Aboriginal Housing Office

ABORIGINAL HOUSING OFFICE ...... 23598 ADJOURNMENT ...... 23668 AGEING, DISABILITY AND HOME CARE SERVICE CHARTER ...... 23631 ANNIVERSARY OF DEATH OF STEPHEN BANTU BIKO ...... 23669 APPIN ROAD SAFETY STUDY ...... 23631 AUSTRALASIAN HELLENIC EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION ...... 23602 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ...... 23598, 23599, 23600, 23607 CABINET SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESOURCES AND LAND USE PLANNING ...... 23625 CHARLES FAUL MURDER...... 23624 CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 23625 COPTIC NEW YEAR ...... 23605 COPTIC PRAYER VIGIL ...... 23606 DEMENTIA AWARENESS WEEK...... 23600 DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES CASEWORKER VACANCIES .. 23624 DRUGS AND POISONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NEW PSYCHOACTIVE AND OTHER SUBSTANCES) BILL 2013...... 23598, 23644 ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY BILL 2013 ...... 23619, 23637 FIREARMS AND CRIMINAL GROUPS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013 ...... 23607 FORCED MASS DEPORTATION OF BALTIC STATE CITIZENS ...... 23604 FOSTER CARE WEEK ...... 23602 GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 3 ...... 23608 HEAVY VEHICLE (ADOPTION OF NATIONAL LAW) AMENDMENT BILL 2013 ...... 23615, 23635 HOME RENOVATION ASBESTOS EXPOSURE ...... 23668 ILLAWARRA HOUSING TRUST EMPLOYEE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS ...... 23628 INTERNATIONAL FLEET REVIEW ...... 23626 INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT ...... 23630 LIQUOR AMENDMENT (KINGS CROSS PLAN OF MANAGEMENT) BILL 2013 ...... 23635 M5 EAST TUNNEL CLOSURE ...... 23627 MANGALOREAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION OF SYDNEY ...... 23605 MOUNTED POLICE UNIT AWARDS ...... 23633 NSW HEALTH AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN NURSING AND MIDWIFERY...... 23599 NSW HEALTH DRINKING WATER DATABASE ...... 23670 NSW POLICE LEGACY ...... 23628 PARLIAMENTARY PRAYER FELLOWSHIP ...... 23669 PENRITH PANTHERS 2013 AWARDS DINNER ...... 23603 PILLIGA STATE FOREST COAL SEAM GAS MINING ...... 23632 POLICE CRITICAL INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS ...... 23626 POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION AND INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INSPECTORS) BILL 2013 ...... 23635, 23663 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 23624 REGIONAL TRAIN SERVICE BICYCLE SPACES ...... 23634 ROAD SAFETY CAMERAS...... 23628, 23629 RURAL MEDICAL SCHOOL ...... 23635 SHRINE OF THE HOLY INNOCENTS AND GARDEN OF THE IMMACULATE ...... 23603 SOUTH ASIAN MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA ...... 23601 SOUTH SYDNEY RABBITOHS SOUTHS CARES PROGRAMS ...... 23600 SUPPORTED LIVING FUND ...... 23627 SYDNEY AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONGESTION ...... 23633 TILLEGRA DAM PROJECT ...... 23631 WARRUMBUNGLE NATIONAL PARK BUSHFIRE ...... 23629 WORLD OVERDOSE AWARENESS DAY ...... 23600 YARALLA ESTATE ...... 23606 YARU WATER ...... 23603

23598

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 18 September 2013

______

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

DRUGS AND POISONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NEW PSYCHOACTIVE AND OTHER SUBSTANCES) BILL 2013

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay, on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka.

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay, on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, agreed to:

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

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

Pursuant to sessional orders Formal Business Notices of Motions proceeded with.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Formal Business Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business item No. 1339 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

ABORIGINAL HOUSING OFFICE

Motion by the Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES agreed to:

(1) That this House notes:

(a) the recent announcement by the Minister for Family and Community Services, the Hon. Pru Goward, MP, on the further revitalisation of the Aboriginal Housing Office with the appointment of eight new members to the Aboriginal Housing Office Board;

(b) that the Aboriginal Housing Office is responsible for improving housing and related services for Aboriginal people, such as through growing a sustainable Aboriginal Community Housing sector in New South Wales; and

(c) that the role of the Aboriginal Housing Office Board is to advise the Government on Aboriginal housing policy, including recommendations about the future of the Aboriginal Housing Office.

(2) That this House:

(a) congratulates Michelle Craig as the full-time Chair of the Aboriginal Housing Office; and

(b) notes that Ms Craig has been heavily involved in the development of the "Build and Grow Aboriginal Community Housing Strategy".

(3) That this House congratulates the new members of the Aboriginal Housing Office Board:

(a) Gavin Brown, a financial planner and wealth manager with a range of experience working with Local Aboriginal Land Councils;

(b) Norma Ingram, an Aboriginal Coordinator with the TAFE NSW Ultimo Aboriginal Education Training unit who has extensive experience working with Government and Local Aboriginal Land Councils;

(c) Guy Jones, the Chief Executive Officer of Bunyah Local Aboriginal Land Council and a member of the Northern Regional Aboriginal Housing Committee, and a serving member of the NSW Police Force;

18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23599

(d) Bev Manton, the Chair of a Local Aboriginal Land Council, the first ever female Chair of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, and a current member of a number of advisory boards, including the Prime Minister's Council on Homelessness;

(e) Wendy Morgan, a current board member of a Local Aboriginal Land Council who has previously been employed by the Commonwealth Government, where she worked on housing and homelessness issues;

(f) Paul Morris, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tharawal Local Aboriginal Land Council and current member of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee for the City of Sydney;

(g) Bill Pritchard, most recently the Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care Secretariat, the peak body advising the government and non-government sectors on Aboriginal child and family issues; and

(h) Steve Ryan, the current Chairperson of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council and their nominated representative to the Aboriginal Housing Office Board.

(4) That this House congratulates the appointment of the new Chief Executive of the Aboriginal Housing Office, Paul Callaghan, who has a proven record of achieving excellent outcomes for Aboriginal people through his diverse career within the education sector.

(5) That this House acknowledges that the appointment of a new chief executive and the revitalisation of the board mark a new beginning for the Aboriginal Housing Office that will ensure improved support for Aboriginal families is maximised.

NSW HEALTH AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN NURSING AND MIDWIFERY

Motion by the Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES agreed to:

(1) That this House notes the establishment of the NSW Health Awards for Excellence in Nursing and Midwifery by the Minister for Health, the Hon. Jillian Skinner, MP, which were announced on International Nurses Day held on 12 May 2013.

(2) That this House notes that:

(a) the NSW Health Awards for Excellence in Nursing and Midwifery are an opportunity to thank the State's 47,500 nurses and midwives for their dedication, skill and compassion in providing round-the-clock care to the 1.5 million people admitted to our hospitals each year, as well as many others who receive help at home and in the community;

(b) the nominations for the NSW Health Awards for Excellence in Nursing and Midwifery are invited from community members, patients, colleagues and professionals in a range of categories including:

(i) excellence in nursing—registered nurse;

(ii) excellence in nursing—enrolled nurse;

(iii) excellence in nursing—assistant in nursing;

(iv) excellence in midwifery;

(v) excellence in leadership;

(vi) excellence in partnerships with patients, families and carers;

(vii) excellence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health care;

(viii) excellence in education, research and innovation; and

(ix) excellence in team clinical practice.

(c) the nurse or midwife judged to have had an outstanding career of service will be awarded the Judith Meppem Lifetime Achievement Award, named in honour of New South Wales first Chief Nurse.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Formal Business Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business item No. 1401 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business. 23600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

WORLD OVERDOSE AWARENESS DAY

Motion by the Hon. PENNY SHARPE agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) Saturday 31 August marks World Overdose Awareness Day;

(b) overdoses affect a wide cross-section of the community and outnumbered road fatalities in 2011;

(d) the aim of World Overdose Awareness Day is:

(i) to raise the awareness of overdose risk throughout the community and bring this issue to the attention of policy makers; and

(ii) to commit to strategies to reduce the number of these fatalities.

(2) That this House commends Anex and other organisations working towards harm minimisation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Formal Business Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business item No. 1480 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

DEMENTIA AWARENESS WEEK

Motion by the Hon. JAN BARHAM agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) 16 to 22 September 2013 is Dementia Awareness Week, with World Alzheimer's Day falling on 21 September 2013;

(b) the theme for Dementia Awareness Week 2013 is "Brain Health: Making the Connections"; and

(i) promoting brain healthy lifestyles—a positive message linking body, brain and heart fitness;

(ii) promoting awareness of memory loss and dementia and where to get help; and

(iii) promoting early detection and timely diagnosis.

(2) That this House notes that during Dementia Awareness Week, Alzheimer's Australia NSW will launch the "Living Alone with Dementia—Research to Practice Guide," which follows from their discussion paper released in July and will provide practical recommendations for community service providers who assist the estimated 65,000 Australians living alone with dementia.

(3) That this House recognises the important contribution of the professionals, organisations and carers who deliver advocacy, research and care for the growing numbers of people suffering dementia in our community.

SOUTH SYDNEY RABBITOHS SOUTHS CARES PROGRAMS

Motion by the Hon. MARIE FICARRA agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) South Sydney Rabbitohs Souths Cares is an independent not-for-profit public benevolent institution, established to support the local community and address social need across the South Sydney region to support disadvantaged, marginalised and Indigenous youth and their families with a specific focus on education, training, health and employment;

(b) the entire South Sydney Rabbitohs National Rugby League squad are involved in the delivery of the Teacher's Aide program at La Perouse Primary School, Alexandria Park Community School, Green Square School and Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Waterloo;

18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23601

(c) an achievement program has been established to recognise and reward positive behaviour and successful learning outcomes of students, with the reward program providing students with a "Bunny Buddy" pack which includes a Rabbitohs back pack, poster, cap and a child's membership to all home games at ANZ Stadium;

(d) the Teacher's Aide program is assessed on an ongoing basis to ensure relevant outcomes are achieved with reviews conducted by regional directors of the Department of Education and Training having shown strong and positive feedback from school principals, staff, community elders, parents and pupils with marked improvement in numeracy and literacy levels within these schools as displayed by the recent National Assessment Program— Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) results;

(e) Souths Cares partners with Life Education to deliver a holistic program for years 5 and 6 students in the South Sydney catchment area. This program combines the National Rugby League initiative "Eat Well, Play Well, Stay Well", along with a range of Life Education programs, to offer the students a fun educational excursion outside the school environment and educates students to make informed decisions about their body and lifestyle choices as they approach their teenage years;

(f) to date, the Healthy and Active Lifestyle program has been offered to more than 35 primary schools in the South Sydney region;

(g) 1,600 students and teachers take part in the program annually, of which approximately 30 per cent came from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background;

(h) to complement these visits, teaching staff are given resources to continue the lessons and positive messages back at their respective school;

(i) the Indigenous Leadership program, Schools to Work Transition program "Nanga Mai Marri" (Dream Big) focuses on Year 11 and 12 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island pupils and works alongside them to identify and develop their own education and employment outcomes, and the program is underpinned by a greater understanding of culture as a way of building self-esteem;

(j) the Indigenous Leadership program sessions include employability skills training such as career exploration, resume building, goal setting, interview technique, grooming and etiquette, leading to either employment or continuing education outcomes through a range of corporate networks or education institutions with which Souths Cares has built strong relationships;

(k) Souths Cares Oral Health Program partners with the NSW Centre for Oral Health Strategy, Colgate and the Poche Centre for Indigenous Health whereby Souths Cares are delivering a number of initiatives to support and encourage good oral health habits in youth of the South Sydney region and surrounding areas; and

(l) the campaign was kicked off by Rabbitohs players sharing the "Bright Smiles, Bright Future" message with students through the Souths Cares Teacher's Aide program.

(2) That this House:

(a) congratulates and commends the South Sydney Rabbitohs NRL players, Souths Cares, Mr Shannon Donato, General Manager of Souths Cares, Mr Shane Richardson, Chief Executive Officer of the Rabbitohs NRL Club, and Mr Rhys Wesser, Souths Cares Health Promotion Coordinator and former Rabbitohs player, on their outstanding work supporting the local community and addressing social need across the South Sydney region to support disadvantaged, marginalised and indigenous youth and their families with education, training, health and employment; and

(b) acknowledges and thanks the following Souths Cares supporters: The Australian Technology Park, De'Longhi, Kenwood Create More, All Sorts Fitness and Wellbeing Centre, Randwick City Council, Southern Courier, Colgate and the New South Wales Government's Centre for Oral Health Strategy.

SOUTH ASIAN MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

Motion by the Hon. AMANDA FAZIO agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) the South Asian Muslim Association of Australia [SAMAA] celebrated the annual event of Eid Milan as its first fundraising event at Marana Auditorium, Hurstville, Sydney on Saturday 24 August 2013;

(b) nearly 500 people packed the hall and participated in all activities with enthusiasm;

(c) a number of parliamentarians, representatives from aged care agencies, Muslim community representatives from various organisations along with many SAMAA elderly and their families and a very large number of South Asian Muslim families attended the evening;

(d) the Minister for Ageing and Disability Services, the Hon. John Ajaka, MLC, represented the Premier, the Hon. Barry O'Farrell, MP;

23602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

(e) the Hon. Amanda Fazio, MLC, the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane, MLC, Mr Steve MacMahon, former mayor Hurstville City Council attended; and

(f) community representatives included Mr Samir Dandan, President, Lebanese Muslim Association and Sr Mahbooba of Mehbooba's promise.

(2) This House notes that:

(a) SAMAA aims to provide benevolent services to the Muslim elderly of South Asian origin, negotiate their placement with provision of adequate care with existing aged care providers and build its own aged care facilities in the long term; and

(b) the mission statement of SAMAA is "To evidence the Islamic spirit of love, compassion and charity in providing a range of services to the aged of South Asian Muslims in NSW that best meet the physical, spiritual, cultural and emotional needs of the individuals, their families and the Muslim community."

(3) That this House commends SAMAA for their work in assisting aged Muslim persons of South East Asian origin.

AUSTRALASIAN HELLENIC EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION

Motion by the Hon. DAVID CLARKE agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) the Australasian Hellenic Educational Progressive Association [AHEPA] is part of the world's largest Hellenic philanthropic organisation;

(b) the purpose of AHEPA is to promote public interest in Australian Hellenic culture and language and attributes of Hellenism for the benefit of all Australian Hellenes;

(c) AHEPA raises funds for charitable and welfare organisations with an emphasis on medical research, education, and the care and welfare of the aged and disadvantaged;

(d) on Sunday 15 September 2013, at its headquarters in Rockdale, AHEPA (NSW and New Zealand Lodge) conducted an induction ceremony for its newly elected Grand President, Mr John Kallimanis, District President, Mrs Anna Bouris and other office bearers; and

(e) the induction ceremony was attended by civic and community representatives, including:

(i) Dr Stavros Kyrimis Consul-General for Greece;

(ii) the Hon. Marie Ficarra, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, the Hon. Barry O'Farrell, MP;

(iii) the Hon. David Clarke, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice;

(iv) the Hon. Sophie Cotsis, MLC, shadow Minister for Local Government, shadow Minister for Housing and shadow Minister for the Status of Women;

(v) Councillor Nick Varvaris, Mayor of Kogarah City Council;

(vi) Councillor Sam Stratikopoulos, Kogarah City Council;

(vii) Councillor Petros Kalligas, Rockdale City Council;

(viii) Councillor Peter Poulos, Rockdale City Council;

(ix) Councillor Andrew Tsounis, Rockdale City Council; and

(x) leaders and representatives of many other Australian Hellenic organisations.

(2) That this House:

(a) congratulates the newly inducted office bearers of AHEPA (NSW and New Zealand Lodge) particularly Mr John Kallimanis, Grand President, and Mrs Anna Bouris, District President; and

(b) commends AHEPA (NSW and New Zealand Lodge) for its continuing service to the Hellenic-Australian community and to the wider community in New South Wales.

FOSTER CARE WEEK

Motion by the Hon. JAN BARHAM agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) Foster Care Week, an annual celebration of the work of foster carers that began in 1990, runs from 8 September to 14 September 2013;

18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23603

(b) Foster Care Week commenced with a Picnic Day arranged by the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies and attended by around 800 people at Parramatta Park on Sunday 8 September; and

(c) a range of events, including carers lunches, family fun days and picnics, will be held across New South Wales during this week.

(2) That this House acknowledges that there are more than 18,000 children and young people in statutory out-of-home care, and that foster carers provide a safe and nurturing environment that is vital to the wellbeing of these children and young people.

(3) That this House thanks the many individuals and families across New South Wales who have chosen to become foster carers, and recognises the important contribution they make to the welfare of vulnerable children and young people.

SHRINE OF THE HOLY INNOCENTS AND GARDEN OF THE IMMACULATE

Motion by the Hon. DAVID CLARKE agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on Friday 7 June 2013, the Shrine of the Holy Innocents and Garden of the Immaculate was officially opened and dedicated at Mount St Francis Friary in Kellyville by the Most Reverend Anthony Fisher, OP, Bishop of the Diocese of Parramatta;

(b) the ceremony was attended by several hundred guests and included local members of Parliament and councillors, members of the clergy and parishioners of the Kellyville Parish of the Catholic Church; and

(c) the project, which took two years to build, was an initiative of the Order of Conventual Franciscans and was financed through the generous support of members of the Catholic Parish of Kellyville and the general community.

(2) That this House:

(a) congratulates the Order of Conventual Franciscans and the community of the Catholic Parish of Kellyville on the opening and dedication of the Shrine of the Holy Innocents and Garden of the Immaculate; and

(b) acknowledges the charitable and humanitarian work of the Order of Conventual Franciscans in Australia.

YARU WATER

Motion by the Hon. AMANDA FAZIO agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that Yaru Water is an Indigenous owned and operated premium bottled water company based in the Tweed which sources its water from a large underground reserve at the foothills of Wollumbin-Mount Warning in Bundjalung country.

(2) That this House:

(a) notes that Coles now stocks Yaru Water; and

(b) calls on the Department of Parliamentary Services to give consideration to stocking Yaru Water in Parliament House to support a New South Wales Indigenous owned and operated company.

PENRITH PANTHERS 2013 AWARDS DINNER

Motion by the Hon. MARIE FICARRA agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on 16 September 2013, the Penrith Panthers National Rugby League [NRL] Club held its annual dinner after an exceptional year of achievement with the Penrith Panthers first grade team finishing tenth in the competition, having beaten several of the teams that are now in the final series, with Penrith Panthers National Youth Cup team and the Windsor Wolves team both making it through as grand final qualifiers;

(b) recipients of awards at the dinner included:

(i) Merv Cartwright Penrith NRL Player of the Year: David Simmons;

(ii) Penrith Panthers Members Player of the Year: David Simmons;

(iii) Clubman of the Year: Kevin Kingston;

(iv) John Farragher Award for Courage and Determination: Nigel Plum;

23604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

(v) Tackle of the Year: Dean Whare;

(vi) Try of the Year: Brad Tighe;

(vii) National Youth Cup Player of the Year: Sam Anderson;

(viii) Holden Cup Player of the Year: Daniel Foster; and

(ix) The Ben Alexander Rookie of the Year Award: Matthew Moylan.

(i) Mr Don Feltis, Penrith Panthers chairman, and directors John Hiatt, OAM; Keith Rhind, OAM; Greg Alexander; Dennis Merrick; Steve Robinson; Brian Fletcher; and Dave O'Neill;

(ii) major sponsors Oak, Hertz, Asics, Centrebet, Tooheys, ABCOE, Tony Ferguson and Hostplus;

(iii) the Hon. Marie Ficarra, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier; Mr Stuart Ayres, MP, Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and Roads and member for Penrith; Ms Tanya Davies, MP, member for Mulgoa; Ms Fiona Scott, MP, member for Lindsay; and Councillor Vincent De Luca, OAM;

(iv) Penrith Panthers officers Warren Wilson, Chief Executive Officer; Phil Gould, Executive General Manager Rugby League; Phil Moss, General Manager, Rugby League; Sue McNeill, Chief Operating Officer; and Diane Langmack, OAM, Public Relations Manager;

(v) Ivan Cleary, First Grade Coach; Garth Brennan, Coach of the National Youth Cup Team; and Guy Missio, Coach of the NSW Cup Windsor Wolves; and

(vi) Mr Tim Gilbert, Channel 9, Master of Ceremonies.

(2) That this House congratulates and commends the Penrith Panthers Rugby League, all award recipients and officials for their achievements in 2013.

FORCED MASS DEPORTATION OF BALTIC STATE CITIZENS

Motion by the Hon. DAVID CLARKE agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on Sunday 16 June 2013 at the Latvian Centre Strathfield the Joint Baltic Committee of New South Wales, under the presidency of Mrs Tiiu Kroll-Simmul, held a commemoration to mark the seventy-second anniversary of the forced mass deportation of 60,000 citizens of the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to Siberia on 13 and 14 June 1941 by the Soviet Union; and

(b) those who attended as guests included:

(i) Senator Matt Thistlethwaite, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Islands and Multicultural Affairs, representing the then Prime Minister;

(ii) Mr Craig Laundy, representing the then Leader of the Federal Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, MHR;

(iii) Mr Guy Zangari, MP, member for Fairfield representing Mr John Robertson, MP, Leader of the Opposition;

(iv) the Hon. David Clarke, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice;

(v) the Hon. Amanda Fazio, MLC, Opposition Whip in the Legislative Council;

(vi) Mr Matt Kean, MP, member for Hornsby;

(vii) Mrs Triinu Rajasalu, Consul-General for Estonia;

(viii) Ms Ewa Krajewska, Consul for Poland, representing the Consul-General, Mr Daniel Gromann;

(ix) Mr Aldis Birzulis, Honorary Consul of Latvia;

(x) Ms Ginta Viliunas, Honorary Consul of Lithuania;

(xi) Reverend Meelis Rosma, Estonian Lutheran Congregation;

(xii) Dean Colvin MacPherson, Latvian Lutheran Church;

18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23605

(xiii) Mrs Triiun Pehk, Estonian SBS Radio program producer, representing SBS Radio;

(xiv) Mr Tom Beram, President, Croatian Inter-Committee Council of NSW;

(xv) Mr Gasper, representing the Hungarian Council of NSW;

(xvi) Mr George Mencinsky, President of the Ukrainian Council of NSW; and

(xvii) representatives of various Baltic community and veterans organisations.

(2) That this House acknowledges the seventy-second anniversary of the mass deportation of citizens of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union and commends the Joint Baltic Committee for organising the commemoration.

MANGALOREAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION OF SYDNEY

Motion by the Hon. DAVID CLARKE agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on Sunday 15 September 2013 at Granville the Mangalorean Catholic Association of Sydney under the auspices of its President, Mr Stanley D'Cruz, and his committee held a Mass and celebratory luncheon to mark the 250th anniversary of the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, Monti Fest, a religious festival specifically identified with the Catholic community of Mangalore, India;

(b) the co-celebrants for the Mass were Father Prakash Coutinha and Father Albert D'Souza; and

(i) Mr Tony Issa, MP, member for Granville, representing the Hon. Victor Dominello, MP, Minister for Citizenship and Communities, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs;

(ii) the Hon. David Clarke, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice;

(iii) Dr Geoff Lee, MP, member for Parramatta;

(iv) Mr Kevin Conolly, MP, member for Riverstone;

(v) Mr David Elliot, MP, member for Baulkham Hills; and

(vi) members of the Mangalorean Catholic community and the wider Indian-Australian Catholic community.

(2) That this House congratulates the Mangalorean Catholic Association of Sydney and wishes it well on the occasion of the 250th anniversary of this important feast day in the calendar of the Catholics of Mangalore, India.

COPTIC NEW YEAR

Motion by the Hon. DAVID CLARKE agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) each year since 284AD, Coptic Christians have celebrated 11 September as the Feast of Nayrooz or Coptic New Year, the day when the Coptic Orthodox Church commemorates the sacrifice of its martyrs throughout the centuries;

(b) on 10 September 2013, a celebration of the Feast of Nayrooz was held in the theatrette of the Parliament of New South Wales;

(c) the celebratory event highlighted the cultural and artistic achievements of the Coptic community and a number of musical items were performed by students of the Coptic schools of New South Wales; and

(d) dignitaries who attended included:

(i) His Grace, Bishop Daniel, Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions;

(ii) His Grace, the Right Reverend Irinej, Serbian Orthodox Bishop of Australia and New Zealand;

(iii) the Hon. Victor Dominello, MP, Minister for Citizenship and Communities, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs;

(iv) Mr John Robertson, MP, Leader of the Opposition;

(v) His Excellency Dr Hassan El-Lathy, Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt;

23606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

(vi) His Excellency Mr Ayman Kamel, Consul-General of the Arab Republic of Egypt;

(vii) Mr Tony Issa, MP, Co-convenor of the Ministerial Consultative Committee for the Egyptian Community and the parliamentary host for the event;

(viii) the Hon. David Clarke, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Co-Convenor of the Ministerial Consultative Committee for the Egyptian community;

(ix) Sister Elham Gea Gea of the Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family;

(x) Dr Eman Sharobeem, Commissioner of the NSW Community Relations Commission;

(xi) Dr Adel Soliman;

(xii) Mr Yair Miller, President of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies;

(xiii) Mr Vic Alhadeff, Chief Executive Officer of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies;

(xiv) Mr Hermiz Shahen, representing the Assyrian Universal Alliance;

(xv) Mr David David, representing the Australian Assyrian National Federation;

(xvi) representatives of the Muslim and Bahai communities; and

(xvii) teaching staff and students of Coptic schools in New South Wales.

(2) That this House:

(a) commends the Coptic Orthodox Church and Coptic community for the organisation of the event; and

(b) congratulates the Coptic Orthodox community of New South Wales on the occasion of the Feast of Nayrooz and Coptic New Year.

COPTIC PRAYER VIGIL

Motion by the Hon. DAVID CLARKE agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on 17 August 2013 the Coptic Orthodox Church Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions held a Prayer Vigil for peace in Egypt at Saint Mary and Saint Mina Coptic Orthodox Cathedral, Bexley, conducted by the Diocesan Bishop, His Grace Bishop Daniel; and

(b) dignitaries who attended included:

(i) Bishop Agahason of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Brazil;

(ii) Bishop Anba Daniel, Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Saint Shenouda Monastery, Sydney;

(iii) Reverend Hamdy Awad of the Arabic Presbyterian Church;

(iv) Reverend Tara Curlewis, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches in Australia;

(v) the Hon. David Clarke, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice; and

(vi) representatives of various Coptic community organisations

(2) That this House:

(a) joins with the Coptic Orthodox Church Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions in calling for peace and harmony in Egypt; and

(b) extends its sympathy to those who have suffered loss during this tragic time in Egypt.

YARALLA ESTATE

Production of Documents: Further Return to Order

The Clerk, pursuant to the resolution of the House of Thursday 29 August 2013, tabled an additional document relating to the further order for papers regarding Yaralla Estate received this day from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an index of the document. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23607

FIREARMS AND CRIMINAL GROUPS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013

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

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay, on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher, agreed to:

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

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [11.20 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 1401 outside the Order of Precedence relating to a reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 regarding the station access fees at Sydney domestic and international airports be called on forthwith.

This motion should not take up a lot of time; however, it is urgent that we deal with it today. I sought to have this motion moved through formal business but that was denied. This motion concerns a reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 to investigate the removal of the station access fee at the domestic and international airports. The terms of reference are set out in the motion. It is urgent that we debate this motion today because we will not deal with Private Members' Business tomorrow and will instead appropriately hold a debate to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the committee system. There is no better way to mark that occasion than to refer this matter to a standing committee. I seek the indulgence of the House to bring this motion on forthwith and deal with it expeditiously.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [11.22 a.m.]: The Government opposes urgency on this motion. According to the Notice Paper, notice of this was given on 26 June. If the honourable member had considered it urgent she would have moved it before today.

The Hon. Walt Secord: New information has come to light.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If anyone in New South Wales believes the Hon. Walt Secord I would be very surprised. The Government opposes urgency. The matter is not urgent. Had it been urgent, the honourable member would have moved this motion before today.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 20

Ms Barham Dr Kaye Mr Veitch Mr Borsak Mr Moselmane Ms Westwood Mr Brown Mr Primrose Mr Whan Mr Buckingham Mr Searle Mr Wong Ms Cotsis Mr Secord Tellers, Mr Donnelly Ms Sharpe Ms Fazio Dr Faruqi Mr Shoebridge Ms Voltz

Noes, 19

Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Reverend Nile Mr Blair Mr Green Mrs Pavey Mr Clarke Mr Khan Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Ms Ficarra Mr MacDonald Tellers, Mr Gallacher Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Mr Mason-Cox Dr Phelps

Pair

Mr Foley Mrs Mitchell 23608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. PENNY SHARPE agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 1401 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 3

Reference: Station Access Fee at Sydney Domestic and International Airports

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [11.31 a.m.]: I move:

(1) That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquire into and report on the potential impact of removal or reduction of the station access fee at Sydney domestic and international airports, and in particular:

(a) current patronage on the airport line;

(b) the impact of a fare reduction on patronage at Green Square and Mascot;

(d) the funding implications of removing or reducing the station access fee;

(e) the contract provisions in relation to the station access fee;

(f) potential benefits to Port Botany and congestion on roads in and around the airport, including the M5;

(g) other measures to increase patronage on the airport line; and

(h) any other related matter.

(2) That the committee report by Friday 28 February 2014.

This motion refers an inquiry to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 to examine traffic congestion and public transport around Sydney Airport. As members should be aware, roads around the airport are expected to reach gridlock by next year. According to the Joint Study on Aviation Capacity for the Sydney Region, the roads around the airport will be at practical capacity by 2015. By 2014, passengers who will be trying to access the domestic terminals will have to queue four kilometres along General Holmes Drive and traffic coming from the south will queue all the way back to the Princes Highway. Within 15 years, the five-kilometre trip from O'Riordan Street, Surry Hills is expected to take 40 minutes. Another airport is at least a decade away and the Sydney Airport draft master plan does not envisage fixing the problems until 2018. We simply do not have time to wait.

I wish to have the inquiry explore what can be done now to take the pressure off the congested roads around the airport and to get more people onto public transport and using the train system. One measure that we could take now is removal of the station access fee at the domestic and international terminals that are a disincentive to travelling by train. In 2011 the then chief executive officer of Sydney Airport, Russell Balding, stated that the access fees discourages people from using public transport to get to Green Square, Mascot and the domestic and international terminals, and that promoting the use of public transport involves removing financial disincentives. We know that removing the financial disincentive from Mascot and Green Square has worked. Since the previous Labor Government removed the access fee on Mascot and Green Square stations in 2011, patronage has almost doubled. That is why we need an inquiry that will examine the current patronage on the airport line.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. If members wish to have a private conversation they should do so outside the Chamber.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: The inquiry also should examine the impact of fares reduction on patronage at Green Square and Mascot and the impact on patronage if the station access fee is removed or 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23609

reduced at the airport stations. Report after report has stated that removing the station access fee at the domestic and international airports will help. The Sydney Airport Preliminary Draft Master Plan—2033, which was released earlier this year, states:

Better outcomes can be achieved if the public transport mode share is increased by reducing the station access fee on rail and adding new bus routes to the airport.

In January this year, Trent Zimmerman from the Tourism and Transport Forum said:

First impressions are important … Particularly for the price-sensitive market, to get to the platform and find it costs an extra $12.30—that does not create a great first impression.

The Infrastructure NSW report, which was released last year, states:

Infrastructure NSW recommends in the short term that the NSW Government take action to improve public transport to Sydney Airport, including reducing the Airport Station Usage Fee and offering improved bus services.

Patricia Forsythe, Executive Director of the Sydney Business Chamber, in October last year stated:

[Infrastructure NSW's] recommendation to reduce or scrap the access fee is a common sense view to increase the use of public transport to access Sydney Airport. It is a view the Sydney Business Chamber has advocated for several years.

The Joint Study on Aviation Capacity for the Sydney Region estimated that removing the access fee would increase the number of airport rail users by 26 per cent in the first year and 34 per cent in the long run. It also said the benefits for travellers from doing away with the surcharge would exceed the cost to the State. Removing the access fee is also supported by the Marrickville Council and the City of Sydney Council. Both are severely impacted by congestion on the roads around the airport. Now is the time to take a look at removing the access fee and addressing other issues relating to Sydney Airport.

The airport access fee is part of a deal with the airport line's owners AirportLink. As part of the inquiry the committee should specifically examine the contract provisions in relation to the station access fee. The question we need to ask is this: Now that the capital cost of the rail line has been recovered, is there a justifiable reason for maintaining the station access fee? I understand that the Government has thus far justified keeping the airport access fee high because of the revenue it generates, which is increasing towards $40 million a year. But both the Productivity Commission and the Joint Study on Aviation Capacity for the Sydney Region have indicated that the benefits of removing the access fee could far outweigh the costs to government. Let us not forget what the joint study on aviation capacity was about. The co-chair of the study was Sam Haddad, who is the Director General of Planning in this State and another member of the committee was Les Wielinga, who is the Director General of Transport for NSW.

The report resulted from a joint study by the State and Australian governments. The study recommended that the access fee could be removed and that the benefits would outweigh the costs. I am also aware that our transport system, particularly rail, does not work on a cost recovery basis, but perhaps this could be an argument to keep the access fee, if the Government was putting the money raised back into our public transport system or other measures to alleviate congestion on the roads around the airport. But the money is going into general revenue. The Minister already has said:

Any revenue raised through the train service fee is already factored into the state Government's forward estimates.

As part of this inquiry, I specifically want the funding implications of removing or reducing the station access fee examined. Increasing rail patronage does not just get cars off the road; it also has the ability to reduce expenditure on maintaining roads around the airport. The Productivity Commission's report "Economic Regulation of Airport Services Inquiry" states:

In the case of Sydney's Airport Link, it might be determined that reducing the station access fee would reduce the level of government expenditure needed to improve roads or bring other (non-market) benefit.

At the time of the Productivity Commission's report, the Government said only that it would consider the recommendations in the context of the transport master plan, yet a year later when the master plan was released, the Government still offered no strategies to improve public transport around the airport. The transport master plan simply includes a mention of:

… improving public transport access to the airport, through better rail and bus services and WestConnex serving the whole Port Botany and Sydney Airport precinct.

23610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is wrong. That is a lie.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: The Minister will have his chance to speak in a minute. But there are no strategies or actions to improve public transport around the airport. The transport master plan also identifies Sydney Airport precinct as a site for job growth, yet it fails to devise an actual strategy to improve public transport for employees. Twelve thousand employees already use Sydney Airport. Many of those employees walk from Wolli Creek or Mascot to the airport, but many simply have no option but to drive because they work early or late shifts and cannot walk in the dark. Many drive instead, adding to the congestion around the airport and parking issues for local residents. The airport is served by just one bus—the 400—and the contract with AirportLink makes adding bus services difficult. In any case, with roads around the airport at capacity in one to two years, additional bus services will be challenged even if more buses are put onto the roads.

The Government has indicated it will add two extra train services an hour to the airport line during the peak in the new timetable. While it is debatable whether this will reduce crowding on these services, it is clear that we need further incentives to get vehicles off the roads. The Government also has said that the airport line will require additional capacity by 2031, but the roads around the airport require remedial action to be taken now. This inquiry will examine the potential benefits to Port Botany and congestion on roads in and around the airport, including the M5. It is not enough to build new roads in coming years. Action needs to be taken now to get people onto public transport around the airport. If the Government cannot commit to new public transport, it should at least look at ways to increase patronage on existing services. This inquiry is important to examine what we can do to deal with serious congestion on our roads now. If the Government is serious about getting more vehicles off our roads and more people onto public transport, then the Government should offer its full support to this inquiry today.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [11.38 a.m.]: The Government opposes the motion. Let me firstly indicate that the comments made by the Hon. Penny Sharpe are simply wrong. She referred to problems with roads around the airport. The roads around the airport are not the problem; the roads at the airport are the problem.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: I live around there.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am pleased the Hon. Sophie Cotsis lives around there. If she opened her eyes and had a look she would find that the problem is at the airport—with traffic coming out of the airport and not with roads around the airport. However, even if the problem related to roads around the airport the Government has announced an enhancement program of over $250 million for those roads.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Walt Secord should be quiet; it is always better when he keeps his mouth shut. I presume that the member will now take a point of order.

The Hon. Walt Secord: Mr Assistant-President, the member is making threats across the Chamber.

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The Minister may continue his speech. He will be heard in silence.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Members opposite are talking about things that they do not understand. Labor presided over the current arrangement for 16 years. It had more than a decade to make these changes but it did not do so. In 2005 the contract came up for renewal. If those opposite had wanted to remove the contract or they believed that it needed fixing, 2005 was the year to do so. But no; inept as they always are they renegotiated the contract and let it stand. Opposition members are damned—they are hoist with their own petard on this issue. They had every chance to fix it but they did not. They now want to play petty politics. It is not the fault of the Government that the Business Plan of Sydney Airport Corporation Limited [SACL] is based on parking stations. The roads surrounding the airport have not caused this change which resulted in A380 aircraft disgorging more people. Premier Keneally removed the access fees at Green Square and Mascot. In whose electorate is that?

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: You will never guess.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Those members opposite who live there have benefited. They had an option to remove the fees at the airport but they did not. They are damned, they are hypocrites and they are 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23611

playing games. They had a chance to remove the access fee when Premier Keneally removed it in her electorate in order to assist her re-election but she did not remove it at the international or domestic airport stations; she removed it in her electorate to look after—

[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! Members should allow the Minister to complete his speech in silence. It is difficult for Hansard to record the words that are being spoken when there is so much audible conversation in the Chamber.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: When in government members opposite had a chance to remove the fees but they did not do so. Their heroine, Premier Keneally—the person they put up to run the State—had a chance to remove the fees but instead she removed the fees at Green Square and Mascot in her own electorate, the place where she wanted her husband to be the member. She acted in self-interest. One has to love the Labor Party where self-interest is always at work. Those opposite had their chance but they did not take it. Ironically, the shadow Minister, the Hon. Penny Sharpe, said that the O'Farrell Government was lining its coffers at the expense of travellers trying to get to Sydney Airport on the train. She also said, "Rather than improving public transport to the airport, the O'Farrell Government has chosen to gouge passengers instead."

The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones: It is shameful.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is a shameful comment. She completely ignored the fact that Labor had an opportunity to fix the contract when it came up for renewal in 2005 but it did not do so.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The Minister should be well aware that he should not refer to the Hon. Penny Sharpe as "she" but should use her proper title.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: To the point of order: I referred to the member as the Hon. Penny Sharpe and I subsequently used the word "she", when referring to the member. Those opposite have to do better than that when they are embarrassed.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: To the point of order—

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! To the first point of order, there is no point of order. Is the Hon. Amanda Fazio taking a new point of order?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I am still speaking to the first point of order, which is a valid point of order. It is not up to you, Mr Assistant-President, to say that there is no point of order; it is up to you to say whether or not you agree with it. The comments made by the Hon. Duncan Gay were disingenuous and, I dare to say, mendacious.

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! There is no point of order. The Minister may continue.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Labor Party locked in those changes. The Hon. Penny Sharpe referred to my comments as disingenuous when in fact the Labor Party is disingenuous. The Hon. Penny Sharpe moved this motion in full knowledge of the fact that the previous Labor Government was responsible for the station access fee. The Government supports creating initiatives for greater public transport usage but, sadly, under the agreement that the previous Government signed with AirportLink, customers using the international and domestic airport stations are charged a station access fee in addition to the ordinary rail fare. Those opposite had a chance to remove it but they did not do so. They chose to play politics and I wonder why. Which chief of staff was directing them at that time? Barry O'Farrell was not Kristina Keneally's chief of staff; I suspect it was the Hon. Walt Secord—the manipulator, the fixer.

The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: The Minister is misleading the House. The chief of staff was Barry O'Farrell who is now the Premier.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: To the point of order: Kristina Keneally's chief of staff was not Barry O'Farrell; he was the Leader of the Opposition. The chief the staff was the Hon. Walt Secord. Barry O'Farrell was chief of staff to Bruce Baird, you idiot. 23612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Those opposite do not like what I am saying; they are playing politics. They are hypocrites. This Government is investing over $250 million into roads in the area which will improve traffic flow. We are building WestConnex and improving the M5, yet members opposite are playing politics in relation to their own backyard which is a little shoddy as they have attempted to do so in the past. Former Premier Kristina Keneally and her former chief of staff Walt Secord played politics. They had a chance to fix this but they did not do so.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. This motion, which is specific, is seeking that this matter be referred to a committee to review the station access fee, public transport and surface transport around Sydney Airport—something that I thought the Minister for Roads and Ports might care about. This is not about revisiting history or continually saying that the Opposition is playing politics. The Minister has yet to put up one argument—

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The member will resume her seat. She does not have the call to make a speech.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As I indicated earlier, the traffic problems within the airport are controlled by the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited. This Government is improving access to Sydney Airport which will resolve those problems being experienced outside the airport. The New South Wales Government has assessed public transport, road and freight challenges within the precinct as part of the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan which outlines five key actions to support access to the Port Botany-Sydney Airport precinct:

1. Develop an Improvement Plan.

2. Upgrade public transport serving Port Botany and Sydney Airport.

3. Address pinch points and congestion.

4. Design the interchanges and connections that will allow WestConnex to adequately serve the precinct.

5. Continue to increase the number of train and bus services to the precinct.

The Government supports creating incentives for greater public transport usage. In what we call WestConnex enabling works, Port Botany and Sydney Airport are international gateways, critical to productivity growth and investment in New South Wales and Australia. As we know, Sydney Airport accounts for 46 per cent of Australia's international passenger journeys and about 50 per cent of international air freight. It is anticipated that passenger numbers at Sydney will double by 2033. Port Botany accounts for about one-third of container freight into and out of Australia. Container movements at Port Botany are expected to more than triple—

The Hon. Walt Secord: You are speaking to the wrong motion.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Just listen and learn. In the 2013-14 budget the New South Wales Government announced a $282 million program. Those opposite are quiet now. There is complete silence. They try to pretend that nothing is happening.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: What a beautiful number.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is a beautiful number—$282 million for WestConnex enabling works, of which almost $30 million—

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: What about the toll on the M5 East?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There is no toll here. Almost $30 million is allocated—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You don't build a road unless you can put a toll on it.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: How can we have a dialogue with people who just do not want to listen? Almost $30 million is allocated in the 2013-14 budget to address congestion within Port Botany and the Sydney Airport precinct. Projects will be delivered over the next five years, comprising the General Holmes Drive underpass for the problem where the rail goes into Port Botany—we need to go under the road and we will 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23613

deliver that—widening of Mill Pond Road; and the widening of Joyce Drive. The $282 million commitment includes $30 million funding from the Commonwealth Government towards the General Holmes Drive underpass as part of the next phase of the Nation Building Program.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Are you sure they are going to put in that money? You are sure that is not on the chopping block?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes. These projects will deliver shorter-term benefits to the precinct. We actually think about the city, rather than short-term political pork-barrelling looking after the Premier's seat. It is like Tammany Hall. The Hon. Walt Secord would know about Tammany Hall; he learnt his politics in Tammany Hall.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: My point of order is the same as my earlier one. The Minister is straying well beyond what is relevant to this motion.

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The Minister will return to the leave of the motion.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am and those opposite do not like it because they have been seen to be playing politics as they failed. My key point is that they are asking for a variation in an agreement when a contract is in place whereas when the contract was up for renegotiation—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: They didn't do it.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They did not do it. But they took the opportunity to play politics in their own backyard and look after the Premier. The Premier's seat is much more important than the people of Sydney and New South Wales—that is the Labor Party mantra. It is unbelievable to see this motion. We have a Master Plan. We are working with the community, the Airports Corporation and the Federal Government because we now have a grown-up, mature—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: A proper Government.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: —and proper Government in Canberra which will be able to deliver something that works. Those opposite talk about issues that are not happening. They talk about congestion on the roads when in reality the airport congestion is traffic coming back. Obviously, those opposite have not been there. Given the amount of travelling they have done over the years on the taxpayers' purse, I am surprised that they have not spent more time at the airport. They arrive in their limousines and probably do not notice what has been happening to real people. We oppose the motion.

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [11.54 a.m.]: The Greens support the inquiry on the potential impact of removal or reduction of the station access fee at Sydney's domestic and international airports. The airport rail line is another example of the public private partnership favoured by Labor and Coalition governments. These public private partnerships lead to the community paying for the profits of private business—in this case through high fares. The Greens and the community have campaigned strongly to bring the airport line back into public hands. The community received a small concession for a few years only through the reduction of fares at Green Square and Mascot stations. However, we must ensure that the airport line is used more by the public but at affordable and equitable prices. This includes removing the station access fee. The proposed inquiry will examine this and other measures to improve transport services for the people of New South Wales. Hence, The Greens and I support the motion.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [11.55 a.m.]: I support the call for an inquiry into this issue. I listened carefully to the Minister's comments. The significant issue about which he failed to talk was the reason things have changed since the election. One key reason we should look again at this issue is the report of the New South Wales Government's own Visitor Economy Taskforce which highlighted access to Sydney Airport as a key issue in the drive to increase tourism to meet the Government's tourism-related goals. The proposed inquiry is needed so we can examine the access fees for the airport rail line, of which I am a regular user. When I come to Sydney I always use the Sydney Airport rail line. The Visitor Economy Taskforce commissioned by the Government highlighted that we improve access to and from Sydney Airport. A key part of that access was the airport station fee—highlighted by a committee of eminent people in the New South Wales tourism industry appointed by this Government since it came to office. For the Minister now to argue against looking into this issue suggests that the Government will not be able to meet its tourism targets for New South Wales. 23614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

The Minister went on about contracts being signed previously. When the previous Premier removed the access fees from Green Square and Mascot rail stations it cost the Government money. No doubt, removing the airport station access fee now also would cost money, but the Government has received a significant return from that railway line, giving it greater capacity to address this issue. The Opposition is not saying remove the fee now; it is asking for it to be properly examined to see what it will cost and take to put in place this important measure that would enhance visitor access to New South Wales and assist the Government to meet its goals of doubling the tourism value by 2020. The Minister's response is simply disingenuous and shows a lack of commitment to achieving those goals.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [11.58 a.m.]: I support my colleague's motion. The Sydney Airports Corporation Limited [SACL] has ripped off local councils by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rockdale City Council had to chase the Sydney Airports Corporation Limited and the Sydney Airports Authority for $500,000. The authority pays a measly amount of about $1.50 per square metre.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. Whilst I am sure the comments are important to the member for his local politics, they have nothing to do with the motion.

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The member will return to the leave of the motion.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My comments relate to the inquiry and to the airport. The inquiry also should ensure that the Sydney Airports Corporation Limited and the authority pay those councils their dues because they maintain the roads that lead to the Federal airport.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [11.59 a.m.], in reply: This is a straightforward motion regardless of the finger-pointing and comments about hypocrisy and playing politics. If politics is taken out of the discussion, an inquiry would be supported. I read the opening paragraph:

That General Purpose Standing Committee No 3 inquire into and report on the potential impact of removal or reduction of the station access fee at Sydney Domestic and International Airports …

We are simply asking that General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 investigates the issues. A plethora of reports has been referred to today, outlining why surface traffic congestion around the airport is worsening and reaching a critical point. A plethora of reports from tourism industry representatives shows that they want to see a better gateway to Sydney through our airports. One of the key ways of doing this is to improve the public transport system and its patronage. More people on trains will mean fewer cars on the road and less congestion. This can be done in a range of different ways, and no-one on this side of the House is pretending it will be easy. It is worth investigating. Regardless of the hyperbole from the Minister today, this is a simple request. We must have a discussion to determine what is possible and to allow people who are affected to make submissions; then we can write a report. The Government is beginning to get money in on this line. It is not hypothecated or being directed back into the improvement of roads and public transport around the airport.

It is not just small groups that are involved. Many reports have been received by the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure NSW—the Government's own joint study into aviation—that indicate the removal or reduction of the station access fee will improve the outcomes for people trying to access the airport. Disappointingly, the Minister spoke garbage about playing politics. We are simply asking that General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquire into improving public transport to the airport so that it is fairer to the hardworking people who have to spend hundreds of dollars on cabs to travel to the airport. We can make the airport work better not only for Sydney but also for the freight corridor that leads to Port Botany. It is an important inquiry that could take this State forward. Quite frankly, I am shocked that the Government is opposing this request. I believe it should be supported.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 20

Noes, 19

Pairs

Mr Foley Mrs Mitchell

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

HEAVY VEHICLE (ADOPTION OF NATIONAL LAW) AMENDMENT BILL 2013

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September 2013.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.10 p.m.]: Yesterday in my contribution to debate on the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013 I was interrupted at the point where I was referring to productivity and flexibility issues, in particular the Risk Classification Scheme for managing fatigue championed by the Minister for Roads and Ports. I note that the Hon. Duncan Gay has instructed New South Wales transport officials to be ready to assist the national regulator to develop the detailed business rules, policies and procedures regarding how to operate the Risk Classification Scheme for managing fatigue for accredited operators in the pilot in New South Wales.

The onus is now on the regulator to come forward with a plan on how to meet the requirement of the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure for a post implementation surveillance review. Let there be no doubt that in New South Wales we are listening to industry about the importance of productivity, flexibility and safety. Indeed, that is why New South Wales is handling the transition from the old fatigue scheme to the new scheme in a considered, systematic and methodical way. In conclusion, I remind members that the passage of this bill will allow for the benefits of a safe and efficient new national regulator to be realised within New South Wales. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.12 p.m.]: The Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013 is further affirmation of the New South Wales Government's commitment to working with our State and Territory colleagues to cut red tape and reduce the regulatory burden on the heavy vehicle industry. The introduction of the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013 will allow the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to begin applying a more consistent set of rules for heavy vehicle drivers operating across participating State and Territory borders. However, one of the foundation principles of the reform is the acknowledgement that across all States in Australia differences in local conditions and industry requirements mean that the retention of some local variations is necessary to ensure safety and productivity.

The participation of New South Wales in the reform of the heavy vehicle regulation has always been on the basis that safety standards would not be compromised. To this end, the New South Wales Government has been working with the national regulator and the heavy vehicle industry to ensure that key productivity and safety initiatives currently in place will be retained in New South Wales following the passage of the Heavy Vehicle National Law—a key example is the retention in New South Wales of the speed limiter deeming provisions. Under New South Wales provisions it is considered prime facie evidence that the vehicle was not speed limiter compliant if the vehicle was being driven at or above 115 kilometres per hour. The New South Wales provision is directed at holding operators responsible for non-compliant speed limiters, as these are the people best placed to influence the culture of the company and the conduct of employees.

With speeding trucks still a significant issue, it is understandable that the New South Wales bill has slightly different provisions to the national law. Let us not forget, New South Wales is the "through State" for 23616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

the eastern seaboard of Australia. While we are always looking for ways to increase flexibility and productivity, we are ever watchful of needing to balance also the safety risks. Managing fatigue effectively is of central importance to the heavy vehicle industry and all other road users. As described by previous speakers, New South Wales communities and roads experience interstate truck traffic like no other jurisdiction in the country— New South Wales carries 60 per cent of the national road freight task. This presents some challenging road safety and infrastructure issues for New South Wales.

The amendment to the original bill will more closely align with the national law the way in which New South Wales deals with the transition from the current Advanced Fatigue Management [AFM] to the new Risk Classification Scheme [RCS]. But at the same time it recognises that New South Wales—due to its geographic location as a "through State"—has a different and higher risk of fatigue when compared to other States. One can pretty much predict where interstate truck drivers start getting fatigued on the road. For example, drivers travelling northbound from Melbourne to Sydney on the Hume Highway start getting fatigued around Gunnedah and Yass. Likewise, drivers travelling southbound from Brisbane to Melbourne on the Newell Highway start getting tired around Coonabarabran.

Put simply, the New South Wales Minister will be able to apply conditions, if considered necessary, to an Advanced Fatigue Management accreditation approved by the national regulator. We have done this to allow the Risk Classification Scheme to apply more easily in New South Wales in order for it to be tested and refined under "real life" conditions. In practice, it is anticipated that on a day-to-day basis the national regulator will work very closely with New South Wales officials to assess Advanced Fatigue Management applications as they are submitted. It is expected that the New South Wales Minister would only exercise his ability to apply additional conditions in those circumstances where an accreditation approved by the national regulator is considered to be inappropriate or unsafe.

It is expected that the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator will report back to the Federal and State transport Ministers on any amendments to the Risk Classification Scheme that are necessary as a result of the post implementation surveillance review they are undertaking. It is intended that the combination of the application of the national scheme and a system of New South Wales conditions, where deemed appropriate and necessary, will allow for the most effective pilot of the Risk Classification Scheme. The New South Wales bill also includes a number of modifications that have been included as part of the agreed National Heavy Vehicle Regulator principle of local productivity initiatives and preserves certain exemptions to driver fatigue and speeding compliance provisions currently available in New South Wales law. They are included because there is no head of power in the Heavy Vehicle National Law.

It is noted that there has been much industry commentary that New South Wales is seeking to keep an independent power to prosecute. This view is based on a misinterpretation of the intent of the clause. The actual intent of the provision is to ensure that any proceedings are based on solid legal ground. Unless there are clear references as to who can commence proceedings, relying solely on delegation instruments that could have multiple layers and levels is inherently riskier. Put simply, defenders may be more tempted to argue the soundness of the action rather than the facts of the case. This provision is therefore intended ultimately to assist the national regulator and not diminish from its ability to ensure consistent regulatory activity through services agreements with each participating State and Territory. This bill will allow for the benefits of a safe and efficient new national regulator to be realised in New South Wales. This is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH [12.18 p.m.]: I support the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013. However, at the outset I must declare an interest: I have a brother and a brother-in-law who are long distance heavy truck drivers. They both speak to me extensively about the issues they encounter going about their day-to-day jobs trying to earn a dollar. I thank Andrew Huckle from the Minister's office and Dimi Rigas from Roads and Maritime Services for their detailed briefings on the bill. The Opposition had some concerns early on, and the briefings worked quite effectively to address those concerns; hence our support for the bill.

I put on the record my thanks and appreciation for the work of the Minister's office and the department. Heavy vehicle operators, particularly long-haul drivers, use their rigs as a home and an office. I urge members to take the opportunity to sit in a rig, if they ever get that chance. Long-haul drivers not only live in their rig but also use it as their office. The vehicles are quite large; one realises just how large they are when one sits inside them. I have spent some time travelling with my brother and brother-in-law in their trucks. At times what is happening around them can be quite scary. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23617

Mr Scot MacDonald: Especially in the dog box.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: I was not in the dog box. Some of the stuff that goes on around heavy vehicles can be quite scary. People seriously underestimate the stopping distance required by these vehicles; and in traffic, and sometimes at speed, the way cars overtake and cut in on heavy vehicles is scary. I think people would have a greater appreciation of the skillset of our heavy vehicle operators if they spent some time driving with them to see what happens on our roads. I am also amazed by the skills of our heavy vehicle operators, not just in dealing with cars cutting in on them at high speed but also in negotiating tight reversing angles. Heavy vehicle drivers are quite skilled operators.

One important aspect of the life of a truckie is the need to maintain contact with family and business colleagues. They use mobile phones extensively. Most rigs provide for hands-free mobile phone use, but, unfortunately, just as illegal mobile phone use while driving is an issue in cars it is also an issue among heavy vehicle drivers. The risks associated with mobile phone use are exacerbated when combined with fatigue. The results of this can be clearly identified at known fatigue points along our main highways. As people drive along, they will see tracks going off into roadside vegetation, damaged shrubbery and, most chillingly, small floral tributes, messages and memorial crosses left by loved ones for someone who is no longer with us. Heavy vehicle accidents are devastating.

Recently I heard someone refer to this rather new phenomenon of accidents caused by illegal mobile phone use, particularly texting, as "intextication". It is clearly a play on words. Just as an accident or death caused by alcohol use is referred to as being caused by someone in a state of intoxication, it was put to me that accidents and death caused by people who are texting while driving should be referred to as being caused by someone in a state of "intextication". I know all honourable members would agree that texting whilst driving is sheer stupidity. For a truck driver to do so while fatigued is fraught with danger and just as silly. Why do truck drivers do this when fatigued? It is a strategy adopted by the driver to stay awake—to get to a designated rest area for a break. They will do anything to stay awake to earn their living. Fatigue management is a very complicated area of heavy vehicle operation.

It takes a lengthy period to explain fatigue management practice, particularly Advanced Fatigue Management. It is very important to understand just why Advanced Fatigue Management practice has critical relevance to New South Wales. As the Minister mentioned earlier in this debate, New South Wales is referred to as a "through State"—that is, drivers from Victoria travel through New South Wales to get to Sydney and indeed further afield to Brisbane, and vice versa. Additionally, drivers from Adelaide and elsewhere in South Australia travel across New South Wales to get to Sydney. This creates known fatigue locations on our main highways, with a higher incidence of accident and death in places like the stretch of the Hume Highway down my way either side of the township of Yass. It is critical that we support the heavy vehicle industry in implementing and managing Advanced Fatigue Management strategies and practices. We must ensure that we do not compromise safety standards in this industry.

It is also important to acknowledge that this bill is part of national reforms. The importance of this bill in assisting a transitional move to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator cannot be overstated. It is hoped that use of national systems and processes, which emerge from the national regulator's one-stop shop, will offer heavy vehicle operators, governments and the community better coordination of access decisions across all levels of government, especially "last-mile" access decisions; improved compliance and enforcement strategies, which encourage industry participation in accreditation schemes in return for mass, dimension and load productivity benefits; information technology applications that will improve operator efficiencies such as better online fleet management capability; reductions in the time needed to train drivers given that there will be one nationally consistent set of rules; and the same outcome in the same circumstances across all jurisdictions given the common policies, procedures and processes that the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator will introduce.

Certainly the Opposition supports the speed limiter provisions. I am keen to see the evaluation of the new approach referred to by the Minister in his speech, which we will receive in the next couple of years. The importance of this bill cannot be overestimated. As people drive along our highways they see memorials, crosses and flowers acknowledging those who lost their lives trying to earn a living as heavy vehicle operators. I support this bill and I support the national reforms. We should acknowledge the long-term impact of these reforms for our heavy vehicle operators.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [12.25 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak to the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013, which harmonises the Heavy Vehicle 23618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

National Law with New South Wales law. This bill, whilst maintaining and strengthening the current standards that apply to heavy vehicles in New South Wales, streamlines safety and access regulation across Australia for heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonnes. I note the contribution of the Hon. Duncan Gay, Minister for Roads and Ports, on this important bill, who said:

… this bill will streamline safety and access regulation for heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonnes.

I note his comments that this is about national reform. I also note his admission that:

It is important to note that of the 185,000 kilometres of roads in New South Wales, 165,000 are owned and managed by local councils.

That shows the massive amount of roads that local government has to look after—and quite often those roads are in areas where there are few ratepayers from whom to raise the funds to look after them. The Minister also said:

The State Government owns and manages approximately 20,000 major roads such as key highways and motorways. The national regulator has a big job ahead in coordinating industry access applications across councils, but rest assured the NSW Government will assist in this process.

And we hope that the New South Wales Government will do so. I note that the Heavy Vehicle National Law provides for a single national regulatory body to be put in place to undertake coordinated compliance and enforcement activities to encourage safe practice within the heavy vehicle industry. I also note that the New South Wales Government has been working with the national regulator and the heavy vehicle industry to ensure that key productivity and safety initiatives currently in place will be retained in New South Wales following the passage of the Heavy Vehicle National Law.

Finally, I note that speeding remains an issue with heavy vehicles. It is understandable that the New South Wales bill has slightly different provisions from those in the national law. I note that in many ways New South Wales is the "through state" for the eastern seaboard of Australia. Obviously heavy vehicle movements are vital for freight movements and for employment. A lot of families rely on these jobs. Ultimately these are the sorts of laws we should implement to ensure that the many heavy vehicle drivers arrive home safely to their families. This is good law—it is good that this is being harmonised nationally—and the Christian Democratic Party commends this bill to the House.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD [12.28 p.m.]: I support the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013. I am very pleased to see bills like this one move forward. I have a truck licence, a medium rigid licence, and I have driven my produce to places in Queensland, across the border. Whilst I was not driving articulated-sized vehicles and did not need all of those logbooks, it was still problematic and I was conscious of the lack of harmonisation of State laws in this area.

Hundreds of trucks used to unload at our business. I bore the brunt of the many regulations that interstate truckies had to put up with, so I know the importance of harmonisation. This bill is about productivity and it delivers. I commend the Government for that. This legislation has been in train—pardon the pun—since 2009, but for three or four years the previous Government made little progress. This bill has come about through the work of this Minister, who is determined to ensure that truck drivers do not need to have a filing cabinet in their cabins to deal with the complexities of differing regulations.

I am particularly impressed that the legislation will allow modular B-triple trucks travelling from far western New South Wales on the Kamilaroi Highway to access the Newell Highway at Narrabri so that they can utilise the 225-kilometre stretch of highway to Goondiwindi and beyond into western, southern and central Queensland. A lot of livestock, grain and produce such as hay are moved along those routes and we should do what we can to reduce the costs of that transportation. As the Parliamentary Secretary in the other place said, a B-triple can move 1,000 tonnes of freight in 20 fewer trips than a single articulated truck.

The bill also protects some safety provisions for New South Wales operators. For example, speed limiters will be maintained and this will require the monitoring of safety devices. So we are not letting everything go in this State, and that is as it should be. New South Wales will continue to maintain the highest standards as we move to increase productivity and harmonisation. Further amendments need to be moved through the important body called SCOTI.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Who? 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23619

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: SCOTI.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Do you have a pecuniary interest?

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: I acknowledge that interjection about my interest. SCOTI stands for the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure and, with a name like that, it is obviously an extremely important body. In conclusion, I note that our new Prime Minister has a heavy rigid truck licence, which must be a first. Prime Minister Abbot understands transport. He has driven up and down the Pacific Highway and I remember that he travelled on the New England Highway. We can now look forward to having a Deputy Prime Minister in charge of infrastructure and a Prime Minister who understands transport and who holds the relevant licence. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [12.32 p.m.]: I support the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013. The previous speaker commented that the new Prime Minister has a heavy rigid truck licence. I also hold such a licence. Interestingly, I got my heavy rigid truck licence in 1972 when I was about 20 years of age. It was just after I had bought a 1954 model International AR 160 to embark on my first private industry career as a contract hay carter. The 1954 model was approximately a five tonne capacity tray top truck and was, for its time, a pretty big truck.

My colleague and I used the truck to cart hay from the flats between Windsor and Richmond to a horse stud in the Blue Mountains. In those days I was studying at Hawkesbury Agricultural College. We used to put about 200 bales of hay on the old AR 160 and chug up the mountain. It was a pretty exciting time for two young blokes to go into that business carting hay up the mountains in quite a heavy vehicle. We have come a long way since then. In those days the trucking industry had very few regulations, and that sometimes had pretty unfortunate consequences.

As a member of the Council of Australian Governments the Premier committed to the introduction of nationwide consistency through the Intergovernmental Agreement on Heavy Vehicle Regulatory Reform. Part of the agreement was that the New South Wales Government would adopt the single Heavy Vehicle National Law. The previous bill, which was assented to in June 2013, was the first step in this process and through it Parliament agreed to be part of establishing a single National Heavy Vehicle Regulator.

The Government is committed to ensuring that a consistent approach is taken to the industry Australia-wide. We want to make the lives of our truckies as easy as possible. They already have the responsibility of driving some of the biggest vehicles on Australian roads, and anything we can do to make sure that they focus on driving will add to everyone's safety. This new bill will add to the work initiated by the previous bill. It will revise existing legislation while at the same time allowing New South Wales to retain the safety and productivity initiatives which are already in place.

The heavy duty transport industry welcomes the adoption of Australia-wide reforms, with every State bar Western Australia introducing this new regulation. Currently, long distance road transport, or line haulage, is different from State to State. The previous Government had something like seven roads Ministers in five years and did not allow them to get any traction on this issue. In Australia road, rail and sea freight is worth $58 billion each year and those industries employ approximately 500,000 people.

New South Wales is the thoroughfare State; our roads carry around 60 per cent of the national road freight each year. The principal roads on which that freight travels are the Hume, Pacific, Princes, Newell and New England highways. When this bill comes into effect, trucks will be able to travel from Victoria through New South Wales and on to Queensland under the same Heavy Vehicle National Law. Previous speakers have covered the various aspects of the bill and so I do not need to say much more. The bill will greatly improve the safety and efficiency of heavy vehicle transport in eastern Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

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

ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY BILL 2013

In Committee

The CHAIR (The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner): Unless members object I propose to deal with the bill in parts. There being no objection, I will proceed accordingly. 23620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.39 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 on sheet C2013-119F in globo:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 4 (1). Insert after line 33:

industrial court means an industrial court within the meaning of Part 1 of Chapter 7 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.

No. 2 Page 5, clause 7 (4), note, line 42. Omit "Local Court". Insert instead "industrial court or Local Court".

No. 6 Page 8, clause 13 (4), note, line 21. Omit "Local Court". Insert instead "industrial court or Local Court".

No. 8 Page 9, clause 16, note, line 8. Omit "Local Court". Insert instead "industrial court or Local Court".

No. 11 Page 9, clause 18, note, line 35. Omit "Local Court". Insert instead "industrial court or Local Court".

No. 13 Page 11, clause 21 (1), line 20. Omit "the Local Court". Insert instead "an industrial court or the Local Court".

No. 14 Page 11, clause 21 (2), line 23. Omit "The Local Court". Insert instead "An industrial court or the Local Court".

No. 19 Page 19, clause 41 (3), line 24. Omit "industrial magistrate". Insert instead "industrial court".

No. 20 Page 19, clause 42 (1), line 29. Omit "The Local Court". Insert instead "An industrial court or the Local Court".

No. 21 Page 20, clause 42 (9), line 15. Omit "the Local Court". Insert instead "the Court".

All the amendments relate to the deletion of references to the Local Court and substitution by references to the Industrial Court or the Local Court, and all the amendments are similar in nature. I welcome that the Government has included in its bill reference to an industrial magistrate or the Local Court to increase flexibility and options. The Opposition seeks only to expand the options more broadly, notwithstanding last week's announcement concerning the Industrial Court of New South Wales. We consider it to be suitable and prudent to broaden the options. It does not close options but merely increases them.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.40 p.m.]: The proposed amendments, which would confer power upon the Industrial Court within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to deal with proceedings for an offence or civil breach, are not appropriate or consistent with the nature of the entertainment industry relationships with which this bill deals. Under the Industrial Relations Act, an industrial court is defined as the commission in court session; in other words, it is the Industrial Court or a Local Court constituted by an industrial magistrate sitting alone. Relationships dealt with by the bill are contractual relationships between a performer and a person who represents the performer's interests. They are not employment relationships. Therefore no industrial issues are involved. In particular, it is not necessary for the Industrial Court, which is a court of superior jurisdiction, to play a role in the types of transactions regulated under this bill.

In most cases, the sums being sought will be relatively small, although of course significant for the performer, and therefore will not be of the magnitude that is appropriate for a court of superior record to deal with. It is appropriate that the Local Court continues to perform the main enforcement role for breaches of entertainment industry laws that are assigned to it under the current Entertainment Industry Act 1989, except in circumstances in which prohibition orders are being sought from the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Government opposes the amendments.

Dr JOHN KAYE [12.41 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendments. We are persuaded by the argument that there is a case for a broader range of jurisdictions to hear the matters. As I understand it, the legislation as it stands allows for the industrial magistrate to hear the matter and there is no strong argument against allowing other industrial courts to hear the matter. Therefore The Greens support the amendments.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.42 p.m.]: I hear what the Government has had to say. In the main I agree with the Government in the sense that most of the monetary amounts involved would be relatively small, in which case people would bring claims only in the Local Court or the Chief Industrial Magistrate's Court. But on the rare occasions when there is the need to do so and in cases in which the magnitude of the amount claimed is sufficiently large, the Opposition believes there should be an additional option. We press for the cluster of Opposition amendments to do with the Industrial Court to be agreed to. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23621

Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 [C2013-119F] be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Opposition amendments Nos 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 [C2013-119F] agreed to.

Part 1 [Clauses 1 to 4] as amended agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [12.43 p.m.]: I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet C2013-120:

No. 1 Page 6, clause 9, line 10. Insert "(not exceeding 10%)" after "percentage".

This amendment moves the capping of the maximum percentage amount into the Act itself and out of the regulations. Currently it is envisaged by the manner in which clause 9 is written that the cap on the fees that can be charged by a performer representative will be set in the regulation. We have been told by the Government, and we believe it, that the intention is to have that number set at 10 per cent. In other words, a performer representative can charge only up to 10 per cent of the total fee received by the performer as a performer representative's fee or remuneration. The Greens accept that. It seems to be reasonable save and except that we have had examples on previous occasions when drafting errors in regulations have resulted in caps on fees being set at 15 per cent. We have concerns about higher percentages creeping in. We have concerns about the pressure that can be brought to bear on a subsequent government to push up that level.

The Greens cannot envisage any circumstance under which the maximum percentage should be above 10 per cent. We therefore believe that that amount should be set quite clearly in legislation. If circumstances emerge and if the industry evolves in such a manner that a higher percentage would be appropriate, perhaps whoever forms the government can come back to Parliament at that time and seek to amend the bill. To The Greens' way of thinking, the 10 per cent cap is not a regulatory matter. It is not a matter that should be expressed in a regulation. It is a matter that is more permanent and should not be so easily changed. To that extent The Greens commend amendment No. 1 to the Committee.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.45 p.m.]: The Government opposes The Greens amendment for the very good reason that it would prescribe the capacity to make regulations by legislating to ensure that the maximum fee imposed on performers by performer representatives when providing certain services would be set at 10 per cent. It is noted that the proposal does not extend to performer representatives who manage the reputation, career or career development of the performer and who have entered into a managerial agreement and that there is no fee cap in those circumstances.

In the Government's view, the proposal would be an uncommon approach to prescribing matters by regulation. Regulations can be more easily amended than can legislation, if changing circumstances within the entertainment industry warrant such a change. It is also worth noting that regulations may be disallowed in this place. Despite that, it should be noted that regulations are being drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel's Office which will set the fee cap at 10 per cent—as advised to Dr John Kaye—in the case of engagement involving film, television or electronic media and 10 per cent for any period up to five weeks, and then 5 per cent thereafter for an engagement involving live theatre, musical or a variety performance. For the reasons I have stated, the Government does not believe that the amendment should be supported.

Question—That The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2013-120] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

The Greens amendment No. 1 [C2013-120] negatived.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.47 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 3 on sheet C2013-119F:

No. 3 Page 7, clause 11 (1), line 5. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead "the additional services set out in the agreement have been or are being provided when the fee or other remuneration is due for payment".

This amendment addresses a matter of concern to at least some of the stakeholders during consultation on the report that inspired this legislation, which was concern around fees that could be charged for being an agent. Of course, there is the 10 per cent cap, but people who are also managers enter into entertainment industry agreements and allegedly provide additional services. In so doing they are able to persuade artists and performers to agree to a higher percentage fee. Concern has been expressed that those services may be 23622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

additional in name only and in a written contract, but may not in fact in reality be provided and that that would be a loophole through which unscrupulous persons in the industry would gouge additional money out of performers without the performers being aware of it.

In the consultation phase, this was expressed as a matter of concern. To the Government's credit, it changed the drafting of the bill to reflect that concern. However, I do not think the draftsperson has quite got it right. Opposition amendment No. 3 refers to "the additional services set out in the agreement have been or are being provided when the fee or other remuneration is due for payment" and that captures a situation in which, even when such an agreement is terminated and if the agent/manager already has provided those additional services or is in the process of doing so, he or she should rightly be remunerated in accordance with the contract. This amendment does not have a different policy objective. It merely seeks to implement the policy objective of the bill more perfectly. The Opposition commends amendment No. 3 to the Committee.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.49 p.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment. We are satisfied that the clause as currently drafted makes it sufficiently clear that the fee cap can only be exceeded when services in excess of those set out in clause 5 are provided on an ongoing basis. For those reasons, we oppose the amendment.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 3 [C2013-119F] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 3 [C2013-119F] negatived.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.50 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 4, 24, 25 and 26 on sheet C2013-119F in globo:

No. 4 Page 7, clause 11 (3), lines 16 to 18. Omit "(unless the agreement is an entertainment industry managerial agreement and the additional services under the agreement are provided)".

No. 24 Page 22, schedule 1, clause 2 (4), lines 25–28. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead "interest, between the interests of the representative and the performer.".

No. 25 Page 22, schedule 1, clause 2 (5), lines 35 and 36. Omit "unless the performer consents to continued representation by the representative".

No. 26 Page 22, schedule 1, clause 2 (6), lines 39 and 40. Omit "unless the representative first discloses to the performer the full nature and extent of the reward or benefit".

The amendments go to the single issue of potential conflict of interest and our attempt to unravel that. There is concern amongst stakeholders, particularly those representing performers, musicians and other artists, that when performer representatives are fulfilling a role where, for example, they may be acting as a venue agent with the responsibility of booking acts to perform in venues and they are also performer representatives, representing the interests of musicians or other performers, they could represent both sides in a single transaction, as it were.

The way in which the Entertainment Industry Bill 2013 seeks to deal with those potential conflicts of interest is, appropriately, through disclosure so that a performer representative cannot demand additional fees or receive a fee or other remuneration from a performer under an agreement for any performance where they will also be the venue representative, unless they have made the disclosure to the performer of that double interest. The Opposition does not think that disclosure is sufficient to address a potential conflict of interest, because even where those interests are disclosed, performers are not in a bargaining position to be able to make proper use of that information or to determine whether or not the transaction they are potentially entering into is a good one, or to know, apart from the disclosure of the interest, whether they are in fact getting chiselled on their remuneration.

The Opposition believes that a better way of addressing this is to remove the capacity for there to be a doubling up of interests in any transaction. We seek to persuade members in this House to protect the workers in this industry, the musicians and other performers who are engaged in sessional work or by performance for limited times. Because it is work of a fragile and vulnerable nature that is not usually ongoing, performers are placed in a vulnerable position. The Opposition believes that the legislation should take every opportunity to protect those vulnerable interests and we urge members to embrace this cluster of amendments.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.53 p.m.]: As the Hon. Adam Searle stated, these amendments deal with conflict of interest issues. I note that the current clause 11 (3) in the 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23623

Entertainment Industry Bill 2013 allows a performer representative, who is providing additional services under a managerial agreement, to demand or receive a fee from the performer in addition to any fee that may be received in his or her capacity as a venue representative. There is no clear evidence or reason why this practice should be prohibited. It is broadly consistent with the way managers are currently treated under section 38 (5) of the Entertainment Industry Act 1989. Under section 38 (5) a manager can also receive a fee from the performer in his or her capacity as a venue consultant as long as the manager and performer have agreed to this arrangement in writing.

Apart from the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, no stakeholders raised any concerns with the drafting of this clause during the early consultations undertaken in June. During the most recent consultation period, a number of submissions from stakeholders asserted that the proposal was unrealistic. For example, the Association of Artist Managers stated that many young managers are often in a position where they have to take other jobs in the industry to supplement their income and booking venues can be a positive outcome for both parties. This is particularly the case in isolated areas of New South Wales, where booking a venue also enables the manager to network with other participants in the broader entertainment industry. The bill as drafted is also broadly in line with recommendation 8 of the New South Wales Better Regulation Office and the Office of Industrial Relations 2010 final report into the review of the Entertainment Industry Act 1989. For these reasons, we oppose the amendments moved by the Opposition.

Dr JOHN KAYE [12.55 p.m.]: The Greens strongly support these two sets of amendments. The first amendment is to proposed section 11 (3), which addresses the situation where a representative is both a performer representative and a venue representative, as defined in proposed section 15, and the Opposition's amendment would make it impossible for an individual to perform in both roles. The second set of amendments relates to schedule 1 and issues to do with the proposed Code of Conduct for the industry. As I understand it, the Code of Conduct says that where there is a conflict of interest, the agent cannot continue to act as an agent.

The proposed Code of Conduct contained in schedule 1 says that where performer representatives have a conflict of interest, they need to disclose that conflict of interest, but having disclosed that conflict of interest they can continue to be a representative of the performer. In theory, that sounds okay but in practice there are significant problems that emerge, given that there is a substantial power imbalance in many situations between the performer and the representative, particularly with respect to young performers. I note the situation hypothesised by the Parliamentary Secretary with respect to young performance representatives who are breaking into the industry.

However, one also has to consider the situation of a young person breaking into the entertainment industry who is told by his or her representative, "I am sorry, there is a conflict of interest but that is okay, we can continue." The young performer may be in a situation where he or she simply cannot say, "No, I do not accept that conflict of interest." By allowing it to be a disclosure the bill, as drafted, creates the opportunity for massive exploitation. The power imbalance that can exist between a representative and a performer is sufficient that performers will not be able to stand up and say, "I do not accept the conflict of interest." They may find it difficult to find another representative or they may find it difficult to tell their existing representative that this is unacceptable because they may fear for their future. For those reasons, in order to address those power imbalances, The Greens support the amendments.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.58 p.m.]: I make a couple of further comments in relation to amendments 24, 25 and 26. I note that their effect would be to prohibit outright a conflict of interest. It would effectively prevent any potential or actual conflicts of interest arising between the interests of performers and their representatives. The bill, as drafted, acknowledges that a performer representative will act for more than one person in a commercial setting, which may give rise to conflicts of interest between the financial or other interests of the representative and the performer.

In particular, it permits performer representatives who provide services under managerial agreements to also charge fees for their services as venue representatives. The amendments would have the effect of prohibiting this ordinary business practice in the industry. This is not a positive development. The preferred approach is to require performer representatives to make full disclosure so that performers are in a better position to make an informed decision as to the arrangements that best suit them. A number of stakeholders concurred with this view, noting that conflicts of interest in the industry are inevitable but disclosure is sufficient to allow performers to make informed decisions. 23624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.59 p.m.]: I note the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary but, as I indicated in my second reading contribution on 11 September, the Opposition sent its proposed amendments to ClubsNSW representing venues, MusicNSW, the Association of Artist Managers and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. I have received email communication from a number of those groups, leaving aside performer representatives. None of those bodies objected to any of the Opposition's amendments, including this cluster. In particular, this issue was not raised in any of my discussions on the amendments with the Association of Artist Managers, although I note that earlier submissions about the review of the legislation and draft bill were made in that context. Industry stakeholders raised no objections to these specific amendments.

Progress reported from Committee and consideration set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

[Deputy-President (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones) left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 2.30 p.m. for questions.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES CASEWORKER VACANCIES

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for the Illawarra. Has the Minister raised community and staff concerns regarding caseworker numbers in Wollongong with the Minister for Family and Community Services?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should direct that question to the Minister for Family and Community Services.

CHARLES FAUL MURDER

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: I address my question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House on a reward announced for information relating to the shooting murder of Charles Faul in Redfern more than 25 years ago?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Yesterday on behalf of the New South Wales Government I announced a $100,000 reward for information relating to the shooting murder of Charles Faul on 15 May 1986. The 40-year-old father was found slumped in the driver's seat of his red Ford Falcon sedan in Woodburn Street, Waterloo. He had suffered several gunshot wounds. Perhaps one of the most tragic aspects of this story is that Mr Faul was due home that night to celebrate the thirteenth birthday of his son, Allon; sadly, he never arrived. The Homicide Squad's Unsolved Homicide Team is reinvestigating Mr Faul's murder under Strike Force Surfway. It is hoped that the Government's reward will be an incentive for someone to come forward with information.

Undoubtedly people in the community know what happened or know who is behind Mr Faul's death; I plead with anyone with information to come forward. It will take one call to Crime Stoppers to help his family find the closure they need and deserve. In particular, investigators are hoping that a woman who spoke to police in the days following the murder will again come forward. This case has baffled police for more than two decades. Charles Faul was a married father of two. He owned a service station on Botany Road, Waterloo; prior to that he had been a taxidriver. He was a well-known face to many in the local community. The people who most want this case solved are Mr Faul's family. His son, Allon, joined me at a press conference yesterday morning and pleaded for anyone with information to come forward. He said:

Twenty-seven years ago, we lost a father, husband, a brother and a son. We don't know why and we don't know who. What we do know is that we are still feeling the immense impact it has had on us, and the consequences that last a lifetime.

Now is the community's opportunity to help solve this crime and provide a grieving family with the answers they need. The reward of $100,000 is available for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or people responsible for Mr Faul's death. Crime Stoppers can be reached on 1800333000. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23625

CABINET SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESOURCES AND LAND USE PLANNING

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for the Hunter. As Minister for the Hunter has he been given a place on the Cabinet subcommittee on resources and land use planning?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The reality is that as a member of Cabinet I have an opportunity to participate in many debates. For the information of the member I am not on the committee, nor have I sought to be. Quite rightly, my office does not have the expertise to deal with the intricacies of resource management.

The Hon. Steve Whan: We acknowledge that you as the Minister for the Hunter do not have the expertise.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As I have said before, the office of the Minister for the Hunter—and the same goes for the Minister for the Illawarra—does not have a bloated bureaucracy as it did under the previous Government. We are there to provide a voice for members in our respective regions and to ensure a collegiate approach to issues across an entire region, both within Cabinet and outside. As I have indicated, the bloated bureaucracies of the previous Government are long gone. It is about working with communities and local members to achieve an outcome.

We all saw the outcome of the way in which the previous Government used these regional portfolios to bolster local support of its beleaguered members when it was looking for relevancy in a community. That was particularly so in the Hunter when former member Bryce Gaudry was undermined by the right wing in Newcastle. The previous Government got rid of him and in came Jodi McKay, who continued to interfere in local issues. Members of the former Labor Government were undermined by their own incompetence. The shallowness of their policy debate was there for all to see and that is why there are virtually none of them left in the Parliament today.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Hon. Michael Gallacher, representing the Premier. Is it a fact that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has now confirmed that planet Earth has only been warming at a rate of 0.12 Centigrade each decade since 1951, not at the rate of 0.2 Centigrade as claimed by Kevin Rudd's former Australian Labor Government? Is it a fact that the world's temperature is changing through natural causes, not carbon emissions? Will the New South Wales Government give its full support to the Abbott Government's plans to repeal the carbon tax legislation?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The member has kept the very best to last. There can be no denying that we in this Parliament were the ones—

[Interruption]

Those on this side of the Chamber advocated very strongly throughout the dying days of the Gillard and Rudd governments about the impact of the carbon tax on ordinary Australians, particularly in areas such as the Hunter Valley, Western Sydney and the Illawarra. We continued to advocate, despite those opposite and their coalition colleagues, The Greens, continuing to spread fear throughout the community. But the people in this State and nation were smarter than they gave them credit. The voting public saw through the smokescreen of deceit that the former Federal Labor Government was putting up, backed by New South Wales Labor and The Greens. The voting public overwhelmingly were aware of the deceit, misinformation and fear that was being spread by those opposite and voted accordingly.

They voted for the end of the carbon tax. The new Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said today that the first thing that will go is the carbon tax. The scare campaign and the fearmongering of those opposite have failed: the carbon tax will go and confidence will return to the Australian economy. Confidence will return to the business community as well as ordinary Australians, who will now see a reduction in their cost of living after the increase pushed onto them by those opposite—who continue to perpetuate the fear and the myths of the former Federal Labor Government. May they never return to the government benches either in this State or the Federal Parliament. I thank the member for his question. 23626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

INTERNATIONAL FLEET REVIEW

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the upcoming International Fleet Review?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I acknowledge the member and this outstanding international tie. I am pleased to inform the House that from 3 to 11 October this year—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You're wearing what looks like a Joey's tie today.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I would never wear a Joey's tie. From 3 to 11 October this year Sydney will host the International Fleet Review to mark 100 years since the first Royal Australian Navy ships entered Sydney Harbour in 1913. More than 40 warships and 16 tall ships from more than 20 countries will arrive in Sydney Harbour.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I cannot hear the Minister's answer.

The Hon. Steve Whan: He is giving us his personal reminiscences.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: At least I am not an election denier, like the Hon. Steve Whan. More than 40 warships and 16 tall ships from more than 20 countries will arrive in Sydney Harbour on 3 and 4 October. A number of countries are participating, including China, France, India, Indonesia, the United States, Brunei and Nigeria. They will be joined by up to 16 international and local tall ships, and a variety of military aircraft and naval bands. Saturday 5 October is expected to be the biggest day, starting at 11.00 a.m. with the ceremonial fleet review by the Governor-General, a re-enactment of the original 1913 entry into Sydney Harbour and a formation fly-past by military aircraft. There will be several vantage points from which to view events. These events include aerial displays over the harbour and a 30-minute firework and light show spectacular involving more than 7,000 kilograms of fireworks, moving beams of coloured light and projections on the Opera House.

However, with these fantastic events also comes the biggest transport challenge in Sydney since the Olympic Games were held here. People can rest assured that the New South Wales Government is working to ensure that people can get to and from their destination as easily as possible. Extensive road closures, similar to those in place on New Year's Eve, will be in place across Sydney on the Saturday, especially around the foreshore. Road closures and special event clearways will be in place in various locations for each of the nine days. For this reason, I ask people who want to participate in these events to leave their cars at home and to take public transport. We have allocated more than 1,100 extra train services and 4,000 extra bus services for the nine-day event. Operating hours will be extended for eight secure taxi ranks in the central business district, Darling Harbour and Kings Cross to cater for additional demand. Additional taxi ranks are also being put in place near event sites.

This will be one of the busiest times for Sydney Ferries, and all available vessels will be running. However, people should plan ahead, as significant delays to ferry services will be experienced due to the large number of people wanting to access the harbour and the restrictions on ferry movements in response to the presence of the visiting ships. This will be the case particularly on Sunday 6 October and Monday 7 October. The New South Wales Government International Fleet Review transport website provides people with a one-stop shop for everything Sydneysiders and visitors need to know about getting around. The website will include an interactive map to view road closures, special-event clearways, transport services and walking routes for each day of the event. I know the Hon. Walt Secord will be concerned, because there is also a boy band in town; I know where he will be heading.

POLICE CRITICAL INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister advise the House on the recently announced review of police handling of critical incidents, including when it will commence? Will the report be available publicly and will there be a call for public submissions?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Of course critical incidents are matters that come under the responsibility of the Premier of New South Wales. He has made an announcement today in this regard. I will take that question on notice. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23627

The Hon. Trevor Khan: It is a great announcement.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is a great announcement, and I am sure that all fair-minded people will be very much behind the need for this inquiry. I will leave it to the Premier to go into the details.

M5 EAST TUNNEL CLOSURE

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. How many times has the M5 East Tunnel been closed since April 2011?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There are rules of the House on what should be a question without notice and what should be a question on notice. When a member asks for that sort of detail, frankly, that is a question—

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The Minister is clearly debating the question. I ask you to direct him to return to the leave of the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is a difference between debating the question and debating the issue that is the subject of the question. In my view the Minister was quite within his rights to talk about the conventions of the House in terms of the detail that can be expected to be addressed. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As I was saying, a question like this one, which requires a degree of detail, should be put on notice. The tunnel has been closed numerous times—sometimes because of breakdowns and once because of a blackout caused by the faulty infrastructure left by the previous Government. If those opposite want to be part of the game they have to take part of the pain. The reason that the tunnel has been closed numerous times is to perform maintenance to repair and upgrade it from the neglect during the time of the previous Government. If the member adheres to the rules of the House and puts the question on notice we will get her a detailed answer.

SUPPORTED LIVING FUND

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Ageing and Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister update the House on the Supported Living Fund and how this is being used by people with a disability?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The Supported Living Fund helps people with a disability to achieve independent living in their own homes. This initiative provides individuals aged between 18 and 64 years with annual funding which, on average, is $50,000 per person. People can use the funding to create living arrangements that suit their individual circumstances and life goals. The funding is flexible enough to change as their skills grow or if their circumstances and interests change. For example, Kate and Bob, who are friends, were both living at home with their families. They used the Supported Living Fund to move into their own apartment at Chatswood. They share their new apartment with another flatmate who does not have a disability. They have a very different life now and they enjoy a very active social life.

Another young man called Scott is living in a granny flat on his parents' farm. He has used the Supported Living Fund to participate in a wide range of interests and some employment. He is completing a diploma in photography, works as a disc jockey at parties and is also developing his own business. People are not tied to one service provider or one program. The funding is portable throughout New South Wales and funding can be administered by a person's provider of choice. The funding can be used to pay for personal care, skills training such as cooking or work skills, or for support to participate in recreational and social activities. The support can include transport and can be provided outside of standard business hours and during weekends.

A proportion of the funds can be used to modify houses to make them more accessible or to pay for specialist equipment people may need in their homes such as hoists or technical aids. A total of 300 packages will be allocated between 2012 and 2014 under Stronger Together 2. The full cost of the packages is $60 million over five years. Fifty extra packages were added to the Supported Living Fund in late 2012. So far, 268 packages have been allocated. Some packages were specifically targeted to Aboriginal people and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Applications have just closed for another 100 packages, which are due to start from November this year. 23628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

To help people submit their applications, Ageing, Disability and Home Care partnered with Carers NSW to conduct information sessions for people who were thinking about applying for the fund. The sessions were designed to help people apply and gave them information about how the funding can be used. Sessions were held at 13 different locations around New South Wales. Five were held in Sydney—one at Croydon Park, Hornsby, Campbelltown, Penrith and Bankstown. Outside of Sydney, sessions were held at Lismore, Dubbo, Queanbeyan, Nowra, Armidale, Albury and Gosford.

A total of 433 people including people with disabilities, their families and friends attended the session and the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. One parent who attended the Hornsby information session with her daughter was typical of many. She said that she found the sessions very informative and easy to understand. After she and her daughter completed the application for the Supported Living Fund she reflected on the conversation they had and said they spoke in ways she had never thought possible. In the process of completing the application, she and her daughter established goals that they are committed to achieving whether or not they are successful in getting funding. The Supported Living Fund is also helping people prepare for the time when the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully operational across New South Wales from July 2018. [Time expired.]

ILLAWARRA HOUSING TRUST EMPLOYEE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: My question without noticed is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. Will the Minister advise whether the Minister for Family and Community Services, the Hon. Pru Goward, has briefed him on suspected fraud and corruption by an employee of the Illawarra Housing Trust as reported in the Illawarra Mercury on 18 September? If so, will the Minister indicate the estimated scale of fraud involved and how it may have impacted on the services delivered by the Illawarra Housing Trust to social housing tenants in the Illawarra area?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: If I recall correctly, the article in the paper stated that the matter had been reported to the police and they are investigating. That being the case, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the matter. I will, of course, continue to monitor the situation. If I receive information that I am able to disclose, I would be happy to meet with the member to discuss it.

ROAD SAFETY CAMERAS

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. How many speed cameras, red light cameras, point-to-point cameras and mobile speed cameras have been found to be faulty since April 2011?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I have absolutely no idea, but I suspect it is not many. Once again that is a question that should have been put on notice. If members opposite put the question on notice we will obtain an answer for them.

NSW POLICE LEGACY

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House about fundraising efforts for Police Legacy and how the annual Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance assists in these efforts?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I have the great honour of being one of the vice-patrons of NSW Police Legacy. The charity was established 26 years ago and is now an integral part of the police family. Police Legacy looks after the families of deceased police officers by providing emotional and financial assistance and support to more than 650 widows and 260 dependent children. Through the work of Police Legacy, families of deceased officers know that they are and always will be part of the greater police family.

Police Legacy is holding its key fundraiser, the annual Blue Ribbon Ball, in Sydney on 21 September 2013. The ball is held in remembrance of deceased police officers and raises funds for their surviving spouses and children. As I have indicated previously, Police Legacy provides more than $200,000 in education grants every year to legatee children ranging from preschool to tertiary education age. Police Legacy also manages and administers more than 200 legatee trust funds for children under 25 years, funds grief and bereavement counselling, provides welfare grants for legatees who are in necessitous circumstances and organises social functions for legatees. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23629

NSW Police Legacy is a beneficiary of the annual Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance, which raises money for Police Legacy charities across the nation. In the biggest ride yet, on 14 September more than 1,400 motorbike riders from across Australia rode to the National Police Memorial in Canberra in remembrance of fallen Australian police officers. This number included around 700 officers and other riders from New South Wales, who were led by our Commissioner of Police Andrew Scipione. As members may be aware, the annual ride commemorates the service and sacrifice of police officers who have been killed in the line of duty or died as a result of injuries sustained on duty. It raises much-needed funds to support the families of these fallen officers.

In the tradition of the ride, the names of officers who have died on duty in the past year will be placed in their commissioner's baton and transported to Canberra where the names are added to the National Police Wall of Remembrance. This year it was the sad task of Commissioner Scipione to carry the name of Detective Inspector Bryson Anderson, who was killed whilst on duty at Oakville on 5 December 2012. Donna Anderson, the widow of Detective Inspector Anderson, attended the ceremony at the New South Wales Police Wall of Remembrance, whilst Detective Inspector Anderson's brothers, Warwick and Damon, participated in the ride. Warwick Anderson rode Detective Inspector Anderson's bike on the day.

September is a big month for the police family. In addition to the Blue Ribbon Ball and the Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance we have the National Police Remembrance Day on Friday 27 September. Both the Premier and I will attend the wreath-laying service at the New South Wales Wall of Remembrance at the Domain. Police Remembrance Day is a day to reflect on and honour those police officers who have lost their lives in the service of our community. A total of 252 officers have given their lives in the line of duty since the NSW Police Force was formed more than 151 years ago. This year during the service we will sadly mark the loss of Detective Inspector Bryson Anderson.

Police Remembrance Day, the Police Legacy Blue Ribbon Ball and the wall to wall ride remind us of the commitment and contribution made by New South Wales police officers, especially those who have lost their lives in the line of duty. It is also a reminder of the wonderful work Police Legacy does to support those who have been left behind. I encourage all members to support Police Legacy in whatever way they can and invite them to attend the service at the Domain on 27 September if they are able to. It is an occasion well worth attending.

WARRUMBUNGLE NATIONAL PARK BUSHFIRE

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing and Disability Services, representing the Minister for the Environment. Is the Government planning to meet the Warrumbungle Property Owners Alliance, which is made up of landholders affected by the Warrumbungle National Park bushfire earlier this year, who are seeking compensation from the Government for losses? Does the Government have any legal advice in relation to who was responsible for the fire?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members on the Government back bench will come to order.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the Hon. Robert Borsak for his question. I will refer the question to the Minister for the Environment, seek an answer and get back to him.

ROAD SAFETY CAMERAS

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. How many infringement notices have been refunded as a result of camera errors since April 2011?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Once again, this is a question that is looking for details. The Opposition obviously is out of questions. For the previous question, there is an answer coming in that is due today and that question was exactly the same as the question upon notice. I suspect this question falls into the same category. I suggest that the Opposition does two things: first, get a question time committee—one that actually works— and not let the members on the losers' lounge change the questions themselves. I am sure they have very good advisers, who would not give them such bad questions.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order—

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Secondly, put the questions on notice. 23630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: My point of order is that the Minister is yet again debating the question and not answering it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was starting to stray from the substance of the question. Is there anything the Minister wishes to add?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No. Just put it on notice.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the Minister update the House on New South Wales's international engagement?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yesterday in response to a question asked by the Hon. Walt Secord I outlined how the O'Farrell Government has put engagement with our key international trading partners and investors at the forefront of our economic agenda. I described in particular how we are systematically repairing the damage caused to New South Wales's reputation by the previous Government's term in office. The question asked by the Hon. Walt Secord prompted the Deputy Premier and me to reflect on the costs of the previous Labor Government's overseas activities and what benefits may have been achieved. Let me start with the Hon. Walt Secord. Let me start in his backyard. I have a bit of advice for the Labor Party. If Labor wants to have a bomb thrower in this area, I would use the Hon. Mick Veitch because his only trip over water has been over Burrinjuck Dam.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister was asked a question about the Government's international engagement. Speaking about the waters of Burrinjuck Dam or a history lesson as the Minister sees it is not relevant to the question. Mr President, I ask you to draw the Minister's attention to relevance.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It was not immediately apparent, but I am sure the Minister will get to the point soon.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Mr President, as you would recall, the Hon. Walt Secord was the chief of staff to former Premier Kristina Keneally, whose 2010 trip to China cost taxpayers a whopping $106,000, which is more than double the cost of the mission I recently undertook and she was there for a shorter period. We know that her trip achieved nothing, given that the Chinese already were unimpressed with the cancellation of the CBD Metro project and the problems with the Cross City Tunnel. Let me now turn to her predecessor, Nathan Rees, who spent more than $106,000 on a trip to the United Arab Emirates and Turkey in 2009. He lasted less than a year in the job. In 2007 Morris Iemma undertook a staggering $484,000 trip to China and India, with a delegation that included six government officials, five personal staff and, to help him along and to grease the wheels, the Hon. Ian Macdonald.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Oh, Macca went.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Remember him? It is no surprise that the hospitality expenses for that trip exceeded $36,000.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: I query whether the Minister is able to answer the question in this way. He is not responsible for this area. He is simply using his answer to this question as an opportunity, in an area outside his portfolio, to have a go at the Opposition.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I appreciate the point that the Hon. Penny Sharpe makes, which is largely a point about the question. As all previous Presidents have ruled, the problem is that once a question has been asked and an answer has commenced the point has passed at which issue may be taken with the question. It is not possible for me to rule the question out of order after the Minister has commenced his answer. The Minister's time has expired.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: In relation to the point of order I have just taken, I believe that the earlier question was out of order. However, I accept your ruling in that regard because the Minister started his answer. I would argue that the supplementary question is clearly out of order. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23631

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Mr President, I seek leave to speak for another minute, given that my time was used up on points of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Does Mr Scot MacDonald wish to withdraw his supplementary question?

Mr Scot MacDonald: Yes.

[Extension of time granted.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is no surprise that hospitality expenses for that trip exceeded $36,000, that public relations expenses reached a staggering $113,000 and that advertising expenses reached a remarkable $80,000.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: My point of order now is that the Minister's response is in no way relevant to the question that was originally asked. This has been an outrageous and flagrant abuse of the standing orders during question time. He is not being relevant to the issue he was asked about, which is what his Government is doing about trade links overseas.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order: The Hon. Penny Sharpe is misleading the House. The question was: Will the Minister update the House on New South Wales's international engagement? He is being perfectly in order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Leave was given for the Minister to continue his answer, but his time has now expired.

TILLEGRA DAM PROJECT

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Finance and Services. How many of the landholders who had their land expropriated for the ill-fated Tillegra Dam project have exercised their options to buy back into their properties? Does Hunter Water support the suggestion by Councillor Norman of Dungog Shire Council that the land be used for "green tourism" and "environmental education"? How does green tourism and environmental education ensure the future water supply to the Hunter region?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his important question. While I certainly do not have the details at hand, I suspect that there are people in this House who could answer that question. I will seek a detailed answer from the Minister.

APPIN ROAD SAFETY STUDY

The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Following deaths on Appin Road in 2012 he met with Campbelltown, Wollondilly and Wollongong councils and instigated a safety study. When will he release the report on Appin Road by the Centre for Road Safety and Roads and Maritime Services?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question. As he correctly said—which is unusual, but a step in the right direction—I undertook to do that and I have done so. Given the gravity of that situation, the report is still with the Centre for Road Safety. As soon as I receive the report I will make it known. It is not an issue that we can, nor should, rush. It is one that we need to get right.

AGEING, DISABILITY AND HOME CARE SERVICE CHARTER

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, and Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister update the House on the Ageing, Disability and Home Care NSW service charter?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The New South Wales Government is committed to providing high-quality services, in line with best practice, that address the needs and wants of individuals with disability, their families and carers. The Government has recently released a new Ageing, Disability and Home Care service charter, which sets out the rights and expectations of people with disability and of older people accessing services. 23632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

Guided in its development by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the charter will ensure that Ageing, Disability and Home Care NSW continues to deliver the best possible service to older people, people with disability and carers.

The charter, the first of its kind to be introduced within the Department of Family and Community Services, will be a useful reference for people with disability, older people, their families and carers. It provides an overview of the standard of service people can expect from us, how those standards are monitored, how people can help us to deliver the best services and what can be done if our services do not meet expectations. Ageing, Disability and Home Care and Ageing, Disability and Home Care-funded services strive to provide a high-quality service that responds to the choices and needs of people with a disability and that promotes their wellbeing, independence and inclusion in the community.

The charter is underpinned by some important principles: first, seeking and listening to the views of people with disability about the services they access and how those services might be changed to better meet people's needs and preferences; secondly, respecting people's privacy and complying with privacy laws when collecting, using and managing personal and health information; and, thirdly, providing information about services in a way that meets people's needs and providing advice to people about other support that may be available if we cannot assist them with the service that they have requested. The charter is rights based and aligns with the focus on person-centred approaches, transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and our existing Stronger Together 2 commitments. It has an emphasis on people who receive Ageing, Disability and Home Care-funded services and our commitment to them.

I have been advised by Ageing, Disability and Home Care that it will review the service charter every two years, in consultation with people accessing services and supports, their families, carers, staff and other stakeholders. The Ageing, Disability and Home Care service charter is available in English, Easy English, 27 languages other than English and the sign language of the Australian deaf community. I hope that the charter not only provides people with an understanding of the standards they can expect from Ageing, Disability and Home Care services but also encourages people to provide feedback to help us continue to improve our services.

PILLIGA STATE FOREST COAL SEAM GAS MINING

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Trade and Investment. Given that court prosecutions have only just commenced against Santos for previous breaches of its coal seam gas approvals in the Pilliga and that the Government has yet to respond to the Chief Scientist's recommendations, why has the Government just approved eight new coal seam gas wells in the Pilliga State Forest?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We were talking about this yesterday when the member opposite asked a question about natural gas. We need natural gas in New South Wales. No-one in this State has said that there will not be any mining or that there will not be any drilling for natural gas in New South Wales.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Oh, "natural gas"—he drank the Kool-Aid.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Can you have food with your lunch tomorrow?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The Minister is clearly making imputations against another member in this place, which is inappropriate unless it is done by way of substantive motion.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is disorderly to make imputations against another member of this place. The Minister may finish his answer.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I was well underway before the interjection. We indicated that we believed there should be mining in this State and that there should be drilling for natural gas. However, we put in place the best safeguards of any State in the Commonwealth and perhaps the world. We need to be careful where we drill and what we drill. As we said before the election, there is certain land that one should not drill on. There is pristine land, agricultural land and other important land for which it is inappropriate.

The Hon. Steve Whan: We should ring fence those areas, should we?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We should ring fence some of the people sitting on the losers lounge—that would probably be the greatest service we could do for the State. We need to be balanced about natural gas. The problem with the member is that when he asks a question he always asks from the point of zero—absolute zero in mining and absolute zero in natural gas. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23633

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: My point of order is relevance.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: To the point of order—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham will resume his seat. It is disorderly to canvas the President's ruling.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Mr President, you had not heard my point of order. How can you rule on it?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham that he stated under which standing order he was taking his point of order—namely, relevance. I was listening carefully to the Minister's answer and he had been in order. Therefore, I was able to form that judgement, as I am free to do, without listening to the entire point of order. I advise the member to resume his seat. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The lesson for the young people in the gallery is not to be very naughty boys at school or they will get into trouble. The member cannot sulk over this: rules are rules. Everyone has to obey them.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will stop playing to the gallery and answer the question. However, I note that his time has expired. Government members will come to order.

SYDNEY AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONGESTION

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Government members will contain their mirth.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: What is the Minister's response to the Department of Planning's Executive Director for Rural and Regional Planning, who recently gave evidence before the inquiry into tourism in local communities that the proposed WestConnex "does not solve the congestion issue" around Sydney airport?

The Hon. Steve Whan: Contrary to what you said this morning.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Certainly not contrary to what I said this morning. I am unaware of those comments and the context in which they have been taken. If they have been quoted correctly—one always has to be careful whether the Opposition quotes anyone correctly and that this important public servant has not been misquoted—I would have to disagree. Nearly all transport officials—Federal and State—also would disagree. We know the Labor Party does not like WestConnex because it was not its idea. Many things are not Opposition ideas because it did not have many. Opposition members had the odd good idea, which I got to open. If they had had more good ideas they also would have been opening them.

MOUNTED POLICE UNIT AWARDS

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House about the awards day held by the New South Wales Mounted Police Unit?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The New South Wales Mounted Police Unit awards ceremony was held on 11 September 2013. The various awards presented on this day have a longstanding and distinguished history. They include awards sponsored by patrons and the families of former officers of the Mounted Police Unit. For example, the Ray Kennedy Groom's Trophy was donated in 2002 by the family of Ray Kennedy, who gave 17 years of service to the Mounted Police Unit and remained a good friend of the unit until his passing in 2003. Other awards relate to the participation of the Mounted Police Unit in the Sydney Royal Easter Show. These awards are for the most successful competitor in the various police events at the 23634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

show: Best Turned Out Mounted Trooper, and Best Rider and Horse in a Musical Ride. The New South Wales Mounted Police Unit is the only mounted contingent that performs a musical ride in the Southern Hemisphere— performed with the New South Wales Police Band.

The band and mounted police combine regularly to perform their musical rides, which have been a major attraction at the Sydney Royal Easter Show since they first performed in 1895. The Royal Easter Show provides the Mounted Police Unit with the opportunity to display to the community its dedication and commitment to training for operational duties and ceremonial and protocol engagements. The Mounted Police Unit awards day also recognises officers who have completed the Mounted Police Certificate and Equestrian Australia Certificate. These certificates are awarded to officers who have successfully completed their training in various aspects of mounted duties. The Equestrian Australia Certificate acknowledges accreditation as an instructor. The Mounted Police Unit takes great pride in its awards day. It values the opportunity to bring together officers with patrons, volunteers and friends. The day is a chance for the broader mounted police community to celebrate the great tradition of the unit in New South Wales policing history.

As I have indicated previously, the unit was formed in 1825 and is the oldest continuous operational mounted unit in the world. It has been performing outstanding work ever since. The majority of mounted police duties consist of operational support in public order, crowd management and mounted patrols throughout the Sydney central business district, suburbs and country areas. The Mounted Police Unit participates in operations such as the Bathurst car races.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: South Sydney Rugby League games?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: No, I do not need to go there. It participates in the Tamworth Country Music Festival. It was called to the Cronulla riots. The visibility of officers on horseback makes them extremely effective in crowd disputations with large numbers of people. Mounted police are involved in community events, protocol engagements and searches. I commend the work of the Mounted Police Unit, particularly its commander, Inspector McFadden. I congratulate all recipients of awards at the unit's awards day ceremony which, by all accounts, was an outstanding day. Sadly, the House was sitting and I was not in a position to attend. I hope I will be able to attend next year.

REGIONAL TRAIN SERVICE BICYCLE SPACES

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Transport. What actions are being taken to increase storage for bicycles on country trains to encourage regional bicycle tourism?

The Hon. Trevor Khan: That's a pretty good question.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: I know the answer to that: Nothing.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is a good question. I disagree with the Opposition spokesperson who said it was a nothing question. It was an excellent question.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: I did not say that at all, and you know it. I said I knew the answer to the question.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: One day in the next millennium you might be able to answer that.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Yes, but she certainly will be able to answer questions before you ever will, Melinda.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Go for another Standing Order 52.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Indeed, it is a good question. Just this morning I was shown some initiatives that my colleague the absolutely fantastic, feisty and great Minister for Transport is putting in place in this area. The issue being considered is storage as one gets on trains rather than storage on trains. That sort of initiative is probably better. I remember in Washington seeing buses with racks on the front and back which, 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23635

frankly, I thought was a good idea until I thought more about it. It is a little clunky getting them on and off, particularly the dwell time when the vehicle stops to pick up people because the person has to get off the bus, go around the back or front and pick up the bicycle. Safety issues are involved, in addition to holding up other traffic. Having storage at a railway or bus station is a great idea. Only someone with new ideas and initiatives such as that great Minister for Transport, Gladys Berejiklian, is able to think outside the box and deliver great train timetables and new initiatives for bicycles on trains.

RURAL MEDICAL SCHOOL

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Regional Infrastructure and Services. In outer regional areas there are about 187 doctors for every 100,000 Australians compared with 383 in major cities. Given that The Nationals 2013 policy platform states that a Coalition government will establish a joint rural medical school between La Trobe University and Charles Sturt University, what steps has the State Government taken to ensure its Federal counterparts honour their promise to New South Wales rural and regional families?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am pleased to have been asked that question because something important happened this week—Fiona Nash. We have two great feisty National Party leaders in Fiona Nash and Melinda Pavey. One is a Parliamentary Secretary and the other is an assistant Minister, so they both have experience. That is the best thing that has happened in the rural health region for many years.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: This issue is really important.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, it is important. The question was: what are we doing? We are doing this for the future. As for the detailed answer to the question, I am sure it has been honoured in spades, but I will refer it to the Minister for Health.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: If members have any further questions, I suggest that they place them on notice.

Question time concluded.

POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION AND INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INSPECTORS) BILL 2013

LIQUOR AMENDMENT (KINGS CROSS PLAN OF MANAGEMENT) BILL 2013

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

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

Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

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

HEAVY VEHICLE (ADOPTION OF NATIONAL LAW) AMENDMENT BILL 2013

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [3.33 p.m.], in reply: I commend all members who have contributed to the important debate on the Heavy Vehicle (Adoption of National Law) Amendment Bill 2013. This bill allows the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to operate within New South Wales and asserts this Government's commitment to having the national reforms for heavy vehicle regulation apply in New South Wales. While allowing for the application of the Heavy Vehicle National Law in New 23636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

South Wales it also makes the necessary modifications to the application of the national law in New South Wales to preserve existing initiatives, such as the Livestock Loading Scheme, which encourages safety and productivity for the heavy vehicle industry. It also repeals existing New South Wales heavy vehicle legislation, which is now inconsistent with the nationally agreed approach.

The application of the Heavy Vehicle National Law within New South Wales will support the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and allow it to take on extra functions to benefit the heavy vehicle industry during the remainder of 2013. The legislation complements the application legislation passed by this House on 25 June 2013 and confirms the full commitment of New South Wales to the national heavy vehicle law. Industry has been seeking a national regulator for heavy vehicles under a national consistent heavy vehicle regulatory regime for many years.

I take this opportunity to thank the members who spoke in debate on the bill for their support and sensible comments: the Hon. Penny Sharpe, the Hon. Mick Veitch, the Hon. Mehreen Faruqi, the Hon. Paul Green, the Hon. Rick Colless, the Hon. David Clarke, Mr Scot MacDonald, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. I thank a number of industry leaders who have supported and provided wise advice on this bill, notably Barney Hayes, president of the Livestock and Bulk Carriers Association of New South Wales, and Emma Higginson, his executive director; Jon Luff, president of the Australian Trucking Association New South Wales, and Jodie Broadbent, his chief executive. David Simon, president of the Australian Trucking Association, should also be thanked for his sensible and constructive approach during the negotiations. Sadly, I was a little disappointed in the behaviour of representatives of the National Road Transport Operators Association who, frankly, overreacted on several of the key clauses in the bill, notably the prosecution provision.

The heavy vehicle industry is a key player in the push to improve productivity, which is widely recognised as necessary to strengthen Australia's economy. As explained, these reforms will relieve the industry of operational inconsistencies and the myriad legislative instruments that burden drivers and operators when they travel between States and Territories. This bill provides for innovative trial schemes such as the use of heavy vehicles on specific roads that are not currently accessible to them; the payment of fees to be used for maintenance of trial routes; issuing of permits to authorise participation in trial schemes under certain criteria; and the use of monitoring devices in connection with a trial scheme.

Since the passage of the application law in June, further development of local productivity initiatives has occurred in several jurisdictions. The plan is to expand these initiatives to other suitable areas of the country, thereby yielding further efficiency gains and reduction in the cost of regulation. This bill honours the commitment of New South Wales to the decision of the Council of Australian Governments in June 2009 to establish the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. This commitment, in association with the national regulators for rail and maritime, is the key piece of consistent, harmonised transport regulation designed to effect a seamless national economy. It is a fine example of the New South Wales Government working closely and collaboratively with other jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, to cut red tape and deliver effective outcomes for industry whilst maintaining our high safety standards.

I extend my sincere thanks to Bruce Baird, Chair of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, a former Minister for Transport in New South Wales, and Richard Hancock, his chief executive officer, who both keep in regular contact with my office to help facilitate these vital national reforms. Lastly, I thank Tim Reardon, Deputy Director General of Transport for NSW, and his great team of national heavy vehicle reform policy advisers—notably Dimi Rigas and Natalie Pelham—for all their help and hard work over the past 18 months. Their recognition by the Opposition was well deserved. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23637

ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY BILL 2013

In Committee

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 4, 24, 25 and 26 [C2013-119F] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendments Nos 4, 24, 25 and 26 [C2013-119F] negatived.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.42 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 5 on sheet C2013-119F:

No. 5 Page 7, clause 12 (2), line 23. Omit "third". Insert instead "fifth".

The bill provides for a cooling-off period on the third business day after the day on which the entertainment industry managerial agreement was entered into. The Opposition considers this to be too short a time and that the fifth day would be a more appropriate length of time. In the spirit of constructive engagement the Opposition offers that suggestion to the House.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.43 p.m.]: I applaud the spirit of constructive engagement but on this occasion the Government opposes the amendment. The Government believes that three days is sufficient time in relation to this matter.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 5 [C2013-119F] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 5 [C2013-119F] negatived.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.43 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 7 and 9 on sheet C2013-119F in globo:

No. 7 Page 8, clause 14 (1), line 25. Omit "5". Insert instead "7".

No. 9 Page 9, clause 17 (3), line 16. Omit "5". Insert instead "7".

These two amendments seek to extend the period for which records should be kept from five years to seven years. That is consistent with taxation records and the Opposition considers this to be a more appropriate time benchmark.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.44 p.m.]: The Government considers that five years is an appropriate length of time for the keeping of records and therefore opposes Opposition amendments Nos 7 and 9.

Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 7 and 9 [C2013-119F] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendments Nos 7 and 9 [C2013-119F] negatived.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.45 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 10 on sheet C2013-119F:

No. 10 Page 9, clause 18, lines 31 to 34. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead "payment within 1 calendar month after the date of the performance".

This amendment seeks to amend clause 18 in division 3 of the bill: Time for making of payment by entertainment industry hirers. This clause provides—and we consider this to be a good provision—a time within which an entertainment industry hirer must pay a performer in relation to a performance. It provides a double-barrelled requirement—that is, one calendar month after the date of the performance or such other period as may be specified in an agreement between the performer and the hirer in writing. 23638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

The difficulty with clause 18 (b) is that theatre performers, in particular musicians, and others engaged for their craft in the industry are not in a strong bargaining position. They are not really in a position to resist longer time periods that may be required of them as the price of the engagement. The Opposition considers that clause 18 (b) could be a loophole through which some unscrupulous operators may seek to exploit the vulnerable in this industry. The Opposition proposes that clause 18 (b) should be removed and therefore the requirement would be that payment must be made—unless there is a reasonable excuse—within one calendar month after the date of the performance. In most cases this would be approximately 30 days, which is an appropriate time in relation to any small business or engagement. The Opposition has not received any pushback by the industry stakeholders with whom this amendment has been shared. Indeed, I have received no opposition to it from that quarter. I urge the Committee to support this amendment.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.47 p.m.]: The Shooters and Fishers Party has carefully considered Opposition amendment No. 10. I appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition has said about performers being in a vulnerable position, but they are no more vulnerable than thousands of other persons who engage in similar activities as subcontractors. It seems to me to be a bit unbalanced to insert a commercial term into this legislation that is not available anywhere else. Whilst the Shooters and Fishers Party feels for the position of the entertainment industry, it really is no different from any other self-employed industry such as the building industry and others.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.48 p.m.]: The Hon. Robert Brown has put it very well. The Government believes the bill as drafted provides flexibility by permitting performers and entertainment industry hirers to negotiate another period for payment on the basis that it is done in a written agreement. This is commercial law; a contract entered into between the parties. However, I note that the majority of stakeholders who responded to this proposal believed that one month was an appropriate time for payment to performers. It appears to be custom and practice within the industry. For example, the Association of Artist Managers noted that a month is a suitable turnaround time for performance payment, while the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance conceded in its submission that it believes most performer representatives would not seek to extend the one month time frame for payment of performers. Given the comments made by the Hon. Robert Brown, we fully support that and we will be opposing this amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.49 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I support the amendment before the Committee. I understand the argument put forward by the Hon. Robert Brown. He says that in other industries where there is a high degree of contractual employment such uncertainty also exists and so there is no reason to raise the standards within the entertainment industry. I understand that argument but I do not buy it. Just because things are generally bad does not mean that one ought not to make things better when one has an opportunity to do so. The issue of negotiating a longer payment period goes to the specific imbalance of bargaining power within the entertainment industry. There will be entertainers who find it extremely difficult to stand up to pressure from their hirer and say, "No, I insist that you pay within the calendar month. I will not agree to a longer payment period." In fact I imagine that almost every junior performer, every performer starting out in the industry, would be highly vulnerable to these kinds of provisions.

There is a difference, for example, between building contracting and the entertainment industry. In the building industry contracting is mostly by way of a commodity service—that is, it is interchangeable from one contractor to another; there is not much in the way of specific characteristics. There is a job and a contract is largely awarded on price within a given standard. The performance industry is something quite different. In that industry a performer is competing based on certain intrinsic qualities that he or she brings to the hirer. The assessment of those qualities creates a far higher degree of uncertainty and a far greater imbalance in bargaining power between the hirer and the performer. For that reason, I accept the Opposition's argument that the imbalance would create an opportunity for unscrupulous hirers to lengthen the payment period to the detriment of performers, and particularly the survivability and sustainability of new and junior entertainers. For that reason, The Greens support the amendment.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.52 p.m.]: I thank members for their contributions. I have a lot of sympathy for the comments by the Hon. Robert Brown, and the issues he raised are the reasons I offered some suggestions in relation to unfair contracting in the small business space that would be applicable and available to all small business persons. This is a matter which we will not let rest and will return to in due course. To pick up on the theme Dr John Kaye raised, the mere fact that there may be injustice generally in industry at the smaller end does not mean we should not move to remedy it in some areas where we can do so; and so we press this amendment on the Committee. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23639

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 10 [C2013-119F] be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 18

Ms Barham Mr Primrose Mr Whan Mr Buckingham Mr Searle Mr Wong Ms Cotsis Mr Secord Mr Donnelly Ms Sharpe Dr Faruqi Mr Shoebridge Tellers, Dr Kaye Mr Veitch Ms Fazio Mr Moselmane Ms Westwood Ms Voltz

Noes, 21

Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Reverend Nile Mr Blair Mr Green Mrs Pavey Mr Borsak Mr Harwin Mr Pearce Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Ms Cusack Mr MacDonald Tellers, Ms Ficarra Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Colless Mr Gallacher Mr Mason-Cox Dr Phelps

Pair

Mr Foley Mrs Mitchell

Question resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 10 [C2013-119F] negatived.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.00 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 12 on sheet C2013-119F:

No. 12 Page 10, Part 2. Insert after line 3:

Division 4

Disputes arising between performer and entertainment industry representatives

20 Disputes may be resolved by Industrial Relations Commission

(1) If a question, dispute or difficulty arises between a performer and an entertainment industry representative or entertainment industry hirer, the performer, or an industrial organisation acting on behalf of a performer, may apply to the Industrial Relations Commission to have the matter determined by conciliation and, if necessary, arbitration.

(2) The Industrial Relations Commission may conduct such a dispute resolution process in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate.

(3) The Industrial Relations Commission may make such orders in relation to such a question, dispute or difficulty as the Commission considers fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

(4) A person who fails to comply with an order of the Industrial Relations Commission under this section is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

This amendment seeks to insert into the legislation a dispute resolution mechanism that is less formal, more accessible and more user friendly for performers and other industry workers. It is modelled on the current dispute resolution provisions that are available to workers through the Industrial Relation Commission of New 23640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

South Wales. The legislation brought forward by the Government provides for prosecutions for offences to be brought not only by the regulatory authority but also by individual performers who have been short-changed. That is as it should be. But, of course, individual workers who are not members of trade unions or otherwise financially well-equipped may find it difficult to utilise the prosecution mechanisms in the legislation. In the spirit of constructive engagement, I offer a less formal mechanism.

Mr David Shoebridge: That is always your way.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge that interjection. It is always my way. This mechanism is less legalistic and will allow performers, venue representatives and performer representatives to represent themselves. It would not preclude the use of lawyers, but individuals would be able to operate this mechanism without undue formality. It would be worthwhile for the entertainment industry to have such a mechanism available to it. I urge all members to embrace the amendment.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.02 p.m.]: The Government will oppose the Opposition amendment. This amendment would confer dispute resolution powers upon the Industrial Relations Commission. It is not appropriate and not consistent with the nature of the entertainment industry relationship dealt with in this bill, which we have canvassed on more than one occasion when debating Opposition amendments. The bill does not regulate industrial matters involving employment relationships but, rather, commercial relationships entered into between performers and their representatives. Essentially, performers are consumers who by agreement are provided with services by their representatives such as securing work opportunities, administering any contract performers have with a venue and, in some instances, managing and developing their career.

Any disputes arising in this field of regulation will predominantly concern fees, the types of services provided by performer representatives and the extent to which there has been compliance on the part of performer representatives with the code requirements for ethical and professional conduct. These are all matters dealt with in the bill and for which the bill provides appropriate enforcement mechanisms. It is not clear what types of additional matters will be dealt with under the Opposition's dispute resolution proposal. It must be noted that performers are currently able to take any claim relating to the standard of services they are provided to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales. In addition, the Government is concerned about the inclusion of a penalty of imprisonment for a breach of the commission's orders. It is heavy-handed and inconsistent with the penalty framework in the bill.

Having heard from Opposition members about this and other amendments, the Government contacted stakeholders to seek their views. Industry stakeholders were of a mind that participants in the entertainment industry would be unfamiliar with the role of the commission and expressed a preference for such matters to be dealt with by the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. A number of stakeholders appear to be confused about how the proposal to confer dispute resolution powers on the Industrial Relations Commission would be practically applied within the industry.

For example, the Arts Law Centre conceded that it had some difficulty in making informed comments about the potential benefits or shortcomings of the proposal in this amendment. In particular, it queried the cost involved in bringing a matter before the commission, the amount of time it might take to have a matter resolved and whether any assistance would be provided to self-represented litigants. Those issues in this amendment must be dealt with seriously. Another stakeholder queried the types of matters that may come before the Industrial Relations Commission. It noted that while performers or industrial organisations acting on behalf of performers could apply to the commission to have a dispute resolved, similar rights have not been conferred upon performer representatives. It is for these reasons that the Government opposes the Opposition amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE [4.05 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendment. Providing lower cost and faster access to dispute resolution is a sensible move, particularly in an industry where a number of players may be in dispute with other representatives, entertainment industry hirers or an industry organisation. In a situation where some performers may not have a lot of money or access to expertise there is a need to create a lower cost and faster vehicle for dispute resolution. To that extent, The Greens support the amendment.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 12 [C2013-119F] be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Opposition amendment No. 12 [C2013-119F] agreed to. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23641

Part 2 [Clauses 5 to 20] as amended agreed to.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.07 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 15, 16 and 17 on sheet C2013-119F in globo:

No. 15 Page 15, heading to clause 29, line 2. Omit "may". Insert instead "must".

No. 16 Page 15, clause 29 (1), line 3. Omit "may". Insert instead "must".

No. 17 Page 15, clause 29 (2), line 9. Omit "may contain any of". Insert instead "must contain".

These amendments seek to achieve one end—that is, to turn the proposed discretionary register into one that has certain mandatory requirements. Having a register publicly available is a good thing. It will allow performers to know who is found to be compliant and non-compliant when investigated. In addition, for performers starting out in their careers it could be especially useful to find an appropriate performer representative to protect and advance their interests. Knowing from the outset who not to go to would be of great benefit rather than allowing them to learn about the pitfalls of the industry through bitter experience. We congratulate the Government on bringing this aspect of the legislation forward; it just needs to be toughened up a little.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.08 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. Adam Searle for his comments. I again inform the Committee that the Government will oppose this amendment, which would make it mandatory for the Secretary to the Treasury to keep a register in the prescribed manner concerning offences, enforceable undertakings and prohibition orders. It is more appropriate for the secretary to retain discretion in keeping the register and determine what information is appropriate for inclusion in each case. The bill as drafted provides clear authorisation to establish and keep a transparent public register that discloses important information which will help to protect vulnerable performers. For these reasons, we do not think the bill needs toughening up. We believe it is appropriate in context and therefore oppose the amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE [4.09 p.m.]: The Greens support these amendments. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, these amendments require the secretary to keep the register and the register to contain as a minimum a certain set of information, which is set out in subparagraphs (a) through to (h) in clause 29 (2). The Greens support this because the creation of the register is an important regulatory function to allow performers to assess whether or not a candidate for being their representative has offended against provisions of the Act with respect to a previous performer that the representative may have represented. Without the register and without ensuring that the register contains the minimal set of information, performers may become vulnerable to representatives who have committed offences against the Act or the regulation, but who are not named in the register because that will be up to the discretion of the Secretary to the Treasury. Removal of that discretion and requiring the secretary to maintain the register and to name the individuals will be an important protection. The Greens support that proposition. The Greens commend the amendments to the Committee.

Question—That Opposition amendments Nos 15, 16 and 17 [C2013-119F] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendments Nos 15, 16 and 17 [C2013-119F] negatived.

Part 3 [Clauses 21 to 29] as amended agreed to.

Part 4 [Clauses 30 to 33] agreed to.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.11 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 18 on sheet C2013-119F:

No. 18 Page 19, clause 41 (2), line 22. Omit "12 months". Insert instead "6 years".

This amendment seeks to amend the period within which a prosecution may be brought for breach of the Act. At present it is six months. The Government has increased that in the bill to 12 months, for which I congratulate it. However, I do not think that is an adequate period. The Opposition thinks that six years is consistent with the limitation period generally in the law and it is also the same as the limitation period applying to bringing prosecutions for breach of industrial awards or agreements that provide for payment. The other practical aspect is that it may be more than 12 months before a performer who has a right to payment becomes aware of a breach, particularly outside of live performances—for example, because of involvement in other aspects of the entertainment industry. 23642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

The Hon. Robert Brown: What about royalties?

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: Not just royalties. For example, if there is a recording of a performance that is rebroadcast, additional payments are due. But if the performer is not aware of it because it is rebroadcast on radio or television or whatever, the performer simply may be outside the period within which a claim may be made. While the Opposition recognises that that circumstance may be limited and congratulates warmly the Government for doubling the period within which breaches may be prosecuted, we think 12 months is a little on the light side so we offer this suggestion.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.13 p.m.]: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his congratulations and good wishes to the Government in relation to doubling the time frame for the commencement of criminal offences under the current Act from six to 12 months. The Government considers that to be appropriate and it strikes the right balance. We believe that establishment of a six-year time frame for the commencement of criminal offences potentially would make certain provisions too difficult to enforce due to the difficulties in gathering evidence in matters that have to meet the criminal standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. For the reasons I have stated, the Government opposes the amendment.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 18 [C2013-119F] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 18 [C2013-119F] negatived.

Part 5 [Clauses 34 to 47] as amended agreed to.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.14 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 22 on sheet C2013-119F:

No. 22 Page 22, schedule 1, clause 1, line 11. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead "to require performer representatives to act ethically, honestly, fairly and professionally".

This amendment seeks to amend part of the code of conduct that is provided for the industry. Essentially we seek to insert the word "ethically" in line 11 of item [1] (d) of schedule 1, headed "Objectives", which states:

to ensure that performer representatives act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of their clients.

We think it is important to insert the word "ethically" as the first and paramount consideration. It may just be a word but we think it is an important dimension that should be inserted into the mix, particularly given the Government's merging of the separate roles of agent and manager into the single notion of a performer representative. There will be many cases of competing interests, if not conflicts of interest. We think that an injection of the ethical dimension is necessary here.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.15 p.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment. We believe that the clause as drafted is sufficient and covers the field.

Dr JOHN KAYE [4.16 p.m.]: I have a question for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The clause as it is currently written states:

to ensure that performer representatives act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of their clients.

The amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would require performer representatives to act ethically, honestly, fairly and professionally. There are two changes, one of which is the insertion of the word "ethically", which I support. Can the Deputy Leader of the Opposition comment on the change from "ensure" to "require"?

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.16 p.m.]: Certainly. As I understand the nature of the bill, schedule 1 sets out the objectives as a guide with which to interpret the balance of the code of conduct and on how to evaluate the other requirements imposed by, for example, items [2] and [3]. From that perspective, one might say "Why bother? It is mere surplusage." But to the extent that it is there and it has work to do, it is important that the words set out a clear guide. Given the objectives of our other and later amendment—which are really to try to unravel the competing interests and to ensure that where there are 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23643

conflicting interests, the interests of the performer are paramount—the draftsman in drafting this amendment changed "ensure" to "require" as a way of tightening up the requirement. It is perhaps a subtle change—it changes only one word—but in relation to providing a guide to the interpretation of the balance of the code, I think it sets an important tone. For that reason, the word "require" is part of the amendment and the Opposition presses for acceptance of the amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE [4.17 p.m.]: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his explanation of why "ensure" is sought to be replaced by "require". I agree with his argument that "require" is a more appropriate term under "Objectives" because it places more of the onus on the performer representative and his or her behaviour. I also accept the argument with respect to inserting the word "ethically" in the code. "Ethically" probably does cover honesty, fairness and acting in the best interests of clients but it is broader than that. It is a term that is used commonly in codes of conduct that are adopted by professional bodies, such as engineers. The engineers' code of ethics makes specific reference to the requirement to behave ethically, and so does, as I understand it, the code of conduct associated with accountants, although I admit I am relying on memory in that case.

The Hon. Adam Searle: And lawyers.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am interested to hear that lawyers have a code of conduct. That is great news.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Ouch.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It is great news. There is a large body of literature around professional ethical behaviour and it is a well-defined concept. I think it is an omission within the code of conduct that it does not specifically make reference to the requirement of representative or manager to behave ethically. To that extent The Greens endorse the amendment.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 22 [C2013-119F] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 22 [C2013-119F] negatived.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.20 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 23 on sheet C2013-119F:

No. 23 Page 22, schedule 1, clause 2. Insert after line 13:

(1) A performer representative must at all times act in the best interests of any performer represented by the performer representative.

Opposition amendment No. 23 also seeks to amend the schedule after line 13 in clause 2, "Conduct of Performer Representatives". It seeks to provide a clear guide that a performer representative must, at all times, act in the best interests of any performer represented by the performer representative. In common with our other amendments where we sought to unscramble the competing interests that will arise as a consequence of the new concepts in this bill, we think this amendment is vital to protect performers in the industry from coming off second best, where a performer representative has multiple and competing interests as between a performer and a venue and there is no other way of protecting the performer, other than through a provision such as this. Mere disclosure of other interests that the performer representative acts for will not put performers in a meaningful position where they can properly judge whether or not the engagement is in their interests or whether or not they are, in any way, being exploited through that engagement.

If, as the Opposition proposed, we are not to ban that conflict of interest arising—and the Committee has already decided that that is not the direction in which this legislation will go—this provision is necessary if performers are to have anything like meaningful protection from exploitation arising through performer representatives having multiple and competing commercial interests. It is only human nature and logic that most people in that position would—whether consciously or unconsciously—prefer the interests of the more valuable client. In most cases, that will not be the performer and the performer needs protection in such a circumstance. The Opposition offers amendment No. 23 to achieve that end.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.22 p.m.]: The Government thanks the Opposition for another offering but again the Government will oppose the amendment. Whilst the Opposition's intentions are well meant, the Government believes the words are appropriate and cover the field in these circumstances. 23644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

Dr JOHN KAYE [4.22 p.m.]: The Greens support Opposition amendment No. 23. We do so in the context of the failure of an earlier Opposition amendment that would remove conflicts of interest. Opposition amendment No. 23 would prohibit a performer representative from entering into an agreement where there would be a conflict of interest. Without that The Greens believe that there then needs to be a specific clause that makes it clear that the performer representative must act in the best interests of the performer. Without that, there is a risk, where there is a conflict of interest, for that conflict of interest to work against the best interests of the performer. It is only fair to performers that at least in this code of conduct there is a requirement that the performer representative put the performer's best interests first, even in the event of a conflict of interest.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 23 [C2013-119F] be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Opposition amendment No. 23 [C2013-119F] negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher, agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher, agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendments.

DRUGS AND POISONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NEW PSYCHOACTIVE AND OTHER SUBSTANCES) BILL 2013

Second Reading

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.27 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

I am pleased to introduce the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013.

This bill will prohibit the supply, manufacture and advertising of synthetic drugs or psychoactive substances in New South Wales.

It will also make it an offence to manufacture, supply or possess a substance listed on schedule 9 of the Commonwealth Poisons Standard list.

The Liberals and Nationals Government laws represent a major shift in the approach to drug enforcement legislation in Australia.

18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23645

It will help to put our police on the front foot and stop them having to play catch-up with criminals over the legality of newly emerging drugs on our streets.

In the past, specific drugs were banned as a reaction to their emergence, and only after they had been identified and tested.

This bill will instead place a total ban on all psychoactive substances, subject to appropriate exemptions which I will explain in more detail shortly.

New South Wales will move to a multilayered response to psychoactive substances and none should fall through the net.

First, the groundbreaking new laws will ban all psychoactive substances as well as those that are yet to be developed.

Secondly, the bill will introduce an offence for supply, manufacture and possession of schedule 9 prohibited substances on the Commonwealth Poisons Standard list.

Finally, by retaining the existing laws which already prohibit specific drugs based on their chemical compound, it also allows the Government response to emerging drugs to be escalated once the specific psychoactive substances are identified and their associated harms and criminality assessed.

These identified and assessed substances can then be added to schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 as a "prohibited drug" with significantly higher penalties attached to them based on the quantity of the drug involved.

This bill was developed by an interdepartmental committee formed after the tabling of a parliamentary committee inquiry report into synthetic drugs.

The committee was chaired by NSW Fair Trading and included representatives from the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Ministry of Health, the Forensic and Analytical Science Service, the NSW Police Force, Ministry of Police and Emergency Services and the Department of Attorney General and Justice.

In February 2012, the New South Wales Parliament Legal Affairs Committee commenced an inquiry into issues concerning synthetic drugs (psychoactive substances).

On 30 May 2013 this year, following extensive consultation, the committee tabled its report: Law Reform Issues Regarding Synthetic Drugs.

The report made 13 recommendations to the New South Wales Government which highlighted the need to reform the law to more effectively prohibit these new psychoactive substances.

Just days later—10 days later, on 9 June—as the Minister for Fair Trading, I imposed an interim 60-day product safety ban under the Australian Consumer Law.

The ban prohibited the sale, supply or possession in trade and commerce of 19 named synthetic drug products.

The ban covered equivalent goods and anything represented as an equivalent and included measures to prevent suppliers changing product names.

The Liberal-Nationals Government then requested that the Federal Government impose a permanent national ban on these damaging drugs.

Nine days later, on 18 June, the Federal Government instead announced a national interim product safety ban for 60 days, publicly stating that the ban could be extended for up to 120 days.

The Federal ban applied to the same 19 named products and their equivalents as identified in New South Wales as well as the list of prohibited substances in schedule 9 of the Commonwealth Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons.

On 11 June, in support of the interim ban, NSW Fair Trading commenced its largest ever compliance program.

NSW Fair Trading inspectors visited over 1,000 retailers identified as places where synthetic drugs might be sold and they provided these retailers with information on the ban, and their responsibilities.

Sixty-five retailers admitted to selling or having possession of drugs which were subject to the ban.

Since the commencement of the ban, the retail sale of synthetic drugs has dried up.

NSW Fair Trading has found only four retailers continuing to sell the banned products and is currently determining what action to take against them.

Newcastle Police reported between January and June this year an average of 26 incidents each month of severe behavioural disturbances attributed to synthetic drugs but following the interim ban this has dropped to an average of just two incidents per month.

Preliminary Ministry of Health data shows emergency department presentations linked to synthetic drugs has dropped, with an average of 75 presentations per month between March and June 2013 compared to only 39 in July 2013.

It is clear from these initial statistics that these interim product safety bans have worked.

23646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

Synthetic drugs are no longer easy to buy in New South Wales and there is now significantly more public awareness of their dangers.

However, interim bans cannot be used to permanently prohibit these dangerous drugs. Even the parliamentary committee recommended that they be used as an interim measure until a drug could be identified and appropriately banned.

In the absence of a permanent national product safety ban, the New South Wales Government has decided to act by introducing the most wide-reaching synthetic drug laws in Australia.

I now turn to explain the detail of the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013.

Schedule 1 [4] of the bill creates new offences of manufacturing, supplying, or possessing schedule 9 substances. Schedule 9 of the Commonwealth Poisons Standard contains a list of prohibited substances which may only be used for research purposes.

Most of the substances listed in schedule 9 have already been prohibited in New South Wales as specific entries in schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

However, the new offences will ensure that where a substance is listed by the Commonwealth in schedule 9, but its risks and appropriate quantities have not sufficiently been evaluated to allow prescription under schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, it can still be controlled in New South Wales.

The supply or manufacture of a schedule 9 substance will carry penalties of 20 penalty units, two years imprisonment, or both.

Possession will carry the same monetary penalty, and the possibility of up to 12 months imprisonment.

Schedule 1 [5] of the bill creates a new part 2C dealing with psychoactive substances.

"Psychoactive substance" is defined as any substance which, when consumed by a person, has a psychoactive effect.

Both "consumption" and "psychoactive effect" are defined in the Act and the definitions are very broad, to ensure that there are no gaps, or ways around this ban.

"Consumption" includes ingestion, injection, inhalation, smoking, and any other means of introducing a psychoactive substance into any part of the human body.

"Psychoactive effect" means the stimulation or depression of the central nervous system of the person, resulting in hallucinations or a significant disturbance in, or significant change to, motor function, thinking, behaviour, perception, awareness or mood, or causing a state of dependence, including physical or psychological addiction.

As I said, this definition is intentionally broad and is intended to capture products that affect the central nervous system.

It requires that psychoactive effect, however, to have some significance. This means it does not capture a product that may make you feel good when you eat it, but does not have a significant effect on your central nervous system.

The bill creates a new offence under the proposed section 36ZF of manufacturing or supplying a psychoactive substance, knowing or being reckless as to whether it is being supplied or acquired for human consumption.

The offences carry maximum penalties of 20 penalty units, two years imprisonment, or both.

The element of "knowledge or recklessness as to whether the substance will be consumed by a person" is important, as there are substances which have lawful uses, but can have psychoactive effects when misused. These instances will turn on their facts.

In determining whether a person knew or was reckless as to whether a substance was being acquired or supplied for human consumption, the bill provides in proposed subsection 36ZF (4) that a court may have regard to any advertising matter published or displayed by the person.

It also provides for a court to have regard to any usage instruction concerning the substance by the person, which indicates that the substance has a psychoactive effect, or is similar in some way to a prohibited drug.

This provision will have a wide application as "publish" is defined in the bill to include distribute, disseminate, circulate, exhibit and cause or permit to be published. It includes publication over the internet.

The provision also extends to any advertising displayed by the person and representations made by the person prior to the commencement of the new offence. This ensures that people cannot circumvent these laws by ceasing advertising activities, and feigning ignorance as to the purpose for which the substance was being bought.

The bill also creates a new offence under proposed section 36ZG of publishing or displaying in any way, an advertisement, knowing or being reckless as to whether the advertisement promotes the consumption, sale, or supply of a substance for its psychoactive effects, and providing information on where the substance may be acquired.

This offence also carries a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units, two years imprisonment, or both. This offence does not require evidence that the advertised good has a psychoactive effect—it simply requires evidence that it was put forward as having that effect.

18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23647

Schedule 1 [6] of the bill also provides that where a substance which is not psychoactive is represented as being a psychoactive substance, it will be taken to be a psychoactive substance for the purposes of the Act and regulations.

This is consistent with existing provisions in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, under which a person who sells a substance representing it as a prohibited drug can be prosecuted as if the substance were that prohibited drug, regardless of the actual identity of the substance.

The above offences represent a significant shift in drug enforcement.

They seek to prohibit the sale of all psychoactive substances, both existing, and those yet to be developed, rather than prohibiting specific substances by prescription.

Combined with the broad definitions, this means that exemptions from the offences are required to ensure that legitimate psychoactive substances are not inadvertently prohibited.

It also exempts substances that, whilst illegitimate, are more appropriately dealt with elsewhere.

First, the bill exempts drugs which are already prohibited.

It exempts drugs listed under schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, as well as precursor chemicals prescribed in the regulation to that Act. This is to ensure there is no confusion as to which provision offenders ought to be prosecuted under.

Similarly, the bill exempts poisons, restricted substances and drugs of addiction regulated under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966, and controlled drugs, precursors, and plants under Commonwealth legislation.

As a large range of pharmaceuticals have psychoactive effects, the bill exempts therapeutic goods which are required to be listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, or therapeutic goods which are specifically exempt from being listed on that register under the Commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.

The bill also exempts substances provided by health practitioners in the course of providing a health service.

This will not mean that health practitioners will have a blank cheque to give out psychoactive substances, as if they were to provide such a substance for a non-therapeutic purpose, they could no longer be said to be providing a health service under the Act.

The bill also creates exemptions for "food" within the meaning of the Food Act 2003.

Substances such as caffeine are psychoactive, and even sugar can sometimes lead to a physical or psychological state of dependence.

Food is, as we all know, something that people consume as nourishment, and the Food Act has an inclusive definition to make sure that Act has wide coverage and regulates most things people eat and drink.

This exemption will mean that things such as food additives will not be inadvertently captured.

It is not the intention of the legislation to capture low risk substances that do not have significant psychoactive effects.

As I have already noted, this is reflected in the definition of "psychoactive effect", which requires a significant change to a person's perception, mood, and thoughts.

The bill also exempts psychoactive substances which have a long established status as legal products, whether for all consumers or just adults such as alcohol, tobacco, and herbal products.

While the adverse health impacts of alcohol and tobacco are widely documented, the legislation acknowledges that their use is widely accepted by society, and they are specifically excluded from the operation of the new offences.

In relation to herbal products, a market has existed for some years for 100 per cent natural herbal products, which are not prohibited under existing legislation, and might be marketed as relaxing teas or sleeping aids.

While some herbal products may or may not have mild psychoactive effects, it is not intended to prohibit such products, particularly as the very same herbs are often sold as herbal remedies in health food stores and supermarkets.

If any concerns arise over the potential harms of such products, they can be listed in schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 as a prohibited drug.

These exemptions come with a proviso. It states that the exemptions will not apply if prohibited psychoactive substances have been added to a substance which would otherwise be exempt.

This will ensure that sellers cannot circumvent the prohibitions, for example, by adding a synthetic cannabinoid to a natural herbal product, regardless of the quantities involved.

Any addition will mean the exempt product will become a prohibited product. The breadth of the prohibition on psychoactive substances may give rise to concerns that, despite the numerous targeted exemptions, benign products could be captured.

For example, a cosmetic product which claims to improve your mood could be construed as a representation that the product has a psychoactive effect.

23648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

As I have already said, however, the definition of "psychoactive effect" requires a significant change to a person's mood or perception, and it is not intended to capture such marketing claims.

Ultimately, the NSW Police Force will have discretion on how the new offences will be enforced.

Should any substances be inadvertently captured, the bill also includes a regulation-making power which allows additional substances to be exempted.

Schedule 1 [8] of the bill amends the analogue provision contained in schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

Under the analogue provision, where a substance that is not a prohibited drug has psychotropic properties, and is structurally similar to a prohibited drug in specified ways, it is treated as a prohibited drug for the purpose of the Act.

The Parliamentary Committee's Report on Law Reform Issues Regarding Synthetic Drugs recommended the removal of the requirement that the substance has psychotropic properties to simplify the requirements due to the difficulties faced by law enforcement officers and the technical and subjective nature of the provisions.

The bill adopts the Committee's recommendation, to reduce any difficulties in the prosecution of offences under the analogue provisions.

Schedule 2 of the bill makes amendments to the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966.

Schedule 2 [3] adopts schedule 9 of the Poisons Standard into the New South Wales Act.

This adoption is then picked up in the new offence in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, which I have already outlined.

Schedule 2 [5] of the bill provides that the Director General of the Department of Health may authorise a person or class of persons to manufacture, possess, use or supply a schedule 9 substance for medical or scientific research, analysis, teaching or training purposes or for industrial or commercial purposes.

It will be a defence to the possession, manufacture, and supply offences for schedule 9 substances under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 that there was such an authorisation in place.

This bill is a vital tool to ensure that these synthetic drugs, or psychoactive substances, are illegal, cannot be sold in New South Wales and cannot be advertised in any way.

The New South Wales Government has so far successfully removed these products from retail shelves using product safety bans but wants to make sure these dangerous substances marketed as "legal highs" cannot return to our shelves and are outlawed across our community. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [4.28 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013 and state from the outset that the Opposition will support this bill. My colleague Ms Tanya Mihailuk, shadow Minister for Fair Trading, had carriage of this bill in the other place. This bill seeks to close loopholes that some people have sought to exploit so that they can sell dangerous substances that are similar to substances already banned by law. The approach of those making and selling synthetic drugs is too clever by half. The manufacture and sale of synthetic drugs clearly represents a deliberate attempt to evade well-established legal controls on certain substances. This bill takes necessary steps to reinforce these controls and prevent the continued sale of dangerous substances.

Members may be aware of the tragic death of Henry Kwan in June this year. Mr Kwan jumped to his death from a balcony in Killara after taking a synthetic drug which he believed to be lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD]. I agree with the views that have been expressed by other members that Mr Kwan's death was tragic and shocking. Mr Kwan's death raised awareness of the proliferation of synthetic drugs and the potential risks that they pose to consumers. In February 2012, the New South Wales Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee commenced an inquiry into synthetic drugs and psychoactive substances. On 30 May this year the committee tabled its report entitled, "Law Reform Issues Regarding Synthetic Drugs", which includes 13 recommendations.

The committee suggested reforms to provide clarity for the public, retailers, police and prosecutors about the status of synthetic drugs in New South Wales. Further, the committee found that the current approach of adding new drugs by regulation to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 was insufficient because synthetic drug producers can adapt the chemical composition of synthetic drugs to evade specific regulatory bans. I am pleased that this bill responds to the committee's recommendations. Currently, drugs and their analogues can be banned only by listing known substances in the legislation when they are identified. This bill amends the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 to prohibit the manufacture, supply, sale and advertising of psychoactive substances, and to remove the requirement for analogues of prohibited drugs to have psychotropic properties.

The bill also amends the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1996 with respect to the addition of further substances to the Poisons List. The bill will amend the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1996 to 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23649

provide for the addition of a ninth schedule to the Poisons List. This schedule will contain the substances in the current Poisons Standard within the meaning of part 6-3, Scheduling of Substances, of the Commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Further, this bill will amend the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 to prohibit the possession, manufacture and production of schedule 9 substances other than prohibited drugs, unless authorised under the Poisons Act. This bill also will amend the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 to prohibit the manufacture or supply of a psychoactive substance for human consumption and prohibit the publication or display of an advertisement that promotes the consumption or sale of a substance for its psychoactive effects or which provides information on how such substances might be acquired.

This bill will further amend the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 to remove the requirement of determining whether a substance has psychotropic properties in order to demonstrate that the substance is an analogue of a prohibited drug. I note the efforts of the former Federal Government to address the problem of synthetic drugs. On 18 June 2013 the former Federal Labor Government introduced a national interim ban on synthetic drugs. The purpose of this interim ban was to give States and Territories an opportunity to update their drug enforcement laws to outlaw synthetic drugs. On 16 June 2013 the former Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice also announced that the Government would develop legislation to ban the importation of unauthorised psychoactive substances or synthetic drugs, and would implement a reverse onus of proof scheme.

While this legislation is yet to be developed, the Commonwealth Government has listed several psychoactive substances, including eight different groups of synthetic cannabis, as prohibited substances in the Poisons Standard; amended the criminal code and the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations to apply controls to synthetic drugs; and amended the Commonwealth criminal code to make it more responsive to emerging substances through an expanded emergency determination power and by listing a number of new substances of concern. I note that on 16 August this year, the former Assistant Treasurer extended the interim ban by 30 days.

This ban has since been extended a further 30 days. I note also that on 24 August 2013, the former Assistant Treasurer gave notice to impose a permanent ban on 19 consumer goods containing synthetic drug substances and certain substances proscribed under schedule 9 of the Poisons Standard 2012 as set out in the draft notice. These are important initiatives, and I hope the incoming Commonwealth Government will continue to work with the New South Wales Government to implement a coordinated approach that denies those who would profit from the sale of dangerous chemicals the opportunity to exploit loopholes and put people's lives in danger. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [4.34 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak in debate on the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013. This bill will prohibit the supply, manufacture and advertising of synthetic drugs or psychoactive substances in New South Wales. It also will make it an offence to manufacture, supply or possess a substance listed on schedule 9 of the Commonwealth Poisons List. The Christian Democratic Party commends the Government for making a major shift in the approach to drug enforcement legislation in Australia. This bill will help to put our police one step ahead and stop them playing catch-up with criminals over the legality of newly emerging drugs on our streets.

In the past, specific drugs were banned as a reaction to their emergence and only after they had been identified and tested. In February 2012 the New South Wales Legislative Assembly Legal Affairs Committee commenced an inquiry into issues concerning synthetic drugs and psychoactive substances. On 30 May 2013 following extensive consultation the committee tabled its report entitled, "Law Reform Issues Regarding Synthetic Drugs." This bill was developed by an interdepartmental committee formed after the tabling of a parliamentary inquiry report into synthetic drugs. I understand the committee was chaired by NSW Fair Trading and included representatives from the Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Ministry of Health, the New South Wales Forensic and Analytical Science Service, the NSW Police Force, the Ministry of Police and Emergency Services, and the Department of Attorney General and Justice.

First, the new laws will ban all psychoactive substances as well as those yet to be developed. Secondly, the bill will introduce an offence for the supply, manufacture and possession of schedule 9 prohibited substances on the Commonwealth Poisons List. Finally, by retaining existing laws, which already prohibit specific drugs based on their chemical compound, the bill also allows the Government response to emerging drugs to be escalated once the specific psychoactive substances are identified and their associated harms and criminality are assessed. These identified and assessed substances can then be added to schedule 1 to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 as a prohibited drug with significantly higher penalties attached based on the quantity involved. 23650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

Schedule 1 [4] to the bill creates new offences of manufacturing, supplying or possessing schedule 9 substances. Schedule 9 of the Commonwealth Poisons List contains a list of prohibited substances that may be used only for research purposes. Most of the substances listed in schedule 9 have been prohibited already in New South Wales as specific entries in schedule 1 to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. Nevertheless, the new offences will ensure that where a substance is listed by the Commonwealth in schedule 9, but its risks and appropriate quantities have not sufficiently been evaluated to allow prescription under schedule 1 to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, it still can be controlled in New South Wales. This is a good move. The Christian Democratic Party applauds the Government for keeping ahead.

The supply or manufacture of a schedule 9 substance will carry penalties of 20 penalty units, two years imprisonment, or both. Possession will carry the same monetary penalty and the possibility of up to 12 months imprisonment. Schedule 1 [5] to the bill creates a new part 2C dealing with psychoactive substances. "Psychoactive "substance is defined as any substance which, when consumed by a person, has a psychoactive effect. Both "consumption" and "psychoactive effect" are defined in the Act and the definitions are very broad to ensure that there are no gaps or ways around this ban. Consumption includes ingestion, injection, inhalation, smoking and any other means of introducing a psychoactive substance into any part of the human body.

"Psychoactive effect" means the stimulation or depression of the central nervous system of a person, resulting in hallucinations or significant disturbance in, or significant change to, motor function, thinking, behaviour, perception, awareness or mood, or causing a state of dependence, including physical or psychological addiction. I note that some members might have concerns about the broadness of these terms, but it is unlikely that common things such as energy drinks will fall into the category of psychoactive effect. If they do, another debate can take place about this term in respect of significant disturbance or change. It requires the psychoactive effect, however, to have some significance.

For example, a product such as chocolate will not be banned because it may make a person feel good when it is eaten but it does not have a significant effect on the central nervous system. I will not vote for a bill that bans chocolate. My wife and my kids would never forgive me and many members here would never let me live it down. This bill is a serious matter and is worthy of support. It follows an interim ban on 19 products following the death in June of Sydney student Henry Kwan, who jumped from a balcony after ingesting the $10 synthetic drug N-methoxybenzyl [NBOM]. The sad reality is that people think that legal means safe. It does not; it means that the law has not caught up yet. An adaptable bill such as this one evens the odds. On 15 September an article from the Sydney Morning Herald entitled "Chameleons of the drugs world can hide no longer", made some interesting points:

Few substances are more insidious or elusive than the constantly changing synthetic drugs that go by myriad names, such as the glamorous Snow Leopard or, more truthfully, Skunk. The Sun-Herald thus enthusiastically endorses the announcement last week by Minister for Fair Trading Anthony Roberts that NSW is introducing the most comprehensive laws in Australia to ban the sale, manufacture, distribution or advertising of psychoactive drugs, popularly known as synthetic drugs.

The laws seek to anticipate and close the loopholes that have been used by cynical companies that change the name of their products, or the chemical compounds, to skirt around bans. The sale of synthetic drugs also has numerous links to organised crime and online fraud. Under present laws, drugs can be banned only by adding substances to the list of prohibited drugs in the legislation when they are identified, but the new laws will ban all psychoactive substances as well as substances that are yet to be developed.

We believe the next step is obvious. The new Abbott government should adopt the NSW legislation and make an effective state ban a national one.

The Christian Democratic Party concurs with that thought and encourages the new Prime Minister to take note. The article further stated:

The proposed changes to NSW law follow an interim ban on 19 products following the death in June of Sydney student Henry Kwan ...

It was immediately effective. Data from hospital emergency departments in NSW show that presentations linked to synthetic drugs fell from an average of 75 a month in the four months before the ban to 39 in July. Newcastle Police reported a striking decline, from an average 26 incidents a month involving severe behavioural disturbances caused by synthetic drugs, to just two a month since the ban.

The ban was supported by Fair Trading inspectors visiting more than 1000 retailers to ensure synthetic drugs were removed from sale. Six websites selling the products were shut down. Four traders are under investigation for selling banned substances.

The NSW law will adopt schedule 9 of the Commonwealth Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons, making it an offence to sell, manufacture, supply and possess any schedule 9 substance. Penalties will be up to two years' imprisonment, more than $2000 in fines, or both.

18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23651

The Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill will ban retailers selling chemical substances known as ''legal highs''. Although the bill defines ''psychoactive substances'' broadly, it will exempt alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, foods, herbal medicines and therapeutic goods already strictly regulated.

We believe this legislation will save lives and prevent harm and should be the template for national reform.

This bill can save lives. If it errs on the side of being overprotective and cautious, so be it. If necessary, a later amendment to the bill can deal with the issue. The Christian Democratic Party has concerns that it could be seen as a double standard given the recent discussion about cannabis for medical use, but in this particular case the Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.46 p.m.]: The Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013 is a pioneering bill—the first of its type in Australia. I have no doubt it will become the prototype for other legislation of its type worldwide. This is a great bill from the Hon. Anthony Roberts, the Minister for Fair Trading, who is a great Minister in the Coalition Government. The bill will prohibit the manufacture, supply, advertising and, in many cases, possession of psychoactive substances—synthetic drugs—in New South Wales. It will prohibit retailers from selling the kinds of unregulated and potentially harmful psychoactive substances currently on offer as a legal high. It will provide police with the power to charge anyone selling or advertising a psychoactive substance in any form.

This bill responds to the recommendations in the report of the New South Wales parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee, which was tabled earlier this year. In fact, it will go further and introduce new laws to provide for a total ban on all psychoactive substances subject to appropriate exemptions. Under current laws, drugs and their analogues can be banned only by listing known substances in the legislation when they were identified. Under the bill before us, all psychoactive substances as well as substances that are yet to be developed will be banned. As new substances are identified, they can be added to the list of prohibited drugs under schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, as required, ensuring that existing high penalties under the Act will be available. This bill is generic and specific at the same time.

I do not propose to go into the detail of the bill because that has already been done in the second reading speech. However, this bill is a dramatic escalation and breakthrough in the war against illicit drug manufacturers, drug dealers and drug racketeers who do not care what misery and suffering their victims sustain, so long as they continue to reap large profits from their dirty and disgusting business. Far too frequently we read about the tragic stories of young people in the prime of life who, through their vulnerability, have suffered horrific injury and even death because of synthetic-based drugs. Those who have been operating this new manifestation of the illicit drug business thought they were clever. They thought they would always be one step ahead of the law, but now the law will be one step ahead of them. Congratulations to Minister Anthony Roberts on this far-reaching bill, which I commend to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [4.50 p.m.]: I support the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013. This Liberal-Nationals Government law represents a major shift in the approach to drug-enforcement legislation in Australia. This bill will ban the supply, manufacture and advertising of synthetic drugs or psychoactive substances in New South Wales. It will ban also all psychoactive substances along with any substances that will be developed in the future that are psychoactive in nature and not exempt. Under current law drugs can be banned by only listing known substances in the legislation when they are identified, but these new laws will ban all psychoactive substances regardless of whether their name is known or they are yet to be developed. Normally in New South Wales we only ban drugs once they have been put on the market; this bill is a significant step away from our previous enforcement methods.

The supply, manufacture and possession of all schedule 9 "prohibited substances" on the Commonwealth Poisons Standard list are prohibited. Anyone found in possession of schedule 9 prohibited substances, which includes all synthetic cannabis products, will face up to 12 months in jail, a fine of $2,200, or both. The only exemptions in this bill are for drugs that are already prohibited under schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. Retaining the existing laws, which already prohibit specific drugs based on their chemical compound, allows the Government's response to emerging drugs to be escalated once the specific psychoactive substances are identified, and their associated harms and criminality assessed. These identified and assessed substances can then be added to schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 as a "prohibited drug", with significantly higher penalties attached to them based on the quantity of the drug involved. 23652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

In February 2012, the Legislative Assembly Legal Affairs Committee commenced an inquiry into issues concerning synthetic drugs. This bill was developed by an interdepartmental committee formed after the tabling of the parliamentary committee report into synthetic drugs. On 30 May this year, following extensive consultation, the parliamentary committee tabled its report entitled, "Law Reform Issues Regarding Synthetic Drugs". Following the release of that report the Government imposed an interim 60-day product safety ban under the Australian Consumer Law. On 11 June, in support of the interim ban, NSW Fair Trading commenced its largest ever compliance program. Fair Trading inspectors visited more than 1,000 retailers identified as places where synthetic drugs might be sold, and they provided those retailers with information on the ban and their responsibilities. Some 65 retailers admitted to selling or having possession of drugs subject to the ban. Since the commencement of the ban, the retail sale of synthetic drugs has dried up.

In regional communities there is a real need for the Government to take a strong stance against psychoactive drugs. Yesterday in the other place Kevin Anderson, the member for Tamworth, mentioned that the local Tamworth community had created a petition with more than 1,500 signatures for a total ban on synthetic drugs. Adam Marshall, the member for Northern Tablelands, said that police had participated in the joint operation with NSW Fair Trading in Armidale. Police followed a number of intelligence leads about the distribution of synthetic cannabis throughout Northern Tablelands communities. To date no arrests have been made, but several people were arrested for the supply of "real" cannabis. That was a good result. This bill will also be welcomed by local communities in other parts of New South Wales such as Tweed, Coffs Harbour and Byron Bay.

At major events such as schoolies—which is coming up in the next few months—young people will no longer be able to buy synthetic drugs legally. Much to the relief of the local communities and police and hospitals, local tobacconists, sex shops and other stores will no longer be able to sell these synthetic drugs. Leslie Williams, the member for Port Macquarie, referred to a report in the Port Macquarie News in which a nurse reflected on the escalation of synthetic drug use locally. She spoke of the dangerous effects of these substances, particularly referring to "white revolver"—a drug that mimics the effects of cocaine. She cited instances where people, after taking these drugs, were presenting to the emergency department with "out-of-control behaviours and manic violence similar to the comic-book monster the Hulk".

This bill will help to ensure the safety of our nurses, doctors and local community members. A number of local Port Macquarie retailers were openly selling these synthetic drugs until the interim ban by the Minister and a visit to the area by the Fair Trading compliance officers. Preliminary Ministry of Health data shows emergency department presentations linked to synthetic drugs have dropped, with an average of 75 presentations per month between March and June 2013 compared to only 39 in July 2013. This bill will ensure that the interim ban will become permanent and that these types of drugs cannot escape any possible legal loopholes by staying a step ahead of the people who manufacture and supply psychoactive drugs to the community.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.55 p.m.]: I express my concerns about the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013. My first concern is the approach taken by the Government in an attempt to outlaw synthetic drugs. A number of speakers have used the tragic and unfortunate death of Henry Kwan as an example in this debate. Put simply, Henry Kwan was affected by a synthetic drug that was legal to buy, but he had been sold that drug on the basis that it was LSD—an illegal drug. The Government is failing to recognise that young people are risk-takers. They will always do whatever they need to do to get high, whether by underage drinking or other means—even young people from good backgrounds and families who have told them told about the dangers of drug taking. A number of parliamentary inquiries have heard evidence about brain development and risk-taking behaviours in young people, particularly in young men. By attempting to outlaw synthetic drugs the bill will do nothing to address that problem.

The report of the Legislative Assembly Legal Affairs Committee on law reform issues regarding synthetic drugs failed to address one of the best ways that exist to try to ensure some form of regulation. New Zealand has regulated the sale of synthetic drugs. One of the most common complaints about people using illegal and synthetic drugs is that no-one knows their chemical composition. In New Zealand these products are treated the same as any other consumer product. They have to be deemed to be safe to go on the market. New Zealand has regulated synthetic drugs—if they are not too harmful for consumers—so that if there were a problem with a batch it would be recalled. By taking the view that the best way forward is to ban everything is in fact saying that everything is still going to be available on the illegal market.

As I have said, with these chemical compositions no-one knows what they are getting when they buy them—for instance, the people who overdosed at the dance party held at Penrith last weekend. Even if they are 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23653

banned, they will still be available. The penalty for possessing these substances will probably be about the same as it is applied for buying marijuana. Young people will still break the law in an attempt to get high. This bill will do nothing to help them nor will it stop backyard operators from cooking up lethal combinations in their garages or wherever. It just means that people will turn to buying illegal drugs in the same way that they have been for hundreds of years. This bill does not address that problem.

If the Government wanted to be courageous and ground-breaking—and they really wanted to do something to stop young people taking dangerous substances—then regulation rather than prohibition would have been the right way to go. That would have been the way to go to ensure that people are not getting bad doses of drugs and are not being sold a tablet they think is LSD—when they have a rough idea of what the effect on them might be if they took LSD—only to find that they have been sold something else. So I think this is the wrong way to go to try to stop people from having adverse effects from synthetic drugs. But the Government is committed to this course of action and I know that my words of wisdom are going to fall on deaf ears. So now I will go through the bill and look at some of the consequences of this legislation.

I have had discussions with a few people from the Attorney General's Department and with the shadow Minister about this. Leaving aside the approach it takes, this legislation is still bad legislation and is going to be difficult to administer. It is going to have some unintended consequences that I think a lot of the people who will vote for it and who have spoken so glowingly about it will be unaware of. I know that a lot of people involved in companies such as the Happy Herb Company, which sell those sorts of products, are very concerned. The Minister in his second reading speech said a whole lot of things that will possibly ameliorate those concerns. I will read out one of the concerns that came to me from people who sought to have the bill amended. They said:

We are highly concerned that the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment bill currently under consideration will have unintended consequences that entail direct implications on the trade of herbs and natural extracts. This will have a serious adverse effect on small businesses, and we wish to propose a specific clarifying amendment to avoid legislative overreach.

Under the proposed wording, this law would make it technically illegal, for example, for a NSW citizen to make themselves a relaxing cup of passionflower tea, as this herb would be defined as having a "psychoactive effect". It would also be illegal for us to suggest that a harmless herb such as this produces a relaxing effect under the proposed definition of "psychoactive". There are many other herbs and herbal extract blends which would potentially be captured by the current definition. The word "significant" is of paramount importance here, as you mentioned in our conversations.

Clause 36ZD of the bill says:

psychoactive effect, in relation to a person who is consuming or has consumed a psychoactive substance, means:

(a) stimulation or depression of the central nervous system of the person, resulting in hallucinations or a significant disturbance in, or significant change to, motor function, thinking, behaviour, perception, awareness or mood, or

(b) causing a state of dependence, including physical or psychological addiction.

These concerned people propose that that clause of the bill be changed to read:

(a) an effect upon the central nervous system of the person, resulting in hallucinations or a significant deleterious and uncontrollable disturbance in, or significant deleterious and uncontrollable changes to, motor function, thinking, behaviour, perception, awareness or mood.

It is basically saying that the clause should be changed to specify that the psychoactive effect is having a negative impact on people. Having the wording changed would overcome the problem of capturing harmless herbs within the legislation. The Minister in his second reading speech stated:

The bill also exempts psychoactive substances which have a long-established status as legal products, whether for all consumers or just adults such as alcohol, tobacco, and herbal products.

The Minister continued:

In relation to herbal products, a market has existed for some years for 100 per cent natural herbal products, which are not prohibited under existing legislation and might be marketed as relaxing teas or sleeping aids. While some herbal products may or may not have mild psychoactive effects, it is not intended to prohibit such products, particularly as the very same herbs are often sold as herbal remedies in health food stores and supermarkets.

It seems that those comments by the Minister in his second reading speech cover those concerns which were raised with me by the industry. The bill exempts drugs which are already prohibited. The bill also exempts 23654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

substances provided by health practitioners in the course of providing a health service. It also creates exemptions for food within the meaning of the Food Act 2003. This would overcome some other concerns of the people who sell herbal products. They had wanted a new section, section I, put into the bill to cover this. I think the comments the Minister has made ameliorate those concerns. The Minister also said:

… however, the definition of "psychoactive effect" requires a significant change to a person's mood or perception, and it is not intended to capture such marketing claims.

So it is not intended to capture, for example, somebody saying that passionflower tea is a relaxing tea to have at night. There are so many different products that are sold on that basis. The biggest problem with this legislation is that plants are exempt unless they contain a drug that is included in schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. Proposed section 36ZE of the bill lists the substances that the bill will not apply to. It includes:

(h) any plant or fungus, or extract from a plant or fungus, that is not, or does not contain, a substance specified in Schedule 1,

The problem is the plants captured as having ingredients included in schedule 1. It is quite amazing. For example, mescaline is included in schedule 1. Like a lot of people in New South Wales, across the country and globally, I grow cacti and succulents. Virtually every type of cacti has mescaline in it. The simple fact is that only a few types of cacti—I think there are three—have enough mescaline in them to make it worthwhile to produce mescaline. However, mescaline analogues are present in almost all cactus species in minute traces. So in effect anybody who sold a cactus or swapped a cactus with a friend would fall under this legislation.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Swapped a cactus with a friend.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I hear the disdain coming from the Hon. Marie Ficarra. She obviously has never been to one of the fairs held every year by the Cactus and Succulent Society of New South Wales where you can go and swap plants with other people. The simple fact is that that society would be equated with a cartel of drug dealers because of the stupid way in which this legislation has been drafted. There are a number of other common plants that contain substances that are deemed to be a schedule 1 drug. There is dimethyltryptamine [DMT]. About 10 per cent of all native wattle species contain DMT, including the most common ones like Acacia longifolia—which is used extensively by Government agencies as a highway planting—and Acacia sophorae, which has been planted to help dune rehabilitation on beaches in New South Wales.

Banning commercial cultivation of Acacia courtii would complicate its status as an endangered species. Acacia is but one of the species with problems in this regard. DMT is also found in many legume fodder plants and ornamentals. They contain DMT or analogues of DMT. Phalaris grass also contains DMT. It is the main pasture grass grown in drier parts of New South Wales from Albury to the Queensland border and it is rich in DMT. Criminalising supply of this pasture grass would affect most graziers in New South Wales. I notice that nobody in the National Party is interested in this issue; instead they have all thought, "Wow, we can claim in the headlines that we are banning synthetic drugs with this bill."

Ergotamine is another drug that is included. People who get migraines will know that is one of the major ingredients in migraine medication. It is also commonly found in most species of the Convolvulaceae family. That includes the common morning glory vines that grow along railway tracks and riverbanks in New South Wales, which once again makes the Government the main cultivator of this drug. Sweet potatoes contain traces of ergotamine analogues in their leaves. All ornamental species in the family, which include about 20 common commercial plants in New South Wales, would also be captured by this legislation. Harmaline is of concern to the industry because it is found in passionflower tea. Traces of that drug are present in passionfruit vines, including those used for commercial fruit production as well as rare native species.

From my reading of it, no minimum allowable amount of a schedule 1 drug is included in this legislation. There is no way of knowing whether somebody who has in their backyard a passionfruit vine, some acacias and a greenhouse full of cacti will be treated like a drug dealer. If Government members say in this House that of course this bill will not apply to them even though schedule 1 drugs are prohibited that will mean that we are passing a piece of rubbish legislation. This will be a piece of bad and stupid legislation and I would expect the Government Whip, who is well known for opposing unnecessary and stupid legislation, to have a say on this.

As a legislator, this is the type of bill that I find to be just plain stupid. This Government deserves to be condemned if it does not put forward legislation that works and adequately covers all unintended consequences. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23655

An assurance from the Government that a minimum amount of schedule 1 drugs by volume in plants will be specified will provide some comfort to the nursery industry and people who grow cacti that they will not be caught by this legislation. Everyone knows that it is illegal to grow mescaline cactus, but this bill would make growing any other variety of cacti equally as bad and illegal. Unless we get an assurance that that is not the case it shows that the Government has rushed this bill.

I know that a government makes a political decision when it decides the approach it will take to deal with synthetic drugs. I have already said that I think the approach this Government has taken is wrong. It will do nothing to make our young people safer. It also will do nothing to ensure that these drugs have a regulated market. As long as all of these drugs are illegal there is no possible way in which we can ensure we remove from the marketplace any substance that we know is making people sick, causing them to overdose or—even worse—killing them. The Government has decided to proceed in this way and, from my perspective, it is a wrong decision. I admit that the community wants something done about synthetic drugs.

If the Government had been a bit more adventurous and responsive to the reality that we cannot stop people from taking illegal drugs it would have taken a different approach and recognised that what it ought to do is provide drug takers with the safest possible environment. The Government is introducing legislation that will potentially criminalise people who simply want to grow plants which up until now have been legal to grow, display and take to plant shows. This legislation will criminalise the Botanic Gardens Trust. Will it have to bulldoze its beautiful cactus garden?

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Are you crazy or what?

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I am not crazy; this legislation is crazy. Unless the bill provides a minimum amount of schedule 1 drugs per volume by plant, this bill will criminalise gardeners. Members opposite might say it is all right because the bill will not be implemented in that way. What sort of example does it set for the community if the Government says it will put legislation in place that is stupid and unworkable but not implement it? That tells the community that if they do not like a law they do not have to implement it. That is a wrong example to set. We should not proceed to the third reading of this bill until these issues have been properly considered and amendments are put forward by the Government to ensure that these unintended consequences are nullified. As it stands, this bill does not achieve what the Government intends it to. In fact, it will criminalise a bunch of law abiding gardeners in New South Wales. That would be shameful.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR [5.15 p.m.]: I support the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013 and will address some of the issues raised by the Hon. Amanda Fazio. As a horticulturalist who has a glasshouse at his property and as someone who travels down the Hume Highway and sees the acacias in full bloom, I am happy to support this legislation despite what the previous speaker said. I am led to believe that the bill addresses the issue of plant substances about which the Hon. Amanda Fazio spoke. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will go into greater detail, but I am led to believe that those plant substances would need to have a significant impact on a person. I imagine that significant amounts would need to be consumed before they had any impact on an individual and I am therefore comfortable with those provisions.

I believe that synthetic drugs are being used in workplaces where they have the potential to cause significant injury. We have found an increase in the use of synthetic drugs in workplaces that have drug testing regimes, particularly in the mining industry. That is because people understand that some synthetic drugs cannot be detected through drug testing procedures. Surely we should be doing whatever we can to eliminate synthetic drugs when we know that some of them can dangerously impact on the behaviour of people in the workplace who may be operating heavy machinery, using other equipment or working in mines. The Labor Party should endorse the Government's attempt to remove the supply of synthetic drugs to our community and particularly to those people who are using psychoactive substances as a substitute for illegal drugs which are capable of being picked up through drug testing in the workplace. I worked as a workplace safety consultant before I came into this place.

Workplace drug testing procedures were often fully endorsed by the unions because they did not want their members to be injured by someone who was under the influence of a drug. The synthetic drug industry has been gaining a hold in areas such as abattoirs, mining and some manufacturing workplaces where drug and alcohol testing procedures have been implemented. That is just one good reason why all members in this Chamber should support our efforts to ensure that our workplaces are as safe as possible and that people do not operate equipment or undertake dangerous activities under the influence of synthetic drugs. Breaking the supply 23656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

chain and making it harder for people to access these drugs would achieve that result. We are also trying to protect young people. I acknowledge that the previous speaker said that young people—and people in general— are risk takers. The Government wants to ensure that we make it more difficult for young risk takers to get their hands on substances that we know can cause detriment.

Dr John Kaye: It has not worked so far.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: It does work. We have anecdotal evidence from Father Chris Riley from Youth Off The Streets. He has his farm near where I live in the Southern Highlands. He is saying there is anecdotal evidence not just relating to the use of synthetic drugs but also relating to kids bragging about using synthetic drugs. Surely we cannot question someone like Father Chris Riley, who is working directly with children who are at risk.

Dr John Kaye: But that is not what I said. You are verballing me and you know it. What I said was that it does not work to make them illegal.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: Okay. I am addressing the issue of young people at risk using them. If I did misinterpret that, I apologise. But surely when someone like Chris Riley, who is working with children at risk and some of the high risk takers to whom the member who preceded me in this debate referred, is reporting not only the anecdotal evidence of the use of synthetic drugs but also the bragging about the use and other kids being drawn to synthetic drugs by their peers, that should be another reason for commending the Minister for taking this action. The action taken by the Minister in this area was very pleasing. Once he got that information from the report, he took swift action and we saw one of the biggest exercises undertaken in New South Wales by the Department of Fair Trading. The department not only investigated to find out the source of supply of synthetic drugs but also talked to business owners who potentially could be approached to sell synthetic drugs and provided them with information. It was not a matter of adopting a sledgehammer approach but rather an approach that involved working with business owners to explain why the department was taking this action.

The Government took this action after reports of the tragic circumstances in which a number of people had a variety of episodes while under the influence of synthetic drugs. The Minister engaged his department to address the supply issues and provide information to business owners that explained why the Government was taking action and what the consequences of breaches would be. The Minister is to be commended for the swift and direct action he and his departmental officers took in response to the situation. I believe that this bill represents a common-sense approach to an industry that has the potential to be well and truly ahead of the law and testing procedures. This legislation will provide the NSW Police with the necessary tools with which to protect our community from a trade that was unknown but is rapidly gaining a foothold in our society. For the reasons I have stated, I certainly commend the bill to the House.

The issue in relation to synthetic drugs in the workplace cannot be underestimated. I am sure that unions, employers and other employees in the workplace will welcome this legislation. I reiterate that I commend the Minister for taking swift action in relation to this issue. The Minister for Health, and Minister for Medical Research and the Minister for Mental Health, and Minister for Healthy Lifestyles have provided information showing a reduction in the number of people presenting to hospital emergency departments suffering certain episodes following their use of synthetic drugs since the application of the temporary ban. With that information and the anecdotal evidence from people such as Father Chris Riley, I believe the Government will be able to make inroads into addressing this problem. I commend the bill and the Minister to the House.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.23 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I join in debate on the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013. At the outset I state that The Greens will energetically oppose this legislation.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Oh, really?

Dr JOHN KAYE: It is important to recognise that we all start from exactly the same situation: None of us wants to see another senseless death of someone like Henry Kwan and none of us wants to see New South Wales flooded with dangerous drugs that result in the injury, harm and indeed death of young people. We have to accept that we all start at the same location. I do not doubt that over the next 20 minutes there will be a fair number of interjections based on the allegation that what I have said is not true as it relates to The Greens, but it is true. I say that because I believe that tonight we are making a major mistake in our approach to dealing with synthetic drugs. That mistake is being made by not looking at the alternatives, by adopting a knee-jerk reaction 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23657

and by trying to achieve the impossible. This legislation is trying to achieve something that simply cannot be done—placing a ban on all synthetic psychoactive drugs. If it were possible to do so, we could have another conversation.

The way this bill prescribes the ban has created loopholes that will shift the arms race between legislation and drug manufacturers—the chemists who in many cases are immoral, dangerous, uncaring and murderous individuals who work for underground illegal drug cartels. We are just shifting the goalposts because they will move to a new location. They will find a way through those loopholes and continue to manufacture drugs, and in many senses we will have gone backwards. This legislation could have a perverse outcome. I will explain more of that at a later stage, but before I begin to deal with the bill in detail I will make one observation. There is another way of dealing with the harms done by synthetic psychoactive substances. It is working very well and, as the Hon. Amanda Fazio said, it is happening in New Zealand.

The New Zealand approach, to which I will refer from time to time during my speech, is very straightforward. It is this: If a manufacturer wants to put a synthetic psychoactive substance on the market, the onus of proof that it is low risk rests with the manufacturer. The manufacturer must establish that the substance is low risk. The drugs are put into the marketplace in tightly controlled environments that avoid selling those drugs to young people, avoid those drugs being sold in dosages that are dangerous and avoid drugs being sold to people who would harm themselves with those drugs. In New Zealand, synthetic substances are better regulated than alcohol and tobacco. In New Zealand, which is the originating home of synthetic cannabis and other synthetic drugs, the arms race has come to an end. It is now a matter of regulating and controlling the harms that are done, and reducing those harms.

The New Zealand approach recognises that it is an impossible task to put all synthetic psychoactive substances off the market entirely, and that approach has worked. In New South Wales the approach to date has been to ban a synthetic drug chemical by chemical. Of course that has produced the obvious outcome: When a chemical is banned, the laboratories of the underground illegal cartels will produce another chemical—a new chemical formula—without regard to whether that chemical formula is more or less dangerous. In many cases, the new chemical is more dangerous because the safer chemicals already are on the banned substances list. What we created in New South Wales by banning one substance and then banning another substance was an arms race in which the real victims are our young people and the real damage was inflicted on our young people, who were being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals.

The approach now proposed to be adopted by enactment of this legislation is one that would have fitted very well in the former Soviet Union: Everything is banned unless it is otherwise allowed. That is an exceptionally dangerous approach to adopt. As soon as we say that everything is banned except for that which is not banned, we then have to ask, "Well, what is not banned?" That can be done in two ways. Obviously, psychoactive substances are part of everyday life. For better or worse, alcohol, chocolate, coffee, Sleepytime herbs and herbs used to enhance concentration are all substances that are very old and that we have evolved as human beings to consume. They are part of our life. Even this bill recognises in proposed section 36ZE that it is a nonsense to try to ban all psychoactive substances.

If one follows the approach to this bill, one then says, "Okay, we have to have a list of what is not banned. We can do that in two ways—by category or by substance." One can produce a long list of things that are not banned. If one does that one will then stymie innovation in the food industry. Members will recall that the Food Act 2003 specifically encourages innovation in the food industry. Contrary to that, the approach that this bill takes is to create exemptions under proposed section 36ZE, "substances to which this part does not apply". That takes out things that are under schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act for which the bill would create double penalties—poisons and so on and equivalent precursors. Proposed section 36ZE (1) (e) then says, "exempted from this section will be a food within the meaning of the Food Act 2003". If one goes to section 5 of the Food Act 2003 one sees, "meaning of food". What is a food under the Food Act? Under section 5 (1) (a) it is:

Any substance or thing of a kind used, or represented as being for use, for human consumption (whether it is live, raw, prepared or partly prepared).

So provided it is prepared for human consumption under the Food Act 2003 it is a food. Therefore, all I need to do if I want to use the exemption which knocks out the substance from the offence of supplying or manufacturing a psychoactive substance under proposed section 36ZF, is to declare it to be a food. One cannot do it for a substance which is smoked because that is not covered under the Food Act, but provided that it is consumable—a liquid or a solid that can be drunk or chewed or swallowed— 23658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Or a cookie.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Or a cookie. Even if one puts it into chewing gum it becomes a food. Once it is a food it is exempt from the penalty under proposed section 36ZF. All we have done by way of that exemption is to shift the game to anything that can be said to be a food. No doubt the Government will say, "What about proposed section 36ZE (2) which says, "A reference to a substance in subsection (1)"—that is the list of categories that are exempt—"does not include any substance that contains or has added to it any psychoactive substance that is not specified in subsection (1)". That is a highly circuitous piece of drafting. The problem with it is that once a psychoactive substance can be classified as a food it is a psychoactive substance that is not specified in subsection (1) and therefore is not captured. So all one needs to do is to say that a substance is a food and thus it is mentioned in subsection (1). Once it is mentioned in subsection (1) as a food it is not captured by subsection (2) and is exempted.

I congratulate the brains behind this bill because the Government has simply banned anything smokeable or injectable. That is possibly a good thing from the point of view of lung and vascular health. The Government has created a loophole for the people who manufacture synthetic drugs. Anything that can be smoked will now be remanufactured as an edible material and, therefore, as a food. Well done; the Government has demonstrated the way in which the impossibility theorem applies to these kinds of bans. If those opposite are doubtful about the applicability of the impossibility theorem to this situation they and the people behind the drafting of this bill should have a look at the history of the Soviet Union. It says that when one states that everything is banned, except for that which is not banned, one must then create exemptions for sensible things and then one is back to where one started—categorising. In this situation, when one categorises, inevitably it fails because one creates loopholes that inevitably will create opportunities for drug manufacturers to continue to operate.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Have you just disowned your ideology?

Dr JOHN KAYE: I take exception to that appalling and grubby comment. In this case, having created a loophole, those opposite have created a massive open highway that can be driven on. No doubt we will see an amendment to the proposed legislation to fix this up. In doing so we will probably end up banning coffee, chocolate, Sleepytime tea or chamomile tea, or some other foods.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Hear, hear! Ban chamomile tea.

Dr JOHN KAYE: That is the one thing on which I agree with the Government Whip—I hate chamomile tea. The harsh reality is that this proposed legislation will not have the effect it is supposed to have. It is a dismal failure, specifically because it is impossible to do what it is trying to do. Even supposing that it does work what will that achieve? Let us suppose that we can ban these substances. If we impose a ban on these substances manufacturers will go further underground than they already are and we will have no hope of regulating them and no hope of protecting young people such as Henry Kwan from these dangerous synthetic drugs. The Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013 gives up on the opportunity to regulate dangerous drugs, drag manufacturers out from under the shadows of illegality, put them in a place where we can regulate them and stop them from producing dangerous substances. The bill turns its back on that opportunity because of ideology and the fear of certain elements in the media who want the instant gratification that banning provides.

The bill will not defeat the dangerous drug barons but will only drive them underground. We will never get rid of them. There will always be illegal drugs, many of which will be dangerous drugs. It would be better to clip the wings of the drug barons. By rejecting the proposed legislation this Parliament could do that by forcing the Government to come back with legislation that mimics the New Zealand legislation. It will turn the war on drugs from being a failure to providing a way in which we can take away some of the market from dangerous drug barons. We could enter into a partnership with New Zealand and cooperate, using its testing and its regulation and enhancing it in New South Wales. Under the proposed legislation that which is illegal will not be tested and that which is legal will not be tested. This gives up on the chance to make our young people safer, in return for a quick hit to please the media.

I listened carefully to the Hon. Niall Blair and to his concerns about drug testing in the workplace and I share them. I think it is a major concern. But I ask the Hon. Niall Blair and every person who will be voting on this bill: How will making those drugs illegal make them any easier to test? One might argue that making them illegal makes them harder to get. I say: Go out and try to buy some cannabis or some ecstasy or any other drug. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23659

This State is awash with illegal drugs. Members should not kid themselves that making something illegal will get rid of it. It only criminalises the end users and creates a massive, lucrative market for illegal drug barons. That is what this proposed legislation will do, if it has any effect at all. It will not create an opportunity to control synthetic drugs or to make workplaces safer.

How does driving these drugs underground make the problem any better? If we are to deal with the problem of synthetic drugs in the workplace we should have a suite of legal synthetic drugs for which we could develop tests and then we can test in the workplace against those legal synthetic drugs. I suspect, in the end, that the only solution to workplace safety with respect to drugs will be to develop behavioural tests. Chemical tests will always create another race to make the drug less detectable or undetectable. Surely the answer is to move towards a behaviour-based test. There are other unintended consequences of this legislation, particularly the rather bizarre proposed section 36ZG which says:

A person is guilty of an offence if the person publishes or displays in any manner, way or medium or form any advertisement which ... promotes, directly or indirectly, the consumption, supply or sale of a substance for its psychoactive effects.

It is not clear whether proposed section 36ZG is covered by the exempted products in proposed section 36ZE. I suspect it is not and, if so, according to proposed section 36ZG, if someone sells coffee as a wake-up beverage—"Come and have my coffee, it's a wake-up"—they commit an offence and could be sent to jail for two years. If someone sells Sleepytime herbal tea, which aids someone in getting to sleep and is probably exempted from the provisions under proposed section 36ZE, or someone sells a ginger tea, which is good for higher consciousness, or any substance with such effects, even though the substance is legal an offence will be committed for which the penalty is imprisonment for two years. This legislation is so poorly drafted that it is not clear.

As I stated at the outset, the problem is that this legislation is trying to do the impossible. It says, "We're going to get rid of all synthetic drugs" when that is just not possible to do. The only solution to the tragedy of Henry Kwan and other young people at risk of being harmed, or who have been harmed by synthetic drugs, is to drag the drug barons out from behind the barrier of illegality into the legal domain and force them, as happens in New Zealand, to produce low-risk substances to satisfy as much of the market as possible. The harsh reality is that high-risk substances will always be available. If we can divert some young people away from those high-risk substances, we have done something positive. Even if we could ban all synthetic substances it will only feed an underground market. Sensible solutions are available.

I wonder whether this Government has the courage to take on those solutions. I suspect it will continue with a knee-jerk reaction, involving patch after patch on this piece of legislation to close loopholes. Each time a loophole is closed, the synthetic drug market is driven further underground. The Minister's staff might feel happy that they are doing something and a good headline might come out of it, but if they had a skerrick of morality and concern they would advise the Minister that this bill is a failure. They would tell the Minister that this is the wrong direction to take, provide information about New Zealand's model and have this Government take the courageous approach and show real leadership on synthetic drugs. Instead, today we will pass a piece of legislation with massive unintended consequences that does not even fulfil its own brief.

No doubt the loophole I have identified eventually will be closed. I wonder whether the Government will even take this bill through to the third reading and face the possible court challenges that this loophole creates. Perhaps it will; I look forward to the court challenges. Then we will have more legislation and we will patch that up, followed by more legislation as we create more harm. This evening we could have gone down the New Zealand path and said, "Let us bring this to an end." Let us once and for all put the kids at the forefront, not those few journalists stirring this up or those few who think there is an instant fix to an impossible problem. Instead, we should address this problem honestly and openly and work out ways to minimise the harm from these drugs and make sure solutions are available at least for some people. The Greens will oppose this legislation.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD [5.43 p.m.]: I support the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013. I am not sure what the previous speaker had been imbibing, but he got a few facts wrong, beginning with the name of the family who lost their son in June last year—Kwan.

Dr John Kaye: That's what I said.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: It is unfortunate also to point across the gallery at ministerial staff—that is a new approach. I know I have been here only 2½ years, but that is an unfortunate approach to take. Staff are not 23660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

elected and do not create policy; they give effect to government policy. The genesis of this bill was in the Legislative Assembly Legal Affairs Committee, chaired by Dominic Perrottet, who was ahead of the curve. In February 2012 his committee commenced an inquiry into issues concerning synthetic drugs. On 30 May this year, following extensive consultation, the committee tabled its report entitled, "Law reform issues regarding synthetic drugs." Mr Perrottet came to Armidale and, amongst other things, made inquiries around that city on how these substances were distributed and sold, and the issues they created. He took his own initiative and even after the report was tabled still inquired about matters. The report made 13 recommendations to the New South Wales Government.

The recommendations highlighted the need to reform the law to more effectively prohibit these new psychoactive substances. On 9 June this year, in response to the report, the Minister for Fair Trading, Anthony Roberts, imposed an interim 60-day product safety ban on synthetic drugs under Australian consumer law. Unfortunately, that month Henry Kwan who, we believe, ingested a synthetic LSD drug, died from the effects of that drug when he thought he could fly off a balcony. I do not think the previous speaker was being trite but, certainly, he sailed close to mark when stating that driving these drugs underground would not improve things and that nobody wants this bill. The Kwan family want action, as they were quoted after the tragic death of their son. They are entitled to a response from the Government even thought it might not be perfect. Any prohibited substance always generates those issues, whether it is alcohol or drugs. Walking away from the problem is not a solution.

The previous speaker alluded a few times to New Zealand, but its model is only two months old. The previous speaker might need to do a little research. I am advised that this reform is based on the Irish model, which provides a total ban on synthetic substances with exemptions. Ireland has reported being highly successful in closing down retail outlets selling synthetic psychoactive substances. As in Ireland and New Zealand, food will be exempt in Australia. A few other speakers from the other side provided some imaginative dialogue about chamomile tea, cactus by-products and a few similar things. Certainly, that is not the intent or the practice of this legislation. In June the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government pressured the Federal Government of the day, the Labor Government, which had to be dragged kicking and screaming to impose a permanent national ban on these damaging drugs.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Rubbish! That is absolute garbage.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: The Federal Labor Government took its time responding. Our very proactive Minister Anthony Roberts—Robbo the Good—was progressing and driving this issue. It took a bit of media pressure for which the Minister should not apologise. As I said, kicking and screaming, the Federal Government, which probably had other things on its mind in June, finally came to the party. On 18 June the Federal Government announced a national interim product safety ban for 60 days and stated publicly that the ban should be extended for up to 120 days. The Federal ban applied to the same 19 named products and their equivalents as identified in New South Wales, as well as a list of prohibited substances in schedule 9 to the Commonwealth Poisons Standard for the uniform scheduling of medicines and poisons.

On 11 June in support of the New South Wales interim ban, NSW Fair Trading commenced its largest ever compliance program visiting over 1,000 retailers to inform them of the ban and their responsibilities. As the Hon. Niall Blair mentioned, they were quite active in places in the north of the State, including at Armidale and Tamworth. It will be remembered that the Minister for Fair Trading—good Robbo—was everywhere. He was on television and on radio, and he was quoted in the print media. Other Fair Trading commissioners and their staff were also out in the community. This issue was responded to by all forms of media and unless someone was living under a rock he or she would not have missed the Government's intention.

Since the commencement of the ban the retail sale of synthetic drugs has ceased. Newcastle police have reported that between January and June this year, an average of 26 incidents each month involving severe behavioural disturbances were attributed to synthetic drugs. I remember reading about the presentations at John Hunter Hospital. Following the interim ban this figure dropped to an average of two incidents per month. I do not know what more evidence Dr John Kaye needs. He said that this bill would drive trade underground; that people would still overdose and abuse it. The evidence is in the data. During the first six months of this year 26 incidents were reported by Newcastle police and now just two incidents have occurred. This policy is based on data and evidence.

Preliminary Ministry of Health data shows that emergency presentations linked to synthetic drugs have dropped with an average of 75 presentations per month between March and June 2013 compared to only 39 in 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23661

July this year. It is clear that the product safety bans have worked. In the absence of a permanent national product safety ban, the New South Wales Government has decided to act with the most wide-ranging and comprehensive synthetic drug laws in Australia. The NSW Police Force and the New South Wales Ministry of Health will launch a campaign to inform the New South Wales community about the new laws and the dangers associated with these dangerous substances. The manufacture, supply and advertising of psychoactive substances, also known as synthetic drugs, are outlawed. Manufacturers and sellers of the substances will face up to two years in jail or a fine of $2,200, or both.

The supply, manufacture and possession of all schedule 9 prohibited substances on the Commonwealth Poisons Standard list are prohibited. Anyone found in possession of a schedule 9 prohibited substance, which includes all synthetic cannabis products, will face up to 12 months in jail, a fine of $2,200, or both. The new laws will outlaw all psychoactive substances, even those yet to be developed, which means that none should fall through the net—a challenge with which the chair of the committee tried to come to grips. He met that challenge by prescribing drugs that are yet to be developed. I am happy to support this legislation which had its genesis in the Legislative Assembly Legal Affairs Committee. Congratulations go to its chair, Dominic Perrottet, the Minister and his staff. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.53 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to debate on the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013. A wide range of views have been expressed tonight. The Government respects the passion behind those views and the manner in which they have been communicated. The bill will prohibit the supply, manufacture and advertising of synthetic drugs and psychoactive substances in New South Wales, for which the Government makes no apology. Synthetic drugs are a scourge on our community and this bill will, once and for all, stop the marketing of these products known as legal highs.

In February 2012 the Legal Affairs Committee commenced an inquiry into issues concerning synthetic drugs. On 30 May 2013, following extensive consultation, the committee tabled its report entitled "Law Reform Issues Regarding Synthetic Drugs." The report made 13 important recommendations to the New South Wales Government, which highlighted the need for a reformed law to more effectively prohibit the new psychoactive substances. I thank the members of that committee, including the member for Campbelltown, the member for Myall Lakes, the member for Cessnock, and the member for Wallsend, whose work on the issue helped to develop the bill that the Liberal-Nationals Government brought before this House. I draw attention to the leadership provided by the member for Castle Hill, who played an essential role in ensuring that this issue was comprehensively addressed by the Government. It is a bipartisan approach that, sadly, is opposed by The Greens.

Notwithstanding the position of The Greens, New South Wales will now move to a multilayered response to psychoactive substances and none should fall through the net. Some of the issues raised by members, in particular The Greens, related to more common substances such as coffee or other food items. The comparisons drawn in that regard were highly misleading. The new laws ban any psychoactive substance that is listed in schedule 1 or schedule 9, but also any psychoactive substance that is yet to be developed. This means that someone cannot develop a psychoactive substance and pass it off as a food—as Dr John Kaye suggested—without it being captured by the new laws. If someone developed a psychoactive substance and tried to sell it as a food, it would be in breach of the legislation, just as if he or she tried to sell heroin or cocaine in a food product. If a new food product was found to contain a previously unknown psychoactive substance, it could be listed in schedule 1 of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act as a prohibited drug when it is identified.

There are exemptions to some products such as alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. An expert committee with representatives from NSW Health, the NSW Police Force and the Attorney General's department will make representations to the Attorney General on any new psychoactive substances that should be added to schedule 1, thus addressing the concerns of Dr John Kaye and those raised by the Hon. Amanda Fazio regarding cacti and other succulents. In response to those concerns I make the following points. First, this bill can only prohibit substances that are for human consumption—nurseries do not sell cacti for human consumption. Secondly, the exemptions need to be considered under this bill.

Schedule 1 substances are exempt. The existing provisions of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act will continue to apply and remain unchanged. In addition, the plants that do not have a schedule 1 substance in 23662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

them are also exempt unless a psychoactive substance is added. In addition, a regulation-making power has been included in the bill so that if necessary and appropriate plants or other substances of concern can be specifically exempted. This exhaustive approach provides a flexibility to correct any unintended consequences should they arise. Members can take great comfort in that fact.

I note that Dr John Kaye asked why New South Wales did not adopt the New Zealand approach to synthetic drugs. If products are found to be safe why not permit their manufacture and sale? Australia and New South Wales have a scheme regulating drugs that have a therapeutic use. These drugs are stringently tested and are heavily regulated. The detail of their manufacture and ingredients is known, strict labelling requirements apply, and their use is strictly monitored. The bill will criminalise the manufacture, possession, supply and advertising of all other psychoactive drugs that have not been regulated. These drugs have not been tested, their composition is unknown and their labelling is not subject to any control. They represent a menace to our community.

These drugs cannot be described as safe because their effects are unknown and the consequences of their use can be tragic. Currently, all psychoactive substances are banned in New Zealand and will remain banned until they are proven to be safe. The reality is that we are in a similar position to New Zealand in respect of prohibiting psychoactive materials. That is exactly the way in which we should proceed in this matter. These groundbreaking new laws will ban all psychoactive substances as well as those yet to be developed, subject to appropriate exemptions. A number of members have called that a welcome introduction.

I note that the supply, manufacture and possession of all schedule 9 prohibited substances on the Commonwealth Poisons Standard list are also prohibited. Finally, retaining the existing laws that already prohibit specific drugs based on their chemical compound allows the Government response to emerging drugs to be escalated once the specific psychoactive substances are identified and their associated harms are assessed criminally. These identified and assessed substances can then be added to schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 as a prohibited drug, with significantly higher penalties attached to them based on the quantity of the drug involved. I note the maximum penalties for a schedule 1 drug can be as high as life imprisonment. This emphasises how seriously the Government takes these dangerous drugs.

I also note the numerous reports that have flooded in from police, doctors, paramedics and community workers around New South Wales stating how significantly incidents of crime and health problems have declined in the short time since the Government took action in June this year. In particular Father Chris Riley, the founder of Youth Off The Streets and someone that all members would respect for his selfless work, argues this most clearly. He said that the Government's action and approach has "proved to be effective with synthetic drug availability and use in huge decline. Father Chris Riley also said:

The ban placed on the sale of Synthetic Drugs has had great results, we've noticed a dramatic decrease in the use of synthetic drugs, and, not only that, the amount of talking and bragging about the use of them has also decreased.

That is very welcome. The bill outlaws synthetic drugs in this State, even those drugs not yet developed. The new law will be the most wide-reaching and comprehensive prohibition on psychoactive substances in this country. It is, in the words of the Hon. David Clarke, pioneering legislation that the Government hopes will be the new national benchmark in this crucial area of law enforcement. It will remove the scourge of these highly dangerous substances from retail shelves and help to ensure a safer community for all residents in New South Wales. In closing, I pay special tribute to the Hon. Anthony Roberts, Minister for Fair Trading, for his tireless efforts in developing these breakthrough laws—

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Robbo the Good.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: Robbo the Good has been quick to act. We applaud his strong response to an insidious cottage industry that threatens the safety of all of our community. Accordingly, I strongly commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided. 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23663

Ayes, 31

Mr Blair Mr Gay Mr Primrose Mr Borsak Mr Green Mr Searle Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Secord Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Ms Sharpe Mr Colless Mr MacDonald Mr Veitch Ms Cotsis Mrs Maclaren-Jones Ms Westwood Ms Cusack Mr Mason-Cox Mr Whan Mr Donnelly Mr Moselmane Ms Ficarra Reverend Nile Tellers, Mr Gallacher Mrs Pavey Dr Phelps Miss Gardiner Mr Pearce Ms Voltz

Noes, 5

Dr Faruqi Dr Kaye Mr Shoebridge

Tellers, Ms Barham Mr Buckingham

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Mathew Mason-Cox, on behalf of the Hon. John Ajaka, agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION AND INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INSPECTORS) BILL 2013

Second Reading

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.11 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Government is pleased to introduce this bill, which will allow for the two part-time positions of the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission and the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption to be performed by the same person.

The bill does not abolish or merge the two positions—it merely removes the impediments to one person holding both positions, should the Government decide it is appropriate to recommend a dual appointment.

The powers and functions of the Police Integrity Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption are substantively similar.

23664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

The principal functions of the Police Integrity Commission are to detect, investigate and prevent police misconduct.

The Police Integrity Commission's functions also include the detection, investigation and prevention of misconduct by administrative officers of the NSW Police Force, and officers of the NSW Crime Commission.

Similarly, the Independent Commission Against Corruption's principal functions are to investigate and expose corrupt conduct in the New South Wales public sector, to actively prevent corruption through advice and assistance, and to educate the New South Wales community and public sector about corruption and its effects.

As with the institutions themselves, the powers and functions of the respective Inspectors of the Police Integrity Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption are comparable.

The Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission is an independent statutory officer whose role and function is to hold the Police Integrity Commission accountable in the way it carries out its functions.

Likewise, the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption is an independent statutory officer whose role and function is to hold the ICAC accountable in the way it carries out its functions.

The similar nature of these two roles is reflected in the statutory frameworks establishing the two Inspector positions.

Part 5A of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act and part 6 of the Police Integrity Commission Act, which deal with the powers and functions of the respective Inspectors, have many substantive similarities.

Furthermore, each Inspector has royal commission-like powers, authorities, protections and immunities.

Despite this overlap, the offices of Police Integrity Commission Inspector and Independent Commission Against Corruption Inspector are presently occupied by two different people, both on a part-time basis.

This bill will amend the Police Integrity Commission Act and the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act to allow for the two roles to be performed by the same person.

In addition to potentially enhancing the effectiveness of the Inspector positions, a key benefit of these amendments will be in allowing one individual to take on both highly specialised roles.

The bill does not alter the requirement for the Police Integrity Commission Inspector to hold special legal qualifications. Nor does the bill remove Parliamentary oversight of any proposed appointment to the position of Police Integrity Commission Inspector or Independent Commission Against Corruption Inspector. The relevant parliamentary committee will retain the power of veto over the proposed appointments.

In preparing this bill, the New South Wales Government has been concerned to ensure that the amendments do not give rise to a risk of "incompatibility of office".

Offices will be incompatible where they cannot properly be performed by the same person, or interfere with each other. For example, two offices will be incompatible if the holding of one office means that another office cannot be executed impartially.

To avoid any risk of such incompatibility, the bill will amend the Police Integrity Commission Act and the Public Interest Disclosures Act to ensure that the Ombudsman—instead of the ICAC—has jurisdiction to investigate the conduct of the Police Integrity Commission Inspector, and to receive and investigate public interest disclosures about the Police Integrity Commission Inspector.

The bill will also amend both the Police Integrity Commission Act and the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act to enable the Governor to appoint an Assistant Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission, and an Assistant Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Appointment of an Assistant Inspector will ensure continuity in oversight of the Police Integrity Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption in the event the Inspector may be unavailable, or if there is an increase in the workload of the Inspectorates. For this purpose, the Assistant Inspector will be able to exercise any function of the Inspector, to the extent to which he or she is directed by the Inspector to do so.

The New South Wales Government strongly supports the work of the Inspectors of the Police Integrity Commission and of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

These amendments will not diminish the importance of these offices, nor will they interfere with the scope of the Inspectors' powers and functions.

Instead, they are intended to allow for greater flexibility in the appointment of Inspectors, to help ensure that these important oversight roles are performed effectively.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [6.11 p.m.]: The Police Integrity Commission and Independent Commission Against Corruption Legislation Amendment (Inspectors) Bill 2013 is a fairly simple bill that enables the appointment of part-time assistant inspectors to either or both of the bodies mentioned in the title and enables dual appointments to be made so that the positions of the Inspector of the Police Integrity 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23665

Commission and the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption can be held by the same person. The bill also extends to the proposed new assistant inspector positions and makes consequential amendments so that the Ombudsman instead of the Independent Commission Against Corruption deals with complaints and carries out investigations surrounding the conduct of the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission.

Both the Police Integrity Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption inspectors are independent statutory officers responsible for oversighting their respective organisations. Currently both inspectors perform their duties part-time. Both inspectors are oversighted by parliamentary committee. The Independent Commission Against Corruption is also empowered to receive and act on complaints about the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission and his or her office, but not the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The proposal to create assistant inspector positions is uncontroversial. The Premier noted in his second reading speech that, given the fact that both inspectors work part-time and perform almost identical roles with significant overlap, combining them could enhance their effectiveness.

The dual appointment provisions are less straightforward. While there is a sound basis for combining the roles, there is some potential for incompatibility. My colleagues in the other place have dealt more fully with those aspects. The bill shifts this oversight responsibility from the Independent Commission Against Corruption to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has almost identical powers to the Independent Commission Against Corruption except the ability to hold hearings in public but arguably lacks the expertise of the Independent Commission Against Corruption as a specialist anti-corruption agency. However, this move is also supported by the Opposition. The Opposition supports the bill. I note that in the other place the shadow Minister for Police and the Leader of the Opposition have dealt more fully with some of these issues.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [6.14 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I indicate that we do not support the Police Integrity Commission and Independent Commission Against Corruption Legislation Amendment (Inspectors) Bill 2013—and not solely because of the length of the name of the bill. On the face of it, the bill appears to do only modest works. It says that it has three objects:

(a) to enable the Governor to appoint an Assistant Inspector for the Police Integrity Commission (the PIC) and an Assistant Inspector for the Independent Commission Against Corruption (the ICAC),

(b) to enable a person to simultaneously hold office as Inspector or Assistant Inspector of the PIC and as Inspector or Assistant Inspector of the ICAC,

(c) to make related amendments to the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 and the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 to ensure that the Ombudsman, instead of the ICAC, is responsible for dealing with complaints and carrying out investigations about the conduct of the Inspector of the PIC or the officers of the PIC Inspector.

The substantive provisions of the bill are quite modest, and The Greens support the concept of the ability to appoint assistant inspectors for both the Police Integrity Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It makes sense, particularly for the Independent Commission Against Corruption—which is a well-resourced and large authority—that if, from time to time, the inspector finds the workload too large then an assistant inspector be appointed to assist with some or all of that work of the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The same can be said for the Police Integrity Commission, although to a lesser extent given the Police Integrity Commission has a much narrower jurisdiction. There may well be occasions where it makes sense to appoint an assistant inspector of the Police Integrity Commission to assist the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission to deal with one or more of his or her tasks as inspector. The real difficulty for The Greens is the proposed section 88B, which is headed "Dual appointments". It says:

88B Dual appointments

A person may hold both the office of Inspector or Assistant Inspector and the office of Inspector or Assistant Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption at the same time.

The bill allows for the one person to hold both the position of the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission and the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption at the same time. It is that conflating of the two roles to allow the one person to be both Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission and Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption that is the most significant difficulty in this bill for The Greens. There are two primary reasons for that: firstly, the jurisdiction of the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission are distinct, and intentionally distinct by reason of the statutes that establish them. The Police Integrity Commission is focused on allegations of police misconduct and 23666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

questions of police integrity. It is a very defined role, which has quite a complicated and indeed unwieldy statutory regime that underpins it, including the byzantine provisions of the Police Act about police complaints.

The nature of complaints about police is quite distinct from the nature of complaints about the balance of government action that find their way to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. In fact, in many ways the bread-and-butter complaints are dealt with by the police, with their internal reviews and by the Ombudsman with their paper reviews—and occasionally it is slightly more than a paper review. The Police Integrity Commission, with its oversight of police actions, often focuses on the culture of policing, the exercise of discretion by police, and the circumstances in which police choose to prosecute or refrain from prosecuting. In addition, the commission focuses on the more highly publicised instances of overt police corruption or misconduct, such as the giving of false evidence, the making of false statements or the inappropriate use of force by police.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption deals with a far broader array of agencies—it deals with the balance of government agencies—and has quite a different statutory remit focused on corrupt activities as defined under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. The fact that they are dealing with distinct bodies and distinct cultures, and the fact that they are dealing with distinct issues, are fundamentally good reasons for having independent inspectors of each of the bodies.

Instances of turf wars between agencies, as happen from to time, are another reason why it is important to have independent inspectors. In fact, in the past few years we saw an unseemly and expensive turf battle played out between the New South Wales Crime Commission and the Police Integrity Commission. Through senior counsel those two government agencies duelled in the Supreme Court at enormous expense to taxpayers as the Crime Commission fought oversight by the Police Integrity Commission. Allegations were made within the Crime Commission that the Police Integrity Commission was not entitled to exercise its jurisdiction to investigate its work with the NSW Police Force. Distinct oversight of the two agencies can allow the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission to critique the Police Integrity Commission if that is appropriate or allow the management committee of the Crime Commission to critique the Crime Commission if that is appropriate.

Having the same inspector looking after the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission will mean that there will be no independent oversight between the two bodies if they become involved in a turf war. The Greens are concerned that a factor driving this bill is an historical Government memory of the fierce independence of the previous Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission. His Honour Justice Moss was a fiercely independent inspector who, during the former Government's time in office, wrote a series of stinging reports about the way in which the Police Integrity Commission was operating and the highly questionable forms of natural justice it was affording to the police it was investigating.

The former Police Integrity Commission and the former Government ignored report after report by the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission, but those independent reports were essential to ensuring that the public retained some scrutiny over the way the Police Integrity Commission operated. Indeed, the Police Association continues to call for the implementation of the recommendations of former Inspector Moss regarding the operation of the commission. This Government, like the Government before it, continues to bury the final report by Inspector Moss. The Government is yet to release it. From an earlier report there are strong reasons to believe that the final report of Inspector Moss recommended criminal charges against senior officers of the Police Integrity Commission.

Rather than shine some light on that report and provide a copy of it to the public, the Government has buried it—just like the former Labor Government buried the final report by the inspector. Despite my raising these concerns today, I am sure that in his response the Parliamentary Secretary will be silent on what has happened to esteemed former Inspector Moss's final report and whether the public will ever see it. The public has a right to see that report, given the powers of the Police Integrity Commission and ongoing concerns about the way it operated, in particular during the term of the former Government. That is just one example of where having fiercely independent inspectors of individual statutory bodies provides necessary scrutiny.

Conflating the Police Integrity Commission Inspector with the Independent Commission Against Corruption Inspector takes us away from the model of fiercely independent individual inspectors oversighting bodies. Because the Opposition will join with the Government in allowing for the conflation of the two roles it is clear that this bill will pass—more with a sigh than otherwise—through this House. The Government has not 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23667

established a good case for getting rid of the independent inspectors and yet, as with so many pieces of legislation that impact upon civil liberties and their oversight in New South Wales, it appears that does not interest most elected members. We have seen that during debates on bills that raised concerns about police oversight and the oversight of other investigative bodies such as the Police Integrity Commission, the Crime Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption. If members read the bill—and I seriously doubt that other members who will speak on this bill have read it—they simply ignore those concerns. They throw them to one side and rubberstamp whatever the Executive puts to the Parliament. This bill should not be rubber stamped.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.24 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Police Integrity Commission and Independent Commission Against Corruption Legislation Amendment (Inspectors) Bill 2013. On the surface, the bill appears to be a simple piece of legislation, but there are questions about its practical aspects. The bill will amend the Police Integrity Commission Act to allow for the appointment of an assistant inspector of the Police Integrity Commission. It also gives the assistant inspector the authority, to the extent to which he or she is directed by the inspector to do so, to exercise any function of the inspector and for that purpose the person is taken to be the inspector.

In other words, the assistant inspector can act on behalf of the inspector with the powers of the inspector. The bill also provides that a person may hold both the office of Inspector or Assistant Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission and the office of Inspector or Assistant Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption at the same time. This will be the first time that those bodies, which have acted independently of each other, will merge to some degree in the role of the inspector. The commissions will not merge in their work. The bill also amends the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act in a similar way to allow for the appointment of an assistant inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Again, that assistant inspector may, when directed by the inspector, exercise any function of the inspector and for that purpose is taken to be the inspector.

The dual appointment aspects for that role are contained in schedule 2, which provides that a person may hold both the office of Inspector or Assistant Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the office of Inspector or Assistant Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission at the same time. Those provisions allow for flexibility, and saving money may be a factor. I am not exactly sure how that could be achieved, but if there is only one assistant inspector for both bodies that will mean only one salary. The assistant inspector can also carry out the duties of the inspector when requested to do so by the inspector. I think that the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption, of which I am a member, will have to observe this procedure. I am sure we will interview the inspector, who I assume has supported this legislation.

The Parliamentary Secretary may indicate in his reply that this legislation comes with the full support and endorsement of the current inspectors of the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission. As I said, I assume that would be the case but one should never assume anything unless it is made clear to the House. This bill is designed to assist the inspectors and carry some of their load because they are not full-time positions. I know that is so in the case of the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Inspectors are usually retired judges and they may need an assistant who can also act as inspector whenever the inspector is away. That would make the office more efficient. The Christian Democratic Party has no objection to the bill subject to everyone involved supporting the proposition.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.29 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher, in reply: I thank all members who contributed to debate on the bill. The bill provides the Government with the flexibility to appoint one person to be the inspector of both the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] and the Police Integrity Commission [PIC]. The powers and functions of both the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission and their respective inspectors are substantially similar. As such, it makes good sense for it to be made possible for the two part-time roles to be held by one person. In response to the question raised by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, both the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission and the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption were consulted in relation to the bill. The Police Integrity Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption also were consulted. The inspectors, the Police Integrity Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption did not raise objections to the bill. I commend the bill to the House. 23668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. David Clarke, on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher, agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.30 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

HOME RENOVATION ASBESTOS EXPOSURE

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [6.30 p.m.]: This week's Medical Journal of Australia includes a research report entitled "Asbestos exposure during home renovation in New South Wales". From a questionnaire sent to 10,000 randomly selected people on the New South Wales electoral roll there was a 37.5 per cent response rate. Of those respondents, more than 44 per cent had renovated their home, with around half being do-it-yourself renovators. More than 60 per cent, or 527 people, reported being exposed to asbestos during their home renovations. Three hundred and thirty-seven people reported that their partner had been exposed to asbestos during renovations, and perhaps most tragically 196 people reported that their children had been exposed to asbestos during renovations.

More than 20 per cent of renovators reported that they planned further home renovations in the next five years. Around one-third of all homes built in Australia contain asbestos products. As a general rule, if a house or unit was built before 1990, it is likely that it has asbestos-containing materials. Asbestos inhalation has been established beyond doubt as the cause of fatal malignant mesothelioma cancer. There is now no question and no debate about the fact there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. The disease can take decades to develop after exposure. Even if all asbestos were removed from all buildings in New South Wales today, we would see cases develop over the next 40 years. Yet people renovating their homes clearly are still not aware of the need to protect themselves and their families from asbestos-related diseases, which are completely preventable.

The 60 per cent of renovators quoted in the medical journal's report were only the ones who could both recall and were aware that they were exposed. The real figure is probably much higher. The Federal Labor Government established the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. It also approved a national strategic plan to improve asbestos identification and management, and remove all asbestos-containing materials from government and commercial buildings by 2030. The plan includes examination of the feasibility of removal of asbestos from residential buildings as well. The findings in the Medical Journal of Australia reinforce how critical it is for the new Federal Coalition Government to continue to promote the work of the agency, in particular the educational and awareness programs for owners and tenants of residential properties. For instance, the agency has been able to develop and promote simple advice to parents that could save a child's life by advising how to damp down and contain asbestos fibres that have been exposed during an accident or a home renovation, and not to use the vacuum cleaner. But of course people need to know that there is asbestos in their home in the first place.

The New South Wales Government should legislate to require sellers and lessors of residential properties to provide asbestos advice with every contract for sale and with every residential tenancy agreement. The Government also should develop a requirement for asbestos content reports for residential properties from a 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23669

licensed assessor prior to the sale or lease of a property, or when the property is subject to substantial renovation requiring building approval. Asbestos is a major public health issue. It is totally preventable. We know how to fix it. What we need is for the O'Farrell Government to show the political will to do something about it.

PARLIAMENTARY PRAYER FELLOWSHIP

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [6.35 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I inform the House of the Parliamentary Prayer Fellowship's annual luncheon, which was held today. The Parliamentary Prayer Fellowship has continued for a number of years and provides an opportunity for members of both Houses to come together in Christian prayer and fellowship. Being able to come together, regardless of political partisanship, and share the Word and a prayer adds a new and deeper dimension to day-to-day happenings at Parliament House. Today the Parliamentary Prayer Fellowship held its annual luncheon, which brings members and their guests together over a lovely meal to share the Word and to reflect on the workings of God in our lives. The guest of honour today was the Auditor-General, Peter Achterstraat.

Mr Gareth Ward, MP, who is the member for Kiama in the other place, opened proceedings with grace before meals. He prayed for a blessing of our meals as well as a blessing for our new Prime Minister, our Premier and all members of Parliament. After Scripture passages were read by the member for Mulgoa, Tanya Davies, and the member for Davidson, Jonathan O'Dea, the Auditor-General, who will retire next Tuesday, offered a reflection on the topic "Faith in the Workplace". The Auditor-General gave a humorous and engaging presentation on how he incorporates his faith into his day-to-day life in his workplace, in his dealings with his staff, members of the general public and his faith community. He spoke of an instance of dealing with the public when, as a consequence of acting with integrity and rejecting a request for leniency, he was told, "And you call yourself a Christian"—something that many of us perhaps may wish to reflect upon during hard times.

Being made to feel guilty for making a moral decision that unfortunately does not go the way of the complainant is a common experience for many of us, but it does not deter us from standing our ground; nor did it stop Peter Achterstraat from standing his ground and doing what he thought was right. Without revealing confidential or identifying information, he told how he consulted and prayed with his wife over big or difficult issues involved with his role. This demonstrated to me the honour he shows his wife and how he sought the guidance of Almighty God to make the best decision possible in his role. I was very inspired and encouraged by his openness about his faith. He told us that when he is called upon to make a speech, he often incorporates jokes into the speech that identify him with his faith. He also said that later members of his audience approach him privately to ask advice, share some personal stories and on occasions ask for prayer.

The Auditor-General spoke of how he has endeavoured to bring Christ into the workplace through personal and close attention he gives each of his 100 staff. He added that one way of honouring them was by knowing each of their names and knowing something about them, which is his way of touching base personally with them and taking an interest in their lives. He took time each week to have morning tea with a random group of staff. He sought to see Jesus in the words and actions of others, whether they were Christian or not. He wanted his attitude to reflect Christ and Christian values. The Hon. David Clarke, in his vote of thanks, reflected on the value of offering our daily tasks to God as a prayer. He spoke of the importance of doing the best we can in our workplace, wherever it is, whether as a gardener or as a politician, and giving this work as a gift to honour God.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly paid tribute to the Auditor-General for unapologetically giving witness to Christ and to his faith. He spoke of the importance of prayer and of making the time to pray in our busy lives. He said that the opportunities to pray happen when we make them. Prayer is an important part of our faith and decision-making processes, and of dealing with the challenges we face every day. I thank and acknowledge the Auditor-General, Mr Peter Achterstraat, and wish him and his wife, Vicki, all the very best as they begin the next phase of life. I thank them for their faithfulness and wish them well in their legacy and in their future.

ANNIVERSARY OF DEATH OF STEPHEN BANTU BIKO

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [6.40 p.m.]: I speak tonight on an important anniversary that occurred last week. On 12 September 1977, Stephen Bantu Biko died in a prison cell in Pretoria. The announcement of his death by the South African Government the next day sparked international and national protest. Steve Biko's death in detention was a clear illustration of the brutality of the South African security police under apartheid and that State's hand in covering up torture and abuse of political detainees. Steve Biko was a founding member of the South African Students' Organization. The formation of that organisation in 1969 marked the beginning 23670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

of the Black Consciousness Movement in South Africa. In 1973, the Government banned Biko to his home area, King William's Town in the Eastern Cape. Notwithstanding this restriction, Biko continued his political work as a key figure in the Black Consciousness Movement.

On 18 August 1977, Biko and an associate drove to Cape Town to meet with members of other liberation movement organisations. On his way back, the police stopped him at a routine roadblock. When the police recognised him, he was arrested under the notorious section 6 of the 1967 Terrorism Act that allowed indefinite detention without trial for the purposes of interrogation. The police interrogated Biko at police security headquarters in Port Elizabeth about his alleged involvement in distributing what the police referred to as "subversive" pamphlets in the area. On the morning of 6 September 1977, a struggle erupted between the police and Biko. During the confrontation, the police punched Biko, beat him with a hosepipe and ran him into a wall, after which he collapsed. The police then chained him upright to a security gate, with his arms spread and his feet chained to the gate, in a crucifixion position. They did not call for a doctor for 24 hours, despite there being clear indications that he had suffered a brain injury. Five days later, on 11 September 1977 the police loaded Biko into the back of a Land Rover, naked and restrained, and drove the comatose Biko 1,100 kilometres to Pretoria to take him to a prison with hospital facilities.

Steve Biko died shortly after arrival at the Pretoria prison, on 12 September. Following his death, the police claimed it was the result of an extended hunger strike that had commenced on 6 September. However, an autopsy revealed multiple bruises and abrasions and that he had ultimately succumbed to a brain haemorrhage from the massive head injuries he had sustained. I raise this matter now because the death of Steve Biko elevated for many of us at that time the plight of black South Africans under the apartheid regime. For many of us, prior to the Soweto riots of June 1976 and the death of Steve Biko in September 1977, it was all too easy to see events through the eyes of the Cold War era in which we lived. It was easy to simply characterise all those who sought to rebel against the yoke of oppression that was the apartheid regime as communists or communist sympathisers.

It was easy to characterise the South African apartheid regime as a bulwark against communism in Africa and to ignore the plight of black South Africans who struggled to survive as they dealt with pass laws and restrictions upon their employment, education and social lives, simply because they were black, brown or Indian. The Soweto riots and Steve Biko's death changed all that. The faces of children who had been shot by police and the broken body of Steve Biko were constant reminders to us of the plight of people in South Africa. I acknowledge that I, with so many others in the West, did too little to help the people of South Africa rid themselves of the blight of apartheid. I honour the sacrifice of Steve Biko and all those who struggled under the yoke of oppression resulting from the apartheid regime,

NSW HEALTH DRINKING WATER DATABASE

The Hon. WALT SECORD [6.45 p.m.]: The monitoring of our State's drinking water supply is a serious public health issue. Testing of our drinking water must be evidence-based and transparent. I inform the House of a recent and frustrating exchange with the O'Farrell Government. It involved the NSW Health Drinking Water Database. The database is operated and overseen by NSW Health. As the shadow Minister for Water, I sought access to the database. It is available to more than 100 New South Wales water authorities, laboratories and staff from NSW Health and the NSW Office of Water. My attention was drawn to the database by two recent E. coli incidents: one in the Lower Clarence Valley which occurred in May and another at Gosford in February 2012.

In the Lower Clarence Valley, disturbingly residents were urged to double boil their water after traces of E. coli bacteria were found during testing. Unfortunately at the time there were reports of residents not receiving the alert, with the information only filtering through the community by word of mouth. This is simply unacceptable with such a serious health issue. As for the Gosford incident, after E. coli was detected in the Kariong water supply zone families were told to boil their water and parents were advised to sponge-bath their small children in order to avoid ingesting contaminated water. The Kariong water supply zone includes all residential and commercial properties within the Kariong area, including the primary and high schools and part of the Mt Penang area.

On 21 August, my office formally sought permission to obtain access to the public information on the NSW Drinking Water Database. My office followed the appropriate processes and officers properly identified themselves, providing NSW Health with my full title and saying that it involved my Opposition portfolio responsibilities. In short, we clearly disclosed our interest and identity. On 2 September, my office was informed 18 September 2013 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 23671

by email that we would not be granted access to the database. The email was sent from the office of the NSW Chief Health Officer, Dr Kerry Chant. Over the years I have found Dr Chant to be a thoroughly professional public servant and I was very surprised by the decision. I ask: Has there been political interference from the O'Farrell Government and the Minister for Health in this decision? On the subject of Dr Chant, I wish to express my public support to her for her principled stand on 17 September this year at the public meeting in Lismore in support of fluoridation of the Lismore water supply.

The actions of the anti-fluoride protesters in the car park towards Dr Chant after the meeting were abhorrent. I also cite the hard work of Lismore mayor Jenny Dowell in her fight against anti-fluoride activists. On 4 September, I lodged a formal complaint with the Acting NSW Information Commissioner, asking her to review the decision involving the NSW Drinking Water Database. I eagerly await her response. It is most unfortunate that the O'Farrell Government is trying to block the release of this information to the community. There is a fundamental principle here regarding the community's right to know about the safety and security of its drinking water supply. There is also the issue of an elected Government attempting to evade scrutiny and accountability. For each time it does; it simply begs the question: What is it trying to hide?

When in opposition, Barry O'Farrell promised openness and transparency. He pledged key changes to the State's Freedom of Information laws in relation to Cabinet documents. He pledged to reduce the length of time Cabinet documents were exempt under the Act. Barry O'Farrell promised to make regular disclosure of selected Cabinet documents and went as far as to produce a campaign document, entitled: "Restoring your right to know—Improved Freedom of Information in New South Wales". The centrepiece was to, "abolish Freedom of Information application fees". The campaign document also stated, "The NSW Liberal-Nationals Coalition commits to open Government through the highest standards of public access." However, throughout the O'Farrell Government's two and a half years in office we have seen the opposite. We see a government that blocks information and silences its critics. As a way to thwart the release of information, the O'Farrell Government sends bills—in many cases, bills amounting to many thousands of dollars—for processing Freedom of Information requests.

In fact, the Government will even try to charge an applicant for processing a rejection letter. In that respect, I received a letter dated 12 September from the O'Farrell Government. I had sought information on the number of drinking water contaminations reported to NSW Health's Water Unit since 1 April 2011. The O'Farrell Government is claiming that it will take 174 hours to process the application. They also claim that they would charge $5,220 to provide this public information. Furthermore, it said also that it would cost $300 to process the application. This is completely unreasonable. Members will be pleased to know that I have sought a review of that decision. The O'Farrell Government has refused to honour its promises to scrap the $30 application fee and the hourly processing fees on freedom of information requests. Sadly, the reality is that an O'Farrell-led coalition that wanted transparency in opposition now wants opaqueness in government. I thank the House for its consideration.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA WARTIME HERITAGE

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.50 p.m.]: The recent attack on a group of Australians near the Black Cat Track in Papua New Guinea was reported around the world. Two Papua New Guinea guides were killed in the attack and another died of his wounds a few days later. The Black Cat Track is one of a number of wartime tourism pilgrimages undertaken each year in Papua New Guinea by an increasing number of Australians. Whilst the negative publicity resulting from the attack will have a detrimental impact on the potential for a wartime tourism industry in Papua New Guinea, hopefully it will cause the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments to review the management systems required to ensure people can safely visit battle sites and campaign areas relevant to our wartime history. The record of Australia's involvement in the Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority since the threat in 2006 to mine a large section of the Kokoda Trail indicates that we have much to learn about working with our friends in Papua New Guinea.

Prior to this time the emerging trekking industry was managed by an expatriate Australian, Mr Warren Bartlett, on a Papua New Guinea salary of $12,500 per year. He had one part-time staff assistant. Mr Bartlett had worked in Papua New Guinea as a patrol officer prior to independence in 1975 and has continued to work in the country since then. He is fluent in Tok Pisin and has a great appreciation of the challenges of working within local environments. He had been engaged by my trekking company, Adventure Kokoda, to organise our in-country administration and logistics for some years before he was engaged to work with the Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority. At that time neither the Australian nor Papua New Guinea governments 23672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 September 2013

provided any assistance to manage the emerging Kokoda trekking industry. In 2008 Mr Bartlett initiated an audit of trek permits in Efogi village, which is about half-way along the trail. His audit revealed that one Australian trek operator had smuggled more than 300 trekkers across the trail and many others had failed to pay for the permits they had received.

At this stage a transition was in place as the Australian Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts assumed responsibility for providing a proper management system for the trekking industry. It was assumed that it would establish the necessary systems and then train its Papua New Guinea counterparts so they could assume responsibility for the management authority. Trek operators were desperate for a proper management system because of the chaos on the trail caused by a dysfunctional board of directors and a record number of trekkers. The Australian Government appointed Rod Hillman as chief executive officer of the Kokoda Track Authority. Unfortunately, one of his first actions was to negotiate a series of secret deals with rogue trek operators that provided them with a financial advantage over those who had paid their trek fees in full and in advance. This practice would have been referred to a corruption agency in Australia, but in Papua New Guinea it was evident that the fox had now been put in charge of the henhouse. Local villagers were shamelessly deprived of their full entitlement of shared benefits as a result of these secret negotiations.

Hillman then closed the books of the Kokoda Track Authority and refused to publish any further annual trek operator statistics. Thus, rogue trek operators were given carte blanche as he failed to conduct any further audits. During Rod Hillman's tenure former Kokoda Track Authority board members who embezzled more than $100,000 from the authority were not prosecuted and rogue trek operators who owed up to $50,000 in unpaid trek fees were allowed to continue to operate. Hillman dealt with compliant trek operators and isolated those who called for proper management protocols. Local landowners along the Kokoda Trail also were isolated and left to their own resources. The only growth industry during Rod Hillman's tenure was Australian consultancies. Trek operators with up to 30 years experience in Papua New Guinea were isolated from the tender processes, which operated as a closed shop. Some operators had been associated with Rod Hillman prior to his arrival in Papua New Guinea.

Consultants reports were kept secret from both trek operators and local landowners, and projects were initiated without any local consultation; there is no evidence of any of them succeeding. When the Australian Government imposed its envirocrats on the Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority in 2008 there were 5,621 trekkers. Despite a ten-fold increase in staff and a multimillion-dollar budget, trekker numbers declined to 2,914 at the end of Rod Hillman's tenure in 2011. Of more concern is the fact that there is no legislation to support the local management authority; no campsite booking system; no protection for the welfare of local guides, carriers and campsite owners; no plan for the protection of historical campaign sites; no integrity in the licensing system for trek operators; and no dispute resolution system for aggrieved landowners. As a matter of fact, not a single management protocol is in place for the Kokoda trekking industry.

Effectively, Kokoda has been hijacked by Canberra-based envirocrats. Rather than develop the trail as a model for wartime tourism in Papua New Guinea, it has become a lucrative honey pot for Australian consultants and bureaucrats assigned to aid agencies. In view of the attack on the Black Cat Track, I believe it is timely to re-examine our approach to protecting our wartime heritage in Papua New Guinea and to have a common system for engaging with the custodians of significant battle sites and campaign areas to ensure they receive an economic benefit from the industry. We also must ensure the safety of Australian pilgrims to these sites. The Australian Government has a duty of care to ensure this happens.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6.55 p.m. until Thursday 19 September 2013 at 9.30 a.m.