report which also stated: The NSWLRC stated that only in exceptional circumstances should a penalty notice fine reach 50 per cent of the court-imposed fine for an offence (including where the harm caused by an offence is likely to be particularly severe, there is a need to provide effective deterrence because an offender stands to make a profit from the activity, or the great majority of such offences are dealt with by way of penalty notices). The $500 fines for offensive language and offensive conduct amount to 75 per cent of the maximum fine that a court can impose for these offences … The $1100 fine for the continuation of intoxicated and disorderly behaviour amounts to 66 per cent of the maximum court-imposed fine … The Government has not provided any 'exceptional' circumstances to justify penalty notice fines amounting to at least 66 per cent of the maximum court fine. Whilst The Greens do not oppose this bill, we have serious concerns that in trying to achieve a modest reduction in paperwork for police officers and other agencies, potentially many thousands of people in New South Wales, especially vulnerable people, will have more penalty notices issued against them, and will face more enforcement orders and the enforcement action that follows when they fail to pay for them. Indeed, concerns have been raised repeatedly by academics, legal advocacy groups and community legal centres about what is becoming recognised as a problematic development in the way that criminal justice in particular is delivered in New South Wales with the ever-increasing expansion of the use of penalty notices as a form of punishment. I draw to the attention of the House an excellent article by Elyse Methven in the Current Issues in Criminal Justice No 24 report of 2014. Her article is titled "A Very Expensive Lesson: Counting the Costs of Penalty Notices for Anti-social Behaviour". Whilst I commend the whole of the report to the House I think it might be against the standing orders to read it from beginning to end so I will deal with just two important extracts from it. She raised concerns about the way in which vulnerable people are overly represented in the expansion and use of penalty notices and the unfairness to them and people with minimal resources. She said: Vulnerable people are often unable to unwilling to pay CIN [criminal infringement notice] fines, and can consequently be subjected to more serious fine enforcement measures, including increasing levels of debt and driver licence sanction, which can increase the chance of secondary offending [NSW Law Reform Commission 2012:xx1; NSW Ombudsman 2014:5,100]. If a CIN is not paid within 21 days a reminder notice is issued to the recipient. After 28 days, enforcement costs are added and enforcement processes commenced … In 2009, the NSW Ombudsman found that nine out of every 10 Aboriginal Australians issued with a penalty notice failed to pay on time, resulting in higher numbers of Aboriginal people becoming entrenched in the fines enforcement system … Driver licence sanctions have a particularly damaging impact on Aboriginal people living in regional, rural or remote communities … In these communities, private vehicles are often the only practical means of transport available to access work or basic services such as education, food, health, government services and legal aid. I make that observation now because it is important to note that what may start out as a simple penalty notice leads to a vulnerable person becoming entrenched in the fines enforcement process because of their inability to meet the fine. A penalty notice is issued in the same amount whether the person is surviving on social security or is living off a trust from mum and dad in Vaucluse. It is of a greater financial impact upon those people literally surviving hand to mouth. This matter is also addressed in the learned article. It states: A serious shortcoming of the penalty notices scheme is that police can issue notices without considering the recipient's social or financial circumstances. The NSW Ombudsman recounted a case in which a $150 CIN was issued to a homeless man for using offensive language in Hyde Park, Sydney … The man, who had a fortnightly income of $390, told police, "Fuck off and leave me alone", "Go fucking hassle someone else this is my backyard", and "Just fuck off". After his application for leniency was rejected, the man appealed to the Local Court. On 16 February 2006, the magistrate dismissed the matter on the basis that the language was not offensive in the circumstances. If such a matter were to arise today, that homeless man could be a facing a $500 fine. The Greens do not oppose this bill. We raise our concerns about the ever-increasing expansion of penalty notices and the particularly unfair impact they have on vulnerable people. The Greens believe it is time that the Government considered an overall reform of the use of penalty notices to ensure that we have some justice in our justice system and it is not just a blanket one-size-fits-all penalty that is imposed on people regardless of their financial or social circumstances. The Hon. PAUL GREEN (15:26): On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak to the Fines Amendment (Electronic Penalty Notices) Bill 2016. This bill seeks to amend the Fines Act 1996 to allow penalty notices to be issued electronically. The bill also includes other amendments to the Fines Act 1996 to consolidate and standardise provisions relating to penalty notices. In 2013 a successful proof-of-concept trial was conducted over four weeks by the Hunter Valley, Rose Bay, Sutherland, Goulburn and Moree local area commands. Following positive feedback—as positive as one can expect when receiving a fine—it was identified that a transition to the delivery of penalty notices would be useful. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 68

The Office of State Revenue has estimated that $1.2 million could be saved each year by eliminating the manual handling of penalty notices. The NSW Police Force Highway Patrol estimates that a police officer will save approximately one hour a day with this transition, equating to approximately 240,000 hours a year, which will enable our Police Force to spend more time working on the front line in our communities. The issuing of an electronic penalty notice will be carried out by police on the spot providing the individual receiving the notice gives their consent. The police officer will then request an email address or mobile number, allowing the notice to be sent via email or as an SMS. Police officers will still continue to issue a paper notice and it is the right of the individual to select how they receive notice of their penalty. We are aware that there are vulnerable people in our communities, as referred to by Mr David Shoebridge, and people can be reassured that where the changes to these processes are not understood the police officers will continue to issue penalty notices manually. Under this legislation, police officers are not to issue electronic penalty notices to young people over the age of 10 years but under the age of 16 years who commit offences. The Young Offenders Act 1997 encourages young people to take responsibility for their actions, and this is important. This ensures that parents are made aware of offending behaviours and are able to encourage more appropriate behaviours. Another concern that has been raised is that individuals may choose to supply inaccurate and/or misleading email addresses or phone numbers. For example, we could provide the email address of Mr David Shoebridge to the police. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: That would be interesting, wouldn't it? The Hon. PAUL GREEN: That would be helpful. Where this occurs some options exist. First, if believing the details may be suspect the police officer can choose to provide a written penalty notice. Secondly, should the first electronic penalty notice be incorrectly addressed, the individuals will continue to receive infringement notices from the Office of State Revenue through its follow-up procedures. Thirdly, should a penalty notice be sent in error there are ways to resolve it. The unintended recipient is able to notify the police and advise that the penalty notice has been received in error. Once this notification is received the police will then issue a new notice by mail. Accountability mechanisms have also been built into the penalty notice application. When police are filling out the penalty notice at the time of the infringement, the form requires fields to be checked and contains an entry mitigating the instance of errors. Further to this, should an individual have committed more than one offence, penalty notices will be issued separately to allow individuals to protest single penalty notices where appropriate. The bill also includes provisions for other agencies that develop the capacity to issue electronic notices, and authorise their officers to do so, to be able to begin without further legislative amendments being required. At the end of the day it seems that this system will allow people to deal with their penalty notices more quickly and efficiently and get on with their lives. We commend the bill to the House. The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (15:31): On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: In reply: I thank members for their contributions to this debate. Mr David Shoebridge raised concerns about fraudulent notices. As indicated in the other place, a unique identifying number is provided at the scene and that number can be confirmed by later calling the Police Assistance Line on 131 444. The police system is secure and the unique identifier will not be publicly available or accessible to anyone other than the person, the police and the Office of State Revenue. The New South Wales police are always vigilant against new methods of fraud and they respond appropriately. Concerns were raised about vulnerable people. The option to issue and receive a paper-based penalty notice has not been abolished. If a police officer is advised by recipients that they do not wish to receive a penalty notice electronically or that they do not understand the process of receiving a notice electronically the paper-based system will be utilised. This way recipients can pay the associated penalty using traditional methods such as by post. If a person defaults or does not pay he or she will receive a penalty reminder notice. This notice will request the original fine amount and will provide the recipient with 28 days to pay before further action is taken. The address to which that notice may be sent is verified by the police officer. It is not expected that there will be a greater number of defaults as this process is no different from the current process. In conclusion, allowing police to issue electronic infringement notices will free up officers to spend more time on the front line. It will increase flexibility and mean less paperwork for police, and people will receive and pay their fines more quickly. This is of greater benefit to officers in country areas, who have to travel long distances to return to their station to complete their administrative tasks. These are straightforward amendments that reflect increased demand for more electronic communication over more traditional methods. This is a good bill and I accordingly commend it to the House. The ASSISTANT PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 69

Motion agreed to. Third Reading The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. SECURITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS) BILL 2016 Second Reading The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (15:35): On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The amendments in this bill serve to transfer the regulation of the private investigation industry to the Security Industry Act 1997. This bill provides for the private investigation industry to be regulated as a security activity alongside other activities already regulated under the Security Industry Act 1997. This is a sensible amendment that will provide synergies to police in their regulatory and compliance activities and reduce the red tape that comes from police managing two different but similar schemes at the same time. The changes outlined in the bill provide certainty to the private investigation industry and the New South Wales community that private investigators will continue to be regulated effectively and in a way that reflects the risks and sensitive scenarios in which licensees regularly engage. While the majority of work carried out by this industry relates to the investigation of insurance claims on behalf of insurers who outsource investigations into claims, private investigators are also employed by other large corporations and government departments and can work directly for members of the public. A private investigator may assist the legal profession to locate evidence or interview witnesses, assist businesses to undertake investigations of employees or potential employees, or undertake investigations on behalf of individuals into issues such as partner fidelity. Also, as I have mentioned, a great deal of private investigation work involves assisting insurers to investigate claims. This type of work carries privacy and integrity risks that mean it is appropriate for government to continue to closely regulate this industry. Risks associated with the work of private investigators include illegal access to confidential information, breaches of confidence, misrepresentation, impersonation, trespass, harassment and the inappropriate use of surveillance equipment. Police also receive complaints in relation to alleged fraud, harassment and unethical conduct. These risks are often compounded because most private investigation work is done discreetly. There can be little visibility to the government and the people being investigated as to the lawfulness of their activities. Given these risks, it is quite right for the public to expect that all private investigators continue to be subject to a robust regulatory scheme. The Security Industry Act is such a scheme that will continue to apply ongoing probity compliance checks before they are permitted to engage in the work. I make clear that this bill will enhance the regulation of the private investigation industry in New South Wales by aligning it under the established regulatory framework of the Security Industry Act 1997. Current activities regulated by the Security Industry Act 1997 include bodyguards, crowd controllers, locksmiths and people who advise on, sell or install security services. Like private investigation, these activities pose a level of risk to the public because of their intrusive nature. It makes sense to stop managing private investigators and the security industry under separate but similar legislative schemes. I also note that by regulating private investigators alongside the security industry New South Wales will join most other Australian jurisdictions that have already implemented a similar approach. We know that national consistency in licensing and regulation is important for the private investigation industry. This bill represents a step forward by New South Wales in that regard. I now turn to the detail of the bill. A key feature of schedule 1 to the bill is that a definition of "private investigator" will be included in section 4 of the Security Industry Act 1997. This sets out that a private investigator is a person who is employed or engaged to investigate the business or personal affairs of a person or to carry out surveillance of a person. This definition draws from the definition of a "private inquiry agent" under the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004. In practice the "investigation of persons" arm of the definition encapsulates the inquiries that these agents make about a person, which often involves using open source material and interviewing the person or others about that person's personal or business affairs. The second arm of this definition, that of "surveillance of persons", includes activities such as following a person or surveilling places that they are known to frequent such as their residence or place of employment to identify their movements, activities or associates. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 70

Schedule 1 to the bill also amends section 4 of the Security Industry Act 1997 to set out that a person who acts as a private investigator or acts in a similar capacity is carrying out a security activity when it is done in the course of conducting a business or in the course of the person's employment. By specifying that it is a security activity the Security Industry Act 1997 will require persons to carry a licence issued under that Act. The licensing approach for security activities under the Security Industry Act 1997 is similar to the existing master licences or operator licences that are currently required for private inquiry agents under the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004. Under this bill a master licence will still be required for a person to run a business as a private investigator. The bill also creates a new technical class of licence under the Security Industry Act 1997—a class 2E licence—for a person to undertake work as a commercial private investigator. Under the Security Industry Act 1997 the holders of this licence must be employed by a master licence holder unless they hold an individual master licence of their own. This is similar to the operator licences currently issued for private inquiry agents. Under this bill persons who want to make an application to become private investigators will go through much of the same steps as they previously have. The Security Licensing and Enforcement Directorate within the NSW Police Force State Crime Command currently manages the applications for security licences and private inquiry licences, and this arrangement will continue under this bill. Currently, there are more than 3,400 private inquiry agent licences on issue in New South Wales. Since 2010, on average, New South Wales police have received about 800 new licence applications per year. Applicants will still need to make an application through the police if they wish to become licensed private investigators. Similar requirements will continue as currently apply in regard to age, criminal history and competency. Licence fees will also be applicable, and whilst these fees will now be set under the provisions of the Security Industry Act, they will be generally comparable to similar licence fees applicable under the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act. The criminal history requirements will continue to ensure that persons convicted of a range of serious offences are not licensed as private investigators. This is an important feature of limiting the risks associated with the industry. The types of offences that prevent a person being granted a licence under the Security Industry Act currently include: offences relating to firearms or weapons that would disqualify the person from holding a licence under the Firearms Act 1996; offences relating to prohibited drugs; offences involving assault where the penalty imposed is imprisonment or a fine of $200 or more or both; offences involving fraud, dishonesty or stealing that have a maximum penalty of imprisonment of three months or more; offences relating to terrorism; and offences involving robbery, affray, riot, stalking or intimidation. The major aim of this bill is to transfer private investigators to a different regulatory scheme, but a range of additional benefits will flow as a consequence of that and I will briefly outline them. Private investigation activity will now be subject to the offence and penalty regime under the Security Industry Act 1997. Many of these offences are similar to those that apply under the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004 such as failure to produce a licence when demanded by a police officer. However, an offence that will now apply to private investigators under the Security Industry Act 1997 is the offence of misrepresentation. This offence, under section 33 of the Security Industry Act 1997, directly addresses false or misleading activity in relation to the engagement of security activities. Applying this offence to the private investigation industry will strengthen the integrity of the industry and will increase alignment with the way in which the security industry is regulated. An additional benefit of this bill is that probationary licences for private investigators will now be abolished. We know that the current probationary licence scheme, which requires first-time private investigators to spend their first 12 months under the direct supervision of a more experienced private investigator, is viewed as both creating a barrier for new entrants to the industry and creating unnecessary red tape. It also contributes to the undesirable situation where prospective applicants could choose to become licensed in another jurisdiction to avoid the probationary period. A provisional licence scheme was removed for all other security licences in 2011 and it makes sense to align the approach for the two industries. Private investigators will also benefit from service delivery improvements that have been introduced to the security industry regulatory scheme in recent years. These include the ability to renew licences quickly and easily online. Finally, the greater enforcement powers and resources of the NSW Police Force in regulating the security industry will enable rogue private investigators to be more quickly and effectively dealt with for the benefit of all industry members and the community. Schedule 1 to the bill also sets out savings and transitional provisions to provide for the transition of persons who are currently licensed, or are seeking to be licensed, under the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004 to those persons being licensed, or having their applications for licenses determined, under the Security Industry Act 1997. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 71

The savings and transition provisions in this bill are intended to provide that current licensed private investigators can continue under their existing licence, including any conditions to which the licence has been subject. There are also provisions that will enable the Commissioner of Police to deal with pending applications without requiring a new application to be made. In regard to the other industry regulated by the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004—the commercial agent industry—this bill is the first stage of this Government's move to transfer regulation of that industry to the Office of Fair Trading. This action follows both a statutory review undertaken in 2008 and the 2014 inquiry of the Legislative Assembly Legal Affairs Committee into debt recovery in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government decided that regulation of private investigators should remain with the NSW Police Force and that the regulation of commercial agents would be better placed in the Fair Trading portfolio as this industry is considered low risk, and Fair Trading already handles complaints about debt collectors and breaches of consumer laws. Separate to this bill, the Government intends to shortly bring forward a further standalone bill to regulate commercial agents and repeal the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004. That separate legislation will affect the transfer of the regulation of commercial agents from the Police portfolio into the Fair Trading portfolio. NSW Police Force will work with the Office of Fair Trading to facilitate this change. The Government's intention is that the current bill and the future bill will commence at the same time. For that reason, this bill will commence on a date to be proclaimed. This bill is about transferring regulatory arrangements for private investigators so that they are regulated as part of the security industry. This is a sensible approach to managing the criminal and privacy risks presented by this type of work in New South Wales. This bill will also reduce red tape and improve efficiencies for police in licensing and regulating the private investigation industry. I commend the bill to the House. The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ (15:49): The aim of the Security Industry Amendment (Private Investigators) Bill 2016 is to transfer all regulation of the private investigation industry to the Security Industry Act 1997. This bill will also define and set out the roles of a private investigator and install a new licensing regime for the private investigation industry. A number of consequential amendments to other Acts will also occur as a result of moving the regulation of private investigators to the Security Industry Act 1997. As a result of the inception of this bill, the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004 will be amended to remove all references in that Act to private inquiry agents, commonly known as private investigators. The roles of private investigators and commercial agents are vastly different. The roles of the commercial agent include the serving of legal documents and debt collection, whereas the role of a private investigator includes investigation and surveillance. Due to the vastly different operating nature of those roles, it is appropriate to place them under the umbrella of their respective industries rather than to regulate them together, which is primarily what this legislation will do. Schedule 2 to this bill will amend the long title of the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004 by omitting "and Private Inquiry Agents". Schedule 2 will also omit all references to private inquiry agents from the aforementioned Act. This bill sets out all regulatory provisions for private investigators under the Security Industry Act 1997. Schedule 1 to the bill defines a private investigator as a person who is employed or engaged for the purposes of either or both of the following: the investigation of persons, being any activity carried out by a person on behalf of a second person, not being his or her employer, that involves finding a third person or investigating a third person's business or personal affairs; and the surveillance of persons, being any activity carried out by a person on behalf of a second person, not being his or her employer, that involves the surveillance of a third person. As a result of this bill, any private investigators who have an existing licence may continue to operate without needing to apply for a new licence and their existing licence may continue to be used until its expiry and will be considered to be one of the newly prescribed licences that has been set out in this bill. Master or operator licences are presently required for private investigators to operate in New South Wales. Under this bill, any person who wishes to run a business as a private investigator will require a master licence. A new classification of licence has also been introduced and will be known as a 2E licence. This licence is necessary for any person who wishes to undertake work as a commercial private investigator. I note, however, that a 2E licence holder must be employed by a master licence holder to operate in New South Wales unless he or she is the holder of a master licence. The Commissioner of Police may deal with any pending applications during the transitional period. This means that any applicants with an existing application will not be required to make a new application as a result of this legislative change. All pending licence applications will be considered as an application for one of the newly prescribed licences under this Act. Any licence application fees which were paid prior to the inception of this legislation will go towards the balance of the new licence application. Any underpayment of fees will need to Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 72

be resolved before the application may be processed, and any overpayment will be reimbursed to the applicant. All appeals that are presently being examined or are outstanding at the time of the inception of this legislation are to be determined as though the changes set out under schedule 2 to this Act had not been made. Any records that were taken or kept by the commissioner for the purpose of the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004 may be kept and used by the commissioner for any purpose that he or she sees fit. This legislation has come about following recommendations set out in the inquiry by the Legislative Assembly Legal Affairs Committee. The Minister in the other House mentioned in his second reading speech that the Government intends to introduce new legislation to regulate commercial agents, which will supersede the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004. It is worth noting that by moving private investigators to the umbrella of the security industry, all regulation and compliance of private investigators will be the responsibility of the police. This change remains consistent with the duties private investigators perform and allows for greater regulatory control and accountability for the industry. This change may also alleviate some of the burden placed on police with regard to monitoring like-minded but separate industries at the same time. Enhanced regulation and accountability of the industry is welcome because this type of work carries inherent privacy and integrity risks as the investigators are required, intrusively, to pry into the world of other people, which may include their personal and/or business affairs. Given concerns about the serious invasion of privacy, I note that The Greens intend to move amendments in regard to privacy complaints against private investigators and privacy commissioners which would overcome this concern. It has also been noted that fees for the new licences will be similar to the fees presently associated with the existing licensing system. Under the new licensing regime, applicants will be required to go through very much the same process and checks as they would under the existing system. Strict criminal history checks are performed prior to becoming a private investigator and an applicant may be declined a licence should any red flags be raised throughout this process. As this bill moves private investigators under the umbrella of the security industry, probationary licences have also been removed. This has been done as such licences have been widely viewed as creating greater bureaucracy and red tape, and it will align the approach with a common standard in the security industry. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. The Hon. PAUL GREEN (15:56): I speak in debate on the Security Amendment (Private Investigators) Bill 2016 which seeks to transition the licensing of private investigators—formerly known as private inquiry agents—to the Security Industry Act 1997 rather than the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004. Merging the private investigation and security industries will ensure that the industry is regulated as a security activity alongside other activities that are already covered by the Security Industry Act 1997. This will continue the effective regulation of private investigators and reflect the risks and sensitive scenarios that those investigators regularly encounter. Private investigators largely carry out the investigation of insurance claims on behalf of insurers. Private investigators can also be employed by large corporations, legal entities and government departments, as well as by individuals. Private investigators encounter many risks including illegal access to confidential information, breaches of confidence, misrepresentation, trespass, harassment, inappropriate use of surveillance equipment, and impersonation. In the interest of public safety it is important that private investigators continue to be subject to a regulatory scheme. Given that most private investigation work is done discreetly, the government and those who are under investigation often are unaware of the lawfulness of their activities. Police receive complaints in regard to alleged fraud, harassment and unethical conduct. By regulating private investigators alongside the security industry in New South Wales the licensing and regulation of private investigators across Australia will be consistent. Under this bill the definition of "private investigator" means a person who is employed or engaged for the purposes of either or both of the following: First, the investigation of persons, being any activity carried out by a person on behalf of a second person, not being his or her employer, that involves finding a third person or investigating a third person's business or personal affairs. The second point is the surveillance of persons being any activity carried out by a person on behalf of the second person, not being his or her employer, that involves the surveillance of a third person. Under this bill a master licence will be required for a private investigator to run a business. This licence will now be issued under the Security Industries Act 1997. It is important that private investigators hold a licence as it provides further security and legitimacy to an investigator. The licensing scheme administered by NSW Police enables them to screen potential and private investigators, ultimately enabling them to have more effective dealings with rogue investigators, which will benefit industry members and the New South Wales public. It also creates a new class of licence—the 2E licence—allowing a first-time private investigator applying to become a commercial private investigator to undertake— The PRESIDENT: Order! According to sessional order, proceedings are now interrupted for questions. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 73

Questions Without Notice CITY OF SYDNEY COUNCIL ELECTION The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (16:00): My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Which state-owned corporations registered to vote for Saturday's Sydney City Council elections and how were they directed to cast those votes? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:00): The question is certainly one of detail and I will take it on notice. If I had had a chance to vote— The Hon. Lynda Voltz: How did you vote? How did you vote down at Redfern? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I voted in Crookwell. I would have liked to have voted. If I had had a chance to vote I can tell you she would not be coming back. CENTRAL COAST ROADS Mr SCOT MacDONALD (16:01): My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Will the Minister update the House on the New South Wales Government's commitment to improving and upgrading roads on the Central Coast? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:01): I take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Scot MacDonald, which the Labor Party will not do, because he is doing a damn good job. Since 2011 we have invested more than $680 million in upgrading and repairing roads across the Central Coast of New South Wales. The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Thank you, Labor. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Central Coast was ignored by Labor for decades. You might be a latent visitor up there but you have ignored it for decades. Now it is a key focus for the Government to deliver the vital infrastructure they expect and frankly deserve—and have deserved for a long time. Over the past two years alone we have completed four major projects which are saving people's lives and improving travel for those communities in Gosford, Wyong, Tuggerah and further north. The Coalition Government has worked tirelessly over the past four years to rebuild the Central Coast, with the $170 million Brisbane Water Drive upgrade now complete, improving travel times for more than 55,000 vehicles per day. We have also completed the $23 million upgrade at Sparks Road to cater for future growth and improve the flow of traffic in and out of the new Warnervale town centre. There is more than $215 million worth of road upgrades currently underway, with more work starting this year, including the Pacific Highway upgrade between Ourimbah and Lisarow. Work is also taking place on three major intersection upgrades on Wyong Road— The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Keep it up. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Well, we will keep it up because we are a good government getting great results up there. The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Good Labor members up there on the Central Coast. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The good Labor members got nothing for them. They did nothing for them. There was traffic chaos in that place before we took it, grabbed it and fixed it. They know about a good government. This is a good government that is delivering for them where they have not had it before. We are also undertaking minor safety works on the Central Coast Highway at Racecourse Road, West Gosford, to improve traffic flow and safety. The Central Coast is an area of rapid growth and our historic investment and commitment to the area will help ensure the region gets the infrastructure it needs and deserves. We are also planning the $400 million M1 Pacific Motorway productivity package funded for construction by 2019. The M1 is a vital link for the more than 65,000 motorists and 7,000 freight vehicles travelling between the Central Coast and Hunter regions and Sydney on a daily basis—the reason we are funding work to improve this stretch of highway. By 2031 we expect an extra 60,000 people to be living on the Central Coast and we want to ensure the right infrastructure is in place to meet that growth. By building better roads on the Central Coast we are encouraging more people to come to this great part of the State. We are keeping them safe and improving travel times. The work that we did on the Central Coast Highway coming into Gosford deserves applause. It really has improved it for that community. [Time expired.] Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 74

COLLEGE STREET CYCLEWAY The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:05): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Given newly re-elected Sydney Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, declared on the weekend that she will restore the College Street cycleway, will the Minister work in partnership with Sydney City Council to see the reinstatement of the cycleway? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:06): I thank the honourable member for his question. I indicate that cycleways certainly are one of our key priorities—putting cycleways in the appropriate places with the appropriate uses. What one needs to do is not to play games and put statues in a place—we know the Labor Party supports Clover because they love this sort of thing. They love community anarchy; they love the waste of money on statues that are going nowhere. I am more than happy to work with the Lord Mayor to make things better. We have offered her briefings on WestConnex and other issues and when she turns up, which is not often, I am sure she learns a lot from those briefings. But with the population of the city increasing and with more than $400,000 of ratepayers money being spent against an important piece of infrastructure that is going to help the amenity of people who live in those areas, I can say that if she stood for the council in Grafton pledging the fact that she had spent $450,000 against the Pacific Highway, I do not think they would vote her back. The Hon.Walt Secord: Point of order: Mr President, my point of order goes to relevance. My question was very specific. It was about the College Street cycleway and not the Pacific Highway. I ask that the Minister return to the leave of the question. The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister has the call. The Minister has concluded his answer. COOKS RIVER CASTLEREAGH IRONBARK FOREST Dr MEHREEN FARUQI (16:08): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Has an offset been secured for the critically endangered Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest bulldozed at Beverley Grove last week to make way for WestConnex and was any offset discount granted under the New South Wales biodiversity offsets policy for major projects? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:09): I thank the honourable member for her question. I admire the member's ability to understate an issue that has been unbelievably overstated. To deliver the new M5 section of WestConnex it was necessary to clear a 1.4 hectare parcel of land at Kingsgrove containing Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest. It was fully acknowledged in the new M5 environmental impact statement and has been addressed appropriately through the conditions of approval. This should not have been a shock. It went through a proper approval process. I am advised clearing work has been completed at this site, which will enable the construction of permanent additional eastbound lanes connecting the existing M5 with the new M5 motorway. Reports that the trees were being cleared to provide a temporary construction site or a parking lot, as peddled by some in The Greens, is incorrect. The area cleared where the new M5 and the existing M5 will come together required and was granted Federal Government environmental approval under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act. With the new and existing roads connecting at this location, impact on the Wooli Creek bushland area further east has been avoided, which is an important environmental outcome. The Government agrees with those who fought for this outcome in the past and has attempted to avoid all contact. Sadly, there had to be a small area of impact. I am advised the temporary construction site area will be in the grass parkland to the east of the treed area and will be largely reinstated and landscaped post construction. The project is also purchasing biodiversity credits to offset the unavoidable impact of the motorway construction on this area. This will preserve existing comparable mature trees elsewhere. Sydney Motorway Corporation is following a stringent flora and fauna management plan during construction that outlines mitigation measures to protect plants and wildlife. I am advised an ecologist undertook a fauna survey before clearing commenced at Kingsgrove and remained on site during this work. No fauna was identified during this time. Seeds and cuttings from the affected forest area were obtained prior to clearing to facilitate future plantings of this species. As set out in the conditions of approval a biodiversity offset package has been developed and will be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for approval. The biodiversity offset package includes purchasing biodiversity credits using the biobanking scheme that will then pay to preserve and enhance existing Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 75

mature bushland elsewhere. The New South Wales biodiversity offset policies for major projects incorporates international best practice standards. Every attempt has been made to minimise the impact to the Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest and the new M5 will not impact the Wooli Creek bushland. The Sydney Motorway Corporation is dedicated to limiting community and environmental impacts wherever possible, which is why two-thirds of WestConnex is being built underground. DISABILITY REFORM COUNCIL The Hon. GREG PEARCE (16:12): My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Will the Minister provide an update on the outcomes from the Council of Australian Governments Disability Reform Council meeting? The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism) (16:13): I thank the honourable member for his question and strong interest in disability services. Two weeks ago in Sydney I hosted a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] Disability Reform Council. This is the nation's peak decision-making forum to guide work around the nation as we implement the National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS]. Commonwealth, State and Territory Disability Ministers discussed pressing matters that lay at the heart of this vital reform process. The highlight of the meeting was an update from the National Disability Insurance Agency [NDIA] on the transition to the NDIS. The council acknowledged that reform, particularly one as large and complex as the NDIS, is not without its challenges. The council discussed at length the issues impacting the first stages of the transition to the full scheme, including those relating to the information technology [IT] system known as MyPortal. On behalf of New South Wales I made it absolutely clear that these transition issues were unacceptable. I made it clear that people with disability, their families, carers and providers expect and deserve better. I can confirm that all members of the council agreed. I welcome the strong, immediate action taken by the council chair, the Commonwealth Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, to rectify these transition issues. At the direction of Minister Porter, the National Disability Insurance Agency has now established a dedicated NDIS transition management team, appointed a chief operating officer, ensured more robust reporting is undertaken, established stronger information sharing arrangements, and employed an extra 100 staff. A key focus of the council and a priority for New South Wales was the proposed national quality and safeguards framework. The framework is something I have spoken about repeatedly in this House and has been developed through extensive Australia-wide consultation. The framework recognises that the safety, wellbeing and welfare of people with disability is of the utmost importance. In New South Wales there are strong safeguards in place to keep people with disability as safe as possible, including the NSW Disability Inclusion Act, tight employment screening, the NSW Ombudsman's Disability Reportable Incidents Scheme, the NSW Disability Standards, and the Official Community Visitors Scheme. With the scheme less than two years from full implementation it is time for the national framework to be finalised. This Government wants strong and nationally consistent safeguards to ensure people with disability can live in the community free from abuse and neglect. I can advise the House that the majority of the council has approved in-principle the national quality and safeguards framework. The national framework will establish three new powerful roles including an NDIS Complaints Commissioner, an NDIS Registrar and a Commonwealth Senior Practitioner, as well as further tightening worker screening. This significant decision will give people with disability, their families, carers and providers greater clarity and confidence that safeguards will be in place when the NDIS is fully rolled out. The New South Wales Government was instrumental in discussions concerning governance of the NDIS board being more streamlined, flexible and agile. All of these proposed changes will support the delivery of the NDIS. The Government will continue to work closely and collaboratively with its partners in reform—the Commonwealth, State and Territories—to successfully transition New South Wales to the full scheme by 2018. PORT OF NEWCASTLE The Hon. PAUL GREEN (16:17): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. On 28 July the Newcastle Herald published that it had received a strictly confidential port commitment document outlining that an operator of the Newcastle container terminal would have to pay compensation to the Government if it moved more than 30,000 containers per year, which would cost a minimum of $1 million. Will the Minister comment on the validity of this claim? Is this true? Given that the unemployment rate in Newcastle is 12 per cent and higher for youth unemployment at 20 per cent, should not the Government be working towards building shipments through the Port of Newcastle in order to provide additional employment opportunities? Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 76

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the first time. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:17): I thank the honourable member for his question and I know that it is an issue for certain people in the Newcastle area, not the least of which is the fine periodical, the Newcastle Herald. The Hon.Walt Secord: It is a journal. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is unbelievable that the Labor Party is mocking the Newcastle Herald. The Hon.Walt Secord: Point of order: I cannot let this pass. Hansard must show that the Opposition was not mocking the Newcastle Herald; it loves that publication. The PRESIDENT: I will leave the matter there. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As the Government has consistently said, the leasing terms of ports Botany and Kembla do not prohibit the development of a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle. In fact, there is ample opportunity for increased container trade at the port. The port transaction deeds do not trigger any cross-payments until a threshold container throughput is reached. That threshold is based on 30,000 containers each year, plus an extra 6 per cent growth in volume. Based on current growth rates, it is highly unlikely that current container trade at Newcastle will reach the applicable threshold— The PRESIDENT: Order! I am having difficulty hearing the Minister. There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: —before such time as Newcastle is required to establish high-intensity container terminals to meet the forecasted population and business needs of the Hunter. Yearly container trade at Newcastle is currently holding steady at about 9,000 boxes. Remember, 30,000 is the threshold, plus 6 per cent growth in volume per annum. It is not within a bull's roar of that trigger. In other words, it would take a massive 230 per cent increase in container trade volume to reach the 30,000 twenty-foot equivalent unit [TEU] threshold— and that is before one applies the extra 6 per cent growth rate. There is a long way to go. If we apply the formula to the outer years we see that by 2030 the threshold at Newcastle will be approximately 80,000 boxes. By 2040 it will be 144,000 boxes and by 2050 it will be almost 260,000 boxes. That is the trend. The Port of Newcastle will continue to be the primary coal export facility for New South Wales and will continue to diversify into bulk grain and other commodities. The recent diversification into fuel is very important for Newcastle and the Hunter region. The Government worked closely with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and other regulatory bodies as part of the transactions. Port Botany remains the key container facility for New South Wales, for a range of logistical and commercial reasons. It is the second largest container facility in Australia—just behind the Port of Melbourne— and acts as a gateway to the most populous city in the nation. Approximately 85 per cent of imported containers landing at Port Botany are distributed within 40 to 50 kilometres of the terminal. That is important to note. A person sending a container wants it to go to its destination for the least cost. Eighty-five per cent of containers go to Sydney. [Time expired.] The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. GREYHOUND RACING INDUSTRY BAN The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (16:22): My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Given the results in the local government election, and given the comments made by Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of The Nationals Barnaby Joyce that the decision on the greyhound racing industry has not been accepted in many areas, has the Minister discussed the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister, with a view to changing the New South Wales Government's position? If not, will the Minister seek the advice of the Deputy Prime Minister? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:23): I thank the honourable member for his question. The Deputy Prime Minister is one of those fine leaders of The Nationals who is never shy about having an opinion. Whether I seek his opinion on various issues, he is always forthright in giving it. As an equally forthright leader of The Nationals, I also give him my opinion. We mostly agree. There are occasions when we do not agree. Where we do not agree is between Barnaby and me. It is not something I will tell the Opposition. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 77

CROWN LAND REFORM The Hon. RICK COLLESS (16:24): My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Would the Minister please update the House on the New South Wales Government's response to the Auditor-General's report into Crown land? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:24): I thank the honourable member for his question. Management of the more than 33 million hectares of Crown land across New South Wales is incredibly complex. Crown land accounts for 42 per cent of all land across the State and is made up of 580,000 parcels, collectively valued at $12 billion. There is no doubt that management of Crown land in New South Wales needs to be improved and brought into the twenty-first century. The New South Wales Government does not shy away from that. The Auditor-General's report clearly shows that there is more to do but also that we are heading in the right direction. There were six recommendations in the Auditor-General's report tabled last week, all of which have been agreed to by the Department of Industry––Lands. The recommendations included clarifying the criteria that are used to justify direct negotiations; improving consultation with stakeholders on the sale or lease of Crown land; improving policies to help staff make better decisions; and improving the transparency of decision-making. All these recommendations are sensible. That is why the department has agreed with them and has put in place an action plan to fix up the identified issues. As a number of members in this place are well aware, the Government is already undertaking significant reform of the management of Crown lands in this State. The Government undertook a major review in 2012, including broad public consultation. We intend to introduce the Crown Land Management Bill in Parliament before the end of the year. The bill will represent the most comprehensive reform to the management of Crown land undertaken in New South Wales in more than 25 years, as acknowledged by the Auditor-General, and will see eight pieces of legislation simplified into a single, modern Act. In addition to this significant reform, a number of other pieces of work have been undertaken during the past few years, or are currently underway, to improve management. There is updated information technology infrastructure, with some $7 million over three years announced in the 2016-17 New South Wales budget to help staff make more consistent and timely Crown land decisions. As part of the Crown roads sales program, the number of road closure applications processed increased from 500 per annum prior to 2010 to more than 1,700 per annum in 2015-16. The average time taken to process applications fell from 12 to 15 months to seven to 10 months in the same period. The Government is working with Surf Life Saving NSW to develop a standard lease agreement for surf lifesaving clubs on Crown land. The Government is speeding up the processing of land claims and providing more sustainable social, cultural and economic outcomes for Aboriginal communities through the Aboriginal land agreement negotiation framework. Work is being undertaken to reduce debt levels on Crown land tenures. Already the total amount of debt in excess of 90 days has significantly decreased since March 2016. The Government has also significantly increased the amount of funding available under the Public Reserves Management Fund since 2011, with $17 million in expenditure approved in the current financial year. Crown land in New South Wales is diverse. It includes rivers, seabeds, harbours, grazing leases and forests, as well as critical community infrastructure such as showgrounds, racecourses and surf lifesaving clubs. The Government acknowledges that more work is required to improve management of this complex estate. It is important that we have modern management of these lands that balances socioeconomic and environmental considerations. That is exactly what our reforms seek to achieve. [Time expired.] SEX EDUCATION Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (16:28): My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government, representing the Premier. Is it a fact that the Minister for Education, Mr Adrian Piccoli, has just referred the State's major sex education resource, called Crossroads, to the new Secretary of the Department of Education, Mr Mark Scott, for further investigation? Does the investigation include the Safe Schools Coalition course? What are the reasons for the investigation? Is it open to the public for submissions? If so, where do people send their submissions and what is the closing date for submissions? Will the result of the investigation be made public? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:29): I am unaware of the circumstances of this important question, which I will refer to my colleague the Minister for Education for a detailed answer. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 78

YOUNG DRIVER ROAD SAFETY The Hon. TREVOR KHAN (16:29): My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Will the Minister update the House on the measures being taken by the Government to improve road safety for young drivers? The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:29): I thank the honourable member for his rare but good question. It pains me to report to the House that so far this year we have lost 26 young members from our community in crashes involving P-plate drivers. That is equivalent to approximately the number of people on two rugby teams who will not go home to their families because of road accidents that could have been avoided. Seeing young people pass away at those rates year on year is beyond heartbreaking, a feeling shared by all members of this House. It is exactly what has motivated the Government to introduce schemes such as the Safe Drivers course, which ensures our beginner drivers are equipped and confident when they start driving unsupervised. I am proud to report that since 2013 more than 50,000 drivers have been part of this scheme, which means that 50,000 kids have had intense training in some of the most vital road safety principles they need to become a competent driver. In late July the Government announced that it was making some key changes to the existing P1 and P2 licensing scheme. I am sure a lot of members have children at about this age. The Government has increased the time on a P-plate licence for those who get suspended and extended the complete ban on mobile phones for P2 licence holders. Those small but important changes are part of the Government's wider investigation into what it can do to try to help young drivers from making silly decisions on the road, and to think twice before they speed or Snapchat. The new mobile phone laws will be in place from 1 December 2016, while other changes will be implemented on 1 November 2017. When compared to the holder of a standard licence, a P-plate driver is about 60 per cent more likely to be involved in a fatal crash, and more than twice as likely to be involved in a crash that results in an injury. Young drivers are over-represented in our road toll because of their lack of experience, risk-taking behaviour and more limited hazard perception skills. Young drivers need to make sure they get plenty of practice while on their learner licence, and not put themselves in unsafe, avoidable situations by speeding, using their mobile, driving tired, or drinking and driving. We also encourage learner drivers to keep using the Safer Drivers course to help make the transition to driving solo on their P-plate licence safer. Some of the revenue raised from speed cameras is being used to subsidise this training for young drivers. Its double effect is to shorten the number of hours they have to do because they are undergoing better training in the hours and to ensure they get proper training to make young drivers safer. I know a lot of parents would applaud the reduction in hours. I think it is a win-win and a great outcome. MOONBI AND KOOTINGAL WATER SUPPLY The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (16:33): My question is directed to the Minister for Lands and Water. Given the water supply for Moonbi and Kootingal have uranium levels well in excess of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, for how long have residents been drinking contaminated water? Will the Minister guarantee the safety of the community? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:34): In the past week the water supply around the north-western part of the State has been in the media. Routine monitoring by Tamworth Regional Council has detected elevated levels of naturally occurring uranium in the groundwater supply to the villages of Kootingal and Moonbi. Tamworth Regional Council has notified residents and switched the water supply to the alternate Tamworth supply, removing any risk to residents. Council is currently working with NSW Health, which advises council regarding ongoing testing to inform a health risk assessment. The Department of Primary Industries—Water [DPIW] has an advisory role only and has been in contact with council. DPIW is able to provide technical assistance if required. Uranium is a naturally occurring element and its presence in groundwater is attributed to the rock units through which the water has infiltrated and flowed through. It is NSW Health standard advice to owners of private bores that bore water should not be used for a potable supply unless it has been tested and confirmed that it is suitable for consumption. LANNATE L INSECTICIDE The Hon. MARK PEARSON (16:35): My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. At my recent community forum in Broken Hill I was told that it was common practice for landholders to purchase Lannate L, a schedule 7 insecticide, known colloquially as "Magic" because if used undiluted on a carcass it will kill anything. I was told of a sheep farmer who killed 60 wedge-tailed eagles in one week. Will the Minister advise whether the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has approved the use of Lannate L for wild animal control? If not, will the Minister direct his department to investigate this unauthorised and cruel use of a schedule 7 poison? Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 79

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:36): Some components of this question relate to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority [APVMA], which is a Federal body. The wedge-tailed eagle, which is a native bird, component probably falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister for the Environment. If the question also relates to other pest animals species it may be relevant to my portfolio. What chemicals can be used for agricultural purposes and not for pest management is a responsibility for the APVMA. In good faith, I will take the question on notice and provide the Hon. Mark Pearson with information that is directly relevant to my portfolio rather than taking up too much time of the House now. MULTICULTURAL HEALTH WEEK The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (16:38): My question is addressed to the Minister for Multiculturalism. Will the Minister update the House on Multicultural Health Week 2016? The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism) (16:38): Multicultural Health Week is a testament to the Government's commitment to provide equitable health services in a culturally and linguistically diverse society. Each year, Multicultural Health Week highlights the importance of intercultural understanding and awareness in our health system. It was my great pleasure to launch Multicultural Health Week 2016 in Parliament earlier this month. The launch was attended by representatives from our many multicultural communities, as well as those representing seniors and carers. Multicultural Health Week provides an invaluable opportunity to raise awareness of health issues across our multicultural society. This year's theme was "Caring for Carers: Supporting People Who Look After Someone". Carers do the most outstanding work in our community. They come from all walks of life and all cultural backgrounds. They place the needs of others above their own. Carers are our family members, friends, neighbours and work colleagues. They provide unpaid support for loved ones in need because of disability, chronic illness, mental ill-health, dementia or ageing. This selfless care is at the heart of family life and community wellbeing, yet their hard work often goes unrecognised. There are around 857,000 carers in New South Wales. One in 10 people in New South Wales dedicates their time to caring for someone who needs support. There were more than 194,000 carers from diverse backgrounds living in New South Wales in 2012. One in five carers in our State are born overseas or speak a language other than English, so it is vital they receive the support and resources they need in a language they understand. Just over a year ago I was proud to launch the NSW Carers Strategy, which is the New South Wales Government's five-year plan for carers. Projects are being implemented to help carers to experience good health and wellbeing, to have choices and opportunities to participate in further education and employment, and to access the information they need. I am pleased with the amount of work already underway so that carers are supported to participate fully in their social and economic lives. At the launch of Multicultural Health Week I was privileged to meet Ismail Khan, a young person living with cerebral palsy and anxiety. Ismail spoke lovingly of his mum and carer, Robina Yasmin, who has devoted her life to looking after him. Robina migrated from Pakistan when Ismail was a young child and never thought to ask for help. I am delighted to say that Ismail is an independent young man who goes to university and drives a car. Robina says her son would not be where he is today without the support she has received from health services along the way. Cultural stigma and language barriers are two of many reasons why carers from migrant backgrounds do not seek help. There are many "hidden carers" in our community who either do not identify themselves as carers or do not know that there are services available to assist them. Our Government aims to increase visibility of carers. We acknowledge the vital contribution carers like Robina make to the lives of those they care for and society as a whole. I am delighted to say that the Multicultural Health Communication Service is also here to help all communities. Key to its work is producing information in a range of languages that helps people make better choices for their health. During Multicultural Health Week posters and flyers were distributed in many languages to help diverse carers to access services and resources in a language they understand. Short videos about carers in Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Hindi, Macedonian and Vietnamese were promoted through social media. A number of activities were also held, including a Carers Forum in the Blue Mountains and community information sessions in Chinese and Greek. Governments have an important role to play to help our carers and we will continue to do that. BIOSECURITY ACT REGULATIONS The Hon. MICK VEITCH (16:42): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Given it is more than one year since the New South Wales Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 80

Parliament passed the Biosecurity Act 2015, when will the associated regulations be released for public consultation given the Minister's promise to have the regulations in place by 2017? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:43): I thank the member for his question. It is definitely a good question because it is a good piece of legislation. We knew that a lot of work was going to be required, particularly in liaising and engaging with industry in the development of those regulations. A very capable group of industry stakeholders are being well led by Mr David Palmer to develop the regulations and ensure that the issues that were raised during the debate will be adequately addressed. I have met that group of stakeholders on at least two occasions to see how they are going. As the member indicated, the regulations are required to be in place by 2017. We are still in 2016. I am happy to report that we are on track to meet our commitment. DEEPWATER OCEAN OUTFALL PROGRAM The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN (16:44): My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Will the Minister update the House on how Sydney Water's deepwater ocean outfalls are improving coastal beach water quality? The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:45): Yesterday it was my great pleasure to launch a report by Deloitte Access Economics that has found that Sydney Water's deepwater ocean outfall program has provided $2 billion in social value to residents in Sydney. The deepwater ocean outfall program was introduced by Sydney Water 25 years ago to improve coastal beach water quality and has ensured Sydney's beaches are now some of the cleanest and most iconic in the world. In the 1990s the $300 million investment to construct the three outfalls at North Head, Malabar and Bondi were amongst Sydney's greatest engineering feats to date and we are enjoying the legacy of much cleaner beaches to this day. The Deloitte report launched yesterday has shown the outfall program has provided significant economic and health benefits for Sydney residents, and that represents an economic benefit of around $137 million each year. Tourism has increased enormously across Sydney over the past 25 years and contributed $330 million in economic activity per year and more than 3,500 jobs. There have also been huge health benefits from the program, with water quality testing showing that Sydney's coastline has improved substantially over the past 25 years and contributed around $140 million to the economy by reducing illness for around 180,000 beach goers each year. This is a great story for Sydney and for New South Wales. For the first time we have been able to quantify the significant economic benefit for Sydney from this forward-thinking infrastructure project. We now have a firm understanding of the dollar value to tourism and health as well as the broader social benefits for Sydney as a leading global city. The research project was carried out by Deloitte Access Economics over six months. It used economic and tourism modelling, and results from nearly 850 surveys and interviews with Sydney residents, tourists, technical experts from Sydney Water, NSW Health, Surf Life Saving NSW and Tourism Australia. We all know how important it is that our beaches are clean and healthy. That is why Sydney Water and the New South Wales Government are committed to protecting and enhancing the environment with further investment in wastewater management initiatives. An amount of $230 million is being invested in upgrade projects at Malabar, North Head and Bondi wastewater treatment plants that are underway to ensure better outcomes for the environment and Sydney Water customers. Sydney Water has recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Sydney Coastal Councils Group to maximise collaboration and efficiencies to ensure the future of our coastal waterways. Sydney Water has also been investing in our inland waterways. Sydney Water is assisting the Parramatta River Catchment Group [PRCG] as part of its Our Living River initiative, with the mission to make the Parramatta River swimmable again by 2025. Sydney Water is also assisting the PRCG to develop a master plan to map the necessary steps and milestones required to meet such an ambitious objective. When finalised, the Parramatta River master plan will be a blueprint for a multi-organisational approach to managing this highly urban catchment. These are the types of significant partnerships that deliver innovative solutions to improve the liveability of our communities. I congratulate Sydney Water on its work to keep our beaches and waterways clean for Sydney residents and visitors from across the world now and for future generations. CROWN LAND RENT ARREARS The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ (16:48): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Given that in the report into the sales and lease of Crown lands the Auditor-General has found more than $6 million in uncollected rents, and given suggestions that the total debt owed to the Department of Lands is up to $18 million, has the Minister sought or received any advice from his department as to how much rent is owed to the New South Wales Government? Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 81

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (16:49): I thank the member for her question. As I indicated earlier, Crown Lands administers many thousands of tenures across the State, from large marinas to small parcels of community land, and with our modern, efficient business centre the administration of these agreements is constantly improving. However, we also have locals on the ground in local communities who assist in many different ways in the day-to-day management of Crown Lands so if there are rental arrears on local businesses we are well-positioned to help. Now those opposite might want to try to close some of those businesses down but we would rather work with our customers to assist them when times are financially tough. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: Crown lands are managed for all people in New South Wales. In balancing the financial returns and community obligations of Crown lands we make no apologies for working with customers to get the best available outcomes for all parties. We cannot take a broadbrush approach to some of these issues. As I have said, the issue of arrears was raised in the Auditor-General's report and we have accepted the recommendations. However, I caution those opposite against saying that we should take a single broad sweep— The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. My question specifically asked whether the Minister had sought or received any advice from his department as to how much rent is owed to the New South Wales Government. I ask that the Minister return to the leave of the question. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is being generally relevant. The Minister has the call. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I once again thank the member for her contribution. As I said, this issue was addressed in the Auditor-General's report and the Government has accepted the recommendations. The Hon. Penny Sharpe: We will be talking about that on Thursday. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: We will get a chance to talk about that on Thursday and we will also get a chance to talk about when the committee that is holding an inquiry into Crown lands delivers its report. The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Tell me whether you have asked them? That is what I am asking. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: We will also get an opportunity to discuss that when we bring our legislation before Parliament. But I caution those opposite that those mum and dad businesses on Crown lands— The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the first time. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I caution those opposite that there are many different circumstances and many different types of businesses and those cases are judged on their merits. I suggest to those opposite that we will have plenty of time to discuss this issue in detail— The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the second time. The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: We look forward to those opportunities. MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY LITERACY RATES The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS (16:52): I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Given Premier Baird said today that "there are low levels of literacy across the community, I mean multicultural communities, as an example", does he stand by his comments? What advice does he have for members of the New South Wales multicultural community who are offended by the Premier's assertion about illiteracy? The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism) (16:53): I thank the member for her question. I find it extraordinary that she has taken certain parts of a quote— The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: No. He said this on radio. The first thing he said was about the multicultural community. The PRESIDENT: Order! I warn the Hon. Sophie Cotsis. The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order— The PRESIDENT: Order! I direct the Usher of the Black Rod to remove the Hon. Sophie Cotsis from the Chamber. The member may return to the Chamber in one hour. [Pursuant to standing order the Hon. Sophie Cotsis left the Chamber, accompanied by the Usher of the Black Rod.] Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 82

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the second time. I call the Hon. Peter Primrose to order for the first time. The Hon. Lynda Voltz: The Minister is debating the question. I ask that the Minister return to the leave of the question. The PRESIDENT: I could not possibly judge whether the Minister was debating the question because of the noise coming from Opposition members. The Minister has the call. The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The Government is incredibly proud of the work being undertaken in literacy and education, especially by the Minister for Education, in our State. As the Minister for Multiculturalism I am also incredibly proud of the assistance that Multicultural NSW provides to those for whom English is not their primary language and who seek assistance through interpreters or other educational and language classes. We take pride in our multicultural community and our diversity. We also take pride in the fact that in New South Wales more than 125 different languages are spoken. The Hon.Walt Secord: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister is not responding to the question asked. The question specifically referred to the Premier's comments involving people from non-English speaking backgrounds and literacy. I ask that Minister return to the leave of the question. The PRESIDENT: The Minister was in order. The Minister has the call. The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: It is a fact that our multicultural community, in which so many different languages are spoken, increases our people-to-people links and that helps to make New South Wales the number one State when it comes to trade and investment with other countries. We are proud of that and we will continue to do so. The Hon.Walt Secord: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question was about the Premier's comments as to people from non-English speaking backgrounds and literacy; it was not about trade. I ask that the Minister return to the leave of the question. The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. The Minister has the call. The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I have concluded my answer. SCHOOL ZONES FLASHING LIGHTS The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (16:56): I address my question to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Will the Minister update the House on the New South Wales Government's recent announcement to roll out additional flashing lights in school zones across the State? The Hon.Walt Secord: When are you going to do that program? The PRESIDENT: Order! I warn the Hon. Walt Secord. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (16:57): I thank the honourable member for his question. I am reminded by that interjection of what the Hon. Walt Secord said in a previous life as a shadow Minister—that we would not deliver these flashing lights. But unlike the Hon. Walt Secord, who was judging us on his behalf when he was in government, we did do it. Last month I had the great pleasure of visiting Samuel Gilbert Public School at Castle Hill with my good friend and colleague, and great local member, Mr Ray Williams, to announce additional flashing lights for more schools across the State. Last year this Government delivered a set of flashing lights to every school in New South Wales. These are the same lights, as I indicated earlier, the Hon. Walt Secord said we could not and would not deliver. The Hon.Walt Secord: I stand by those comments. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He always stands by his comments, but he was just wrong. The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I direct the Usher of the Black Rod to remove the Hon. Walt Secord from the Chamber. The member may return to the Chamber at 7.00 p.m. [Pursuant to standing order the Hon. Walt Secord left the Chamber, accompanied by the Usher of the Black Rod.] The PRESIDENT: The Minister has the call. The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I was proud to announce that a number of schools right across New South Wales will now see additional flashing lights installed in school zones, especially in locations where schools have multiple busy entrances and higher road safety risks. The new locations for school zones flashing lights were selected by a risk-assessment model and take into account a number of factors, including approach speed, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 83

pedestrian numbers, traffic volumes and heavy vehicle traffic volumes. Children are some of our most vulnerable road users, and we know that school zone flashing lights are an effective and important way of warning drivers and riders to slow down to improve safety. I am delighted that we are now able to extend this successful program. We have already made sure that motorists are aware when they are entering school zones at main entrances, but we understand mums and dads sometimes use side entrances, so we are installing lights at busy alternate entrances as well. Since 2011 more than 2,500 sets of flashing lights have been installed in school zones across the State, from Bondi to Broken Hill, and we are now delivering even more. Since 2013, no fatalities have occurred in school zones across the 10,000 schools in the State. From Taree to Deniliquin, Wilcannia to Lismore and everywhere in between we have provided school zone flashing lights. That is a great benefit to the people who are delivering children to school and the people around those school zones. I have always said that people do not deliberately speed in school zones; they sometimes forget and do not realise they are entering one. That is why these flashing lights are important in reminding people to slow down so that they do not get caught by the police and cop a speeding ticket, and in saving lives. I congratulate the department on this initiative. That is, once again, us using the money paid by people who are caught by the speed cameras breaking the law to install flashing lights to protect our children. The time for questions, sadly, is over for another day. If members have further questions I suggest that they place them on notice. COLLEGE STREET CYCLEWAY The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (17:01): In question time the Hon. Walt Secord, before he left early, asked a question about the College Street cycleway. As I indicated, in the Sydney central business district the College Street cycleway was replaced with a north-south separated cycleway connecting Central and the Harbour Bridge via Castlereagh, Liverpool and Kent streets in September 2015—the first time the south and north of the city have been connected by a continuous off-road cycleway. This was to improve the safety on the cycleway, but it has also enabled an extra traffic lane to be installed on College Street to support its use as a vehicle route following the closure of George Street for the light rail construction, and, henceforth, light rail, pedestrian and cyclist use after that. It was planned as part of the Sydney City Centre Access Strategy in 2013. The New South Wales Government is working to deliver a connected cycleway network in and around the Sydney central business district through the Sydney City Centre Access Strategy program. Deferred Answers PENRITH ANGLICAN COLLEGE KANGAROO MANAGEMENT In reply to the Hon. MARK PEARSON (9 August 2016). The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised as follows: No. The National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS] is the regulator of licences to harm or kill fauna under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. NPWS would consider an application to capture and relocate the animals, however it would need to be satisfied that the applicant has the capacity to undertake a capture and transport operation without causing undue distress to the animals. YARALLA ESTATE In reply to the Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (9 August 2016). The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised: The Sydney Local Health District has no plans for the sale or partial sale of the Yaralla Estate. All information relating to the Yaralla Estate Parklands is available through the Sydney Local Health District Internet site. The website is regularly updated to include the latest news regarding the Yaralla Parklands including the Advisory Committee's meeting agenda, minutes and actions. The website for the Yaralla Parklands Estate is available at www.slhd.nsw.gov.au/yaralla/. RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST GROUPS In reply to Dr MEHREEN FARUQI (9 August 2016). Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 84

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council)—The Minister provided the following response: The New South Wales Government recognises that any extremist ideology can give rise to a terrorist threat, and applies the same threat assessment and risk management procedures to all natures of politically motivated violence or threats/acts of terrorism. There are several New South Wales programs aimed at preventing and targeting violent extremism, and these focus on right-wing extremism as one element of the extremist threat spectrum. WILLIAMTOWN LAND CONTAMINATION In reply to the Hon. PENNY SHARPE (9 August 2016). The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised as follows: 1. The New South Wales Government has completed a preliminary review of the Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and the Human Health Risk Assessment [HHRA] for the Williamtown RAAF Base. The New South Wales Government identified limitations in the data used by the Department of Defence to draw conclusions about the potential risks associated with per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances [PFAS] in the area surrounding the RAAF base. While the Department of Defence has drawn certain conclusions from the ESA and HHRA data, on advice from the Williamtown Contamination Expert Panel the New South Wales Government has taken a precautionary approach in its advice to the Williamtown community. This is to ensure residents' exposure to PFAS is minimised while further investigation and analysis is carried out. The EPA has written to the Department of Defence outlining where additional testing is required so conclusive advice can be provided to the community. Further queries in this regard should be directed to the Department of Defence. 2. No. The EPA and other New South Wales Government agencies have worked closely together to coordinate the New South Wales Government's response to the ESA and HHRA. Further, it is entirely appropriate the New South Wales Government form an independent view of work undertaken by the Department of Defence as the polluter. ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY DONORS In reply to the Hon. PAUL GREEN (9 August 2016). The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised: The National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] letter was sent to all Assisted Reproductive Technology [ART] providers in Australia. There is no indication from the NHMRC letter that the ART clinics in question are registered as ART providers in New South Wales. NSW Health is not in receipt of any information or complaints that ART providers in New South Wales are making payments to gamete providers for gamete donation. NSW Health would actively investigate any allegations of, or complaints about, such payments. The Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 regulates ART clinics in New South Wales. The ART Act requires all ART providers in New South Wales to be registered under the ART Act. Applications for registration as an ART provider in New South Wales must include a statement as to whether the applicant has been convicted of contravening any ART legislation, and a statement as to whether the applicant has been refused federal accreditation or had federal accreditation suspended, cancelled or revoked. The Secretary, NSW Health can cancel the registration of an ART provider on a number of grounds including if the Secretary believes, on reasonable grounds that the ART provider has contravened the PHCR Act and has been refused accreditation under the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee of the Fertility Society of Australia [RTAC]. Accreditation by RTAC includes compliance with the NHMRC “Ethical Guidelines on the use of ART in clinical practice and research 2007” (NHMRC Guidelines) which state that gamete donation should be altruistic and that commercial trading in human gametes and or the use of direct or indirect inducements must not be undertaken (Part B, section 6.5). Committees GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 3 Report: Reparations for the Stolen Generations in New South Wales: Unfinished Business Debate resumed from 23 August 2016. The Hon. PAUL GREEN (17:05): I conclude my speech on the report on reparations for the stolen generations in New South Wales by noting the importance to Indigenous people of their place in country. Visiting the Aboriginal communities we have found that to remain in their place in country, in their nation, is very, very important for their cultural practices, for their livelihood and for the teaching of their kids by many of the aunts and uncles. Being removed from their families was a critical event in many of those young lives of the stolen Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 85

generations. Not only were they stolen from their loved ones but they were stolen away from their culture, their place of importance and country and everything associated with that. The saying "being in country" is very important to Indigenous people and it dawned on me only recently that many times we have had the privilege to fly overseas and do many things across the nations but our heart remains in our home—we cannot get back quickly enough to see our wife, our kids and our loved ones; we cannot wait to get back to our communities and get back to the things that are really important to us and where we feel grounded. It gives us an understanding of how very, very important those things are to those kids who were stolen from their mums and dads, from their nations, from their tribes, from their mobs, as they call them. The report on the stolen generations by the Hon. Jan Barham is much appreciated and I look forward to hearing her reply to the debate to acknowledge all those points that are particularly close to her heart about the findings and recommendations of this report. Members INAUGURAL SPEECH The PRESIDENT: I remind honourable members that Mr Justin Field is about to make his first speech in this place and I ask members to extend him the usual courtesies. I also advise that the clock will be started at the conclusion of his speech, given that we are debating committee reports, as is appropriate. I welcome into my gallery his guests, including his wife, Melissa, and baby son, Banjo, as well as his parents and other family members. I also draw the attention of honourable members to the presence in the President's gallery of our former colleague Cate Faehrmann and, in the public gallery, our former colleague Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. Welcome to you all. Mr JUSTIN FIELD (17:08): (Inaugural Speech): I rise today to give my first speech in this place in response to the committee report into reparations for the stolen generations in New South Wales. Let me start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which this Parliament sits, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation. I pay my respects to their elders, past, present and future, and acknowledge the ongoing custodianship by Aboriginal people of the land, waterways and coastline that we call New South Wales. I acknowledge the committee and in particular my Greens colleague and friend Jan Barham for her work as chair in establishing the inquiry and securing cross-party support for recommendations that reparations be made to stolen generation survivors and their families and communities. In her chair's foreword Ms Barham notes that: While the word "reparation" means making amends for a wrong that has been done, it is clear that no amount of financial or non-financial reparations can ever fully restore what people have lost as a result of past forcible removal policies and practices. I hope the Government supports the recommendations in this report. I look forward to being part of the ongoing effort of this Parliament to work with Aboriginal people towards reconciliation, to address the injustices suffered and to celebrate and learn from Aboriginal culture and knowledge as we strive for justice across our society and to protect the environment that sustains us all. This is not how I wanted to come into Parliament. Dr John Kaye was a force in this place and within The Greens. He was an intellectual heavyweight and a tireless campaigner for justice, the environment and working people in New South Wales. I had hoped to be making this speech alongside John as my colleague in this place but that was not to be. John's passing is a reminder that the work of social change is bigger than any one of us, of any one party, of any term of Parliament. I am proud to continue the work of a generation of activists and campaigners. I am here because of their advocacy over many years for the protection of the environment, the pursuit of social justice and peace, and genuine grassroots and participatory democracy. We really do stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. Undoubtedly the collective challenge confronting our generation is climate change. This is the number one priority for me and for The Greens and it must also be for this Parliament. As we are doing when it comes to the stolen generation, this Parliament has an important role to acknowledge past mistakes. We have a responsibility to do what we can to make amends and to seek to do better but we must do more than just manage old mistakes and past hurts. We must also recognise new mistakes before we make them. Today that means recognising climate change for the imminent threat it poses to everything and everyone we love and committing to ending our actions that exacerbate that threat. In fact, there are already communities around the world suffering from the impacts and we are the last generation who can avert runaway climate change. Our responsibility is clear. I am committed to ensuring future generations—my son's generation—are not asked to bear the burden of our irresponsibility, our apathy or self-interest. I would not be here today or as passionate and hopeful about the possibility for this Parliament to play a role in social change if it was not for my experiences in the coal seam gas [CSG] campaign and in particular my time spent as an adviser to Jeremy Buckingham. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 86

I am in no doubt that had it not been for his election in 2011 the trajectory of the environmentally destructive coal seam gas industry in New South Wales would have been very different. That is not to diminish the unprecedented community campaign that has built up in opposition to CSG, but Jeremy has given that campaign a passionate, articulate and tenacious political face. He and his office have contributed significantly to ensuring this issue is front and centre of the national debate. In doing so he has been a critical part of the transformation of politics in New South Wales. The election of Tamara Smith in Ballina is evidence, and that is just the start. The campaign has protected the beautiful Northern Rivers, Sydney's drinking water catchment, the winegrowing region of the Hunter Valley, the magnificent Shoalhaven River, and the Gloucester Valley and the river systems that flow through it into Port Stephens and the Manning area. I do not doubt the campaign will also see off Santos in the Pilliga and across the Western Division of New South Wales. I was involved in the earliest days of the Lock the Gate Alliance and was part of developing the initial strategy for that organisation in New South Wales. The movement has been one of Australia's most effective for social change—an extraordinary combination of empowered communities acting in concert, led by unlikely local heroes who have made a deliberate decision, often in the face of powerful vested interests and complicit and bullying governments, to serve our common good. It has been a wonderful journey and a marker to me of how politics and social movements, when combined, can drive change. This movement is made up of farmers and environmentalists, traditional owners, nuns, activists, football players, teachers, mums and dads and kids, who have come together and built an alliance that transcends difference and celebrates the places and people we love. It has proven that social change is always found in the collective and with deep roots in our communities—groups like Gasfield Free Northern Rivers, Groundswell Gloucester, the Knitting Nannas Against Gas, the Hunter Valley Protection Alliance, Southern Highlands Coal Action Group, Keerong Gas Coop, Sydney Residents Against Gas, Caroona Coal Action Group, Bylong Valley Protection Alliance; there are many, many others. They deserve the thanks of future generations. I am proud to have been part of that campaign and to have as some of my best friends in life and in politics the activists and campaigners who have made it happen, and in particular Jeremy Buckingham, Max Phillips, Jack Gough, Adam Guise and Louise Callaway. I like how David Suzuki puts it when he says: If you don't have air for three minutes you die. If you have to breathe contaminated air you're sick, so could you agree that the absolute highest priority we have is clear air? If we can't start at the basics, then I'm not interested. My environmentalism, like the rest of my progressive politics, is grounded in first principles. At the end of the day protecting the natural environment that sustains us must come first. Not much happens on a dead planet. But as The Greens, we are proposing to do more than just arrest climate change and protect the natural environment. We are also demanding this happen as we reduce inequality, as we create inclusive and resilient communities— communities that have access to quality education and the best health care; communities that celebrate and respect differences of race, gender, sexual preference, religion and no religion. As we debate the upcoming Federal plebiscite, we should all reflect on the importance of celebrating diversity. I reject the notion that we must decide between the environment and community or the environment and the economy. Protection of the environment and a commitment to the common good are inextricably and logically linked. Let us go back to first principles. Surely no-one in this House can object to preserving our clean air and clean water and protecting the stability of the climate that makes our earth home. I will not pretend that I am going to be able to come into this place and convince all honourable members that this is our most critical job and should be our highest priority. But it is and I will. If I do not succeed in convincing you here, I am going to spend every day working in the community until they force you to take this seriously or until there are enough people in this place who do. I grew up in central Queensland, first surrounded by the cane fields of Childers and Bundaberg and later around the industrial town of Gladstone and on a small pawpaw and mango farm at nearby Targinnie. We always went camping as a family. What seemed back then very long car rides, whilst listening to country music or doing our times tables in the backseat, took us to campsites on the Blackdown Tablelands, Fraser Island and the gem fields west of Emerald. It did not occur to me at that time that this experience of nature, putting up a tent together, bushwalks, swimming in waterholes or at the beach and digging for gemstones in the rocky dirt was not something that every family did for their holidays. I was into my sport as a young bloke. Karate, swimming, soccer, running and triathlons were my thing. It is fair to say I am still and always was a competitive person. I love the feeling of leaving everything on the field, in the pool or on the road. I could and would push myself until I had nothing left to give. I later put aside university in Brisbane and tried my hand as a professional triathlete but after realising my body just was not up to 40 hours of training a week, I found myself working just enough to enjoy summers surfing on the Gold Coast and winters skiing the snowfields for a couple of years. But, as it does at some point, reality hit. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 87

I saw an ad on TV for Army officer training and found myself on a plane to Canberra a month later to start at Duntroon at the start of 2000. I graduated to the army's Intelligence Corps in the middle of 2001 and soon found myself as a junior lieutenant in the Pilbara in the north of Western Australia where I lived for over four years. In hindsight, it was probably not a great plan for the Army to send an ex-surf bum to one of the most amazing coastal environments in the world, but I arrived in Exmouth having driven halfway around the country, stopping only to surf at Bells Beach, Margaret River and Geraldton and calling in to see the epic Indian Ocean waves at Red Bluff and Gnaraloo. My environmental awareness was expanded in the Pilbara. I learned to dive on Ningaloo Reef and travelled hundreds of thousands of kilometres, for work and for play, through some of the most stunning natural landscapes. I visited the Karijinis and spent weekends amongst the beaches and boulders covered in petroglyphs on the amazing Burrup Peninsula near Dampier. I saw firsthand the juxtaposition of the mining industry operating in this fragile landscape. Massive clearing of mangrove forests had already occurred for salt mining and to make way for roads and rail to service port facilities. The expansion of iron ore mining and export butted up hard against this landscape as dredging spoiled the waters and the priceless rock art was bulldozed to make way for gas plant expansion. Meanwhile, my family's farm in Queensland was being compulsorily acquired by the State government to make way for the shale oil industry. At one stage my dad found himself speaking on behalf of the farmers, some of whom had been put up in hotels in Gladstone because they were getting sick from the dioxins in the fumes from the trial processing facility. At one stage mum and dad protested on board a Greenpeace ship in Gladstone harbour. The shale oil never happened, but the pipelines feeding the massive liquefied natural gas [LNG] plants on Curtis Island today have taken some of this land and this once productive region now sits idle except for the parade of the white utes of the resources industry. The same economic boom and bust that has visited most resource towns has now come to Gladstone and the story of the failure of national industry policy in overcapitalising on LNG export will be a legacy visited upon regional Queensland for decades to come. I did not come from politics and I did not really think too much of mum and dad's activism at the time, but I can now see how all of these experiences have led me to this point. But the actual catalyst for joining The Greens came a few years later when as an analyst at the Joint Operations Intelligence Centre at Potts Point I came to view Australia's involvement in the Iraq war as a strategic failure. From my position, I saw skirmishes in southern Iraq and the intelligence reporting from the region misused, in my opinion, to justify political decisions, not to achieve a stable or peaceful outcome. In my mind the problems were political and I was not prepared to give any more of my time to serving a government I did not agree with. As a thinking person, an analyst, for me the only party in Australia that had a vision for a peaceful world, a sustainable world, and a fair world was The Greens. I resigned from the Army and I joined the party. The future I see for The Greens is one of a party of government. I will be working to grow our influence in this Parliament and in the community. For the sake of the climate, we have no time to lose. Where The Greens have won lower House seats and represented their community as councillors and mayors the voting public has shown that they like what they see. We have just seen The Greens vote treble in last Saturday's council election in my local area of the Shoalhaven, rise from 33 per cent to 40 per cent in Byron Bay, break through on councils from Albury to Kyogle, and show strong results in Western Sydney in Campbelltown, Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains. We have clear areas of strong support at the State, Federal and local levels in the inner west and the on North Coast, and we have shown we can challenge both Labor and Coalition members of Parliament. The Northern Beaches, mid North Coast, eastern suburbs and South Coast will be the next areas where The Greens will challenge. The Greens are a grassroots party and my approach as a member of Parliament will be to spend my political capital in the interests and service of the community. As the party's treasury and finance spokesperson, I will continue to hold the Government to account for its failed privatisation agenda. I look forward to building the credibility of The Greens in the economic space and to redirecting the public conversation away from growth and surpluses. We should measure economic success in terms of health and education outcomes, the health and capacity of our natural systems, and the reduction of waste and consumption. I will continue to argue that the economy exists for the community, not the community for the economy. To that end, we must recognise that the greatest threat to economic stability is a failure to address climate change and that cost must be reflected in all decisions of government. I am particularly pleased to take on the marine and fisheries portfolio for the party. It is an area of personal passion for me. Over the past 12 months I have worked with fantastic campaigners across the country, including the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Australian Marine Conservation Society, the Pew Charitable Trusts, Sea Shepherd and No Shark Cull. Make no mistake, our oceans are under extreme threat from climate change, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 88

pollution and overfishing. We can give our ocean and magnificent marine creatures the best chance possible to survive these threats by protecting and expanding our important marine park network, including creating a new marine park right here in Sydney. I will also be taking on the portfolio of gaming and racing. New South Wales is home to half of the 200,000 poker machines in Australia and we have the highest financial loss per person per year in this country. We know the social and economic consequences, including broken families, economic stress and domestic violence and we know the greatest impact is in communities of social disadvantage. Yet the Government is addicted to the revenue and beholden to the clubs and pubs. I will be a strong voice in the Parliament and the public for gambling reform. This has been a big year for me personally. Melissa and I married in March and we welcomed our beautiful son, Banjo, into the world just four months ago. I am thrilled to be able to give this speech today in front of them both. As hard as the preselection was for me, it was nothing compared to what Melissa has done as a first-time mum who continues to run her own small business. She is an inspiration to me and I cannot thank her enough for her love and support. I am also very proud to have my parents, Joan and Mick Field, my sister, Cassie, and her two daughters, Alira and Lenore, in the gallery. Alira is asleep. I know my brother, Ben, and his family wish they could be here. Politics has kept me away from home for a while now and I thank them for making the long trip to the big smoke. I come into this place with the strong support of the membership of The Greens in New South Wales. I am proud to belong to a party that supports an open and democratic process where every member is given a say in who represents our platform in the Parliament and in the community. My commitment to them is that I will work hard and continue to engage with you all on this important project we share. I am proud and thankful to have had the support of so many wonderful campaigners, both members and non-members. Today I would like to acknowledge: Drew Hutton, the founding president of Lock the Gate; Julie Lyford, former mayor of Gloucester and extraordinary advocate for protecting that wonderful valley from coal and gas; Dr Norman Thompson, former director of The Greens Democracy4Sale project; James Whelan, co-founder of the Change Agency and environmental activist from Newcastle; Clara Williams-Roldan, our candidate in the Federal election in Warringah; and our almost successful Lismore candidate at the 2015 State election, Adam Guise. Thank you for your powerful endorsements of my candidacy; it was an honour to have your support. I thank a number of people who have given me advice over many years: Desley Banks, Carol and John Vernon, Michael MacDougal, Becky and Tom Jagtenberg, Pam Ditton, Cathy Griffin, Pip Rey, Mike Hall, Mandy Mullen, Pru Warn, Dawn Walker, Andrea Vickers, Rhianna Blackthorne, Justine Suthers, Susie Russell, Howard Jones, Catherine Moore, Claire Charles, Bev Smiles, Tim Duddy, Jocelyn Howden, Cate Faehrmann, Sandra Heilpern and Ian Cohen. There are many more who supported me and I look forward to campaigning with them in the future. I cannot thank Graeme Williams and Bec Talbot enough for their advocacy and friendship over many years. I acknowledge a generation of current and former members of Parliament and candidates for The Greens whose advocacy and activism is the bedrock on which we Greens in this place can do our work. I am looking forward to working with all my Greens colleagues in this place, our wonderful councillors, particularly those that are new, and activists across the party and the wider community. It is an important and essential project that we share. We must be successful if we are to have a future on this planet and a caring and just society. We are all in this together. Committees COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN, THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION AND THE CRIME COMMISSION Report: 2016 Review of the Annual Reports of Oversighted Bodies Debate resumed from 23 August 2016. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (17:33): I am pleased to make a brief contribution to debate on report No. 1/56 of the Committee on the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission and the Crime Commission, dated June 2016, entitled "Review of the Annual Reports of Oversighted Bodies". In February and March 2016 the committee held meetings with the Police Integrity Commission [PIC], the Inspector of the PIC, the New South Wales Crime Commission, the Inspector of the Crime Commission, the Information and Privacy Commission, the NSW Ombudsman and the Child Death Review Team. The committee also met for the first time with the recently appointed Inspector of Custodial Services, a position that had been vacant for some time. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 89

In this report the committee has continued its practice of focusing on key themes that relate to several of the agencies it oversees. The committee has reported on the following themes: reforms to the oversight of the police and the Crime Commission; complaints trends and systems; operational changes at the Crime Commission; measuring the Crime Commission's performance; governance issues; and staffing and resources. The main theme for the committee in these meetings was the forthcoming establishment of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission [LECC]. The LECC will be a single civilian body with oversight of the NSW Police Force and the Crime Commission, following a review of police oversight by Mr Andrew Tink, AM. This will have a significant impact on the work of the agencies overseen by the committee, not least because the LECC, along with the Inspector of the Crime Commission, will adopt the work of the PIC and the police division of the Ombudsman when those two bodies cease to operate. That is a dramatic, radical change to the structure of the supervising bodies in New South Wales. I am very pleased that the Government has proceeded with the introduction of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. As members know, the legislation to establish that body will be debated shortly in this House. I have had discussions with representatives of the Police Association of NSW who are very pleased at this development. They support it, but they have minor questions and have proposed amendments to the legislation. I have indicated that I will be pleased to move those amendments when the opportunity presents itself. I look forward to the positive results that will be achieved by the proposed Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. I believe it will ensure greater efficiency and supervision and will benefit the members of the NSW Police Force. I commend the report to all members. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Ernest Wong): The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 2 Report: Elder Abuse in New South Wales Debate resumed from 23 August 2016. The Hon. PAUL GREEN (17:38): On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak in debate on the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 entitled "Elder abuse in New South Wales". The committee consisted of the chair, the Hon. Greg Donnelly, who did a wonderful job; me, as deputy chair; Ms Jan Barham; the Hon. Sophie Cotsis; the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox; the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps; and the Hon. Bronnie Taylor. I thank the committee members for their extensive contribution to the inquiry. I also thank the committee secretariat, who continue to provide expert knowledge and assistance to the committee so that it can investigate these important issues. The committee was required to inquire into and report on matters relating to elder abuse in New South Wales. The terms of reference focused on the abuse of persons aged 50 years or older; the most common forms of abuse; government and community support services; police response to elder abuse; reporting constraints; initiatives to prevent elder abuse; the effectiveness of laws, policies and services in safeguarding people from elder abuse; and any long-term solutions to elder abuse. The committee received a total of 122 submissions and 21 supplementary submissions from a range of stakeholders. It also held four public hearings and heard from a total of 45 witnesses. The committee held two panel discussions with legal practitioners and academics and consulted with Aboriginal elders—a joint initiative of the committee and the Law Society of New South Wales Indigenous Issues Committee. I thank the Law Society for hosting those discussions. The internationally accepted definition of "elder abuse" adopted by the World Health Organisation in the Toronto Declaration on the Global Prevention of Elder Abuse in 2002 is as follows: Elder abuse is a single or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person. It can be of various forms: physical, psychological/emotional, sexual, financial, or simply reflect intentional or unintentional neglect. We need to prioritise elder abuse as a policy issue. Professor Susan Kurrie, geriatrician and chair of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Sydney, described elder abuse as "an issue demanding immediate and effective action". She stated: Until the late 80s very little was known about its occurrence in the Australian community, but over the last 25 years research throughout the country has confirmed the significance of abuse as a social, medical and legal problem. The Government must take domestic and family violence and elder abuse much more seriously as this problem is expected to grow with our ageing population. The Government's policy promotes the general principle that older people have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, to make their own decisions and choices, to live in a Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 90

safe environment and to access the protections available to other adults in the community. The committee recommended that the Government make a significant new investment in the prevention of elder abuse by preparing and funding a framework that provides for substantially enhanced primary prevention, community education and awareness, community engagement, carer support and later life planning initiatives. Duty of care is a legal obligation to avoid causing harm and arises when harm is reasonably foreseeable if care is not taken. Everyone has a duty of care to provide information and support and to assist older persons by preventing abuse. At times family members, lawyers and the finance industry do not exercise their duty of care. Financial abuse is now a substantial problem that demands urgent government action. The committee was greatly concerned by claims that the law does not provide enough safeguards against financial abuse, especially in regard to enduring powers of attorney. The committee is supportive of the introduction of offences and penalties for the misuse of enduring powers of attorney. The Victorian Powers of Attorney Act 2014 enhances protections when enduring powers of attorney are made and makes it more likely for attorneys to fulfil their obligations and less likely for attorneys to act inappropriately. The NSW Police Force is seeking to improve frontline responses and police are building an effective working relationship with the helpline. The committee was concerned to hear that police responses to elder abuse vary in their effectiveness depending on their geographical position and the resources they have at their disposal. We can provide greater protection for the elderly by appointing a public advocate who has the power to investigate complaints about abuse and initiate investigations. Organisations such as banks or health practitioners must be mindful of elderly persons who are in their care and ensure that others are not taking advantage of them. It would be easy for banks to detect whether anyone withdraws a lot of money from a loved one's account. Sometimes family members have a sense of entitlement to their parents savings and believe that because they have cared for or provided for them they should be compensated for doing so. Initially they may withdraw only a few dollars from their parents' accounts but that can progress to the withdrawal of thousands of dollars which they use to pay off their mortgages. Banks and trained banking staff can monitor such events, as they are aware of their customers' banking habits. Former Australian of the Year Rosie Batty spoke about domestic violence and said that at present our population of more than 2.5 million who are over the age of 65 years will increase to about seven million by 2050 and that this problem will escalate if banks and healthcare professionals do not put in place initiatives to protect our elderly. When family members take money from their elderly parents without permission it is akin to stealing. People do not have the right to steal from their loved ones and professional law organisations do not have the right to steal from the vulnerable by overcharging them or taking advantage of them. We must protect our most vulnerable—those who have laboured for the benefit of this State or our nation and who deserve the best of care in their twilight years. I am grateful that this evidence has come to light. I urge the Government to note the committee's recommendations and to make appropriate legislative and policy reforms to protect our most vulnerable. We must help where it is needed and act sooner rather than later. On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I commend the report to the House. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (17:47): I contribute to debate on the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 entitled "Elder abuse in New South Wales". This was a worthwhile inquiry in which all members worked productively to achieve solutions to protect this vulnerable community. I thank the committee staff for their hard work and for their passion for this inquiry, which was evident throughout the inquiry process. I am a big fan of the Legislative Council committee staff. All members would be aware that they are responsible for ensuring that the elderly—one of our most vulnerable communities—are protected from harm. After all, one day we, our families and our friends will be in the same position. The number of people over the age of 65 is projected to double by 2050, and in the same period the number of people with dementia is projected to triple. This inquiry was a worthwhile opportunity for members to take stock, to talk to stakeholders and to look to the future. Plenty is being done well in this area. I congratulate Minister John Ajaka and former Minister Andrew Constance on initiatives such as the NSW Ageing Strategy, the New South Wales Elder Abuse Helpline and Resource Unit and the NSW Carers Strategy. The New South Wales Elder Abuse Helpline and Resource Unit is a great initiative and was widely supported amongst the stakeholders we heard from. The committee recommended that the Government expand the role of the unit. One suggestion was an expansion of its hours of operation. Whilst that obviously is a great target, we are dealing with finite resources. Witnesses from the helpline indicated that most calls come in during business hours and that they felt an increase in funds would be better targeted at training. I was particularly keen on the idea of the helpline providing service coordination and case management so that frequent callers could be provided with stepped approaches to assistance, including support, capacity building and clear guidance by one Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 91

staff member. I say again that the need for improvement in service coordination in every area of social policy and delivery is paramount. It comes up every time, and we need to ensure that we do it better. We all know the feeling of trying to solve a problem and having to retell our story to voice after voice at the end of a telephone line. How frustrating and exhausting that must be for abuse sufferers or those concerned that abuse is occurring. Any action that can be taken to maximise service coordination is making better use of resources, so I hope that our recommendation is taken on board. The callers have complex needs and for the helpline to have the ability to provide better coordination and management would be a terrific outcome. Recommendation 8 of the report calls on the Government to liaise with the Law Society of New South Wales to include within its professional development program a unit to improve lawyers' assessment of people's mental capacity so that when it comes to financial transactions such as wills and contracts of sale they can be more assured that participants are fully aware of and understand the implications. Huge responsibilities are placed on lawyers. This is one area in which we need the profession to be strong, to educate one another and to protect a vulnerable community. We heard from an incredible lady who used to be a registered nurse and who is now a law lecturer. She spoke passionately about this matter and said that she was one of the only people to teach the potential problems of elder abuse as part of the law degree at her university. That spoke volumes. She was an impressive lady and we need to take note of what she said—not just because she was a registered nurse. We heard from Assistant Commissioner Denis Clifford and Superintendent Robert Critchlow from the NSW Police Force about the experiences of our police who come across these situations. Their input was so helpful and it was heartening to hear of the efforts of the NSW Police Force to present a multidisciplinary approach to the cases it comes across. There is an awful lot to be learnt about how to handle these cases through what is already happening in the Police Force. The Vulnerable Community Support Officers program is a terrific initiative to provide training and support to officers as well as engage in liaison, education and community engagement. The committee was supportive of these positions across the State. They are extremely worthwhile. The committee also heard from the police about how the nature of elder abuse is similar to that of domestic violence: the response of the victims is often that they do not want the perpetrator punished, they just want the abuse to stop. That must be a difficult position for our frontline officers to find themselves in. Happily, the resources we heard about during the inquiry, particularly the assistance provided by the helpline and resource unit as well as the resources of the Police Force and the work of support officers, are making a difference. We thank the officers and staff for that. This inquiry proved to me yet again that we truly have many fantastic people across this State who are doing their best to improve the lives of others. If we can find ways to support them and help them coordinate better with other services it could supercharge their effect. Once again, I thank the members of the committee. I particularly thank the chair, the Hon. Greg Donnelly—it was great to work with him again on another committee—for the way in which he managed the committee and for his genuine dedication to ensuring that we came up with good recommendations to take forward. He did a terrific job. Once again I thank the committee staff. I look forward to the Government's response to the recommendations. The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (17:55): I am pleased to associate myself with this insightful and constructive report entitled "Elder abuse in New South Wales". At the outset I thank the Hon. Greg Donnelly, who is an excellent chair with a good hand and who keeps us all in line. I must say he brought a lot of passion and insight to this inquiry, as he does with all examinations the committee undertakes. I also thank the deputy chair, the Hon. Paul Green, and all members for their good work in the inquiry. I thank the witnesses who appeared and the secretariat for their support in producing this very good report. In my contribution I will focus on a couple of key recommendations. I note the Minister has reviewed some of the report already and is looking closely at a number of what I would call pragmatic recommendations. Recommendation 7 concerns changes to the Powers of Attorney Act 2003. The committee heard a lot of evidence about some less than ideal outcomes from the involvement of attorneys and the legal profession in elder abuse. Recommendation 7 reads: That the NSW Government, as a priority, introduce legislation to amend the Powers of Attorney Act 2003 consistent with Victoria's Powers of Attorney Act 2014, thereby significantly enhancing safeguards in respect of enduring powers of attorney. A number of stakeholders and participants raised a strong concern that in cases of an enduring power of attorney very limited options are available under the criminal law if there is financial abuse. We could have a situation in which older persons may not want to send their abusers to jail but would seek to recover money that had been taken from them under an enduring power of attorney. There is a gap in the law in that respect and no criminal offence currently exists. There is a real need to reform the law to ensure that strong messages are sent to those holding an enduring power of attorney and to the legal profession to ensure that people's rights are protected and that that sort of abuse does not continue. The committee's recommendations in that regard are very important. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 92

The committee recommended new indictable offences for dishonestly obtaining or using an enduring power of attorney, which are punishable by up to five years imprisonment. That will send a strong message to all involved. We recommended that the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal [NCAT] be given an additional power to order compensation for any loss caused by an attorney in contravening the legislation. That would enable money stolen pursuant to an enduring power of attorney to be returned to the victim. We also recommended more stringent execution requirements for the making and revoking of enduring powers of attorney, including elevated witnessing requirements. Again, this strikes at the heart of ensuring that those who enter into an Enduring Power of Attorney understand their responsibilities, and that the solicitor advising them clearly explains their responsibilities and the rights attached to them. To achieve the best possible outcomes it is important that we have an informed situation, rather than the terrible outcomes we heard about in the evidence before the committee. The committee also recommended a clear articulation of the duties of enduring attorneys to act honestly, diligently and in good faith, and to exercise responsible care and skill. It also recommended new provisions prohibiting conflict of interest transactions. Some of the evidence was confronting as to situations in which people found themselves, including poor advice from solicitors, and clear conflicts of interest between a solicitor's own interest and the interest of the person subject to an Enduring Power of Attorney. These situations should not occur. We need to ensure that the strong message is sent to the legal profession that this type of behaviour cannot be allowed to continue and that we have tighter regulation. Recommendation 11 is that the New South Wales Government introduce legislation to establish a Public Advocate's office, along the lines of the Victorian model, with powers to investigate complaints and allegations about elder abuse. This is an important change. There is a lot to be said for the States along the eastern seaboard in particular—the most popular States—adopting a standard method to deal with these sorts of issues, be it by way of investigation, imposing penalties or changes to laws of a cross-border nature. Evidence was also given about a gap which left people at risk in this area unprotected. A strong call was made for this investigation gap to be filled by the statutory office of the Public Advocate, with that body responsible for both investigating allegations and facilitating their resolution. A range of cases were brought to the attention of the committee, including people falling between the cracks and no proper investigation or case management to ensure that people's issues are resolved and that allegations are prosecuted by the law. The introduction of a Public Advocate's office will go a long way to ensuring that we have a much better system to recognise elder abuse earlier and that those involved in this type of abuse are properly dealt with before the law. I also note the recommendations in relation to the very important role played by the Elder Abuse Helpline and Resource Unit [EAHRU]. This initiative was introduced by the New South Wales Government, and I commend the Minister for Ageing for his hard work and for increasing funding to the EAHRU. I also note another gap in the system—namely, whilst one can report elder abuse to the EAHRU, there is no real provision of case management and coordination to ensure that an affected person is dealt with and can seek an outcome. Rather, it simply notes the matter as an EAHRU report. We need a system in place that brings complaints to a head and ensures proper outcomes, rather than simply reporting and forgetting. All in all, this is an excellent report. I again thank the committee members and the secretariat. I strongly urge the Government to accept the committee's recommendations and to take urgent action. The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS (18:04): Thank you, Mr Temporary Chair. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Welcome back, Sophie. The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS: That was the first time in six years I have been ejected from this House defending multiculturalism, but I turn now to the very important matter of the elder abuse inquiry. Just after I became the shadow Minister for Ageing, concerned stakeholders raised a number of issues concerning elder abuse with me. Whilst they welcomed the introduction of the Elder Abuse Helpline and Resource Unit [EAHRU], which has received hundreds of calls, we are looking at an area where not a lot of research has been done nor has it been discussed in the public domain. I take this opportunity to thank the Hon. Greg Donnelly and the Hon. Paul Green for listening to the concerns of stakeholders, including the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of NSW, People with Disability Australia, the Council on the Ageing, Carers NSW and a number of unions, and for doing something about it—that is, the establishment of this inquiry. I also thank the committee members: the Hon. Bronnie Taylor, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and Ms Jan Barham. We all worked well together, without politics. We listened to what witnesses had to say, and this important report has now been produced. I acknowledge the many witnesses who gave evidence at the three public hearings and all those who Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 93

lodged submissions, whether anonymous individuals who have experienced a lot of pain in their lives or the unions representing the organisations that day in, day out do a phenomenal job advocating for them. I thank the secretariat and I thank the media for airing these issues. I note that the Minister for Ageing, the Hon. John Ajaka, is in the Chamber. Over the past few months he has made some very strong statements but this inquiry, which was initiated a year ago. The Government should not have to wait to implement the committee's recommendations. The recommendations should be implemented immediately. Indeed, I call on the Government to appoint a Public Advocate to protect some of the most vulnerable members of our community from undignified, cruel and degrading abuse from other adults in whom they trust and upon whom they depend. Elder abuse is a silent epidemic, which is slowly being exposed across the country. While there have been approximately 5,300 cases of abuse reported to the Elder Abuse Helpline, according to the Minister in budget estimates, an estimated 50,000 people are experiencing some form of elder abuse. That is one in every 20 people over the age of 55. Whether it is financial abuse such as the manipulation of power of attorney laws, neglect such as failure to provide necessities of life, psychological abuse such as the infliction of mental stress, particularly through isolation, fear of violence, deprivation, and feelings of shame and powerlessness, or physical abuse or sexual abuse, this number is too high, and it is only going to rise with our ageing population. Of the 5,300 reported cases of abuse, an estimated 71 per cent of the perpetrators were family members. The victims of this type of abuse, like all victims of domestic abuse, are often too scared to report their abuse, being highly dependent on their abuser. These startling statistics and details from 122 submission to the New South Wales inquiry have been known for months now. The final report was published on 24 June this year, close to four months ago. What has the Government done in this time? Following the inquiry the committee made 11 recommendations, including the introduction by the NSW Police Force of Vulnerable Community Support Officers in all regions to undertake community engagement activities and support frontline officers; legislative changes to improve protections against the misuse of powers of attorney; and greater investment in training, prevention and coordination among service providers. To date, we have seen no action by the Government. There should be immediacy in dealing with these issues. I call on the Government to not wait six months but to implement the recommendations now. On 9 July, NSW Labor called on the Government to appoint a Public Advocate to protect the rights and welfare of our seniors as vigilantly as we protect our youth. No action has been taken. A Public Advocate would investigate complaints of elder abuse and ensure that the rights of older people are respected in the interim while the New South Wales Government responds to the shocking findings, which I assume it will do soon as the Minister has expressed how seriously he takes this issue. But it has been four months now since the report was published and we have seen nothing from the Government. Further, 59.5 per cent of people with disabilities in New South Wales are over the age of 55. The National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS], which the Minister has praised today, does not include older people with disabilities in institutional settings. Indeed, there has been minimal and inadequate recognition and responsiveness to this demographic's right and protection. In the inquiry into elder abuse, People with Disabilities Australia voiced its concerns and reported the abuse experienced by this demographic. The anecdotal evidence shared by this group was heartbreaking: violence, failure to recognise legal capacities, domestic violence, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, barriers to accessing justice, and violation of the right to live independently and inclusively. These are just some of the issues that were raised in the submission to the inquiry from People with Disabilities Australia. The submission detailed how physical and psychological abuse was used to "break in" new residents of one boarding house. In one instance at a boarding house, 15 years of a disability support pension was paid directly to the proprietor and was never seen by the resident. The process of removing that resident from the abusive boarding house took five years. A resident of another boarding house was stabbed with a knife, an injury which would later cause him to be hospitalised and undergo an operation. At the time of the assault, the resident was not taken to hospital. The boarding house did not properly investigate, nor was the family of the resident notified of the incident. These are just two of the horrifying stories presented in the submission by People with Disabilities Australia. Indeed, they have noted that from July 2014 to July 2015, 190 cases of assault have been reported in aged care facilities, 131 cases of assault were reported in nursing homes, and 203 cases of assault were reported in boarding houses. I reiterate, this demographic—older people with disabilities living in that type of care—are not adequately represented or protected against abuse. This inquiry was an opportunity to vocalise the abuse experienced by this group. Indeed, immediate action by the Government is required to ensure that older people with disabilities and all older people who are experiencing abuse at an alarming rate are protected. These victims Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 94

have, until recently, silently suffered in their fate, as the people they depend on and trust take advantage of them, manipulate the laws and put their physical and psychological wellbeing in jeopardy. The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (18:14): In reply: I thank all members who spoke in this debate: the Hon. Paul Green, the Hon. Bronnie Taylor, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox and the Hon. Sophie Cotsis. In thinking about the few words I would say in conclusion, it struck me that one thing we could perhaps do is encourage members in the other place from our respective parties to have a read of this report. All of us on the committee found that we were somewhat surprised by the length, breadth and depth of examples of elder abuse before us across a range of domains. Some members in the other place from our respective parties may well find it quite useful to read the report and reflect on it, so I invite members of this House to invite our colleagues in the other place to have a good look at this report and reflect on it. I also encourage Minister Ajaka, who is in the House—I acknowledge his presence here this afternoon— to give consideration to any of the recommendations that he sees worthy of support that are capable of being implemented before the date of the six-month report back. I encourage him to go forward and in fact proceed. In some of these areas, if we are able to proceed without delay there is good argument that we should do so. I thank all of the committee members once again, the secretariat who did outstanding work in helping us, and Hansard. I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Ernest Wong): The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Report: First Review of the Compulsory Third Party Insurance Scheme Debate resumed from 23 August 2016. The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD (18:16): I am pleased to move that the House take note of report No. 59 of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice entitled "First Review of the Compulsory Third Party Insurance Scheme". As members know, the committee has had an oversight role in relation to the operation of the scheme for the past 17 years. It previously conducted this role by reviewing the implementation of the scheme by the former Motor Accidents Authority [MAA]. Following legislative reforms by the Government to the State's insurance and compensation schemes in 2015 the MAA was abolished and its role was assumed by a newly established organisation, the State Insurance Regulatory Authority [SIRA]. This is the committee's first review of the scheme after those changes. The committee is referred to in section 27 of the State Insurance and Care Governance Act 2015 as the designated Legislative Council committee to supervise the operation of the insurance and compensation schemes established under the New South Wales compensation and motor accidents legislation, which includes the Workers Compensation Scheme, the Workers Compensation (Dust Diseases) Scheme, the Motor Accidents Scheme and the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Scheme. After hearings at Parliament we present this report with eight key recommendations, a number of which echo recommendations and concerns from previous reports—specifically, recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 7—some of which are technical in nature. The committee had 12 submissions and heard evidence from a range of organisations, including the New South Wales Bar Association, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Insurance Council of Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. The evidence and submissions delved into issues of transparency of reporting and the need for more competition in the sector, amongst others, and I will go into some of those. But what was more apparent from the inquiry's evidence was the emerging trend of fraud, exaggeration and claims harvesting, which has resulted in significant increases in minor severity claims with legal representation. That has a flow-on increase to the cost of green slips of approximately $200 per premium per year. These claims, which include nervous shock claims for children victims, have contributed to the rising cost of green slips. We heard in evidence from SIRA that fraud and claims harvesting are costing the scheme $400 million per year. I refer members to chapter 4 of the committee's report, which states: Since the 12th review of the MAA there has now been a considerable increase in the growth of minor severity legally represented claims, including nervous shock claims for accident victims. Closely related to this increase has been the emerging issues of fraudulent and exaggerated claims and "claims harvesting". In evidence given to support this finding we relied upon a report entitled "Deterring fraudulent and exaggerated claims in the CTP insurance scheme" prepared by SIRA. In that report SIRA, on behalf of the Government, identified fraud and exaggerated claims as costing the scheme $400 million per year, and I would like to focus on this part of the report. There are two categories of fraud. The first one is hard fraud involving bogus claims, such Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 95

as accidents that did not happen or an injury that was never sustained. The second one is soft fraud involving claims for genuine injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident that contain deliberately exaggerated elements. In its report SIRA provided the following examples of such claims: claims for future lost income and significant future expenses for young children involved in low speed accidents with no demonstrable physical injury; claims for young children, some under 12 months of age, from minor accidents seeking compensation for psychological injuries evidenced by behaviour ordinarily considered developmental, such as crying and bed wetting; low speed collisions where the extent of injuries claimed far exceeded what would be expected considering the damage to the vehicle; people claiming to be passengers in vehicles involved in motor vehicle accidents, where further investigation shows they were not in the vehicle at the time; staged accidents involving multiple vehicles; and claims for injuries not caused by the accident. SIRA's evidence was backed up by evidence from other witnesses. For example, Mr Andrew Stone, Barrister and Senior Counsel at the New South Wales Bar Association, told the committee: At the most extreme end you have got the parents not just deliberately reversing into a car to create this; they get out, have a look at the damage, get back in the car and reverse in again just to put a bigger ding in the car to try and make this persuasive [to the insurer]. Additionally there is an informative chart in the report in figure 9, which I encourage members to look at, that illustrates the dramatic growth in minor claims over the past few years. There is an unpleasant truth that needs to be called out in the committee's report, which states: … the concerning increase in minor severity legally represented claims has primarily emanated from South West Sydney, which represents approximately 20 per cent of the state's population and number of vehicles, yet now accounts for nearly half of these types of claims across New South Wales. Since 2008 the number of legally represented minor injury claims in South West Sydney has increased dramatically, and there is evidence that the practice is spreading to other parts of Sydney and across New South Wales. Furthermore at chapter 4.9 the report states: The spike in claims in South West Sydney includes a higher number of claims per accident, higher proportion of child claimants and unemployed claimants, and a higher proportion of claimants who do not attend hospital, when compared to the state average. The committee was informed that most of these claims come from newly established law firms in the area and many appear to involve a small number of medical providers. SIRA estimates that the rapid increase in small claims with legal representation has contributed to approximately $213 on each CTP premium per year. That compares to $96 in 2008. All the evidence suggests that this is unsustainable and clearly it is inequitable. We heard allegations referred to in chapter 4 of the report of international call centres "farming" claims in Sydney— initially in south-western Sydney and now extending across the city. I refer to chapter 4.18. A number of stakeholders expressed concerns during the review in relation to the recent emergence of "claims harvesting" or "claims farming", which has caused a major increase in the incidence of small claims, particularly legally represented small claims. "Claims harvesting" refers to unsolicited approaches from companies—usually overseas call centres—calling people to see if they have been in a motor vehicle accident and, if they have, encouraging them to make a compensation claim for motor accident injuries. The client's details are then sold or passed on to the law firms, which pay a commission in return. Claims harvesting was widespread in the United Kingdom for almost a decade until its Government introduced reforms in 2012 to ban the practice. The committee heard that following the United Kingdom reforms the overseas call centres involved in the practice turned to the Australian market for opportunities. Nearly all witnesses, whether they were lawyers, barristers or from the insurance industry, agreed this could not continue. The committee is pleased that the Government is endeavouring to address those issues through a range of measures, including the establishment of a CTP fraud task force. We recognise the Government is well advanced on a reform process involving a hybrid fixed benefits model, which should address the issue to some extent. I congratulate Minister Victor Dominello on the work and consultation he has undertaken regarding those CTP reforms. The committee expressed concerns about the urgency of the situation, which led to recommendation 5, which states that the New South Wales Government urgently reform the cost regulations— Mr David Shoebridge: Hear, hear! The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: —to deter exaggerated and fraudulent claims, especially claims relating to low severity injuries to minors and adults. I acknowledge Mr David Shoebridge's support as a member of the committee. The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: It is disorderly to direct comments at members on the other side of the Chamber and it is unparliamentary to accuse other members in this Chamber of making comments they have not. It is becoming a trend and I ask that the Hon. Shayne Mallard be called to order. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 96

Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order: I did not take offence. I think the Hon. Lynda Voltz misheard the comment. It was an acknowledgement of my support for the recommendation. I thought it was standard practice. The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Further to the point of order: If members in this Chamber stopped directing comments to members on the other side of the Chamber and stuck to their speeches there would be no misunderstandings. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Ernest Wong): There is no point of order. The Hon. Shayne Mallard can continue. The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: I was acknowledging the support from Mr David Shoebridge in the report. It is not unprecedented. I am surprised that someone who was not listening would say such things. The committee expressed concerns about the urgency of the situation and recommended that the Government look at the structure of fees. The committee considered other issues, including the emergence of ridesharing operations such as Uber and we made recommendations in that regard. Recommendation 8 states: That the NSW Government establish a fair and equitable CTP premium for all vehicles used in commercial ride share operations. We were concerned that non-rideshare drivers are cross-subsidising the CTP costs of Uber-style operators. There is also a concern that there must be equity in CTP charges between the rideshare industry and the taxi industry. At the commencement of the review, the New South Wales Government had already announced a major review of the scheme aimed at creating a fairer and more affordable system for road users. The Government released significant reform plans for the scheme in June and the committee looks forward to monitoring the progress of those reform plans during the next review in two years' time. The final round of proposed reforms is currently with stakeholders for consultation. The timing of the release of those reforms precluded the committee examining them in detail although the four models that were released for consultation are discussed in chapter 5 of the report. It would be fair to say that stakeholders in the legal industry and the insurance industry are divided on the Government's preferred model. This would not surprise any observers of this sector as the Government's hybrid model seeks to limit the involvement of lawyers and the adversarial processes through a no-fault defined benefit scheme to address the issue of CTP costs. The inquiry also looked into insurance coverage for non-motorised vehicles, including dirt bikes. If members are interested in dirt bikes, I refer them to paragraph 5.29 of the report. Bicycles and the proposals for compulsory third party insurance are a passion of mine. The committee heard from the State Insurance Regulatory Authority [SIRA] on that topic and it stated: It is estimated that during the period 2005 to 2013 there were 123 serious injuries involving a pedestrian injured by a bicycle, which equated to 1.9 per cent of all pedestrian claims currently in the scheme. The SIRA acknowledged that this was a small number and that if non-motorised vehicles were to be included in the scheme it would have a marginal impact on premium costs of probably $1. As it is my first committee report to Parliament, it would be disappointing if it did not generate a dissenting statement from one of the newest members of the committee, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey. His statement stands alone. In response, Government members thought it was not the role of this committee or inquiry to attempt to resurrect and wind back important workers compensation reforms implemented by the O'Farrell Government and the outstanding Minister the Hon. Greg Pearce. Recommendation 6 proposes a compromise to the Government asking it to consider how journey claims are treated under the compulsory third party scheme. On behalf of the committee, I thank all stakeholders who participated in this and other reviews over the years. I thank them for their investment of time and expertise in the inquiry. I extend my appreciation to my committee colleagues: the Hon. Lynda Voltz as deputy chair, the Hon. David Clarke, former chair, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, Mr David Shoebridge and the Hon. Trevor Khan, who substituted for the Hon. Bronnie Taylor and is now a permanent member of the committee. We welcome him. I thank the committee secretariat for their hard work. I respect their work and support. I commend the report to the House. Bills SECURITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS) BILL 2016 Second Reading Debate resumed from an earlier hour. The Hon. PAUL GREEN (18:30): As I stated earlier, the bill also creates a new 2E class of licence allowing a first time private investigator applying to become a commercial private investigator to undertake work Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 97

with a master licence holder. This removes red tape that discouraged potential private investigators from entering the field due to tightly constrained employment conditions. Applications to become a private investigator still need to go through to the police. Similar requirements will continue to apply with regard to age, criminal history and competency. Licensing fees will now be set under the Security Industries Act 1997. This work requires the private investigator to maintain confidences, therefore it is vital that integrity compliance checks are completed before individuals are permitted to engage in the work. Under this scheme it is effortless to identify fraud, harassment or other unethical conduct that a private investigator has engaged in. For the protection and best interests of large corporations, legal entities, government departments and members of the public compliance checks must be implemented. The changes listed will provide a more secure and uniform approach to the protection of all parties involved in this high-risk industry. These regulations are desirable and essential for the public of New South Wales. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (18:32): I speak to the Security Industry Amendment (Private Investigators) Bill 2016. The object of the bill is to provide for private investigators, formerly known as private inquiry agents, to be licensed under the Security Industries Act 1997 instead of the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004. Basically, it will move their regulation from Fair Trading to the New South Wales Police. The intention of the bill is to subject the industry to a more robust regulatory scheme that applies ongoing probity checks. This will effectively place private investigators under the same legislation as applies to the security industry. There are a number of difficulties in doing that. The Security Industry Act is designed for an industry that, largely, provides static security and operates in quite a different framework from that of private investigators. Nevertheless, the Government, in its wisdom, has decided to crunch the two industries together into one Act. How many people are we talking about? According to the NSW Police Force and the Government there are about 3,400 private investigators in New South Wales, and the Government receives about 800 applications every year from people wishing to register as private investigators. This bill is part of a move by the Government to repeal in its entirety the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004. It is partly in response— although the Government rejects one of the key recommendations—to an inquiry into debt recovery that was undertaken by the little-heard-of Legislative Assembly Legal Affairs Committee, in 2004. The New South Wales Government has decided that regulation of private investigators should remain with the NSW Police Force, and the regulation of commercial agents would be better placed in the NSW Fair Trading portfolio. The Government says that that industry is considered to be low risk, and NSW Fair Trading already handles complaints about debt collectors and breaches of consumer affairs. The committee recommended that both the private investigators and the commercial agents be regulated by NSW Fair Trading. This is not the first industry that the Government has decided to move so that it is regulated by the NSW Police Force. In fact, there probably will come a time, if this becomes a pattern of the Coalition Government, when we will have to change the name of the portfolio of the Deputy Premier, Minister for Justice and Police, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Racing to be "Deputy Premier, Minister for Justice and Police, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Racing, and Minister for Industry", because the police are now oversighting a series of industries. The NSW Police Force oversights the tattoo industry. The NSW Police Force oversights the security industry. The NSW Police Force oversights the private investigation industry. The police will soon be oversighting a number of other industries, including the scrap metal industry. One of this Government's ongoing roles for the police is not just investigating crime but also, in large part, regulating industries. I can understand the move by the Government, particularly in high-risk industries. While there is no doubt that organised crime has been operating in the security industry—particularly when one looks at some of the operators that have been in the industry—there needs to be a limited number of industries that are being regulated by the NSW Police Force. We cannot have the NSW Police Force becoming the de facto industry regulator whenever we think that there is a problem with potential criminality in an industry. There must be a limit to that. When it comes to regulating private investigators, one of the primary concerns that The Greens have is the abuse we have seen by private investigators—very often private investigators engaged by cashed-up insurance companies. One of the prime offenders is TAL Insurance. I think I have never been more offended while watching commercial television than I was when I saw those ads from TAL Insurance saying what a great bunch of people it has, what a lovely insurance company it is, and how it will look after you and your family. I can tell members that TAL Insurance has behaved in an appallingly brutal and predatory fashion in its use of covert surveillance— and sometimes the covert surveillance is done so often that it becomes overt surveillance—of psychologically injured police officers. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 98

It has actively used covert surveillance in an aggressive and repeated predatory fashion to intimidate psychologically injured police who have post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] and who have made claims for insurance benefits under the Police Blue Ribbon Insurance Scheme and its predecessor schemes. It is not just TAL Insurance that is undertaking these measures. Arch offender as it is of the abuse of covert surveillance by private investigators, there are other licensed insurers under the workers compensation scheme who are undertaking such activities. There are also insurers operating under the compulsory third party scheme, in the income protection area and in general insurance that abuse the use of covert surveillance. They especially abuse the use of covert surveillance when an individual has a psychological injury. Nine times out of 10—probably 99 times out of 100—covert surveillance of somebody with post-traumatic stress disorder will have no utility in determining the bona fides of an individual's complaints. The fact that an injured police officer who is suffering from PTSD—who might have all the psychological impacts of that, including poor memory recall, difficulty maintaining relationships and difficulty maintaining a conversation—takes his children to the park or goes to a cafe to catch up with a friend has no relevance to the proof or disproof of the claim. Yet these officers are repeatedly followed by private investigators who film them, follow them, sit outside the house in a car with tinted windows and record their every move. We know from consistent advice that we have received from psychiatrists and psychologists that that level of oppressive covert surveillance hinders the recovery and aggravates the injuries of not only psychologically injured police officers but any claimant with a psychological injury. It must end. We need to put a remedy in place. I will speak later to the proposed remedy that we are putting forward in this bill. Despite our concerns about the industry creep that the police are experiencing, we do not oppose this legislation proposing police oversight of private investigators. Because of their covert work and the potential for them to use listening devices and to engage in online research, the work undertaken by such people often involves surveillance and other intrusive activity that makes an argument for it to be regulated by the NSW Police Force. The change proposed by this bill will mean that private investigators can, for the first time, face serious sanctions. They are the kinds of sanctions that currently apply to security guards, such as sanctions for false or misleading activity or making false or misleading statements. It also means that the enforcement resources of the NSW Police Force will be available to police any breaches by private investigators. We note that the change will remove the requirement for new private investigators to spend their first 12 months under the direct supervision of another private investigator. This will see the end of that kind of apprenticeship. We will monitor the impact of that change. Most private investigators in New South Wales work for the insurance industry. I again raise concerns about the activities of those investigators to date. To that end, The Greens propose an amendment to this bill. We have had contact with a large number of former police officers, many of whom retired hurt on duty as a result of a psychological injury incurred in the course of their employment. Many of those officers report intrusive surveillance by private investigators, who undertake it at the behest of insurance companies that are attempting to avoid or minimise liability. For former officers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, such surveillance can further exacerbate their injuries and derail their path to recovery. We are talking here about repeated, consistent and often predatory covert surveillance undertaken by private investigators and paid for by insurers. We have had a series of meetings with both injured police and psychiatrists. We have also had the benefit of listening to the opinions of a number of lawyers who practise in the area. They have spoken about the personal experience of clients who are subject to repeated covert surveillance. Following a number of those meetings and roundtables, The Greens produced "Police Psychological Injuries: A Roadmap for Reform" for the treatment of police psychological injuries. The relevant recommendation for reform is recommendation 3, which states: Clear limits must be established on the use of covert surveillance by insurance companies in relation to psychological injuries. The rationale The Greens gave stands today: Many psychologically injured police report they have been the subject of covert surveillance for periods of two or more years. This level of covert surveillance can be responsible for aggravating the condition of psychologically injured police and can present a substantial obstacle to their recovery. The use of covert surveillance in cases of [post-traumatic stress disorder] PTSD, where symptoms include hypervigilance and paranoia, is considered particularly problematic by mental health experts who consider it as likely to impede recovery. Legal experts stated that covert surveillance footage is rarely of more than marginal utility in determining liability in cases involving PTSD and related injuries. Limits on the use of surveillance could be established by either legislative reform or by specific inclusion in insurance policies. In particular we recommend the creation of a legal test whereby an insurer must have a reasonable basis to believe that the target is not acting in good faith in making the claim (e.g. by exaggerating their symptoms or acting dishonestly) in order to lawfully initiate covert surveillance in cases of psychological injury. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 99

The onus of proof for this test should rest with the insurance company which must also show it gave genuine consideration to the possible detriment that may be caused to the person's health in deciding whether to initiate surveillance. This must include an obligation for an insurer to first consult with the injured serviceperson's treating doctor [or doctors]. Why did The Greens make that recommendation and produce that rationale? It is because The Greens believed that that would substantially improve the operation of the current scheme and future schemes that deal not just with psychologically injured police but also any psychologically injured worker, and it would minimise the unnecessary impact on injured police and others. The amendment that we will be moving to this bill provides a complaint mechanism regarding intrusive surveillance with the Privacy Commissioner being in a position to receive such complaints. The Greens believe that the Privacy Commissioner also should have power to issue an order that a private investigator, or the insurance firm employing him or her, cease and desist from such conduct. To that extent, according to standing orders, I foreshadow that I will move the following motion: That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that it has power to consider an amendment to enable the Privacy Commissioner to investigate privacy complaints arising from surveillance by private investigators. To inform the House, I will now speak briefly to the terms of the amendment on sheet C2016-067A that The Greens will move at the Committee stage and debate. The Greens are proposing insertion of a new section 39R in the bill, which will provide that the Privacy Commissioner may investigate privacy complaints arising from surveillance. Proposed new subsection (1) will provide that a licensee means the holder of a class 2E licence. To debunk that, that means a private investigator. The Hon. Duncan Gay: Righto. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Proposed new subsection (2) will provide that "a complaint may be made to (or by) the Privacy Commissioner about the alleged violation of, or interference with, the privacy of an individual arising from the surveillance of the individual by a licensee". In other words, somebody who has been repeatedly the subject of covert surveillance can make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner. Proposed new subsection (3) will provide that "Division 3 of Part 4 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act [PIPPA] … applies to any such complaint and, in its application, that Division …". In other words, the standard privacy provisions apply. Proposed new subsection (4) will provide: The Privacy Commissioner may give a direction (a privacy direction) to the licensee in writing to cease doing anything specified in the direction if: (a) the Privacy Commissioner has decided to deal with the complaint but has been unable to resolve the complaint by conciliation; and (b) the Privacy Commissioner is satisfied that the alleged violation of, or interference with, privacy has occurred and the violation or interference is serious. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): Order! Mr Shoebridge, can I clarify that you are speaking to your amendment right now? Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I am speaking to the amendment because it is relevant to the motion that I have foreshadowed I will move, which is that there be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that we deal with this. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): Order! I have received advice that that is out of order. Mr Shoebridge, I am advised that you should not be addressing the motion that you have foreshadowed you will move, which relates to an instruction to the Committee of the Whole. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: All right. The point is that it is relevant to what I am moving. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): Mr Shoebridge, you may proceed if you do not go into the detail of your amendment but instead make general references to it. But it seemed to me that you were going into specific details of your amendment. Is that not the case? Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Yes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): It is out of order. Sessional Order 180 (2) states: An instruction to committee of the whole in relation to a bill must be moved after the second reading and before the House resolves itself into committee of the whole, or when the order of the day is read for the resumption of committee. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: That does not apply to the amendment that I foreshadowed I would move in Committee. My amendment to the second reading motion will be in the following terms: That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that it has power to consider an amendment to enable the Privacy Commissioner to investigate privacy complaints arising from surveillance by private investigators. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 100

If I am seeking to move an amendment in Committee to amend the long title of the bill surely I need to be able to speak to that amendment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): It is clear that you need to address the original motion and not your amendment in detail. I welcome to the public gallery people attending A Little Night Sitting Program conducted by the Parliamentary Education Unit. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Whilst there is some merit in having private investigators overseen by police, The Greens are concerned that the police now have a role in oversighting a series of industries. The police are not the State's best or preferred industry regulator. Whilst there may be an argument in individual industries— for example, the tattoo industry, the scrap metal industry, the private investigator industry and the security industry—why the police should be the industry regulator we are getting to the point in New South Wales where police have a broad role as an industry regulator. Surely there needs to be an end to NSW Police Force empire building. It is all well and good to hand over the regulation and oversight of private investigators to the NSW Police Force but surely we are missing the point if we do not allow those who have been subjected to repeated, aggressive, overt, predatory and covert surveillance to approach the Privacy Commissioner to obtain cease and desist orders. It is all well and good to give police the power to regulate but we must also protect those who have been regularly abused by this industry and subjected to potentially damaging psychological injuries through the repeated and predatory use of covert surveillance. The Greens do not oppose the bill but if my amendments do not succeed we are obliged to do something to hold to account private investigators and the insurance companies that pay them to prevent people from being abused through the excessive use of covert surveillance. The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (18:52): On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: In reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Security Industry Amendment (Private Investigators) Bill 2016. The Government is pleased to put forward a bill that strengthens the regulation of the private investigation industry in New South Wales and improves efficiencies for the NSW Police Force in regulating this industry. This bill represents a sensible approach to managing the criminal and privacy risks presented by this type of work in New South Wales. As The Greens amendment is outside the leave of the bill the Government opposes it. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Instruction to Committee of the Whole Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (18:53): I move, according to sessional order: That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that it has power to consider an amendment to enable the Privacy Commissioner to investigate privacy complaints arising from surveillance by private investigators. This motion, if agreed to, will enable me to move The Greens amendment on sheet C2016-067A. The long title of the bill is: An Act to amend the Security Industry Act 1997 to provide for private investigators to be licensed under that Act and to make consequential amendments to the Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents Act 2004 and other Acts. As I understand it, there is an argument that the "consequential amendments" reference, whilst it includes all the consequential amendments the Government wants to make, would not include the consequential amendment that I am proposing. To avoid that argument, The Greens are moving, according to sessional orders, to expressly state that the Committee has the power to consider this amendment. Why is this amendment important? It is important for the reasons I touched upon in my contribution to the second reading debate. The people being investigated are often psychologically injured police, who have been serving this State and may have witnessed a horrific murder or a series of horrific murders, or they may have been removing dead or dismembered people from motor vehicles, or they may have been repeatedly exposed to some of the most horrific sexual assaults. It is a tragic fact that a proportion of people, particularly police officers undertaking such activities in their day-to-day work, will suffer from psychological industry. Many of them, too many, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]. I said earlier that too little is being done by the NSW Police Force to track cumulative trauma. There is an attitude in a big chunk of the NSW Police Force that they basically want to ignore the fact that psychological injuries happen and are part of the experience of the New South Wales police. There is an idea that if police cannot be psychologically injured then they will not be psychologically injured. That kind of attitude does nobody any service. Too often, when a police officer suffers from a psychological injury, they find that all of their existing Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 101

connections with former and current police get cut. In many cases, such an injury is treated like a contagious disease by the NSW Police Force—if one police officer has a psychological injury, others almost feel that by coming into contact with them and recognising their injury, that injury might somehow be contagious or they might have to recognise the reality that they too could suffer from a psychological injury. Police officers often pride themselves on being tough because they need to be tough. They need to be tough to confront the types of things they see in their daily duties. But they must recognise that any one of them— the toughest, the strongest—could find their career ended by a psychological injury. That is pretty confronting. It is hard to confront and the NSW Police Force, as a rule, has not confronted it. It is then aggravated by the fact that when a police officer goes off with a psychological injury, the insurance companies aggressively apply their covert surveillance on that officer. I repeat that Tower Insurance is one of the worst offenders in this regard. The experience I have just outlined informs why we are moving this amendment. At the moment claimants in those circumstances—and they are not limited to injured police; there are other psychologically injured workers such as people in the fire brigade or ambulance officers or people in the construction industry who may have seen the horrific injury or death of a colleague—people who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, are then subjected to covert surveillance by insurance companies. Truck drivers can have PTSD after seeing terrible trauma. To then have them subject to oppressive and aggressive covert surveillance and not have any remedy to have it ended is adding insult to injury. The Greens amendment, we think, is relatively modest. What we are saying is when somebody believes that they are the subject of a violation of or interference with their privacy arising from the surveillance of the individual by a private investigator, they can make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner. If the Privacy Commissioner cannot resolve the complaint by conciliation—and the first effort should be to try to resolve it by conciliation—and the Privacy Commissioner is satisfied that the alleged violation or interference with privacy has occurred and the violation or the interference is serious, then the Privacy Commissioner can issue a cease and desist order. I get the sense that there is not majority support in this House. I have been told that the Christian Democratic Party members will not support this amendment. Without their support the Government will not support it, so I can see this amendment will fail. In my view, by this amendment failing we are failing psychologically injured police and other psychologically injured workers. We are missing the opportunity to give somebody the capacity to step up and stop this kind of damage happening to them. I commend the motion and the amendment to the House. The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ (18:59): The Opposition supports the amendment. In my contribution to the second reading debate, I raised concerns about serious invasions of privacy. Schedule 1 to the Act says the private investigator is a person whose activities include finding a third person or investigating a third person's business or personal affairs. There is a reality that people should be entitled to some sort of privacy, particularly in their own homes. In the case of a serious invasion of privacy, it is particularly important for people to have some sort of recourse to stop it. We do not think it is unreasonable to have a review mechanism in the bill to refer a serious invasion of privacy to the Privacy Commissioner. We ask the Government to seriously consider this amendment. The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (19:00): The Government opposes this amendment. Nobody wants the suffering of officers with post-traumatic stress disorder to be compounded by the inappropriate actions of insurance companies through the use of private detectives. However, it is important that the most effective remedies are put in place to address this issue. The very basis of this bill is to maintain high standards in the industry by ensuring the NSW Police Force retains jurisdiction. It is the NSW Police Force that is best placed to take strong enforcement action in relation to inappropriate surveillance. Mr David Shoebridge's proposed amendment would allow a person to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner about an alleged violation of, or interference with, the privacy of an individual arising from the surveillance of the individual. Under the amendment, the Privacy Commissioner may give directions to the licensee to cease to do certain activities. The person would be required to comply with those directions as a condition of their licence. The amendment would introduce an unnecessary layer of complexity and involve an agency not set up to deal with these issues. The Privacy Commissioner traditionally deals with complaints about privacy breaches by New South Wales government agencies. The Privacy Commissioner's primary focus is in relation to the use of personal information held by New South Wales public sector agencies. The Government does not intend to expand this role to include oversight of the private investigation industry that operates in the private sector. I make clear that the private investigator licences issued under the Security Industry Act 1997 will not confer additional authority to access information than is otherwise articulated by relevant legislation. There is no additional right to access personal information or Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 102

invade a person's privacy or personal information. This means that private investigators must comply with all applicable laws the same as everyone else. The community can be assured that private investigators do not have an additional right to break laws when investigating a person that arises because they have been issued a licence. The police already have a process for receiving complaints in regard to the private investigation industry. Police conduct thorough, robust probity checks before the licence is issued, which includes checks for offences such as those relating to fraud or dishonesty. Police also have a range of powers at their disposal under the Security Industry Act to respond appropriately to alleged breaches under that Act. If the Security Licensing and Enforcement Directorate reasonably suspects that a private investigator is acting outside their authorisation it has powers to investigate the breach and take appropriate licensing action. Further, if a criminal offence is suspected it can be referred to operational police where the matter can be investigated and dealt with appropriately. A serious breach of privacy that involves criminal activity is a matter that should be dealt with by the NSW Police Force. If a person believes that a person who is investigating them has committed a criminal offence, such as harassing them or unlawfully accessing information, the appropriate response is to refer it to police for investigation. The Privacy Commissioner simply cannot perform this function. It is clear that police can more effectively address issues associated with the inappropriate actions of private investigators. The Government appreciates the concern behind the amendment but does not support it. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (19:04): First of all, the Government says—and I accept the Parliamentary Secretary has instructions from the Minister's office—the Privacy Commissioner is not the right person to deal with an alleged violation of or interference with the privacy of an individual. The reason apparently is that that is not the work of the Privacy Commissioner. One only has to restate the argument to realise that it is specious. Of course the Privacy Commissioner is an entirely appropriate authority to deal with the alleged violation of or interference with the privacy of an individual, as we are proposing. To suggest otherwise is to come up with any argument—a castle built on sand—to avoid the merits of the amendment. The Government's next response is, "The police are great and the police are the appropriate authority because they can deal with something that's a criminal offence if a private investigator engages in a criminal offence, and they can deal with something if a private investigator has engaged in some activity 'outside their authority'". Of course the police can investigate a criminal offence and of course the police can investigate a private investigator if they are acting outside their authority, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about private investigators acting within the law, as they do on a routine basis, sitting out the front of someone's house on a public street and recording the comings and goings of the occupants of that house. We are talking about them sitting in their car for hours on end in full sight of the injured police officer's house—often deliberately doing it in such a way that the police officer knows that they are there. They are there on the street on the Monday, the Tuesday and the Wednesday, recording the comings and goings of the injured police officer, their kids and their wife—and they are doing it deliberately to intimidate the police officer. There is nothing unlawful about it. They can sit there and record for 24 hours a day on a public street, and they do it repeatedly. It is not outside their authorisation and it is not a criminal offence, but it is designed to intimidate and browbeat the psychologically injured police officer. There is nothing in this bill that will change that, and there is nothing in this bill that will empower the police to prevent that. The Government seems to have no will to prevent it. It does not even recognise the problem. I think the Minister's office recognises the problem but it is refusing to deal with it. The arguments are specious: They are not going to change anything. The police are not authorised to issue this kind of cease and desist order because, as offensive as the conduct of these private investigators is, it is not unlawful. We believe there should be a remedy for that; it is a tragedy the Government does not. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion negatived. Third Reading The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: On behalf of the Hon. Duncan Gay: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Adjournment Debate ADJOURNMENT The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I move: Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 103

That this House do now adjourn. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES BUSINESS ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM The Hon. PAUL GREEN (19:08): Tonight I speak of the concern felt by many who own businesses in the commercial fishing industry. In the last few weeks much attention has been given to the Commercial Fisheries Business Adjustment Program. The commercial fishing industry is part of the social fabric in many coastal towns in New South Wales—from Eden to Tweed Heads. The industry is valued at $80 million to $90 million annually at the first point of sale but it also supports jobs in seafood processing, wholesaling, exporting and the transport sector. It also supplies fresh seafood to local cooperatives, restaurants and retail outlets. Following the findings of the 2012 independent report into the New South Wales commercial fisheries policy, the New South Wales Government established the Commercial Fisheries Business Adjustment Program. This program seeks to introduce linkages between shares and catch or effort, provides opportunity to purchase more shares for businesses seeking to secure their level of business and provides options for fishing business buy outs to the value of $20,000 to contribute to commercial fishers leaving the industry. The Government is also offering low interest rate loans to provide support to those commercial fishers purchasing shares. The Government has also moved to provide additional support to commercial fishers throughout this process but many are highly concerned about the progression of the Commercial Fisheries Business Adjustment Program. On 24 August the Hon. Mick Veitch organised for the Wild Caught Fishers Coalition and another professional fishing association to meet with members from both Houses. Indeed, we were moved to hear their stories of struggle with the rollout of this program. In many cases business that have been in families for generations now have to purchase shares in order to continue to catch seafood in New South Wales. Many of those businesses have fished sustainably over many generations—it is to the commercial fishers' advantage to employ sustainable practices because this ensures the longevity of their business and their families' livelihoods. Commercial fishers are experiencing great pressure throughout the transition to this adjustment program. I understand that change is difficult to implement but this change has shocked those who must now transition. One difficulty shared by the fishers is that these changes have devalued fishing businesses as catch and effort histories are not being clearly transitioned to the new system. They are concerned that they will not be able to meet their previous revenue or the income their business and family livelihood requires—income that puts food on the table and pays the bills, the mortgage or the rent. Further, they feel that the purchase of shares under the adjustment program is forcing them to purchase their jobs back at an additional cost, often tens of thousands of dollars, which many businesses do not have available. I commend the New South Wales Government for offering low interest rate loans to commercial fishers but I understand the dismay of fishing businesses that are now required to purchase shares so they can continue to provide for their families. I note that the Government has moved to extend the deadlines for businesses that may wish to apply for low interest loans and for fishing business buyout. I also understand the support the Government is offering to commercial fishers in the preview share trading market, which will take place in mid-October. However, I want to put these concerns on record. I acknowledge the hardship being faced by our commercial fishers who provide 15 per cent of the seafood in New South Wales. Industries such as this provide employment, especially in regional areas and local coastal communities. I ask the Government to keep the families and businesses affected by these decisions in mind. Indeed, it is my hope that commercial fishing in this State will remain a strong and sustainable industry that maintains jobs for our future generations. We must get this right or irreparable damage will be done to this crucial industry. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION The Hon. ERNEST WONG (19:13): I draw the attention of the House to recent developments within the Australian Liberal Party and its once again revisiting the Racial Discrimination Act. This is an issue of significance to New South Wales communities because it speaks to our ability to protect and support one of the greatest economic and cultural assets in New South Wales—that is, its diversity. Our success as a multicultural economy has attracted the admiration of nations all over the world, which look with envy at what we have achieved. The diversity of New South Wales is a globally regarded success story. However, it has not been earned without hard work, nor without careful stewardship. Our laws have a role to play in that. The Racial Discrimination Act has had a critical role to play. It has been the bulwark for those who prioritise the development of good over the development of hatred. Those who argue, simplistically, that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act limits freedom of speech, win a simplistic point. They are simplistically correct: It does. However, if that is a debating victory then it is a pyrrhic one. First, section 18C must be read in tandem with section 18D, which provides numerous Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 104

exemptions. Indeed, these are usually the very exemptions that opponents of section 18C claim to cause them concern. Section 18D exempts any offence caused in an artistic work, for an academic, artistic or scientific purpose, or for any other genuine purpose in the public interest; in a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; and in a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest. Therefore, those who claim that section 18C is an attempt to stifle genuine public debate or expression are simply wrong. Indeed, unlike in defamation law, the "fair comment" does not need even to be true or correct; it needs only to be genuinely held no matter how wrong it is. Therefore, to speak about section 18C without discussing its partner provision, section 18D, is either showing an ignorance of the Act, or is a wilful distortion of it. Secondly, those who make the simple argument that section 18C restricts freedom of speech do so in denial of the fact that all of our human rights—freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement, and freedom of expression—are modified and restricted by common and statute laws. To a large extent this is the essence of statute law. It is an attempt to codify and balance the freedom of the individual with community protections and priorities. It is the bargain we strike to have a civil society and a functioning economy. To say that section 18C modifies my speech is like saying speed limits modify my freedom of movement, or that random breath testing is an invasion of my privacy. Both these things are simplistically true. But so what? All civil societies modify their individual rights when a greater public purpose is at stake. Section 18C represents the pact that has been struck to protect the various human rights of Australians from those who would attack them purely on the basis of their race or ethnicity. It does not modify private opinion. It does not modify genuine public debate. It affects only the speech rights of those who would seek to vilify without the benefit of any of the public interest or genuine belief exemptions of section 18D. It makes one wonder who are these people. Who are these vilifiers whom some members of the Liberal Party are so desperate to appease? Why should their right to be bigots triumph over the rights of the vast majority of Australians? Why should protecting bigots trump the 88 per cent of Australians, according to a 2014 Fairfax poll, who believe that it should be an offence to vilify on the basis of race? Why should the right to be a bigot, triumph over the right to a fair go? It should not. Section 18C protects New South Wales communities from the worst excesses of vilification engaged in without public interest motives. It does not, as some claim, protect from offence. It protects from malice, from intimidation, and from oppression. I ask members of the Coalition to ask themselves whether supporting the rights of bigots over the economic prosperity of a diverse New South Wales is a priority worth supporting. BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS Dr MEHREEN FARUQI (19:18): Biodiversity offsets are one of the biggest scams in New South Wales. It is a sleight-of-hand trick that leads to clearing of endangered and critical habitat, all with a big green tick of approval from the Government. I will explain the trick. Someone has two similar critically endangered ecological communities. The proponent of a development destroys one of them and goes looking for the other to claim as an offset. Far from being a win for the environment, the end result is the destruction of critical habitat and a net loss of biodiversity. Moreover, it is not possible to assure that biodiversity in two locations is the same or equivalent in quality. Biodiversity offsets are often not even established before the environment is ruined. In fact, it could take hundreds of years before an offset replaces a destroyed ecosystem, if ever, and often enforcement and monitoring of offsets fall by the wayside. Indeed, big business and developers are becoming creative with offsets and there does not seem to be any oversight by the State or Federal governments. Market-based processes and trading mechanisms such as offsets and biobanking that trade off high conservation areas for development inevitably result in biodiversity losses that are irreplaceable. Just last week, and shamefully on Threatened Species Day, we saw the bulldozing of 1.4 hectares of the critically endangered Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest to make way for a parking area for the WestConnex toll road. The New South Wales environment Minister called this a "classic example of biodiversity protection working". God help us all, and especially threatened species, when biodiversity protection in this State does not work. The planning system is so broken that offsets for WestConnex were not even required to be secured before the Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest was destroyed—they only needed to be identified. This ironbark forest is classed as an endangered ecological community in New South Wales and is critically endangered under Commonwealth law. In 2008, the then Department of Environment and Climate Change stated: Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest is one of the most threatened ecological communities in Australia with less than 7% of its pre-1788 distribution remaining Now, thanks to the magic of offsets, we have even less. This destruction occurred under the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects, which is perhaps the worst biodiversity offsetting policy I have seen. It is a get-out-of-jail-free card for developers and miners, and a death sentence for the environment. This pathetic approach will be rolled out to the entire State under the Government's proposed land management reforms. For Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 105

the first time, proponents can now satisfy offsetting obligations in their consent conditions by paying into a new Biodiversity Conservation Fund, which places the onus of locating equivalent offsets on the proposed Biodiversity Conservation Trust, a public organisation. Even if the trust is unable to locate an equivalent offset, clearing can take place regardless, resulting in biodiversity loss. In short, even if an area cannot be offset, it can still be destroyed simply by paying into a fund. If the proposed legislation passes, practically nowhere in the State, except national parks, will be safe from the chainsaws that the Baird Government unleashes. The biodiversity reforms that are being proposed by this Government are a joke, but as our State tears down trees and chops down the habitat of the powerful owl to put in parking lots no-one is laughing. MS SALLY HERMAN The Hon. TREVOR KHAN (19:22): Tonight I speak of a person and events I read about in the paper in the last month. Ms Sally Herman, a prominent businesswoman and Kambala Old Girl, has worked in the financial services industry and also sits on the boards of Premier Investments, Suncorp and Breville. Ms Herman is also the Kambala School Council president, in which capacity she was confronted by two families that had stridently expressed their displeasure at Kambala for, in their opinion, not living up to its Christian values by hiring and retaining teachers who are gay. In response to this criticism Ms Herman demonstrated true leadership and sent out what can only be described as a fairly firm letter to parents at the school. The letter included a quote from 1 Corinthians 13: And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. Ms Herman wrote:

At Kambala, love isn't an optional extra. She also said each teacher committed to not proselytising students, whatever their views might be. She continued that all staff were selected on merit, empathy and their commitment to supporting the Christian ethos of the school. She wrote: We are a school community whose composition reflects the diversity of the broader community that we serve. Families and girls from many faiths, ethnicities, sexual orientations and political convictions proudly call Kambala, 'my school'. We exist together as a community that wants to be defined more by how we care for each other than how we might discriminate. I thank Ms Herman for her wise words, her courage and her leadership. I congratulate the Kambala school community for embracing her message of love and acceptance. As we move closer to the day—and despite the current controversy over the plebiscite we are certainly moving closer to the day—when marriage equality becomes law in Australia, I encourage Australians from all sectors of Australian life to be leaders and to stand up against intolerance. Australians come from many faiths, ethnicities, sexual orientations and political convictions, all of whom proudly call Australia home. We exist together as a society that wants to be defined more by how we care for each other than how we might discriminate. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (19:25): This evening I make some observations about Saturday's local government elections. Of the five million eligible voters in this State only a little over half actually had the chance to cast their vote. After forcibly merging some councils, the Baird-Grant Government has insisted on holding one lot of elections this year with the rest delayed until September next year. Up to 2.6 million voters had the opportunity to vote on Saturday and they condemned the Baird Government in the results that we saw. But these are just the councils that have not been forcibly amalgamated, so we wait with interest to see what happens when the other 2.4 million voters go to the polls next September. What we saw in the results across Sydney and in regions was a rejection of the arrogance of the current Baird-Grant Government. The swings to Labor across western and southern Sydney included Camden, Campbelltown, Liverpool, Sutherland, Blue Mountains and, of course, Penrith, among other areas. Labor also performed strongly in regions outside Sydney such as the Hunter, the North Coast and the Southern Highlands. Labor has also won popularly elected mayoral votes in Lake Macquarie and Cessnock and we think it is likely to win Lismore, although counting will continue in Lismore and other places. The City of Sydney saw Clover Moore re-elected with 60 per cent of the vote despite efforts of this Government to try to stack the electoral roll with business votes, giving businesses not just one vote but multiple votes. That has backfired in the Government's face. I make some observations about Penrith and the Blue Mountains, areas with which I am most familiar. In Penrith at the State election last year we saw a swing of almost 10 per cent against the sitting member and at the council election on Saturday there were swings of up to 11 per cent. I congratulate Mayor Karen McKeown, Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 106

returning councillors John Thain and others and some of the new councillors such as Todd Carney and Aaron Duke. In the Blue Mountains the collapse of the Liberal vote across the local government area saw Labor significantly increase its share of the vote, with no significant recovery in votes for The Greens or independent candidates. While I congratulate returning councillors Don McGregor and Mick Fell I make special mention of my successor in ward 2, Romola Hollywood, who has proven herself an outstanding community representative and who also topped the poll this year. However, it is the lower Blue Mountains that should be particularly scrutinised. Traditionally ward 4 of Blue Mountains City has been a Liberal stronghold, covering Blaxland, Glenbrook, Mount Riverview and Lapstone. It is significant because it covers both the Blue Mountains and Penrith State electorates in part. At the last election Councillor Greenhill, now the mayor, secured just over 42 per cent of the primary vote and pulled up his number 2 candidate—something no party or ticket has done in Blue Mountains politics since the present electoral system was implemented in 1999. This year, in his third year as mayor, he has increased his share of the vote to nearly 51 per cent, with the Liberal vote shrivelling to just over 30 per cent—a swing against the Liberals and to Labor of almost 9 per cent. There are two reasons for this. The first is Mark's outstanding work as a community representative since 1999 with only one term off due to work commitments. That included three years as mayor, steering the city through the 2013 bushfires and, even more importantly, through the long recovery period afterwards, including dealing with the intransigence of the then O'Farrell Government and insurance company insensitivity, work for which he has been recognised this year with the Order of Australia. The second was the extraordinarily poor choice of the Liberal Party to endorse former councillor and Liberal Party State Executive member Jeff Egan for Blue Mountains City Council once again. Of course, people in this place will remember Mr Egan for being made famous by the notorious Lindsay racist pamphlet incident during the 2007 Federal election, an event that is credited by former Prime Minister John Howard with costing him the seat of Bennelong in that election. What made the local Liberals think this would be a winning choice is extraordinary and of course the judgement of the community has been clear: such a choice will not be supported. But that was just the icing on the cake. The result was down to the diligence and hard work of Mayor Mark Greenhill. I congratulate him and his team on a strong result and I wish them well for another term of office. Liberal members of Parliament in Penrith, Seven Hills, Riverstone, Heathcote and other affected electorates should pay heed. It is not just because of the ill-fated policies to do with greyhound racing or local government mergers; it reflects a wider concern about the failure of this Government to maintain schools and hospitals, cuts to services, contracting out, privatisations and of course major infrastructure project mismanagement such as WestConnex, which is now taking its toll on Coalition support. The question for Government members is: Will they pay heed or will they pay the price? ILLICIT DRUG USE The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (19:30): I speak tonight of the folly of drug liberalisation and the policies that some put forward under the guise of harm minimisation. When it comes to drug use in our community the best method of harm minimisation is to stop the use of drugs, not to promote their use in a so-called safe environment. I am a small government conservative, not a libertarian. I subscribe to the principle outlined by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty that: The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. If the impact of the use of drugs in our society were confined just to the individual, then I would not see that the State had a role to play, but we all know that is not the case. The use of illicit drugs leads to higher rates of crime, increased morbidity, social welfare dependence, mental health issues, family breakdown and of course the tragic loss of life. With these outcomes I find it hard to sympathise with those that advocate for policies that have the effect of normalising illicit drug use through the provision of either State-sponsored facilities for its use or methods to test illicit material for its purity. How can we continue to advocate for this contradictory policy when on the one hand we say that certain substances are illegal but on the other hand advocate for the State to provide facilities where they can be used or for the State to administer testing programs to provide quality assurance? The truth of the matter is that it is impossible. We either send a clear message that these substances are illegal and criminal and seek to help those who have fallen into the cycle of addiction to break that hold or we move to a system whereby these substances are legalised. I would not advocate the latter position, but it is my fear that this is the logical conclusion of those who advocate policies such as consumption rooms and pill testing. Tuesday, 13 September 2016 Legislative Council Page 107

The bottom line is that illicit drugs are illegal because they are harmful and no policy of the State should ever seek to undermine that message and no measures the State can take can ever make them truly safe. The introduction of the trial heroin injecting room was the Carr Government's policy. The conversion of the trial to a permanent fixture was Keneally Labor Government policy. Now Bob Carr is back and advocating the expansion of the injecting room, along with the trial of pill testing and ice smoking rooms. If the heroin injecting room was such a success, why has no other government in Australia introduced a similar State-sponsored facility? Governments of both political persuasions have looked at the model and clearly determined that it is not suitable for their communities. Statistics from the KPMG report that was used by the then Labor Government to justify the centre's permanency showed 3,500 overdoses occurred at the centre and only 11 per cent of clients had received referrals. It is largely clear that many of the users of the centre are seeking their "nirvana high" and are not being steered towards a path to rehabilitation away from drug dependence. Suggestions to expand the centre to pregnant women and children are clearly irresponsible and are not supported by this Government because it is clear that this is not the best way to deter users and move them to a path to rehabilitation. It puzzles me that the suggestions on the table are made by those same advocates who would never suggest the Government establish State-sponsored facilities for pregnant women with alcohol dependency or smoking addiction to consume alcohol or tobacco. Their solution would be to advocate abstinence and support to overcome the addiction, which is the same approach that I advocate with drug use. The Kings Cross injecting room now faces the position where it is under a mandatory review because it had fewer than 156 average daily visits for a consecutive three-month period. I eagerly await these results. When it comes to the expansion of such consumption room programs the Government has been very clear that it is not our agenda. I commend both Deputy Premier Grant and Minister Goward for their leadership in this area, approaching the problem in unison through effective law enforcement and appropriate rehabilitation programs with a pathway to a life free from drug dependence. Consumption rooms are not supported by the community. We know that the scourge of drugs such as ice cannot be overcome by providing a place for users to consume the substance under control. Ice leads to people becoming uncontrollable and there is no way the Government could sponsor and support a program whereby people can consume the drug without endangering staff and the broader community. As a father, the message I want my kids to get—and the one I got—is that illicit drugs can never be safe. The death of Anna Wood is still in my mind. She tragically died after taking an ecstasy tablet in 1995. I was at school and remember the impact of her father's calls to the community. Recently—20 years after Anna's tragic death—her father wrote: We hoped Anna's death would make a difference, but we are not making progress against drugs. I think the pro-legalisation lobby has a lot to answer for. They keep on about harm reduction. They say just take the stuff safely. But there is no safe way. You just don't know what will happen when you take drugs. The reason Anna took that ecstasy was the same reason most kids take drugs. They are fashionable and available. We have to stop them being fashionable. I want Mr Wood to know that his message about Anna's death has not fallen on deaf ears—certainly not in my case. The Deputy Premier has also made it clear that the Government will not run a quality assurance scheme using taxpayers' dollars to prop up the profits of drug dealers. This is the folly of policies such as pill testing, which seek to testify that drugs can be taken safely. It is impossible. People need to be supported into treatment so that they can live fulfilling lives and not be dependent on drugs. We want to encourage them off drugs, not into spaces where they can take drugs. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): The question is that this House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 19:36 until Wednesday 14 September 2016 at 11:00.