3767

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Tuesday 14 November 2006 ______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for the custod ianship of country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I seek leave to suspend standing and sessional orders to allow the honourable member for Wallsend and the honourable member for Newcastle to make speeches to the House forthwith.

Leave not granted.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He has been a member of this House long enough to know the standing orders.

ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF SWANSEA

Resignation of Milton Orkopoulos

Mr SPEAKER: I report the receipt of a letter from Milton Orkopoulos dated 13 November 2006 resigning his seat as member for the electoral district of Swansea.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported:

Bail Amendment (Lifetime Parole) Bill Business Names Amendment Bill Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Bill Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill Election Funding Amendment Bill Fair Trading Amendment (Motor Vehicle Insurance and Repair Industries) Bill Passenger Transport Amendment Bill Professional Standards Amendment (Defence Costs) Bill Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing) Bill Succession Bill Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill Firearms Amendment (Good Behaviour Bonds) Bill Electricity Supply Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme) Bill Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Amendment Bill Crown Lands Legislation Amendment (Carbon Sequestration) Bill Road Transport (General) Amendment (Intelligent Access Program) Bill State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Tax Concessions) Bill Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual and Other Offences) Bill

MILTON ORKOPOULOS CRIMINAL CHARGES

Ministerial Statement

Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, Minister for State Development, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.19 p.m.]: The Government and the community of New South Wales were stunned last week by 3768 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

the series of abhorrent, shocking and sickening charges laid against the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I make no judgment about the former Minister's guilt or innocence, except to say it is only proper that he deal with these charges outside of this Parliament and distanced from his position as a Minister and a member of Parliament. That is why, when the information came to light, swift action was taken. I immediately dismissed the former Minister from Cabinet and removed him from his post as a Labor member of Parliament. Furthermore, the party has taken steps to revoke his membership, and he has now resigned from the Parliament, which is what I called for last Wednesday. These matters are now before the courts.

Let us all remember that in 1997 the then Minister for Police, the Hon. Paul Whelan, caused two child sex cases to be aborted simply by talking about statistics in relation to sex offenders. The high-profile nature of this case increases that risk, and I am not going to allow a similar outcome here. Child sex assault charges are far too serious to be threatened by loose talk, conjecture or speculation. I have provided as detailed a comment as I legally can on this case. Furthermore, it is now time for us to get back to work and allow the police and the prosecutors to do their jobs. As the Commissioner for Police, Ken Moroney, said last week, ongoing speculation, rumour and political point scoring will not assist the serious task the police must complete. I repeat the exact words I used last week:

Anyone who's done the wrong thing in this matter will face the consequences of the prosecution.

If that investigation and court case touches on anybody else in my Government, I want them out of the Government and I want them out of the party.

If people are aware of any information related to the case or, in fact, any criminal allegations, they should immediately take them to the police. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to make as much political capital out of this matter as he can, as one would expect. But let us remember what has occurred here. A police investigation has been carried out. Charges have been laid. Matters relating to a former Minister are soon to be tested before a court. The entire police, legal and justice process has so far worked, and it has worked without interference—and it will continue to work without interference.

Last week I announced that the Government would investigate matters surrounding the former Minister's superannuation entitlements. As a result of that advice we will today move to freeze access to those funds while these matters are still before the court. The Government will also introduce new background checks for State members of Parliament. We will introduce new legislation requiring all candidates to the New South Wales Parliament to sign a new declaration. It will require them to declare if they have ever been charged with sex offences against a child or ever had an apprehended violence order taken out against them at the request of police in order to protect a child. The Commissioner for Children and Young People will audit those declarations and report the results to the Parliament. We will also create a new offence of falsely completing a declaration. If a member is convicted of such a charge, they will be prevented from sitting in the Parliament. The declarations will be lodged with the Electoral Commission at the same time as nomination forms.

The passage of a week has done little to diminish the shock and anger that we feel. The sort of behaviour alleged in the police charges makes us sick. Sexual offences against children are among the most depraved acts. I say that as a father of four, a citizen, a member of Parliament and the Premier. I want to make one further thing clear: If you are a paedophile, I am your enemy. Tragically, even the most trusted and sacred professions have not been immune from sex abuse cases, but as with the clergy, teachers or youth groups, these allegations do not, and should not, bring this institution or members into question. Our job is to target the perpetrators. I call on anyone with information relating to this case or to any case of child abuse to take it to the police. Information can be given to Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000. If there are any allegations of misconduct by a public official, take them to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC]. Do not go shopping around in the media, do not go gossiping in the corridors. Go to the police. Go straight to ICAC. This is not a parlour game. Cases of child abuse are among the worst crimes imaginable, so we have a responsibility to act accordingly and stamp it out wherever it rears its evil head.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS WORKCHOICES LEGISLATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr MORRIS IEMMA (Lakemba—Premier, Minister for State Development, and Minister for Citizenship) [2.26 p.m.]: Today Australia's 10 million workers are absorbing the news that WorkChoices is, unfortunately, here to stay. Thanks to the 5:2 decision this morning in the High Court, working families will have no respite from John Howard's industrial relations nightmare. The High Court judgment cements John 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3769

Howard's abuse of power with his accidental Senate majority. He has flogged off Telstra, and now there is this ultimate insult: the betrayal of Australian families. As of today the vast majority of New South Wales workers have nowhere to hide. We have been able to shield around 1 million people in New South Wales—all State Government employees, workers under the age of 18, employees in unincorporated firms, and employees on common law contracts—but the remaining 2.3 million workers have been thrown to the wolves. Their pay and conditions are up for grabs in John Howard's bleak Dickensian vision that owes more to the nineteenth century than to the twenty-first century.

But do not take my word for it—speak to John Howard's own Employment Advocate, who was forced to admit at a recent Senate estimates committee that out of 6,000 Australian workplace agreements [AWAs] that have been entered into since WorkChoices began—and it is worth repeating that 6,000 AWAs have been entered since WorkChoices began—all of them have traded away at least one of the protected conditions, and 16 per cent removed the lot. Close to two-thirds of AWAs removed annual leave loadings and penalty rates, over half wiped out shift allowances and more than 20 per cent contained no pay increases over the life of the agreement, which can be up to five years. That is the harsh reality of these draconian laws as they hit ordinary workers and their families.

Here are some examples. Rhonda Walke was a part-time medical receptionist for 20 years until WorkChoices destroyed her job. In March her manager demanded that she sign a workplace agreement that changed her employment status to casual, subjected her to a new, one-month probationary period, and required her to work in different places, despite the fact that she had no transport. When Ms Walke questioned the terms of the new agreement she was sacked, despite her loyalty and service.

Take the case of Elaine Gray, a former marketing manager. When she rang her employer to confirm a return date after six months maternity leave she was told that her job no longer existed. Before WorkChoices Ms Gray could have pursued an unfair dismissal case in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. However, under WorkChoices the catch-all excuse of "operational reasons" means that people such as Elaine Gray can be punted at will. It is not only individuals who are suffering; entire workplaces are under the gun. Tristar Steering and Suspension in Marrickville has already wound down its business from 300 employees to 45. The remaining 45 workers are entitled to $4.5 million worth of hard-won entitlements, but the firm has applied to terminate its employment agreement, which would cancel the insurance bond lodged at the union's behest to protect employee entitlements.

Longstanding Tristar workers have built up entitlements over decades, and those payments will be slashed from up to $200,000 to no more than $15,000. If you robbed someone of that amount on the street, under the Crimes Act you would go to gaol for up to 14 years. But under WorkChoices rogue employers get away scot-free with such daylight robbery. It is the law of the land, passed by John Howard's tame Parliament and now backed by today's judgment. WorkChoices remains one of the most unjust, shortsighted laws in the history of the Commonwealth. It tears up 100 years of balance between workers and employers. It puts Australia on the low-pay, low-skill race to the bottom, instead of the high-skill, high-pay climb to the top. It takes us back to the law of the jungle, where ordinary families pay the price and hard work and loyalty are no longer enough to get ahead.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Just like interest rates, global warming and the war in Iraq, WorkChoices will hang around the Commonwealth's neck like an albatross. The Commonwealth has sold out the battlers and put profits before battlers. WorkChoices may be constitutional, but that does not mean that it is fair. This is a day of shame for working families and this side of politics will not rest until WorkChoices is confined to the dustbin of history.

DEATH OF SENIOR CONSTABLE PETER GORDON WILSON

Ministerial Statement

Mr JOHN WATKINS (Ryde—Deputy Premier, Minister for Transport, and Minister for Police) [2.32 p.m.]: I know all members of this House will join me in offering heartfelt condolences to the family, friends and police colleagues of Senior Constable Peter Gordon Wilson. As the House is probably aware, Senior Constable Wilson, a police officer from the Brisbane Water Highway Patrol, died tragically on Saturday night while undertaking highway patrol duties on the F3. The death of Gordon, as he was known, is a distressing 3770 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

reminder to all of us of the dangers of police work. In working to keep the community safe, this dedicated officer paid with his life. There are few jobs that require people to face up to that kind of risk on a daily basis. We honour and admire all those in New South Wales who pull on the uniform every day, and I place on record my thanks to them all.

I understand that Gordon Wilson was a popular man, not only among his colleagues in the Brisbane Water Highway Patrol but in the community generally. He was an avid soccer enthusiast, and in recent weeks had devoted himself to organising a charity game between local police and firefighters. The game was to be a curtain raiser to a Central Coast A-League fixture, the proceeds of which Gordon had arranged to go to the children's ward of Gosford Hospital. Gordon spent considerable time helping to organise the game using his characteristic energy, good humour and leadership to motivate others to take part. The game will be a huge success. It will also be a fitting tribute to a man who cared for his community, both on and off the job. On behalf of the people of New South Wales I say thank you to Gordon Wilson for his dedicated service. He will be laid to rest with full police honours on Friday at Gosford Anglican Church. On behalf of the House I extend sincere condolences to Gordon's family, friends and colleagues. Their loss, personal and profound as it is, is felt by us all.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [2.34 p.m.]: On behalf of all members of New South Wales Coalition, and on behalf of the citizens of Gosford, I pay tribute to Senior Constable Peter Gordon Wilson, who died last Saturday night on the F3 while serving the community. Senior Constable Wilson was born in Scotland and is survived by his fiancée, two daughters and a son. The children are aged between eight and 14. Known as Gordie, Senior Constable Wilson was attached to the highway patrol in the Brisbane Water Local Area Command and was stationed at Gosford. I did not have the privilege of knowing him personally, but he was well known to the shadow Minister for Police, the Hon. Michael Gallacher. Only three weeks ago Mike Gallacher met Peter Wilson at a function at the Mingara Recreation Club which was held in honour of the national servicemen who served our country.

That night Peter Wilson spoke extensively to Michael Gallacher about how proud he was of his family and of his involvement in Scottish highland dancing. He talked about the upcoming highland dance festival on the Central Coast, which is due to take place in 2007, and his involvement in organising the festival, which will be attended by thousands of people from all over the world. He spoke also of his great pride and support for the Hibernian Soccer Team, which is based in Edinburgh. I note that the New South Wales Commissioner of Police has said that a charity golf day, which had been organised by Peter, will still go ahead. We have all lost a fine police officer. The people of the Central Coast and the community of New South Wales have lost a fine man. May he rest in peace.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.

MINISTRY

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I advise the House that on 8 November 2006 Her Excellency the Governor appointed the Hon. Reba Paige Meagher, MP, as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister on Citizenship.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I advise the House that the Hon. David Andrew Campbell, MP, has been appointed Leader of the House.

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I advise the House that Mr Matthew James Brown, MP, has been appointed as Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Roads, Minister for Transport, and Minister for Police.

CHILD DEATH REVIEW TEAM

Report

Mr Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to section 26 of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1988, of the report entitled "Annual Report 2005".

Ordered to be printed. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3771

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Report

Mr Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to section 78 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, of the report entitled "Annual Report 2005-2006".

Ordered to be printed.

POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION

Report

Mr Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to section 103 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, of the report entitled "Annual Report 2005-2006".

Ordered to be printed.

OFFICE FOR CHILDREN

Report

Mr Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to the Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985, of the report entitled "Annual Report 2005-2006—Financial Year Ended 30 June 2006", incorporating the reports of the Commission for Children and Young People and the Office of the Children's Guardian for the year ended 30 June 2006.

Ordered to be printed.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 63C of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of the report entitled "Auditor-General's Report—Financial Audits—Volume Three 2006: Total State Sector Accounts".

TREASURER'S REPORT

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 63C of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of the report entitled "Report on State Finances 2005-2006".

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to section 10 of the Legislation Review Act 1987, of the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 16 of 2006", dated 10 November 2006.

PETITIONS

Hornsby and Berowra Train Station Parking Facilities

Petition requesting adequate commuter parking facilities at Hornsby and Berowra train stations, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Bus Service 311

Petition praying that the Government urgently improve bus service 311 to make it more frequent and more reliable, received from Ms Clover Moore. 3772 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Rural and Regional Police Resources

Petition calling upon the Iemma Government to allocate more police resources to rural and regional communities throughout New South Wales, received from Mr Adrian Piccoli.

Goulburn Rail Services

Petition opposing any reduction or removal of rail services between Sydney and Goulburn, received from Ms Peta Seaton.

CountryLink Regional Rail Services

Petition requesting retention of CountryLink regional rail services, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Forster-Tuncurry Policing

Petition requesting a permanent 24-hour police station at Forster-Tuncurry, received from Mr John Turner.

National Parks Four-wheel-drive Access

Petition opposing the proposal to close four-wheel-drive access to the southern end of Lighthouse Beach, opposing the proposal to close four-wheel-drive access from Sandy Point and Mungo, and requesting that four-wheel-drive access to Yagon (Submarine) Beach be reopened, received from Mr Kerry Hickey.

Whale Protection in Australian Waters

Petition calling for protection of whales in Australian waters, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Same-sex Marriage Legislation

Petitions opposing same-sex marriage legislation, received from Ms Marianne Saliba and Mr Russell Turner.

Unborn Child Protection

Petition requesting mandatory statistical reporting of abortions, legislative protection of foetuses of 20 weeks gestation, and availability of resources for post-abortion follow-up, received from Mr Russell Turner.

Coraki Health Services

Petition requesting that the proposed North Coast Area Health Service Multi Purpose Service at Coraki be situated independently from the Mid Richmond Residents Village, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Breast Screening Funding

Petitions requesting funding to ensure access to breast screening services for women aged 40 to 79 years and to reverse falling participation rates, received from Mr Steve Cansdell and Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Parkinson's Disease Funding

Petition requesting funding for Parkinson's-specific support services for people living with Parkinson's disease, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Sunflower House, Wagga Wagga

Petition requesting funding to facilitate the operation of Sunflower House, Wagga Wagga, received from Mr Daryl Maguire. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3773

Mental Health Services

Petition requesting increased funding for mental health services, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Orange Base Hospital Radiotherapy Services

Petition requesting that radiotherapy services be operational for the opening of the new Orange Base Hospital, received from Mr Russell Turner.

Community-based Preschools

Petition requesting increased funding to community-based preschools so that young children are able to access two years of preschool before they start school, received from Mr Greg Aplin.

Sow Stall Ban

Petition requesting the total ban of sow stalls, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Rural Lands Protection Boards Funding

Petition requesting funding for the rural lands protection boards, received form Mr Adrian Piccoli.

Private Native Forestry

Petition requesting a review of the draft code of practice for private native forestry, received from Mr Andrew Stoner.

Recreational Fishing

Petitions opposing any restrictions on recreational fishing in the mid North Coast waters, received from Mr Andrew Stoner and Mr John Turner.

Lismore Fire Service

Petition requesting the provision of a permanently staffed fire service in Lismore, received from Mr Thomas George.

Grafton Bridge

Petition requesting the construction of a new bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Caringbah Traffic Conditions

Petition requesting the installation of a right turn arrow at the intersection of The Kingsway and Gannons Road, Caringbah, received from Mr Malcolm Kerr.

Inner City Bicycle Lanes

Petition requesting dedicated bicycle facilities for the entire length of William Street, and on Craigend Street and Kings Cross Road, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Dunoon Dam

Petition requesting the fast-tracking of plans to build a dam at Dunoon, received from Mr Thomas George.

Galston Sewerage Services

Petition requesting that Galston residents be connected to sewerage services, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood. 3774 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

CSR Quarry, Hornsby

Petition requesting a public inquiry into Hornsby Shire Council's acquisition of CSR Quarry in Hornsby, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

MILTON ORKOPOULOS CRIMINAL CHARGES

Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Tourism. Given that her staffer, campaign manager and member of the Australian Labor Party administration committee, Paul O'Grady, warned a Coalition member to stay away from Milton Orkopoulos because of police and ICAC investigations, when did he tell her and what did she do with the information?

Ms SANDRA NORI: I knew nothing of the impending allegations against Mr Milton Orkopoulos. I found out about it an hour after the Premier made a statement at the press conference last week. I have not discussed the matter with Mr O'Grady and he has never mentioned it to me. It is pretty obvious from press reports that rumours were flying around prior to the arrest. In fact, according to statements by the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Murrumbidgee and the honourable member for Bega, rumours had circulated among Opposition members.

If, for whatever reason now that charges have been laid, police feel that retrospectively unravelling the rumour mill will help them in their investigations, no doubt they will investigate. As for me, I did not know. Mr O'Grady has never spoken to me about this matter and I have not spoken to him, and that happens to be the truth. My focus between now and 23 March is to continue as I have always done—making my parliamentary and ministerial obligations my priority.

STATE PLAN

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. How will the State Plan improve the delivery of services to the people of New South Wales?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Today is a proud day as the "State Plan—A New Direction for NSW" was launched—the culmination of six months of hard work and consultation with the people of New South Wales. The plan provides for the following: 14 long-term social, economic and environmental goals; 34 priority areas for action; and 60 measurable targets to assess progress on improving services for the people of New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We will not resile from those targets. In choosing those targets we have deliberately challenged ourselves and set the bar high. To ensure that we get there I have created a new system of accountability. Two external appointments have been made to assist in ensuring delivery of the plan— Dr John Stuckey, former managing partner of McKinsey's management consultants, and Professor Brian McCaughan, a leading thoracic surgeon and President of the New South Wales Medical Board. So one of the nation's top management experts and one of the nation's top medical experts will both be available to assist in ensuring delivery of the plan. The plan focuses on five areas of activity of the New South Wales Government and each area has a series of priority measures and explicit targets. The first area, Rights, Respects and Responsibility, will build a justice system and other public services that promote citizenship, social harmony and a safer community.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Motherhood.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals might think that is motherhood. We think it worthy of inclusion in a plan for delivering services for the people of New South Wales. The second area, Delivering Better Services, will enable us to do better in our key service areas, including health, education and transport. The third area, Fairness and Opportunity, will enable us to do more to promote social justice and reduce disadvantage. Opposition members might cast their eyes over some of those issues. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3775

The fourth area, Growing Prosperity Across New South Wales, which has a budget of $44 billion, will assist us in promoting productivity and economic growth, in particular, in rural and regional New South Wales. The fifth area, Environment for Living, will assist in planning for housing and jobs, environmental protection, arts and recreation. Those are the five areas. In Rights, Respect and Responsibility, for example, we have set challenging targets for crime prevention and reducing reoffending to build on our long-term success in reducing crime. In line with community feedback from all those constructive community consultation meetings there is also a new focus on increasing social harmony through participation and integration in community activities such as volunteering.

I will give the House a few other examples. Delivering better services is about ensuring that our health system continues to provide timely access to emergency departments and surgery while focusing more on keeping people healthy and out of hospital. It means having an education system that encourages everyone to achieve their potential, regardless of whether people want to go to university or to TAFE. It also means a growing share of journeys on a reliable public transport system. Nothing is more emblematic of this side's approach to government than our commitment to fairness and opportunity—something that we will not get from that lot opposite.

This means better outcomes from new funding in the areas of disability and mental health so that the most vulnerable in our community get assistance when they need it. It is about a commitment to early intervention as a core principle of government policy and fixing problems at an early stage before they get out of hand. Growing Prosperity Across New South Wales is about driving economic growth and business investment. We are focusing here on what the Government can do to help build business investment. That means reducing red tape, making large investments in infrastructure, taking a new approach to innovation and making a huge investment in training. Environment for Living means water security plans for our regions.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Southern Highlands will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Just like the water plan that was released yesterday for the Central Coast and the Hunter. That is our first down payment on securing the water needs of those two regions for the next 60 years. Environment for Living also means lifting renewable energy to 10 per cent by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2020. We are still waiting for the Opposition's policy on renewable energy. It also means delivering on our Metropolitan Strategy and regional plans to deliver jobs closer to home, making housing more affordable and reducing congestion on our roads. They are just some of the highlights of the most comprehensive plan for better government that this State has ever seen. It is a comprehensive, detailed plan of action that has been built from the ground up with the support of communities all over New South Wales. It is a plan for the people, by the people.

Mr Thomas George: No-one believes it.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Calm down, Thomas. You might require health services in one of those hospitals. It is a world away from the shabby collection of one-page press releases and the collection of cheap talk and cheap, reckless promises. The Opposition is simply unable to pay for any of them. It is very hard to believe. The promises now total $25 billion plus—the Peter meter keeps ringing up the dollars—and the Opposition has not the foggiest idea of how to pay for any of them. The Government has already had endorsement of its plan from bipartisan, independent sources. For example, the ABL/State Chamber welcomed the State Plan, saying it created a blueprint for improved performance of government in New South Wales. It said that the Government "should be commended for … forcing significant cultural change throughout the public sector."

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will come to order and cease interjecting. The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: ABL/State Chamber continued:

This is not a short term document, it's one focused on the longer term …

The Housing Industry Association called the plan "a big step in the right direction." The association's executive director praised the State Plan for targeting—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will cease calling out. 3776 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: He praised the State Plan for targeting the release of 55,000 new housing lots by 2009, saying that it has "granted some certainty for both families and the [housing] industry." The Housing Industry Association also complimented the Government's commitment to addressing the skills shortage. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales, another peak body in this State, also welcomed the State Plan. The acting chief executive called it a "positive step in the right direction" and acknowledged the Government "for heeding public calls for social justice and disadvantage to be more prominently addressed in the Plan."

That is what three peak bodies in this State—engaged in the areas of business, housing and social services—have said about the plan. But today is just the beginning. We will work with those bodies to implement the plan and improve the services for New South Wales. Above all, this is a comprehensive plan that addresses the State's needs. It stands in stark contrast to the grab bag of one-page press release promises, which keep ringing up the dollars. The Opposition is not able to come up with one single idea about how it will pay for the $25 billion and retain the State's triple-A credit rating.

MILTON ORKOPOULOS CRIMINAL CHARGES

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Given that the Minister's campaign manager and mentor, Jan Burnswoods, has admitted that she knew about allegations against Milton Orkopoulos 18 months ago, why does the Minister not come clean with the people of New South Wales and tell them what he knew, and when?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: As a father and a member of Parliament, I am shocked and appalled by these allegations. As the Premier has already reminded the House, these matters are now before the courts. As the State's Police Minister, I cannot and will not comment on any aspect of this case. The prosecution is now under way and the police must be free to make their own decisions about this investigation. These matters are the most serious criminal charges.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will cease calling out.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I am not going to do anything to frustrate or jeopardise the prosecution's ongoing inquiries. Ministers have done so in the past and have been roundly and justly criticised. On Friday last the Commissioner of Police called for an end to speculation and asked that police be allowed to get on with their inquiries and let the matters be resolved in court. I am following his advice. I trust his judgment and I support his position on these matters. I will not say or do anything that may impact on the police investigation and the hearing of these most serious matters before the court. All matters connected with this case are to be tested in court. That is the appropriate forum for this to occur.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Clarence to order. I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order.

STATE PLAN

Mr STEVE WHAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Training. How will the State Plan drive improvements in the New South Wales education system?

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Government is rightly proud of our quality system of education and training in this State. Our schools are internationally competitive and they set the benchmark for schooling across Australia. Our curriculum is the envy of all other States and Territories. We have world-class universities and our TAFE system has been expanding and adapting to meet skills shortages. The State Plan, developed collaboratively between the Government and the community, sets the goals and the outcomes that will guide us for the next 10 years. Through public meetings and an extensive feedback process we have received some very clear messages from the community about education and training in New South Wales. I have attended a number of consultation meetings in conjunction with the drafting of the State Plan.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will stop calling out.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: It was pleasing to get positive feedback from the community about the education and training system in New South Wales. That feedback was overwhelmingly positive and it was overwhelmingly gratifying to hear it from the community. The community supports the Government's focus on getting the basics right, such as emphasising literacy and numeracy. It supports the quality and rigour of the 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3777

Higher School Certificate and is particularly positive about the Government's expansion of options for young people through vocational training in schools. People see education as a fundamental building block for individual lives, for families and for the economic future of the State. The community has a clear desire to have all students fulfil their potential.

The Government has received the strong message that students do not all share the same interests and aspirations. Our school system needs to provide pathways for students for further study, training or employment. The Government is making progress, but more work needs to be done. The State Plan responds to these issues and sets a new direction for the delivery of government services and public administration in New South Wales. The plan will take education to the next level, building on its strengths. The Government will lift the number of children meeting literacy and numeracy benchmarks to ensure every child gets off to a good start. This means an extra 2,000 students will meet benchmarks by 2008, and up to an extra 6,000 students by 2016.

The Government has set a target to increase the proportion of children meeting the higher proficiency standard. Once the national tests are in place, the Government aims to lift the proportion of students meeting the higher standard first by 10 per cent within four years to 2012, and a further 5 per cent in the next four years to 2016. Over the next four years, the Iemma Government will invest $616 million in programs to lift literacy and numeracy standards across its schools. Quality teaching remains central to the Government's plans. Much has been done in this area, and the momentum must be maintained in embedding the standards of the Institute of Teachers, supporting new teachers and emphasising ongoing professional development.

Parents are key partners in education. Parents will be provided with clear information on how their child is progressing at school. With this information, parents will be better able to work with schools in planning for their child's future success. Research tells us that completing year 12 or an equivalent qualification is a strong indicator of future success. A more educated population leads to higher wages, lower unemployment and less poverty. The message from the community is clear. It understands the importance of giving young persons a strong start in the workforce by completing their education. The Government recognises that in its State Plan. It has a commitment to have 90 per cent of young people finish year 12 or a vocational equivalent. This is an increase from the current level of 82.7 per cent, and represents an extra 6,350 students who will complete year 12 or a vocational equivalent by 2016.

The Government recognises that more education is not an end in itself. It will focus on providing the right education and training that equips people for the jobs available now and into the future. For example, trade schools will greatly expand the opportunities that are available to young people to complete a relevant qualification. The Government is investing $18 million over four years in 10 trade schools to tackle skills shortages and to provide students more training opportunities. Each trade school will specialise in one or more trade skill shortage area and will give students the option of undertaking a school-based apprenticeship, traineeship or other vocational course while completing their Higher School Certificate.

We hear a lot of noise from the other side, but where are Opposition plans to provide alternative opportunities for young people while they are at school? We do not see its plans because it has none. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee knows the Opposition has no plans because he was forced to write to me and say, "Minister, I believe that one of these trade schools must be built here in Griffith." That is all very well for the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to want a trade school in Griffith, but where was he and where was the shadow Minister for Education and Training when this Government lobbied the Federal Government to support its proposal for Australian Technical Colleges in Lismore, Dubbo, Queanbeyan, the Hunter and Western Sydney? The honourable member for Murrumbidgee was nowhere to be seen; the shadow spokesman for Education and Training was nowhere to be seen.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much calling out on the Opposition benches.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: Nearly three years after the Prime Minister promised eight technical colleges, we have one. Another one in Western Sydney appears to have fallen over. I hear the honourable member for Lismore, but his community is still waiting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lismore will come to order.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: He has not had his Australian Technical College [ATC] announced by the Prime Minister. The Central Coast, Dubbo, Queanbeyan show no signs of having ATCs up and running. 3778 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lismore to order.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: Those communities are still waiting despite a promise by the Prime Minister nearly three years ago. Yet, do we hear anything from the Opposition? No, we do not. The Opposition is silent. It stands by, has no plans and does nothing. Except, I must be truthful, the honourable member for Ballina has done his best. He wrote to me and suggested that we compromise our opposition to Australian Workplace Agreements [AWAs] in order to get an ATC in Ballina. That is the extent of the Opposition's action to support alternative opportunities for young people: compromise our opposition to AWAs and bring in AWAs for teachers. It is a joke. The Opposition has no plans for young people in New South Wales to address the skills shortage.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ballina will come to order.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: Only the Iemma Government will prepare young people of today for the workforce of tomorrow.

MILTON ORKOPOULOS CRIMINAL CHARGES

Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is directed to the Premier. Given last week the Premier claimed "to have had absolutely no inkling at all prior to Tuesday night" about the Orkopoulos scandal, but he admitted yesterday that he had heard "rumours about a possible police investigation in the weeks before Orkopoulos was arrested", why did the Premier—they are his words—deceive the people of New South Wales? They are his words.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: This is a matter of public record, and I am quite happy to formally record it in this place. The Office of the Minister for Police was first notified on Monday 6 November that the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was under investigation and there was a possibility that serious charges could be laid. The Minister's staff advised my office, and later that day Minister Watkins was also told, after returning from a Parramatta Cabinet visit. I returned from Parramatta, and went straight into briefings on the national water situation, prior to a telephone hook-up with interstate Premiers. Early the following morning I left for Canberra to join the Prime Minister at that emergency water summit.

That night my chief of staff informed me of the investigation, and that charges were believed to be imminent. The following morning staff of the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs telephoned my office to report that he had been arrested. The Commissioner of Police then briefed the Minister for Police on the detail of the charges at approximately 10.00 a.m. on Wednesday 8 November after Mr Orkopoulos was arrested. The Minister for Police—

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. Maybe the Premier has missed the question—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point or order?

Mr Peter Debnam: The Premier initially said he knew nothing about it. He then told the media in—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and now he purports to answer his own question. He is clearly flouting the standing orders. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Minister for Police and I are regularly made aware of confidential information regarding matters such as investigations, security risks, and counterterrorism arrangements where it is relevant to the Government's considerations. We are entrusted with that information because of our role as Premier and Minister for Police. Senior police, the director general of the Ministry for Police and other agency heads keep us informed of relevant matters on a regular basis. Let us not forget the sequence of events here. Police chose to pass on the information to my office, where it was held confidentially. I was informed on the Tuesday night. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3779

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: And the process worked.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will come to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Compared to the—

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: One of the Premier's own Ministers stood up here today and said there were rumours circulating in this building.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Once again he is resorting to the tactic of disrupting the reply merely because he does not like the answer.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Premier will be allowed to give his reply in silence.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: —passed on the information to my office, where it was held confidentially, an arrest was made, and the process has worked: investigation proceeds without interference, investigation proceeds to charges, arrest, and a matter is before the courts. That is evidence of the process having worked— and worked without interference, and it will continue to work without interference. That is the position, and that contrasts to the matters in relation to the Liberal candidate, where the person who was to face allegations and other matters was told before the police.

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: If the Premier does not tell the truth today—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is again deliberately disrupting and interrupting the Premier. This is the third occasion on which the Leader of the Opposition has deliberately interrupted and attempted to give his version of the response he wants. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that this is question time. If he wants to answer his own questions, I suggest he do it elsewhere. I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. The Premier has the call.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: Mr Speaker, I take you to standing orders 138 and 139. The question—which relates to Standing Order 138—was about how the Premier explains the differentiation between what he said last week and what he said yesterday. Standing Order 139, Mr Speaker, as you well know, does not allow the Premier or any other Minister in this place—whether, in the words of the Minister for Tourism, they are telling the truth or not—to get up in this place and debate the point.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no debate occurring here. The only debate being entered into is by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I order the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to standing orders 138 and 139, and I—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a thinly veiled attempt to disrupt the proceedings of the House. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that the standing orders provide no basis whatsoever for his point of order. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order. The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Which shows you have learnt nothing from the Smith matter. 3780 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

STATE PLAN

Ms TANYA GADIEL: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. What is the latest information on the Government's measures to promote rights, respect and responsibility as part of the State Plan?

Mr JOHN WATKINS: I thank the honourable member for her most relevant question. Nothing is more important to the people of this State than a safe community. And all the people living in the community of New South Wales are entitled to feel safe in their homes, on the streets, in their schools, and in their jobs.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Leader of The Nationals wishes to go on a picnic, I trust he will do so elsewhere. He will resume his seat and comply with the standing orders, which apply to all 93 members of the House, including him. I call the Leader of The Nationals to order. The Deputy Premier has the call.

Mr JOHN WATKINS: Fear is a terrible thing in the community, whether it is fear of crime, fear of violence, or fear created by uncertainty—and it is a destructive emotion. Governments the world over have a responsibility to do all they can to fight fear on behalf of their communities. The New South Wales State Plan heralds a new direction in our fight to protect our citizens. It recognises, for the first time, the need for a whole-of-government approach to promoting safer, more harmonious communities. And it recognises that the entire community has a part to play in ensuring our communities are better places in which to live and work. We are strongly committed to driving down crime and reducing rates of reoffending. And we strongly support encouraging more involvement by all in community activities.

The State Plan gives priority to a package of measures aimed at achieving those aims over the next 10 years. Those priorities include reducing property crimes against households by 15 per cent, reducing violent crimes against the person by 10 per cent, reducing by 10 per cent the number of offenders who reoffend within two years of being convicted, reducing the incidence of public drunkenness and hoon drivers, and increasing participation in volunteering, sports, cultural and artistic activity, especially for people from low-income, non-English speaking and Aboriginal communities.

The Government is determined to make and enforce laws that better protect people and their property. The plan's priorities were determined through extensive community consultation. I attended two of those sessions—one at Ashfield and one on the Central Coast—and I was struck by the willingness of community members to have a say and to tell it like it really is. We will work to ensure that law-abiding citizens are protected from violence and theft. And we ask for their support on this through their vigilance, through their support of hard-working local police, and through their willingness to get involved in the community.

The State Plan is not just a way forward for the Government or NSW Police. We want to use it to engage the whole community in responding to today's challenges and opportunities. There will be a crackdown on alcohol-fuelled violence through increased policing of licensed premises. There will be a focus on domestic and family violence through early intervention, more options for victims and children, and better integration of police, legal and social assistance. There will be an exploration of new opportunities for recruiting and training police to ensure that NSW Police remains representative of the entire community. And we will continue to give police the numbers, powers, resources and equipment they need to drive down crime.

Notwithstanding this, we recognise that a minority of people continue to cause disharmony through antisocial and criminal behaviour. But, clearly, prevention is better than cure, and early intervention is the best means of reducing reoffending. That is why we are encouraging schools, health, justice agencies, police, family services, and community groups to work together to teach young people about respect for others. Respect and responsibility begin at home. So it is essential that all people who play a role in the lives of young people— parents, neighbours, friends, coaches, teachers, and religious leaders—play their part in reinforcing manners and respect for others.

We must also work together to help break down the barriers faced by marginalised and disadvantaged communities. Our targets over the next decade include increasing participation rates in volunteering, group sport, cultural, recreational or artistic activities by 10 per cent, and halving gaps in the participation rates of low-income, non-English speaking and Aboriginal communities in these activities. The Iemma Government is committed to keeping people safe and building harmonious communities. We will never give up on that fight. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3781

BARRABA AND TAMWORTH WATER SUPPLIES

CHAFFEY DAM AND SPLIT ROCK DAM

Mr PETER DRAPER: My question is to the Minister for Water Utilities. Given the recent announcement of a new dam in the Hunter, will the Minister advise the House as to plans for other country water supplies, particularly the pipeline from Split Rock Dam to Barraba and the enhancement of Chaffey Dam?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I thank the honourable member for Tamworth for his ongoing interest in Chaffey Dam, the Barraba water supply, and the Split Rock Dam. These are issues that the honourable member for Tamworth has worked on for some time.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 140. That was a dorothy dix question. The Minister has gone straight to his briefing notes. This is supposed to be a time for questions without notice.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. He takes the same point of order every time an Independent member asks a question. If he intends to disrupt the standing orders of the House, he should try something original rather than rely on the same old tawdry point of order. The Minister for Water Utilities has the call.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The Leader of The Nationals does not like what is happening in Tamworth, Dubbo, Northern Tablelands and Port Macquarie. His spurious point of order was about his trying to maintain—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will stop calling out.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It was about the Leader of The Nationals trying to maintain some semblance of relevance, because the bush knows that he will not stand up for the bush; the bush knows that people like the honourable member for Tamworth, who has long had an interest in these issues, will continue to raise them. His advocacy on issues such as this has been one of the many reasons the Government's State Plan places a high priority on preparing plans for sustainable and secure water supplies for drought affected areas.

Yesterday the Government announced a $342 million drought-proofing package for the Hunter and the Central Coast, including a $300 million, 450 billion litre dam at Tillegra on the Williams River, which will provide enough water for 60 years for current and future residents of the Hunter and the Central Coast. The shadow Minister for Water Utilities has talked this package down, and there has been absolutely no support from the Opposition for this package, which will ensure water for the Hunter and the Central Coast. Families on the Central Coast and in the Hunter will know that the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Gosford and those opposite do not support this package, which is very clear from what the Leader of The Nationals said in the past 24 hours. Other components of the package include a $25 million industrial recycling plant on Kooragang Island, which will provide three billion litres a year of recycled water for heavy industry; and a water grid between Newcastle and Wyong which will provide 35 million litres a day, which is half the daily needs of the Central Coast.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Myall Lakes will come to order.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It will also provide new pumps on the Williams River to protect Newcastle's supply. The new package complements the Metropolitan Water Plan, which will secure Sydney's water supply until at least 2015. But the Iemma Government's commitment to secure water supplies extends beyond the major cities.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will come to order.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Since 1996 the Government has been investing $1 million a week in water and sewerage projects for towns across country New South Wales. A $950 million program has already delivered seven new or upgraded storage dams, 47 new water reservoirs, 78 new or upgraded sewage treatment plants, 27 new or upgraded water treatment plants, 35 new sewerage schemes, as well as upgrades to distribution networks and disinfecting and monitoring systems.

The Government will not let down New South Wales, and New South Wales will not run out of water. We will provide the drought support needed to get through what now looks like being a one-in-a-thousand-year 3782 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

drought. So far we are investing $16 million in the Tamworth electorate, $23 million in the Dubbo electorate, $41 million in the Port Macquarie electorate, $25 million in the Orange electorate, $26 million in the Oxley electorate and $13 million in the Northern Tablelands electorate, to name just a few.

The State Water Corporation has embarked on a major upgrade program of Chaffey Dam. Initial work to improve the safety of the dam has already been completed, but there is more to do. The dam is now only 29 per cent full. More than 50 options for upgrading Chaffey Dam have been considered by a local community reference panel, and narrowed down to two: a dam safety upgrade, or an augmentation. The Government believes that, while considering major investments in the dam to improve its safety, it makes sense to look at expanding the dam to provide better drought security for Peel Valley irrigators and support the growing population of Tamworth, which will benefit the whole regional economy.

The Government's investigations to date show that an increase in the dam wall by approximately eight metres to boost the capacity of the dam from 62 billion litres to 100 billion litres is likely to prove technically and financially feasible. This increase in capacity is estimated to cost some $13 million, on top of the $14.5 million for the dam safety upgrade. The Government expects to receive the final report very shortly, once State Water has consulted with key stakeholders. I advise the honourable member for Tamworth and the House that we will consider all options for the Split Rock to Barraba pipeline once the council submits its final options report for consideration. The report should weigh up the pros and cons of all options, not simply the council's preferred option.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Barwon has not said a word on it in his House. He has not said one word on it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Barwon will stop interjecting.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The honourable member for Tamworth has spoken on the issue here and he is not even the local member.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Barwon has not said one single word about it in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Barwon will stop interjecting. The Minister will address the Chair.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: As always, the Government will make a responsible decision on funding, but only for the best value option, not the preferred option at any cost. Those opposite have a Peter meter; we do not have the Peter meter. I will keep the honourable member for Tamworth fully informed of developments as they occur.

STATE PLAN

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: My question without notice is to the Premier. How will the New South Wales State Plan drive growing prosperity in New South Wales?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Premier has the call.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The State Plan puts the objective of driving business investment at the heart of Government economic policy making, which makes good our commitment to ensure that New South Wales is open for business. In driving prosperity, we are committed to driving better performance in the key areas the Government controls. We are committed to a red tape reduction, building on our strong initiatives to date. We will establish a better regulation office with an effective and transparent process to slash red tape. We will continue our successful approach of industry-specific reviews by the Minister for Small Business.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Southern Highlands will come to order. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3783

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: We are committed to our record infrastructure spend, ensuring that we get the right infrastructure at the right place and at the right time. A $40 billion spend over the next four years will then grow at an average of 4.6 per cent per annum after that. We are committed to keeping our triple-A credit rating, which is something the Opposition would put at risk on day one, just like the last time the Coalition ran the Treasury benches.

We are committed to a new approach in supporting innovation in New South Wales, with a focus on supporting new ideas in the sectors that are most important to the State. We are also committed to lifting the number of people in lifelong learning across the whole of New South Wales to give our citizens the training and education necessary to win high-skilled, well-paid jobs into the future. This will result in huge opportunities for people of all ages and in all parts of the State to reskill and retrain to keep up with our rapidly changing economy.

We will build on our already substantial achievement in reducing taxes across New South Wales, including abolishing the vendor duty and increasing the 2006 land tax threshold from $330,000 to $352,000. These are responsible tax reductions. Further reductions include new payroll tax concessions for businesses in areas of high unemployment above the State average, cuts in workers compensation premiums, introduction of three-year averaging of land values and the tax-free threshold for land tax from the 2007 land tax year, and the abolition of a further five taxes in the years ahead as part of the agreement reached with the Commonwealth. This is a bold new direction in policy making and tax reduction. I again welcome the support for the State Plan by Australian Business Limited, which said the plan has created a blueprint to lift performance in New South Wales. The Housing Industry Association is not far behind in endorsing the State Plan.

The Government has a comprehensive plan for growing prosperity in New South Wales with new targets, and new priorities in training, education, red tape, innovation and infrastructure. Contrast that with the Opposition's so-called economic rescue package, which is a full two pages long, including a picture of the Leader of the Opposition that takes up most of the first page. His rescue plan—or "risk you plan"—contains only spending, with no indication of how it will be paid for: all in two pages. While he tries to talk the economy into recession and businesses out of New South Wales, he refuses to stand up for the people of New South Wales on interest rates, petrol prices, WorkChoices and any matter that affects the families of New South Wales. Today we released a package, the State Plan, which is backed by business as the way forward. Today we released our plan for the people of New South Wales—in stark contrast to a two-page document containing $25 billion worth of spending promises and a photograph of the Leader of the Opposition.

MILTON ORKOPOULOS CRIMINAL CHARGES

Mr PETER DEBNAM: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that he said, "If someone has done something wrong, they will be out of the party and the Government, just as swiftly as Mr Orkopoulos," and that subsequently it was revealed that the honourable member for Wallsend, John Mills, knew nine years ago, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods knew 18 months ago, and the honourable member for Newcastle, Bryce Gaudry, knew a year ago, why has the Premier not taken any action against these three members of Parliament?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The precise quote was in my ministerial statement. I stand by the statement I made.

STATE PLAN

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Will she outline the Government's priorities to better support the vulnerable and disadvantaged as part of the New South Wales State Plan?

Ms REBA MEAGHER: A functioning society is quite rightly judged by how it treats our most vulnerable and displaced people—the ones who, through no fault of their own, face a constant uphill battle in life. If we are not careful, they are left behind. While many in the community have enjoyed prosperity in recent times, some families continue to suffer ongoing hardship, which can only be worsened by increases in interest rates and increasing food prices that are being driven by the worst drought in living memory.

To ensure that no-one is left behind, the Iemma Government's State Plan, A New Direction for New South Wales, sets new targets for people with disabilities and mental health problems, Aboriginal communities, and people affected by child abuse and neglect. More than 200,000 people aged up to 65 years old have a severe 3784 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

or profound disability in New South Wales. Stronger Together—A New Direction for Disability Services is this Government's 10-year disability plan. It will provide more than $1.3 billion over the first five years for more respite therapy accommodation, more day programs, and expanded programs for school leavers.

Stronger Together represents the largest increase in disability spending in this State's history. Drawing on this unprecedented level of resources, the State Plan is targeting improved employment and community participation for disabled people in New South Wales. By 2016 we will have closed by 50 per cent the gap in the unemployment rate between people with a disability and the rest of the community. This means that approximately 6,000 disabled people will have jobs, and we are working hard to make sure that people with severe or profound disabilities have the opportunity to participate in their communities.

Under the State Plan, the out-of-home participation rate for severely and profoundly disabled people will increase by at least 85 per cent. The achievement of targets in employment and community participation will help people suffering disabilities and their carers to feel less isolated, creating a genuine sense of connection to community that is essential for both physical and mental health. The increasing number of people who suffer from mental illness face immense challenges. In 2005-06 more than one million people in New South Wales experienced a mental illness, and there were more than 26,000 overnight admissions to mental health units in New South Wales hospitals.

The State's plan for improving mental health services will provide $940 million over the next five years, taking the delivery of mental health services in a new direction, with a particular focus on keeping people in the community well. Under the State Plan we will increase to 34 per cent the percentage of people with a mental illness aged between 15 and 64 who are employed, and we will increase by 40 per cent the community participation rate of people with a mental illness. Another of the targets of the State Plan is to reduce the re-admission rate of people into mental health facilities within 28 days of their being discharged.

It is also a sad reality that the indigenous community experiences a high degree of disadvantage. Life expectancy in indigenous communities is some 17 years below the rest of the community, the rate of infant mortality is 1.8 times higher than in other communities, and Aboriginal unemployment is more than three times the general unemployment rate. Aboriginal youth are over-represented in the juvenile detention and child protection systems.

The Iemma Government is committed, through its Two Ways Together Program, to improving outcomes for Aboriginal people. In line with this commitment the State Plan includes two key targets: to close the gap between Aboriginal and all students in primary school numeracy and literacy rates by 2016; and, over five years, to reduce, by 15 per cent, hospital admission of Aboriginal people who have conditions that can be appropriately treated in the home.

Disturbingly, the rate of child abuse and neglect across all communities continues to increase both in New South Wales and around the world. In 2005 the Department of Community Services received 241,000 risk-of-harm reports concerning 110,000 children. This means that almost 55 children in every 1,000 in New South Wales were the subject of a report that required further investigation. Sadly, this number is growing. For the sake of New South Wales children, we have made reducing the underlying rate of child abuse and neglect a State Plan priority. As part of this Government's $1.2 billion reform of the Department of Community Services it is recruiting an additional 1,025 caseworkers, including 350 specialist early intervention workers who work with non-government organisations and families, to stop abuse before it starts.

Over the term of the State Plan we will make use of other prevention and early intervention strategies, such as improved antenatal services for vulnerable families and cross-agency screening and assessment to more quickly identify children at risk. The Iemma Government is committed to ensuring that everyone in New South Wales has a fair go to build the best life possible. That is why we are investing billions of dollars to help people with special needs to enjoy the lifestyle and opportunities this State has to offer.

Questions without notice concluded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I seek leave to move a motion to suspend standing and sessional orders to permit the introduction and passage through all stages of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation (Criminal Charges) Bill 2006.

Leave not granted. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3785

MILTON ORKOPOULOS CRIMINAL CHARGES

Personal Explanation

Mr BRYCE GAUDRY, by leave: I want to make a personal explanation in relation to statements made in the media and questions asked today in this House regarding any knowledge I may have had of the allegations against the former member for Swansea, Milton Orkopoulos. I remind the House that these are now more than allegations, as serious criminal charges have been laid and the police are currently putting together a brief of evidence. I have been asked to make a statement and have done so, fully co-operating with the police in their investigations. This matter is obviously within the court system, and I will not do or say anything that may impact on this matter being brought to a fair trial. I ask the Parliament and the media to observe the same protocol.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gosford to order for the second time.

CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS

Federal Government Industrial Relations WorkChoices Legislation

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.38 p.m.]: My motion deserves priority because today we have heard that the High Court confirmed that the Federal Government's WorkChoices laws will devastate the working conditions of New South Wales families and the Australian lifestyle. Nurses, TAFE teachers and ambulance officers will all be very nervous about the Federal Government workplace laws having been given a tick by the High Court. That decision will cause a lot of anxiety within work places across the State. Therefore, my motion deserves priority. Eight months after the introduction of the WorkChoices legislation it is important to record the anguish and insecurity those laws are placing on working families in New South Wales. My motion deserves priority because the Leader of the Opposition's policy is to refer this State's fair and balanced industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth. His policy is: Hand it over!

This motion deserves priority because the WorkChoices legislation will force low-paid workers into individual bargaining, strip away working entitlements and make life much harder for working families in this State as employment conditions are eroded. This motion deserves priority because the Opposition's policy would force New South Wales small businesses into complex and costly industrial relations processes that many of them do not want. This matter deserves priority for all those reasons and more. We need to have a fair debate in this House and we need the Opposition to join with the Government and stand up for New South Wales, and stop being such a lackey for John Howard.

Ministerial Code of Conduct

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [3.42 p.m.]: Every member of this Parliament would agree that there is nothing more urgent to be dealt with in the State of New South Wales at the moment than the lack of ministerial accountability. That is the issue. A ministerial code of conduct has been applied, supposedly, in this House for 12 years. The fact is that it has not been applied—but it has been updated. After the Coalition raised the issue a number of times, the code was updated two months ago, but it has never been applied to those on the Government's frontbench. Now, as we attempt to debate ministerial accountability, we find that every one of those frontbenchers has left the Chamber—every single one of them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Maroubra will come to order.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: When we talk about ministerial accountability in New South Wales—

Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order: The Leader of the Opposition is clearly not speaking to why his motion should have priority over that of the honourable member for Kiama. He is trying to troll the arguments in this case. This is a common abuse that we see from the Leader of the Opposition at this time of a sitting day. I ask you to draw him back to why his motion should have priority over that of the honourable member for Kiama.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I note the point of order. I will hear further from the Leader of the Opposition before I rule on it.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: The honourable member for Bathurst might not like it, but the people of New South Wales want Ministers to be held to account. That is why I moved the motion today. I will read it again: 3786 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

That this House condemns the Premier for his failure to hold Ministers to account against his own ministerial code of conduct.

That code was updated two months ago, but the Premier refuses to hold Ministers to account and refuses to hold members of Parliament to account. We just heard about the honourable member for Wallsend, we just heard a personal explanation from the honourable member for Newcastle—and there is Jan Burnswoods in the upper House—but the Premier refuses to hold them to account.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: After an amazingly weak performance in question time today by the Leader of the Opposition, he is now rambling on and mentioning people's names, but nothing specific. He is not establishing priority but seems to be trolling around and trying to drag people's names through the mud without establishing any priority for debate today. I ask you to call him back to the point, which is to establish priority for urgent consideration.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Having heard further from the Leader of the Opposition I am now of the view that the points of order taken by the honourable member for Bathurst and the honourable member for Monaro have some substance. The Leader of the Opposition should return to the subject matter of his contribution, which is whether his motion should have priority over the motion of which the honourable member for Kiama has given notice.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: The substance of this matter is that the Premier refuses to hold the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Energy, the honourable member for Wallsend, the honourable member for Newcastle and the Hon. Jan Burnswoods to account.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition commenced by saying, "The substance of this matter". He should put forward reasons why his motion should have priority; he should not debate the substance of it. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition is out of order.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: My motion needs to be afforded priority because the Government of this State is rotten to the core, because the Premier has refused to hold members of Parliament accountable, and refused to hold Ministers to account. We are talking about the Minister for Local Government, the honourable member for Smithfield and the Minister for Energy, who is still on the front bench.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease calling out.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: The Minister for Energy, before ICAC; the Minister for Local Government dangerous driving and using taxpayers' funds to pay a parking fine. Members of this Parliament knew about allegations nine years ago, but the Premier will not act.

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: Don't forget your—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Maroubra will address the Chair.

Mrs Jillian Skinner: What are you scared of? Do you not want to hear this?

Mr Michael Daley: I do want to hear it. What about him? He bashes people. He is a foul-mouthed—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Maroubra will not respond to interjections. He will address the Chair.

Mr Michael Daley: On 26 October 2006—

Mr SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

Mr Michael Daley: My point of order relates to Standing Orders 82 and 120 (4) (d).

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Maroubra will state his point of order.

Mr Michael Daley: My point of order is that, as you ruled on 26 October 2006, the Leader of the Opposition is launching into imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on members of this House. Under the standing orders—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard sufficient on the point of order. I uphold the point of order and direct the Leader of the Opposition to return to the reasons why his motion should have priority. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3787

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Maroubra will resume his seat.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: If the Premier will not hold the Government to account, the people will on 24 March 2007.

Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Kiama be proceeded with—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 49

Ms Allan Ms Gadiel Mr Pearce Mr Amery Mr Gaudry Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Mr Greene Mr Price Mr Bartlett Mr Hickey Ms Saliba Ms Beamer Mr Hunter Mr Sartor Mr Black Ms Judge Mr Shearan Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Stewart Ms Burney Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Campbell Mr McLeay Mr Watkins Mr Chaytor Ms Meagher Mr West Mr Collier Ms Megarrity Mr Whan Mr Corrigan Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Mr Crittenden Mr Morris Mr Daley Mr Newell Tellers, Ms D'Amore Ms Nori Mr Ashton Mr Debus Mrs Paluzzano Mr Martin

Noes, 35

Mr Aplin Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Mr Barr Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr McTaggart Mr Slack-Smith Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Souris Mr Constance Ms Moore Mr Stoner Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr Tink Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr Torbay Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr R. W. Turner Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Tellers, Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Mr George Mrs Hopwood Mr Roberts Mr Maguire

Question resolved in the affirmative.

CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order 120 and to a previous ruling you gave to this House relating to whether a motion is urgent and should receive priority. Standing Order 120 (4) (a) states:

The Members giving the notices shall each be permitted to make statements of up to 5 minutes so the House may establish priority of such matters.

The points of order that were taken today by Government members related to whether the Leader of the Opposition was debating the issue. I think Government members are confusing Standing Order 120 with Standing Order 139, which relates to issues being debated during question time. On my reading of Standing 3788 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Order 120 (4) (a), a member, when making a statement to establish priority, is entitled under that standing order to make his or her statement unimpeded by desperate interjections and points of order by Government members. I ask you to rule in future that the House should establish priority after a member has made his or her five-minute statement without interruption from members on the other side of the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! At this stage I do not accept the point of order. However, I will consider the matter further and give a ruling later today.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS WORKCHOICES LEGISLATION

Urgent Motion

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.56 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates the Government's continuing pledge to do everything it can to protect New South Wales workers from the devastating impact of WorkChoices;

(2) condemns the Federal Government for its attempt to dismantle the rights and protections of New South Wales; and

(3) condemns the New South Wales Coalition for once again failing to stand up to Canberra on behalf of New South Wales families.

That is what this motion is all about. This motley crew of conservatives opposite continually gets its marching orders from Canberra on every policy. This policy in particular will impact adversely on many families in this State. Members of the New South Wales Opposition should get some backbone, stand up for the working families of this State, and say to John Howard, "You do not run this State on every issue. We have our own point of view on this matter and we want to look after the nurses, TAFE teachers and ambulance officers who need the protection of the New South Wales industrial relations system.

The New South Wales industrial relations system, which has been officially administered by the State Government for more than 100 years, has been working extremely well. It has been finetuned over that time and has resulted in a harmonious system in this State. Workers and employees have benefited from our fair and just industrial relations framework. The Iemma Government supports an industrial relations system based on Australian values—a system that recognises the importance of family lifestyles and supports decent living standards for ordinary workers.

We are not about a race to the bottom; we are about a continual race to improve the living standards of ordinary workers. Our industrial relations system promotes a fair minimum wage set by a truly independent tribunal through a public hearing. It provides an up-to-date and comprehensive safety net for all workers. It understands and supports the right of employers, unions and employees to develop industrial agreements without prohibitive government interference. It has an independent umpire with broad dispute-settling powers, it protects workers from being unfairly dismissed, and it includes special conditions for our most vulnerable workers.

The Iemma Government strongly opposes the Howard-Debnam agenda for a new industrial relations system. WorkChoices will reduce the living standards of workers and their families. It will remove the right to a fair go in the workplace, and create confusion and complexity for employers—confusion and complexity that we do not need. Time and again we hear the Prime Minister and Treasurer claiming that our economy is buoyant and strong. If everything is going so well why are they trying to dismantle a system that has served this State and this nation so well? Why do they support a change that will cause anxiety and stress for so many workers, including nurses, TAFE teachers and ambulance officers?

The Australian lifestyle as we know it is under threat because of the WorkChoices legislation. Workers in New South Wales will be worse off as a result of these draconian reforms. There is no doubt about that. Let us consider a few facts. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures reveal that average earnings have dropped by $11 in real terms in the past year. The Federal Government's own survey of a sample of Australian workplace agreements revealed that every agreement has removed at least one award condition since WorkChoices began. That will not improve working conditions. The Federal Government's survey reveals that WorkChoices is reducing people's rights at work. Workers have no right to be represented under a union-negotiated agreement and employers can now dismiss workers for "operational reasons"—or, in other words, for no reason at all. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3789

Consider that for a moment. Workers no longer have the right to be represented by a properly qualified and experienced person who negotiates an agreement on their behalf. Many workers in the Kiama electorate and throughout the Illawarra and the Shoalhaven rely on unions to go in to bat for them and thrash out a decent deal. Employment contracts are very complex. They include a host of technical and legal points that many workers have neither the skill nor the inclination to negotiate. Some employment contracts are more complicated than contracts to buy or sell property. Not many people do their own conveyancing. They go instead to see a solicitor who is competent and experienced in looking after people's interests. Why should workers have to see a solicitor every time they want to enter into an employment agreement, when they used to have the right to allow a union representative to do it for them? It is outrageous that that right is now denied them.

The Iemma Government has fought against these reforms at every turn. We have shielded 186,000 public sector workers, including frontline workers such as nurses, ambulance officers, TAFE teachers and bus drivers, from the divisive and unfair WorkChoices legislation. We are doing everything we can in this Parliament to stand up to these unfair laws. We have created new laws to protect workers under 18 years of age from the harsh impact of WorkChoices.

Mr Thomas George: Just drop your State taxes. That will help them.

Mr MATT BROWN: I acknowledge the interjection by the honourable member for Lismore. That is not the issue. The issue is ensuring proper award conditions for workers aged under 18 years. They need protection from the State Government. The honourable member for Lismore is trying to divert attention from that debate. The Iemma Government has prevented workers from being dismissed when they are injured at work and we have taken steps to allow workers to be reinstated if they were dismissed because they raised legitimate safety concerns at work.

The Iemma Government has strengthened the powers of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to hear industrial cases of national importance. We have doubled the minimum small claims limit for unpaid workers, from $10,000 to $20,000. We have taken clear and defining steps to protect the long service and sick leave entitlements of council workers. In fact, dozens of councils across the State have already agreed to sign referral agreements that enable them to remain under the New South Wales system. In my electorate both the Council of the Municipality of Kiama and Shellharbour City Council have agreed to sign those agreements. I congratulate the mayors, David Hamilton and Sandra McCarthy, and the councillors involved. I have spoken to the council workers affected and they told me that they are very pleased that the Labor Government in this State is looking after their rights.

Honourable members will also be aware that the Iemma Labor Government has rejected formal requests by the Commonwealth to refer our industrial powers. We even spearheaded the WorkChoices High Court challenge. Unfortunately, today's result in that case was not what we had hoped for—five votes against two in the High Court.

Mr Chris Hartcher: How sad!

Mr MATT BROWN: The workers will not forget the comments of the honourable member for Gosford. The High Court may be the highest legal court in the land but the best court on this issue will be the voters of New South Wales and Australia as a whole at the next election. They know what the New South Wales Coalition stands for. As the Premier said earlier:

WorkChoices might be legal but it's still not fair.

This decision confirms that the only thing that stands between John Howard and New South Wales families is the New South Wales Labor Government.

The New South Wales Government will stand with New South Wales workers.

That is not what the Leader of the Opposition is about. He does not value hardworking families. He does not have the spine to stand up to Canberra. In fact, when asked whether he supports the New South Wales industrial relations system or that advocated by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition said:

Yes. We indicated more than a year ago that the bulk of our IR powers would be transferred to Canberra.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition is about. He reiterated that view on Stateline, when he said:

We will move the bulk of our IR power to Canberra … 3790 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

That is the Opposition's policy but it is not Labor's policy. The Leader of the Opposition and his National Party flunkey, the Leader of The Nationals, should stand up for the people of this State. They should look after the workers. Labor will continue to ensure that the working conditions of the people of New South Wales are protected.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.06 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead:

"this House:

(1) condemns the Government for pushing the minimum wage case in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission ahead of the Federal Fair Pay Commission, which led to low-paid workers in New South Wales receiving only a $20 per week increase instead of a $27 per week increase;

(2) calls upon the Government to account to the community for the $2 million it wasted on the High Court challenge to the Federal Government's WorkChoices legislation; and

(3) calls on the Government to seek reimbursement of the $2 million cost from the Australian Labor Party and Unions New South Wales."

What an extraordinary event we have witnessed! The honourable member for Kiama has condemned the WorkChoices legislation. But the honourable member for Kiama used to own a restaurant and last year he attended a business forum at Nowra. At that forum the honourable member for Kiama supported and praised the WorkChoices legislation. He said that when he ran the restaurant he wanted the power to dismiss people who he thought were not doing a good job and WorkChoices legislation would have given him that power. The honourable member for Kiama has been caught out.

Mr Matt Brown: I didn't say that. You're making it up.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: It is on the record. The hypocrisy of the honourable member for Kiama is on the record. He has been caught out. The honourable member for Kiama needs to look at his past. The workers of New South Wales need to know what the honourable member has said to business people and what he says in Parliament. The honourable member for Kiama now pretends to be on the side of the workers. He allegedly supports the workers in this particular battle with the Federal Government. But the honourable member for Kiama used to work for a big law firm with many corporate clients. His law firm never looked after trade unions or workers; it never took on workers compensation cases. The honourable member for Kiama earned his living looking after the corporate sector in New South Wales and across Australia. The honourable member for Kiama had his own restaurant and he worked in a big corporate law firm. Yet the honourable member for Kiama now stands in this Chamber and pretends to be on the side of the workers of New South Wales. What total hypocrisy!

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: We understand that the honourable member for Gosford has a fair degree of liberty in making his remarks but his sustained, two-minute attack on the honourable member for Kiama is a little unwarranted. He can spread around his criticism if he likes. The honourable member for Gosford is able to attack a member of Parliament by substantive motion but he cannot do so during debate.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! I am sure the honourable member for Gosford will return to the motion.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am speaking to the motion moved by the honourable member for Kiama, because it is important for the House and the community to know about his total hypocrisy. He is the ultimate sponger on the capitalist system and he now seeks to be the defender of the working class. The Hon. Tony Catanzariti wandered down to the Albury show the day before the Federal minimum wage case result was announced and said how terrible WorkChoices is. He distributed leaflets claiming that if only workers could be employed under the New South Wales system they would get all the money the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC] gave him, that is, $20 a week. But what did the Federal Fair Pay Commission give them? It gave them $27 per week, which meant those who were employed under the State system lost $7 a week.

The normal custom has always been that following the Federal decision the State applies for a flow-on, as it is always called. This year Unions New South Wales and the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party got the State Government to back a case in the IRC ahead of the Federal Fair Pay Commission hearing, and what happened? The workers lost out because in New South Wales they got an extra $20 a week and at a Federal level they got an extra $27 a week. So New South Wales workers must be saying, "Mr Iemma, 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3791

thank you for making us lose out on $7 a week because you played politics, as you always do, with the IRC and the workers of New South Wales have suffered."

The honourable member for Kiama does not suffer. He has a restaurant and under WorkChoices he can get rid of anyone he does not like. He works in big corporate law firms but pretends to be a friend of New South Wales workers. What else did the State Government do? It wasted $2 million of taxpayers' money on a case in the High Court when it knew, as everyone knew all along, that the legislation would be held to be valid under the corporations power. The decision by a 5:2 majority was in favour of the Commonwealth. There were 39 barristers at the bar table, including 16 Queen's Counsel or Senior Counsel, and an army of solicitors. The total cost to New South Wales was $2 million, which was poured down the drain in yet another attempt to use the political and court processes to advance the case of Unions New South Wales. The $2 million that Unions New South Wales and the Australian Labor Party poured down the drain should be reimbursed to the taxpayers of this State. The excellent leaflet issued by the Hon. Tony Catanzariti stated:

This should be in your purse or your wallet, but due to Liberal MP … many thousands of workers and their families …are not getting the $20 per week State Wage Case increase.

Don't just cop it, do something about it.

No, they are not getting the $20 per week; they are getting $27 per week under WorkChoices! But nothing will be said about that. Remembering the way Parliament House shook with the intensity and fire of his eloquence— which showed that he really believed what he was saying—I invite the honourable member for Kiama to state in his enthusiastic and energetic reply, with all the passion and verve that he showed when he moved the motion, why workers of this State who are under the State system got only $20 whereas workers under the Federal system got $27. Let us hear his reply and his spirited defence of the way he worked for big corporate law firms, ran his own restaurant, and praised and used WorkChoices to get rid of waiters and employees whom he did not like. This is a classic case of hypocrisy.

Next time the Labor Party wants to nominate someone to speak on industrial relations I suggest it not be the honourable member for Kiama. It should be someone who has a track record, is not ashamed of their past, and is not trying to use industrial relations and this House as a vehicle to get into Cabinet. We know the agenda of the honourable member for Kiama: he will do what he is asked to do, because if he is a good boy and puts up his hand for the right wing every time he will get a guernsey in one of the Cabinet vacancies that might arise in the next few weeks. He missed out when the former Minister for Police, Carl Scully, and Milton Orkopoulos went, but he will still not get a guernsey even though he is lined up. The honourable member for Georges River is waiting for his turn—a turn that will never come because he does not know the right people in the right-wing machine. He is very ambitious but he will not make it. The honourable member for Kiama is lining up for a Cabinet vacancy, but his wait will be in vain.

Mr Matt Brown: Point of order: My point of order is the tedious repetition of the honourable member for Gosford. He is not addressing the substance of my motion or his amendment. He has made an attack on me and is making up things.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The honourable member for Kiama cannot even take a proper point of order. He has been a member of Parliament for three years and does not know the standing orders. He claims to be a lawyer who worked in big corporate law firms but he does not know the standing orders. [Time expired.]

Ms ALISON MEGARRITY (Menai—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.16 p.m.]: Today is indeed a bleak day for workers in this country, and it is a bleak day for federalism. While the utmost respect is accorded to the Full Bench of the High Court in its decision making on this historic occasion, it is the Howard Government that should hang its head in shame. WorkChoices will go down in history as changing the ethos of what this country has prided itself on: a fair go all round. That sentiment is echoed justly by Justice Kirby in his dissenting decision:

The imperative to ensure a "fair go all round", which lay at the heart of federal industrial law … is destroyed in a single stroke.

It is to the great shame of the Howard Government that these so-called reforms mean workers in this country have their rights and protections reduced to such a degree that we will see in the future a generation of low-cost, low-skilled and dispensable workers. Even if the High Court says the Howard Government industrial relations changes are lawful, it does not make them fair—and it certainly does not make them right. It does not make 3792 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

them good for our economy or our society. WorkChoices will be remembered as the raft of laws that cut wages, stymied true productivity, and drove Australia down the low-cost low road.

WorkChoices creates a more costly and complex system than currently operates in New South Wales. In fact, some calculations suggest the Federal system costs twice as much as the New South Wales system. Minister Andrews has suggested that the abolition of the State systems could save up to $120 million, and we are asked why the New South Wales Government has not referred its industrial relations powers. The figures speak for themselves! To build a truly national system one would have to do it in consultation and agreement with the States. Despite the High Court decision, some employees will still be covered by State systems and the New South Wales Government will continue to do everything it can to support workers and businesses in this State. It will maintain its opposition to these complex and damaging laws.

The New South Wales industrial relations system will continue to be complemented by a strong compliance service and accurate, timely and accessible information to the public. And we will seek to protect local families wherever and however we can. Recently the Government moved to protect Sutherland council staff from WorkChoices. We did so by introducing amendments to the Local Government Regulation 2005 which will enable council staff to carry sick leave and long service leave entitlements without risk. By signing referral agreements, council employees will be able to have disputes such as unfair dismissals heard before the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. Unfortunately, in my community Sutherland council has not signed such an agreement. Nevertheless, the Iemma Government will continue to fight hard to protect hardworking families and now council employees from John Howard's extreme industrial relations laws.

Since WorkChoices was introduced six months ago, the Government has spearheaded the High Court challenge to those unfair laws; passed new laws to protect front-line New South Wales public servants, including nurses, ambulance officers and TAFE teachers; worked to introduce new legislation to protect injured workers; worked to introduce new legislation to protect young workers; doubled the small claims limit for unpaid workers; and strengthened the powers of the New South Wales industrial relations system. These steps are in stark contrast to the New South Wales Opposition, which is on record as confirming it will hand New South Wales families over to the unfair Commonwealth system if elected next year. Time and again in this Chamber the Leader of the Opposition and the State Opposition have refused to stand up to Canberra on behalf of New South Wales families. As yet, my community has not heard from the local Liberal candidate, Steve Simpson, about his level of commitment to local workers and whether he will come out and publicly denounce the principle and practices of WorkChoices.

The Menai electorate has the highest level of employment of any State electorate, so we are in real jeopardy. Parents have shared with me their concerns about not only their own employment conditions but also the predicaments faced by their children now and in the future. One only has to look at the current advertising campaign in which a middle-aged woman looks to the camera and says, "If it can happen to me, it can happen to you. I worked for 20 years, and it didn't seem to matter." [Time expired.]

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [4.21 p.m.]: Given this morning's 5:2 High Court judgement, working families will have no respite from John Howard's industrial relations nightmare. As of today, the vast majority of New South Wales workers have nowhere to hide. One of the principal vehicles for the exploitation of workers is Australian workplace agreements [AWAs] and their capacity to override awards and even collective agreements. In the months since WorkChoices commenced, the system has been used to remove important award conditions such as penalty and shift rates from individual agreements. In fact, testimony to a recent Senate estimates committee confirmed that over two-thirds of AWAs removed annual leave loadings and penalty rates, more than half wiped out shift allowances, and more than 20 per cent contained no pay increases over the life of the agreement, which can be up to five years.

Clearly, the Federal Government has not established a genuine and fair system that supports choice in the workplace. Instead of good public policy and fair industrial arrangements, we have an ideological exercise, one that overrides the rights of employees and enables a small minority of employers to abuse their superior bargaining power at the expense of vulnerable workers. That is not mere speculation. It was confirmed three months ago by the head of the Federal Government's Office of Employment Advocate when he appeared before the Senate estimates committee. Every one of the approximately 6,000 AWAs entered into since the implementation of WorkChoices traded away at least one of these so-called protected award conditions, and 16 per cent removed all award conditions such as weekend penalty rates, shift loadings and overtime.

Newspaper headlines regularly proclaim some new story about exploitation, unfair dismissal and the erosion of employment conditions under WorkChoices. Take the case of Amber Oswald, a 16-year-old worker 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3793

at the Pulp Juice Company in a New South Wales shopping centre. Her employer moved to sack her from her job and was going to rehire her on an AWA that cut her hourly rate from $9.52 to $8.57 and removed penalty rates. That example can be multiplied many times over. How do I know that? Because I have been working with my community since the legislation was proposed and introduced, and I will continue to do so into the future. I have worked very closely not only with the workers of the electorate of Penrith but with the churches of Penrith. Last year, the impacts of this legislation were foreshadowed at a faith forum that I held in the electorate which was attended by representatives of the Catholic Church, the Uniting Church, the Salvation Army and the Assemblies of God. All realised that WorkChoices would be a burden on their faith communities. They looked at its impacts on people of non-English speaking backgrounds and on the young in the workplace. The 16-year-old worker at the Pulp Juice Company is but one example of young workers who will be burdened by this legislation.

The WorkChoices system is a burden also on employers, the vast majority of which want to do the right thing by their workers. Employers who want to know their obligations must consult some 1,450 pages of complex legislation and regulations. There are also many hundreds of pages of explanatory material dealing with a confusing array of industrial instruments, transitional arrangements and heavily prescriptive requirements. WorkChoices is one of the most unjust and short-sighted laws in the history of the Commonwealth. It virtually ends 100 years of fair and reasonable balance between workers and employers. How do I know that? Because people came to my stall at last weekend's Glenbrook Festival to sign a petition reminding us that the Federal Labor Opposition will rip up the WorkChoices legislation when elected to government.

Thousands of those petitions have been signed in the period we have been actively speaking to people in the Penrith area. Thousands of people have come to me to sign the petition. As I said earlier, I am concerned about the WorkChoices legislation. Australia is concerned about it. Why? Because it puts Australia on the low-pay, low-skill race to the bottom, instead of the high-skill, high-pay climb to the top. Many people have said that to me. A number of retirees in the Penrith electorate are absolutely passionate about making WorkChoices and its impacts known to the community of Penrith. [Time expired.]

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.26 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who contributed to the debate. I especially thank the honourable member for Menai and the honourable member for Penrith, who gave meaningful contributions. The contribution of the honourable member for Gosford left a lot to be desired. A number of points were made by the honourable member for Menai, a very strong advocate and consistent worker for her community. She referred to the dissenting judgement of Justice Kirby and the salient points raised in it. I know that she will continue her fight to ensure that the Sutherland council signs the agreement offered by the Government to look after its workers through the New South Wales industrial relations system.

The Liberal candidate for Menai, like many others, has remained silent on this issue. When Liberal members of this place were given the opportunity to speak in this debate, they chose to say absolutely nothing. That clearly goes to show that the New South Wales Coalition is running for cover. It will not be standing up for the workers of New South Wales. New South Wales Opposition members have shown time and again that they will not stand up to Canberra. I compliment the honourable member for Penrith on the continuing hard work she is doing in her electorate. She gave the example of Amber Oswald. That really says it all on pay rates under WorkChoices. Amber, whose hourly rate of pay at $9.52 was not high in the first place, was sacked then re-employed at $8.57 an hour and had her penalty rates taken away.

Most employers are good people and do the right thing by their workers: They want them to have a basic level of pay and they do not want them to drop below it. But a number of rogue employers out there set a bad example for other employers. The honourable member for Penrith made an excellent point when she referred to the opposition by the churches to WorkChoices. The churches have said loud and clear that they do not support these new laws. It is unfortunate that John Howard, and the Liberals and The Nationals in this Chamber, have ignored the concerns of the churches. The honourable member for Penrith, and many other Government members, have pages and pages of signed petitions saying no to WorkChoices.

The level of exaggeration of the honourable member for Gosford knows absolutely no bounds. He referred to me as a sponger on the capitalist system. The Macquarie Dictionary has no such word. "Sponge" is normally a noun, but I am sure he was not using the word as a noun. I think he was trying to use "sponger" as a verb. He made up a new word. According to the Macquarie Dictionary the verb is "sponged" or "sponging". To put the word in context the dictionary has provided the example "to sponge a dinner." The Swamp Fox might 3794 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

like to organise lessons on how to speak correctly in his place. I am proud to have been given a clerkship from a major corporate law firm. I am proud I invested my money in a small business and entered the marketplace. When the former member for Kiama resigned I wanted to advance the interests of working men and women, which is why I entered this place. My grandfather was a great example to me. My father and my mother, who was a nurse, have seen what the organised labour movement can do. I am pleased to oppose WorkChoices in this place today. [Time expired.]

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 53

Ms Allan Mr Gaudry Mrs Paluzzano Mr Amery Mr Gibson Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Mr Greene Mrs Perry Mr Barr Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Bartlett Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Ms Beamer Ms Judge Mr Sartor Mr Black Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Mr Brown Mr Lynch Mr Stewart Ms Burney Mr McBride Ms Tebbutt Mr Campbell Mr McLeay Mr Torbay Mr Chaytor Mr McTaggart Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms Megarrity Mr West Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Whan Mr Daley Ms Moore Mr Yeadon Ms D'Amore Mr Morris Tellers, Mr Debus Mr Newell Mr Ashton Mr Draper Ms Nori Mr Martin

Noes, 28

Mr Aplin Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Merton Mr Slack-Smith Mr Cansdell Mr Oakeshott Mr Souris Mr Constance Mr O'Farrell Mr Tink Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr R. W. Turner Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Tellers, Mrs Hopwood Mr Roberts Mr George Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Mr Maguire

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

HAWKESBURY REGION

Matter of Public Importance

Mr ALLAN SHEARAN (Londonderry) [4.42 p.m.]: I place before the House issues of concern to residents of the Hawkesbury region. I am privileged to represent three dynamic and versatile local government areas: Blacktown City Council, Penrith City Council, and Hawkesbury City Council. Each has attributes that are most impressive, and the description "God's own country" could be aptly applied to the region, particularly the Hawkesbury. Located in the Hawkesbury River Valley, the Hawkesbury City Council has the largest local 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3795

government area in the Sydney metropolitan region, covering approximately 2,800 square kilometres. The Hawkesbury extends from the Cumberland Plain in the south and the east to the beautiful foothills and majestic escarpment of the Blue Mountains in the west and the north. Flanked by the Nepean, Hawkesbury, Grose, MacDonald and Colo rivers and featuring a number of historic towns, more than 70 per cent of the Hawkesbury is national park, and some is World Heritage listed wilderness area.

The Hawkesbury is also an important agricultural region as well as being home to more than 66,000 people—and increasing. Currently there are 12,000 full-time on-farm jobs in the Hawkesbury-Nepean region, accounting for 11 per cent of New South Wales's on-farm jobs. The Hawkesbury produces an estimated $1 billion in farm produce. This includes mushrooms, cut flowers, poultry, eggs, and vegetables. The Hawkesbury produces 90 per cent of New South Wales's perishable vegetables—leafy green vegetables, as distinct from vegetables with a longer shelf life. Other industries include fruit and other orchard crops, horses, dairying, pigs, cattle and other grazing animals, and beekeeping. It is a region of beauty, but there is also anger.

The people of the Hawkesbury are incensed by the behaviour of the Hawkesbury City Council and the manner in which it makes cavalier decisions affecting their everyday lives. Let me begin with an issue that, in my three and a half years as a local parliamentary member, is unprecedented in terms of genuine opposition to the council's proposals. I refer to the plan of the Hawkesbury's former mayor, Bart Bassett, to increase council rates by a massive 43 per cent—I emphasise, 43 per cent—over four years. The community was so angry that approximately 6,000 residents signed a community-based petition protesting against that tax hike, which would have added $160 a year to the average rates bill. That may have been okay for mayor Bartholomew Edward Basset, who might be rich, but not for the families of the Hawkesbury region with whom I speak every day.

Bart Bassett's tax hike is equivalent to the cost of two pairs of school shoes, two weeks worth of fuel for a family car, or the annual membership fees for an under 10s sporting team. Perhaps to Mr Bart Bassett $160 is merely the cost of two good bottles of wine to sip on the weekend with his silvertail mates, but the real reason behind the tax hike is simple: when Bart Bassett was mayor he mismanaged the council's finances and the council's budget. Despite the council being described by its auditors as being in a sound and stable financial position, Bart Bassett created a mess and now wants each and every family to fix it up.

As I said, more than 6,000 people signed the petition to demonstrate that they feel that way, and they are right. Why should they have to pay for that? I was proud to stand up for the community on this issue. I was proud to take local residents to meet the Minister for Local Government and present thousands of signatures to him. The Minister was truly impressed by the anger and the feeling in the Hawkesbury community and the 6,000 signatures were not ignored.

People-power derailed Bart Bassett's greedy tax scheme. The 43 per cent rates hike was rejected and residents were spared the extra pressure on their already-stretched family budgets. It makes sense that a council that claims to need extra money would keep its purse strings tight, but that is not the case with this council. Honourable members may recall a Daily Telegraph article of 28 August 2006 that revealed that the then mayor, Bart Bassett, spent an extravagant $6,000 on his ratepayer-funded mobile phone. While he claimed he needed more money to fix his budget—money that he wanted to take from local residents—he was sponging off the public purse. Like the Sheriff of Nottingham, he steals from the poor to give to the rich, expecting local residents to reach into their pockets to line his own pockets.

Now we see the community and local newspapers calling for more funding to create sporting fields in the Hawkesbury region. In October the Hawkesbury Sports Council and a former councillor told the Hawkesbury City Council that the savage funding cuts imposed by the council would rip the guts out of the community. They were speaking out against more than $500,000 in cuts that were planned by the Hawkesbury City Council. There is a simple reason for the cuts: Bart Bassett said his council had run out of money, but he knows the reason.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The convention of the House, as reinforced by Rulings from the Chair, is that attacks on people who are not members of Parliament should be made in a measured and temperate manner. The honourable member for Londonderry is using the forms of this House to launch a personal and political attack against his opponent at the next State election. Let it be clear that his comments relate to his opponent at the next State election. He is using the forms of this House not to bring matters to the attention of the public but for his own political purposes in relation to the 2007 election in Londonderry. I ask you to draw his attention to the convention and forms of the House. 3796 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member for Londonderry to the conventions of the House. However, criticism is allowed, as distinct from a personal attack. I will be listening very carefully.

Mr ALLAN SHEARAN: Perhaps the honourable member for Gosford should obtain the transcripts of some of the statement made before Hawkesbury City Council which show that his candidate, who will stand against me at the next State election, has discriminated against me in many different ways. It is seemingly evident, from what has happened in the past, that Bart Bassett is a financial incompetent. Based on his performances to date, I would not trust him to even pick up my laundry, let alone run a chook raffle or make a call in a telephone box where he needs to insert coins. Bart Bassett appears to be as economically literate as the people in the 1930s who suggested printing more money when times got tough. That seems to be the approach here: raise rates rather than explore alternatives. I say otherwise. I say the council should have managed its funds properly and not asked for a 43 per cent rate rise and expected the community to be thankful. I make one last point. I find it disgusting that Bart Bassett would attack the 6,000 residents who signed the petition.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The motion, under the standing orders, relates to the Hawkesbury region, it does not relate to Mr Bart Bassett. The member is using this matter of public importance about the Hawkesbury region as a cloak to launch a personal attack upon the person who was mayor, who is no longer responsible for the council, but who will be the member's opponent at the State election due in March 2007.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Londonderry is criticising Mr Bassett. He is not making a personal attack or imputing improper motives.

Mr ALLAN SHEARAN: I find it extraordinary that Bart Bassett has attacked the validity of the signatures on the petition. In fact, he has questioned their credibility and does not understand why the petitioners opposed his tax hike. I am sure that most members would find it incredible to learn that Bart Bassett has called for this matter to be referred to the Ombudsman, a measure that I welcome. As I said, would welcome any investigation. However, I feel that Bart Bassett's actions are an insult to the ratepayers who opposed his massive rate hike proposal. There is no doubt that he has insulted those ratepayers and I have called on him to apologise to them for his audacity in questioning their credibility. They are still waiting. It is incumbent upon Bart Bassett to acknowledge that this is a democracy and people have a right to oppose his tax hikes. In this instance, I am sure that the local community of the Hawkesbury know when they are being taken for a ride.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The member is misleading the House. The Minister for Local Government refused the rate rise. It is a matter of history that some months ago the member's own Minister refused it; it is not coming before the people; it is not coming before Parliament. The member is using the forms and conventions of the House to launch an attack upon his rival in March 2007.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The speaking time of the honourable member for Londonderry has expired.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [4.52 p.m.]: A portion of my electorate of Hornsby lies within the wonderful Hawkesbury region. It is absolutely appalling that a personal attack has been launched on someone in the context of raising a matter of public importance about the Hawkesbury region when so much else could and should be said. It is no small coincidence that last Sunday morning I attended a ceremony in McKell Park, Brooklyn, at which the Mayor of Hornsby unveiled a plaque commemorating Governor Phillip's exploration of the Hawkesbury. That ceremony was in keeping with many similar celebrations in the Hornsby shire, a good part of which encompasses the Hawkesbury region. The plaque unveiling was of great significance because the Brooklyn and Dangar Island areas, in the Hornsby electorate, form a significant part of the history of the area. Tom Richmond, who lives in Brooklyn, is a local historian of great repute and many people seek his advice. Much of his information and historical input in relation to the Hawkesbury region was included in his wonderful speech at the unveiling ceremony. He said:

On Friday 7 March 1788, only a little over a month after Sydney was settled, Captain Arthur Phillip completed a short voyage of exploration in Broken Bay by landing, just over the water there, on what is now Dangar Island. He had three small boats with him, and a fishing net, with which the explorers caught a large quantity of mullet.

With great pride Tom Richmond advised that his ancestor, Peter Hibbs, was almost certainly a member of one of the boat crews in that first British expedition to the Hawkesbury. Tom acknowledged that the Hibbs family grew substantially and occupied that area for the next 200 years. Tom further said:

On the evening of that memorable first visit, three natives on the island came to meet the newcomers. In the morning, the crowd had grown to eight, who had decorated themselves with white pipe clay and red ochre. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3797

Here was one of the most significant moments in Hornsby Shire history, as the representatives of the mightiest kingdom on the face of the earth met the members of the world's oldest society.

Tom acknowledged that the ceremony honoured Phillip's arrival and also the Aboriginal people who lived on that land well before the wheels of change began to turn. He further said:

In Hornsby Shire, we are in a situation that is close to unique. In most parts of Sydney, we struggle to find out much at all about the Aboriginal people who survived the early days of European settlement. Here, we have the wonderful story of "Biddy", a member of the Broken Bay group of Aboriginal people.

Born in about 1805, she became partner to a German-born convict, John Lewis. As was the case with so many Hawkesbury pioneers, Lewis was a limeburner, who took his cargoes to Sydney in his own small boat. The couple had a large family and, eventually, were married on the same day as their eldest daughter.

They lived on Marramarra Creek, where this remarkable lady adapted to the new ways. It was a love story and John Lewis, as his wife climbed on board their boat, used to say, "Sit in the front of the boat my Biddy, where I can look at your beautiful face." It is interesting to note that Biddy, who later became known as "Granny Lewis", probably learned to speak English and German on top of her native tongue and lived until 1880, when the railway was about to come through the area.

Her modern descendants are ten generations removed from this lady, and many probably do not know of the family links. Some do, however, and are justifiably proud of their ancestor and of her significance. Some of them are here today and we welcome then in the warmest possible way.

I spoke to some of her descendants at McKell Park on that most significant occasion. I represent an area that has strong links into the Hawkesbury, where many historical events have taken place. Henry Parkes visited the Brooklyn area to make one of his Federation speeches. A member of my husband's family, Ray Hopwood, lived in the area and took part in the building of the second Brooklyn railway bridge. Ray's son sent me an email dated 9 December 2002, sadly after Ray Hopwood had died. Referring to Ray Hopwood, the email stated:

My understanding is that he worked on the bridge from some time in 1945-1946. My understanding is that the work was completed in 1946 but had been commenced some years before.

He said that the pylons on the old bridge had become so badly damaged that trains had to be driven over the bridge at a walking pace.

He said that the pylon foundations had to be dug really deep, and several of the pylons are actually embedded in sand rather than the underlying rock.

That is a poignant statement. I am proud that the Hopwood family have contributed to the history of the area. The region stretches from the gateway of the Hawkesbury River, around Brooklyn, through the heartland of the fertile valley to the highlands at the foot of the Blue Mountains. It is surrounded by national parks and dotted with secluded river communities. More than 80 per cent of the Hawkesbury region is national park or reserve with a wealth of great walking tracks. Many people take a great deal of enjoyment in those areas, which contribute to the tourism of the area. People travel from all over the State to participate in those walks and other recreational activities around the beautiful Hawkesbury River waterway and national parks.

Significantly, the Hawkesbury has been the food basket for Sydney since colonial times. The need for viable farming land to feed the rapidly growing Sydney community led to the discovery and settlement of the Hawkesbury Valley region, and for many years afterwards it remained the primary produce market for the Sydney settlement. Today the region is extremely well known for its apples and oranges, stone fruits, vegetables, honey and flowers. Many of these vegetables and fruits are grown organically. The Hawkesbury region is home to a variety of produce farms, small businesses, and markets that provide goods to the Sydney market—an extremely important aspect of that region. The Farmgate Trail, a national wonder in itself, is a self-drive tour through the Hawkesbury with stops at orchards, cheese makers, smokehouses, wineries and much more. It has great fame in the Hawkesbury area.

The oyster industry along the Hawkesbury River is generational. Last year the QX parasite wiped out the Sydney rock oyster industry along the Hawkesbury and its tributaries. That was a tragedy for the industry and for those who relied on oysters to generate their income. Many generations of people have grown rock oysters in the area. The drought and salvinia weed, which produces toxins when harvested, created adverse conditions and nutrients in the river also contributed to the death of rock oysters.

The people living on Dangar Island, in Brooklyn, and on the north side of the Hawkesbury River have been fighting for many years for the installation of a sewerage system. Currently a sewerage system is being installed on Dangar Island and in the Brooklyn area, but there is no water recycling. That is an oversight and an abrogation of this Government's responsibilities. Just north of the Hawkesbury region, level four water 3798 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

restrictions have been imposed because of the shortage of water. The health of the Hawkesbury River is vital to ensuring rich fishing and prawning in the region.

As the member for Hornsby I am proud to represent the Hawkesbury region. The dreamtime lives in the sandstone gorges and waters of Deerubbun, the Aboriginal name for the Hawkesbury River, which has a rich Aboriginal history. The Ku Ring Gui and Dharug Aboriginal tribes inhabited the region for thousands of years and many sandstone carvings are to be found in the area. The Hawkesbury region is home to many treasures. Its orchards produce wonderful fruits, and flowers are grown on land west of Berowra Creek.

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [5.02 p.m.]: I support the Hawkesbury region, which has been identified as one of the best parts of Sydney. The theme that flows right through the region is the Hawkesbury River. The Water Industry Competition Bill has just been tabled and is to be debated later. On the surface that bill makes a lot of sense and is something I have supported for a long time. We must turn around those ocean outfalls that are currently sending much of Sydney's water into the ocean. At the same time we must recycle and reuse that water. However, as that will have an impact on the Hawkesbury River it is an issue about which I am concerned.

About 97 per cent of the flow of the Hawkesbury River comprises water from recycled sewage—a factor that I ask the Government to take into consideration. We do not want the Hawkesbury River to end up as a series of mud pools, because no environmental flows are coming out of Warragamba Dam. As a result of the recycling of water from sewage, water is now not available to farmers who rely on the river, for example, turf farmers. The vast majority of turf in the Sydney region comes from the Hawkesbury area. Many of our vegetables—at least $500 million worth—are also grown in the Hawkesbury region. I call on the Government to implement a water-sharing plan so that farmers along the Hawkesbury River have a greater degree of certainty and are able to invest in and productively add to the Sydney region. Next Monday people from the Farmgate Trail will showcase their wares in Parliament House, just as I showcased their wares when I made my inaugural speech. I encourage everyone to attend the launch on Monday of the 2006 Hawkesbury regional food and wine showcase, a promotion of the Hawkesbury that would be well worth visiting.

I take on board some of the major issues that have not been addressed by this Government but which were covered last night in a forum. There is a lack of adequate transport in the Hawkesbury region. The Richmond railway line duplication must be completed as quickly as possible. The Government must also ensure that there is a direct bus service from the Hawkesbury region into the city. The honourable member for Londonderry referred to community concern about additional council costs and adequate infrastructure for the region. Costs are increasing thanks to land valuations that have resulted in increased rates. We have also had petrol price hikes, increased tolls, and a failure to resource local government, and that has had a major impact on Hawkesbury council. The State Government has created additional costs for privacy administration legislation, freedom of information administration, plan of management administration, national competition policy administration, GST administration, the administration of the Child Protection Act, the administration of the Community Development Support Expenditure Scheme, community workers salary increases, child care operation subsidies, and social planning legislation. There is also inadequate funding for family day care and occasional child care.

Council has an additional workload as a result of integrated development applications and with the administration of places of public entertainment, the cost of community land plans of management, contaminated lands, threatened species, waste services levies, and septic safety requirements, and there are road safety officer shortfalls. I am particularly concerned about the decline in road maintenance grants and funding for road and traffic signs. The introduction of the Building Sustainability Index, or BASIX, has also added to those costs. In conclusion, the Hawkesbury region, as one of the best parts of Sydney, deserves good government at a Federal, State and local level. I will be championing issues relating to the Hawkesbury region at every available opportunity.

Mr ALAN SHEARAN (Londonderry) [5.07 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to debate on this matter of public importance. The honourable member for Hornsby said that I used this place to attack the Liberal candidate for Londonderry. I acknowledge that he is the Liberal candidate, but that does not mean I have to remain quiet when he insults petitioners who are simply exercising their democratic right. She referred also to the McKell Park ceremony. I am delighted to learn about it and its associated history.

Many people in Sydney should take advantage of the Hawkesbury by exploring the region and learning about an area that ensures the survival of Sydney. The honourable member for Hawkesbury quite rightly pointed 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3799

out that people in the Hawkesbury and throughout the State are experiencing continuing water problems as a result of one of the worst droughts on record. He referred to the Farmgate Trail and to the Hawkesbury regional food and wine showcase to be held in Parliament House at 12 o'clock next Monday. I encourage all members to attend that showcase and to view the riches of the Hawkesbury region.

The honourable member for Hawkesbury also mentioned the infrastructure problems that are facing the Hawkesbury. We are all conscious of the need for better transport and other infrastructure and the costs associated with achieving the same, whether it is incurred by local councils or by State and Federal governments. However, I am concerned today about highlighting the fact that some four months ago the Minister made a decision about the Hawkesbury council's attempt to secure a massive 43 per cent rate increase. That decision was based on the outcry during the council's public consultation process, petitions and other correspondence. I remind honourable members that almost 6,000 people signed petitions on this issue. That demonstrates that Hawkesbury residents are much opposed to this increase—as most ratepayers would be.

It was also particularly evident at the time that the council did not intend to use debt financing as part of its long-term financial plan—or, indeed, any other viable options that could perhaps resolve some of its current problems. Some four months down the track there is still obviously seething discontent regarding the decision that was made. But that does not give Bart Bassett the right to call into question the credibility of those Hawkesbury residents who signed petitions objecting to the rate rise. For that reason alone, the Hawkesbury is now at a crossroads: It can either pursue past decisions and call into question their authenticity and the motives of those involved or get on with the job of managing the council and taking decisions to secure the future prosperity of the Hawkesbury region.

Discussion concluded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Private Members' Statements: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [5.12 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide that private members' statements not be called on at this sitting, unless otherwise ordered.

If honourable members look at the business program they will see that there is a substantial amount of government business for the House to consider.

Mrs Judy Hopwood: Shame you haven't done it already.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: If we did not hear silly interjections such as that and other nonsense all day, every day, we would get through Government business. This motion demonstrates that the Government is hard at work and that we have a strong legislative reform agenda. I have moved to suspend standing and sessional orders to permit the House to consider government business later today.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [5.12 p.m.]: The Coalition opposes the motion. It is yet more evidence of a lazy Government that has been in office too long. Some nights we pulled up stumps and left the Chamber at 8.30 or 9 o'clock. Night after night, members were in the Chamber ready to debate government legislation, but we had only games from the Government. The business program contains hundreds of important notices of motion, and those motions must be debated. We could have done that if the Government had honoured its sitting pattern. But we hear only excuses from the Leader of the House, who has moved this motion because of the incompetence of his predecessor.

Mr David Campbell: If you sat down now we could get on with it instead of wasting time.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: Coalition members were in the Chamber week after week and sitting night after sitting night, ready to debate legislation but the Government did not bring it before the House. Why? This Government is a lazy government and it failed to put legislation before the House. Ministers sat back in their offices, with their feet on their desks, and did goodness knows what—they were probably playing games. They prefer political spin to fixing the real problems of this State. Fewer than six sitting days remain this year and the Government is seeking to deny members the right to make private members' statements tonight. Members want 3800 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

to raise important community issues and the Leader of the House is denying them the opportunity to do so. What about hospital waiting lists? What about the water crisis? The honourable member for Cronulla is in the Chamber, waiting to make his private members' statement. But the Leader of the House has moved to suspend standing and sessional orders.

Members are ready to make contributions and the Leader of the House is denying them the right to speak in Parliament. The Leader of the House will probably decide to allow members to make their statements on Friday. But there will be no question time on Friday—no opportunity to question and probe the Government. The Government is running scared and the Leader of the House is denying members the speaking opportunities that they deserve. The Leader of the House proposes to gag honourable members representing the electorates of Cronulla, Upper Hunter, Epping, Clarence and The Hills. Those members were ready to make private members' statements but the Leader of the House wants to deny them that opportunity. He has not promised that members will be able to make private members' statements on Friday.

If the House is to sit this Friday, let us have question time. Bring the Ministers into the Chamber, line them up and let us have question time. If the Government is fair dinkum about enabling Parliament to debate issues I challenge the Leader of the House to schedule question time for Friday. Let us have it next Friday as well. But perhaps the Government will change the scheduled sitting times again and sit only next Wednesday— when we will return to keep the media happy—and then adjourn the House. That is what the Government will do. The Leader of the House will play his silly games. The Opposition is prepared to debate legislation with the Government but we will oppose this motion to suspend standing and sessional orders. We will then take the fight to the Government—as we always do. During the months and the years that this Government has been in power it has failed to put legislation before Parliament. It has regularly sent us home early and now it is trying to do away with private members' statements in order to avoid scrutiny.

Mr Alan Ashton: Point of order: The Opposition has known for the past four or five years at least that the Legislative Assembly must pass bills and get them to the upper House—

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order—

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I am hearing the point of order of the honourable member for East Hills.

Mr Alan Ashton: It is not a matter of trying to rule out private members' statements. We are under pressure from the other place.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for East Hills is arguing the substance of the matter. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga has the call.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: That is typical of the sorts of points of order taken by the honourable member for East Hills. Even after eight years in this place he still does not understand the rules. He still tries to interrupt members who are making a sensible contribution. The Leader of the House is trying to deny members the right to make private members' statements and raise issues that are important to our communities.

Ms Marie Andrews: Point of order—

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Wagga Wagga will comply with the rules of the House and resume his seat.

Ms Marie Andrews: Point of order: The honourable member for Wagga Wagga is not addressing the motion before the House. He is making a personal attack upon the honourable member for East Hills.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: Government members never make sense when they take points of order. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3801

Ayes, 47

Ms Allan Mr Gaudry Mrs Paluzzano Mr Amery Mr Gibson Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Mr Greene Mrs Perry Mr Bartlett Mr Hickey Mr Price Mr Black Mr Hunter Ms Saliba Mr Brown Ms Judge Mr Sartor Ms Burney Ms Keneally Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Mr Chaytor Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Collier Mr McLeay Mr Watkins Mr Corrigan Ms Meagher Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Whan Mr Daley Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Ms D'Amore Mr Morris Tellers, Mr Debus Mr Newell Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Ms Nori Mr Martin

Noes, 34

Mr Aplin Mr Kerr Mrs Skinner Mr Barr Mr McTaggart Mr Slack-Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Merton Mr Souris Mr Cansdell Ms Moore Mr Stoner Mr Constance Mr Oakeshott Mr Tink Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr Torbay Mr Fraser Mr Page Mr J. H. Turner Mrs Hancock Mr Piccoli Mr R. W. Turner Mr Hartcher Mr Pringle Mr Hazzard Mr Richardson Tellers, Mrs Hopwood Mr Roberts Mr George Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Mr Maguire

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

WATER INDUSTRY COMPETITION BILL

CENTRAL COAST WATER CORPORATION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 October 2006.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [5.26 p.m.]: I lead for the Liberal/Nationals Coalition in relation to the Water Industry Competition Bill and the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill. I will speak to the Water Industry Competition Bill, which relates to the Government's attempts to introduce competition into the water sector, and my colleague, the honourable member for Gosford and shadow Minister for the Central Coast, will speak to the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill. The Water Industry Competition Bill provides that private companies will be able to apply for indefinite licences to operate water infrastructure or provide water and sewerage services in competition with State-owned utilities.

The Liberal-Nationals Coalition will not oppose the bill. Indeed, it has been calling for genuine competition in relation to the provision of water and sewerage services. It has also been calling for some time for enhanced efficiency, particularly in relation to Sydney Water, so it does not oppose the bill. However, the Opposition will comment on perceived shortcomings of the bill as well as some concerns expressed to it from industry. This bill was largely brought about by the legal manoeuvrings of a private company, Services Sydney, which was successful via the National Competition Council in having access to Sydney's water infrastructure declared under the Trade Practices Act. 3802 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

After the former Premier's deemed refusal of the ruling, Services Sydney then appealed successfully to the Australian Competition Tribunal, which meant Sydney Water was compelled to negotiate in good faith with Services Sydney. In the case of a commercial dispute, any arbitration process would take place at the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as required under the provisions of the National Competition Council and the Trade Practices Act. A recent freedom of information request showed that Sydney Water spent almost $1.6 million on legal fees opposing Services Sydney, mainly on the grounds that the company did not satisfy two significant issues: firstly, that access or increased access to the service would promote competition in at least one market, whether or not in Australia, other than the market for the service; and, secondly, that access or increased access to the service would not be contrary to the public interest.

Despite Sydney Water's previous position, the Iemma-Costa Labor Government has now drafted legislation that is nearly identical to that which it fought at the Federal level. Two of its declaration criteria are: firstly, that access or increased access to the service by third parties is necessary to promote a material increase in competition in an upstream or downstream market; and, secondly, that access or increased access to the service would not be contrary to the public interest. The main difference is that, in the case of a commercial dispute, any arbitration process will take place before the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. One wonders why the Government spent so much time and so much of the State's resources opposing Services Sydney and fighting the National Competition Council and the Australian Competition Tribunal, and then developed its own, nearly identical legislation.

While the Opposition does not oppose the bill, industry has voiced several concerns about the proposed State-based access regime and the Government's real intentions. I ask the Minister to address those concerns in his reply. One of the concerns is the viability of the Government's proposed access regime. Some water companies are uncertain how effective the access regime will be. The only cost effective option may be to bid for the right to provide water services in greenfields residential developments or in relation to large industrial sites. Given that about 80 per cent of Sydney Water's existing customers are small and largely residential, there are legitimate industry concerns that access to large customers only would impact negatively on the viability of businesses under this regime. Hence, Labor's Water Industry Competition Bill may well prove to be only window-dressing in terms of actual competition.

Another concern relates to access prices. It is unclear at this stage how access costs will be determined. These costs will make or break the viability of schemes. It is also unclear whether or not third parties will have reasonable access to Sydney Water lands. At least one major water company has expressed to the Liberal-Nationals Coalition that it will take a wait-and-see approach before entering the market. Clearly, the Iemma-Costa Labor Government is not listening to industry. It introduces this legislation effectively because it has been forced to do so by the actions of Services Sydney and by Federal legislation.

A further concern relates to the length of access. According to the bill, licences will be issued indefinitely, but they will be reviewed every five years. Firms will have to comply with public health, environmental and consumer protection regulations, and the Minister for Water Utilities will have the ability to withdraw licences. After industry complaints, the New South Wales Government has dropped plans to issue licences for 15 years. The National Competition Council recommended a licence period of 50 years to provide certainty of investment. There is a great deal of uncertainty in relation to length of access, and that of course will affect the level of investment in genuine competition in the water and sewerage sector. Generally, commercial loans for these sorts of purposes, or arrangements in relation to superannuation funds and other sources of investment money, relate to a turnover period of 25 to 30 years. The Government is saying that it will review licences every five years and give the Minister the power, basically on a whim, to withdraw licences. That is not encouraging to businesses that may wish to enter this sector.

The reality is that the New South Wales Government has fought recycling for six years. It is only after the ruling favourable to Services Sydney that the Government has been forced to act. Some in the industry have concerns that the Government may have an aim to actually keep companies such as Services Sydney out of the market. Indeed, the Government's previous actions indicate that that is its agenda. Actions speak louder than words, and the Government's actions speak louder than this legislation. In addition, any access regime may take several years to implement.

The New South Wales Government has no credibility on water recycling. Its targets have actually gone backwards. Former Utilities Minister Frank Sartor said in this place on 22 March 2005 that "we will be recycling up to 80 billion litres of water". Premier Morris Iemma said on 23 November last year that the Government would be "increasing the use of recycled water from 15 to 70 billion litres per year by 2011". This 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3803

means that the Iemma-Costa Labor Government has actually gone backwards on water recycling targets given its current level of 70 billion litres per year by 2015. Introducing competition into the water industry would have provided the real opportunity for large-scale recycling to proceed. The industry is rightfully asking whether the Government is committed to introducing competition or whether it is actually acting to protect its monopoly water utilities from competition and thereby secure the consequent dividends from those utilities that flow to the Government.

There is also the question of the cost of this legislation effectively duplicating existing Federal legislation. One reason that the New South Wales Government did not implement its own access regime before the Services Sydney cases at the National Competition Council and the Australian Competition Tribunal was the significant cost of introducing a legislative framework. It has now backflipped on this matter to avoid giving up its monopoly. Simply put, the Government has been dragged kicking and screaming into change. Another concern that has been raised is the issue of unreasonable penalties. Industry has questioned penalties of up to $500,000 for an initial breach of the legislation. This is extraordinarily high, especially if the breach is trivial. At least one major water company has stated that this penalty has the potential to stop the entrance of third parties into the market.

I should comment also on the overlap of State and Federal legislation and the jurisdictions of agencies tasked with oversight of competition in this sector. The Trade Practices Law Journal notes that there is the possibility that, for at least some time, two regimes—that is, Federal and State access regimes—will extend to water and wastewater. A service cannot be declared at the Federal level if access is already the subject of an effective access regime. However, part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act is silent on the status—as is likely to be the case—of a State regime developed after declaration and specifically whether two regimes, part IIIA and a State regime, may operate concurrently in relation to the same services.

There is no precedent for this in Australia. While this may be explored in greater detail, section 109 of the Constitution provides that when a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. For these reasons, the Water Industry Competition Bill may itself, in part, be invalid or unworkable. As I have indicated, the Liberal-Nationals Coalition does not oppose the bills, but it places on record a number of concerns and asks a number of questions about this Government legislation. We seek a response from the Minister in his reply.

Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Peats) [5.38 p.m.]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill 2006, which is cognate to the Water Industry Competition Bill 2006. I am of the firm belief that the Central Coast community deserves a locally-owned water utility that can make timely and effective decisions on the supply of water and sewerage services in the region. This bill delivers on that promise. The current structural arrangements for the Central Coast water supply impede the effective management of water supplied by Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council. Both councils agree. The legislation was introduced following a formal request by both councils for a new statutory body to improve governance arrangements and streamline decision making.

I agree that the current decision-making structure is inflexible and does not deliver the best outcome for the people of the Central Coast. At present, all strategic decision making must be separately ratified by each council. Problems arise when Gosford and Wyong councils do not agree, which causes important water supply decisions to be delayed. The continuation of those governance arrangements is unworkable, particularly in the context of worsening drought conditions when increasingly difficult decisions need to be made.

One of the main objectives of the Central Coast Water Corporation is to allow councils to better manage their existing supplies of water. The Central Coast Water Corporation will be a locally owned water utility for the benefit of the local community. Let there be no mistake: This is not privatisation. At all times both Gosford and Wyong councils will be the only shareholders in the corporation. It is clearly stated in schedule 1 to the bill that the shareholders may not sell or otherwise dispose of their shares in the corporation. That means that only Gosford and Wyong councils will ever be the owners of the corporation. The corporation will have a constitution and a statement of corporate intent. Those documents will set the parameters of the commercial performance of the corporation. The constitution and statement of corporate intent will be tabled in each House of Parliament by the Minister for Water Utilities or his representative.

The corporation's board will include people with expertise in water and sewerage management, and commercial enterprise. It will have an independent Chair. All operational decisions of the corporation will be made under the authority of the board. The chief executive officer of the corporation will be responsible for 3804 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

day-to-day management. The bill removes wasteful duplicated decision-making processes and makes strategic planning easier and more timely. Importantly, local jobs will be protected. The Minister for Water Utilities, who is at the table, has made sure that the bill locks in employment protections for council staff affected by the establishment of the corporation. Both the consumer and the environment will benefit directly. The bill also specifies that the operating licence must include a condition to require the corporation to join an industry ombudsman scheme. The operating licence will guarantee improved accountability to Central Coast customers.

The corporation will be required to report on its performance against indicators to ensure that its water and sewerage services meet specified standards on water quality, service interruptions and pricing. Price regulation by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal will continue to apply to water and sewerage services delivered by the corporation, just as it applies to the water and sewerage services delivered by Gosford and Wyong councils now. I urge both councils to work together on the necessary arrangements for the establishment of this corporation for the benefit of consumers and the environment. The passage of the bill will allow the people of the Central Coast to have their own unified water utility, with local jobs and assets protected, and improved delivery of water and sewerage services.

I refer to recent advertisements in one of the local newspapers in which the Leader of the Opposition and member for Vaucluse, Peter Debnam, and the Liberal candidate for the electorate of Gosford in 2007 claim that they will fix the water problems. The Liberal candidate for Gosford in 2007, Councillor Chris Holstein, is one of the longest-serving councillors on Gosford City Council and a former mayor. He has had ample time in which to fix the Central Coast water supply but has failed to do so. It has taken the Iemma Government to come to the rescue of Central Coast residents, who are now adhering to level four water restrictions. I welcome the Premier's recent announcement of a new dam to be built by the State Government at Tillegra, which will drought proof the Central Coast and the Hunter for the next 60 years. The Premier is on record as saying that he will not leave the Central Coast in the lurch, and he is certainly delivering on that commitment. I thank the Minister for Water Utilities for taking into account concerns raised by the unions involved about job protection and preservation of working conditions of affected employees. I take great pleasure in commending the bills to the House.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [5.44 p.m.]: As the Leader of The Nationals and the shadow Minister indicated, the Opposition will not oppose the Water Industry Competition Bill. The objects of the bill are quite clear. It establishes a licensing scheme to provide for private sector involvement in the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services, establishes an access regime to ensure that certain monopoly infrastructure services involved in the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services are available to persons seeking access to them, and facilitates the resolution of disputes between persons operating certain sewerage infrastructure and persons seeking access to the contents of that infrastructure.

The bill also facilitates the resolution of disputes between private sector bodies and their customers in relation to the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services, enacts provisions to facilitate the construction, maintenance and operation of infrastructure for the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services, protects private sector involvement in the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services by means of the creation of offences for that purpose, and makes other provisions of a minor consequential or ancillary nature. The bill also makes consequential amendments to a number of Acts and enacts certain savings and transitional provisions, which have been needed for some time.

The Central Coast Water Corporation Bill 2006 is cognate with the Water Industry Competition Bill, which opens the door to competition and new investment in three key ways. First, it promotes new recycling businesses by enabling prospective sewer miners who are not able to reach a commercial agreement with specified service providers to have the terms on which they can mine sewers determined in binding arbitration conducted by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. Second, the bill promotes competition by establishing a comprehensive access regime to help new suppliers to negotiate arrangements for the storage and transportation of water and sewage using existing significant water and sewerage networks. Third, the bill ensures that licensees who wish to construct and operate new water and sewerage networks will be on broadly the same footing as public water utilities for things like laying pipes in public roads and reading meters. But at the same time the Water Industry Competition Bill establishes a licensing regime—

Mr David Campbell: It is not quite Google, but it is straight out of the Legislation Review Committee digest.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: I remind the Minister at the table that he should be the last one to comment about this. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3805

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lismore is referring to copious notes.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: I thought I would be given that leeway. The reforms proposed by the Water Industry Competition Bill have been subject to extensive community consultation. As I said at the outset, the Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [5.48 p.m.]: I acknowledge the contribution by the honourable member for Lismore. He did a wonderful job under difficult circumstances. Today is a very important day for the reform of the metropolitan water industry and the security of the community's water supplies. I am pleased to support the Water Industry Competition Bill, which will facilitate competition in the metropolitan water industry and encourage recycling for the benefit of consumers, the economy and the environment. The Government is committed to creating an environment in which these businesses can compete. Private sector competition promises to bring dynamism to the metropolitan water industry and, with it, innovation, new investment and technological advances in water management.

The bill gives private operators who want to establish water -recycling businesses an enforceable right to acquire the raw material they need from Sydney Water's sewerage network. The new State access regime draws upon the significant water industry regulatory experience of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. Despite what the Leader of The Nationals incorrectly said, unlike the Federal regime the State system will streamline economic regulation for the water industry under the control of one independent regulator while at the same time promoting competition and providing incentives to reduce costs and improve productivity. Importantly, the Water Industry Competition Bill ensures the continued protection of public health, the environment and consumers. The bill does not privatise existing public water utilities, nor does it change their pricing arrangements. The bill ensures the continuing protection of the community and helps to secure Sydney's long-term water future.

I turn now to address the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill. First, I point out that the water supply system on the Central Coast is owned and operated by Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council through the Joint Water Authority. The Central Coast faces many challenges when it comes to water. Currently the region is enduring a 15-year drought that shows no sign of easing. As a result of the drought we have been faced with level four water restrictions, which means tough limits on business and no outside use of water by residents of the Central Coast. I congratulate the residents and businesses on the Central Coast for doing everything they can to reduce the volume of water they are using.

The bill is the result of a request to the Government from the mayors of Gosford and Wyong to develop legislation to facilitate a more efficient and effective management structure. Under the current system the Joint Water Authority is not able to make decisions that are binding on councils. Instead, a recommendation is sent from the Joint Water Authority for ratification by each council. That dysfunctional process, which is often hijacked by local politics to the disadvantage of the local community, has proved to be inefficient in dealing with the ongoing water crisis on the Central Coast. The bill will allow councils to form a stand-alone water corporation that is owned by both Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council.

As the joint shareholders of the new corporation, the councils will set the operation and performance agenda, management practices and employment policies. The Iemma Government has stated clearly that it has no intention of taking over control of the Central Coast water and sewerage system. But, as it has failed to do in so many other policy areas, the Opposition so far has failed to outline its intention when it comes to water resources on the Central Coast. That is clearly because it has no plans. The Iemma Government has made significant contributions to secure the Central Coast's water supply. As recently as yesterday, the Premier announced a $342 million package to help to secure the Central Coast and Hunter regions' water supply for the next 60 years.

The heart of the package is a new 450-billion litre Tillegra Dam and water grid which will help to drought proof the Hunter and Central Coast region well into the future. The capacity of the pipeline between Newcastle and the Central Coast will be increased also from 27 million litres a day to 35 million litres a day, which is about half of the Central Coast's current daily usage. That is an investment in infrastructure to ensure that as our population grows we will have ample water resources for families, industry and businesses. That comes on top of other initiatives, including the provision of $2.5 million, again through the State-owned Hunter Water, towards the construction of a pre-treatment plant on the Williams River in the Hunter Valley that will treat nutrient-enriched water before sending it to the Central Coast. 3806 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Other initiatives include the extension of the Water Savings Fund to include the Central Coast region, thus providing rebates to Central Coast residents who install rainwater tanks and water-efficient washing machines. We have also reduced the environmental flows on Ourimbah Creek to allow an additional four megalitres to be taken per day from that water source. As well, an important and innovative measure is a commitment from State-owned Delta Electricity to build an $8 million water recycling plant at the Vales Point Power Station that will save 464 megalitres every year, or enough water to supply 2,500 Central Coast homes. The Iemma Government is doing its bit to help the councils to secure the region's water supply. It is unfortunate that the same cannot be said about the Opposition.

I have been advised that the Minister for Water Utilities has not received one piece of correspondence from the Opposition—not one letter of concern from the tired old honourable member for Gosford, not one letter of concern from the shadow Minister for Water Utilities, Andrew Stoner, and not a single letter of concern from the Leader of the Opposition. It is quite evident that the New South Wales Opposition does not care about the State's water crisis. Most important of all, the State Opposition has no policies and no plans to help to secure the Hunter and Central Coast regions' water supply. The Opposition is out of touch and out of ideas when it comes to the Central Coast.

I take this opportunity to encourage the Wyong Shire Council to come on board and embrace the positive change it has requested. The people of the Central Coast deserve clear leadership when it comes to the management of our most precious resource—water. The bill cannot make rain fall from the sky, but it will allow councils to better manage their assets and encourage greater investment in our water supply system. It will allow councils to put in place an effective management team to deal responsibly with the water crisis on the Central Coast. Honourable members would be aware that some council workers on the Central Coast had reservations about this proposal and any impact it may have on their job security and employee entitlements. The secretary of the United Services Union [USU], Ben Kruse, and the northern regional manager, Stephen Hughes, have worked with the Minister for Water Utilities to ensure that the rights of employees are protected.

I was directly involved in the meetings, along with the honourable member for Peats. The securing of local jobs is a priority for me, and I have actively lobbied to keep these jobs under council control and on the Central Coast. The Minister has listened to the USU and its concerns have been resolved satisfactorily. I acknowledge the hard work of USU delegates at the Wyong Shire Council— Tom Baker, George Lewis and Paul Watson—and at the Gosford City Council—Paul Ryan and Max Bugden. These men have been active in standing up for the rights of their colleagues. I congratulate them on their hard work. They stood up and fought to protect the wages and conditions of their fellow workers. The Minister for Water Utilities and the Government have listened. The bill provides a new direction for water management on the Central Coast and deserves the bipartisan support of the House, which I understand will be forthcoming. I commend the bills to the House.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.56 p.m.]: The Central Coast has been in the grip of a drought for 15 years. The region's major dam is only 15.3 per cent full. The Central Coast faces a serious water crisis. The people of the Central Coast have responded magnificently to the crisis. They are now living with level four water restrictions, which effectively prevent them from watering their gardens in the usual way. When washing their cars they are restricted to using buckets. The people who live on the Central Coast acknowledge that the region faces a severe water crisis and they expect governments, the State Government especially, to take appropriate action to protect them. So far the State Government has not announced any plan for the short-term or long-term provision of future water resources on the Central Coast.

The Government has not put forward any proposal in relation to stormwater harvesting or recycling. The only effort made by the State Government so far is the introduction of legislation to create a different board of management. The State Government is like the Titanic when it was heading towards the iceberg. All the Government wants to do is change the people on the bridge. For many years the New South Wales Government has been aware that the water crisis has been building up on the Central Coast, yet it has descended to politics to address the issue. Meetings have been held only with Labor Members of Parliament. Liberal members of Parliament, such as the Federal members for Robertson and Dobell and me, have been excluded.

The State Government calls for a bipartisan approach to this matter, yet has made every attempt to exclude Liberal members of Parliament from participation. When I mention bipartisanship, what is the response from the Minister for Water Utilities? He replies, in a sneering manner, "Who said that? Who said we should be bipartisan?" In doing so, the Minister reveals that he has sought to play politics with this issue, just as he plays politics with every issue, and he demonstrates that he has no shame. He is quite happy and unconcerned, but the 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3807

people of the Central Coast are concerned. They want a water plan and they want a coherent policy from the Government upon which they may base their future plans.

What has the State Government done? It has given us the Central Coast regional plan, which will pour thousands more people onto the Central Coast, as announced by the Minister's colleague the Minister for Planning. There is no provision in the Central Coast strategy for increased water services to the Central Coast. No opportunities have been taken up. All we will have is more people—no jobs and no water. That is the Labor Party's plan for the Central Coast. The State Government has attempted on four occasions to take over the Central Coast water system, and this legislation is yet another attempt to do so. The board will have two members drawn from councils who have to be approved by the Minister—in other words, Labor Party members—and one appointed by the Minister. The board will be totally under the Minister's control: it will be a Labor Party board.

This is the Government's fourth attempt to take over the Central Coast water system. The last attempt was in 1996, when the Minister for the Central Coast and the honourable member for Peats, in their usual supine way, supported the Government's attempts, but the honourable member for Wyong, who is retiring in March 2007, and I opposed it. The State Government was forced to back down. In this latest attempt to take over the Central Coast water system, the Government has proposed the establishment of this board, which is to be known as the Central Coast Water Corporation. The United Services Union [USU] has been told that all jobs will be safe, and the Minister's second reading speech referred to that. The Minister said:

I also acknowledge the commitment made by Gosford and Wyong councils to recommend that the corporation sign referral agreements under section 146A of the Industrial Relations Act and common law deeds, which ensure that industrial issues are dealt with under the New South Wales industrial relations system.

That is not the case. Notwithstanding the High Court's decision today to validate the WorkChoices legislation, a legal opinion headed "Memorandum of Advice" signed by Tim Robertson, SC, and dated 10 November 2006 significantly states:

In my opinion, s.146A of the Industrial Relations Act ("IR Act") is almost certainly invalid. The provisions of the Bill which concern security of employment in the Water Corporation are also probably invalid. I am also concerned about the extent to which the Bill when enacted, is capable of preserving accrued entitlements to leave. The reason for my doubt about the validity of these provisions is that they are probably inconsistent with the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (C'th).

In other words, even before the High Court's decision Senior Counsel advised that this legislation provides no protection granted to employees of the Central Coast Water Corporation. All we have are the empty words of the Minister for Water Utilities, echoed by his supine colleague, the Minister for the Central Coast, who simply echoes the party line. He praises the USU delegates but does not tell those delegates that they are literally being sold up the river by the Government, and that they will not have security of employment. In fact, the legislation does not give them security of employment. In 1996 the honourable member for Wyong and I fought for the workers; the Minister for the Central Coast and the honourable member for Peats did nothing for them. Those people have now been betrayed by the Government through this legislation. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

The Coalition proposes to move amendments at the Committee stage relating to the structure of the board. The legislation does nothing to protect workers and does nothing to advance the cause of water planning for the Central Coast; it will not give the Central Coast a single litre of extra water. The proposal for a new dam was announced yesterday by the Premier, when he took a helicopter trip over the Hunter and the Central Coast, but was too frightened to include a single Labor member of Parliament in that trip. The Minister locked himself away and did not have one Labor member of Parliament, either from the Central Coast or the Hunter, with him. The proposal is for a dam on the Williams River which will not be completed in 10 years at the very least. The dam will allegedly cost $354 million—no-one knows the final cost—but it will not be available for 10 years. What happens in that 10-year period? What will Labor give the Central Coast in that 10-year period? Zero!

The Labor Government has not advanced one dollar for water on the Central Coast. The money that the Labor Party claimed it is putting into the Central Coast will come through the Hunter Water Corporation, a statutory body that has entered into commercial agreements with Gosford and Wyong councils. No money is coming from the Labor Government. The only money that has gone to the Central Coast has come from the residents of Gosford and Wyong and from the Federal Government. The Labor Party has put not one dollar into the Central Coast water system, and it is disingenuous in the extreme for the Minister for Water Utilities or, more significantly, the Minister for the Central Coast and the honourable member for Peats, to pretend that any money has been allocated by the State Government because it has not. 3808 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

What does the system that the Minister is setting up give to the Central Coast? It provides not two water bodies, but three. As Wyong Shire Council has stated, if all water, sewerage and drainage functions, including assets and staff, are transferred to a separate body, as proposed by the Minister, there will be three separate bodies on the Central Coast to run water, sewerage and drainage—the new water body plus the two councils— instead of the current two, while drainage and other functions will still vest in the two councils. Supporting three organisations instead of two will result in increased costs to ratepayers, who will get separate bills and will need to go to separate offices to deal with water, sewerage and drainage issues. Approval will have to be sought from two separate bodies to carry out a development. Ratepayers will have to deal with a board covering all of the Central Coast which will be more remote and harder to access. There will be a lower level of service and a significant loss of jobs. Effectively, there will be a transfer of ownership from Central Coast ratepayers to the Government.

To maintain local ownership the Government's proposal provides for the councils to be the shareholders of the new water, sewerage and drainage body. However, once everything is set up and separate from the two councils, there is nothing to stop a future Labor government, if there is one, making a simple legislative change to transfer the shareholding to the State. As shareholder of Hunter Water and Sydney Water, the Government currently takes a huge dividend from those bodies. Dividends are simply ripped out of Sydney Water and Hunter Water, and those dividends come from the ratepayers of the Hunter Valley and Sydney. A similar dividend could be, and probably will be, paid by Central Coast ratepayers into the Government's coffers in the future.

There is no guarantee from the Minister, and certainly not from the supine Minister for the Central Coast or the honourable member for Peats, that they will prevent Central Coast ratepayers being slugged in future to pay a dividend to the Government as Sydney Water and Hunter Water ratepayers are compelled to do. The Government has tried on four previous occasions to take water and sewerage operations away from the two councils on the Central Coast; those attempts have been successfully resisted. If it were not for the water crisis, people would be crying out for this latest usurpation to be resisted. However, because the water crisis is so great and because the people of the Central Coast want the State Government to provide whatever trivial support it can give, they will not rise up against this legislation, as long as it delivers for them. The test will be: Will we get a single extra litre of water through this legislation? The answer is a resounding no. There is no guarantee of extra water for the Central Coast and no guarantee for employees in the union that the Labor Party pretends to protect. [Extension of time agreed to.]

In his written advice dated 10 November 2006, referring to the so-called immunisation legislation that the Labor Party passed in New South Wales some time ago in respect of Crown employees, Tim Robertson, SC, said:

The purpose of the first Act was to immunise these Government employees from the WR Act.

I doubt whether the legislation was effective to do so but its validity is not relevant for present purposes. It is sufficient to note that the legislation did not extend to local government employees, and the Water Corporation may employ such staff as it requires to exercise its functions. When it does so, the Water Corporation will not represent the Crown—

Section 6 (a) of the Act—

or, for that matter, the Councils. Accordingly, it is not excluded from the WR Act.

In other words, workers are not excluded from the Federal Workplace Relations Act; they are caught by the Workplace Relations Act, which is held valid by the High Court. The pretence by the honourable member for the Entrance and by the Minister that they will be protected is revealed simply as hollow words, just as the honourable member for The Entrance had to admit that he does not have a water tank and that he draws his water from the river.

[Interruption]

He said in Parliament that he drew his water from the river.

Mr Grant McBride: Point of order—

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Did he have a licence to draw his water from the river?

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will resume his seat. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3809

Mr Grant McBride: The honourable member for Gosford totally misquoted me. I said that I live near a river.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member for Gosford has the call.

Mr Grant McBride: I made no comment about drawing water out of the river. I never mentioned it. The honourable member for Gosford stands corrected. He should have a look at Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford has the call.

Mrs Shelley Hancock: You touched a nerve.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: As the honourable member for South Coast said, I touched a nerve. The Minister has been caught out. When he was asked about water conservation he admitted that he lived near the river and, by implication, that he drew his water from the river. We will see what happens in relation to that issue; we have not heard the end of that story. I think the Minister will be hearing a bit more about it as, tragically, the water crisis on the Central Coast deepens. The Minister's colleague the Minister for Water Utilities is doing nothing to assist people on the Central Coast as a result of the crisis they are now facing. Wyong Shire Council wrote to the Minister for Water Utilities and made a number of relevant points. It said:

Firstly, this current review—

A review that the Minister commissioned—

which is the fifth one over the last 15-20 years, was initiated by your Government in 2004—

In 2004 everybody knew that the Central Coast was facing a water crisis—

when Minister Sartor instructed the two Councils to examine the issue.

In 2006—two years later—all we have is words on paper. This bill will simply set up a new Central Coast water structure. It contains nothing about a water plan, nothing about increasing water for the Central coast, and nothing about State Government funding for water on the Central Coast. Two supine Government members simply go along with everything the Minister proposes because they think that is the way to advance in the Australian Labor Party. At the end of the day the people on the Central Coast are the big losers. Wyong Shire Council went on to say:

In meetings with Minister Sartor in 2005, he indicated that he would leave the final decision to the two Councils...

Lengthy and expensive studies were carried out by consultants... who examined a range of options.

Council brings this issue home to the Minister when it said:

Unfortunately, no progress was made by the State Government officers to advance this matter until early this year when the matter was further pursued by the two Councils. At that stage, you—

That is Minister Campbell—

had taken over the role of Minister for Water Utilities.

Despite the water crisis and the fact that everybody knew the dam levels were dropping each month, under this Government nothing happened in 2004 and 2005. Something happened only at the start of 2006. The water crisis got deeper and Labor did nothing. The ship headed to the iceberg and all we got was a change of members on the bridge. Wyong Shire Council went on to state:

Council officers worked with officers of DEUS to agree on the framework for legislation...

Unfortunately, your Government has not seen fit to honour the undertaking given by Minister Sartor in 2005...

So the Government failed to honour its undertakings and it failed to provide for the workers who are being sold up the river because effectively they will not be protected. As the legal advice states, there is nothing to stop the 3810 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Central Coast Water Board sacrificing workers. Two members of that board are to be Labor members of councils appointed by the Minister—that is what they will be—and one member is to be appointed by the Minister from outside. We do not know who that will be but it will certainly be one of the Labor Party's mates. Eventually those workers will be sacrificed. They might not be sacrificed before 24 March but their heads are now on the chopping block.

People on the Central Coast will be dealing with yet another bureaucratic structure that will not advance them. The Opposition will move amendments in Committee and it will argue their validity at that time. However, I make this crucial point: I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the honourable member for Wyong who, back in 1996, fought valiantly to preserve autonomy on the Central Coast. All honourable members are aware that the honourable member for Wyong is now being forced out of the Parliament by the Sussex Street machine. The honourable member for Wyong can and will speak for himself. I will not shed any crocodile tears for him but the honourable member for the Entrance will.

We now have three bodies, not two, to run Central Coast Water. This Government has no plan for water recycling, water conservation, or stormwater harvesting. We have no State Government money but we are left with the pretence of money through the Hunter Water Corporation. We have a new bureaucratic structure but no guarantee of employment for workers employed by the United Services Union. Nothing has been done over a two-year period since the review was commissioned in 2004. The Minister has done zilch for the Central Coast. This legislation will probably not give the Central Coast anything at all. From this day on the Labor Party will bear responsibility for the water crisis faced by the Central Coast.

Mr PAUL CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [6.16 p.m.]: I support the bill. Over 10 years ago I publicly indicated my preparedness to discuss such a proposal. In 1996, given the projected population growth on the coast, the relatively newly elected Labor Government, of which I was proud to be a part, commissioned a review of the Gosford-Wyong water supply. That was well before the devastating impacts of the most recent drought that are now being felt. It is obvious that that has had a major impact on our water supply—an issue that requires planning and strategic thought.

During the course of his contribution the honourable member for Gosford somehow or other managed to align himself with me. Cursory research reveals an article in the Central Coast Express Advocate of 11 December, which states that Mike Gallacher, Chris Hartcher and Grant McBride were in a bid to block any proposal to remove control over water and sewerage from the coast. Clearly the honourable member for Gosford has confused me with the honourable member for The Entrance, something about which I particularly object.

In reality, the two councils involved in 1996 were able to play a game, erroneously praising themselves and their abilities. They also ran a ratepayer funded media campaign against the review process. This Government joins those same two councils in celebrating this legislation. I regret that it did not occur 10 years ago. Ten years ago we would have had time to plan for the supply difficulties we now face. Yesterday Premier Morris Iemma announced the Tillegra Dam project, which effectively will dam the Williams River. I support a project of vision that will give people on the Central Coast and in the Hunter region added security. I am pleased that that has occurred.

As we go forward into the future we must ensure that there is no repeat of what occurred in 1996 and 1997. Why did the citizens of the Central Coast have to wait until yesterday for some kind of action to resolve the tug of war between Gosford and Wyong? When it came to water the only thing those councils could agree on was the fact that they shared a common enemy. If as much effort had been put into securing water supplies as was put into mobilising against the 1996 review, the current water crisis might have been much less severe. In fact, in December 1996 the editorial of the Central Coast Express Advocate read:

… the people of the Central Coast have forked out around $500 million to have what is described as the Rolls Royce of water and sewerage systems

That system is now better described as a Trabant—far removed from what the people need or desire and they still paid through the nose for it. The real issue for us is how to get service delivery. I think the Premier's announcement yesterday goes a long way towards achieving that goal. I will not quote the comments of the Minister for the Central Coast on 16 April 1997 but I hope we can go forward in a policy sense. There are pressing issues on the Central Coast. Recently I made a private members' statement about the water shortage on the coast and how it is affecting people's lifestyles. We do not need more political hysteria; we need some hard decisions. Fortunately, yesterday I think the Premier started down the path of taking those hard decisions. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3811

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South Coast) [6.20 p.m.]: The first object of the Water Industry Competition Bill is to establish a licensing scheme to provide for private sector involvement in the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services. I note that the Leader of The Nationals mentioned Services Sydney Pty Limited in his contribution. Representatives of Services Sydney visited me in my office approximately two years ago, when discussion was initiated about proposed increased extractions from the Shoalhaven River. At that time the representatives discussed with me at length—as they have done since—the fact that it would be unnecessary to increase extraction from the Shoalhaven River if Sydney embarked upon a serious recycling and stormwater harvesting scheme.

Much has happened since that first meeting, and this bill is a result of the failure of the Services Sydney bid. I was interested to hear the Leader of The Nationals mention that discussion, because it is relevant to our consideration of the bill this evening. Services Sydney was right, and the Government is wrong in respect of its proposal regarding the Shoalhaven River. The Government proposes to address Sydney's water crisis by taking an additional 30 billion litres of water a year from the Shoalhaven River. That is about the extent of the Government's plan.

In the past couple of years the Government has come up with a number of different ideas—many of which I have spoken about in this place—but the hallmark and centrepiece of the Government's plan was always building big, new pipelines from the Shoalhaven River, at a cost of about $680 million, to pump an extra 30 billion litres of water from the river in order to save Sydney. That is the only real plan the Government has.

In fact, in August 78 per cent of Sydney's water supply was pumped from the Shoalhaven River in a single week. In the following week 82 per cent of Sydney's water supply was pumped from the river. What would this Government do if it did not have the Shoalhaven River? The Government has failed to do as Services Sydney suggested and embark upon serious recycling and stormwater harvesting. In 12 years the Government has not come up with any serious recycling plan. The Government talked about desalination but it put that plan on the back burner when it discovered that a desalination plant would be energy hungry—and it does not want that sort of publicity.

The Government has also talked about aquifers. About six months ago the Government announced the wonderful discovery of two aquifers—at Kangaloon and Leonay—that would apparently meet all of Sydney's water needs. I note that the Minister for Water Utilities is pacing the floor of the Chamber somewhat nervously, because he knows I am right. Those two aquifers will not come up to scratch. The scientific studies that have been undertaken with respect to the aquifers are beginning to reveal that they will not be viable. Yet the Government seems intent upon proceeding to extract water from the aquifers.

Returning to the Shoalhaven River, the Tallowa Dam has been a goldmine for this Government. Water continues to be extracted from the Tallowa Dam, which was constructed in the 1970s by a Liberal-National Coalition Government. It has never been our intention to stop water transfers from Tallowa Dam, which was part of the original plan. Our opposition, and that of the vast majority of people in the Shoalhaven and Kiama regions—probably 99 per cent of them—is to increasing that extraction by 30 billion litres per year. But in the past couple of weeks the water level in the Tallowa Dam has dropped seriously and today there was an announcement that the South Coast and the Shoalhaven—which constituted part of the 3 per cent of New South Wales that was not in drought—are now in drought.

If the Minister were to cross the Shoalhaven River this week he would notice the alarming drop in water levels in that river. Very soon the Government will not be able to extract as much water from the Shoalhaven and Tallowa system as it has done in the past, because that resource will have dried up. The Government will have no alternative and no plan for solving Sydney's water crisis other than to pray seriously for some heavy rain—and that is not on the horizon.

The South Coast is now in drought, which means that virtually all of New South Wales is in drought. The Shoalhaven River—a goldmine—is drying up and residents of the South Coast and the Shoalhaven bitterly resent the fact that this Government is all out of options. Two years ago it failed to consider the Services Sydney plan and it did not look at any other options. It simply decided to rely on the Shoalhaven River system. I am pleased that this evening the Leader of The Nationals referred to Services Sydney and recycling. On many occasions the Leader of The Nationals and other Coalition members have raised the issues of recycling, reuse and stormwater harvesting. I am proud to say that in the Shoalhaven area we have the regional effluent management system, which was instituted by Shoalhaven City Council some years ago and is working very well. 3812 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Mr David Campbell: With a subsidy from the Government.

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK: Yes, the council received some assistance from the Government. I certainly acknowledge that. But at present the people of the Shoalhaven are extremely angry. They vented their anger at a rally that I organised on 17 September. There has been mention this afternoon of petitions—I think there was discussion of petitions against WorkChoices—and petitions have been flowing in opposition to the Government's plans to build more pipelines and to pump more water from the Shoalhaven River. The Government's response has been to ignore those concerns absolutely. It has ignored the concerns expressed by oyster growers, prawn growers, fishermen, and the tourist industry up and down the Shoalhaven River. They rely on that resource for their livelihoods, as does the town of Nowra and the township of North Nowra.

The people of the Shoalhaven are aware of how precious our water resource is but this Government is not. It favours outdated, antiquated schemes that involve building dams. Construction of the Tillegra dam is proposed for the Hunter. I suspect that the Government will soon resurrect plans to build the Welcome Reef dam on the Shoalhaven River, which will destroy that river absolutely and utterly. I note that a couple of weeks ago the Treasurer was unable to answer a question from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile in the other place regarding the construction of the Welcome Reef dam. The Treasurer could not rule out that option. So it appears that dams are back on the Government's agenda—and dams must be considered to be twentieth century technology.

The Government is looking for a miracle, but dams take a long time to build. I suggest that the Central Coast is in serious trouble. For 12 years the Government has failed to implement any serious plans that involve being frugal with water. It has also failed in many other areas. The Government does not care about water. The people of the Shoalhaven and the South Coast and those in rural and regional areas generally know how to conserve water. They see where the water comes from, they watch water levels dropping, and they conserve that precious resource. Unfortunately, Sydney residents are sometimes unaware of the source of their water and they waste that resource. The Government is allowing them to waste water while it continues to pump supplies from a beautiful, wild, scenic river.

It is wrong, and the people in my electorate and those in the electorate of Kiama know it is wrong. They can see that the Government will do to the Shoalhaven River what it did to the Hawkesbury River: there will be no environmental flows. Discussions have been held about so-called agreements with the council and this Government but they are yet to be signed. There are all sorts of spin, cover-up and shady deals, which are supposed to benefit the river, but no agreement has been reached and nothing has been signed off. Meanwhile this Government will continue to take as much water as it needs when it needs it from the Shoalhaven to supply Sydney to solve its water crisis.

The lesson to be learned is that governments cannot sit back for 12 years and see an impending disaster and do nothing about it. I understand that the Government is concerned about votes in Sydney and about what will happen when the Warragamba Dam slips below 40 per cent to 30 per cent, as it will. If the Shoalhaven River had not been pumped to the great extent it was in two weeks in August, it is estimated that dam levels would have fallen to below 25 per cent. When pumping from the Shoalhaven River stops, the level of Warragamba Dam will drop below 25 per cent, which will not be a very good media story. So the Minister and this Government have to come up with a much more serious and practical plan to appease the residents of Sydney and Shoalhaven, who feel cheated, who have been lied to, who have not been consulted and whose concerns have been ignored.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.33 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [7.30 p.m.]: I wish to raise some issues that concern the Lower Nepean Hawkesbury Water Users Association, which comprises farmers and food growers who produce in excess of $500 million worth of fresh fruit and vegetables—lettuce, cauliflower, broccoli, berries, potatoes, onions, carrots, pears and apples—consumed by the people of Sydney, as well as much of the turf that is used in new and established housing estates. The farmers are dependent on water that is captured by Warragamba Dam, used by households and industry, goes to sewerage treatment plants, and is then returned to the Hawkesbury River system. I acknowledge that often the water is returned to the river system in an unclean state, but at least there is a flow of water going back into the Hawkesbury-Nepean River so there is some water for the farmers to use. For some it may be difficult to believe that the Hawkesbury-Nepean River largely comprises saltwater, until one gets to the Windsor area. Without the recycled water, the saltwater would go even further up the river and it would be even more difficult for these farmers to provide for the fresh fruit and vegetable requirements of Sydney. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3813

The bill allows new players into the industry. The association simply asks that contracts for these new players contain a clause requiring that some of the water be returned to the river, to ensure a reasonable flow, which will allow the farmers to continue to pump and not have to face any cease-to-pump days. Uncertainty for the industry will severely affect its long-term viability and investment potential. The farmers also want the proposed water sharing plan to be made available in draft form as soon as possible so they can plan for the future. The bill, by at last allowing new players into the industry, is certainly welcome. Indeed, I have long advocated the Services Sydney proposal and all the other recycling proposals we have seen. However, we also need to ensure that there is an adequate return of water to the Hawkesbury-Nepean River. Clean water needs to be returned to the river so it is a viable food source for our many farmers in the Hawkesbury-Nepean region. I simply urge the Government to ensure that future contracts contain a clause requiring that some of the water is returned to the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, so it can be utilised for farming throughout the Sydney area.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [7.36 p.m.]: I welcome this legislation, which seeks to introduce competition into the delivery of water within the Sydney metropolitan area and on the Central Coast. We know the history of this legislation. We also know the history of the attempt by Services Sydney to crack into this market and the obstacles that have been placed in its way, and in particular the former Labor Premier's opposition to any attempt to introduce competition into the provision of water, to enable the sorts of reforms to water and waste water that are envisaged by this legislation.

I raise two issues with regard to the legislation. First, I ask the Minister why it is proposed that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART], rather than the Australian Consumer and Competition Council [ACCC], be the regulatory regime. I say that genuinely, given that it seems we already have in this nation at all ministerial councils calls for harmonisation to reduce regulatory duplication. If we are genuinely committed to that goal—I suspect the Minister would say he is—I ask why we would seek, under the legislation, to make the IPART the competition watchdog.

At the expense of being accused of deviating, my concern about the IPART is not that it is not an independent pricing and regulatory tribunal. If I were to speak honestly on behalf of, for example, public transport users over the past 12 years, I think one would find that there is not a great deal of faith in the IPART's rigour in ensuring that when agencies and others claimed better services if fares were increased, those better services were produced. I do not want to be political about that, but I simply make the point that the legislation would be a far more robust structure if it revolved around the ACCC.

Obviously this legislation is directed at one element of the water policies required to secure Sydney's future water supplies, and the Minister clearly understands the various facets of that. Recycling alone will not provide the security we need for the future, harvesting alone will not provide that security, the amplification of existing dams and the like will not provide that security, and the continued frugal use of these precious water resources alone will not deliver that security. All those things collectively are needed. The way we need to regulate behaviour, largely, is by providing the sorts of incentives necessary to get people to do the right thing.

In my council area, during the first year in which water regulations came in we recorded the greatest reductions in water usage across the Sydney metropolitan area—which is no mean feat for an area that is characterised by single homes on fairly large blocks with the sorts of exotic gardens that Ku-ring-gai is known for. Whilst recent surveys show that other areas, which are perhaps characterised by more medium density housing, have done more, the reality is that the area that I represent understands—as do other parts of Sydney— the need to marshal the use of water and that we will never go back to the way in which we used water previously.

The other matter relates to wider issues that the Minister obviously faces daily and that councils grapple with on a daily basis, but which provide great frustration to many residents across the city in the way in which they seek to do their bit—and perhaps go beyond their bit in relation to water issues. With the Minister's forbearance, I will take three minutes to highlight something that was raised at the Aussies Sustaining Australia seminar, which I think was at the start of last week. One of my constituents spoke briefly at the seminar and said:

I am Alicia Campbell. My husband Jason Young and I have two sons; Zane who is 6, and Luka who is 3. We all live in Turramurra, in Sydney, in a home that we love and are proud of.

Our home has a 25,000L rainwater tank. We drink, wash, and at the moment flush—rainwater! When it rains, like it has this weekend, we are absolutely delighted! 3814 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

So far, in the 1 year that we have lived in our home; we have saved just over 90,000L of water that DIDN'T come from Warragamba Dam!

We also have a wastewater treatment system that is being monitored; fully cleaned 'grey' water will be used for toilet flushing, the laundry, and irrigating our backyard. The results of the tests on our wastewater system are coming back—as clean as a mountain stream. Next year this will give us an extra 50,000L to be reused and reused endlessly.

That is nearly 150,000L per year that we have saved. Over 25 years we will save 3.75 Million litres of water.

For the moment, we will be growing more of our own vegetables, fruit and looking after our chickens—so we have our own organic eggs. As we can afford, we intend to regularly make improvements to our home to make it more sustainable. We are planning for solar panels to produce electricity. The satisfaction: Of making water when it rains and making electricity when it is sunny is irresistible.

I want to change the world. The first place to make a difference is me. Then my family; and my friends can see what I am doing.

The environment: This world; is the only one we've got.

I believe that all governmental policies should be aimed at rewarding individuals and businesses. Rewards, for each positive step towards reducing greenhouse gases, and rewards for each water saving action.

I want this world to be a better place: it starts with me and you.

I do not think anyone in this House would not admire the spirit that Alicia and Jason have put into their home, which I visited last Thursday lunchtime. What they have achieved is an extraordinary feat. But I regret that in talking to them about the way in which they have gone about this process, too often they made the point that they were pioneering; too often they made the point that they found it difficult to get information; too often, like many of us, they found too much information out there and great difficulty in trying to resolve what to do; and too often governments at both State and local levels provided few examples or incentives for people regarding what to do.

I say again that it is terrific to see the sorts of competition that this legislation seeks to bring into Sydney Water, but we need to do more than that. We need to make it as easy as possible for each and every resident across the city and across this State to do his or her bit in trying to address the water situation that faces this nation. I commend Alicia Campbell and Jason Young for what they are doing. I commend this legislation to the House and I seek a response from the Minister in relation to IPART and the ACCC.

Mr ALEX McTAGGART (Pittwater) [7.42 p.m.]: I support the Water Industry Competition Bill and cognate bill, and I acknowledge the Minister for Water Utilities at the table. The cognate bill deals with water issues on the Central Coast. I merely want to say that it is up to the local members and Central Coast communities to fight for their own water service. Tonight I speak about licensing principles that free up access to infrastructure and resources because it is important to acknowledge that both stormwater and sewage are very valuable resources.

Clause 7 (d) of the principal bill, under the heading "Licensing principles", refers to "the promotion of production and use of recycled water". That is the key point of the bill and I welcome this initiative. In Pittwater we have the Warriewood sewage treatment works, which uses potable water in its treatment process and then discharges treated water into the ocean via the Warriewood sewer outfall. Fortunately, the outfall finishes at the beach line; it does not go one kilometre out to sea as originally planned. I say "fortunately" because we regard that discharge as our own, which gives us an opportunity to take charge of it.

Pittwater Council and the community want to treat that water; clean it and use it on our playing fields. Then we want to discharge it back into environmental flows in our creeks because we have a reduction in creek flow. Also, in the future we want to service the approximately 3,000 new homes that we will have following the Ingleside land release. Ingleside is up on the escarpment, and the Minister for Planning has given instructions to prepare for the land release as part of the Metropolitan Housing Strategy. We want to be able to treat this water ourselves, have it sent up to Ingleside and put through the co-located pipes. We want to be able to use the grey water for flushing and all the other recyclable uses. We want to discharge it into the creek line corridors at Ingleside so that it can run back down and flush through to make up for water we have lost. A couple of significant golf clubs are capturing the water on the creeks that pass through their land and reusing it. Also, as the water passes through, it is picking up nutrients and phosphates, thereby exacerbating the problem of the influx of weeds in the Warriewood wetlands. We need to address these issues.

As a community we want to get hold of that water: we do not want to pay for it; we want to use it and be responsible for the recycling process in our local government area. We have the expertise and the will within 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3815

our community to do this. On the passing of this bill I will encourage Pittwater Council and seek support from the councillors, over whom I have a little bit of influence, to form a water corporation so that council, on behalf of the community, can lock up this valuable resource for the residents. At the moment Sydney Water discharges this water into the ocean. It is an asset, but it is being thrown away. We want to be able to use this very valuable asset. I support initiatives that freeze up infrastructure to allow us access to it. Clause 59 (3), under the heading "Damage to public roads and public reserves to be made good", states:

The cost of carrying out the work may be recovered by the local council or roads authority in a court of competent jurisdiction as a debt owed to it by the network operator.

Unfortunately, that is not good enough. About eight or nine years ago—and the honourable member for Manly will recall this—contractors cut up the centre of the road to get to our electricity mains, which were underground. We are still suffering from the poor repair job done by the contractors. I will not name them but they were a jolly band of Irish contractors and labourers. I think they went broke three or four times, but they kept reappearing—same trucks, same excavators, same people, just a different name on the side of the truck. Quite obviously, they were avoiding their responsibilities to repair roads and footpaths.

Under clause 59 (3), relating to the cost of carrying out the work, I ask the Minister to insist on a bond to enable the council or the roads authority to recover costs. It is imperative that before work commences, a dilapidation report is done because I understand in previous years disputes have arisen as to the condition of roads before contractors cut them up. Some councils—not Pittwater Council—have endeavoured to have the cut up road replaced by a nice, shiny road. So a dilapidation report needs to be done first, and a bond needs to be put in place because subcontractors tend to go broke. Apart from those two points, which might preserve the integrity of roadworks, I commend the bills to the House.

Mr DAVID BARR (Manly) [7.49 p.m.]: I support the bill. It is an important initiative. The electorate of Manly hosts the North Head sewage treatment plant, through which flows 40 per cent of Sydney's sewage. It could be said that Manly is on the wrong end of 40 per cent of Sydney's toilets. The northside ocean outfall sewer commences at Blacktown, 46 kilometres from Manly, and wends its way to Manly. The content of that sewerage system is treated to a degree, but something like 60 to 65 of the biosolids end up out to sea, and about 35 per cent is recovered for various agricultural uses.

We have not been doing nearly enough recycling, or using interception processes and reusing our sewage and undertaking sewer mining. This legislation is an important step in the right direction because it will enable private sector entities to negotiate with Sydney Water and Hunter Water to use existing water and sewerage infrastructure to avoid the need to build duplicate infrastructure to enter the market. That is a critical issue.

At the moment Sydney uses more than 600 gigalitres of water a year and over 400 gigalitres ends up out at sea. Currently, we are recycling 15 gigalitres, and the Government proposes to extend that to 75 gigalitres. But even 75 gigalitres is not a high proportion of the 400 gigalitres that goes to sea, or of the 600 gigalitres that we use. We ought to be doing much more to waterproof our cities by reusing water in a sensible way to ensure that Sydney is water sustainable. In the past we have undervalued water as an asset, using potable water where there was no need for that, and have not done enough recycling.

I have said in this House before that I think we need a combined Federal-State infrastructure program to provide water sustainability. I think that is the way we should move. But, in conjunction with that, this kind of legislation, which will allow non-government entities to tap into the infrastructure, is a way of providing a varied approach to water recycling. That may mean more interception and a devoluming of the system so that not so much ends up going to the ocean outfall sewers.

Many honourable members have made mention in this debate of Services Sydney. In principle, I support the ideas that those members put forward. That is a kind of centralised model in that they propose tapping into the system at the ocean outfalls, centrally treating the sewage and water, pumping it back into the catchments and using the solids for fertiliser for agricultural or rural purposes. That is one model, but under this legislation I think other things will happen at a local level. That will give councils and local businesses an opportunity to enter into arrangements enabling use and reuse of water in Sydney Water's infrastructure at the local level.

The more we can encourage that sort of thing, the better off we will be. The more we can tap into the system and beneficially reuse the water and biosolids, the more sustainable we will make Sydney. That is the 3816 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

aim of the game. I strongly support this legislation. I would like to see the Government moving more strongly on recycling, going for higher targets than 75 gigalitres, but this is important legislation and I support it. I think it would have the overwhelming endorsement of the people of Manly.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [7.55 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Water Industry Competition Bill 2006 and the cognate Central Coast Water Corporation Bill 2006. The object of the Water Industry Competition Bill is to encourage competition in relation to the supply of water and sewerage services and to facilitate the development of infrastructure for the production and reticulation of recycled water. The aims of the bill are to establish a licensing scheme to provide for private sector involvement in the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services; to establish an access regime to ensure that certain monopoly infrastructure services involved in the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services are available to persons seeking access to them; to facilitate the resolution of disputes between persons operating certain sewerage infrastructure and persons seeking access to the contents of that infrastructure; to facilitate the resolution of disputes between private sector bodies and their customers in relation to the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services; to enact provisions to facilitate the construction, maintenance and operation of infrastructure for the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services; and to protect private sector involvement in the supply of water and the provision of sewerage services by means of the creation of offences for that purpose.

The object of the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill 2006 is to provide for the constitution and functions of the Central Coast Water Corporation and for its establishment as a water supply authority under the Water Management Act 2000. The Water Industry Competition Bill largely results from Services Sydney's legal action against the Government through the National Competition Council and the Australian Competition Tribunal. Former Premier Carr apparently did not accept the outcome of that court case, and the Government sought to introduce its own competitive regime, with appeals to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal and not the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Some concerns have been raised in discussions about the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill.

It has been obvious for some time that Central Coast dam levels have been dropping. They are currently below 16 per cent capacity. Minister Campbell said in the budget estimates hearing that 18 months of water supply is left. Since 1997 communities from the Central Coast to the Hawkesbury River have been fighting for construction of a sewage treatment plant for Brooklyn and Dangar Island. This is when the project was placed on the priority one list with the Sydney Water Corporation. Unfortunately, recycling facilities are not attached to this construction. That is a matter that, in the light of level four restrictions on the Central Coast and low dam levels, is unexplainable.

According to Charles Essery, it would have cost approximately $3 million in extra expenditure when trenches were being dug for the pipe placement, but the Government did not think that was a very good idea. The outfall, which is currently planned to be built under road bridges, could have been extended further so that the water, a valuable commodity in 2006, and a commodity becoming more scarce on the Central Coast, could have been used for industrial and other suitable purposes, but obviously not for drinking. People in the area with fishing and prawn trawlers have had a number of concerns over the years about putting sewage treatment works into Brooklyn and Dangar Island. Recently I received a letter from Ralph Norington, the Hawkesbury representative for the estuary prawn trawl industry, addressed to Mr Terry Outtrim from the New South Wales Food Authority, which states:

Thank you for meeting with myself, Steven Reed and Glen Tritton from DPI on 15/9/06. Following our discussion I am putting the concerns of the prawn fishers of the Hawkesbury River in writing and hoping the Food Authority can achieve some developments in reassuring the community regarding the effects of the Brooklyn STP plume on the processing of prawns for human consumption.

It seems now apparent that the Food Authority, based on information provided by Sydney Water in the 2004 EIS update, will implement an exclusion zone of 500m radius around the discharge point, being the Pacific Hwy Road Bridge, for the processing of oysters and the cooking and cooling of prawns. We are concerned about the small size of this exclusion zone for these activities for the following reasons:

*Sydney Water has stated that they expect the plume to travel from the discharge point in a narrow elongated manner and interact with the surface layer of the water column. Plume distribution model diagrams from the original 2000 EIS … demonstrate that the plume will extend some kilometres from the discharge point with concentrations of dilution rates at the end of the tidal reach of the plume which can match those at the discharge point. These models, of which three represent the approved proposal, are for a total discharge of 0.33MI/day, the original output predicted in 2004 for Brooklyn and Dangar Island only. The model for the approved discharge point at the end of the flood tide (… Road Bridge location) shows the plume beginning to concentrate near Bar Point before the map ends, failing to demonstrate the extent of the plume in a common prawn trawling/cooking area.

14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3817

The letter continues:

*There has been no appreciation of the effects of tidal transport in this area of the Hawkesbury River. Unanswered queries have been raised by fishers regarding the effects of spring tides in the extent of the STP plume, for example, in the nearby prawn trawling area of Mooney Mooney Creek, where tidal transport of marine kelp and jellyfish occurs during spring flood tides. Also no information has been prepared on the effects of freshwater flows into the Hawkesbury after rains on the plume distribution and effect.

*Sydney Water have stated that further research is unnecessary, time-consuming and costly, as there are only 8 prawn trawlers that will be affected by this new outfall. There is no understanding of the distribution of fishing effort within the Hawkesbury Trawl Fishery. There are about 45 active prawn trawling operations extending from Broken Bay to Lower Portland, and following a strong rainfall pattern and freshwater influx into the Hawkesbury River most of these vessels could be catching, cooking and cooling prawns in the vicinity of the Brooklyn outfall for a period of time, as the prawns settle down river as a result of freshwater abundance in the upper reaches, before they migrate to sea.

*There has been a decline in community confidence of our product [the prawns] as a result of this new outfall. Whilst we know it is not operating yet, members of the local and wider community have expressed concerns about the process and their intention not to purchase our product as soon as it commences. We firmly believe that the community, along with commercial fishers, need to be informed and given assurances regarding this outfall and the extent of the exclusion zone, to eliminate confusion that currently exists with the safety of seafood consumption in this area on commission of the STP.

*The EIS and detached information relies on an efficiency rate of 100%, with no discussion of measures that would apply in times of human error, prolonged power failure leading to STP malfunction and effluent accumulation and possible resulting higher effluent flows from the outfall. We believe that the precautionary principle that is applied to management at all levels, including the fishing industry and commercial fishing on the Hawkesbury River, has not been applied in this case and a re-assessment with regard to possible STP flow variation and increases in the risk factor regarding seafood consumption must take place.

*Concerns exist about effluent increases in the future with future developments in the Brooklyn/Cowan area, and also in the Mooney Mooney/Cheero Point/Mt White areas to the north, and the resulting need to reassess the exclusion zone and the safety of seafood consumption in the Hawkesbury River. The Fishing industry is concerned about the effect of exclusion zones on the value and future of our activities on the Hawkesbury River, an issue that our managers at DPI are unable to adequately address with the current amount of research.

There are many concerns regarding the commissioning of this new outfall. We request that large scale modelling of the expected sewerage plume over a larger area be completed as soon as possible, taking into account the range of tidal, weather and differing flow conditions that are experienced and their effect on the plume, with direct reference to the safe cooking and cooling of prawns for human consumption. We are also asking the Food Authority to provide us, DPI and the community with a documented guarantee that prawns that have been cooked and cooled outside the exclusion zone will be completely safe for human consumption at all times.

The concerns put forward by Rolf Norington, representing the estuary prawn trawl industry, would not exist if there were no outfall under the bridges and if a recycling facility were attached to the sewage treatment plant at Brooklyn and Dangar Island. As I said, it is beyond belief that the Government does not see this as a golden opportunity to provide water not only for local purposes, such as the oval and other industrial uses, but also for the Central Coast, which is not very far to the north. I call on the Minister to address the need for recycling at the site. Although a lot of the construction is under way, the opportunity still exists.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [8.06 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who took part in the debate. Most of the contributions were constructive, certainly on the Water Industry Competition Bill. However, some of the debate on the cognate bill was quite laughable. I will refer to that shortly. I will refer first to the Water Industry Competition Bill. First, unlike the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal is in a position to balance the objectives of New South Wales, including competition, public health protection and consumer protection. Second, the access regime and licensing framework extends to all customers, not just large industrial users. Third, the price of access is to be negotiated between the service provider and the access seeker.

If agreement cannot be reached, prices will be determined by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal in arbitration in accordance with the pricing principles set out in the bill. To facilitate negotiations on price, the allocation of costs for declared services must be publicly disclosed. Fourth, there is no power for the Minister to withdraw licences on a whim, as suggested by the Opposition. Licences will be issued in perpetuity to provide certainty of investment. Maximum penalties for breach of licence conditions will not be imposed for trivial breaches. I stress that this is an important day for the reform of the metropolitan water industry, and the security of the community's water suppliers. The bill will facilitate competition in the metropolitan water industry and encourage recycling for the benefit of consumers, the economy and the environment. Private sector competition promises to bring dynamism to the metropolitan water industry, and with it innovation, new investment and technological advances in water management. 3818 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

The bill gives private operators who want to establish a water recycling business an enforceable right to acquire the raw material they need from Sydney Water's sewerage network. The new State access regime draws upon the significant water industry regulatory experience of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. Unlike the Federal regime, the State system will streamline economic regulation for the water industry under the control of an independent regulator while at the same time promoting competition and providing incentives to reduce costs and improve productivity.

It is of fundamental importance that the Water Industry Competition Bill ensures the continued protection of public health, the environment and consumers through the licensing framework. The bill does not privatise existing public water utilities, nor does it change their pricing arrangements. Private operators will be regulated by IPART, just as State-owned monopolies currently are. Publicly owned utilities will act as suppliers of last resort to protect people in the event of problems arising with suppliers. I remind honourable members that the decision of the Australian Competition Tribunal does not include the comprehensive protections of public health, environment and consumers that this bill contains.

The establishment of a comprehensive regime for licensing ensures that appropriate conditions will be able to be imposed and enforced. The conditions will ensure, for example, compliance with water quality guidelines. Sydney Water and Hunter Water will continue to have their prices independently regulated by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. Customers in those areas will still be able to obtain essential services from Sydney Water and Hunter Water. The reforms proposed by the Water Industry Competition Bill have been subject to extensive community consultation. They strike the right balance between facilitating competition and promoting recycling issues, and the protection of the environment and consumers. I am proud to speak in favour of this bill, which will ensure the continuing protection of the community and, as a component, will assist in securing Sydney's long-term water resources future.

Most of the issues mentioned by the Leader of The Nationals and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have been addressed during my reply. However, I make the observation that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seemed to want to visit consequences similar to WorkChoices upon consumer protections in New South Wales. He seemed to advocate that New South Wales should transfer all consumer protection issues to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC]. Judging from the experiences people have had with WorkChoices, I do not think his suggestion will sit very well with many people if the end result is similar experiences. In any event, that is the interpretation I placed on what he had to say. The honourable member for Pittwater said that he would encourage the Pittwater Council to utilise the provisions of this bill. I look forward to the honourable member providing that encouragement and to the Pittwater Council showing leadership in the local government sector in taking up the opportunities presented by this bill.

The Leader of The Nationals referred to recycling and said that there is no recycling taking place in this State. In response, I will list some projects that have been introduced as a result of the Government's determined and hard-won policy development during the short period in which I have been the Minister for Water Utilities. The Premier has turned the switch for the largest industrial recycling project in Australia in conjunction with BlueScope Steel at Port Kembla. This means that the equivalent of the fresh water use of 30,000 households now remains in Avon Dam because recycled effluent is being used for industrial purposes. The Government announced a project for recycled water use at Vales Point Power Station and the project will go to tender for construction. As recently as yesterday the Premier announced the Government's intention to make a $28 million investment in recycling at Kooragang Island in Newcastle—yet another industrial recycling project.

In conjunction with the Sutherland Shire Council, the Government announced a recycling initiative that is supported by the Water Savings Fund. Similarly, the Government has supported the Manly Council taking treated effluent from North Head. The Government is also using funds from the Water Savings Fund to work with Caltex and other industrial users at Kurnell. Expressions of interest have been called for in relation to an industrial recycling project at Camellia. That extremely large Western Sydney recycling project has been submitted to public consultation on environmental factors. I encourage people to examine documentation for the project and the consultation process. That project builds on the largest residential recycling project in Australia at Rouse Hill. The Government recently let a tender for the $50 million expansion of the project, which in turn builds on the introduction of dual-use recycled water at Sydney Olympic Park.

Without any doubt whatsoever, the Leader of The Nationals, who is of course missing in action, has failed to notice all of those recycling announcements in recent months. I was surprised that the Leader of The Nationals did not take the opportunity during this debate to endorse the construction of a new dam that will secure water resources for the Hunter and the Central Coast. I can only presume from his resisting the 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3819

opportunity to express a view that the Opposition opposes the $340 million plus commitment that was made yesterday by the Premier, $300 million of which relates to the construction of a new dam. I make those comments broadly in response to issues raised with respect to the Water Industry Competition Bill.

In relation to the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill, I express my appreciation for the support for the Government's attempts to achieve improvements expressed by the honourable member for Peats, the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast and honourable member for The Entrance and the honourable member for Wyong who pointed out very constructively the difficulties that exist on the Central Coast. The Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast also pointed out that the honourable member for Gosford has been relatively silent during this debate. I point out that this bill was introduced at the request of both the Gosford City Council and the Wyong Shire Council and that, in part, the purpose of this bill is an attempt to fix the dysfunctional decision making that is occurring on the Central Coast.

I thought debate had turned to comedy when I heard the honourable member for Gosford's contribution to this debate. I really thought that we had switched to Vaudeville. The honourable member for Gosford had the gall to say that there had been no announcement by the State Government of its intention to support the Central Coast during its water resource crisis. His statement shows that he probably spends too much time in Sydney and not enough time on the Central Coast. If he spent more time on the Central Coast, first and foremost he would know that the community is screaming out for a change in administration of water resources in the region. Barely a week passes in which I do not receive correspondence from someone on the Central Coast who wants something to be done about it. Both councils want to do something about it. This Government is providing those councils with the opportunity to address the issue by providing a legislative framework for decisions that will be related to future progress.

When the Opposition attempts to suggest that the Government has provided no support for a water resources utilisation model on the Central Coast it shows that the Opposition simply has no plan. It is hard to think of a more barefaced idiotic statement than that the State Government has made no announcements in support of the Central Coast during its water crisis. With the support of the New South Wales Government, some financial support from the Commonwealth Government and investment from the Gosford City Council and the Wyong Shire Council, a pipeline is being constructed from the Hunter to the Central Coast. That should be completed towards the end of this year and it will provide 27 million litres of water a day that will be transferred from the Williams River in the Hunter River system to the Central Coast. As recently as yesterday the Premier announced as part of the package that the pipeline's capacity would be increased to 35 million litres of water a day and that construction would probably be completed towards the end of the next calendar year. That project alone makes it beyond belief that the honourable member for Gosford would say that nothing is being done by the State Government.

As I mentioned earlier, the State Government, through Delta Energy, has announced that it will invest in water recycling at the Vales Point Power Station. The last time I checked, and certainly when I visited the site to make an announcement, that power station was situated on the Central Coast. It represents another investment by this Government in securing water resources for the Central Coast. The Tillegra Dam announcement yesterday builds on the pipe and grid network to provide positive benefits for the Central Coast. There is an immediate term, a medium term and a long-term strategy that the Government has put in place. Most of that strategy has been implemented with the support of, and through negotiation with, the Gosford City Council and the Wyong Shire Council on the Central Coast. The only people who do not understand what is going on are members of the Liberal Party.

Furthermore, I personally negotiated with the mayors of both the Gosford City Council and the Wyong Shire Council to encourage them to come on board with the Water Savings Fund. Round one of applications for Water Savings Fund support on the Central Coast has closed and the applications are being assessed. That is yet another example of the New South Wales Government doing something about water resources on the Central Coast. But during the debate, as honourable members would expect, the main hang up of the honourable member for Gosford was with industrial relations. He is obsessed with WorkChoices. His contribution merely served to demonstrate yet again that the New South Wales Opposition will not stand up for workers in New South Wales. The Opposition will cede all responsibility, any accountability and any protection of workers in New South Wales to the Commonwealth Government, if, by some mischance, it wins government in this State. I doubt that the Coalition will be in office, because people know it refuses to stand up to Canberra on these issues.

The Government opposes the amendments, and I will address them in detail at the Committee stage. These cognate bills are a result of a great deal of discussion and negotiation. The Central Coast Water 3820 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Corporation Bill certainly has the strong endorsement of Gosford council. It was agreed to at a joint meeting of both councils. Wyong Shire Council subsequently reneged on the agreement, and that is an example of the absolutely dysfunctional decision making on water on the Central Coast. It is also a demonstration of why the Opposition should look around the Central Coast, wake up to itself and support the bill. I commend both bills to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The Committee will deal first with the Water Industry Competition Bill.

Clauses 1 to 104 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! The Committee will now deal with the Central Coast Water Corporation Bill.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [8.23 p.m.], by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 and 3 in globo:

No. 1 Pages 2 and 3, clause 2, line 26 on page 2 to line 6 on page 3. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 3 Pages 63 and 64, schedule 7, line 25 on page 63 to line 4 on page 64. Omit all words on those lines.

The removal of subclauses (5), (6), (7) and (8) of clause 2 and the relevant parts of schedule 7 will ensure that the two councils, Gosford and Wyong, retain their water authority status after 12 months. The Minister never addressed that issue, but it is, as always, cleverly concealed in the fine print. Subclauses (6), (7) and (8) of clause 2 state:

(6) The day appointed by the proclamation establishing the Corporation as a water supply authority may be a day occurring any time before, or within 12 month after, the first anniversary of the commencement of section 4.

(7) The proclamation establishing the Corporation as a water supply authority may not be made except on the Minister's recommendation.

(8) The Minister's recommendation for the proclamation establishing the Corporation as a water supply authority may not be given unless each of the constituent councils has, pursuant to a resolution of the council, requested the making of the recommendation.

Those subclauses intend to ensure that the councils are stripped of their authority to make decisions for the benefit of the residents of the Central Coast. The residents would not mind if the councils were taken out of the picture so long as they had some assurance that the State Government would accept responsibility. However, the Minister is cleverly seeking to have it both ways. He does not accept that the Government has responsibility for the Central Coast. He simply says, "Here is the new water authority. But after 12 months"—after the State election, that crucial test for every Labor Minister these days—"I can, by simple proclamation, take action to strip the two councils of their authority, to take them out of the picture. But I do not have to accept any responsibility".

This is a disguise under which the Minister seizes control, but he does it very cleverly after 24 March 2007. Oh, what a date 24 March 2007 will be in the annals of New South Wales! Once that date is passed, so many things will happen. Under clause 2 of the bill the Minister will have the power of proclamation. Schedule 7.2 [4] amends schedule 3 of the Water Management Act to include the Central Coast Water Corporation as a water supply authority and schedule 7.2 [2] removes the councils as water supply authorities. Legal advice obtained by the council states:

2. The practical effect of the amendments is to denude the councils of the power to raise funds for water and sewerage services. They will lose the power to levy service charges and impose fees and other charges (s.310) and the power to recover the cost of existing works or to claim the cost of proposed works as a condition of granting a Certificate of 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3821

Compliance for development (s.306) under the Water Act. Once the councils' water distribution infrastructure is transferred to the Corporation, they will lose the power under the Local Government Act … to impose special rates and charges for water supply, as the condition for doing so is that land is supplied with water from a water pipe of the Council (s.552(1)(a)). Contributions cannot be exacted under s.94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 … for public amenities or services comprising water supply or sewerage works …

3. Accordingly, the effect of the Councils ceasing to be water supply authorities will be to prevent them from raising money, whether by levies or contributions, for water and sewerage services, and to restrict the power to raise money for drainage purposes. The extent to which it is able to impose a rate or charge for water, sewerage or drainage will depend, in the case of water and sewerage, upon the extent to which Council retains its infrastructure and the proximity of the infrastructure to the land upon which the rate or charge is levied. Once their infrastructure is transferred to the Water Corporation, the Councils will only have a power to impose a drainage charge or rate on land which is already served by drainage works: s.552(4) or where drainage services are actually provided to the land by Council: s.551, LG Act. It does not appear that the Local Government Act authorises the extension of a drainage rate or charge to land which does not already benefit from Council's drainage works.

4. These are severe limitations. Even if the Councils were only to transfer the headworks for water and sewerage to the Water Corporation, and retain other infrastructure, the Councils would be restricted to raising funds by a special rate or charge for water supply or sewerage services which are actually provided to or in the vicinity of the land levied by the rate or charge; s.552, LG Act. This suggests that any proposal to sever the system of water supply and sewerage reticulation is likely to fail without debt financing because it is unlikely that rates could fund new investment in water and sewerage infrastructure, at the same time as meeting the maintenance and repair costs of its retained infrastructure. For this reason, the proposal to divide the water supply and sewerage systems may be impractical. At best, it would increase council's debt. At worst, new projects will need to be funded from general revenue because the user pays system for development contributions and infrastructure payments will not.

There is a massive sting in the tail of this legislation. Clause 2 does not come into force for 12 months after the legislation is enacted, and then it is dependent upon the Minister's proclamation. It gets the Government beyond 24 March 2007 and enables the Minister, at the stroke of a pen, 12 months after the legislation comes into force to effectively strip the councils of their powers and leave them with their responsibilities. Councils will still have to develop water supply and sewerage services but they will be denied the funding to do so. As the legal advice states, at best it would increase councils' debt; at worst new projects will need to be funded from general revenue. That will cost every ratepayer on the Central Coast money; it will cost the ratepayers of the Central Coast a fortune. The honourable member for Peats, the Minister for the Central Coast and the soon-to-depart honourable member for Wyong did not seek to address this matter in their contributions to the second reading debate. I assume that they simply were not aware of the implications of the bill.

The provisions are all tucked away and one has to go through all the clauses and schedule 7 to find them. I am indebted to Wyong Shire Council and to its excellent mayor, Bob Graham, for supplying me with information and with senior counsel's advice. I am not asking the Committee simply to rely on my analysis of the bill; it is backed up by eminent counsel's advice. The Government, by adopting the attitude that it will not accept these amendments, is simply saying, "That is what the legislation is designed to do. The legislation is designed to have a peaceful period of 12 months when we can settle it all down, calm everybody down and ensure that everybody loses interest." Then, as senior counsel said, without any notice or warning the Minister can take action to denude councils of the power to raise funds for water and sewerage services.

I hope that those honourable members who represent Central Coast electorates are conscious of this provision. Let it be on their heads if they are prepared to vote with the Minister on this legislation. Effectively, they will be voting for increased rates in Gosford city and Wyong shire because that is the only way those two councils will be able to fund these works. The Australian Labor Party has run water advertisements on Central Coast radio. The so-called Kincumber branch of the Australian Labor Party financed those advertisements and head office distributed material, which is well known to the honourable member for Peats, in the Gosford electorate that seeks to attack Chris Holstein, the candidate standing against her, over the water issue. It has run similar attacks against Brenton Pavier in Wyong. Chris Holstein and Brenton Pavier are councillors on Wyong and Gosford councils.

The Australian Labor Party has done zilch and the Minister, in his second reading speech, was unable to state why the Government has no plan. The Australian Labor Party, by subterfuge, is now stripping councils of their authority and power. It will force the two councils into a situation in which they either go into debt or are required to increase their rates. I will not have a bar of it and I will not support this legislation. I challenge all members representing Central Coast electorates to join me in opposing this legislation. If they are not prepared to oppose it, the sorts of things they are saying about Chris Holstein and Brenton Pavier will be said about them in the difficult election they face in March 2007. They will be accused of being complicit in and compliant with what the Minister is trying to do, which is, effectively, to strip two councils of their authority after a period of 12 months and to let the bill fall on Central Coast ratepayers. That might be the Labor Party's plan, but it is not endorsed or supported by the New South Wales Coalition. 3822 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [8.33 p.m.]: As I indicated earlier, the Government opposes these amendments for very good reasons. Clearly, the honourable member for Gosford misunderstands how these provisions will work. After 12 months the corporation will become the water supply authority unless the councils request an earlier or later date. That later date may be no more than two years after the establishment of the corporation. The Minister cannot change the date without a request from the councils. The reason for allowing one to two years is to provide for a smooth, sensible and orderly transition of functions.

The bill will certainly change the way in which services are delivered but it will not cost ratepayers money and it will not prevent councils from obtaining funds. I am sure the honourable member for Peats is aware, as she has followed this debate, that councils have obtained independent expert advise that the proposed model will save them a significant sum of money. The honourable member for Gosford misinterpreted, misunderstood or misrepresented—or perhaps all three—those aspects of the bill. The Government opposes the amendments.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [8.34 p.m.]: The Minister referred to councils requesting an earlier or later date. The provisions to which the Minister referred relating to a period of two years or longer are simply not in the bill. If the Minister looks at clause 2 and schedule 7 he will see that those provisions are not in the bill. I ask the Minister to draw my attention to any provisions that refer to two years or a longer period. The detailed analysis of the bill to which I referred earlier was not provided by me; senior counsel provided that analysis. When I read out the relevant paragraphs the Minister did not dispute that the provisions of the Water Act or the Local Government Act will impact on the Government's decision to change the corporation into a water supply authority. Where are the provisions to which the Minister referred? If the Minister knows where they are, in either clause 2 or schedule 7, which are fairly short, he should inform me. The Minister said that this proposal will not cost ratepayers on the Central Coast anything. However, senior counsel said it will cost ratepayers on the Central Coast—and it has the potential to cost them quite substantially.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 32

Mr Aplin Mr Kerr Ms Seaton Mr Barr Mr McTaggart Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Merton Mr Slack-Smith Mr Cansdell Ms Moore Mr Souris Mr Constance Mr Oakeshott Mr Stoner Mr Draper Mr O'Farrell Mr Tink Mrs Hancock Mr Page Mr Torbay Mr Hartcher Mr Piccoli Mr J. H. Turner Mr Hazzard Mr Pringle Tellers, Mrs Hopwood Mr Richardson Mr Maguire Mr Humpherson Mr Roberts Mr R. W. Turner

Noes, 43

Ms Allan Mr Gibson Mr Price Mr Amery Mr Greene Ms Saliba Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Mr Sartor Ms Beamer Mr Hunter Mr Shearan Mr Black Ms Keneally Mr Stewart Mr Brown Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Ms Burney Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Campbell Mr McLeay Mr Watkins Mr Chaytor Ms Meagher Mr West Mr Collier Ms Megarrity Mr Whan Mr Corrigan Mr Morris Mr Yeadon Mr Crittenden Mr Newell Mr Debus Ms Nori Tellers, Ms Gadiel Mrs Paluzzano Mr Ashton Mr Gaudry Mr Pearce Mr Martin 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3823

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 31 agreed to.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [8.44 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 4 in globo:

No. 2 Pages 21 and 22, clause 32, line 30 on page 21 to line 7 on page 22. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) A constituent council may, by order in writing, transfer to the Corporation such of its staff, assets, rights and liabilities as are specified or referred to in the order.

No. 4 Page 64, schedule 7, lines 8 to 11. Omit all words on those lines.

Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 4 relate to council staff. Councils' control over both assets and staff will be effectively transferred to the Minister and will be lost to the councils. That will have the effect of denying staff the protection that the Minister said in his second reading speech he would afford to them. I refer once again to the legal opinion obtained by Wyong Shire Council. Senior Counsel's advice states:

Currently, Council employees are bound by at least two State awards … If on 27 March 2006 (when the work choice amendments commenced), the terms and conditions of employees were determined in whole or in part under a State award or State industrial law, a notional agreement preserving State awards came into operation …

That occurred under schedule 8 of the Workplace Relations Act. The advice continues:

The notional agreement, or NAPSA as it is known, took effect under Federal law. The NAPSA binds both employees and employers … If the NAPSA conferred a function or power on a State industrial authority, neither must be performed or exercised by that authority, although the parties to the NAPSA may agree to confer the function or power on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission … The NAPSA contains a term requiring disputes to be settled in accordance with the model dispute resolution process set out in the Act.

That is schedule 8. Senior Counsel's advice continues:

That process may involve the parties agreeing to appoint a person to conduct private conciliation and arbitration … The NAPSA has effect according to its terms and despite the State awards on which it is based and the IR Act … None of the terms of employment included in the NAPSA are enforceable under the law of NSW … In effect, it governs the employment relationship between persons who were previously parties to State awards— as is the case here—

but does so as a Federal instrument which cannot be controlled by State law.

I emphasise that point. The Minister is trying to hoodwink employees into believing they will be protected under section 146A of the Industrial Relations Act when that cannot be achieved. As we are aware, the High Court has upheld the Workplace Relations Act, the Federal instrument has come into force as the awards are now notional awards and, under Federal legislation—that is, schedule 8—the State cannot change that system. Accordingly, the Minister's promise is simply meaningless. The advice continues:

NAPSAs persist for three years after 27 March 2006 unless a workplace agreement or an award has been made under the WR Act.

The only agreement that can be made and the only award that can come into force to protect the conditions of employees of the Joint Water Authority or the two councils must be made under the Workplace Relations Act. The Minister's claim that employees will be protected under section 146A of the Industrial Relations Act is disingenuous. That is the effect of the Workplace Relations Act and of the High Court's validation of that Act today. It means that the Minister's promise to the employees of Gosford and Wyong councils that their rights will be protected when they are transferred to the authority is hollow because section 146A of the Industrial Relations Act, upon which he is relying, no longer has effect. The Minister must have known that when he made the promise to the employees and when he introduced the bill.

The Minister could only have been relying on the High Court invalidating the Federal legislation, but it has not. The Minister's promise to employees that they would be protected is meaningless and cannot be 3824 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

delivered because they are now subject to Federal legislation. Did the Minister know he was making a hollow promise? Even if section 146A were valid, application to confer an arbitrary power by agreement of the parties on the State Commission is inconsistent with the terms of the State awards, which continue as Federal instruments under schedule 8 to the Act. Any agreement by councils to transfer staff will be subject to section 146A and will be equally ineffective if NAPSA binds the Water Corporation.

Put simply, the union was concerned about the establishment of the Central Coast Water Corporation and made representations to the Government. As a result of those representations, the Government pledged to the union that, once transferred to the Water Corporation, employees would be safe. They are safe while they are council employees but the Minister has now given himself the power to transfer them by the stroke of a pen to the corporation and has told them that they will be protected under the Industrial Relations Act even though the Workplace Relations Act overrides that once they are employed by a corporation, as corporations are caught by the Workplace Relations Act. Accordingly, the workers are not protected and it is important that the Minister's hollow promise be demonstrated.

Schedule 9 to the Workplace Relations Act deals with the transmission of business rules for transitional instruments such as NAPSA. These rules are applicable to the Water Corporation if, as claimed, the councils transfer to the Water Corporation staff who will have operated their water, sewerage and drainage services. Clause 32 (1) of the bill authorises the transfer of staff, in which case schedule 5 applies. Schedule 5.4 provides that transferred staff are to be regarded for all purposes as having become employees of the Water Corporation on the day the transfer takes effect. Therefore, as soon as they are transferred they are subject to the Federal legislation and the Workplace Relations Act and have no protection under State law. Yet the Minister solemnly promised the union, and said in this Parliament, that they would be protected. The Minister is disingenuous at best and his advisers are ignorant at worst. The advice of Tim Robertson, SC, states:

If the Water Corporation is established soon, the transferred staff would, in their employment with Council, have been subject to NAPSA as Council is a constitutional corporation …Under Sch. 9, the rules relating to State transitional instruments apply to NAPSAs: …"State transitional instrument". Where staff of Council are bound by a NAPSA immediately before their transfer, the rules provide that the Water Corporation will be bound by that NAPSA (Sch. 9.19), for the same period as the parties would have been bound had the employees not been transferred.

The relevant cases decided by the High Court in 2000 and 2005 are cited. He continues:

There is no doubt that under those rules the Water Corporation is a successor to the business conducted by the Councils of water supply, sewerage and drainage. Hence upon the transfer of staff to the Water Corporation, both the Water Corporation and its employees will be bound by the NAPSA which had previously applied to the employees when employed by the Councils, but by dint of the transitional transmission of business rules under the WR Act.

Any provision of a State law—

That is now section 146A of the Industrial Relations Act, about which the Minister spoke—

inconsistent with the terms of the NAPSA, or the provisions of the WR Act will be invalid.

Hence, there will be no protection to the workers under State law—a hollow promise by this Minister and the delusion of the United Services Union, which made the representations. Accordingly, I invite the Minister to rebut the argument of Senior Counsel as to the effect of what he is proposing and to justify his pledge to the union and his undertaking to this House.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [8.54 p.m.]: I oppose the amendments. They make no change to the way in which the bill deals with the employment of staff by councils or the corporation. The amendments once again give the honourable member for Gosford the opportunity to engage his manic passion to get stuck into employees, to support WorkChoices, and to demonstrate yet again what will confront all workers in New South Wales should he become the Minister for Industrial Relations in a Coalition government, which I do not think will happen. The honourable member has a manic passion to sign up to the WorkChoices regime as opposed to trying to work logically to protect workers in New South Wales.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [8.55 p.m.]: The Minister did not answer the arguments about the effect of the Workplace Relations Act, about how his promise to the union would be unable to be fulfilled, or how section 146A of the Industrial Relations Act, which he relied upon, is now invalid as a result of the High Court upholding the Workplace Relations Act. The bill has nothing to do with whether the WorkChoices 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3825

legislation is good or bad, but it is relevant to the genuineness of the Minister's undertaking to employees. If the Minister can look after the employees as he promised the union and the community of the Central Coast, he will not transfer them to the Water Corporation; he will leave them where they are.

The Minister is insistent on having the power to transfer them to the Water Corporation but says that they need not worry as they will still be protected under section 146A of the Industrial Relations Act, a section which has now been invalidated by today's decision of the High Court, which he and everyone else knew would be the most likely outcome. The Opposition is not arguing one way or the other about the WorkChoices legislation; it is arguing about the integrity of the promise the Minister gave to the 300 employees of Gosford Council and Wyong Council who will now be transferred as employees of the Water Corporation and will no longer have the protection he promised them.

I am talking about the integrity of this Government and the promises it makes. The Minister did not answer any of my arguments in relation to the Workplace Relations Act; he merely asserted that I was manic. His advisers know and could have given him advice, but he did not ask for that advice. He just wants to rely on the Government's numbers to defeat the proposals. However, the people of the Central Coast like the people who work for them on Gosford and Wyong councils and want them protected. The Minister promised to protect them, and that promise has now been seen to be hollow.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clauses 33 to 63 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Bills reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

CHARTER OF BUDGET HONESTY (ELECTION PROMISES COSTING) BILL

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.

POLICE AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) BILL

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.

Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 14 November 2006

No. 1 Page 11, Schedule 2 [26], proposed section 132, lines 20–23. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) The Ombudsman is not required to refer a complaint (or part of a complaint) to the Commissioner if of the opinion that it is not in the public interest to do so.

(3) The Ombudsman may, instead of referring a complaint to the Commissioner, forward a summary or appropriate details of the complaint, if of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for not referring the complaint.

(4) The Ombudsman may cause a copy of a complaint (or part of a complaint) that the Ombudsman decides not to refer to the Commissioner to be sent to the Police Integrity Commission.

No. 2 Page 21, Schedule 3.25 [2] and [3], lines 22–25. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 3 Page 22, Schedule 3.25 [6], line 8. Omit "sections 13 (2) and". Insert instead "section". 3826 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [9.02 p.m.]: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.02 p.m.]: It is my understanding that the shadow Minister for Police, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, has agreed to these amendments. They relate to the role of the Ombudsman in the handling of complaints. That is an ongoing issue with NSW Police. Clearly, many genuine complaints need to be properly investigated, but many frivolous complaints are made to embarrass or make life difficult for serving police officers. Amendment No. 1 inserts these new subsections in proposed section 132:

(2) The Ombudsman is not required to refer a complaint (or part of a complaint) to the Commissioner if of the opinion that it is not in the public interest to do so.

(3) The Ombudsman may, instead of referring a complaint to the Commissioner, forward a summary or appropriate details of the complaint, if of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for not referring the complaint.

(4) The Ombudsman may cause a copy of a complaint (or part of a complaint) that the Ombudsman decides not to refer to the Commissioner to be sent to the Police Integrity Commission.

These amendments are designed to assist in the proper processing of complaints. It is hard to determine whether a complaint is genuine or frivolous. A great deal of police time is lost handling frivolous matters, and many police are discouraged from actively pursuing their duties because they are threatened with complaints and fear being lured into the trap of thinking that if they do not do anything, or if they go easy, they will not be subject to all the agonising that a complaint can cause them. We need to stand behind police and support them. We should ensure they are not subject to frivolous or meaningless complaints designed to distract them from the performance of their duty in the service of the community.

I commend the Hon. Michael Gallacher for the work he does in relation to police matters and I acknowledge the high regard in which he is held by serving police in New South Wales and by the Police Association. As a former police officer, he has brought outstanding qualities to the conduct of debate in the Parliament and throughout the community on police matters and he has demonstrated enormous knowledge of, and empathy for, serving officers of NSW Police.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CHILD EMPLOYMENT) BILL

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL

WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT BENEFITS) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 October 2006.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.05 p.m.]: It is not without irony that we debate these bills tonight after the High Court today brought down its decision on the Federal Workplace Relations Amendment Act, known as WorkChoices. The New South Wales Government made much of its opposition to the Federal legislation and spent some $2 million of taxpayer's money in a futile and fruitless challenge to that legislation in the High Court. Dozens of barristers have been enriched by the Government's extravagance. It achieved nothing. It was an empty political gesture. The $2 million would have been far better spent on crumbling infrastructure in any number of areas in New South Wales—schools, hospitals, police and roads. The Government chose to spend that money for its own political purposes. I will deal with each of the bills in turn. The Industrial 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3827

Relations (Child Employment) Bill was announced with great fanfare by the Government. This is a Government that runs on press releases and press conferences—nothing really happens apart from the press conference.

Mr Daryl Maguire: All spin and no substance.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: As the honourable member for Wagga Wagga so accurately puts it, the Government is all spin and no substance—or, to use that great American phrase, it is all sizzle and no steak. The Government learnt well from the lessons of the Hon. Bob Carr—he of unhappy memory—who was all about press conferences and not about serious governing at all. He never got beyond being Leader of the Opposition, and he never rose above being a journalist. He thought governing New South Wales was the same as writing articles for newspapers: that it was all about what spin could be put on the news, not what could be achieved. That is why nobody, but nobody, looking back on his ten years has any kind words to say about him. He was a failure, and the New South Wales community is suffering as a result.

In the great fanfare that accompanied the Industrial Relations (Child Employment) Bill we were told that all persons under the age of 18 years suddenly would be brought under the State system and that the Federal legislation would not apply to them. After much media spin and many press conferences and addresses, especially by the Minister for Industrial Relations, John Della Bosca in the Legislative Council, about what great things the Government was doing, we now have the Industrial Relations (Child Employment) Bill 2006. As was said by an eighteenth century philosopher: The mountain has conceived and brought forth a mouse.

This legislation seeks to exploit a so-called loophole in the Federal Workplace Relations Act that exempts State laws designed to protect children from the operation of the Federal Workplace Relationship Laws. This is a blatant political attempt by the New South Wales Government at getting some spin from this exemption in the Federal legislation. We will be interested to find out, and we will in time, just how constitutionally valid the New South Wales legislation is. Presumably it will be held to be invalid at some stage, but that does not worry the New South Wales Government, because it is only interested in spin. It does not care whether the legislation is enforced. It has achieved its objective of grabbing a newspaper headline. Given the events of the last few weeks, not just last week, that involved the Hon. Carl Scully, the Hon. Kerry Hickey and Mr Milton Orkopoulos, and John Della Bosca paying parking fines out of taxpayer revenue, not a lot of media attention is on the Government's stunts on workplace relations, and there will not be much publicity.

The bill supposedly imposes conditions on New South Wales corporations relating to the employment of persons under the age of 18; sets out minimum employment conditions, including rates of pay, loading, and penalty rates for workers under the age of 18; and generally seeks to bring all persons under the age of 18 employed by a corporation under the New South Wales industrial relations system. We will see how valid the legislation is and how much of a stunt it is. The High Court ruled by five votes to two that the Federal workplace laws are valid. The New South Wales Government expected that, but that did not stop it from spending $2 million of our money. We will see how far the stunt goes.

I think the people in New South Wales are a bit tired of the Government and its media stunts. They want the Government to do something about the water crisis and the drought. They want the Government to do something about the crumbling infrastructure in trains, electricity and roads. They want the Government to increase police numbers to provide an effective police presence. They want the Government to end the understaffing in our hospitals and the ongoing problems in emergency wards of our hospitals. They want the Government to fix up our schools and stop them from decaying any further, particularly the toilets, and to give proper support to our teachers.

They want the Government to govern! I know it is a surprise to the Government that the people of New South Wales are asking it to govern, to do what it was elected to do, and to fulfil its constitutional task and the oath of office, rather than engage in meaningless spin. The best example of spin was the great helicopter trip by the Premier yesterday, when he carefully avoided meeting any members from the Hunter. He would not even land the helicopter in the Hunter. He wanted the big bird's eye view before heading back and ensuring that he was shown on TV in the hope of convincing people that he was achieving something for the State—when all he did was promise a dam that will not be built for another 10 years. In another 10 years all will be solved! The Industrial Relations (Child Employment) Bill is part of ongoing spin.

The Industrial Relations Further Amendment Bill 2006 is designed to allow the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission [IRC] to hear cases in which an employee claims to have been dismissed for reporting breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This is yet another attempt to exploit an 3828 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

exemption under the Federal legislation, which does not apply to occupational health and safety, but remains in force in the various States and Territories. The Iemma Government, Mr Della Bosca and his advisers thought that this was a chance to pull another media stunt and provide spin. They found a way for the Industrial Relations Commission to hear unfair dismissal cases: if an employee is unfairly dismissed for reporting a breach under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the IRC will have jurisdiction and will take advantage of the exemption granted under Federal legislation.

This is another very obvious, very blatant attempt not to achieve anything for workers but to put a spin on what the New South Wales Government is doing so that when Ministers address union meetings and attend Labor Party branches they can talk about what a great job they are doing in circumventing the Federal legislation. They can put their hands on their hearts when addressing the annual conference of the Australian Labor Party and say how hard they fought the Federal legislation, knowing that this legislation can now be overridden by the Federal Parliament, should it so desire. It is yet another meaningless gesture.

The Industrial Relations Commission will have no jurisdiction over constitutional corporations and unfair dismissals. As a result of the High Court decision today, the commission's power over unfair dismissals will be confined to the very narrow band of cases in which people are employed by an individual employer or in which the corporation that employs them is not a constitutional corporation, that is, a financial trading or foreign corporation, or in which the employee is an employee by the Crown. They are the only cases in which the IRC will have jurisdiction.

This legislation is an attempt to open the door to give the IRC a little bit more power, in the hope that the IRC will open the crack wider until, by a series of judgments, the door is totally open. But if that does not happen the State Government does not care because it will have made yet another gesture to the union movement, which, in many respects, has had its day. Union membership in the private sector is now less than 16 per cent, which means that 84 per cent of people in the private sector choose not to belong to a union.

If we were to take away the coercive Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU], particularly in the construction and mining industries, both of which form part of the private sector, and allow people in both those industries a free choice, that 16 per cent would drop to about 6 per cent. Unions in the private sector have had their day. They are part of ancient history because the public has lost faith in them.

It is not for members of Parliament to say whether the unions are past tense in the history of industrial relations in this country. The people have made that decision, and those who work in the private sector have decided not to join the union. Even in the public sector, only 48 per cent of employees belong to a union, be it the Public Service Association or any other union. Once again, the majority of people in the public sector choose not to belong to a union. The number of public sector employees in a union is inflated when one considers that almost every police officer joins the Police Association and almost every teacher joins the Teachers Federation. But even the majority of public sector employees, who have the right to choose whether to be in a union, choose not to be in one.

The Government's base of relying on trade union money and trade union manpower is shrinking. It does everything it can to prop up the trade union movement. It passes every piece of legislation it can. It makes every gesture it can to encourage trade union involvement and to allow union officials to feel important, but union officials know they are working and operating from a shrinking base. They will achieve very little if they continue to rely upon the Australian Labor Party. As everyone knows, the majority of workers in the State, including most unionists, vote for John Howard. The statistics are there for everyone to see: The majority of union members voted persistently for John Howard in 1996, 2001 and 2004. They did not vote for John Howard in 1998, but they did in 1996, 2001 and 2004. I am glad to note the presence in the Chamber of the Minister for Local Government. He was not previously a member of a union, but he is now. I would like to hear his views on parking fines and driving in this State, and the Opposition would welcome his contribution to the debate. But I digress.

This legislation is just another empty gesture and another nail in the coffin of this decaying Government. If ever a Government was rotten to the core, it is this Government. Everyone associated with this Government is part of a mere edifice that is falling down at a great rate. Let me examine the third cognate bill, the Workers Compensation Amendment (Permanent Impairment Benefits) Bill. The Government is always saying what a great job it is doing in relation to workers compensation. When this bill was announced we were told that that it would increase benefits to permanently impaired workers by 10 per cent, and that did sound good. However, let me examine the fine print of the bill. The bill applies only to injuries suffered after 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3829

1 January 2007. This legislation is a con trick. Not a single worker who is already injured or who will be injured between now and 1 January 2007 will derive any benefit from this bill.

As there is a lead time of between 18 months and two years before matters are determined by a commission, especially permanent impairment which takes a long while to determine, in the overwhelming majority of cases the legislation will not come into effect until 2008 or 2009. I received a letter from the Law Society of New South Wales relating to the so-called wonderful improvements for injured workers. Aside from the fact that workers have to wait to be injured until after 1 January 2007, workers compensation benefits are not indexed. By increasing benefits by 10 per cent, the Government is doing no more than catching up with the rate of inflation. This bill provides no sudden surge in benefits for workers at all. The letter written by the Law Society states:

However, limiting the application of the legislation to injuries after 1 January 2007 instead of claims after that date means that workers will not begin to benefit until their injuries stabilise to allow WPI assessments to be made. It usually takes about 18 months to two years for this to occur. Therefore the increased benefits will not begin to be paid until well into 2008 and in many cases 2009 and beyond.

Honourable members do not have to take my word for this. The Law Society spelled it out in its letter dated 25 October 2006. The letter goes on to state:

This is in stark contrast to the recent benefits to employers in terms of premium reductions, which have an immediate effect.

So the so-called premium rate deductions come into force at once, but the workers have to wait until 2009. The letter goes on to state:

The Law Society calls for the limitation in the Savings and transitional provisions of the Bill to be removed, so that all injured workers with pending claims and who are entitled to compensation for permanent impairment may benefit from the increase.

The compensation available to injured people has decreased in real terms under the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill introduced in 2002 as part of the Carr Government's draconian tort reforms because benefits paid under the current regime are not indexed by reference to movements in annual weekly earnings, as occurs for compensation paid under the Motor Accidents Act 1988 and the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.

There is no indexation of workers compensation benefits. The actual benefits received by workers after injury have been decreased because they are not adjusted for inflation whereas other benefits, such as those paid under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act, are indexed to take account of inflation. This legislation is from the party that wants to protect workers in this State, so it says, especially workers who are tragically injured; yet it does nothing for them. With sleight of hand the Government states that benefits will increase by 10 per cent after 1 January 2007 for workers who were injured after 1 January 2007, but that 10 per cent makes no allowance for the factor of inflation since the Carr Government introduced legislation in 2002. It does not take account of the inflation of 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Moreover, workers will wait until 2007 and 2008, making a total of seven years of inflation at an average of 1.5 per cent or 2.5 per cent each year. The 10 per cent increase provided in the bill does not make up for inflation rate rises since 2002. Let the Labor Party and the Labor Government pretend that it is looking after workers in the face of a 10 per cent increase that does not even meet increases in inflation over the past seven years. So much for the party of the workers! So much for the party of the working class! The letter from the Law Society goes on to state:

The Bill adds insult to the 95% of people injured in workplace accidents and now unable to access compensation for their pain and suffering due to the harsh whole person impairment thresholds.

It is now time for urgent reform to the injury compensation legislation, and the introduction of some serious reforms, rather than the token response the Government has offered with this Bill.

They are not my words, or the words of the New South Wales Coalition. Those statements were made by the Law Society of New South Wales which represents 15,000 solicitors in this State. The Law Society has determined that this bill is a token response, and the letter to which I referred was signed by the President of the Law Society of New South Wales.

The House has before it tonight two industrial relations bills which are empty attempts at spin. They are empty attempts to win over the trade union movement and they represent this Government pretending to look after workers. The bill will achieve nothing at all for the workers. This bill represents an attempt by the Government to exploit exemptions granted under the Workplace Relationships Act for child employment and 3830 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

occupational health and safety. In a final act of spin, the bill purports to provide a 10 per cent increase for permanently impaired workers, but it does not even keep pace with inflation and will not come into effect until 2008 or 2009. So much for the claims of the Governments that it is looking after workers in New South Wales! So much for the claims of this Government that it is looking after permanently impaired and injured workers in New South Wales.

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.22 p.m.], in reply: The three bills before the House, the Industrial Relations (Child Employment) Bill, the Industrial Relations Further Amendment Bill, and the Workers Compensation Amendment (Permanent Impairment Benefits) Bill, are each, in their own way, an important part of this Government's vision for maintaining fair and equitable treatment for both employers and employees in this State. The New South Wales Government has proposed the Industrial Relations (Child Employment) Bill because it is becoming more and more apparent that WorkChoices is not just unfair but encourages employers to adopt poor industrial relations practices that inhibit productivity improvements. Children are particularly at risk in such an environment.

WorkChoices suggests that it is appropriate for employers to reduce wages and alter conditions of employment, such as overtime, shift and penalty rates. Employers cannot be blamed because WorkChoices encourages them to compete by reducing their labour costs. Under WorkChoices, young workers stand to risk losing a range of conditions and entitlements: Saturday penalty rates have gone, Sunday penalty rates have gone, overtime rates have gone, rest breaks have gone, ordinary hours have gone, annual leave loading has gone, roster protections have gone, first aid allowances have gone, meal allowances have gone, and the uniform allowance has gone. I ask the Opposition what type of odds it would give to a child successfully negotiating a positive outcome. What bargaining power does a child have? I have been appalled by what I have heard is happening to kids under WorkChoices. I will deal with that in more detail shortly.

The Opposition spokesman indicated that the State Government had spent over $2 million in a worthless campaign in the High Court. The $2 million claim is just not true, nor was the campaign worthless. The cost to the State Government today is some $380,000. With the awarding of costs, the bill will total no more than $1 million. The honourable member for Gosford may think that the Government undertook this as a media stunt, and may even think that the media is not interested. The Government did not undertake the challenge in the High Court for those reasons. No matter whether the media is interested or not, the Government was in court attempting to defend the workers. I commend the Minister for taking that action. The Government was protecting workers, their conditions and the future of Australian working conditions.

So far it has been kids working as trolley collectors who have been the lowest paid of all: some are paid just $3.50 an hour. The media has reported other kids working for as little as $4 an hour. One caller to the New South Wales Fair Go Advisory Service told how his 17-year-old son was paid just $6.75 an hour after tax by his incorporated landscaper employer, which is between one-half and two-thirds of what he would have been paid under the award's junior rates. Like the New South Wales Fair Go Advisory Service, other States have also seen a spike in calls and complaints: kids working for $6.50 an hour; a major fast food chain asking their young workers to pay a $30 deposit for their uniforms; other employers asking young workers to pay several weeks wages to buy their uniforms, or more than $10 for the name tags the staff are required to wear. There have been other horror stories too. Under WorkChoices employers have tried to make their young workers work for free! One well-known pizza franchise told its young workers that for every minute they were late for a shift they would have to work an extra five minutes without pay.

Mr John Turner: Point of order: The Parliamentary Secretary has been here long enough to know that he is supposed to reply to the debate, to reply to the contribution of the honourable member for Gosford. He has touched on that, but is now going into the realm of a second reading speech. A reply should be in response to what was said in the debate.

Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marie Andrews): Order! I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: Indeed, I certainly will, and I will address the implications of the bill because that is what it is all about. In reply to a second reading debate, I will address what was said during debate regarding the conditions that apply or do not apply to employees, as suggested by members opposite. That deserves a reply, and I will certainly do that. Another young worker, desperate to get a job, managed to find work in a restaurant. He was asked to work an unpaid work trial, a practice that is illegal in New South Wales. He did a good job and was asked to come back. In fact, he spent five months going to work on an unpaid 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3831

trial basis. But what takes the WorkChoices cake are the cheap, nasty and ugly Australian Workplace Agreements employers are offering young workers.

We all remember Amber Oswald, a 16-year-old worker from the northern beaches of Sydney, who was terminated from her job at a juice bar and rehired on an Australian Workplace Agreement [AWA]. Her hourly rate dropped from $9.52 to $8.57 and no penalty rates were payable. A recent Roy Morgan poll found young workers aged 14 to 17 are those most likely to be employed under an AWA. In the first two months of WorkChoices, 1,162 workers under 18 years signed AWAs approved by the Office of the Employment Advocate, and 675 of those AWAs, half of them, covered young workers in retail and hospitality, the industries where two-thirds of young workers in New South Wales are employed. With this bill those young workers' pay and conditions will now be at least equivalent to the State awards that cover those industries.

The New South Wales Government has heard a lot about AWAs through callers to the Fair Go Hotline. One AWA that a student called in about was meant to be better than the State award, according to the employer, yet it contained no penalties and a flat hourly rate less than the award. The really sad part is that even with this information the student did not want to approach the employer because of fear of losing the job. A mother called in, saying that her 16-year-old daughter had been asked to think about what she would like in her AWA as her restaurant employer had said he would negotiate new conditions, except that conditions such as penalty rates and loadings were off the bargaining table and not up for negotiation. Another young worker in Terrigal had been in her job for a year and had been working under an award.

Mr John Turner: Point of order: Clearly this is a second reading speech. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot get away from his prepared speech. He is supposed to be replying to contributions to the debate, to the comments of the honourable member for Gosford, yet he has a prepared speech. Either his staffers are very quick typists or he is giving another second reading speech. He has been here long enough to understand the rules of the House. He should reply to the debate.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will respond to the debate in the appropriate way.

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: I believe I am. I am responding on behalf of the young workers of the State and to the implications given in the contribution by the honourable member for Gosford. I intend to respond. The young worker in Terrigal was offered an AWA. All her workmates were made redundant and then reinterviewed. It was made clear that if they did not sign the AWA they would be out of a job as well. Between a rock and very hard place is where WorkChoices has put most young workers. They want to work, they like the work, and they like the money they earn. But as these stories show, their enthusiasm is not enough to see them paid well.

The best thing about this bill is that regardless of where employers sit in the WorkChoices-created landscape, and regardless of whether it is an AWA or any other arrangement, young workers now have enforceable and easily understood entitlements and conditions and they will be fairly paid for their efforts. If they question the pay they are receiving, or the way they are being treated, they will have the protection of an effective unfair dismissal system. A child at work is very vulnerable to exploitation because a child is unlikely to know all the rules that adults take for granted but that children have not experienced. What is the difference between a fair and an unfair direction? How long can I be required to work before I should be given a rest break? If I start at 5.00 a.m. should I be paid the morning shift rate for the whole day? If I finish after 8.00 p.m. should I get the night shift rate for all my hours? What do I do if I think that the workplace is unsafe or that there is a better way of getting the job done? What do I do? Whom do I speak to?

WorkChoices discourages employees from taking the initiative and suggesting more productive ways of performing their jobs. That is because WorkChoices permits employers to dismiss an employee for no proper reason at all. Employees live in silent fear that they may lose their jobs, so they are reticent to raise concerns that may jeopardise their employment. When it comes to children, this is particularly unreasonable. In fact, it is just plain unfair. From the belated letter I have received from the Federal Minister, Kevin Andrews, it appears that the same lobby groups who are unashamedly taking advantage of the harshest aspects of WorkChoices when it comes to children are turning up the heat on the Federal Government. Mr Andrews is now claiming that the States' laws to protect children will have no effect. If that is true, it will be because Mr Andrews' own laws deny children those protections. 3832 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

When it comes to children at the workplace the Federal Government has shown a degree of neglect the Iemma Government cannot countenance. The removal of the concept of fairness, the safety net, the no-disadvantage test and the unfair dismissal protection is a dereliction of duty towards children who are left to deal directly with the might of a corporation. In a take-it-or-leave-it situation, the Federal Act leaves to a parent or guardian the invidious decision of jeopardising their child's prospect of employment if they act on their good conscience and refuse to consent to what an adult would consider to be an unfair AWA. Section 16 (3) (e) of the Workplace Relations Act preserves the capacity of the States to make laws about child labour and the Iemma Government has legal advice to that effect.

When it comes to children at the workplace it is incumbent on any responsible government to ensure that there is a real safety net to protect the vulnerable. WorkChoices has removed those protections for children so the Iemma Government must act, and it has. I remind the House that on 30 August this year, on the ABC's PM radio program, Minister Andrews, when referring to the Child Employment Bill, said, "All of these sorts of things have been preserved for the States and they're quite entitled to make laws".

Mr John Turner: Point of order: The Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, is not even attempting to address issues that have been raised in debate. He is talking now about a radio interview that was not referred to earlier in debate. He had an opportunity to refer to that matter in his second reading speech, or he could have got someone else to do it. Clearly, he has written this speech. No way in the world could his associates have put that speech together in the past 10 minutes. This is a clear breach of the standing orders. The Parliamentary Secretary must be asked to reply to debate and not to read a second reading speech.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Myall Lakes is aware of the wide-ranging nature of debates that occur in this Chamber. We could go chapter and verse through the way members abuse the opportunity to speak to legislation. If the Parliamentary Secretary chooses to reply to the debate in a certain way and his reply relates to the bill, which it does, he can continue on that path.

Mr John Turner: Point of order—

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Are you canvassing my ruling?

Mr John Turner: I am taking a point of order. If the matters to which the Parliamentary Secretary is referring come within the scope of the bill he can reply to them. Under the standing orders the Parliamentary Secretary is obliged to refer to what was said in debate and not read a second reading speech. Those issues should have been debated during debate on the second reading. Clearly the Parliamentary Secretary is flouting the standing orders.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! For many years debates in this House have encompassed what the Parliamentary Secretary is doing on this occasion. As long as he confines his remarks to the bill and responds to matters that were raised during the debate, he may continue.

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: As I indicated earlier, the Iemma Government is not prepared to stand by and watch while young workers conditions and rights at work are reduced in this way. It is taking action to provide balanced protection for young workers—action that the Federal Government refused to take. The New South Wales Government is reintroducing a fair minimum safety net for children employed by constitutional corporations entering into workplace agreements. That is not only economically responsible; it is a duty that the Government owes to children. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: I draw your attention to Standing Orders 74 and 75. Standing Order 74 states:

A Member who has moved a substantive motion or the second or third reading of a bill may speak in reply.

Standing Order 75 states:

The subject matter of a reply is confined to matters raised during the debate.

I do not wish to canvass your ruling, but the Parliamentary Secretary, during his reply, clearly introduced new material. After listening carefully to his contribution I realised that he failed to address matters that were raised in debate, which is contrary to standing orders. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3833

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Given the ruling I have made, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary complete his reply by responding to matters that were raised during the debate. I do not think there is a problem at this stage. The Parliamentary Secretary has the call.

Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: I deal now with the Industrial Relations Further Amendment Bill. The Iemma Government has pledged to do all it can to protect workers and businesses in New South Wales from the disruptive, costly WorkChoices legislation imposed on us in March this year. This bill will shore up protections for injured works by co-locating them with other provisions that together deal with rehabilitation and increase job security for workers dismissed or making an occupational health and safety complaint. It will also strengthen the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission to hear industrial cases of national importance and, importantly, authorise the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales to provide alternative dispute resolution services to parties to Federal workplace agreements. Not only are workers and employers being protected from dismissal when injured or expressing health and safety concerns under the Government's legislative proposals; seriously injured workers will also receive greater benefits in relation to their injuries.

Amendments in the Workers Compensation Amendment (Permanent Impairment Benefits) Bill provide for a 10 per cent increase in dollar terms to the lump sums paid to workers for permanent impairment under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. A program of reform and sound management of the workers compensation scheme by this Government has enabled these increases in work injury benefits to be made at a time when employer premiums have been significantly reduced. I commend these bills to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

COMPANION ANIMALS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 October 2006.

Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [9.45 p.m.]: As happened almost exactly one year ago, another piece of legislation has been rushed into the Parliament to fix up legislation that was rushed into the Parliament at the end of last year. At least I was given notice of this legislation, unlike last year when the bill was simply slipped under my door the day on which debate was to occur. The Opposition does not oppose the Companion Animals Amendment Bill. However, I will now qualify that non-opposition and place on the record significant concerns that I have relating to this bill, as I did with the Companion Animals Amendment Bill 2005.

Both the 2005 and the 2006 bills are legal minefields and will lead to further confusion in relation to the keeping of companion animals and to the definition of restricted and dangerous dogs. After the disastrous legislation that was introduced in 2005 there is no doubt that we need further legislation. It simply was not effective in stemming attacks, in particular on young people. Whilst on that matter I again highlight the Government's abysmal lack of action in educating young people in their behaviour around dogs.

In the last budget the Government introduced with much fanfare its education program. On the face of it that program sounded okay, but when we investigated further we established that the program would not be implemented for at least a year. In the meantime there have been some tragic attacks on young people. We have little information as to what will be contained in the education package, how it will be implemented, who will bear the cost, and whether any of those costs will transfer to councils. Even though I have asked repeatedly what will be done for young people between the ages of zero and four I have not received satisfactory answers. I raised this issue concerning what happens to young people between the ages of zero and four because of the vague answers I have received relating to the education package.

It is clear from attacks that have been occurring in recent times that the most vulnerable in our society are toddlers. I have still not received a satisfactory answer from the Minister as to how his education program will assist younger people, nor is there anything in the legislation relating to that issue. In talking about informing people I wonder how much additional information the Government—in particular this Minister and his department—took from groups to whom this legislation either applies or affects. Immediately following the Minister's second reading speech I made contact with Dogs New South Wales, the RSPCA, New South Wales Farmers, the Local Government and Shires Associations, the Animal Welfare League, New South Wales local government rangers, and the Australian Veterinary Association. 3834 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

The feedback I received, which has been limited as a number of those organisations have not yet come back to me, indicates that there has not been full consultation. Apparently, there were some cursory discussions, but again the Government used its trademark of non-consultation and proceeded with its own agenda, irrespective of the valuable input that could have been given by other parties to the debate and the construction of the legislation. In his second reading speech the Minister said that the Government had listened to the community voicing its expectations about the control of dogs. The Government talked to experts in dealing with animals and it also listened to councils and dedicated law enforcement officers at the coalface enforcing this legislation. To date, the discussions I have had do not indicate that that is an accurate reflection. I will make some more specific comments about that issue later.

I turn now to the terms of the bill. I have any number of concerns about the wording of the bill and the consequences that may flow from it, including direct consequences to owners of dogs, people who might be attacked by dogs and the officers who will have to enforce the bill. The bill may also give rise to significant legal ramifications and actions. Perhaps the most highlighted aspect of the bill is that it provides that a dog kept for the purposes of hunting must be declared a dangerous dog under the Act. That provision concerning hunting dogs is in the amendment to section 45, which also groups other interpretations of "dangerous dogs".

Amongst other things, it states that a dog is dangerous if it has, without provocation, attacked or killed a person or an animal; has, without provocation, repeatedly threatened to attack or repeatedly chased a person or an animal; or has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal. Those three descriptions are significant, particularly when bracketed with proposed new section 45 (d), which provides that a dog is dangerous if it is kept for the purposes of hunting. The Minister foreshadowed the possibility of significant confusion in relation to this part of the legislation when he said in his second reading speech:

Dogs such as golden retrievers, cocker spaniels and setters that are used to flush out and retrieve birds are not included in this category. Nor are small terriers such as Jack Russells and fox terriers.

May I ask what "dogs such as" means? It could be a legal minefield. The Minister went on to say:

This is about dogs that are kept for hunting game such as wild pigs and deer.

But I fail to see anywhere in the legislation a classification of "hunting" or a "hunt dog" and what such dogs may hunt in order to be classified hunting dogs. Whilst under the Interpretation Act due notice must be taken of the Minister's second reading speech in any court matters, the fact is that the interpretations in the bill are so wide that we could drive a truck through them. The first excuse that people will offer will obviously be: "Sir, my dog is not for hunting; he is just the family pet." How does an officer who must decide whether the dog is used for hunting, and is therefore a dangerous dog, apply the interpretation? Must he rush some deer and wild pigs across the backyard to see the reaction of the dog that is supposedly the family pet?

When people are confronted with the fact that their dog is going to be declared dangerous and they will, therefore, have to build an special enclosure, for which development consent must be sought from council, and meet other costs associated with the categorisation of the dog as a dangerous dog, they may elect to take the easy way out and simply call the dog a family pet. That is but one of the legal minefields in this bill. What happens if the person declares the dog to be a family pet, the officer takes that advice and the dog goes on to maim somebody? Is the officer that allowed the family pet classification liable in any way? Will officers tend to lean the other way in order to protect themselves and declare any dog that looks like a hunting dog to be declared such, regardless of whether it hunts?

The Opposition certainly believes dogs bred for hunting should classified as dangerous dogs. However, the method of interpretation and the likely application of that interpretation contain so many holes that I believe the provision will be abused, particularly by those who are irresponsible in relation to dog ownership—and regrettably there are a number of such people within our community. The Minister might address in his reply how he intends council officers or other persons authorised by council to determine whether a dog is a hunting dog and what level of proof will be necessary if a person asserts that the dog is merely the family pet.

Proposed new section 45, which relates to the classification of hunting dogs as dangerous dogs, also states that a dog that displays unreasonable aggression is to be declared a dangerous dog. What is unreasonable? Who will determine what is unreasonable? Is there an appeal against "unreasonable"? If so, what is the appeal process? Likewise, proposed section 45 states that a dog that threatens to attack can be classified as a dangerous dog. What is the burden of proof as far as the word "threatens" is concerned? To some people who are afraid of dogs a mere warning bark or a growl may be construed as a threat. What happens if the officer acts on a warning 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3835

bark or growl? I know that appeals are available and I again highlight the legal nightmare created by this legislation, which is no doubt accentuated by the Minister, who, of course, made those rather infamous remarks that even dangerous dogs have rights. That point is even more pertinent as the Minister's second reading speech states:

The bill contains a provision to allow councils to take immediate action to seize and destroy any restricted or declared dangerous dog that attacks.

What are the consequences of this provision if the owner chooses to appeal? Are we going to see in this bill what was in the 2005 legislation: the opinions of temperament experts to determine what is a display of unreasonable aggression? The whole issue is a legal minefield. Under the bill an owner can simply plead, even following a dog attack, that in his or her view the dog did not show unreasonable aggression.

A further section states that there is a prohibition on the sale or the giving away of dangerous dogs, and of course a hunting dog is now classed as a dangerous dog. As we know, many dogs are bred specifically for hunting. However, a person who breeds such dogs for gain will certainly be reluctant to have the dogs classed as hunting dogs because he or she will be prohibited from selling the dogs or from giving them away. Therefore, there is even more incentive for such people simply to call their dogs family pets. I note that the bill also enables authorised officers of a council to make dangerous and restricted dog declarations. The council does not have to make that declaration.

The bill also contains a provision that allows a dangerous or restricted dog to be seized and destroyed if the dog attacks or bites without provocation. I will address separately that part of the section that relates to non-compliance with muzzling or enclosure requirements on two separate occasions over a 12-month period. However, first I will discuss the provision that enables a dog to be destroyed. As I understand it, the council-authorised officer can make a decision on the spot that the dog is dangerous. It would seem from the reading of the new bill that he can then destroy the dog. However, it is also my understanding that the owner of the dog has the right to appeal against a dangerous dog description when it is applied to the dog. Therefore, I believe that, rather than being destroyed, the dog would have to be kept until the appeal procedures had been determined, which could take some months. The Minister might like to clarify that issue also.

The Minister might also like to clarify the appeal rights if the dog is summarily destroyed. The second part of that section, which says that a dog can be seized and destroyed if there have been two separate breaches of enclosure or muzzling requirements over a 12-month period, is of concern to the Opposition. Two might be two too many. One breach might be an accident but two may be the result of negligence or deliberate non-compliance. The Opposition thinks the Government should re-examine that section. I note that a further provision of the Act empowers an authorised officer of the council who reasonably suspects a person of having committed an offence under the Act or regulation to arrest the person if the person refuses to give his or her name and address or gives a suspected false name or address. These are significant powers under the Act.

Whilst I acknowledge that the Local Government Act confers powers of arrest, it nevertheless imposes a significant liability on the authorised officer. It would be interesting to know whether there is any indemnity against prosecution for the authorised officer should the person arrested consider that he or she has been the victim of a wrongful arrest. If not, I would imagine authorised officers would be extremely reluctant to exercise their powers under that section when perhaps they should and it would be in the interests of public safety to do so. With the expected increase in the number of dogs that will declared dangerous under the legislation—and there will be a huge increase in the number of such dogs when hunting dogs are included—will come significant added burdens on local government.

For example, once a dog is declared to be a hunting dog the enclosure in which the dog has to be kept must comply with local government regulations and the Act. In order to comply with this part of the bill enclosures will have to be built in accordance with council requirements and, therefore, will have to be inspected by council. I note also that enclosures must be constructed within only 28 days of the dog being declared dangerous. With a stroke of the Governor's pen, probably thousands of dogs will be declared dangerous and their owners given 28 days to build enclosures for them. I will return later to the specifics of that provision, but it will place a huge burden on council officers to ensure reasonable compliance with the Act and to make sure that the enclosures comply with the Act.

Any tardiness on the part of council officers in inspecting enclosures could make the council officers or the council liable should the dog escape, particularly if the dog escapes from an enclosure that has not been ticked by council. Having said that, I invite the Minister's views on the liability of council and council officers 3836 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

who cannot inspect the thousands of enclosures that will be required to be inspected within a reasonable time should any dog escape from one of those enclosures and cause any damage to another animal or person. I suppose the Minister could argue that proposed new section 12A would be some defence in relation to council's liability. The proposed new section states:

(1) The owner of a dog must take all reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from escaping the property on which it is being kept.

However, it is clear to me that under the legislation council will have a primary liability because it will have to provide the compliance certificate and inspect the enclosures. Should it not do that and the dog escapes, the owner could simply rely on section 12A by saying that he or she took "all reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from escaping". I note that the legislation allows an inspection fee of $100 for each enclosure. That aspect has pluses and minuses.

The first is that for once the Government has not shifted the burden of the cost of these amendments to councils in their entirety. For instance, the $100 will not go into the Companion Animals Fund and be stripped of 20 per cent before it goes back to council. However, will the $100 cover council costs? Many of these enclosures may be located, particularly in country New South Wales, many miles—in some cases a hundred miles or more—from council's administration centre, thus requiring extensive travel time. At least it will be a welcome change from the Government's usual practise of shifting costs to local government. Notwithstanding that observation, the Local Government and Shires Associations still have significant concerns about the cost of implementing the bill. In correspondence it has reflected my earlier comments that the Government did not, even though the Minister would claim otherwise, really consult on this bill. In that regard I note the association states:

The Association was involved in preliminary discussions for the proposed bill that took place on 10th and 21st July 2006 although the Association first received a copy of this bill at 12.35 pm yesterday.

That was 24 October 2006. The association went on to say it was only able to respond to the bill on 25 October 2006. That is hardly consultation! The association voiced a number of concerns, which I will now spell out. The association said:

The control of dangerous dogs is important but it needs to be recognised that companion animals contribute to the amenity of life of many people, particularly the aged and the disabled, therefore a balance is required.

While agreeing with the general focus of the bill to tighten the control of dangerous dogs the Association has concerns relating to the costs involved in the enforcement of provisions in the bill. There is also concern at the lack of resources provided to councils by the State Government to assist in their enforcement role.

Specific matters of concerns include:

• The Association expects that the number of dogs that will be declared dangerous will be greatly increased by way of the amendment that requires all hunting dogs to be declared dangerous dogs. As a result it is expected that the number of seizures of these dogs will rise and the resulting appeals to the Local Courts will have cost implications for councils. This will be especially relevant to country councils.

• There are issues concerning the person authorised to issue the certificate of compliance for a dangerous or restricted dog enclosure and whether this would be done by council's Building Inspector or an Accredited Certifier.

• The issue of whether a person would require a Development Application for the construction of a dangerous dog enclosure by way of a council's Development Control Plan would need to be clarified. This may be an issue where a person owns a number of dogs for the purpose of hunting and the size of any enclosure in which they must be kept.

• There will also be a cost to councils where all working dogs will need to be registered. It is acknowledged that many working dogs are currently registered but there are many that are not.

If the Government does not move them, the Coalition will move amendments to exempt working dogs. The association continued:

• Informal advice from the New South Wales Rangers Association is that there is a real possibility that councils will have to employ extra staff to cope with the enforcement provisions of the amended Act. This would be particularly onerous on smaller country councils that already receive on average only $1,000 per annum from the Companion Animals Fund.

I might add that the Rangers Association has also spoken to me about indemnity concerns if it destroys a dog. The Local Government and Shires Association continued: 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3837

• It is estimated that the cost of each new Ranger employed by a council is approximately $100,000 per annum which includes wages, on costs, maintained vehicle, specialised equipment etc.

• This will mean that councils may have to divert funding from other areas to fund the enforcement provisions of the amendments.

Under the circumstances the Association believes that the bill should be amended to require a comprehensive review of the funding arrangements of the Companion Animals legislation to ensure that councils do not have to discharge their responsibilities under the Act by withdrawing services in other key areas.

The association also believes that the bill should be amended to consider the funding arrangements of the Companion Animals Act generally. Another interested party that has contacted the Liberal and The Nationals is the New South Wales Farmers Association, which has expressed concerns about removing the exemptions to register and microchip working dogs. The association puts a very cogent argument as to why working dogs— and this is the important point—domiciled on farms should not need to be registered and microchipped. Indeed, the Minister, in exempting working dogs in the Western Division from being registered and microchipped in this legislation, is acknowledging the argument of New South Wales Farmers. The arguments of the New South Wales Farmers Association are as follows:

The New South Wales Farmers' Association (the "Association") does not support the proposal in the Government's Companion Animals Amendment Bill 2006, to remove the exemptions for compulsory micro chipping and registration for working dogs which are domiciled on farms.

The Association strongly agrees with the current definition of the primary purposes of a working dog and is not seeking a broadening of that definition. However, against the Association's advice in the late 1990s, the definition included working dogs domiciled in town as well as dogs kept on farm.

The Association does not oppose the compulsory micro chipping and registration for all dogs living within a town boundary and all dogs used for hunting and guard dogs wherever they may be domiciled.

However, the Association insists that exemptions for micro chipping and registration be given to all dogs which are domiciled on farms and used primarily for the purpose of droving, tending, working or protecting stock or being trained for any of these purposes (i.e. working dogs under the current definition).

This enables the management of dog types which are commonly a nuisance and dogs in urban areas, where they are commonly a nuisance.

It is dogs kept in town which cause significant problems for the community. There is no opportunity for such behaviour from working dogs, which remain on farm or are restrained on vehicles. Prominent publicised cases of dog attacks have been dogs kept in questionable conditions in towns and not farmers working dogs domiciled on farm.

The Association acknowledges the proposed waiver of the registration fee for working dogs however there remains cost discrimination for micro chipping. Farmers have multiple working dogs living on farm (minimum 2 and can have over 10) compared to most urban households which commonly have one or two dogs. Farmers have higher turnover of dog ownership over the life of their business because farm dogs work in relatively dangerous environments compared to those in an urban family.

The exemption proposed for Western Division working dogs is supported by the argument that they are unlikely to be taken to town. Farmers' working dogs right across New South Wales are just as unlikely to be taken to town and if they are transported anywhere they are required under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to be restrained.

I understand that the Government will amend the legislation to exempt any working dog domiciled on land upon which rural rates are paid from the need to be registered and microchipped. If that is the intention of the Government, the Opposition will not oppose that amendment. If it is not the case I give notice that the Opposition will move such amendments in the upper House. Again, there are many unanswered questions in relation to this legislation. Again it is being rushed through at the death knell of the Parliament and, in this case, the death knell of the Government. But the Minister is used to rushing, as we know from his driving record. Perhaps he would not be in as much trouble as he is with his driving record if he slowed down a bit and got the legislation right. By the same token, perhaps the legislation that was brought in only a year ago might not have needed the amendments it needs now.

I foreshadow that possibly even further amendments will be needed with this legislation because of the manner in which it is being brought in by the Government and the Minister. Surely after 12 long years, Labor could get something right but, as I said, I suspect in this case that there will be further problems with this legislation. Having said that, as I mentioned at the start of this speech we do not oppose the legislation. To do otherwise would be irresponsible, but we urge the Minister to get off his backside and get the education program into place relating to the education of young people about dogs and, in particular, to spell out clearly and concisely what he and the Government intend to do about the education process for young children from the ages of zero to four years who will not be given the chance to learn about dangerous dogs in programs through schools. 3838 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [10.11 p.m.]: I appreciate some of the comments that were made by the honourable member for Myall Lakes in leading for the Opposition. I understand that the Minister for Local Government and the Government have already agreed to accept quite a few of the points that he made. But it was not the Opposition's urgings that have led to these measures; it was people like myself, the honourable member for Bathurst and others who have personally taken up this matter with the Minister for Local Government. We suggested examining part of the Act to see whether it needs some minor amendment by regulation, and the Minister agreed to that course. That does not reflect any great credit on the Opposition; it is part of the democratic process at work within the Government. But I am sure the Minister will have more to say about that.

I thought much of what the Opposition spokesman had to say was a bit of a dog's breakfast. I have no problem supporting the Companion Animals Amendment Bill. If we have to amend the Act every year, so be it. What has been obvious in the past few years is that no matter what legislation is put before Parliament, dogs will not understand a sign that says "Dogs not allowed here". They do not read the signs; they are read by the adults or educated children with those dogs. Nor do dogs read signs such as "Dogs are not allowed on this part of the beach" or "Dogs should not be unrestrained". In fact much of the criticism of dogs are really criticisms of ourselves. I do not want to take up the time of the House rambling on with quotes about the faithfulness of dogs. I just refer to the famous case of the dog in Scotland—I think the dog was called Bobby—that sat and waited for about 15 years for its master to come home. He had drowned 15 years earlier. Dogs are better pets to their owners than are most owners to their dogs.

The bill makes sure that when dogs act in a repeatedly threatening fashion they can be declared dangerous before they attack and perhaps kill a child or elderly person or some small animal. The bill is an attempt to make our community safer so that people and animals can live in a humane world in which the dog still remains our best friend. You get friendship and love from people, but you get real loyalty from a dog. They say, "If you want to get a friend in politics, get a dog." I think we should sometimes bring that in mind.

I want to go through some of the points of the bill because I do not think there is anything unreasonable about them, and I thank the Minister for introducing them. The first object of the bill is to enable a dog that displays unreasonable aggression or a dog that is kept or used for the purposes of hunting, which the honourable member who led for the Opposition spent a lot of time on, to be declared a dangerous dog under the Act, and to enable authorised officers of councils to make declarations under the Act in relation to dangerous dogs and restricted dogs instead of the council itself having to make such a declaration. That is an important object, and perhaps we will hear later from the Lord Mayor of Sydney. It is interesting that at the moment the council has to make that decision. It is much better for the decision to be made by council officers as long as they are properly trained and understand what constitutes a dangerous dog or unreasonable aggression.

I have a dog which, as I have declared before, is a cattle dog and bull terrier cross. It was once described by a fellow on a television show as being very intense. I suppose a dog that lives with me would have to a bit intense! But not all dogs are the same, and because it was intense it was very intelligent, and it is easy for intelligent and intense dogs to run rings around their owners, who, despite doing all the wrong things with their animals, are welcomed home late at night from Parliament and the like. I guess the Minister will address how to determine what is unreasonable aggression. But my dog, as long as it has a ball or stick to entertain it, will not take its eye off the ball or stick no matter what I am doing, and no matter who is going past. The problem often comes from what I call little boutique or designer dogs—combinations of breeds that people in this modern world use as apparel, a status symbol or something.

Mr David Barr: You are not talking about a labradoodle, are you?

Mr ALAN ASHTON: I am not talking about anything that is mixed with a poodle, no—not labradoodles and so on. The point is made by the interjection of the honourable member for Manly. We no longer live in a world where we have an Alsatian, a cattle dog, a couple of kelpies and three or four other breeds. We now live in a world where people have designer dogs and boutique dogs. The worst thing I see these owners do when they see big dogs is grab their little dogs and hold them up high. The message that sends to the larger dog is to jump up and attack the little dog. If you pick up a little dog and hold it above your head, the thinking dog's reaction is, "This is part of the game; I've got to jump up and get this dog."

I am clearly speaking to the bill and making the point that sometimes, no matter what legislation is put before a Parliament, it has to be enacted in a way that reflects commonsense. Just the other day I heard a terrible story about some dogs mauling kangaroos on the former Australian Defence Industries site in the far western 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3839

suburbs. I do not think those dogs decided to go to that site, jump the fence and attack those kangaroos. Clearly, someone or some group decided to throw the dogs over the fence and sic them onto the kangaroos. This morning I heard another story of another kangaroo found on that site having to be taken to hospital and eventually passing away. Of course, the dog committed the crime, if you like to call it that, but the owner—or, as this legislation says, the person in control at the time will be deemed the owner—has organised or authorised that the dogs attack the defenceless kangaroos.

I want to make the point that this legislation is not meant to in any way restrict a person who owns the average household pet, which is likely to be no more aggressive than barking at the window as people go past, or barking at the postman. I have discussed with vets why dogs run up and down some backyards and threaten all sorts of havoc to neighbours and so on. Vets have said to me, "That is their fun for the day. What do you expect? You go off to work at 7 o'clock, the family have all gone, and you will not come back until midnight. The dog has got to have something to do, and it will run up and down the backyard, chasing the neighbour's cat or dog. It is all part of the dog's fun in life."

But when we hear of incidents such as the one when the young girl was terribly mauled and died some months ago, of course we all cringe and think how terrible that is. We see pictures of very savage looking dogs being taken away. The bill will make it a lot easier for those sorts of dogs to be declared dangerous—some are already restricted, especially the fighting dogs, which we have dealt with before—before savage incidents like those I have mentioned happen. I would like to comment on one of the miscellaneous amendments to the Act. The honourable member opposite spoke about removing the provision that exempts working dogs⎯that is, stock or farm dogs⎯from registration and identification.

I understand that a dangerous dog will wear a red and yellow fluorescent collar, and with proper education people should be able to identify a dog wearing that collar as a dangerous dog. But will we get the message through that you do not poke a stick at a dog wearing such a collar? If a sign says, "Do not put hand on glass" what do we do? We put our hand on it! People do those sorts of things. When I was a schoolteacher I learned not to get up at assembly and say, "Kids, don't bring chewing gum to school" because the next day at assembly every kid would chew gum. The point is that we must educate people to understand that a red and yellow fluorescent collar is not a cult thing to which people can draw attention and say, "Look at my dog. This dog can take out everybody in the street." Councils must find out about dangerous dogs in their area, as well as dogs that are likely to be declared dangerous. A $1.8 million education campaign will be undertaken.

I hope that councils, as they do in my area, send out as much information as they can to ratepayers and residents to encourage people to make proper complaints about what they perceive to be dangerous dogs that they might know or that might live next to them that are not properly caged, muzzled or walked on a lead. We do not have a tradition in this country of dobbing in our neighbours or our friends, but the safety of young children, the elderly, postmen doing their rounds, and people generally is at stake. People should not be attacked by a dog that is potentially dangerous or declared dangerous.

Importantly, although powers are vested in the Local Government Act, they are vested in the full council. It is time we recognised that a policeman does not have to be on site to arrest someone and take a dog away. A properly trained council officer has the power to detain the dog and the person in charge of it, and ask the appropriate questions. If the person in charge gives the wrong answers, that is an offence. No bill will totally cover everything, but I think this bill goes as far as it can, given that the only species that do not have the capacity to understand it are the canines we are talking about.

Mr DAVID BARR (Manly) [10.22 p.m.]: A balance has to be found when dealing with canine companion animals. We all accept that the public has to be protected from dangerous dog species and dogs that are dangerous, but the balance is difficult to find. I have some reservations about the Companion Animals Amendment Bill following correspondence from a constituent living in North Balgowlah. At the moment a dog can be declared dangerous if it has, without provocation, attacked or killed a person or animal, or has repeatedly threatened to attack, or has chased a person or animal.

Under the bill a dog can be declared dangerous if it displays unreasonable aggression, whatever that might mean, or if it is used for the purpose of hunting game such as wild pigs and deer. Councils have had to make dangerous and restricted dog declarations, but the bill now authorises council officers to do this. But what burden will that place on them in their desire to act in the interests of ensuring that they err on the side of caution rather than make a decision that could rebound on them or the council? 3840 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Dr Vivian Miller, a constituent in North Balgowlah, has a family pet called Brandy, a four-year-old cross bullmastiff, which was declared dangerous under the Companion Animals Act. As a consequence of changes to the legislation she will have to upgrade the facilities in which she keeps the dog. Apparently the dog, which was not on a leash when she was transferring it from the house to her car, which was parked outside her property, attacked a neighbour's four-month-old puppy. The puppy broke its hip. I am informed that no skin was broken in the attack. Dr Miller believes that the puppy's hip probably was broken when it was grabbed by the owner and pulled, but that would be a matter of dispute.

This and another dog are family pets that her four- and five-year-old children have enjoyed. The dog has shown no aggression to the children or other dogs when it has been kennelled. Dr Miller is very upset that she has to build another enclosure for the dog. The council is not prepared to change the declaration because it views the act as a serious attack, although it is a matter of some dispute between the neighbours as to how serious it was. Dogs disagree with each other and get involved in altercations.

Ms Clover Moore: Like humans.

Mr DAVID BARR: The same as humans do, as the honourable member for Bligh says. The problem is to find the balance so that little children and adults are not attacked by dangerous dogs. Perhaps this is contentious. There is room for disagreement as to how dangerous the dog is. The owner does not think it is at all dangerous; she thinks it was just one of those incidents. As a consequence of that incident the dog has been declared dangerous. The family now has to comply with requirements about enclosures, which has upset them considerably.

I am concerned that council officers may want to err on the side of caution and declare as "dangerous" dogs that may not be a risk to others. This is a possible example of that occurring. It seems that once that is done, the consequences are extreme for what, in this circumstance, is a family dog. I know that in this kind of legislation the balance is in favour of ensuring that the public is safe as opposed to ensuring the enjoyment that many of us get from companion animals. I would like the legislation looked at in more detail.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [10.27 p.m.]: When the Companion Animals Act was introduced into Parliament in 1998 and then reviewed in 2003 I was critical of its punitive aspects undermining responsible ownership. I have always maintained that governments should shift their emphasis from punishing and restricting dangerous dogs to educating the community about the benefits and management of animals. The Companion Animals Amendment Bill 2006 maintains this punitive focus to control dangerous dogs in the community.

Some of the new provisions in the bill include enabling dogs that show unreasonable aggression and dogs kept for hunting to be declared dangerous, enabling council rangers rather than council itself to make such declarations, prohibiting the sale or transfer of ownership of a dog declared dangerous, enabling the seizure and destruction of dangerous or restricted dogs if they attack or bite without provocation, requiring owners of dangerous and restricted dogs to obtain a $100 certificate of compliance for the enclosure of the dog, increasing penalties for offences under the Act related to dangerous/restricted dogs, empowering authorised council officers to arrest and detain persons reasonably suspected of an offence, and requiring councils to include a detailed statement in their annual report on enforcement of the Act.

On many occasions in the House I have discussed the benefits of pet ownership. Pets provide companionship to many people who live alone. Pets teach children affection, and dogs, particularly, provide motivation for their owners to take regular walks and exercise, and facilitate social interaction, thereby reducing isolation and building a feeling of community, which is particularly important in our city communities, where the majority of people live. Pet ownership—dog ownership—is saving the national health bill $2 billion a year.

Despite the proven benefits of pet ownership, too often there is an official attitude that pets are not a legitimate part of life and that pet owners are second-class citizens. Education and support to achieve cultural change is needed and is more effective than punitive restrictions for achieving effective and responsible care and management of pets. We should focus not only on dangerous dogs—such sensational incidents get all the publicity—but also on our responsibility as a Parliament to educate the general community about animal behaviour and the enormous benefits that pets bring to people's lives. We must also educate people on how to select a suitable pet and pet owners on how to responsibly manage them.

Animal behaviourist Dr Kersti Seksel says that a dog's behaviour usually reflects its owner's treatment of it and that community education is the only method to prevent dangerous dog behaviour. I will refer briefly to 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3841

action that the Council of the City of Sydney is currently taking. The council takes its responsibility to educate the community about the responsible ownership of companion animals very seriously. During November and December we are offering residents a series of education programs, information sessions, and events for pet owners and non pet owners. The council will provide free microchipping and registration at the Sydney Park, for dogs, and at the Cat Protection Society. The council will provide 10 training sessions in dog obedience and five awareness and safety sessions.

Dog attacks are serious and clearly are of great concern as a community safety issue, because they can cause physical and emotional suffering for the human victims. I acknowledge that legislation is required to address the very small minority of dangerous dogs. In Parliament I welcomed the approach of temperate assessment to declare dangerous dogs, as opposed to identifying restrictive breeds, when it was introduced. However, I am not convinced about the new provision to declare a dog dangerous on the basis of a display by it of unreasonable aggression.

The bill does not provide a definition of "unreasonable aggression" and the condition will be determined at the discretion of council rangers—who under this bill take on the responsibility of making declarations. How will council rangers have an understanding of dog behaviour to know exactly what is unreasonable? For example, should a dog be declared dangerous just because it angrily growls when it hears a vacuum cleaner or a fire engine? There are many things that can cause gentle, loving dogs to bark with anger, without their posing any threat of violence.

To ensure that dogs are not incorrectly declared as dangerous, council rangers will need further training. Unreasonable aggression is far more subjective than the current provisions under the Act, such as attacking or killing a person, or threatening to attack without provocation. Proper exercise of the discretion will require extra resources for training; otherwise it could result in harmless dogs being declared dangerous by rangers who will be inclined to err on the side of caution. I therefore call on the Government to provide extra resources dedicated specifically to educating council rangers about dog behaviour.

The bill also gives additional responsibilities to local government. The number of dogs seized under the bill is likely to increase due to the increased numbers of dogs declared dangerous and the new obligation to seize dogs if their muzzling requirements are not complied with twice in 12 months. The New South Wales Rangers Association has told the Local Government Association that the bill will create a need for additional ranger staff. Furthermore, councils will have the responsibility of issuing statements of compliance for dog enclosures. While it is noted that the $100 fee collected for the certificates can go to councils, the Local Government Association has concerns over whether this will cover the additional costs that come with the bill, especially if the need for new enclosures increases the number of development applications to councils.

I am concerned that the new responsibilities under this bill may have to be carried out at the cost of other council services unless the State Government provides adequate financial support. In my electorate and in the city I often speak to very proud and responsible dog owners. In such a densely populated area, people may be isolated and alienated and they often rely on their pets for support and comfort. The excessive focus on punitive measures for dangerous dogs undermines the right of New South Wales residents to have a pet, and it limits the support needed for responsible ownership.

Animals become a problem for neighbours or wildlife if they are not being given the care they need. Dogs locked in backyards become nuisance dogs. The current legislative environment needs to be changed to provide essential support and education to ensure responsible ownership, and reform is needed to allow responsible owners to have access to public open space, to travel on public transport, and to be allowed to have pets in apartments and rental accommodation.

Mr ALEX McTAGGART (Pittwater) [10.33 p.m.]: I support the Government's Companion Animals Amendment Bill. The aim of the bill is simple: to protect the community from dangerous dogs. I make no apologies for supporting the bill, even though it has significant shortcomings in relation to the enforcement of its provisions and the increased cost to councils. But people come first. People should be able to walk in our streets and enjoy recreation in our parks without fear of aggression from dogs. That sums up the Pittwater electorate's position on this legislation.

The bill is a response to an horrific attack in Warren in the Central West last year in which a four-year-old girl was mauled and killed by hunting dogs. Last year the Parliament passed extensive amendments to the Companion Animals Act that strengthened the powers of councils to control dangerous and 3842 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

restricted dogs, particularly pit bull terriers. The bill goes one step further by concentrating on dangerous and uncontrolled dogs, particularly hunting dogs. The Government appears to have listened to stakeholder groups, such as the RSPCA, Dogs New South Wales, the Animal Welfare League, the Local Government and Shires Associations, and the Institute of Law Enforcement Officers before drafting these amendments. The provisions of the bill do not remove a person's right to own a dog for companionship or to reasonably protect their property and families. The new provisions are designed only to penalise owners whose dogs endanger safety.

The bill allows councils and courts to declare a dog to be dangerous if it displays unreasonable aggression or is kept or used for hunting. The definition of "unreasonable aggression" is a problem. Reliance should be placed on the experience and expertise of council rangers. Dogs such as cocker spaniels and golden retrievers that are used to flush out and retrieve birds are not included, nor are small dogs such as Jack Russells and fox terriers; but dogs that are kept for the purpose of hunting pigs or deer are targeted. The bill also prohibits the sale or transfer of ownership of dangerous dogs in the same way that restricted dogs such as pit bulls cannot be sold or acquired.

The amending provisions of the bill provide that restricted and dangerous dogs that attack may be immediately seized and destroyed. There is also a provision to ensure that such dogs are not allowed to wander at large or be uncontrolled. Owners who on two occasions breach muzzling or containment regulations also face having their dog seized and destroyed, although only after inquiries into the circumstances have been made. The bill also very sensibly requires all dog owners to take reasonable precautions to prevent their dog escaping from their property. We have not experienced problems with pig dogs or deer hunting dogs in Pittwater.

I make no apology for supporting the bill, but the people of Pittwater come first. They should be able to walk in the streets and enjoy recreation in our parks and public reserves without the fear of aggressive behaviour by dogs. Our dogs are overwhelmingly owned for companionship, not for hunting. Local veterinarians tell me they rarely, if ever, see dog abuse or cruelty, and people generally love and care for their animals. The Pittwater Council recognises the importance of dogs in residents' lives by providing nine off-leash areas where dogs can run, play and socialise. The council also has a number of swimming areas for dogs. I support the bill. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation of Pittwater's responsible dog owners, who devote such time, care and attention to looking after their animals.

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock—Minister for Local Government) [10.37 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who participated in the debate, particularly the honourable member for Murray-Darling in relation to the microchipping proposal for working dogs, the honourable member for East Hills, the honourable member for Myall Lakes, the honourable member for Bligh, the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Pittwater. I also thank Mr Paul Chapman, Miss Sonja Hewison, Miss Rebecca Findlay-Debeck, Miss Maree Garrett from the Department of Local Government, and Mr Nigel Hill from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

Last year legislation focused on controlling restricted dogs only, and clearly defined "restricted dogs" as pit bulls and American pit bull terriers. That legislation is working well. Council-authorised officers are responsible and they are well trained. They also take guidance from their professional association and the Department of Local Government. They will act within their discretion. The Rangers Institute is very supportive of the bill.

In response to some of the issues that were raised during the debate I point out that section 731 of the Local Government Act provides council employees with indemnity when acting in good faith. Owners of newly declared dangerous dogs will have three months in which to comply. Costs to councils are offset by the $100 fee for compliance certificates for enclosures. Increased penalties for offences are kept by councils. All registration fees are already applied to companion animal management. Sections 53 and 56 already make it plain that an owner of a dangerous dog does not need to obtain development consent to construct a childproof enclosure.

The honourable member for Manly raised a particular case, and I advise him that there is a right of appeal through the court. The honourable member for Bligh referred to the punitive focus and the need to ensure that dogs are looked after to a certain degree. However, there is a major onus on owners to be responsible. I commend the honourable member for Bligh for the work she is doing in this respect through the City of Sydney council. The honourable member for Pittwater raised some very valid points, some of which have been addressed during the debate. As I said in my second reading speech, the Government will exempt by regulation working dogs that are ordinarily kept in the unincorporated area of far west New South Wales from the microchipping and registration requirements proposed under the bill. The Government recognises the particular 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3843

difficulties faced by farmers in the remote far west of New South Wales, including the lack of access to microchipping services.

Following representations from the New South Wales Farmers Association I advise that the Government will also exempt by regulation working dogs that are ordinarily kept on properties subject to farmland rating within the meaning of the Local Government Act. Those exemptions will commence at the same time as the Act commences. They will not affect the need to microchip a working dog that may be declared a dangerous dog. The Act provides for stringent control requirements to apply to a declared dangerous dog. The controls are designed to ensure public safety and to enable efficient council monitoring by including a requirement to have a dog microchipped and registered, if it is not already, within seven days of the dog being declared dangerous.

The bill also makes it plain that the control requirements do not automatically apply to every dog that is used or kept for hunting. A "dangerous dog" declaration must be made before the control requirements apply to a hunting dog. The bill does not remove an authorised council officer's discretion to give, or not give, a notice of intention to declare a dog to be a dangerous dog or to subsequently make, or not make, a "dangerous dog" declaration. Council officers should have regard to how the needs of the community are best served, and public safety generally, when exercising their discretion in relation to all potentially dangerous dogs. Community safety will be significantly increased under this bill, which gives council officers more power to take action before another dog attack tragedy occurs. Owning a hunting dog, a restricted dog, or a dog that is unreasonably aggressive brings with it additional responsibilities, to both the animal and the community. The bill allows councils to deal more effectively with dogs that are a threat to public safety. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (CARE AND PROTECTION) MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 October 2006.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [10.44 p.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition on the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill. The answers contained in the Ombudsman's annual report for 2005, tabled a few weeks ago, to questions asked during the estimates hearings and serious concerns raised by key stakeholders, tragically demonstrate the Labor Government's inability to manage the critical area of child protection in New South Wales. The main provisions in the bill pre-empt the Ombudsman's report into reviewable child deaths. The report stated that 16 children had been the subjects of prenatal reports, and that 18 children had been previously in care or had siblings who had been previously in care. Of those 18, 9 children who died had siblings who had been removed or placed in temporary care.

I note that the Minister tabled that information when she introduced the bill and delivered her second reading speech. Presumably that information was made available to the Minister and to the Department of Community Services [DOCS] as part of the process that the Ombudsman embarks upon every year prior to the release of his report into reviewable deaths. Significant provisions of the bill deal with children who are the subject of prenatal reports, or children who had siblings placed in temporary care. The bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to interstate, New South Wales and New Zealand jurisdictional issues as well as to birth parents accessing information about their children, and certain clarifications in relation to matters relating to the Children's Court.

The bill is ad hoc in a number of key areas. It is debatable as to whether it will have the intended effect, and it does not address the major inadequacies highlighted by the Ombudsman in relation to child protection in New South Wales. Yet again, the bill does not address resourcing issues. What assurance does the community have that once the bill is passed there will be sufficient resourcing to deal with new arrangements? The unprecedented nature of changing the onus of proof, as outlined in section 106A in particular, is a major departure from existing legal convention, and many key community organisations have raised their concerns in that regard. 3844 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Similarly, issues relating to sections 148 and 149 have caused much angst also, and I was advised earlier today that the Government will seek to amend section 149D. It is extremely disappointing, but not surprising, that the Government announced details of the bill prior to its introduction into Parliament and prior to consulting key organisations involved with child protection. I have observed the Minister's comments, or definitions, in relation to "consultation", which is rather concerning. At the end of the day we are talking about the critically important issue of child protection. Neither the Opposition nor I believe that it is appropriate that the Minister has chosen to not discuss such legislation with key organisations prior to it being announced in the media, especially given the controversial nature of some aspects of the bill.

As I said, the bill provides an ad hoc and grossly inadequate response to the systemic failings within DOCS, and the Minister has totally failed to address the resourcing issues that should be discussed in relation to many provisions in the bill. Therefore, it is with some reluctance that the Opposition will not oppose the bill, but we acknowledge the Government's failure to provide an adequate framework for child protection in New South Wales and its failure to provide adequate resourcing.

I am grateful to the many organisations that have provided the Opposition with their concerns, and I will outline the various comments they made publicly and to the Opposition. The bill has three main sections of amendments. The first amendments relate to parent and carer harm. The bill aims to clarify that mandatory reporters may make reports before the birth of a child if there are reasonable grounds that the child will be at risk. Section 23 broadens the definition of "at risk of harm" to whether the child was the subject of a prenatal report and the birth mother did not successfully engage support services to reduce harm. Amendments to section 248 enable the exchange of information between DOCS and hospitals or other relevant bodies about the family of an unborn child who is the subject of a prenatal report.

There is concern about what happens once those notifications are made. In both the estimates hearings and other fora the Opposition has been extremely concerned and disappointed with the lack of information on the public record about how notification of child reports is followed up. In recent estimates committee hearings, notably those that occurred on 7 November, the Director General of the Department of Community Services [DOCS] acknowledged that no information was available relating to the number of home visits made. He did not regard that as an important or significant statistic to have on the record.

New section 106A, perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of this legislation, refers to cases where parents or caregivers have previously had a child removed from their care. This amendment changes the onus of proof and places it on parents or caregivers in proceedings before the Children's Court where they must rebut the presumption that, on the balance of probabilities, the child in their current care is not at risk of harm because the previous factors that put the child at risk are no longer present or because they were not personally involved in causing harm in the previous case. The amendment is designed to remove any technical obstruction to the court considering evidence of a parent's or a carer's past history in relation to the removal of other children. I will take a few moments to refer to some of the concerns raised by key stakeholders relating to this proposed section. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS], which published its views on this issue on its web site, states:

NCOSS urges the Government to take a more comprehensive approach to managing the issue of siblings and secondary cases by re-focusing efforts around risk assessment and case management. If we rely solely on moving the evidentiary burden as a response to child deaths then the systems failures that lead to these tragedies will not be fully resolved.

It also states:

NCOSS agrees that the best interests of the child are paramount. However, in the absence of effective case management across the spectrum of DOCS child protection services there are no guarantees that reversing the onus of proof will necessarily achieve the results we are hoping to achieve.

I refer to issues raised by UnitingCare Burnside. It is on the record as stating that it generally supports aspects of amendments relating to new section 106. However, it does not support the proposed amendments to new section 106A that result in a reversal of the onus of proof. UnitingCare Burnside also states:

... the reversal of the onus of proof would have a significant impact on the broader legal system, undermining the longstanding legal principle that the state must prove its case.

It continues:

Burnside considers that the reversal of the onus of proof is not necessary as the current legal framework would be strengthened by the addition of the legislative amendments set out in section 106A (1) whereby certain aspects of the history of a parent or caregiver can be admitted as evidence.

14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3845

Burnside also states:

By reversing the onus of proof, additional legal resources may be required by parents or caregivers to rebut and disprove the presumption. Many parents and caregivers involved in Children's Court proceedings have limited financial resources and limited understanding of court processes. The government needs to take into account the potential need for additional services for these parents and caregivers.

Burnside then states:

Efforts within the child protection system need to be refocused on risk assessment and case management, not just court processes.

I said earlier that the Opposition is extremely concerned about the damning report relating to DOCS handed down by the Ombudsman in his annual report, which was tabled just a few weeks ago. Notably, at page 67 the Ombudsman states:

We are concerned by evidence that children continue to be reported to DoCS as being at high risk of harm, and the department has not acted to determine their safety.

We are concerned that this legislation is ad hoc and does not address the four major inadequacies highlighted by the Ombudsman in his report relating to child protection. At page 69 of his report the Ombudsman states:

For children who are subject to risk assessment, our investigations have identified the following deficiencies.

He then lists four major areas and states:

• Firstly, inadequacies in the way DoCS considered the information it already had about the family. If child or children have already been removed from a family then it is critical that this is identified and considered when assessing risks to any new child born into the family.

• Secondly, inadequacies in the way information was gathered and analysed from other agencies. If DoCS caseworkers do not seek critical information from other agencies when they are assessing risk, they will make judgments about the child's safety that are not based on all relevant information. This can lead to poor decisions.

• Thirdly, risk assessments that were narrowly focused. If the focus of a risk assessment is on the last reported incident, and previous reports of risk are not taken into account, patterns of carer behaviour will not be identified and the impact of these patterns of behaviour on the child will not be adequately considered. This means that facts relevant to a child's safety and wellbeing will not be identified.

• Fourthly, cases allocated for risk assessment but no assessment was done. Casework may be provided in these situations but, if this casework is not informed by a comprehensive risk assessment, there is a danger that the focus of intervention will be the parent or carer's problems and the child's safety will be overlooked.

The Ombudsman raised serious concerns but the bill does not comprehensively address these major areas of inadequacy. I place on the record this statement by the Ombudsman:

The care and protection system continues to be the most complained about area of community services.

In his report the Ombudsman referred to a number of issues that this Government has failed to address. When will the Minister address these complaints and the major areas of inadequacy raised by the Ombudsman? The second cluster of amendments in this bill with which the Opposition does not have any issue will allow for the transfer of child protection orders as well as child protection proceedings between New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia, and between New South Wales and New Zealand. I understand that this is based on model legislation that most other jurisdictions have already implemented.

There are a number of miscellaneous amendments in key areas regarding child protection. I now wish to comment on disclosure of information provisions. The bill proposes the disclosure of information to parents concerning the out-of-home care placement of their child by omitting section 148 and inserting new sections 149B and 149K. This includes an opportunity for carer consent and a review mechanism by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal [ADT]. In her second reading speech the Minister said that the Children's Guardian will establish guidelines relating to the disclosure of information, which are to be met by the designated agency when releasing information to the parents of a child or young person in out-of-home care.

When the carer does not consent to the release of high-level identification information, the designated agency that made the decision to release the information will be required to apply to the ADT for a review of the decision on behalf of the carer. The Foster Carers Association has been very vocal in voicing its concerns about 3846 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

these provisions. I note that the Government foreshadowed that it would amend new section 149D by inserting "and authorised carer" after the words "child or young person". However, that still does not address the concerns raised by the Foster Carers Association relating to other subsections of new section 149. The Foster Carers Association believes that new section 149E confines consent to high-level information and states:

The Association is concerned that this potentially allows agencies to disclose anything that is not high level which may include information that might directly or indirectly release personal information about a carer and their family, (eg. photographs of children in school uniforms).

In discussions with the Department and the Guardian about this issue in late 2004, we agreed that the Department would provide notices to carers by registered mail (to verify that carers had in fact received the notice to release). The Department and Guardian had agreed with this approach, but this is not explicitly stated in the legislation.

The Association also feels very strongly about the lack of penalties for inadvertent or deliberate breaches of these sections (see section 149J). The consequences of unauthorised releases of personal information can be significant and catastrophic eg. carers having to move house, take out AVOs, etc).

The association stated on the public record and it said to Opposition members that it is very disappointed at the lack of consultation by the department and the Children's Guardian in relation to these amendments. It said:

The last time the issue was raised with the Association was in 20 December 2004.

It also advised Opposition members that it wrote to the director general in August last year about new sections 148 and 149, but it did not receive a response. Again, it is very concerned that it has not been adequately consulted about these amendments. Similarly, I note the concerns raised by UnitingCare Burnside in relation to this section and its recommendations regarding guidelines. In correspondence that it has forwarded to the Opposition—and, I presume, to the Government—it states:

Burnside recommends that the guidelines provide information about appropriate timeframes for the release of high level identification information. Factors should be considered such as the appropriateness of disclosing high level identification information when a child or young person has recently been taken into care and is settling into the placement and when the parents may not be well known to the staff of the designated agency.

Burnside recommends that the guidelines consider the duration of placement of a child or young person in out-of-home care in regards to the disclosure of high level identification information to parents and significant persons concerning placement in out-of-home care.

It is critical that training and education about these amendments is provided to relevant staff of designated agencies and to foster carers particularly as concerns about safety issues have been raised by both staff and foster carers. Education about the amendments can be incorporated into foster care assessment and training. If the Bill is proclaimed the introduction of this section of the legislation should be staged to allow for appropriate training and education.

I trust that in replying to the second reading debate the Minister will address these issues and the suggestions made by Burnside, the Foster Carers Association and other key stakeholders in relation to the guidelines and how definitively they will implemented. Proposed new section 246 (2) sets aside the current prohibition on accommodating a child or young person who is in the care responsibility of the director general or in the parental responsibility of the Minister in premises with persons who have committed offences or who are on remand. That does not apply to children or young persons who have committed offences themselves or who are refused bail in respect of a criminal offence. Proposed new section 29A, which relates to mandatory reporting, clarifies that persons who make a report may still have an ongoing responsibility to respond to the needs of the child after the matter has been reported to the department. Conversely, the legislation says nothing about the fact that DOCS presumably has an ongoing responsibility to follow up on the notification.

As to legal representation, the bill distinguishes between an independent legal representative and a direct legal representative. The bill also raises from 10 to 12 years the age at which a child is presumed capable of giving proper legal instructions to his or her legal representatives. In relation to licensing for children's services, the bill proposes that the Department of Health no longer be exempt from licensing provisions. It also makes subsequent changes to definitions of "home based services". As to court proceedings, the bill contains amendments that determine that the prosecution of an offence under the Act is to be commenced within six months of the director general becoming aware of the alleged offence as opposed to when the offence was committed. The bill also clarifies the fact that the Children's Court may issue a warrant to secure the attendance of birth parents or adoptive parents who no longer hold parental responsibility in care proceedings before the court. I again place on record comments about the Children's Court made by the Ombudsman in his annual report. On page 71 of his report, he states:

Although we have not finalised this report, our preliminary findings show a disturbing lack of statistics about care and protection matters in the Children's Court. It appears that nobody is collecting or analysing the relevant information. For example, there is no data available about how many orders are for long or short term removal of children or how many result in the restoration of children to their families. Because of this absence of data there is a significant gap in knowledge about the Children's Court, which is a key part of the care and protection system in NSW. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3847

I ask the Minister to address these serious concerns given that the bill contains amendments to the Children's Court proceedings. Additionally, I was most concerned to learn recently that the Government is moving to centralise Children's Court proceedings to a single location. This will affect not just matters relating to potential criminal offences but also care and protection matters. What is the Minister's view about the centralisation of court proceedings? What impact will this have on families who already struggle to attend proceedings in a timely fashion? Given the bill's major amendments concerning onus of proof and such, what impact will the centralisation of care and protection matters have on families who are already in very difficult circumstances?

As I said earlier, this bill is extremely ad hoc and does not address systemic failures in child protection as outlined by the New South Wales Ombudsman, nor does it address resourcing issues. Yet again, key stakeholders in this fundamental area of public policy—namely, child protection and out-of-home care—were advised of the introduction of the bill through the media and were not consulted properly. One would think when the Government introduces legislation, some aspects of which are quite significant and change the onus of proof in relation to care and protection matters—as indicated in media reports about which the Minister was undoubtedly briefed—the Minister has a responsibility to consult key stakeholders and organisations before speaking publicly about these issues and before introducing the bill in Parliament.

I place on record the fact that the New South Wales Liberal-National Coalition will address in government the major inadequacies in child protection as outlined by the Ombudsman. It is appalling that after 12 years of Labor Government the Ombudsman has had to express his concern that in New South Wales children continue to be reported to DOCS as being at risk of harm and the department does not act to determine their safety. That is not simply the opinion of the Opposition; it is a quote from the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman expressed concern as recently as two weeks ago that, after 12 years of Labor Government in New South Wales:

… children continue to be reported to DOCS as being at high risk of harm, and the department has not acted to determine their safety.

The New South Wales Coalition will provide much-needed improvements to child protection not just through more effective and consistent legislation but also by addressing resourcing issues, ensuring that front-line staff have adequate support and training and by consulting widely with key organisations that are expert in this area. I was concerned to hear during an estimates committee hearing on 7 November the director general of the Department of Community Services respond to a question by saying:

It is an acknowledged fact that some community service centres, the ones that have not received their full allocation of new caseworkers, will not be performing at the level at which anyone in this room would want them to perform. And they cannot.

This is an admission by the director general of the Department of Community Services that in year four of the five-year program it is an acknowledged fact that some community service centres that have not received their full allocation of new caseworkers:

… will not be performing at the level at which anyone in this room would want them to perform.

It is regrettable that Government members, including the Minister, continue to peddle a misguided and dishonest campaign and state wrongly that the Coalition in government will reduce the number of front-line workers in DOCS. This is complete fiction. Child protection is a priority for the Coalition. Every child in this State deserves the right to reach his or her full potential irrespective of his or her background. Every child in the State has the right to feel safe, to be protected and to be raised in a loving and supportive environment. It is a sad reality that many children in our community are at risk of harm and it is incumbent on the government of the day to ensure that necessary support systems, resources and processes are in place to protect all children at risk.

Regrettably, this is not the case in New South Wales. Rather than peddling dishonest lines to the media and the community, the Minister and other members of the Government should take a close look at themselves and ask why, after 12 years of Labor Government, the Ombudsman has had to hand down such a damning review of child protection in New South Wales. I reiterate that the New South Wales Coalition will make much-needed improvements to child protection not just through more effective and consistent legislation but also by addressing resourcing issues, ensuring that front-line staff have adequate support and training and by consulting widely with key organisations that are expert in this area. I thank the many community organisations which took the time to contact the Opposition to express their views on the bill and to outline their specific concerns with respect to certain provisions.

Ms MARIANNE SALIBA (Illawarra) [11.08 p.m.]: Honourable members are well aware of my commitment to child care and protection, and in that context I lend my support to the Children and Young 3848 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Persons (Care and Protection) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill. I particularly support the proposals that will strengthen protection for very vulnerable children. These children include those whose parent or primary caregiver previously had other children taken into care and not restored to them, or whose parent or primary caregiver has been identified as a person who may have been involved in causing a reviewable child death.

All too frequently we hear shocking stories in the media about the death of a child. Often, the Department of Community Services [DOCS] is mentioned in connection with these deaths as having known the child was at risk and having received reports as to the child's welfare. It is a grave cause for concern for me that despite reports about a child being at risk of harm, and efforts by the department to have the child taken into care, the court is not always inclined to consider the evidence that a parent or carer has previously had a child or children in need of care and protection removed from their care. In other words, despite evidence that a parent or carer has a history as an abuser of other children, the Children's Court will sometimes exclude that evidence.

We must ensure that the best outcomes for children come out of our court processes. If that means ensuring this sort of similar fact evidence is considered, then I am certain that all honourable members will support this amendment. The proposed amendment will require the court in current care proceedings to take into consideration the fact that the parent or primary caregiver is a person who has been identified by a Coroner or police officer as a person who may have been involved in causing a reviewable death of a child or young person. I believe that such information is vital to a court making a proper determination whether a child is in need of care and protection. The amendment will enhance this Government's continuing policy of strengthening child protection. This is an issue of the utmost importance to this House and to the wider community. It is often said that society should be judged on how well it protects its most vulnerable members. In turn, we should judge our actions in this place as to how far we are prepared to go to protect children.

I understand that the proposed amendments to the Act also aim to place the onus of proof in these matters on to the parent or carer in question. What this means is that evidence of past acts of abuse to the child by a parent or carer, and of the child being removed by an order of the court, will be admissible in care proceedings concerning other siblings or children in their care. Where there is evidence of a history of abuse of a child, the onus will shift to the parents to rebut the presumption that a child in their current care is not at risk of harm and in need of care and protection, because the factors that caused the previous removal no longer exist.

We have to remember that the role of the Children's Court is quite unique in that it exists to protect children at risk of harm, and if the law as it presently stands is not adequate to do that then the law should be changed. I believe that this is a reasonable process for the courts to follow in these matters. I am concerned, and I know many honourable members would share my concern, that because the department's submissions to protect children whose siblings have been previously removed and not restored have been failing in court, caseworkers may be more reluctant to rely on prior history in deciding whether other siblings within the family are at risk of harm.

It is important that both caseworkers and the courts rely on all the available evidence when seeking preventative and protective outcomes for children. There should never be a situation where we wait for a child to be harmed before a removal from the inappropriate situation is sought. If the casework indicates that a person is currently posing a risk of harm due to similar fact evidence in relation to prior abuse of another child then this evidence should be considered by the court in determining if the child should be removed. The fundamental principle of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 is its focus on the best interests of the child. This can only be effectively achieved if we as a Government are prepared to protect children by preventing harm and breaking the cycle of ongoing abuse of children wherever we can. I am glad to say that the amendments proposed by the Minister to strengthen the legislation in this way are child focussed and should have clear and positive outcomes for children at risk of harm. I give my strong support to the amendments and urge other honourable members to do the same.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [11.14 p.m.]: I support the comments of the honourable member for Willoughby in relation to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Miscellaneous Amendments Bill. This is a bill for an Act to amend the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 to strengthen the protections it affords to children and young persons, to provide for the transfer of child protection orders and proceedings between jurisdictions and to make other miscellaneous amendments to that Act. The main object of this bill will provide for the following:

(a) greater protection to children and young persons who are risk of harm from a parent or carer,

(b) reciprocal arrangements for the transfer of interstate and New Zealand child protection orders and child protection proceedings.

14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3849

The Bill also makes various miscellaneous amendments … including amendments relating to the following:

(a) the legal representation of children in proceedings before the Children's Court,

(b) the disclosure to parents and certain other persons of information concerning the placement of children in out-of-home care,

(c) the kinds of children's services that are required to be licensed under the principal Act.

I am also concerned that whilst on the surface these amendments appear to secure the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people in New South Wales and those who travel across State and Territory borders, as stated by the Minister in her second reading speech, quite clearly from the Ombudsman's report that is not the case. Children slip through the net and are not picked up and obviously subsequent siblings in utero or otherwise will not be recognised. I restate the concerns raised by the honourable member for Willoughby of the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and Burnside in relation to aspects of this legislation. I concur with their concerns about consultation. Serious questions are raised about the responsibility of the Government relating to care and protection, and the significant complaints in existence. Page 67 of the NSW Ombudsman's 2005-06 annual report states:

For child protection services, the most common complaints are about the adequacy of the DoCS response to risk of harm reports. This was also the case last year.

For example, people complained about:

• risk of harm reports getting lost in the system • reports being closed without being investigated • DoCS not intervening in cases of chronic neglect • DoCS failing to Act on request for assistance to prevent children going into care • Poor cooperation and information sharing between DoCS and other agencies and professionals • Customer service issues such as DoCS not responding to phone calls, lack of feedback on investigation progress, and lack of feedback to mandatory reporters.

Page 69 states:

Based on our work this year we continue to have serious concerns that some children who are at high risk of harm are not being allocated to a child protection caseworker for a full risk assessment.

For children who were subject to risk assessment, our investigations have identified the following deficiencies:

• Firstly, inadequacies in the way DoCS considered the information it already had about the family. If a child or children have already been removed from a family then it is critical that this is identified and considered when assessing risk to any new child born into the family …

• Secondly, inadequacies in the way information was gathered and analysed from other agencies. If DoCS caseworkers do not seek critical information from other agencies when they are assessing risk, they will make judgements about the child's safety that are not based on all relevant information. This can lead to poor decision.

• Thirdly, risk assessments that were narrowly focused. If the focus of a risk assessment is on the last reported incident, and previous reports of risk are not take into account, patterns of carer behaviour will not be identified and the impact of these patterns of behaviour on the child will not be adequately considered. This means that facts relevant to the child's safety and wellbeing will not be identified.

• Fourthly, cases allocated for risk assessment but no assessment was done. Casework may be provided in these situations but, if this casework is not informed by a comprehensive risk assessment, there is a danger that the focus of intervention will be the parent or carer's problems and the child's safety will be overlooked.

The report goes on to say:

Last year we also reported that we were concerned that agencies that have some responsibility for child protection were not communicating effectively enough. This year's investigations continued to highlight problems with the exchange of information between DoCS and other agencies.

For example, we have found instances of:

• requests for information being sent by DoCS but not received by agencies

• reports by police and NSW Health to DOCS being lost in the system or significantly delayed because police and health documentation and reporting procedures had not been followed

3850 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

• reports to DOCS made by mandated reporters that do not contain all the relevant information.

The report also identified instances where mandated reporters failed to make risk-of-harm reports when they should have, and that that made DOCS' job of assessing risk more difficult, with the Ombudsman finding that serious consequences resulted for some children. The Ombudsman made a number of recommendations to DOCS arising from those investigations. Many of those recommendations related to improving DOCS' approach to assessing risk to children once a child-at-risk report has been made, and ensuring responses to risk of harm provide adequate protective intervention. The report said that the DOCS reform agenda included a commitment to undertake a quality review of each community service centre in New South Wales over the next four years as part of the department's broad framework for service improvement. It noted that DOCS is also in the process of finalising a review of the procedures that guide staff in undertaking secondary risk of harm assessment.

Basically, the framework upon which this legislation has been based is already on shaky grounds, before safety and care and protection considerations are secured in New South Wales. I would conclude by stating that, whilst the Coalition does not oppose this legislation, the Ombudsman's annual report contains damning findings. Admissions by the Director General of the Department of Community Services in recent estimates hearings about the department's inability to cope and ensure follow-up with high-priority notifications does not indicate efficient management of the amendments that are included in this legislation.

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Community Services, Minister for Youth, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [11.22 p.m.], in reply: I will respond to some issues raised by the Opposition. I find it incredibly galling that almost in the dead of night Coalition members would come into this Chamber and criticise the Government's commitment to resourcing the Department of Community Services. It is well understood that the Government is undertaking the largest reform and rebuilding exercise of the Department of Community Services that has ever been undertaken in this State's history—$1.2 billion in additional resourcing to recruit an extra 1,025 front-line caseworkers. These are front-line staff who can respond to the needs of vulnerable children and families.

Given the track record of the Coalition when last in office—cutting 1,000 positions from the department, closing more than 20 community service centres across the State, and closing the sexual assault units at Flemington, Camden and Wagga Wagga—it is quite extraordinary that Opposition members would come into this place and mount a snide attack, especially when they had not been prepared to ask me a question during question time. That is very disappointing because it undermines the great work being undertaken within the department by our caseworkers and the partnerships being built with the non-government sector to ensure there is a strong and resilient network of care able to address the needs of the most vulnerable in our society.

On many occasions in this House I have invited the Opposition to renounce the policy that it took to the last election, that is, to cut $700 million from the budget of the Department of Community Services, which would ultimately result in the sacking of 675 front-line caseworkers, not to mention all of the other professional development building that is taking place within the department. Not once has the Opposition accepted that invitation and renounced that policy. If the honourable member for Willoughby thinks she can engage in semantics and commit the same funding that the Iemma Government has committed to the Department of Community Services, I remind her that people are awake up to her. She cannot play that game. That is not a fair-dinkum commitment, and she is not going to get away with it.

The Opposition's argument that the Government relies on shifting the evidentiary burden in secondary cases ignores the fact that the Government is undertaking a massive reform and new direction in the way the department delivers services through the early intervention program. We are investing in the front end of the community service system so that we can intervene earlier in a family's problems and prevent those problems escalating. Our ultimate objective is to keep those families together, and to teach them the skills that will ensure they will overcome the difficulties. To suggest that the Government is slipping in some legislation because it is not prepared to meet its funding and resourcing obligations is absolute nonsense. It is offensive to the community partners who have embraced the early intervention program enthusiastically and developed what I would praise as a first-class, world-class system of early intervention. They have worked closely with the department. This is the first time such a program has been undertaken, and it is working very well. The community partners are delivering a first-class service. The hypocrisy and the churlish, niggling and false criticisms of the Opposition made at this time of night really take the cake.

There are a couple of other points I would like to raise. The honourable member for Illawarra has demonstrated the very important policy principles underpinning this legislation. As Minister for Community 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3851

Services I find it very frustrating to hear criticisms of Department of Community Services caseworkers in the media and especially by the Opposition, particularly when that involves the tragic death of a child. The question is posed: DOCS knew that that family was a problem, so why did it leave the child in those circumstances? This legislative amendment is about reinforcing casework principles and ensuring that our caseworkers have the legal standing to offer first-class protection to children born into families that are a risk.

I have travelled around New South Wales, and I have spoken to caseworkers directly about how these changes will allow them to operate in a court and enable them to intervene where children are put at extreme risk or in fact die. The response I get from caseworkers is overwhelming: they are very pleased with these kinds of amendments. I feel very confident that this principle will add to the network of care and ensure that our legislation is strong and will work in tandem with the historical resourcing levels that are being committed by the Iemma Government.

In relation to the aspect of the bill that concerns the Foster Care Association, I should point out that extensive work has been done with the Foster Care Association. But more recently, in light of concerns that the association has expressed publicly, the department has met with association representatives and worked out what all parties believe to be a suitable amendment to cover the association's concerns. That amendment will insert "and authorised carer" after "child or young person" in proposed section 149D. The Foster Care Association believes that that will ensure that the concerns of foster carers are taken into account when consideration is being given to the release of personal details to birth parents.

I thank all of the stakeholders who have worked closely with the department to ensure that these concerns can be addressed and that the legislation is passed by the House. Other agencies have been consulted also and I thank them. I thank the Children's Guardian, the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State Secretariat, the Centre for Research, Education and Training in Energy, the Association of Child Welfare Agencies, the Legal Aid Commission and the Children's Court. I commend them for the efforts and contributions they have made. In relation to another matter that was raised, I should point out that Burnside's recommendations in respect to guidelines are supported. The Children's Guardian is currently developing guidelines in consultation with the major stakeholders, and Burnside will be involved in the development of these guidelines. I commend the bill, with the proposed amendment, to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Ms REBA MEAGHER (Cabramatta—Minister for Community Services, Minister for Youth, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [11.31 p.m.]: I move the Government amendment that has been circulated:

Page 27, schedule 3 [9], proposed section 149D, line 31. Insert "and authorised carer" after "child or young person".

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [11.31 p.m.]: The Opposition supports this amendment but in doing so wants to raise a point of contradiction. Clearly, if the Minister and the department had conducted the necessary consultation with the Foster Care Association this obvious insertion would have formed part of the original bill. It is regrettable it did not and the Opposition obviously supports its inclusion. Proposed section 149D will include authorised carers when consideration is being given to the type of information to be disclosed. Regard will be had to that information, in addition to the wishes of the child and to any guidelines prepared by the Children's Guardian relating to disclosure.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages. 3852 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Bills: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

Special Adjournment

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Water Utilities, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for the Illawarra) [11.33 p.m.]: I move:

That:

(1) standing and sessional orders be suspended to:

(a) permit the introduction forthwith of the following bills, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow, up to and including the Minister's second reading speech:

Police Powers Legislation Amendment Bill Registered Clubs Amendment Bill Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Evidence) Bill Sale of Goods and Warehousemen's Liens Amendment (Bulk Goods) Bill Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) World Youth Day Bill;

(b) permit notice to be given of the following bills:

Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment (Criminal Charges and Convictions) Bill Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Child Sexual Offences Disclosures) Bill;

(c) permit the House to adjourn without motion moved at the conclusion of Government Business; and

(d) prevent divisions or quorums being called until the rising of the House.

(2) the House at its rising this day do adjourn until Wednesday 15 November 2006 at 10.00 am.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Wagga Wagga is tutting and saying, "Have a go!" He has been wandering around here for hours saying he wants to go home. If there was some sense of discipline on that side of the House we would have been able to get stuck into this some time ago. Nevertheless, I reiterate that the Government has a strong legislative program, a strong program of reform, and these bills form part of the hard work and new direction of the Government.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.35 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes the motion. We were notified this morning of six pieces of legislation to be introduced today. Overnight we read of the Government's adoption of Coalition policy in relation to changes to superannuation. We had no notification of one of the bills under part (a) of this motion or, indeed, one of those bills under part (b). Given the churlish performance we just saw from the Minister for Community Services, who was forced to amend her own legislation—and if one believes the Leader of the House, the strong legislative program of the Government means that it cannot get it right—it is interesting that the motion seeks to allow bills to be introduced tonight and debated tomorrow. That means there is no way there can be consultation with interested groups on any of those bills.

More important than that, however, is the sort of pace at which the Government seeks to rush legislation through this place. That causes mistakes. There is no better example of the mistakes caused by the Government's appalling parliamentary record than one of the bills that will be debated tomorrow after it is introduced tonight that amends 34 pieces of legislation. Those amendments are required only because the Government did not get the work right in the first place. The problem with the Government is it promises one thing and delivers another. It seeks to rush legislation through this House and then has to come back time and time again to ensure it gets that legislation right. That is why the Minister for Community Services achieved a world record here tonight: she did not even wait for her legislation to be passed before she decided to move an amendment to correct it.

What is outrageous about this and what is reflected in the comments of the Leader of the House is that he hates the fact that members of the Opposition are prepared to not only consider and digest this legislation but they also want to speak to it. The Leader of the House appears ill at ease with the fact that so many members 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3853

decided to participate in debates tonight. That will be a continuing feature as we progress through this week. It is something that the Opposition and all members of Parliament are meant to do, and I am delighted to say that those crossbench members who were here for earlier debates also participated. It is part of what the parliamentary process is about; it is what accountability and responsibility are about. The real reason the Government wants to rush this legislation through is simply to ensure that there can be no consultation with those it affects. It is clear that all of this legislation will be brought back next year or the year after to be cleaned up because the Government acts in haste and we have to clean up the legislation a little later.

Earlier today the Opposition Whip did a very good job in admonishing the Government for its laziness. He drew attention to the fact that this year not only have three sitting days been cancelled, but on the last two sitting Fridays the House sat for less than 120 minutes. He also drew attention to the fact that on most Tuesdays and Wednesdays on which the House has sat this year the Leader of the House and his predecessor have given us early marks. If this Government could manage the Parliament, if this Government could adhere to its sitting times, these sorts of rushes would not be required. This is not the way in which legislation should be made. The Government would argue that much of the legislation is important. The Government would say this is legislation that the public of New South Wales needs and deserves. That may or may not be the case, but the reality is that members on this side and members on the crossbenches will not have a chance to test that before the legislation is rushed through this place. Every time this happens the Government blames the upper House.

Frankly, as one of those who does not have a great deal of sympathy for the upper House, except for those who sit in it, I do not blame the upper House for imposing a limit upon this Government that simply seeks to ensure that before it considers legislation it has time to consult, it has time to digest and it has time to do the sort of job that all of us in this place should do. We will oppose the motion. I have 20¢ for the honourable member for Bathurst. I want him to phone his friends and give me the change. His performance in this division will be appalling. The honourable member for Bathurst covers this country with his ignorance like a blanket. There is barely a hole in it. We oppose the motion because it is antidemocratic.

Motion agreed to.

REGISTERED CLUBS AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.42 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Registered Clubs Amendment Bill provides for amendments to the Registered Clubs Act that have emerged from the deliberations of the club industry working group. The amendments are a package of reforms developed in partnership with the New South Wales clubs industry. The club industry working group is a joint Government and club industry body that I established in May this year. The industry working group includes representatives of the club industry, the New South Wales Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, and a representative of the Premier, as well as members of my staff. The role of this working group is to examine, discuss and develop proposals for amendments to the Registered Clubs Act arising from issues of concern for the government and the industry. In the coming months the group will continue to examine other significant issues facing the club industry. This was a genuine participatory process, a real partnership that will protect and enhance the rights of clubs members. The hard work and commitment of the working group has achieved a number of practical solutions for the industry.

The bill includes a number of measures that will improve club governance, cut red tape and help sustain the club industry into the future. It represents the way forward for the Government and the club industry to develop a shared vision for the future of the industry. The first stage of the working group process is consolidated in this bill. Particular emphasis has been placed on the importance of maintaining transparency and accountability. The bill deals specifically with the provision of recommendations for legislative amendments to club governance, probity and various reporting requirements. I will now briefly address the detail of the legislation. The bill includes proposals that will improve the probity of club elections, provide greater consistency in the election process and help ensure skilled club directors. The way in which registered clubs are 3854 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

managed is central to their survival. Club members have a right to expect their club to be properly managed. It is therefore disturbing when any complaints about club elections come to light and allegations are made about elections being conducted in a less than professional manner. This leads to perceptions that some clubs may be engaged in improper practices.

The club industry, through the club industry working group, is seeking changes to the election process to improve the probity of elections. The bill introduces new procedures that will provide a more consistent approach for the conduct of club elections. I should also note that the State Electoral Office has been consulted about these procedures and strongly supports the new approach. Clubs with more than 10,000 members will be required to use an accredited independent returning officer for election of club directors. Around 175 clubs in New South Wales fall into this category. The Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing will be responsible for accrediting private sector organisations to provide the function of independent returning officer. The use of an accredited independent returning officer will also be an option for clubs with fewer that 10,000 members. To provide guidance, a set of rules or procedures for clubs with fewer than 10,000 members will be developed by the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing in close consultation with the State Electoral Office and club industry representatives. In addition anyone who nominates for election as a club director will be required to receive a pre-election education package.

This change will increase awareness of the responsibilities involved in being a club director, and is an important step toward more informed participation in club governing bodies. Clubs New South Wales has developed an excellent education package and it will be made freely available to clubs, including clubs that are not members of that association. Another important practical change concerns the number of club members who must be full voting members. There have been some difficulties arising from existing requirements in the Registered Clubs Act concerning voting rights of club members, in particular the requirements in section 9 of the Act regarding a majority of all club members being full voting members. This effectively places limits on how many social or non-voting members a club could have. The bill will rectify this matter by clearly stating that only 25 per cent of the members of the club must be full voting members. This will be of enormous benefit to many RSL, bowling and golf clubs in particular because it allows them to expand their membership and generate additional revenue from an enhanced membership base.

Finally, with regard to election probity we are also strengthening the current prohibition that exists to ensure that only club members should be able to determine who should be on the governing body of their club. This is an entirely appropriate approach to adopt towards such matters and this bill will ensure that the rights of club members are protected. The bill seeks to provide greater flexibility for the disposal or leasing of club property, while maintaining transparency of the process and probity standards. Processes were introduced in early 2004 to enhance accountability in the disposal of club land or property. However, clubs have encountered problems with that process for various reasons—including the requirement for the disposal of club land to be approved by members at a general meeting. The number of arrangements already in place, such as shared development ventures as well as other unique and complex circumstances involving the use and disposal of club land and property, have also given rise to unforeseen difficulties.

To clarify and simplify this situation the bill will introduce a definition of "core property", which will include a club's defined premises and any facility used by club members. It will also provide for club members to determine what other club property is to be classed as core property. Other club property will be regarded as non-core property, for example, land purchased by a club as an investment property with a view to selling or developing the land at a later date. These changes will not diminish accountability and transparency. Clubs will be required to report to their members what property is being classed as core and non-core, and the disposal of core property will require agreement by club members. Greater flexibility will also be built into the Act through appropriate exemptions. For example, clubs will be able to dispose of core property but only if the members of a club at a general meeting have approved the disposal of core property and the parties, price, property and valuation have been disclosed.

Leases, licences, subleases and sub-licences of core property with terms not exceeding six years and which are supported by a valuation will also be exempted from current requirements. In addition, regulations will provide for exemptions to the disposal requirements. For example, the regulations will provide for sale by private treaty in the case of a club that has followed the required open tender procedure and is still unable to dispose of the land in question. These exemptions will be the subject of consultation and discussion with the club industry prior to the commencement of the new provisions.

To explain this new classification, at the moment all club property is effectively core property and the existing disposal requirements must be followed. They are quite specific and require an independent valuation, 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3855

public auction, or open tender process, and the approval of club members. An example would be a club that had a small area of land that a neighbour wished to purchase and the club was willing to sell, but the value of the land exceeded the costs the club would have had to incur to go through the required process.

Under this new approach, such an area, with the approval of club members, could be classed as "non-core" and sold directly to the interested party via private treaty, thereby facilitating the disposal of land while not incurring significant cost. This would result in benefits for the club members, the club, and the person purchasing the parcel of land. The new measures would mean that at a general meeting a club would provide members with full details of its land holdings and which areas are proposed to be classed core and non core. This would provide members with the opportunity not only to determine what land is core and non-core but also to seek further information if required as to the reasons why the land would be classed as such. This new arrangement means club members will have a much greater say in the process for both the classification of land and its disposal. Clubs will be allowed a period of time up until the next reasonable opportunity, for example their annual general meeting, before they will be expected to have all of their property divided into core and non-core property.

Another example of the importance of this reform is where a club and a developer may want to swap parcels of land of equal size as part of a development. Current provisions under section 41J would prohibit or significantly hinder this type of arrangement even though it would benefit the club. Another example illustrating the importance of this change is that the current provisions do not even envisage the type of shared or joint development ventures that some clubs may seek to enter into to capitalise on the value of land holdings that were never intended to be used for club members. This bill is also about reducing red tape and the compliance burden for clubs. The reporting requirements for clubs have increased over the years. As a result, some of those requirements now overlap or are redundant or obsolete. While it is acknowledged that club members and others need to be informed about a club's operations and financial status, the current requirements are cumbersome and require reform.

The bill removes many of the reporting requirements from the Act and transfers them to the regulation. The requirements will be streamlined and updated and then consolidated into a single section of the regulation. This will also enable reporting requirements to be updated in the future to reflect improved processes of information collection and any changes to the type of reports required. It is important to note that these changes will not impact on accountability or the transparency of the reporting process. Information will still be available for club members and appropriate reporting processes will be maintained.

Following the passage of this legislation, the New South Wales Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing will also seek to improve the reporting process by the club industry to Government. A similar example of such an improvement is the one introduced this year for the Community Development and Support Expenditure [CDSE] scheme, whereby reports by clubs are now done in a consistent manner electronically.

The bill will also improve the operation of the five-kilometre rule particularly for clubs whose location makes the application of the rule problematic. A long-standing requirement for clubs has been that anyone living within five kilometres of a registered club must be a member of that club in order to enter and use the club's facilities. The way in which the five kilometres is measured is not specified in legislation but the policy has been that a direct five-kilometre radius from a club is used. This was considered to be easy for patrons to understand and simple for clubs, the police and departmental inspectors to administer. While many clubs are strongly supportive of the five-kilometre rule, for a number of clubs their location or nearby geographical obstacles have created some problems concerning the manner in which the five kilometres is measured, particularly in rural and regional areas.

A prime example of the importance of this change is the Yamba Bowling and Recreation Club that is situated on one side of a river. For people living on the opposite side of the river the most feasible means to get to the club is a 55-kilometre road trip. Although they live well within five kilometres of the club as the crow flies in this case that does not mean they need to travel only that distance to reach the club. As a result, even though people may visit the club on a rare occasion they are obligated to become a full member of the club and cannot take advantage of temporary membership status.

In such cases the bill will provide for those clubs to seek exemptions from the five-kilometre rule on application to the Director of Liquor and Gaming. To clarify the situation the bill will provide for the regulation to create exceptions to this rule. Any such exception will not automatically apply to all clubs, but will involve a prescribed process whereby a club will have to apply to the Director of Liquor and Gaming for a variation in the way the five-kilometre distance is measured. 3856 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

The bill will also reduce current restrictions on club amalgamations to allow for an increased number of amalgamations between clubs. The Act has long provided for the amalgamation of registered clubs. Amalgamation can make the difference between the preservation or permanent loss of the community assets that have been established by a club, for example, sporting grounds or community meeting areas. The Government moved to put in certain limitations on the amalgamations process to ensure club groups did not get too large or lose touch with their local communities. Therefore the existing amalgamation process does prevent some clubs that would be interested in amalgamating from doing so. The Government has listened to clubs' concerns and has agreed a new direction is needed. The new amalgamation procedures will provide for a club to have a much wider choice of potential amalgamation partners.

The maximum number of amalgamations will be increased from four to 10, keeping the intent of some limit but to keep the number at a manageable size. This new cap has been suggested by the club industry. The Government acknowledges that many club groups that sit at the current cap of four are operating very well and may be in a position to partner with additional clubs. The new processes will also provide assurance to the Government and local communities that amalgamations will only occur when they are in the best interests of the community, and that community facilities will be preserved. This is a very important point. Therefore proposed amalgamations will be subject to the completion of a community impact statement, which will bring together relevant information regarding the maintenance of facilities and services at both clubs, accessibility to those facilities and the impact on the local economy in terms of employment and impact on local suppliers.

Another requirement would be the preparation of a memorandum of understanding stating both clubs' position on any proposed amalgamation. Both of these documents would be made available to club members. These strengthen the integrity of the amalgamation process and will ensure that club members get a fair deal out of an amalgamation. The details of the new process will be subject to further consultation with the club industry. One recent example of how club amalgamations preserve community facilities is the amalgamation of the Mounties and Harbord Diggers clubs. While they are two very different types of registered clubs, the amalgamation has resolved whatever financial difficulties are faced by Harbord Diggers Club and will also facilitate the renovation and revitalisation of the Harbord Diggers Club premises. This, of course, is of great benefit to members of Harbord Diggers Club and the local community, and also to the members of the Mounties group of clubs in general.

There are many other examples of smaller clubs, particularly bowling clubs, that have been saved by amalgamation with a larger parent club. The new club amalgamation provisions will expand the potential for amalgamations by relaxing the current restrictions on the number of amalgamations a club may enter into. This measure is being introduced specifically because there are clubs who are willing and ready to assist smaller clubs preserve their long-held community assets through an amalgamation, but have already reached their limit of four amalgamations and are therefore unable to assist. I understand that many of the more profitable clubs within the State are frequently approached by smaller clubs seeking an amalgamation partner. The current restrictions mean that the more profitable clubs often have no choice but to turn down those requests.

I also want to touch on some of the transitional arrangements and miscellaneous provisions in the bill. The bill takes account of club amalgamations that might already be under way through appropriate transitional provisions; that is, the changes to club amalgamations in the bill will not apply to pending applications for an amalgamation. This is the standard approach taken in such circumstances. By way of miscellaneous provision it has been a long-standing requirement that clubs have been required to include the statement "for the information of members and their guests" on all visible and audible promotional and advertising material relating to club facilities.

This requirement was introduced at a time when there were concerns about some clubs operating an open door policy. Clubs are now more vigilant about this issue and many clubs are proactive in promoting membership requirements through their web sites. Also, there is now more of a focus on the sign-in procedures at clubs. As a result, the broader community is better informed about the need to be a club member if they live within five kilometres of a registered club. It is considered that this statement no longer serves any real purpose and is little more than a compliance burden for the clubs. The bill removes this outdated requirement.

In addition, the existing definition of "top executive" in section 41B was inserted to help clarify the application of certain reporting and disclosure requirements as part of the club accountability and governance measures introduced in April 2004. Since the commencement of the relevant reporting and disclosure provisions there have been difficulties arising from the broad reach of this definition. In some cases employees with no managerial responsibilities have been captured by the definition. This is not what was intended. The bill inserts 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3857

an amended definition that will rectify this situation and limit the application of the term "top executive" to the appropriate persons.

In summary, the bill introduces measures that will produce direct and long-term benefits for registered clubs and their members. The changes are supported by the club industry, club employee associations, the Government, and other stakeholders. Through the Club Industry Working Group the Government is working in partnership to deliver the much-needed reforms and an industry plan to ensure the future viability of registered clubs in a competitive marketplace. The bill is the first stage of that new partnership. The Iemma Government understands the importance of the club industry to its membership and the broader community. Clubs provide important social, sporting and other facilities for their communities. Through the Community Development Support Expenditure Scheme, clubs provide crucial funding for local projects. Clubs also make an enormous contribution to employment in New South Wales and the New South Wales economy in general.

It is therefore essential that the club industry is in a position to be viable and strong into the future. That is what this bill is all about. It delivers practical solutions in the best interests of clubs and their members across New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

NATIONAL PARK ESTATE (LOWER HUNTER REGION RESERVATIONS) BILL

RACING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

WESTERN SYDNEY PARKLANDS BILL

Messages received from the Legislative Council returning the bills without amendment.

SALE OF GOODS AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S LIENS AMENDMENT (BULK GOODS) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [12.03 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Sale of Goods and Warehousemen's Liens Amendment (Bulk Goods) Bill 2006 addresses potentially serious implications for producers who, in good faith, have placed their product in the hands of a third party for storage purposes. Every country representative in this place would be familiar with grain storage facilities as they are a common sight in most communities. These large concrete structures dominate the landscape, and are often located adjacent to main highways or railways. Following consultation with a group of farmers who were facing the loss of around $150,000 worth of grain held in bulk storage, I raised their concerns in Parliament in October 2005 and called on the Government to amend grain storage agreements to reflect title ownership of the produce by the farmer. This call was prompted by the collapse of Liverpool Plains-based Creasy Grain Enterprises in August 2005.

Afterwards, six grain producers, who had 1,000 tonnes of sorghum and barley stored in the company's Premer silos, were told by the administrator, Ferrier Hodgson, that they could no longer claim ownership to their grain. This antiquated stance was based on a 1933 court case, Chapman Bros v Verco Bros. and Company Limited and Another, over the ownership of bagged grain. The court ruled that as ownership of the mingled grain could not be determined, the owner of the storage facility was deemed to be the owner of the grain. Lawyers acting for Ferrier Hodgson revived this precedent, leaving the six Premer producers potentially out of pocket.

At the time of the group's collapse, it had debts of more than $23 million. Despite initial assurances that their grain would be returned, the farmers were later told that they no longer held title to the grain. Growers whose grain was held by Creasy launched a legal challenge against Ferrier Hodgson to win back their rights. The matter, however, was never fully tested in the court system and was settled out of court for $97,000, representing the then market value of the grain plus a proportion of legal costs. 3858 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

The matter settled without either party admitting liability. It was unclear whether the growers would have been successful in their campaign to win back their produce had it been completed through the court system, and it was perhaps the high level of publicity that the case had generated which prompted Ferrier Hodgson to make the settlement. While the result was excellent news for the farmers, who stood to lose their grain from a dispute that should have never arisen in the first place, the risk remains that other farmers could find themselves in similar circumstances should there be another collapse.

As I said, I first raised this issue in Parliament in October 2005 and I later received written notification from the Attorney General, Bob Debus, that the Government would "closely examine the question of grain ownership and the practicalities, legal and otherwise, of farmers recovering an interest in grain that has been delivered to a silo". Following this reassurance little progress was made towards securing farmers against similar action to the Ferrier Hodgson debacle. In the interests of preventing more farmers from being robbed of what is rightfully theirs, I have had this legislation drafted.

Given the broad impacts of the ongoing drought in New South Wales, there is a significant risk that more agriculturally dependent businesses, including storage facilities, may be forced into receivership through difficult market conditions. Such circumstances could create a similar situation as occurred with Creasy, tangling other farmers up in a legal battle over product ownership. Australia has one of the most variable rainfall climates in the world. The likelihood of the drought continuing into the near future is high. Over the long term, farmers experience about three good years and three bad years out of 10. With the current weather patterns continuing to affect temperature and rainfall in New South Wales, the risk of drought-induced financial difficulties for rural business remains significant.

The bill will clarify ownership of bulk goods, such as grain, wine or other goods, that are produced by individuals but are stored in a communal facility. Bulk goods are goods that have been deposited by their owners into storage with goods of the same kind that are owned by others. As such, the goods of one owner become intermingled with the goods of another—for example, with grain or wine. The bill will prevent farmers from going through the legal minefield that the Premer grain growers had to endure. Their case was long and protracted and was finally settled out of court but, as I said, there is no legal precedent to stop the antiquated 1933 ruling being used again.

Under section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1923, where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained goods, no property in the goods is transferred to the buyer unless and until the goods are ascertained. Currently the storage of goods in bulk facilities is considered unascertained. The goods become ascertained only once they have been separated from the bulk. In the case of grain, this is when it is loaded on a truck for delivery. Schedule 1 inserts into the Sale of Goods Act 1923 a new section 25A that generally follows the provisions of section 10A and section 20B of the United Kingdom's Sale of Goods Act 1979.

My bill amends the Sale of Goods Act 1923 to ensure that a purchaser of goods to be delivered from a bulk storage can, by paying for them, obtain a proprietary right to the goods before they are separated out from the bulk. It will also amend the Warehousemen's Liens Act 1935 to ensure that an owner of goods delivered into bulk storage retains a proprietary right to those goods after they have become part of bulk storage. Schedule 2 inserts new section 9A into the Warehousemen's Liens Act 1935 to reflect the approach taken in schedule 1 in respect of the Sale of Goods Act 1923.

The bill removes the uncertainty facing our farmers in these difficult times of drought. I have held long discussions with my colleagues the honourable member for Northern Tablelands and the honourable member for Dubbo, who both share my concerns that unless the bill receives the support of the House, farmers may face further legal disadvantage in the future. I urge both sides of the House to consider the positive implications of this bill and vote accordingly. Farmers are facing considerable hardship from what is now being dubbed the worst drought in 1,000 years. They need to be protected against any unnecessary legal disputes. The bill is an excellent solution that will prevent future situations that may be similar to that faced by the Premer farmers in the Creasy incident. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Linda Burney.

MOUNT PANORAMA MOTOR RACING AMENDMENT BILL

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with an amendment.

Consideration of amendment deferred. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3859

POLICE POWERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.10 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Bob Debus: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Police Powers Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, which amends police powers legislation in a number of different respects. Firstly, it amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, which has been in operation for nearly a year now. These amendments address a number of different issues that have become apparent during the implementation of the new Act. Secondly, the bill makes amendments to the Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas Trial) Act 2003 arising out of an Ombudsman review of that scheme. Thirdly, the bill makes amendments to the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 arising out of a legislative review of that Act. Finally, there are amendments to a number of Acts to facilitate the statewide roll-out of the criminal infringement notice scheme, which has been trialled in 12 local area commands and will now be available in all areas after a number of amendments are made as recommended by the Ombudsman in his review of the trial.

I turn now to the details of the bill. Schedule 1 makes various amendments to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. Items [2] and [3] of schedule 1 make amendments to personal search powers. The changes allow a police officer who is conducting an ordinary search to require the person to remove his or her socks, in addition to his or her shoes. There is also a new power to require a person to open his or her mouth or shake their hair if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is concealing something in those places. Failure to comply is an offence. Operational police have reported that some offenders, particularly drug dealers, are secreting small objects in their mouth and hair. The new law makes it clear, however, that this power does not give police the right to forcibly open a person's mouth.

Item [4] of schedule 1 allows a police officer who is conducting a search of a student at a school to also search the student's bag, regardless of whether the student is carrying the bag at the time. Item [6] of schedule 1 amends section 28 to make it clear that where an officer is searching a person for a dangerous implement the officer has a choice to either ask the person to hand over the suspicious object or to simply confiscate the item if that is the safer course of action to take. Item [11] of schedule 1 amends section 82 to make clear the power conferred on a police officer to enter and remain on premises where the apparent victim of a domestic violence offence has issued an invitation to do so even if another occupier expressly refuses the authority of the police to do so.

Items [12] to [14] of schedule 1 make amendments to the emergency Cronulla powers that were implemented last year. These minor amendments will permit a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent to revoke an authorisation, made in connection with a public disorder, that prohibits the sale of liquor from licensed premises. Currently the police officer must be of or above the rank of inspector. The emergency alcohol-free zone powers are also strengthened by requiring people to remove alcohol from the zone immediately rather than simply putting away the alcohol. The police officer may seize the liquor if the direction is not obeyed. Part 7 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act deals with crime scene powers.

Items [17] to [23] of schedule 1 make a number of amendments to the crime scene powers to clarify how crime scenes are established, allow crime scene powers to be exercised with the aid of assistants, broaden the role of scene of crime officers, and allow vehicles, vessels and aircraft that are within an established crime scene to be searched without the need for a further warrant. However, this may only occur where the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to preserve, or search for and gather, evidence of the commission of the offence in connection with which the crime scene was established or the police officer is authorised to do so by some other lawful authority.

Currently section 201 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act provides that certain warnings must be given when law enforcement officers are exercising coercive powers, for example, identifying themselves as police officers and warning people that failure to comply with a request is an offence. The bill simplifies this regime, makes it more consistent, and clarifies which police powers it applies to. Items [36] to [42] of schedule 1 make amendments to provide that no warning is required if a person has already complied 3860 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

with the direction; police are not required to warn the person that failure to comply with the direction is an offence unless the person has been given a chance to comply and has failed or refused; an officer has only to identify themselves once; one warning can cover a situation where an officer is exercising a number of powers or where there is more than one officer exercising powers; and police powers exercised under other Acts are not subject to section 201. These Acts have their own accountability provisions, if needed.

These are sensible amendments. They balance the public's right to be confident that police will exercise their powers accountably and openly, with a commonsense, practical approach to policing. Item [28] of schedule 1 allows any person from whom any fingerprint or palm print has been taken to request the Commissioner of Police to destroy them if the offence in connection with which they were taken is not proven. The Commissioner of Police is required to destroy them as soon as practicable after receiving such a request. This is merely providing a legislative base for an administrative practice that has been in place for many years. Item [47] of schedule 1 extends these arrangements to fingerprints and palm prints taken before the relevant amendment commences. Section 353AC of the Crimes Act 1900 currently provides that a police officer who serves a penalty notice on a person under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 may require the person to submit to the taking of fingerprints and palm prints, and that such prints are to be destroyed on payment of the penalty under the penalty notice.

That section and related sections currently in the Crimes Act are transferred from the Crimes Act 1900 to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 by schedule 4.1 [1]. Item [30] of schedule 1 amends the transferred section 138A relating to fingerprinting persons who receive penalty notices to make it clear that a requirement to submit to the taking of prints may be requested before or after the penalty notice has been served. Item [31] of schedule 1 provides that the prints are to also be destroyed if a court deals with the penalty notice offence and dismisses the relevant charge or arrives at a finding of not guilty for the charge or if the penalty notice is withdrawn. Item [45] of schedule 1 extends the period at the end of which a review of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act is required to be carried out. The amendment requires the principal provisions of the Act to have been in operation for three years before the review is required.

Schedule 1 also contains a number of other minor amendments such as: updating the reference to the position of clerk of a Local Court, now the registrar; clarifying provisions relating to occupier's notices; allowing for another authorised officer to extend a warrant if the original authorised officer is not available; transferring the provision relating to arrests by a commander of an aircraft from the Crimes Act 1900 to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, and updating an outdated reference in the provision; extending time out for the calculation of time spent in lawful custody so that time spent in obtaining a crime scene warrant is disregarded, which is similar to the treatment of other types of warrants; requiring a search warrant in respect of suspected drug premises to be applied for by the police officer who is in charge of an investigation into the suspected use of the premises as drug premises, rather than any police officer of or above the rank of sergeant; removing the requirement that a police officer make a record of certain matters when another police officer has already made a record of those matters; and allowing the Ombudsman to require information from a public authority, as well as the police, in connection with the exercise of functions under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act.

Schedule 2 revives, with modifications, the drug detection scheme that operated under the Police Powers (Drug Detection in Border Areas Trial) Act 2003—the drug detection trial Act—which allowed police to establish checkpoints in a search area, to stop vehicles at the check points and to use dogs to carry out general drug detection in relation to the vehicle. The principal change to the scheme, as revived by the amendments, is that it will operate under an authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Police or another designated officer, as defined by item [5] of schedule 2, rather than under a warrant-based system. This will make it more consistent with the schemes provided for by the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 and the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997.

Schedule 2 inserts new section 6 that sets out the new procedure for applying for, and granting, an authorisation to exercise powers conferred by the scheme. The designated officer will be able to issue an authorisation to exercise the powers conferred by the drug detection trial Act on the same sort of grounds as a judge was permitted to issue a drug detection warrant under the previous scheme. In addition, the amendments will require the application to include details of past applications in relation to the area and of past operations in relation to the area. The designated officer will be required also to be satisfied that the nature and extent of the proposed drug detection operation is appropriate to the suspected criminal activity concerned.

Schedule 2 inserts new section 14 that provides for authorisations to remain in force for up to 14 days, unless sooner revoked. Under the previous scheme drug detection warrants had effect for only 72 hours. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3861

Another key change to the scheme is that it will extend to all parts of the State that are outside the metropolitan areas of Sydney, Newcastle and the Illawarra. In addition, a search area may be comprised of an area of up to five square kilometres, rather than a maximum of one square kilometre under the previous scheme, and police may establish more than one checkpoint in a search area and may move checkpoints at any time. These changes will increase the flexibility and mobility of operations, as well as making the operations less predictable and more difficult to evade. To complement the changes, schedule 2 [13] replaces the previous signage requirement with an obligation on police to ensure that adequate measures are in place to ensure the safety of persons and vehicles approaching the checkpoint.

Items [10] and [11] of schedule 2 make adjustments to the provisions of the Act that require police to issue a warning to persons who fail to comply with requests, in line with the changes made to section 201 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act by Schedule 1. Items [19] to [21] of schedule 2 require the Ombudsman to undertake another review of the scheme, as modified, at the end of the period of 12 months after the commencement of the relevant provisions. For that purpose the powers of the Ombudsman are extended so as to allow the Ombudsman to inspect the records of NSW Police at any time. Schedule 2 [22] provides that the scheme is revived from the commencement of the relevant amendments and will have effect for 18 months.

The new 18-month trial steps up the fight against the transportation of illicit drugs into, out of, and around New South Wales. The new regime is closely modelled on the highly successful controlled operations legislation, and will incorporate the changes to police practice and procedure recommended by the Ombudsman following his review of the previous scheme. Schedule 3 amends the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. The proposed amendments arise directly from the review conducted in accordance with section 36 of the Act. On the whole, the review concluded that the Act strikes a good balance between extraordinary law enforcement powers that will be effective in preventing an imminent terrorist act or investigating a suspected attack, and the necessary tests and safeguards to ensure that these powers are used only in urgent and appropriate circumstances. However, several legislative amendments were identified to clarify the original policy intention of certain provisions.

Schedule 3 [1] requires the Commissioner of Police, when giving an authorisation, or any other officer who gives an authorisation, to be satisfied that the nature and extent of the powers to be conferred by the authorisation are appropriate to the threatened or suspected terrorist act. Schedule 3 [2] amends section 14 (2) of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act to clarify that the special powers conferred on police officers through an authorisation under the Act can be exercised whether or not the officer has been provided with a copy of the authorisation, or informed of all the terms of the authorisation. This ensures that police can use these powers without having to be informed of the parts of the authorisation that are not relevant to their area of operations.

Items [3] and [4] of schedule 3 amend sections 17 (3) and 18 (2) of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act so as to be consistent with section 204 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, so that the provision reads that a police officer must not detain any longer than is reasonably necessary rather than "may detain for a long as necessary". This makes the provisions more consistent with the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. Schedule 3 [5] amends section 23 to impose a duty on a plain-clothed police officer to provide the person subject to the exercise of the power with their name and rank and other information in the same way as is required under the Law Enforcement (Powers and responsibilities) Act.

Schedule 3 [6] amends section 23 to insert a notice provision in relation to offences contained in the Act, similar to the notice provisions in section 201 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act; namely, a warning that a failure to comply with a direction is an offence under the Act. All of the commonsense amendments made to section 201 by schedule 1 of this bill are also picked up here. Schedule 3 [7] clarifies section 27O, which concerns the covert search warrant powers, to allow police to do things to maintain the secrecy of their search. Schedule 3 [8] amends section 36 of the Act to provide that it be reviewed every two years rather than annually. As the emergency powers have been authorised only once and never used, it is considered that a review every two years is adequate. This time frame will also fit well with the Ombudsman reports into the covert search warrant scheme and the preventative detention scheme.

The amendments proposed in this bill will improve the Act and bring it into line with the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. Schedule 4 contains various amendments that will facilitate the statewide operation of the Criminal Infringement Notices Scheme. The scheme has been operating as a trial across 12 police local area commands since 2002. The Ombudsman has reviewed the scheme and, whilst finding it to be generally successful, has recommended a number of legislative and procedural improvements. The bill implements the legislative changes proposed by the Ombudsman. A statewide rollout of the penalty notice 3862 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

scheme is proposed for mid next year and it is anticipated that by 1 May 2007 all police will be trained in the use of these penalty notices, and will have the legislative power to deal with these minor matters on the spot.

This simple reform benefits all police; it saves court time; and it diverts minor offenders away from the criminal justice system. Schedule 4.1 moves from the Crimes Act to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act provisions relating to taking of fingerprints of persons issued penalty notices, and a provision relating to the arrest of persons on aircraft. I have already explained the effect of those changes. It makes further minor statute law revision amendments. Schedule 4.3 makes amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act relating to the Criminal Infringement Notice Scheme. Part 3 of chapter 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 enables police officers to serve penalty notices, known as criminal infringement notices, on persons in certain areas for prescribed minor offences.

The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 as follows. Currently section 334 of the Act provides that such penalty notices may be served only personally. Schedule 4.3 [1] amends the Act to allow for penalty notices to also be served by post. Section 340 of the Act currently provides that a penalty notice may be withdrawn by a senior police officer before the due date for payment under the notice. Schedule 4.3 [2] provides, instead, that a penalty notice may be withdrawn at any time. Schedule 4.3 [3] provides that if a penalty notice is withdrawn any subsequent action taken, including any enforcement action, in relation to the notice is to be reversed and that any costs in relation to that action are not payable and, if paid, are repayable.

Section 340 (3) (c) of the Act currently provides that if a penalty notice is withdrawn further proceedings in respect of the alleged offence to which the notice relates may be taken against any person as if the notice had never been served. Schedule 4.3 [4] makes it clear that such proceedings may be taken only subject to any time limit within which the relevant proceedings for the offence are required to be commenced. Schedule 4.3 [6] provides that the Ombudsman is to review and report to the Attorney General and the Minister for Police by 30 November 2008 on the operation of the penalty notices scheme in so far as the provisions impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

The bill amends the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2005 as follows. Schedule 4.4 [1] extends the operation of part 3 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2005, which establishes a trial period for a penalty notice scheme for certain offences under the Crimes Act 1900 and the Summary Offences Act 1988, until 30 April 2007. Schedule 4.4 [2] removes the offence of common assault under section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900, from the offences prescribed for which police officers may issue penalty notices. The bill makes a wide variety of amendments to improve and clarify the operation of police powers across the State. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

VICTIMS SUPPORT AND REHABILITATION AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.28 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Bob Debus: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This Government has a proud record of supporting the needs of victims of crime. We have listened to victims and their support groups. We are responding by making some important changes in this bill that will benefit victims of crime in New South Wales. The main purpose of this bill is to implement the key recommendations from the report of the statutory review of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 and the Victims Rights Act 1996. There will also be a change to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 concerning victim impact statements. The bill implements the majority of the report's recommendations. A small number of these recommendations have been changed or altered to take into account some of the concerns raised by stakeholders. It also contains a number of new reforms. The Victims Advisory Board and victims' support groups have provided invaluable assistance in developing the changes contained in this bill. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3863

The report of the statutory review recommended that a scheme be established to allow victims of crime who are not eligible for statutory compensation to elect to be reimbursed for certain actual expenses up to a maximum amount. Consultation with victims' groups has confirmed the need for such a scheme. The bill extends compensation to a new category of victims who will be eligible to be reimbursed for certain prescribed expenses. It will provide some financial relief for victims who currently fall under the threshold for statutory compensation for compensable injuries. It will also allow victims to be reimbursed at an earlier stage for some of their expenses while their general statutory compensation claim, under section 14 of the Act, is determined. The expansion of the scheme further emphasises the rehabilitation role of the Act. It is an important and practical way to assist victims to re-establish their lives in the aftermath of crime.

Eligible victims will be able to claim for actual expenses incurred as a result of an act of violence. These expenses must total at least $200 and cannot exceed $1,500. The kinds of expenses that are recoverable will be set out in the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Regulation. So that honourable members can see what types of expenses will be covered by the scheme, the regulation has been prepared and is set out in schedule 4 to the bill. The regulation will commence when the other provisions relating to the scheme commence. The expenses to be covered by the expanded scheme include the provision of an ambulance service, dental services, physiotherapy, domestic assistance during the victim's recovery from the act of violence, cleaning of property— other than clothing or other wearable items—security measures and the replacement of prescription glasses or prescription contact lenses.

The expanded scheme also contemplates that a victim may be eligible for compensation for prescribed expenses but then may wish later to lodge a claim for general statutory compensation. This could be in circumstances where, for example, further medical evidence comes to light about a permanent disability that has resulted from the act of violence. To prevent double dipping the amount of any award for prescribed expenses will be deducted from a later successful award for general statutory compensation. A person must lodge their application for prescribed expenses within two years of the act of violence. No leave can be given to accept a late application. The process for applying for prescribed expenses will be simple. It is anticipated that once applications are received they will be dealt with speedily. As a result no legal costs or other disbursements will be payable in relation to an application for prescribed expenses.

Where a person lodges an application for general statutory compensation but is awarded prescribed expenses only an assessor will have discretion to award costs in special circumstances. This proposed section is designed to discourage applicants from lodging applications for general statutory compensation where there is a little prospect of receiving it. In the case of genuine applications for general statutory compensation which are ultimately dismissed, the current law with respect to costs will continue to apply. A victim will be able to have the amount of the prescribed expenses compensation award reviewed by the Director of Victim Services. Otherwise the usual review and appeal mechanisms applying to general compensation will apply.

The Government is strongly committed to supporting victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. The Government has recently introduced a number of changes to the criminal law designed to protect women and children and send a message to perpetrators that their behaviour is totally unacceptable. This bill contains further changes, which will benefit victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Previously a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault, in the absence of physical injuries, had to prove a psychological or psychiatric disorder before they were eligible to receive compensation or counselling under the Act.

The amendments in this bill will improve access to compensation and counselling to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault who manifest psychological or psychiatric harm. In line with the common law, the requisite "harm" need not be permanent in nature, but must be more than merely transient or trifling. This change recognises the unique nature of sexual assault and domestic violence offences and demonstrates the Government's commitment to supporting victims of these particularly traumatic crimes. It also means that compensation assessors will generally be able to draw on existing documents relevant to the compensation claim, such as medical records, court records, counselling records and school reports to determine that there is an injury. This will remove the need for a victim to undergo additional psychiatric or psychological examinations. The process of applying for compensation will now be less traumatic for victims of sexual assault, including children.

The bill also amends section 30 of the Act so that a compensation assessor will be able to consider other reports which the victim made to health professionals and other relevant agencies about the crime, not only reports they may have made to police. An assessor, when considering whether victims of sexual assault or domestic violence took reasonable steps to mitigate the extent of their injury, will also be required to have 3864 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

regard to the nature of the relationship between the victim and the offender. The bill narrows the definition of "domestic violence" to exclude instances of violence occurring in more remote relationships. While it has seldom occurred in practice, the report of the statutory review concluded that the use of the broad definition in the Crimes Act could lead to inappropriate compensation payments. For example, a victim who receives an injury inflicted by a former flatmate at a social event would, under the current law, automatically attract the minimum domestic violence award of $7,500. This type of relationship cannot properly be characterised as domestic violence for the purposes of compensation applications. I emphasise that this change will not affect entitlements for victims of domestic violence in family settings or intimate relationships.

The Government is always seeking appropriate ways to support the families of homicide victims. The bill makes a number of changes that will directly benefit family victims in homicide cases. The bill makes a half-sister or half-brother eligible for compensation in homicide cases. A person, including a victim's grandparent, who has incurred reasonable expenses for the funeral of a homicide victim will be reimbursed even if there is no "family victim" eligible for compensation. This amendment recognises that it is a traumatic time for the extended family and friends of a homicide victim. It is appropriate to extend this benefit to a person who organises and pays for the funeral of the primary victim.

In relation to an interim application for funeral expenses, the bill provides that an assessor will be able to consider whether those expenses are reasonable. Where it is considered that funeral expenses are excessive, all eligible family members may have to agree to the money being paid out of the $50,000 that is available for the family victim award. The bill amends the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to expand the categories of victims who are entitled, in homicide cases, to make a victim impact statement to include the homicide victim's grandparent, grandchild, half-brother, half-sister or fiancé. This amendment builds on the Government's commitment to ensuring that victims of crime, including family victims, have their voices heard in the court process at the time of sentencing.

One of the main aims of the Act is to provide support and rehabilitation for victims through the provision of approved counselling. There will be a number of changes to the counselling scheme that enhance the rehabilitative focus of the Act. The Government is committed to processing an application for counselling within 48 hours. To make this possible in practice, victims of an act of violence will be able to apply for the initial two hours of counselling even if it has not yet been established that the person is a victim, provided the compensation assessor is satisfied that counselling may assist in establishing that they are a victim. This change to the application process will give a counsellor the opportunity to assess the nature of any psychological or psychiatric harm before considering whether further counselling—up to a maximum of 20 hours—is needed.

As I said, the bill also changes the definition of "injury" to include psychological or psychiatric harm. Applicants for counselling who do not have a physical injury will benefit from this change, as it means that they will not need to provide that a psychological or psychiatric disorder exists before they are eligible for more than the initial two hours of counselling under the approved scheme. The bill also makes clear that a victim is entitled to apply for counselling even if an application for compensation was dealt with under the previous victims' compensation legislation—the Victims Compensation Act 1987. The rules will contain further details about how the counselling scheme will operate and the rule-making power has been expanded accordingly.

There are a number of other discrete changes to the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act. These include allowing a compensation assessor to adjourn a compensation application in matters where the applicant may be liable to pay restitution as a convicted offender. Compensation awarded to the applicant will be able to be set off against an existing or proposed restitution debt. The bill will also confirm that compensation is available to a victim even where the offender cannot be held criminally responsible for an offence because of age, mental illness or impairment. The bill clarifies the correct statutory path to follow when assessing the amount of compensation payable to a victim. It provides that the total amount payable for compensable injuries is the total amount arrived at after reductions are made under sections 19, 30, 31 or the schedule of compensable injuries. This change is necessary in light of the unreported District Court decision in the appeal of Rice v Victims Compensation Fund Corporation.

The Victims Rights Act 1996 enacts the Charter of Victims Rights and establishes the Victims of Crime Bureau and the Victims Advisory Board. This bill makes two changes to the Victims Rights Act arising from the recommendations in the statutory review. The term "mental illness or nervous shock" will be replaced with the term "psychological or psychiatric harm". This reflects modern legal and medical terminology for describing harm. The Charter of Victims Rights will be amended to incorporate the principles of multiculturalism that are contained in other legislation and form an important part of the policy of New South Wales. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3865

Overall, this bill extends the benefits of the compensation and counselling schemes to a larger range of victims in a way that ensures the continuing viability of the Victims Compensation Fund. This bill will commence in stages. It is anticipated that the amendments to expand the compensation scheme to include prescribed expenses will commence in early 2007. This will give the Victims Compensation Tribunal the time necessary to prepare for the introduction of the expanded scheme. Most of the remaining provisions are expected to commence in December this year.

Finally, as I noted in the House on 18 October 2006, this Government is committed to listening to victims and improving the services it provides. In the coming months the Government will start reviewing services for victims in New South Wales in order to identify key areas of need and to improve co-ordination between agencies. The review will involve looking at whether victims of crime have appropriate access to support services with the important emphasis on ensuring disadvantaged groups and people from rural and remote areas are properly supported. The aim will be to identify key gaps and areas for improvement.

The review will also look at the arrangements for the support of family members of homicide victims. A working group will be established to develop a set of principles and standards for supporting family members of homicide victims. The standards will cover a range of important issues such as quality, ethics, cultural sensitivity and timely provision of support. Once the service review has been conducted, options for better service co-ordination and funding, including grants, will be developed. The provisions in this bill build on the Government's record of listening to victims of crime and responding to their support needs with sensitivity and respect. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EVIDENCE) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.43 a.m.], on behalf of Mr John Watkins: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill primarily amends road transport legislation as defined in section 5 of the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 and the Roads Act 1993 in two major ways. The first is by replacing the existing expression "is admissible and is evidence to the contrary" by one or other of the expressions "evidence sufficient to raise doubt" or "prima facie evidence". The second is to require defendants who wish to challenge prosecution presented evidentiary certificates or photographs that contain information derived from a device like a speed camera or speed-measuring device to adduce expert evidence in certain situations.

The primary reason for these amendments is to protect and maintain the road safety benefit of speed cameras and other enforcement cameras, such as red light cameras. Speed remains the largest single contributing factor in fatal crashes on our roads. I am advised that speeding is a factor in 40 per cent of fatal crashes each year and remains one of the leading causes of road trauma. It is clear that many drivers still refuse to slow down, despite extensive Government education campaigns, police enforcement operations and widespread knowledge of the often tragic results of high-speed crashes.

Speed cameras are a highly effective and targeted means of deterring speeding on our roads. I am advised that statistics provided by the Roads and Traffic Authority show fatal crashes can be reduced by 90 per cent where speed cameras are introduced. Injury crashes can be reduced by 20 per cent. This demonstrated safety benefit shows the importance of making sure the legislation governing speed cameras is working in the public interest. In prosecutions for speeding offences detected by speed-measuring devices, it is usual for the basic elements constituting the offence to be tendered in evidence by way of a signed certificate. This certificate allows verification that the measurement of speed was recorded by the use of an approved speed-measuring device which was tested on a specified date, and that the device was found to be accurate and operating properly.

Photographs from approved camera recording devices are also tendered in evidence, accompanied by a certificate verifying that the device was inspected by an authorised person before the photograph was taken and 3866 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

the device was operating correctly. Unfortunately, a series of recent judicial decisions have caused much confusion in the community regarding the evidentiary requirements in speed camera cases before the courts. This is because in some cases the phrase "evidence to the contrary" has been interpreted so broadly as to allow any evidence whatsoever, including a mere denial, to rebut photographic and certificate evidence.

By way of illustration, the New South Wales Supreme Court case of Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Michell dealt with the phrase "evidence to the contrary" in the context of speed camera enforcement. There it was held that even slight or unconvincing evidence was sufficient to overrule both photographic and certificate evidence. This has resulted in some judges and magistrates holding that a motorist's mere assertion that he or she was not speeding is sufficient to rebut camera and certificate evidence. In other words, when a defendant's contrary evidence questions the operational accuracy of a device like a speed camera, however unscientific, subjective, slight or unconvincing that contrary evidence may be, the prosecution can no longer rely on the relevant photograph or evidentiary certificate as earlier tendered in evidence to the court.

The prosecution has the onus of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence was committed. The defendant does not have to establish anything. A defendant's evidence can simply be accepted by the court and the prosecution will fail because once the photographic and certificate evidence is displaced there is no evidence of a speeding incident, for example. The cases effectively hold that any evidence at all tendered by a defendant would defeat the certificate evidence of accuracy and reliability of the approved speed-measuring devices and the approved camera recording devices. The practical effect of the interpretation adopted in Michell would be to undermine prosecutions for speed camera detected offences and so significantly compromise the road safety objectives of the speed camera scheme.

Potentially, all types of prosecutions that involve the production of documentary evidence in relation to proceedings concerning allegations of road traffic offences recorded by speed measuring devices, speed cameras, public bus lane cameras, traffic light cameras or toll cameras may be affected if the present expression were not amended. The bill proposes replacement statutory expressions that will provide clearer guidance to the courts in determining when evidence is sufficient to raise doubt about the accuracy, reliability and proper operation of the enforcement device. The defendant's expert contrary evidence or contention must be credible and must establish that there is a reasonable possibility that the device did not operate properly at the time of the alleged offence.

I now turn more specifically to the expression "prima facie evidence" as provided for in the bill in the context of road transport related criminal proceedings. I point out that by adopting the expression "prima facie evidence" in road transport legislation in lieu of the words "evidence to the contrary is adduced", the bill will see the return of the expression "prima facie evidence" as it was contained in earlier road transport law. I will provide briefly some historical background to the expression "prima facie evidence". Under the provisions of the repealed Traffic Act 1909, which was replaced by the current road transport legislation in December 1999, certificate evidence establishing that an approved speed-measuring device was accurate and operating properly at the time of an alleged excess speed offence was admissible in a court of law.

By virtue of the former section 4AB of the repealed Traffic Act 1909, particulars in such a certificate were accepted as prima facie evidence. This type of certificate obviated the need for the prosecution always to call an expert to testify that the relevant approved speed-measuring device was operating accurately and reliably, or properly at the time of the particular offence. Only in cases where a defendant had presented evidence to the effect that such a device had not been accurate or reliable would it be necessary for the prosecution to call its own expert with the intention of refuting the evidence from the defendant's expert.

Similar to the role of an evidentiary certificate being used as prima facie evidence of the integrity of an approved speed measuring device, the former section 4AC of the replaced Traffic Act 1909 allowed a photograph taken by a speed camera, called an "approved camera recording device" in the old Act and in the current legislation, to be accepted as prima facie evidence of the matters shown or recorded on the photograph. In addition, under that former section 4AC the contents of an evidentiary certificate could be presented to a court of law as prima facie evidence that a speed camera was found to be operating correctly at the time of an excess speed offence. Again, similar evidentiary certificate and photographic based prima facie evidence was used in proceedings dealing with red traffic light offences where the offence was captured by what former section 4DA of the repealed Traffic Act 1909 called an "approved camera detection device".

With the advent of the current road transport legislation, the same device names, that is, an "approved speed measuring device", an "approved camera recording device" and an "approved camera detection device", 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3867

were carried over into the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999. However, the expression "prima facie evidence" was not carried over. The current expression "evidence (unless evidence to the contrary is adduced)" was instead incorporated in road transport legislation. There was no intention to change the substance or legal effect of the legislation. This approach was similar to that adopted in other States at the time. The approach now adopted in the bill is consistent with the national model legislation which was reflected in the Road Transport (General) Amendment (Intelligent Access Program) Act 2006 which was recently passed by the Parliament.

Where the matter in dispute between defendant and prosecutor in respect of determining whether the evidence is sufficient to raise doubt about a matter, or to rebut prima facie evidence or a presumption in the context of the provisions specified in the bill, the defendant must call an expert. The bill provides that only an expert's assertion that contradicts or challenges the accuracy or reliability, or the correct or proper operation, of any of the devices to which I have referred can be capable of being sufficient to raise doubt or to rebut such evidence or presumption upon which a prosecution initially relies. An expert can be a person who qualifies for this status by virtue of his or her specialised knowledge based upon training, study or experience.

The bill reinforces the safety benefits of speed cameras and similar devices. It provides guidance to the courts in consistently applying the relevant legislative provisions, and it provides for defendants with legitimate expert evidence that raises a reasonable doubt as to the reliability of a relevant device to put their defence. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (NO. 2)

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.53 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Morris Iemma: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) continues the well-established statute law revision program that is recognised by all members as a cost-effective and efficient method for dealing with minor amendments. The form of the bill is similar to that of previous bills in the statute law revision program. This session the bill includes an additional schedule to deal specifically with statute law revision amendments consequential on the enactment of the Legal Profession Act 2004. Schedule 1 contains policy changes of a minor and non-controversial nature that the responsible Minister considers do not warrant the introduction of a separate amending bill. That schedule contains amendments to 34 Acts.

I will mention some of the amendments to give honourable members an indication of the kind of amendments that are included in the schedule. Schedule 1 amends the Conveyancing Act 1919 to permit plans or other documents lodged with the Registrar-General under that Act to be kept in any medium or combination of media ensuring the registrar can deal with plans in hard copy and electronically. That Act is also amended to permit the Registrar-General to refuse to register a plan that has been executed under a power of attorney unless the power of attorney is also registered. A similar amendment is made to the Real Property Act 1900.

Other amendments made by schedule 1 are to the Western Lands Act 1901 to provide that a person is not disqualified from office as the Western Lands Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner merely because the person has an interest in freehold land in the Western Division. This is appropriate because the commissioner does not have powers to deal with freehold land. The amendments will also allow the Minister for Natural Resources to resolve urgent title issues over special easements over land within the Western Division that are being used as a road or track instead of having to request that the Registrar-General do so.

Schedule 1 also amends the Royal Commissions Act 1923 and the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983 to update the offences of giving false testimony before a royal commission or special commission of inquiry. The updated provisions bring these Acts into line with the offences of giving false and misleading testimony found in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 and the Police Integrity 3868 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

Commission Act 1996. The updated provisions also apply sections 331 and 332 of the Crimes Act 1900, which remove some technical defences. Section 331 provides that where a person has made two irreconcilable statements a jury is not required to know which statement is untrue to find the person guilty of the offence. Section 332 provides that an accused person cannot rely on a technical defect in an instrument to prevent it being used in evidence at his or her trial.

Another amendment made by schedule 1 is to the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991. This will remove an anomaly whereby an application for development consent to the use of land for the purpose of obtaining petroleum does not require the consent of the owner of the land, but an application for a modification of any such development application may require the landowner's consent. Consistent with existing policy, the amendment makes it clear that the consent of the landowner is not required in either case, despite the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Food Act 2003 is also amended to clarify that regulations can be made to allow a person to make an application to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of any decision under the Act. Currently regulations provide for such an application but may be outside the scope of the Act. This amendment is intended to clarify and confirm these rights. The concurrence of the Attorney General will be required to the making of any new regulations. Other amendments are made by schedule 1 to the Sydney Opera House Trust Act 1961. These amendments clarify the land and buildings to which the Act applies. Amendments also permit the Sydney Opera House Trust to operate more than one bank account. This is necessary as fundraising legislation around Australia often requires money raised through a fundraising appeal to be paid into a separate bank account. Finally, this Act is also amended to provide for the disclosure of pecuniary interests by members of the trust.

The amendments to the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences Act 1945, the Library Act 1939, the Historic Houses Act 1980 and the Australian Museum Trust Act 1975 also provide for the disclosure of pecuniary interests by trustees or members of the trust or council established by each of those Acts. Schedule 1 also amends the Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Act 2005, which inserted a new section 33C into the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998. That section prevents a prohibited person from applying for child-related employment. The proposed amendment clarifies that the new offence will also prevent a self-employed prohibited person seeking such employment.

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 is also amended by schedule 1. These amendments provide that the biennial report of the Environment Protection Authority on littering is to contain estimates of the composition and quantity of litter. They also provide that when an authorised officer requires a person to take a vehicle to a place to be tested for compliance with the Act it is not an offence to drive the vehicle to that place. They allow a court to order an offender to pay any specified organisation an amount for environmental purposes. Currently, such payment can be made only to a specified "environmental" organisation.

Schedule 2 deals with matters of pure statute law revision that the Parliamentary Counsel considers are appropriate for inclusion—for example, amendments arising out of the enactment or repeal of other legislation, those correcting duplicated numbering and those updating terminology. Schedule 3 contains statute law revision amendments that are consequential upon the enactment of the Legal Profession Act 2004. They include standardising terms used in other Acts and updating references to the Legal Profession Act 1987, now repealed. Schedule 4 repeals a number of Acts and provisions of Acts. Schedule 5 contains general savings, transitional and other provisions.

The various amendments are explained in detail in explanatory notes set out beneath the amendments to each of the Acts and statutory instruments concerned or at the beginning of the relevant schedule. If any amendment causes concern or requires clarification, it should be brought to my attention. If necessary, I will arrange for government officers to provide additional information on the matters raised. If any particular matter of concern cannot be resolved and is likely to delay the passage of the bill, the Government is prepared to consider withdrawing the matter from the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

WORLD YOUTH DAY BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.02 a.m.], on behalf of Mr John Watkins: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time. 14 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 3869

It is my privilege to introduce the World Youth Day Bill, which will establish a statutory corporation, the World Youth Day Co-ordination Authority, to plan, co-ordinate and provide for government services for World Youth Day 2008. World Youth Day is a six-day celebration aimed at young people aged from 16 to 35 years from all around the world. Initiated by His Holiness Pope John Paul II in 1984, it has become the largest single international mobilisation of young people in the world.

Last year Sydney proudly won the right to host World Youth Day 2008, which will be held from 14 to 20 July. The high-level delegation that secured this event was led by the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, with the support of the New South Wales Government. World Youth Day 2008 is a wonderful opportunity for Sydney to showcase itself again to the world. It demonstrates our ability to continue to attract and host large-scale international events. Such events focus international attention on Sydney and New South Wales, and they show us at our best. They help to underscore Sydney's reputation as a world-class international city—a city whose people are highly skilled and hardworking, with an easygoing "can do" attitude and friendly manner. Previous World Youth Day host cities have included Rome, Paris, Buenos Aires, Manila, Toronto and Cologne.

It is anticipated that around 500,000 people will participate in World Youth Day 2008 events, including an expected 100,000 from overseas. The culmination of the event will be a final papal mass to be delivered by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI at Randwick Racecourse on 29 July 2008. I can also advise the House that a chief executive officer for the authority has been selected. The current Director of Transport Operations at the New South Wales Ministry of Transport, Mr Roy Wakelin-King, will take on the role. Mr Wakelin-King will bring considerable experience to the position following a career as a commissioned officer in the Australian Army and detailed know-how from his time with the Olympic Roads and Transport Authority.

World Youth Day 2008 is bigger than the Rugby World Cup in terms of expected visitors. It is bigger than the Olympics, and it will take a similar level of co-ordination and services to make it happen. The success of World Youth Day, as with all major events of this nature, lies in proper planning. Planning is also key to ensuring public safety and security, as well as to ensuring that the everyday functioning of our city continues. The successful staging of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games demonstrated the need for overall planning and co-ordination at a strategic level as well as clear, centralised lines of reporting. In 2000 this role was performed successfully by the Olympic Co-ordination Authority and the Olympic Roads and Transport Authority. Both these agencies worked co-operatively with the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and the international and Australian Olympic committees to deliver "the best Games ever".

It is proposed to adopt the Olympic model for the planning and co-ordination of New South Wales Government services for World Youth Day 2008. In particular, the bill will establish a new special purpose authority dedicated solely to the function of planning, co-ordinating and providing for government services for World Youth Day 2008. Given its special-purpose role, the authority will have a limited life. The bill includes provision for winding up the authority after World Youth Day, and the legislation will expire automatically on 31 December 2008.

The bill establishes an advisory board for the authority, to be chaired by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Transport, and Minister for Police, John Watkins, and including representatives—at chief executive officer level—from relevant government agencies. The board will also include a representative from the church to facilitate continued co-operation and co-ordination between the government agencies and the church in staging the actual events. Existing government agencies will have the expertise, staff and other resources and facilities to provide the services necessary for World Youth Day. The authority's role will be primarily to provide the high-level planning and co-ordination function to support the provision of those services. Government agencies will be required to co-operate with the authority, which will develop and implement strategies, plans and policies for the World Youth Day period.

Importantly, nothing in the legislation will affect the lawful exercise of powers by police, and the authority will not have any powers of direction in respect of police officers and police resources. NSW Police will be represented on the authority, of course, and will play a central role in planning for World Youth Day. The bill will confer on the authority powers to facilitate the conduct of World Youth Day events. These powers are similar to, but not as extensive as, those that were in place during the Olympics. They include provisions to allow for the establishment of special-purpose traffic lanes, to enable the closure of roads and to allow for fast-tracked approval for events at prescribed World Youth Day venues. This bill draws on the models that were used with spectacular success during the Olympics to ensure that government services for World Youth Day 3870 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 14 November 2006

will also be delivered effectively and efficiently. While responsibility for staging World Youth Day rests ultimately with the church, proper co-ordination and planning by relevant government agencies will be imperative for its success. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George.

The House adjourned at 1.10 a.m., Wednesday 15 November 2006, until 10.00 a.m. the same day.