12984

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday 5 March 2009 ______

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

The President read the Prayers.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 4

Report: Budget Estimates 2008-2009

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, as Chair, tabled report No. 20, entitled "Budget Estimates 2008-2009", dated March 2009, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, minutes of proceedings, correspondence and answers to questions taken on notice.

Report ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.00 a.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

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

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 1

Report: Budget Estimates 2008-2009

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, as Chair, tabled report No. 33, entitled "Budget Estimates 2008-2009", dated March 2009, together with the transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, answers to questions on notice, minutes of proceedings and correspondence.

Report ordered to be printed on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.02 a.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 conducted an extensive budget estimates inquiry. Initially it held seven hearings and heard 15 hours of evidence in relation to the portfolio areas of Roads, Ports and Waterways, Finance, Infrastructure, Regulatory Reform, the Legislature, Treasury, Premier and the Arts. The committee then agreed to hold a further four supplementary hearings to examine the portfolio areas of Finance, Infrastructure, Regulatory Reform, Ports and Waterways, Roads and Treasury. As Chair and on behalf of the committee, I record my thanks to the Ministers and their officers who assisted the committee during this important inquiry. I am also grateful to my fellow committee members for their contributions to the inquiry process.

Debate adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

PETITIONS

Gosford Primary Industries Institute Closure

Petition requesting that the Government reconsider the proposed closure of the Department of Primary Industries Gosford Primary Industries Institute, received from the Hon. Penny Sharpe.

5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12985

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Withdrawal of Business

Private Members' Business item No. 2 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Amanda Fazio.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Business of the House (Notice of Motion) item No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 3

Reference

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I inform the House that in accordance with paragraph 2 of the resolution of the House relating to the establishment of committees, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 resolved on 17 December 2008 to adopt the following reference:

That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquire into and report on the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services in New South Wales, including:

(a) The impact of privatisation on:

(i) public safety and rates of escape

(ii) the incidence of assault on inmates and staff

(iii) disciplinary breaches

(iv) overcrowding

(v) prisoner classification levels

(vi) rehabilitation programs, mental health support services and recidivism rates

(vii) staffing levels and employee conditions

(b) The comparative economic costs of operating public and private facilities and the impact of privatisation on publicly managed prisons

(c) Accountability mechanisms available in private prisons

(d) Future plans to privatise prisons or prison services in New South Wales, including the Court Escort Security Unit

(e) The use and effectiveness of private security guards in perimeter security of prisons

(f) The experience of privatisation of prisons and prison services in other Australian and overseas jurisdictions

(g) Any other relevant matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.14 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. 156, outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Private Contractors) Bill, be called on forthwith.

I am seeking the leave of the House to introduce as a matter of urgency the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Private Contractors) Bill 2009. I believe this is a matter of great urgency. Despite the convening on 17 December last year of an inquiry by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 into privatisation of prisons and prison-related services, the Government is proceeding with reckless pace to privatise 12986 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

two of the State's prisons—Cessnock and Parklea. On 17 February this year, exactly two months after the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquiry was established, the commissioner wrote to Corrective Services staff at Cessnock stating:

I can assure you Cessnock will be contracted out, despite claims circulating in some workplaces to the contrary.

A similar message was sent to Parklea staff on the same date. In the same letter the commissioner informed staff:

The tendering process is on track and I expect that Cessnock [and Parklea] will come under contract in July/August 2009.

It mattered not to the commissioner that the inquiry is underway and due to report on 29 May. The commissioner has charged ahead, obdurate in his determination that privatisation will proceed regardless of the inquiry's findings. Indeed, as the commissioner informed all Corrective Services staff by letter just three days ago, the privatisation of a new replacement jail at Grafton "is being considered", and he reiterated in that letter that Parklea and Cessnock correctional centres—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: Ms Sylvia Hale is speaking to the matter of urgency with respect to a bill, but there does not appear to be a bill. We have not seen the bill. There has been no discussion with the Government about the bill. If the member has the bill, we would like to see it. But I suspect that there is no bill.

The Hon. Don Harwin: To the point of order: I see that Ms Sylvia Hale is waving around a copy of the bill. In any case, she is not obliged to table it until the first reading of the bill. So there is no point of order whatsoever.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Ms Sylvia Hale is seeking leave to suspend standing and sessional orders to allow her to move a motion seeking precedence to introduce a bill. First, the standing orders do not provide that members of Parliament be consulted in relation to bills. Members may consult with whomever they wish in relation to their bills. Second, as the Opposition Whip has stated, bills are presented to the House when they are introduced.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Thank you—and I point out that once I have the opportunity to introduce the bill and give a second reading speech it will lay on the table until five days have elapsed. As I was saying before I was interrupted, as the commissioner informed all Corrective Services staff by letter just three days ago, the privatisation of a new replacement jail at Grafton "is being considered". He reiterated in that letter:

Parklea and Cessnock Correctional Centres will be contracted out in addition to the currently private operated Junee Correctional Centre.

His letter also notes that:

The companies invited to tender for Parklea and Cessnock will commence on-site inspections as from Monday, 2 March 2009.

I believe that process is underway. In relation to the court and escort security operations, staff are told by Mr Woodham that:

The proposal is to contract out some of these functions.

He then goes on:

The remaining court operations [apart from Escorts and High Risk Escorts] that function from Monday to Friday—

[Time expired.]

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.19 a.m.]: I oppose this matter being regarded as urgent. My reason for doing so is that an inquiry is currently underway looking at the privatisation of prisons and prison-related services in New South Wales. I think it is premature for Ms Hale—who, though not a substantive member of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3, has been substituted for Ms Rhiannon for the duration of that inquiry—to seek to bring forward legislation now. I think it is inappropriate. If this is the path that the Greens intend to take regarding any government services that are mooted for privatisation, there will be legislation introduced all the time. 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12987

I say to members opposite: You need to be aware of the precedent you will set if you support the motion. Opposition members will be saying that they will let the Greens run the agenda for any government that seeks to privatise any government services. They will be answerable to the Greens if they allow that unrepresentative bunch of economic troglodytes to do this sort of thing. This is not an urgent matter because most of the information that Ms Hale produced—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: She's choking on her words now.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I have a sore throat, if you don't mind, you moron. So you might be quiet while I am speaking. I note that the Leader of the Opposition did not ask for my statement to be withdrawn, which means he concurs with my assessment of his intellectual capacity. Apart from anything else, Ms Sylvia Hale's comments are not relevant to her argument regarding urgency. This matter simply is not urgent.

This is another stunt by the Greens to try to hijack some agendas that are running elsewhere. It is another case of the Greens trying to jump on any bandwagon they can find to get themselves a little more credence. It is not an urgent matter. It is not worthy of being brought forward in the order of precedence above matters that are already there, one of which is worthy of note. Where do Ms Hale's loyalties lie? Is it with the anti-privatisation movement or is it with the issue of affordable housing, because that is the issue she would bump back on the order of precedence? She is obviously saying that her bill on affordable housing is worthless and not worth debating in this Chamber. She cannot have it both ways. She cannot say that she is passionate about two issues that she is putting forward. We know that this is just a political stunt to try to get a few headlines. We know that this is just an attempt by Ms Hale to try to garner a little more support among a few dissidents in the union movement. We know that this is not an urgent matter that is worthy of being considered today.

I strongly urge members to think seriously about the precedent they would set if they supported this procedural game that the Greens want to play. Remember, the Greens have four seats in this Chamber; they do not run the economy of this State. So I strongly urge members not to support this motion and to give Ms Hale the message that she needs to receive: her agendas are generally not urgent and in most cases not relevant.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.23 a.m.]: This matter is not urgent. It is an attempt to bypass the procedures that the House has established whereby bills are listed in order of precedence. In fact, there will be a ballot for bills later today and the Greens should be patient and wait their turn as other members of the House do.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 21

Mr Ajaka Ms Hale Mr Pearce Mr Brown Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon Mr Clarke Mr Khan Mr Smith Mr Cohen Mr Lynn Ms Ficarra Mr Mason-Cox Mr Gallacher Reverend Dr Moyes Tellers, Miss Gardiner Ms Parker Mr Colless Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Harwin

Noes, 18

Mr Catanzariti Mr Obeid Mr West Ms Fazio Mr Robertson Ms Westwood Ms Griffin Ms Robertson Mr Hatzistergos Mr Roozendaal Mr Kelly Ms Sharpe Tellers, Mr Macdonald Mr Tsang Mr Donnelly Reverend Nile Ms Voltz Mr Veitch 12988 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

Pair

Ms Cusack Mr Della Bosca

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Order of Business

Motion by Ms Sylvia Hale agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 156 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) AMENDMENT (PRIVATE CONTRACTORS) BILL 2009

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by Ms Sylvia Hale.

Second Reading

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.30 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to prevent the use of contractors for the transport of prisoners and to prevent a management agreement from being entered into for a private operator to manage a correctional centre in New South Wales, unless it is approved by both Houses of Parliament. Thus, if this bill were passed, all proposals to privatise a prison in New South Wales would have to be approved by a vote of both Houses of Parliament rather than decided solely by the commissioner and the Minister. This is consistent with an approach that the Greens have taken to two other privatisation proposals— Snowy Hydro and the State's electricity infrastructure.

Let me make it clear: the Greens oppose privatisation of essential public services. That includes our water, our mass transit systems, our schools, our electricity and our prisons. The Greens do not think that running a prison is a business. The Greens do not think that incarceration of offenders is a market activity. We have a totally different view of essential services and State responsibilities to the gung-ho privateers in the New South Wales Labor Government who seem to think that the State Government should not have to be responsible for those that the judiciary sentences to imprisonment. The Government is making a mistake in continuing down the road of privatising prisons for two reasons, which were summed up by Tony Blair in 1993 when he said:

I believe people who are sentenced by the state to imprisonment should be deprived of their liberty, kept under lock and key by those who are accountable primarily and solely to the state ...

He went on to say:

... there is a danger that if you build up an industrial vested interested into the penal system ... as part of that interest they are designed obviously to keep the prison population such that it satisfies those commercial interests.

Handing over those being punished by the State to the private sector is a dereliction of duty for those that the State has deemed to be punished. Introducing a profit motive into the prison system encourages incarceration and recidivism as being good for business. A private operator has no intrinsic interest in the rehabilitation of offenders because without offenders they have no business. The most extreme example of these perverse business incentives was the recent case in the United States of America where two juvenile court judges were bribed to the tune of $2.6 million by a private detention centre operator to give young offenders the maximum sentence so that they would spend more time in the private operator's detention centres.

Indeed, those judges went even further, imprisoning young people who had committed no offence whatsoever. Deriving profits from punishment regimes raises significant ethical issues for our society. Prisoners are removed from society for the purposes of deterrence and rehabilitation, not to be fodder for corporate profit. The Government has an obligation to run the prison system in the best interests of society. It should be part of a 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12989

comprehensive strategy to deliver a safe community, including the provision of services that will minimise the risk of prisoners reoffending. Multinational corporations are not interested in promoting a safe community in New South Wales; they are interested in generating profit and therefore in maintaining high levels of incarceration.

There is no incentive whatsoever for them to run programs for offenders to try to reduce recidivism. Their focus will be on cutting costs by reducing working conditions for prison officers and living conditions for inmates, and on promoting ever more draconian laws to increase the human fodder for their privatised prisons. We have only to look at the United States, which has a huge private prison industry and one of highest incarceration rates for any Western country. The United States experience of a private prison operator bribing two judges to deliver harsher sentences points to the need for absolute transparency and detailed scrutiny of any move to privatise prisons. I believe that this need for scrutiny is underlined in the New South Wales context by the role of the only private operator currently operating in New South Wales—the GEO Group that holds the contract for Junee—a contract worth well in excess of $20 million each year. GEO has already submitted its expression of interest in running Parklea and Cessnock correctional centres.

The relationship between GEO and the New South Wales Labor Party is instructive in demonstrating the absolute necessity for open public scrutiny in this area. Electoral authority documents reveal that the GEO Group is a major political donor in New South Wales. It has given more than $80,000 to the State's two largest political parties, more than $50,000 to the New South Wales Labor Party, and more than $20,000 to the New South Wales Liberal Party. All these political payments have been made while GEO has held a multimillion-dollar government contract to run a private prison. More telling still is that, as revealed in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, in August 2005 GEO paid $2,000 into the personal campaign account of Paul McLeay, the Labor member for Heathcote.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: Ms Sylvia Hale well knows that if she wants to make adverse reflections on a member in this House or in the other House it must be by way of substantive motion. Based on her comments in the media today I presume she is about to launch into a series of adverse reflections on a member in the other place, which is inappropriate in this debate. I ask you to advise Ms Sylvia Hale of that fact and to remind her that at this stage she should be speaking to the bill in question, and not attempting to adversely reflect on other members of Parliament.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: To the point of order: Ms Amanda Fazio referred to what I was about to say— she was incredibly prescient in that regard—but I am not making any adverse reflections; I am merely recounting what is on the public record. It is up to members to draw what conclusions they will. I am merely stating—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. Members cannot reflect on other members except by way of substantive motion. Members are well aware that imputations of improper motives to, or personal reflections on, members are deemed to be disorderly at all times. Members simply citing the fact that something is in a newspaper has consistently been ruled not to be adequate in this House. If a member wishes to cite a matter as having been in the media as a basis for an allegation, then the member should be able and willing to say that he or she authorises and believes that to be the case. I ask the member to proceed, bearing those comments in mind.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I simply invite members of the House to examine the returns of the electoral authority relating to donations from the GEO. I think they will find that only one member of this Parliament received those donations. I also invite them to examine the report of the inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee and to look in particular at the questions that were asked by Mr McLeay and the answers—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order. My point of order is that Ms Hale is clearly flouting your ruling. Again she is referring to matters that you have ruled to be disorderly. It is completely inappropriate for her to continue in this phase, particularly when she is the person who put this information into the media in the first place. To refer to comments that appeared in the newspaper when she is the source of them compounds her disorderly conduct in this Chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I can do no more than again uphold the point of order. I read from the ruling of the Hon. Virginia Chadwick on 17 November 1998:

… [implying] that members of the coalition may have been influenced in some way, perhaps for reward, by companies involved in [a particular] matter … is an improper reflection on the motives of honourable members.

I ask the member to proceed, but not to canvass the issues. 12990 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I point out that the Greens believe it is fundamentally wrong for a company that receives public funds from a government contract to donate some of those funds back to the party that granted them the contract. There are numerous connections with GEO. For example, Col Kelaher was appointed Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Corrective Services North West Region in June 2006. His biography on the Department of Corrective Services website, prior to his appointment, states:

Mr Kelaher held the position of Executive General Manager Operations for the GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd, the largest provider of outsourced correctional management in Australia. In this role, Mr Kelaher was responsible for the operational management of correctional facilities in NSW, Queensland and Victoria.

Mr Kelaher has been reported as playing a significant role in the privatisation push within the Department of Corrective Services. All of this is even more concerning when the political donations and network of connections involve a company with the international reputation of the GEO Group, which has a particularly poor history in its home country, the United States. In 2006 the family of Guillermo De La Rosa won a settlement of $US47 million in a wrongful death suit brought against GEO after Mr De La Rosa was beaten to death in a Texas detention facility. It has been reported also that a case brought on behalf of several girls who were sexually assaulted and physically abused by GEO—then known as Wackenhut—employees at a juvenile Justice Centre in Texas was settled for $US1.5 million.

While the close political and financial relationship that exists between GEO and the Australian Labor Party [ALP] seems typical of the way this Government operates, it seems that the residents of Laredo Texas find this sort of behaviour harder to tolerate. In November 2007 the Laredo Morning Times reported that Webb County Commissioners unanimously voted against accepting a $250,000 donation from the GEO Group, which at that time was seeking to build a private jail in that county. The report went on to say:

The vote followed public comment where the money was characterized as "dirty" by attorneys who represent the family of an inmate killed inside one of the companies privately owned prisons.

"Commissioners, this is not a donation, this is a payment," said Ron Rodriguez, who represents the families of Guillermo De La Rosa, an inmate who died while serving time in a Geo Group facility in Willacy County.

"This transaction is dirty, the money is dirty and everybody that touches it will have dirty hands," Rodriguez continued.

"If you look at the history, you will see that these people— that is, GEO—

are the functional equivalent of a sexual predator," said Craig Smith, who also represents the De La Rosa family.

The people of Texas could see the problem with taking donations from this company, but the New South Wales Labor and Liberal parties apparently cannot. The political donations culture in New South Wales clearly is not as bad as the wild west of Texas: it is far worse. GEO's poor reputation is not merely restricted to the United States of America. Its Australian subsidiary, Australasian Correctional Management [ACM], ran the infamous immigration detention centres of the Howard Government. Australasian Correctional Management was heavily criticised in a report by the Human Rights Commission into the abuse of inmates in its detention centres.

Given the reputation of this company, the amount of money changing hands between it, the Government and the major parties, and the links between GEO and prominent members of the Government, privatisation of a prison is a process that requires absolute transparency and detailed scrutiny by this Parliament. It should not take place behind closed doors. The new Minister for Corrective Services, John Robertson, has been promoted to preside over the privatisation agenda of his predecessor, John Hatzistergos. This is no simple appointment; it appears to be a deliberate test for the newest entrant into the Cabinet. Last year the newly appointed Minister told ABC Stateline:

You can rest assured I won't be becoming an advocate for privatisation. I'm not going to change who I am. I am not going to change my belief systems or my values. And I will continue to advocate for those.

Are the belief systems of Labor Party people so post-modern and flexible that they can say one thing one day and then try to explain away a complete reversal the next? The Minister told the House yesterday that because only two prisons are being privatised, it is not really a problem. That is a humbug argument and I am sure most union members in New South Wales will see it for its hypocrisy. The Minister also told Stateline recently that this is not an ideological argument. Privatisation of essential public service is always an ideological argument. It goes to the heart of what is government, what is public service and what is the duty of the State. Should we allow private companies and shareholders to make a profit, to turn a buck from incarcerating others? Should we compromise the safety of prison officers and inmates alike? 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12991

Privatisation is a key issue that divides people onto one side of the fence or the other. Why does the Minister think thousands of people opposed selling the Snowy Hydro? Why does he think thousands of people rallied against power privatisation? Why does he think thousands of people resisted WorkChoices? They did not take to the streets because John Robertson told them to; they did so because these issues are examples of differing ideologies in conflict. Again and again we see Labor Ministers overriding the rank and file of their own party and ignoring the party's platform. The ALP platform clearly opposes prison privatisation. It states:

Labor opposes the private contract management of prisons.

So much for Labor Party policy. The few remaining rank and file members of the New South Wales ALP must wonder why they bother developing a policy when the Cabinet clearly views the ALP platform as an optional extra. I know from reading this morning's Daily Telegraph that a deputation from the ALP Left faction is reportedly off to see the Premier to point out that the Government is breaching party platform. I wish them luck! The Minister for Corrective Services, who, in his previous role as the leader of Unions NSW, galvanised unions against WorkChoices, battled electricity privatisation, and was an intelligent and effective advocate, now has to leave his union badge at the door in order to enter the corridors of Labor power. It is a well-worn path, one trodden by his unlamented predecessor at Unions NSW and in this House.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Sylvia, he just said he had a frontal lobotomy.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Good, a frontal lobotomy—that is probably it. The new Minister appears to be engaging in the traditional loyalty display required of former Unions NSW secretaries when they enter the Cabinet. By overseeing the privatisation of two prisons and the potential loss of over 1,000 unionised jobs he demonstrates once again how easily Labor principles are abandoned. In return, he will no doubt be promoted— maybe even to the office of Premier! The man who wired this building as a young electrician may one day rule it, even if it means stepping on a few workers on the way through. There is still time to move away from prison privatisation. There is still time to talk to the prison officers union and come to agreement on how to improve productivity while keeping the prisons in public hands.

As a former head of Unions New South Wales, the Minister is more than capable of brokering an agreement and changing things when they need to be changed. I am sure he is more than capable of entering a dialogue on overtime and staffing levels, if he chooses to. I am sure he could end the 18-hour lock-in of forensic patients at Long Bay by putting on an extra shift of officers, if he chooses to. He could even look at long-term strategies to reduce recidivism, if he chooses to.

I now turn to the effect of the bill. The Greens bill will allow members of the Legislative Council and members of the lower House to vote on any proposed prison privatisation. Although the Greens are opposed to prison privatisation, our bill does not prevent all private management contracts for prisons. The bill simply requires that a vote be taken by both houses of Parliament on any proposed management contract prior to the contract being instituted. The Minister and the commissioner can provide arguments to the Parliament, and then the Parliament can decide. There will be a range of issues surrounding any proposal to privatise prisons. These include industrial issues, health and safety, inmate programs, cost-benefit considerations, and the development and monitoring of proper performance indicators.

All of these issues should be subject to open parliamentary scrutiny. They should be considered in detail by members prior to voting on any proposed privatisation. Staffing levels may be insufficient for the increase in prison populations. It remains unclear whether front-line staff levels have kept pace with the growth in the prison populations, with contradictory evidence being provided at recent public hearings. The commissioner claimed that staff numbers have kept pace with the huge increase in inmate levels, but it is unclear whether the staff are all front-line staff or whether the figure includes office staff. I note public reports that the Minister has declined to attend the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 inquiry to justify the Government's position. The Government clearly does not want scrutiny of this issue.

The so-called overtime cost blow-out, which the commissioner and Minister have used to justify the privatisations of Cessnock and Parklea, appear exaggerated. While it may well be the case that some officers abuse sick leave and maximise overtime, the commissioner has not said why these practices, if they exist in isolated cases, have not been dealt with by management; and, if manipulation of overtime, as he described it, is entrenched, why those matters have not gone before the Industrial Relations Commission. He appears to be exaggerating the problem to justify privatisation. Cessnock and Parklea seem to have been chosen not because of any documented problem with staffing and overtime that is unique to them, but because the private tenderers prefer the locations and the commissioner has a poor relationship with the local union committees. 12992 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

The other problem with overtime appears to be that insufficient provision is being made for staffing costs because they do not reflect the reality of wages and incidences, such as inmate illness. Clearly there are issues about how overtime budgets are calculated that need to be fixed. For a start, budgeting needs to be realistic and needs to reflect the overtime hours required as well as average wage levels of those who will be doing the work. Mr Woodham has been commissioner since January 2002. He has had seven years in which to manage the situation, yet he now throws his hands in the air and says, "Hand them over to others to manage!" Perhaps it is the commissioner, rather than the prisons, that should be departing the public sector.

Those issues aside, there is significant evidence to show that private prisons are less safe and are of a lower standard than are our State-run prisons. Privatisation can compromise officer safety and impact on inmates' conditions. We know that if privatisation goes ahead and a prison is understaffed, an inexperienced casual prison officer at Parklea or Cessnock may suffer violence at the hands of an inmate. Less supervision can lead to more intimidation and abuse between prisoners. The Government has said that private prisons are staffed by more casuals than permanent staff and that operators make savings on staffing costs. That is consistent with the experience elsewhere.

In the United Kingdom, private prisons staff earn between 30 per cent and 50 per cent less than do officers in State-run prisons, and receive lower levels of training. A report by the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the United States National Council on Crime and Delinquency 2001 found that, on average, staffing levels were 15 per cent lower in private prisons. It also found that private prisons have a higher rate of assaults, both of prisoners on other prisoners and prisoners against prison staff. A 2003 report by the United Kingdom National Audit Office that examined the operational performance of private prisons found that the rate of assaults was higher in private prisons than in public prisons. In 2002 the chief inspector reported rising levels of violence between prisoners in Kilmarnock private prison in Scotland and that the understaffing of the prison contributed to that. There was also a high turnover in staff of approximately 18.6 per cent in 2003. A BBC television program in 2005 about Kilmarnock reported understaffing and failure to carry out suicide watches and searches.

A 2001 United States Justice Department study reported that there are 49 per cent more assaults on staff and 65 per cent more assaults on prisoners in private prisons. A 2008 report from the United Kingdom prison service ranks 10 of the 11 privately run prisons in England and Wales in the bottom quarter of all prisons on security and maintaining order and control. In 2000 the privately operated Metropolitan Women's Prison in Victoria was returned to State control after being described by the then Minister of Corrections as presenting a very clear risk to community safety because of repeated operational deficiencies, including a failure to implement fundamental security and drug-prevention obligations. One officer who emailed me recently wrote:

The minister that is Mr Hatzistergos—

acknowledges that prisons are dangerous and unpredictable environments, then why is the minister allowing the frontline of Corrective Services core service to be weakened [sic]. That is maintaining the safe secure and humane custody of inmates and the community at large are at risk now because poorly trained security guards are now manning frontline areas where previously custodial staff with eleven weeks of training at taxpayers' expense held the responsibility.

Leaving aside the question of the State's responsibility for public services including police and prisons, from a purely economic viewpoint there is little evidence of significant savings flowing from private operators running prisons. Overseas auditors who conducted comparisons found only small cost savings. Private companies have to pass profit on to shareholders, which is an extra cost, as is the higher interest rate that private companies pay on any credit finance. In a study of Queensland prisons, cost savings were found to be at a maximum of 9 per cent in Australia. That cost saving is often at the expense of officers and inmates. There is no guarantee that a private prison will be run any more economically than is a public prison that is well run. If a private operation goes bust, government always has to take it over, despite what the contract may say.

The commissioner has said that women's prisons will not be privatised in New South Wales because female inmates have high support needs so the State wants to keep control of the programs in those facilities. Implicitly these programs are more expensive to run, so we can conclude that the Government does not believe that the private sector will be prepared to run them to the same level, or, as well, which in my view is an argument against privatisation. Many countries have re-nationalised their prisons. Canada transferred its one private prison back to the public sector in 2006. The Ontario provincial government's community safety and correctional services minister, Monte Kwinter, said:

After five years, there has been no appreciable benefit from the private operation of the Central North Correctional Centre. We carefully studied its overall performance compared with the publicly operated Central East Correctional Centre (CECC) in Kawartha Lakes and concluded the CECC performed better in key areas such as security, health care and reducing reoffending rates. As a result, the government will allow the contract with the private operator to expire. 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12993

New Zealand's one private prison, which was a remand centre, was transferred to the public prison service in 2005. There can also be other costs, such as occurred in England after a fire at Yarl's Wood private detention centre for asylum seekers. It was run by Group 4—one of the companies that expressed an interest in tendering to run Cessnock and Parklea. Group 4 already had a bad reputation. When it started its private prison escort business in the United Kingdom, it managed to lose seven prisoners in one week. The disturbance at Yarl's Wood began after a woman was left medically untreated, became agitated and was restrained. A disturbance followed and a fire broke out. The police were called, but were not given primacy over the situation for some time by the private operator, Group 4. After fire destroyed the building, there was a wrangle over who would pay the insurance company. Group 4 decided to sue the Bedfordshire Fire and Police services. The New Statesman newspaper commented that:

[Group 4's] insurers followed the logic of profit maximisation and blew a hole in New Labour's justification for passing public services to private contractors.

In Treasury theory, the risk of a venture going wrong was meant to be taken along with the contract. In the case of Yarl's Wood, Group 4 had gambled on making profits at the public's expense and lost.

However, Group 4's insurers unearthed an obscure piece of legislation, the Riot Damages Act 1886, which allows companies to sue the police for riot damage. Group 4 has claimed not merely for the cost of rebuilding the detention centre, but also for the loss of revenue brought about by its closure. The Bedfordshire police are, the insurers' lawyers insist, responsible for a prison over which they had no control and for a riot that Group 4 prevented its officers from tackling for five hours.

Yarl's Wood was subject to an investigation by the UK Prisons and Probations Ombudsman, resulting in a 460-page report.

Soon, Yarl's Wood was due to open again, and Group 4 started advertising for new staff, with little to no experience necessary, for £6.95 an hour.

The bill will prevent the use of contractors for the transport of prisoners and prevent a management agreement for a private operator to manage a correctional centre from being entered into unless both Houses of Parliament approve it. [Time expired.]

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

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

REPRESENTATION OF MINISTER ABSENT DURING QUESTIONS

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I advise honourable members that during the absence from the Chamber today of the Minister for Health, Minister for the Central Coast, and Vice-President of the Executive Council I will answer questions relating to his portfolios.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

ANTI-OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANG LEGISLATION

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. Does the Minister support Commissioner of Police Andrew Scipione's call for tough anti-outlaw motorcycle gang legislation similar to that passed by the South Australian Parliament last year? Why, in an interview on ABC radio on 18 February 2009, did the Minister contradict the police commissioner's claim that such legislation was before Cabinet by saying, in relation to such legislation, that "it is very early days to see whether they're effective or not, or whether we need them"? Does the Minister agree with the police commissioner's assertion that "enough is enough, if bikies want to act like terrorists, then we will treat them like terrorists"?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: New South Wales already has some of the toughest anti-gang laws in the world, along with dedicated, well-trained police who are constantly working to shut down organised criminals. The success of the ongoing Operation Ranmore is evidence of this. The Government is always looking at powers that our police have to protect the community and to crack down on criminals, and we are watching the progress of the South Australian legislation closely. If something similar in New South Wales will help our police in their fight against the gangs, then I am determined to give police the powers they need. New South Wales police already have the toughest anti-gang laws that allow them to smash down fortified clubhouses and prosecute people associated with criminal gangs. 12994 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

In the past two years, from December 2006 until the end of January this year, the New South Wales Police Force gang squad laid 232 charges using existing anti-gang laws; 164 of those charges were for participating in a criminal group, and 40 were for assault while participating in the criminal activities of a gang. The New South Wales police record against gangs is the leading edge in this country. The Rees Government will not hesitate to provide all the necessary legislative and operational support that the police require to curtail gang activity in this State.

GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on efforts to support business in New South Wales during the global financial crisis.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: We are working hard, in partnership with business and the Federal Government, to put in place policies and initiatives that will see New South Wales through the global financial crisis. The New South Wales Government has a vital role to play by investing in jobs and infrastructure, and providing important front-line services. The State Government also has a vital role in maintaining confidence. We are achieving that by maintaining sound and coherent policies which send strong and consistent signals to both businesses and consumers, and which complement and support the Commonwealth's policies and initiatives. The main plank of our strategy is public investment, which in New South Wales will see capital spending go up to $56.9 billion over four years.

We have also put in place policies to support business—firm action that is vital in these times. A raft of policies by the New South Wales Labor Government has helped, and will continue to help, businesses to reduce costs and support the New South Wales economy. Cuts to workers compensation premiums of 30 per cent and exempting apprentices from premiums will support jobs and save businesses almost $1 billion this financial year. Cutting infrastructure levies will benefit the housing industry by $135 million over the next four years. The New South Wales Government boost to the first home owners grant and stamp duty exemptions brought $150 million worth of assistance for first home buyers in November and December 2008 alone.

The cuts to payroll tax will save businesses $1.9 billion over the next four years. On 1 January this year the Rees Government delivered the first of three planned cuts to payroll tax, with the tax rate reduced from 6 per cent to 5.75 per cent. We have budgeted to cut payroll tax further, to 5.65 per cent next year and to 5.5 per cent in 2011. It is worth remembering that the last time the Coalition held office the payroll tax rate in New South Wales was 7 per cent. The Government has also recently undertaken other payroll tax reforms to improve the competitiveness of New South Wales businesses. Last year the payroll tax threshold was increased to $623,000, and is now indexed annually based on movements in the Sydney consumer price index.

In 2006 the payroll tax incentive scheme was introduced, providing rebates to businesses that relocate to, or expand in, regions of New South Wales with higher than average unemployment. The rebate is worth up to $140,000 a year for the first three years, and a partial rebate is provided for the following two years. The reduction of payroll tax rates and indexation of the tax-free threshold mean that a New South Wales business with a $1 million payroll in 2008-09 will save about 20 per cent of their payroll tax bill once the program of tax cuts is fully implemented. The Government is committed to supporting businesses and supporting jobs, and will continue to work closely with the Federal Government in supporting its $42 billion fiscal stimulus package. New South Wales will receive about $14 billion, and we are committed to implementing that as quickly as possible, despite the fact that members opposite do not support the fiscal stimulus package. That is a disgrace.

Members opposite do not want to support social housing or education improvements in this State. However, the shadow Minister for Education and Training, Mr Piccoli, supports the stimulus package because of the great benefits to education. Clearly the Opposition does not know whether it does or does not support the stimulus package. The rest of the country has judged the package, and business and commentators have judged the package. The $42 billion stimulus package is right for this country at this time, and we are committed to implementing it as quickly as possible.

FLYING FOX LICENSING REVIEW

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that the final meeting of the Department of Environment and Climate Change Flying Fox Licensing Review Panel has been brought forward and will take place tomorrow, 6 March? Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern of horticulturalists that they will not have an ability to voice their 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12995

concerns and provide further submissions to the draft report after the meeting tomorrow? Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not change the current permit system until there is a fully funded, viable alternative?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Contrary to recent media reports, the shooting of flying foxes is not out of control. Indeed, the Department of Environment and Climate Change can and does issue licences to producers to shoot limited numbers of flying foxes as a method of mitigating commercial crop damage. Colonies of fruit bats are commonly found to cause damage to fruit crops in New South Wales as the bat's teeth are adapted to bite through fruit skins. I understand that horticulturalists are concerned that the licensing review will end shortly and may restrict industry's ability to consult further on this issue.

I say at the outset that farmers have a right to be concerned about any changes to existing arrangements. Flying foxes are known to cause fruit losses of up to 34 per cent in apple crops and up to 20 per cent in stone fruit crops in New South Wales. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries [DPI], in collaboration with Department of Environment and Climate Change [DECC], is conducting research into the damage done to fruit crops caused by flying foxes. However, the fact remains that shooting is currently the only viable control option for many growers in New South Wales, and that is why I support the existing licensing arrangements. While research is being carried out to determine the most cost-effective method of preventing damage to crops by bats, the existing licensing system to allow controlled shooting is absolutely essential to ensure the viability of New South Wales fruit producers. While nets are recommended as another damage mitigation strategy, they are extremely expensive for farmers to erect and not all crop terrain is suited to the installation of the nets. I understand that netting can cost as much as $50,000 per hectare to install.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is not very practical.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is correct. Obviously at that price, netting quickly becomes an unrealistic control option for most producers. I am advised that the New South Wales Flying Fox Consultative Committee, of which New South Wales DPI is a member, is in the process of developing codes of practice for the shooting of flying foxes. The codes of practice are intended to ensure shooting is conducted in a humane manner. I note that no evidence shows that using shooting as a control measure causes adverse impacts to flying fox species population numbers in the long term. In fact, the numbers of flying foxes controlled under licence do not go anywhere near the limits set by DECC. For those reasons, the Government is committed to ensuring licensed shooting remains available to farmers until such time as a viable alternative control measure is developed. To this end, the DPI will continue to do work with farmers to develop cost-effective solutions for the control of flying foxes.

LONG BAY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX PRISONER ESCAPE

Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Corrective Services. I refer to the reported escape from Long Bay jail last November. Minister, did the prisoner escape via the jail's front entrance? Does the closed circuit television footage of the front gate of Long Bay jail at the time of the escape show that the private security contractors staffing the gate were not checking all vehicles leaving the complex?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: It is my understanding that this matter has been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and I am unable to comment at this time.

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIME PREVENTION INITIATIVES

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. Will the Minister update the House on crime prevention initiatives across New South Wales?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: New South Wales has some of the best police in the world, with strong powers to crack down on criminal and antisocial activity. But the best way to reduce crime is to prevent crime in the first place. The Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Awards recognise initiatives from across the country aimed at reducing crime and violence, and keeping our communities safe. The heads of Australian governments and members of the Ministerial Council sponsor the annual awards for Police and Emergency Management. I am pleased to advise the House that there were seven winners from New South Wales in last year's national awards. All of the winning programs involved the New South Wales Police Force as project leaders, significant partners or as the supporting agency. The winners were acknowledged at a ceremony in 12996 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

Parliament House today. I was honoured to meet the hardworking police officers and community representatives who are so committed to the task of reducing crime and violence in our community. I am sure all my colleagues join me in acknowledging some of the award recipients who have joined us in the public gallery today.

Among the award winners recognised this morning was the Figtree Anglican Church for its Outreach Youth Program. For the past nine years the program has provided mentoring and support for young offenders and currently caters for 150 local youths at Friday night youth group. Matthew Broadbridge, who is in the gallery today, received the award and he is joined by Josh Lewis. Other awards went to the Walgett Mobile Police and Community Youth Club [PCYC], a purpose-built mobile van run by local police and the PCYC—it operates every second Thursday and Friday throughout Walgett—and by other PCYC officers from around the State.

Another award went to Campbelltown City Council for its "InSpiRE Mentor Program", which brings together local community organisations and government agencies to support young people in contact with the criminal justice system. The Police and Community Youth Clubs received an award for its project "Law of the Land" based at Fairfield that helps newly arrived African refugees and migrants understand the laws of New South Wales. The Coffs Harbour Police and Community Youth Club was recognised for its "Youth on the Go" project, which assists youth at risk and young offenders to take responsibility for their lives through training and employment programs. From Coffs Harbour Mick Bettison, Greg Brown and Senior Constable Steve Jeffery are in the gallery.

The New South Wales Police Force Far South Coast Local Area Command was also awarded for its project Wan-Ya Id-In-gee Kokoda Dreaming 2007. This project was led by the Police Force and supported by a range of government agencies, non-government organisations and leading community members. Local high schools were invited to nominate indigenous students in years 10, 11 and 12 to trek the Kokoda Track—

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Trail!

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Trail—it was originally the track.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: No, it was the trail.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Thirteen students were taken through a structured 12-month preparation program before undertaking this trek. Several of the participants have now taken on leadership roles within their schools. Finally, the Department of Community Services Canterbury/Bankstown Interagency Domestic Violence Response Team received an award. [Time expired.]

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The team is located at Bankstown Police Station and also works with Campsie police allowing Community Services staff and police to provide a real-time response to protect victims of domestic violence. Also in the gallery are Emily Lalor, Alia Nahas, Sam Zuhbi and Constable Glen Halloran. There can be no better example of how local people with some initiative and hard work can deliver innovative solutions to problems in their communities. The groups and individuals recognised by these awards are a wonderful example of how many people are making a difference for the better every day. I am sure that every member of this House joins me in congratulating these local volunteers and community members on their work.

TWEED RIVER ENTRANCE SAND BYPASS PROJECT

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police, and Minister for Lands. Is the Minister scheduled to soon meet the Australian Labor Party candidate for the Queensland seat of Currumbin? In what capacity is the Minister meeting Labor's Currumbin candidate? Given the dire situation in which New South Wales is placed, what advice is worthy for the Minister to pass on to Queensland Labor and its candidates at this time? If the Minister is planning to discuss the Tweed sand bypass, why have two Labor governments on either side of the border that have had years to fix it, not fixed it? What, if anything, is the Minister proposing to do about that issue?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will not be meeting with the candidate in Queensland.

ENERGY DISTRIBUTORS

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Energy. Did the Minister or his department communicate with three energy distributors with respect to the capital works component of 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12997

their submission to the Australian Energy Regulator's inquiry into distribution charges? Did the Minister or his department see the submissions before they were sent to the Australian Energy Regulator? Did the Minister or his department at any time suggest that less money should be spent on the investment in traditional poles and wires to connect consumers to coal-fired power stations that would undermine distribution generation such as renewable energy? Did the Minister or his department at any time suggest that the focus would be better spent on smart grids, demand management and improved energy efficiency?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have not personally communicated on any of those matters with the relevant regulators. As the member would know, recently the Government has been evaluating the economic value of having renewable energy located fairly close to the grid to reduce the connection costs of any major proposal. It might be recalled that some of that arose from the Epuron proposal at Broken Hill to put up I think about 1,000 wind generators on the Mundi Mundi Plains. Upon investigation it was found that the capital cost of that escalated dramatically when the cost of connection of the project to the grid was taken into account, which was estimated at the time to be $1.7 billion. We have been looking at issues such as connectivity of projects to the grid, but I certainly have not had contact with the Australian Energy Regulator [AER] in relation to some of the other specifics. I think some of these matters might fall within the purview of the Treasurer, but I will see what I can find in our department in relation to the matter.

GREY NURSE SHARK BREEDING PROGRAM

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister update the House on the breeding program for the endangered grey nurse shark?

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: We want the data.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Opposition is very keen on this. The value of the breeding trials being conducted at the Department of Primary Industries Port Stephens Fisheries Institute to help this critically endangered species cannot be underestimated. The grey nurse shark has a rather unique and most peculiar reproductive cycle, which involves intra-uterine cannibalism where embryos eat each other inside the mother's uteri after hatching.

Members will recall my excitement last year on informing the House of the successful transfer of late-stage wobbegong shark embryos into an artificial uterus in a world-first technique. While the wobbegong shark is not an endangered species, it is being used as a model with a view to applying this technology to the critically endangered grey nurse shark species. The early stage of the wobbegong's reproductive cycle is similar to that of the grey nurse shark and thus provides important information to scientists and others and offers huge potential for the species. I am pleased to update members on the progress of the wobbegong pups and inform the House of several important milestones that were achieved through this program recently.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What are their names?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Charlie, I will allow you to name the males, okay? There are three females and three males. In September 2008 New South Wales Department of Primary Industries researchers successfully placed six late-stage wobbegong embryos into a world-first artificial shark uterus. The wobbegong embryos continued their development in the shark artificial uterus for two and half weeks prior to being born and released into large holding tanks. Following birth, the survival and growth rates of the shark pups have being monitored and compared to the wobbegong pups that were born naturally in captivity. I am pleased to announce that data collected last month showed that all pups were surviving and feeding well. Furthermore, the average weight of the pups born from the artificial uterus is not different from the pups born naturally in captivity. Importantly, these results show that the time spent in the artificial uterus has had no long-lasting effects on the sharks.

The next stage of this novel and exciting research will look at early stage wobbegong embryos to ensure that the artificial uterus can also function with much more delicate embryos. This world-first revolutionary approach is another example of the New South Wales Government continuing to look at innovative ways to recover the grey nurse shark population. The project has the support of Sea World on the Gold Coast, the Natal Sharks Board and the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa.

I am proud to say that the New South Wales Government is literally leading the way when it comes to shark research. The New South Wales Government was the first in the world to protect the grey nurse shark, 12998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

placing it on the protected species list in 1984. In addition to the breeding trials, the Government has invested in a wide range of management actions in an effort to prevent the extinction of the species. The Department of Primary Industries has conducted an extensive research program on the east coast population of grey nurse sharks over the past seven years. The New South Wales Government has implemented sanctuary zones, declared 10 critical habitat sites along the New South Wales coast and more recently introduced new restrictions on commercial fishing methods considered to be medium to high risk near grey nurse shark aggregation sites. Research shows that grey nurse sharks tend to be highly migratory and, as such, fishing closures are only part of the Government's commitment to protecting the species.

There have been exciting opportunities to use the latest in technology and research techniques, including the use of pop-up archival satellite tags, which contain an on-board computer that is temporarily attached to grey nurse sharks and allows the transmission of data to New South Wales Department of Primary Industries scientists. Further, we are utilising SEACAMS—the South East Australian Coastal Acoustic Monitoring System—involving 68 acoustic listening stations located at critical grey nurse shark habitat sites along the New South Wales coast. These stations pick up and receive data from tagged grey nurse sharks and to date have been working effectively with data obtained from 32 tagged grey nurse sharks.

MATHEMATICS TEACHER SHORTAGE

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, on behalf of the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware of the worrying evidence that shows an increasing number of State schools are turning away bright students who want to study advanced mathematics due to a lack of qualified teachers? Is the Minister aware that 40 per cent of senior school mathematics teachers do not have a maths major at tertiary level? In particular, is the Minister aware that the 2007 Trends in International Mathematics and Science study shows achievement scores in year 8 mathematics have steadily declined since 1995 compared to the United States and the United Kingdom? Given the Federal Government's commitment to educational revolution, can the Minister explain why New South Wales students will have brand new laptops in their classrooms, but no qualified mathematics teachers? Can the Minister inform the House what policies are being implemented to address the shortage of qualified mathematics teachers in New South Wales and prevent a growing disparity in access to mathematics education across the public and private education systems? [Time expired.]

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the honourable member for the question. I will refer it to the Minister in the other place.

SECRETARY OF TREASURY UNDERTAKINGS

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that the then acting Secretary of Treasury, Michael Schur, undertook to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 at its supplementary estimates hearing on 17 November 2008 to supply various documents, modelling and other material to the committee? Is the Treasurer also aware that Mr Schur's undertakings were subsequently breached and the material was not supplied to the committee? If the Treasurer is not aware of these matters, will he make an inquiry and respond to the House? What confidence can the House have in Mr Schur when his undertakings under oath to a committee of this House are breached?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: There is a global financial crisis across the world—

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Go back to the estimates.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Every responsible government in the world is dealing with the global financial crisis, both national and State governments, and what we see here is an attack on someone who has just been elevated to the position of Secretary of Treasury. As was pointed out by interjection, the appropriate place to take this up is at the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. Let us look at the issues that the Opposition has grappled with today. Flying foxes—that has been a big issue today—and now a personal attack on the new Secretary of Treasury. Let me say this about him—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It may well be an attack on you. You've got form.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The king of smear has been well behaved until today. 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 12999

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You've got form in this area.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: And you've got the king of smear crown. I want to say this about Mr Schur: He is a man of the highest standard. He meets all of his obligations and will continue to serve the people of New South Wales. These are very trying times for any government during an economic emergency and that is why we are working hand-in-hand with the Federal Government to make sure that we can pump every dollar possible into the New South Wales economy, and we will continue to do so. These personal attacks should be treated in the most appropriate way, with disdain.

SENTENCING CRIMINAL OFFENDERS

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on the sentencing of criminal offenders?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: We have increased penalties for a range of serious offences and were the first jurisdiction to introduce standard non-parole periods. Our approach is yielding results. Our courts are now more likely to send serious offenders to prison than is any other State or Territory in the country. In fact, a recent study by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research shows our courts are now sending more offenders to prison and for longer periods than they were 15 years ago. Also recorded crime statistics show that during the past two years 16 out of the 17 major offence categories have fallen or are stable. The Opposition continues to prove itself incapable of developing consistent approaches to these issues. We are all aware of their failed attempts over the past few years in relation to policy on crime.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You are scared of Greg Smith, aren't you? That is what this is leading to. Let's get into it. Come on, that is where you are going.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am a fan of yours; you know that. I have to say that despite the interjections of the Leader of the Opposition we all know that the Opposition had previously made repeated attempts to have mandatory sentencing as their policy. While the Government has a strong record on being tough on serious offenders, we have consistently opposed mandatory sentencing because it does not work. We do know that in other jurisdictions juries are reluctant to make findings of guilt when the sanction is predetermined. In this way the flow-on effect of mandatory sentencing could be a spike in the number of acquittals. The Opposition, however, has a longstanding commitment to mandatory sentencing, which was revealed on 8 January when the member for Epping broke ranks and was quoted—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I knew you were going to do that.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I just wanted to know what your reaction was, Michael, because the member for Epping broke ranks and was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying that hardline sentencing and prison policies had failed. He had this to say about mandatory sentencing:

I don't go along with any of that. It was something [the Coalition] looked at but they lost. Let's face it, these things did not win them elections.

The Opposition had its shadow Minister make that statement, but the shadow police Minister must have been choking on his cornflakes when he read those comments.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I back Greg Smith 100 per cent of the way.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Including those comments?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: He is spot on.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Including those comments?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I am already on the airwaves.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Including those comments, "I don't go along with any of that. It was something that [the Coalition] looked at but they lost. Let's face it, these things did not win them elections"? That is very interesting. The Leader of the Opposition has item No. 17 outside the order of preference on the Notice Paper in which he says:

That this House notes that the Government has failed to adopt the Coalition policy of mandatory life sentences …

13000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: For police.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: So much for consistency. We have a motion from the Leader of the Opposition saying that the Coalition has a policy of mandatory sentencing and we have a statement from Mr Smith in January saying, "I don't go along with any of that."

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: I am very happy for the Minister to quote me, but it is mandatory sentencing for people who kill police officers.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is well aware that that is not a point of order.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Parliament has been back for a couple of days since Greg Smith made his comments and yet the Hon. Michael Gallacher has not withdrawn his motion, so we need to know what is going on. Is the shadow Cabinet confused about its policy regarding mandatory sentencing or does Mike Gallacher have the strength of character to defy Greg Smith and bring his motion to a vote?

SYDNEY MARDI GRAS

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I wish to ask the Minister for Police, representing the Hon. John Della Bosca who represents the Premier, a question without notice. On 11 November 2008 I asked a question regarding tax dollars being donated to New Mardi Gras Ltd despite that commercial organisation making an estimated profit of over half a million dollars, which this year will be used for the 2009 Mardi Gras parade that will ridicule the Christian Church, the Catholic Sisters and Princess Mary of Denmark. Does the Minister acknowledge that the economic situation has changed dramatically both within New South Wales and internationally and that all proposed expenditure should be reviewed? What will the Sydney Mardi Gras 2009 cost New South Wales taxpayers and City of Sydney ratepayers through grants and special facilities such as police, security and road closures? Will the Government cancel the remaining and future funding for New Mardi Gras Ltd— [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY KELLY: There are parts of that question that I will certainly pass on to the Premier. The Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is a popular iconic Sydney event that attracts large numbers of participants and tens of thousands of spectators to Sydney each year. This event is the highlight of the gay and lesbian calendar and is a community-supported event. Many police officers attend in a personal capacity and the New South Wales Police Force is officially represented in the parade by the gay and lesbian liaison officers, who march each year as a positive statement to the gay and lesbian community. These officers are a vital arm of the organisation, assisting local area commands with the investigation of crimes against gays and lesbians as well as working with the community to maintain positive relationships.

Oxford Street will be an alcohol-free zone during the parade this Saturday and police will be focusing on alcohol and drug-related offences. The New South Wales Police Force's Operation Bolten will employ a contingent of about 800 police during the event, both in uniform and plain clothes, all working to ensure public safety and keep the peace. This will include officers from general duties, the mounted police unit, dog squad, Polair, licensing, commuter crime unit, highway patrol, and public order and riot squad officers. Participants and spectators at the Mardi Gras parade deserve to enjoy the event without being harassed by drunk or antisocial elements. The organisers of the parade work closely with police to ensure a successful and celebratory event. Police will not tolerate any antisocial or unlawful behaviour. I will pass other parts of the question to the Premier.

SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE POSITIONS

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. I refer to his answer in the House yesterday in which he said, "…we are absolutely committed to our proposed senior executive service cuts". Is the Treasurer aware of the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet's memorandum C2008-41 entitled "Reduction in Senior Executive Service Positions", which states "Effective from today and until further notice agency Chief Executive Officers are not to create any additional Senior Officer positions"? Why then has the Chief Executive Officer of WorkCover, Jon Blackwell, created several senior officer positions for some who were previously on senior executive service contracts?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: All economies around the world are dealing with falling revenues as a result of the global financial crisis. Ensuring that revenues and expenses are aligned is the task of all 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13001

responsible governments. It is essential to mitigate risk going forward. Part of last year's mini-budget was a savings measure designed to reduce the size of the chief executive service [CES] and senior executive service [SES] levels by 20 per cent. Implementation of this policy involves the reduction of a number of CES and SES positions. At the end of February 2009, more than 90 per cent of the positions identified in the Department of Premier and Cabinet had been trimmed. The mini-budget estimated savings of $17.1 million in 2008-09 and $34.2 million a year from 2009-10.

ASIAN PRISON SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question without notice is to the Minister for Corrective Services. Will the Minister inform the House about what the Department of Corrective Services is doing to support the development of effective prison systems in Asia?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am pleased to report to the House on the outstanding work of the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services in assisting its counterparts in some of our Asian neighbours to develop their own effective prison systems. This work of the department has been in coordination with the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It has involved the department providing training and consultancy services to its counterpart agencies in more than 20 countries. The most vital relationships have been with prison authorities in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, China and Singapore. At a time when our region faces the threat of terrorism, this is vital work.

It is clear that the operations of the prison systems by the Department of Corrective Services are now considered as among world's best practice. Commissioner Woodham and the front-line officers in the Department of Corrective Services should be congratulated on their ongoing hard work. The assistance that the department is providing includes the training of prison officers and management at the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services academy, secondment of departmental officers to positions within the corrections system in those countries and departmental officers providing consultancy and training services on the establishment of a parole model, which is the same as that established in New South Wales.

In November last year the Indonesian law and human rights Minister visited Long Bay Correctional Centre. During this visit the Minister expressed a strong interest in strengthening cooperation between the New South Wales and Indonesian correctional authorities. As a result, two senior officers of the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services will soon commence a secondment to the Indonesian corrections academy in Jakarta. The importance of such measures to our region is reflected by the fact that the necessary costs of the secondment will be borne by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

In June last year, 20 Indonesian prison officers attended a training course at the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services academy. This training course allowed the department to pass on its expertise in a range of areas to the Indonesian officers, including the appropriate management of terrorist prisoners, how to deal effectively with young and female offenders and ensuring that high-risk and violent offenders are dealt with safely. Such bilateral training is an effective means of helping to build stronger prison management capacity. The placement of the two Department of Corrective Services prison officers will enable authorities in Indonesia to address some of their biggest challenges, including cooperation between corrections and the criminal justice system, addressing rehabilitation of inmates, monitoring of inmate activities and other issues relating to the management of running an efficient corrections system.

Officers Wayne Crichton and Paul Bonnett will be working closely with Indonesian prison officers and I am sure that their expertise will be gratefully received. It is clear that the Department of Corrective Services has a vital role to play in assisting these nations grapple with the challenges of handling criminal elements in society. New South Wales is an expert in this field and it is exporting that expertise to the world through this innovative program coordinated by the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services.

OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANG LEGISLATION

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police. Given it has been reported that the Government might introduce new laws giving police additional powers to charge members of bikie gangs and motorbike clubs, and last month the Minister told ABC Radio that the Government had already strengthened laws significantly and Operation Ranmore had been running for 18 months, will the Minister guarantee that he will wait until there has been a proper evaluation of the 2008 South Australian laws, 13002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

described as draconian and reminiscent of the McCarthy era by civil libertarians in the South Australian Law Society, to test their effectiveness before enacting new laws designed to boost the law and order image of this Government?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As I indicated earlier, the Government is examining new laws relating to outlaw motorcycle gangs. Ms Lee Rhiannon referred to Operation Ranmore, which has been very successful. Over the past 18 months there have been 2,000 arrests and 890 people have been arrested. This Government is constantly looking at revising the laws. One of the things at which it is looking is the operation of the South Australian law. As the member rightly pointed out, the part of that law that outlaws gangs is still being tested.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Declared organisations.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The South Australian Government has not used that part of the law relating to declared organisations; it is still being tested.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Yes, it has been.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: No, it has not.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It has declared one. It has not yet taken it to the next stage.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: If the South Australian Government is to apply that part of the law it has to consult with the public, and it is in that process. It has not yet gone through that process. We have a long way to go to ensure whether those South Australian laws are effective. We will certainly be looking at them but, as I said, we are also constantly looking at our own laws.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister for Police wait until the South Australian laws have been evaluated—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: The member, who is very experienced in this place, knows the standing orders back to front. She is simply repeating the question; she is not asking a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind honourable members that under Standing Order 64 (4), at the discretion of the President, one supplementary question may be immediately put by the member who asked a question to elucidate an answer. The supplementary question must arise from information in the Minister's answer, not simply repeat a part of the question. As I understand it, the member was repeating a section of her earlier question. Therefore, I uphold the point of order.

WORKCOVER AGENT CONTRACTS

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Does the Minister know that WorkCover New South Wales is currently negotiating its agent contracts, which amount to millions of dollars in contracts to successful insurance companies? During those negotiations WorkCover's Chief Executive Officer, Jon Blackwell, asked insurance companies to contribute funds to a Habitat for Humanity project on which he is working in Nepal. Will the Minister assure the House that those insurance companies that did not contribute funds to Mr Blackwell's activities will be treated fairly and awarded WorkCover contracts if they meet the tender requirements?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. Marie Ficarra obviously does not know that I do not have responsibility for WorkCover. She should direct her question to the appropriate Minister.

WEED AND PEST CONTROL

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Will the Minister provide details on the Rees Government's efforts to protect native wildlife and control the spread of weeds and pests on Crown land?

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Weeds and pests—that sounds like members of the National party. 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13003

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Michael Veitch. Almost half the land in New South Wales is Crown land and, as such, the State Government takes seriously its responsibility as a major landholder. It is our duty to protect native wildlife and the various vegetative environments such as wetlands, rainforests and rangelands, and State parks. Looking after our environment and native vegetation is extremely important. The Rees Government is committed to sustainable management of Crown land for the benefit of current and future generations. As part of this commitment, the Rees Government is investing $895,000 this year to control weeds and pests, which have the potential of impacting on the natural environment and other landholders' property.

This funding is split $585,000 for weeds and $190,000 for pests, and a further $120,000 is available for a series of smaller weed or pest projects as part of the good neighbour approach to land management. A total of 148 weed eradication projects will be carried out by local councils and weeds county councils, Crown reserve trusts, government agencies and community groups. I know that my colleague the Hon. Christine Robertson, the new chair of the Country Labor parliamentary group, who has been a tireless advocate for landholders in western New South Wales, will welcome more than $39,000 for weed, pest and feral animal programs in the western region. Similarly, Mr President, you have advocated on behalf of landholders in Hawkesbury, where $18,500 has been allocated for weed control programs.

I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Rick Colless will join their communities in welcoming more than $25,000 for crucial weed and pest control programs in their region—more evidence of the Rees Government's commitment to rural and regional New South Wales. Some of these funds will be used to target noxious weeds such as bitu bush, serrated tussock, blackberry, alligator weed, lantana and willows. Rural lands protection boards, trusts, local councils, government agencies and community groups will carry out 58 pest eradication projects. Targeted pest programs include fox threat abatement and regional wild dog plans, cooperative rabbit control schemes and programs to control emerging pests on Crown land such as pigs, goats, cane toads and feral cats.

Projects will also protect and enhance communities of threatened native plants and animals, such as the pied oystercatcher, the hooded plover and the brush-tailed rock wallaby. Many lands under the control of the Department of Lands are infested with weeds. As part of our good neighbour policy, the Department of Lands is committed to working to prevent the spread of these weeds. In practice this often means eradication as many of the worst weeds are spread easily by a variety of means. Funding for the weeds programs is provided by the Department of Lands with the assistance of the Department of Primary Industries through its Noxious Weeds Advisory Committee. Much of the work on the ground is carried out by local groups working with State agencies. I thank them for their continued cooperation and assistance in administering these weed control programs.

TWEED RIVER ENTRANCE SAND BYPASSING PROJECT

Mr IAN COHEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Lands. Will the Minister indicate whether McConnell Dowell Constructors, the contractors for the Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing project, is remunerated on the basis of volume of sand pumped and dredged? If yes, does profit-based pumping compromise environmental and recreational values? Why have we seen a 30 per cent increase in delivery of sand between 2007 and 2008 when the Queensland Government and Opposition recently publicly accepted concerns about the adverse impact of excess sand on the internationally acclaimed surfing and recreational values of Kirra Beach? Has the Minister ever requested the sand bypassing contractor to reduce pumping levels to protect environmental or tourism values?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's a pity you're not going up there.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I did not say that.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Oh! So you're meeting him in New South Wales?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I did not say that. I said I am not meeting him.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: In Queensland?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am not meeting him. 13004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Accidentally bumping into him.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am not meeting him. I just did not tell you where I am going. I thank the member for his question, a much more intelligent question than the previous one on this matter. I have joint statutory responsibilities with the Queensland Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation under the Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypass project. In accordance with these responsibilities, I have periodic discussions regarding the operations and outcomes of that project. On or around 16 February 2009 Minister McNamara requested a meeting with me by teleconference to discuss issues relating to the impact of the sand bypass on Kirra Beach, as alluded to by the member. It was agreed that as Minister I would arrange to meet with him the next time I was in the Tweed region to discuss issues further. Subsequently, on 23 February the Queensland Premier called an early election. I was advised that the meeting with Minister McNamara would not proceed because of his election campaign commitments.

Mr Ian Cohen: Can you answer the question though about volume?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: There is a long-term contract that both governments are locked into that was based on environmental studies at the time. After the election the Queensland Minister and I will discuss the contract.

PORT MACQUARIE PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing. Regarding the proposal to build almost 100 public housing apartments in three multi-storey buildings in Port Macquarie, will the Minister guarantee that no further Housing New South Wales developments are planned for the Town Beach precinct, particularly in light of the changes to State environmental planning policies infrastructure that now allows certain housing developments to bypass local council approval? Why is Housing New South Wales involved in speculative consolidation of property or land banking?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Unlike the socioeconomic thinking of the honourable member, one would think that the only housing worth doing is for the absolute rich up on the points around Coffs Harbour. At least in Coffs Harbour there is a member who will do a little more than what Melinda Pavey would do if she ever got through the mess of The Nationals to get preselected! There would be a lot more mess over the next couple of years. I cannot wait.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The Minister was asked a question about housing in Port Macquarie. He has not come within a bull's roar of being even generally relevant in his answer, let alone relevant, which is what the standing orders say. I ask you, Mr President, to draw him back to the subject matter of the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Previous Presidents have ruled that answers must be generally relevant. Therefore, I ask the Minister to be generally relevant.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There is nothing generally relevant about Coffs Harbour.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Quite clearly they are very worried and touchy about this issue. For the Hon. Don Harwin to weigh in on an issue clearly means it is of profound importance to the Coalition's good health. I am really pleased that this question was asked because it gives us a chance to reflect on what The Nationals are actually doing up in that area.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Not much.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: They are not doing much, other than squabbling. I noticed in the Land of 5 February an interesting article about Coffs Harbour. I think The Nationals wanted to change its voting rules or something to get Melinda into the other House. I thought she was having a good enough time here, without trying to desert us and run in the lower House and support that little gang of four they refer to in the Land.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: The new-age Nats. 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13005

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I think Mr Humphries, Mr Piccoli—an absolute tight and fierce country member—Melinda and someone else whose name escapes me were there.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: This answer really does stretch any issue regarding relevance. I ask you, Mr President, to ask the Minister to come back to the question and be generally relevant in his answer rather than simply waffling on.

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thought I was being generally relevant. This is an issue of utmost importance to the Coalition: Now the Leader of the Opposition has to come in to help The Nationals.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I was reluctant to enter into this, but the Hon. Amanda Fazio requested that I take the point of order, and I am not one to let her down. The Minister has not come within a bull's roar of answering the question. The question was about Port Macquarie. It is an important question about housing. If you, Mr President, will not bring him back to the subject matter of the question, the people of New South Wales certainly will.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will conclude my remarks by suggesting that this House enlist photographer Charlie Lynn to go up to Coffs Harbour and check out what is going on up there, including taking some photographs of Melinda and the current member in full flight. I will refer the question to the Minister. [Time expired.]

CONSUMER FOOD LAWS PROTECTION

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister inform the House what action the Government is taking to protect New South Wales consumers from businesses that break food laws in this State?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the honourable member for his serious question. As the House knows, the New South Wales Government has shown it is serious about food safety with important reforms it has introduced in the past 18 months. Firstly, the Government has ensured that all New South Wales consumers are protected with a uniform, seamless food regulatory regime. Secondly, the Government has empowered consumers with easily accessible information about the food safety performance of food businesses. The name and shame website that lists non-compliant food businesses has been tremendously successful at sharing compliance failure information, and the popularity of this website demonstrates the public's interest in this area. But the Government is not resting on its laurels; it is getting on with the business of seeking out dodgy food outlets that cut corners, rip-off consumers and potentially put consumer health at risk.

I stress that the overwhelming majority of food businesses in this State are doing the right thing and are to be congratulated, but the handful of rogues who do not do the right thing by consumers are getting caught. If they have not already been caught, it is only a matter of time before the Food Authority, or our partners in local government, catch up with them.

I report to the House that, as always, the Food Authority has been very active over the past three months in cracking down on unscrupulous and unsafe food businesses right across the State. To lift the performance of food businesses the authority and councils have a range of regulatory tools at their disposal, ranging from warnings through to prosecutions for serious breaches of food laws. In the three months since November 2008, the authority has issued 30 warning letters, one probation order and 221 improvement notices. It has also issued a further 38 penalty notices worth approximately $20,000 in fines, and all of the offences have been published on the authority's name-and-shame website.

For more serious food offences, the authority pursues cases through the courts. In the past two years it has had a 100 per cent success rate with more than 120 criminal charges—worth more than $500,000 in fines and legal costs—being imposed on offenders. Since November 2008 the authority has been successful in securing convictions against two defendants who have fallen foul of the law. One is a butcher in Auburn who was convicted of six charges of illegal use in mince of the preservative sulphur dioxide, SO2, and fined more than $11,000. SO2 is used to turn old or substandard mince an appealing red colour. It can be very dangerous for people who have allergies because they have no way of knowing that it is in the product. The authority has waged a concerted campaign against this unscrupulous practice, which has led to a dramatic drop in occurrence. 13006 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

The second successful prosecution involves the notorious Homebush bakery incidents whereby a husband and wife couple were fined $42,000 for causing the worst food poisoning outbreak in New South Wales. In that incident more than 300 people became sick from eating contaminated raw egg mayonnaise, despite the business having received earlier directions about poor food handling practice and having ignored them. The court ruled that the impact of the salmonella outbreak was "extremely serious" and "could have easily been even more serious" with long-term consequences. In both cases, the offenders paid dearly, not only in terms of heavy fines and legal costs but also in having their reputations tarnished. In one case, the business no longer operates.

These two examples and other successful prosecutions by the Food Authority have been publicised on the authority's website since July 2007. In conclusion, let me reiterate that we much prefer cooperation to prosecution, but a few mavericks who refuse to work with us, or who think they are above the law and can put consumers at risk or fleece them, will be brought to justice.

SUPREME COURT STAFF DISMISSAL

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yesterday the Hon. Marie Ficarra asked me a question about an industrial dispute involving five casual Supreme Court officers. I am advised that the Government has not received notification of the dispute before the Industrial Relations Commission in relation to the positions of five Supreme Court officers.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: If members have further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business Item No. 181 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to a call for papers concerning the Hurlstone Agricultural High School, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That Private Members Business Item No. 181 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

HURLSTONE AGRICULTURAL HIGH SCHOOL FARM LAND SALE

Production of Documents: Order

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents created since January 2004 in the possession, custody and control of the Minister for Education and Training, the Department of Education and Training, the Treasurer, NSW Treasury, the Premier, or the Department of Premier and Cabinet, relating to Hurlstone Agricultural High School:

(a) all documents relating to any proposal for the sale or lease of land at Hurlstone Agricultural High School,

(b) all documents relating to past, current or future land use at Hurlstone Agricultural High School, other than as a high school,

(c) all documents relating to community consultation or community opinion concerning the sale or lease of land at Hurlstone Agricultural High School,

(d) all documents relating to the decision to include Hurlstone Agricultural High School in the Government’s accelerated sale of surplus land program,

5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13007

(e) all documents related to development proposals for Hurlstone Agricultural High School land,

(f) all documents relating to flood mitigation and risks at Glenfield, Bunbury Curran Creek and Hurlstone,

(g) all documents relating to any proposed alternative use of land at Hurlstone Agricultural High School,

(h) any documents relating to the local and heritage significance of Hurlstone Agricultural High School and its property, and

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.33 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business Item No. 183 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the censure of the Premier for failing to take immediate action to address climate change be called on forthwith.

This is an urgent matter that should be debated today. The Greens have moved this motion to debate a motion to censure Premier Nathan Rees for his Government's failure to take immediate action on climate change and to halt the runaway expansion of the New South Wales coal industry. One of the first statements of Premier Rees when he took office was that he would deal with climate change. We have waited six months for action to be taken, but nothing has been done. There has been no substantive action. That is why this censure motion should be debated as a matter of urgency today.

The urgency of this matter is apparent every day. Premier Rees has a responsibility to act on climate change. The burning and mining of coal contributes approximately 40 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. The urgency of dealing with runaway climate change has been established. NASA climate scientist Dr James Hansen has written to the Premier warning that the only way to mitigate climate change is to completely cease burning coal for the generation of electricity and halt greenhouse gas emission. Premier Nathan Rees deserves urgent censure for escalating the expansion of the New South Wales coal industry. Members owe it to future generations to debate this censure motion today so that our grandchildren can judge the Premier's actions and note our condemnation.

This motion is urgent because when Premier Rees came to office, New South Wales already was on a dangerous path. Last year alone, reckless expansion of the coal industry resulted in 12 new coalmines being approved, which will result in a massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions—an additional 80 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that will be pumped into the earth's atmosphere when the coal is burnt. This matter is urgent because the House should debate censuring the Premier over his failed leadership on climate change, his failure to immediately halt any further coalmining approvals, his failure to instruct his Government to place a moratorium on new coalmines and undertake a thorough cumulative impact assessment of the risk that any further expansion poses to the climate and the economy, and his failure to develop a transition package that will create clean energy for manufacturing and sustainable jobs growth.

This is a matter of urgency because the Premier has misled the people of New South Wales. He has spoken about his commitment to acting on climate change, but he has failed to act. In October 2008, shortly after taking on the role of Premier, Mr Rees declared that the Costa era of ambiguity around the issue of climate change was over. I recognise that climate change is reality and that the New South Wales Government should prepare for it. There is no longer a climate change sceptic at the centre of government decision-making in this State. This matter must be dealt with today. The Premier has been in the job for six months and he has failed to take substantive action on climate change.

The House has a responsibility to debate this motion today. We cannot wait any longer. I urge every member of this House to grant leave to debate this motion, thereby affording all members of the House an opportunity to speak on the most urgent issue facing our communities, the economic fabric of our society, and the future of our planet. The urgency of this matter has been recognised by the public. There is overwhelming public support for strong and immediate action to be taken on climate change. The Premier needs to show courage and vision in handling such a massive problem. This matter is urgent and we should not delay this debate. Since the House adjourned in 2008, many renowned climate change experts have revised their original assessments of the immediacy of climate change impacts and have stated that the impending climate crisis is far worse and more immediate than at first thought. 13008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

This issue deserves to be debated today. Unless the Premier deals with runaway climate change and develops a transition away from the coal industry, he will jeopardise Australia's response to the global economic crisis. Managing the economy cannot be divorced from the damaging impact of climate change and peak oil. History will judge this Government's action on climate change and its unchallenging support for the expansionary greed of the coal industry in direct contravention of opinions from world experts who warn of the environmental and economic damage the world will face if we do not take immediate action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

It is urgent that the Premier start right away to lead a transition away from coal and towards new manufacturing jobs and new investment in clean green energy industries, such as solar energy, wind farms and public transport. The New South Wales love affair with the coal industry has become toxic. This State is a major driver of climate change. It urgently needs to stop. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.38 p.m.]: Let us be clear about the urgency motion: It is nothing more than a stunt and an example of further horse trading between the Coalition and the Greens over the business of this House. We have had three days of private members' business. The standing orders provide for an orderly queue that allows us to debate a number of motions. This urgency motion has been quickly sorted out by members on the way into the Chamber. The matter is not urgent. This motion is nothing more than a stunt and it is being used opportunistically by the Opposition for a free kick. We will see what the quid pro quo is for it later. The matter is certainly not urgent and does not need to be debated this afternoon.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.40 p.m.]: The Opposition will support the motion being debated urgently. However, if and when the substantive motion gets up, we will not be supporting it. But as Edmund Burke said, we might not agree with what you say but we will fight passionately for your right to say it.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [2.40 p.m.]: The Government and the Opposition—I deliberately exclude the Greens from this—work hard to come up with a program that we can go through systematically to deal with matters. At the end of the day the Greens come before this House time and time again asserting the importance of dealing with motions and bills, for example, Ms Sylvia Hale's bill and Mr Kaye's food amendment bill. The Greens simply want to hijack the program. They simply jump over it like a rabbit appearing out of a hat and argue for urgency for one of their motions. Clearly, the Government's position is that we will work through the matters listed in the program for this afternoon. In conclusion, I point out the absolute hypocrisy. We should start to take the Greens seriously when, for example, they explain why their colleagues in Europe are now supporting—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: Although I would be fascinated to hear the member's opinion on the Greens in Europe–it would make an interesting debating point on the substantive motion—we are now debating urgency, and the position of the Greens in Europe is not relevant to that.

The PRESIDENT: Order! When debating a procedural motion members should restrict their comments to the motion and not the substance of the matter.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I was concluding my remarks before I was rudely interrupted by Dr John Kaye. The position is that the Greens in Europe are now supporting nuclear energy.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: The member is clearly flouting your ruling. You instructed him to be relevant to the urgency motion, and he is clearly wandering beyond that. I ask you to bring him back to the question of relevance, and ask him to cease flouting your ruling.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Greg Donnelly will debate the procedural motion. I will uphold my ruling consistently throughout the debate.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I think I have concluded my remarks. Clearly, the Government will vote against the Greens motion.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.43 p.m.]: The urgency of this motion arises from three separate issues. The first issue is the global financial crisis, the second is the science of climate change, and the third is the development of coal exports and coal-fired power stations in New South Wales. Each of those three issues makes this matter exceptionally urgent. In response to arguments put forward by the Government, I point out that debate on my 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13009

bill is being interrupted to enable this motion to proceed. However, I support the motion being debated urgently because it is indeed urgent. Climate change and what science is telling us about climate change completely transcend all other issues. If we get it wrong on climate change, if this Chamber does not take the time to debate climate change, we will end up passing on to all people in New South Wales into the future a grossly degraded State and a State that cannot deliver health, education and services because its economy and its environment will have been so badly damaged.

As my colleague Lee Rhiannon pointed out, the second issue is the development of coalmines. Every day that we do not debate this issue, every day that we do not put pressure on the Government to retract from the business of developing new coalmines means more carbon dioxide going into the earth's atmosphere. More coalmines means that more coal will be burnt, either a quarter of it here in New South Wales or three-quarters through the export market. More coal burnt means more carbon dioxide. It makes the matter excessively urgent because large tracts of agricultural land in New South Wales are currently on the chopping block to go to coalmines. The third aspect is the global financial crisis. We are facing massive unemployment in this State. If we do not act soon on developing a renewable energy industry, on developing those 73,800 jobs that the University of Newcastle predicts could be in renewable energy and energy efficiency, those jobs will go overseas.

Every day, every moment that we let go by is another job going overseas. If we care about working Australians and the economic future of this State, we will give this motion urgency. We will censure the Premier to put pressure on him to ensure that this State becomes not a rust State, a State of massive unemployment, but a world leader in renewable energy. If the House denies leave to bring on this motion, yet one more day will go by in which jobs are lost, the climate is further degraded, more coalmines are developed, more carbon dioxide is released in the atmosphere, and there is more global warming. We cannot continue to ignore the science of global warming. I know that some members present reject the science of global warming. But let us debate that. Surely there is nothing more urgent than debating climate change and making up our own minds.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.46 p.m.]: I oppose this motion. As other speakers have said, the Greens are seeking urgently to control the agenda of the upper House. That is the urgency. I assume that the 15 per cent poll that the Greens received has given them a new burst of enthusiasm to try to take over the upper House. The honest point of this motion is that it will have no effect on climate change. It is simply a motion to censure the Premier; it will have no effect whatever on climate change in Australia. So the whole argument that this matter is urgent is ridiculous. It is simply a motion. If it was a bill it might have an effect on climate change, but debate on a motion is simply a talkfest. I am surprised that the Opposition will allow the motion to go forward, although the main point of the motion is to censure the Premier. It is a censure motion against the Premier of New South Wales.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I wouldn't vote against a censure motion of the Premier.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is why I am raising that point. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition must be confused. He said he would not vote against the motion.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I wouldn't vote against it going forward.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Then you said you would not vote for the motion. I thought you did not realise that it is a motion to censure the Premier. That is the whole point of the motion. Edmund Burke's statement is not relevant to this debate.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [2.48 p.m.]: The Shooters Party cannot conceive that this matter is urgent. Why can this matter be urgent when even the Federal Government is running 1,000 miles an hour away from its carbon scam tax? Ms Lee Rhiannon said that coal represents 40 per cent of our carbon dioxide output. Our carbon dioxide output in the worldwide context is about 1 per cent or less.

Dr John Kaye: That's not true. It is 1.3 per cent.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Forty per cent of 1.3 per cent. The Federal leader of the Greens is on the record as saying that the Greens would shut down the coal industry in three years. This motion is a waste of time. Like the Opposition I want a chance to shoot down the Greens' voodoo science on this matter, but the time of the House cannot be wasted on this sort of grandstanding. The Shooters Party does not support urgency. 13010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 19

Mr Ajaka Ms Hale Mrs Pavey Mr Clarke Dr Kaye Mr Pearce Mr Cohen Mr Khan Ms Rhiannon Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Ms Ficarra Mr Mason-Cox Tellers, Miss Gardiner Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Colless Mr Gay Ms Parker Mr Harwin

Noes, 20

Mr Brown Reverend Nile Mr Tsang Mr Catanzariti Mr Obeid Ms Voltz Ms Fazio Mr Robertson Mr West Ms Griffin Ms Robertson Ms Westwood Mr Hatzistergos Mr Roozendaal Tellers, Mr Kelly Ms Sharpe Mr Donnelly Mr Macdonald Mr Smith Mr Veitch

Pair

Mr Gallacher Mr Della Bosca

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

WASTE AVOIDANCE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY (CONTAINER RECOVERY) BILL 2008

Second Reading

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Don Harwin, on behalf of Mr Ian Cohen, and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

FOOD AMENDMENT (TRANS FATTY ACIDS ERADICATION) BILL 2008

Second Reading

Debated resumed from 4 March 2009.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.58 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to debate on the Food Amendment (Trans Fatty Acids Eradication) Bill 2008. I particularly thank my Greens colleagues for their thoughtful contributions. Ms Sylvia Hale outlined action that is happening at the local government level which puts to shame all of the Parliaments around Australia because local government is the closest to the people and it recognises the problems of trans fats and is acting on them.

My colleague Mr Ian Cohen made very important points about healthier lifestyles, eating well and exercising, and the contribution that they can make to wellbeing and longevity. He also made what I think is a 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13011

crucial point about palm oil. The last thing anybody wants to see is an increase in the import of palm oil, not only because palm oil has appalling health consequences—probably the worst kind of fat one can consume—in terms of increasing cholesterol, increasing low-density lipids and reducing high-density lipids, but also because of its devastating consequences for the native wildlife of those countries in South-east Asia, particularly Borneo, where it is grown.

I thank my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon, who made some important observations about the contradiction between the Government's words on obesity and its foreshadowed action in blocking this legislation. I also thank Gordon Moyes, who, in his usual style, did an extremely detailed, thorough and rigorous analysis of the health consequences of trans fatty acids and foreshadowed his support for the bill. He made some extremely thoughtful suggestions to assist the industry, food outlets and members of the public to reduce trans fats and to move towards a healthier diet. His contribution is gratefully welcomed.

I also thank Marie Ficarra. Although she is a member of the Coalition, which has foreshadowed that it will vote against the bill, she made very important and passionate remarks about protecting public health. Not only did she indicate her concern about individual health, but she also put on record her concern for protecting public health and indicated her strong support for regulatory action on trans fatty acids. A lifetime spent in politics and the business of delivering health care clearly shows in the quality of her contribution to this debate.

With respect to all other members who commented on this debate, I acknowledge that at least there was broad recognition of the individual health consequences of the consumption of trans fatty acids. That is a step forward. Mr Colless and many members of the Government have put on record their concern about individual consumption of trans fatty acids, which is an important statement not only for this Parliament but also for the people of New South Wales. They were not so strong when it came to the issue of the public health implications of trans fatty acids and the current lack in New South Wales—and indeed Australia—of strong regulatory action to curtail the consumption of trans fatty acids.

I find it particularly alarming that Labor members acknowledged the consequences of personal consumption of trans fatty acids, but were not prepared to take the next step and commit to either this bill or other regulatory action to protect members of our community who consume large quantities of trans fatty acids. It is of concern that many of their constituencies have in their diet significant proportions of trans fatty acids and are left unprotected by the lack of regulatory action. The arguments put forward against the bill fall broadly into three categories. The first is that action on trans fatty acids would increase the consumption of saturated fats. The second set of arguments against the bill is that current regulatory arrangements are working and are adequate. The third set of arguments is that the bill would upset current regulatory arrangements and impose increased costs on the State and on the food industry. In my remaining time I will go through each of those concerns.

Let me first talk about the proposition, which I believe to be entirely false, that restricting or constraining the consumption of trans fatty acids would in some way lead to an increase in the consumption of saturated fats. That argument comes from the food industry, which has been promoting trans fatty acids for a long time, and it is a distraction from the main debate. The simple fact is, as I think Mr Colless pointed out in his contribution, that gram-for-gram trans fatty acids are more likely to increase heart disease than saturated fats. But that is actually not the relevant fact here. The relevant fact is that there exist entirely adequate and far more healthy substitutes for trans fatty acids that are not saturated fats. There are a number of perfectly useful polyunsaturated oils, such as canola and sunflower oils, and there are a number of other substitutes for more solid forms of trans fatty acids. There is no need for the banning of trans fatty acids to have any negative impact on public health attempts to reduce the consumption of saturated fats.

My colleague Mr Ian Cohen dealt cogently and coherently with palm oil. Clearly, it is important that we increase our efforts to reduce—in fact, eradicate—the consumption of palm oil in Australia. There have been a number of government-backed education programs to reduce the consumption of saturated fats and total dietary fats in Australia. Those programs have made some progress in an environment where the industry is pushing highly fatty foods, many packaged foods and pre-prepared foods absolutely full of saturated fats. There is tension between the public health objectives of reducing saturated fats and total dietary fats, and economic incentives from large corporations pushing unhealthy foods.

We clearly need to expand those education programs. In fact, we would argue that moving to constrain trans fatty acids would add to the effort to reduce total fat in diets because it would be part of an overall program, if done properly, to refocus Australians on the need to reduce all kinds of fats in their diets, as well as 13012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

sugar and salt. It is interesting to note that the corporations that are crying out that we cannot act on trans fatty acids are the same corporations that are blocking the front of package traffic-light labelling of foods—that is, labelling that is easily accessible on the front packaging of food and tells consumers rapidly whether there are excessive amounts of salt, sugar, fats and saturated fats in products.

It is important that we ramp-up education programs and other programs to make people aware of the consequences of consuming all kinds of fats, including trans fats. Banning trans fats would help focus the community on the need to reduce fats in their diet. Some members of this Chamber became quite confused with naturally occurring trans fats and artificially manufactured trans fats. If members of the Government who criticised the bill had bothered to spend some time reading the bill rather than parroting from the sheets given to them by Minister Ian Macdonald's office they would have realised that we went to great lengths to explicitly exclude from our ban naturally occurring trans fats. As Mr Colless pointed out in his contribution, the cardiovascular implications of naturally occurring trans fats are substantially different and less than the cardiovascular implications of artificially produced trans fats. Hence, we concentrated on the artificially produced trans fats.

Some members of this Chamber—in fact, the majority of members—expressed concern that the bill advocated statewide action rather than nationwide action. Let us be clear about this: The Greens would prefer a nationwide ban on trans fats. We would prefer nationwide action, starting with amending the food code to enforce labelling and warnings on packaged food containing trans fats and leading to, after two years or so, a complete ban on artificial trans fats being added to foods sold in Australia and New Zealand. However, there are a number of barriers to achieving that, the first of which is Food Standards Australia New Zealand [FSANZ]. Food Standards Australia New Zealand has demonstrated an institutional reluctance to act on trans fats. FSANZ and its officers have frustrated every action and every step taken towards constraining the consumption of trans fats in the Australian diet. It has maintained a corporate focus on not regulating trans fats.

We cannot look to FSANZ for action on trans fats. It would therefore require a directive from the Ministerial Council to FSANZ to take action on trans fats. The Ministerial Council has been notoriously unwilling to act on almost any issue whatsoever. It is an institutional problem where there is a group of Ministers who are responsible for the actions by the bureaucracy rather than an individual Minister. There is a diffuse responsibility for the accountability of the actions of FSANZ. It is also a problem that New South Wales has played quite a negative role in this regard. We are the only State or Territory in Australia that is represented on the Ministerial Council by its Minister for Primary Industries rather than by its Minister for Health.

It points to a focus on food regulation being an extension of primary industry rather than being driven by public health. If the Minister were here he would argue that that is because in New South Wales we have a paddock-to-plate food regulatory system. Paddock to plate sounds pretty good but what it really means is that paddock dominates and plate suffers. In fact, the paddock gets left out too; it is not the farmers who benefit, it is the food processing industry that calls the shots in New South Wales and hence in Australia. It really means that we are achieving outcomes where public health runs a very poor second to food industry profits. That is one of the reasons this bill focused on binding our representatives to the Ministerial Council to move, vote for and promote amendments to the food code that would in the first instance cause labelling of trans fats and in the second instance lead to a ban on them.

If the Rees Government really cared about public health and was focused on reducing cardiovascular disease in Australia we would not need a bill like this because this is exactly what the Government would have done from the outset. The Greens remain committed to the idea that action on a nationwide basis is preferable to action on a State-by-State basis. However, where there is not action on a nationwide basis and people are dying of cardiovascular disease and a proportion of those deaths are related to the consumption of trans fats, we have to ask what is the cost we are prepared to pay to stop that happening. I would say that where we are talking about working people who have been unknowingly subjected to diets containing unlabelled trans fats there is no price we should not be prepared to pay to protect them. Certainly there will be costs associated with State-by-State action, there is no doubt about that. But those costs are infinitesimal compared to the human tragedy of lives shortened or destroyed by heart disease.

A number of members said that we do not need to worry about trans fats because FSANZ has got it all in hand; it is all under control. Those members are basically saying we should trust FSANZ, it knows what it is doing. If FSANZ says the current level of trans fats in the diet is okay, why are the Greens worried about that? I will tell members why. Let us have a close look at the board of FSANZ. There are 13 board members, eight of whom are either shareholders in Wesfarmers—that is, they own the company that owns Coles supermarkets and 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13013

Bi-Lo—or currently work or previously worked in the food industry. That means when votes are taken on the board of FSANZ the overwhelming majority of people voting come out of the food processing industry or the food production industry.

Contrast that to what happens in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Food Standards Agency also has 13 members but eight of them have no connection whatsoever with food processing, retailing, manufacturing or production. One of them is an organic farmer and four of them have direct links to the food industry. That means that eight of the 13 are not culturally or individually answerable to the food industry. In fact, a clear majority on the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency come from a public health background. They are focused on food regulation that serves the needs of the community and that promotes public health. If members are wondering what this means for FSANZ, they should have a look at its failure to act on the brightly coloured food dyes that are driving our kids crazy. Have a look at its failure to act on front-of-package labelling that could reduce obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Have a look at its failure to mandate labelling of foods containing genetically engineered products. Trusting FSANZ on trans fatty acids is taking a massive risk with the health of the Australian population.

Some members raised the argument that FSANZ says that the average level of consumption of trans fats by Australians is low and that even the high levels of consumption are relatively low. We can argue about the statistics of how many grams of trans fatty acids a year are safe and how much we consume, but we need to look at what the experts are saying. In 2005 the National Academy of Sciences, the body charged by the Congress of the United States with taking care of scientific advice to Congress and the community, said very clearly in its dietary reference intakes volume that there is no safe level of trans fats consumption. There are no tolerable upper limits on trans fats consumption. The academy made that very clear and that advice has been repeated time and again by public health officials, including the California Academy of Family Physicians. FSANZ is still busy arguing about the decimal points but the reality is that any level of trans fats is unhealthy.

Some members argued that everything is fine because all this wonderful self-regulation is happening. Effectively they are saying we should hand over the health of the Australian population to people who are producing the products that are causing ill health in the first place. Self-regulation has no place in food regulation. We are effectively handing control of the henhouse to the foxes. It is an incredibly irresponsible gamble to say that all will be okay when there are few food industries taking action on trans fats and the overwhelming majority of fast food industries are not responding to the need to reduce and get rid of trans fats in a large volume of pre-packaged food.

In conclusion, I thank members for engaging in this debate. It is an important debate and it is one that will not go away in a hurry. If we really care about the future of our children and about containing the inordinate costs that health imposes on the budget we will act on simple things such as eradicating trans fats. It is happening around the world. New South Wales is missing the opportunity to be a world leader. Yet again New South Wales becomes a world follower in these trends. I remind the House that we face an epidemic of heart disease. Thirty-four per cent of all deaths in Australia are as a result of cardiovascular disease. Not all of those are as a result of the consumption of trans fats, but eradicating trans fats from the diet is a simple step this House could have taken to reduce that unacceptably high death toll from cardiovascular disease. It is a great shame that this House is passing up the opportunity to put itself on the record as being genuinely committed to the public health of New South Wales. I undertake to bring this matter back to the Chamber when it has had an opportunity to think about it. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 5

Mr Cohen Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Dr Kaye Reverend Dr Moyes 13014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

Noes, 26

Mr Ajaka Ms Griffin Mr Smith Mr Brown Mr Khan Mr Tsang Mr Catanzariti Mr Lynn Mr Veitch Mr Clarke Mr Mason-Cox Ms Voltz Mr Colless Reverend Nile Mr West Ms Cusack Ms Parker Ms Westwood Ms Fazio Mrs Pavey Tellers, Ms Ficarra Ms Robertson Mr Donnelly Miss Gardiner Ms Sharpe Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Bill not read a second time.

PHOTOGRAPHS AND USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The PRESIDENT: On Tuesday this week the Deputy Government Whip, the Hon. Michael Veitch, raised a point of order relating to the use of electronic devices in the Chamber. The Hon. Michael Veitch specifically raised the taking of photographs in the Chamber and the reading of newspapers online on laptops. The principle to be observed in relation to the use of electronic devices in the Chamber is that their use should not interrupt or disturb proceedings. There are numerous rulings of previous Presidents that members may not use mobile phones in the Chamber.

These rulings relate to the use of mobile phones to make and receive calls. However, members are able to bring mobile phones and BlackBerry devices into the Chamber provided they are set on silent mode. They may be used to send messages and emails. The use of laptops in the Chamber is acceptable, including the reading of newspapers online, again, provided that their use does not interrupt the proceedings of the House. The House has been fitted with network cabling and data outlets for laptops and in the future will be fitted with wireless access.

In relation to photography in the Chamber, members would be aware that the Legislative Council has previously adopted resolutions authorising the broadcasting of proceedings. The most recent resolution adopted in 2007 also covers still photography in the House. The resolution incorporates a number of principles relating to photography in the House. Photographs must be used only for the purposes of fair and accurate reports of proceedings and must provide a balanced presentation of differing views. Photographs must not be used for political party advertising or election campaigns, the purpose of satire, ridicule, commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising.

Photographs must be placed in context. Photographs of individual members not speaking in debate are not permitted. These rules have been adopted specifically to protect members and the dignity of the House. On Tuesday it was suggested that a member might have sought to take photographs in the House. Due to concerns relating to the commercial or inappropriate use of such photographs, I ruled that the use of cameras by members in the House when the House is sitting is not acceptable. This includes the use of camera phones. I note that a similar position has been adopted in the Legislative Assembly and the House of Representatives.

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT (AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL 2008

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 March 2009.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.29 p.m.]: Yesterday, when speaking in debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Affordable Housing Development Contributions) Bill, I said that I strongly believed this bill would have the opposite effect to that which was intended by Ms Sylvia Hale. 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13015

I believe that the proposed levy will decrease the stock of affordable housing in New South Wales. When debate on this bill was interrupted yesterday I was outlining initiatives instituted by the New South Wales and Federal governments under the national Rental Affordability Scheme, but there are other initiatives.

Further, the Government is looking at targeting a number of areas, including the continued retention of low-cost housing; streamlining the collection of affordable housing contributions and targeting them so that they can have the biggest impact; establishing the principles to extend existing affordable housing contribution schemes to areas of the State where it can be demonstrated that new developments increase the need for affordable housing; ensuring the provision of affordable housing for renting, including granny flats throughout the State in appropriate zones; and supporting Commonwealth Government initiatives on homelessness by reviewing the current provisions relating to group homes.

As I said yesterday, I believe this bill will have the exact opposite of its intention. I commented also that the bill was introduced by a member who often opposes in this Chamber any form of housing development. A party that develops its supporter base by pandering to the worst forms of nimby-ism in Australian society is an inappropriate party to introduce a bill on affordable housing. By garnering support from nimbys the Greens are garnering the support of people opposed to increased medium-density housing, urban consolidation, housing development on the fringe of the city, and developments in semi-rural areas. The Greens garner support from those who oppose all those things simply on the basis of protecting their existing property values. Yet in this place the Greens claim to be the only people truly concerned about affordable housing. That is the absolute height of hypocrisy. I find it extremely difficult to take this bill seriously when it originates from such a source.

In conclusion, I believe all members will agree that the Government is working on many fronts to improve housing affordability as well as being committed to ensuring appropriate developer contributions to affordable housing are levied in the right circumstances. However, as I said yesterday, if this blanket levy is placed on developments, the price of development and housing stock in New South Wales will increase above what it is already. Developers who are simply interested in making some money quickly and in maximising their profits with housing developments will not bother with New South Wales. They will go interstate, where the cost of buying land or properties and consolidating them for development is a lot cheaper to begin with.

We all know what happens when there is a housing shortage in any State—we have seen it in New South Wales on many occasions. Prices are pushed up and the availability of rental accommodation is squeezed. That will happen in New South Wales if this bill is passed: there will be a decline in the housing stock available for purchase and a decline in the availability of rental stock. We all know that the majority of low-income families—those who actually need affordable housing—are the ones who will suffer as a result of this bill. The Greens mentioned that already in New South Wales, and particularly in Sydney, essential services workers have difficulty finding affordable housing accommodation within the confines of the inner metropolitan area.

The Government has addressed that issue as well. Recent announcements regarding housing developments in the Ultimo area have included the understanding and agreement that a large portion of that housing will be set aside for essential services workers—people like nurses, police and others who work in what we all accept are essential services. Given their track record on a range of issues, the Greens might have difficulty considering police to be essential service providers, but I believe we would all agree that nurses perform an essential service. We are making provision for them already—apart from the other initiatives I have mentioned.

The State Government, particularly now that we can cooperate with the Rudd Federal Government, is making amends and trying to improve housing affordability. It must be remembered that when the Howard Government was in office there was a freeze on the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which prevented State governments from expanding the range of available public housing and affordable housing. That artificial constraint, together with insistence on increasing public housing rentals, impacted on the affordable housing market. That situation has changed, and housing now has a higher priority at the Federal level. The State Government is working with the Federal Government to deliver on initiatives to help people obtain affordable housing. That is preferable to the levy proposed by Ms Sylvia Hale, which would flatten development potential in New South Wales, flatten the housing market, squeeze the amount of affordable housing available for people to purchase, and constrain the private rental market to the extent that those who can afford only moderately priced rental accommodation would have no hope of getting any rental properties.

I ask members to think hard about these issues before they consider supporting this bill and to recognise that it is easy in this place to make comments such as, "Oh, we all love affordable housing". 13016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

Everybody likes affordable housing and everybody would like it to be available to those in need, but we must consider the way we develop responses to that need. We must make sure that we do not disengage people— which would be the result of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Affordable Housing Development Contributions) Bill 2008 if it were to be passed. I urge members to vote against the bill proposed by Ms Sylvia Hale.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.36 p.m.]: I oppose the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Affordable Housing Development Contributions) Bill 2008. The main purpose of the bill is to require any development consent for the erection and use of buildings containing 10 or more dwellings to include a condition to require the dedication of land or the payment of a monetary contribution for the purpose of providing affordable housing, and to require that development contribution to be no more than 25 per cent of the total floor area of the proposed building or buildings, or its cash equivalent.

We are all in favour of providing affordable housing; it is a question of who will pay for it. It should not be sought through legislation in a manner that effectively will increase the price of land. Young married couples starting out in life and other families will find that, as happened in previous years, up to $150,000 could be added to the purchase price of a block of land after all the various levies are applied. I am pleased that when we reached that stage appropriate action was taken to prevent those imposts. Yes, we need affordable housing and it should be included in the State Government's budget. However, in the present climate, with the Federal Government being so generous, a large amount of the $42 million stimulus package allocation could be used for affordable housing. That certainly would meet the Prime Minister's aim of stimulating the economy and providing jobs. All tradesmen working on affordable housing projects would have jobs. That is a simple way to address a serious situation as we face increasing levels of unemployment.

Late last year I was involved in discussions with the then Minister for Planning, Mr Sartor, about the problem of levies pushing up land prices—even by up to a total of $150,000. I was pleased that the Government agreed to have the developers' contributions subjected to a $20,000 cap, which I believe is a reasonable levy, and I support that. This bill virtually seeks to reverse a decision made by the House only late last year. It seeks to reverse the cap on the levy and put the burden back onto young families who are trying to establish a home. As the Leader of the Christian Democratic Party, I do not support the bill. I believe the bill should be defeated in the House.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.40 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Affordable Housing Development Contributions) Bill 2008 and congratulate my colleague Ms Sylvia Hale on introducing the legislation. Ms Hale has a long track record of arguing the case in the House for affordable housing, assistance for homeless people, and assistance for people who suffer various forms of housing stress. As the economy has evolved and house prices have increased in New South Wales, her argument has become increasingly important. The legislation is designed to introduce what is referred to as inclusionary zoning that will allow councils to mandate a levy for affordable housing purposes of between zero and 25 per cent on any private development of 10 or more units. The contribution could be in the form of housing units or an equivalent monetary value. The contribution must be put to use for affordable housing by the consent authority within a reasonable time. The resulting affordable housing will be able to be managed by the council in house, by not-for-profit housing organisations, or by Housing NSW.

The key component of this bill is its flexibility. Almost all the criticism of the bill I have heard so far has completely ignored the flexibility that it provides. The legislation will allow councils or consent authorities the flexibility to set the levy and where it will apply. The levy could be set according to considerations including the housing needs in a particular local government area, the scale and type of development being considered, and any effects that the levy would have on the viability of the development. The contention that this legislation will shut down the New South Wales development industry is effectively criticising not this bill but another bill—a bill that stipulates there must be a 25 per cent levy and it must be applied across all housing units. That is not what this bill provides.

This bill states that councils may levy between zero and 25 per cent on any development of 10 units or more and they may do so on part or all of their local government areas. The legislation creates a great deal of flexibility in the collection of revenues and the provision of affordable housing. The aim of the bill is to address housing affordability among people who can neither qualify for social housing units nor afford to pay market prices for purchasing houses or rent. The problem is that we really have a three-sector society. We have people who have higher incomes and who can afford to provide their own housing, we have people who have very low incomes or no income at all and who can be taken care of by the social housing sector, but we also have people in the middle who increasingly are being squeezed out of the inner city, off the coast, and out of their choice of housing. 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13017

This bill is aimed at making sure that every individual and every householder who is struggling to meet the rent or pay the mortgage will be able to survive. It recognises that when we have a market that is entirely driven by developers and private landlords without appropriate regulation, there will be a sector of society that will be unable to find affordable housing options. In other words, the housing options they will end up with will not be in the area in which they wish to live, or they will be paying an inordinate amount of their household income simply to keep a roof over their heads. This bill is a very important social justice measure. It is a pointer towards a much fairer society, where we recognise that every individual, every household and every family has a fundamental right to live in decent, quality accommodation.

This legislation is also about environmental sustainability. The development of demographic patterns in Sydney is such that as house and rental prices in the inner city increase, it will drive important workers away from the centre of the city, and there will be environmental implications. As they travel in and out of the city every day to work or to deliver essential and other services, and in and out of the areas in which they live, there will be an environmental cost. This legislation aims to ensure that we have a diversity of accommodation costs throughout the city so that people will be able to live close to where they work. The legislation will not only address issues of traffic congestion, urban air quality and peak oil, but also reduce the carbon footprint of every household in New South Wales. At a time when we ought to be focusing more on these issues, it is essential to examine every possible sector of government operations and planning to ensure that our society does everything possible to reduce our carbon footprint.

This bill is also about maintaining social diversity. If we do not create opportunities for people such as firies, nurses, doctors, police, health workers and teachers to live side by side with people who have higher incomes and people who have lower incomes, we run the risk of creating a human geography of the city that is based on ghettos of wealth and ghettos of poverty, with huge social consequences. Those consequences will rebound not only on us but also on future generations. We know that concentrations of poverty breed concentrations of the problems of poverty. The best way to address that is to ensure that we do not create ghettos in the first place.

This bill is also about creating a city that celebrates its own diversity—a city in which the firey lives next to the stockbroker and where the teacher lives next door to the thoracic specialist. When governments do that they create a far stronger society than would otherwise be the case—a society that is bonded more intrinsically and a society in which there is far greater understanding of the diversity of human activity and the diversity of human lifestyles. Ghettos work against a cohesive society. This bill works against ghettos.

The legislation before the House is quite modest in its ambition. It seeks to achieve not terribly much more than the managing director of Grocon, Daniel Grollo, wrote about in the Melbourne Age on 14 May. For the benefit of honourable members, I point out that Grocon is one of the largest Melbourne developers. Daniel Grollo is a member of a family that has a long tradition in the development industry in Victoria. He is someone I knew when I was much younger. I think he attended the University of Melbourne when I did, but he is not someone I would necessarily find myself agreeing with 100 per cent. However, he wrote an article that was published last year in the Melbourne Age and he made it very clear that in his own development projects he recognises the importance of creating a diversity or range of housing options. I will cite part of the article:

With young people and lower-income families struggling to buy their first home or get into the rental market, we acknowledge more must be done to consider how to give those people access to city living.

We plan to particularly target essential key service workers who may need to be close to the centre of the city for employment purposes. This would include nurses who may work at the Royal Melbourne or Royal Women's Hospitals, or police constables who may need to be close to the Victoria Police Centre or an inner suburban station.

He went on to state:

We would also aim to make housing available to the student population at RMIT [the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology] or Melbourne University …

Grocon will aim to do this in any new development in inner Melbourne with the aim of ensuring it remains a city accessible to all, and does not become socially or economically dysfunctional. In order to retain the life of the city, there needs to be residents from all walks of life who work in town, rather than having a commuter population in the city on weekdays made up of those who travel in from the outer suburbs to work.

A healthy mix of residents will ensure a vibrant city that remains open and safe to all comers … Developers have a role to play in providing housing that caters for those who need affordable housing.

13018 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

I repeat: Developers have a role to play in providing housing that caters for those who need affordable housing. In effect, what Ms Sylvia Hale's bill will do is nothing more than what Mr Grollo says he wants to do. That is, the bill will ensure that there are sufficient numbers of affordable houses. I direct the House, and the Hon. Lynda Voltz in particular, to the issue of the flexibility that councils have in implementing this.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: You are talking about a developer who doesn't like building small flats.

Dr JOHN KAYE: A number of Government critics of this bill talk about impacts on development, but they fail to account for the discretion of councils to adjust the base rate, from anywhere between 0 per cent and 25 per cent, and to adjust the scope of this legislation. It can be applied to a precinct within a local government area, on a site-specific basis or a local government area wide basis. So let us talk about what happens when such levies are applied. Let us have a good look at Pyrmont and Ultimo. Under State environmental planning policy 70, Pyrmont-Ultimo had exactly this kind of levy. We did not see developers running away from Pyrmont and Ultimo. Indeed, the last time I visited Pyrmont and Ultimo it was developer paradise. The levy was high because it was a highly desirable area.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Who ran the campaign for Mort Bay?

Dr JOHN KAYE: If the Hon. Lynda Voltz listened to me she would realise that I am saying that councils would not apply it in areas where it does not work or on applications where it does not work. Perhaps the Government has no faith in local government. Perhaps the Government thinks that local government does not have the ability to exercise that discretion. This bill complements other housing initiatives by the Rudd Government and the New South Wales Government. We welcomed the move by the Rudd Government and its commitment to halve homelessness by 2020. Likewise, we welcome the extra investment of $2 billion in social and community housing in New South Wales and the national rental affordability scheme.

These all operate with the intention of increasing affordability for various sectors in society. However, these actions, combined with the actions of the New South Wales Government, with its 17,500 new social housing units, will not achieve a comprehensive response to the housing crisis. The Federal Government's initiatives do not address the third sector I referred to—affordability for working people and those for whom the private rental market is simply failing to provide housing units that do not result in massive stress on their budget. The housing Minister, David Borger, has announced 17,500 new social housing units. That is excellent and it is to be applauded. We wish the Minister the best of luck. However, that is only one-quarter of the current waiting list for affordable housing.

The Rudd Government's first round of the National Rental Affordability Scheme—a scheme that we have welcomed—will produce about 507 units. The scheme is in its infancy, and that is only the first round; we hope there will be more in subsequent rounds. Those 507 new housing units are a step in the right direction but they will not solve the problem. We note without any degree of surprise that the Opposition, which is now represented by possibly three members in the Chamber, had some issues with what the Opposition Whip referred to as a punitive levy that we were seeking to impose. One could extend that argument to almost any tax we collect. Any tax collected by society can be referred to as a "punitive levy". But there is another way of looking at it. Developers reap massive profits from development. It cannot be denied that large development companies have printed money off the back of Sydney. When one considers the money made by Meriton, the big apartment block developers and even some of the smaller—

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: And by Grollo.

Dr JOHN KAYE: And by Grollo. Earlier I said that I did not agree with Mr Grollo on many things. Medium-size developers, particularly in areas like the inner city and the eastern suburbs of Sydney, have made a massive amount of money. This proposal simply says that they should be pulling their weight as part of a community-wide effort—an effort that includes public housing and private housing, and contributions from developers in accordance with the massive profits they make. Those of us who have been involved in the development process as objectors have had the experience of sitting across the table from developers who do not bring much but a wad of notes to the table and who walk away with massive profits. Those massive profits are being taken out of the wealth of society.

It is time for the development industry to put something back into the community in the form of addressing the massive burden of homelessness and the housing affordability crisis, and taking some of the burden off the shoulders of taxpayers and those who are affected by this problem. This bill is modest in scope. It 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13019

is interesting to note the degree of negative response that it attracts. That is probably in part a measure of the power of the developers in this society to capture the political debate—power purchased by their massive amounts of campaign donations, and power exerted by the number of so-called planning experts they employ to go out and spruik their case.

It is time for the people of New South Wales to lift the yoke and the dead hand of the developers and to seize for the people of New South Wales a fair share of the profits made from development and feed that back into the cause of a more socially just, cohesive, successful and sustainable society by creating affording housing units for essential services workers and others who are caught in the squeeze of rising prices and rents. The global financial crisis is biting hard in this State. It is causing a large number of workers to find life much more difficult, as they see their superannuation and small investments being eaten up by the insane greed of the money markets and the large traders in America and Australia. As they see their plans for their retirement disintegrating, increasingly they are suffering financial stress.

This bill is about addressing one of the key problems that will emerge from the global financial crisis: the situation of those who find themselves struggling to pay the rent or the mortgage. I ask all members to approach this matter with an open mind and to think what it would be like to be living off an income far less than any of us enjoy—an income that makes paying rents or mortgages an increasing burden. I ask us all to think carefully: Do we stand here for those people, or are we just here for the interests of the developers? I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

Question put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 18

Mr Ajaka Ms Hale Mr Pearce Mr Clarke Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon Mr Cohen Mr Khan Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Ms Ficarra Mr Mason-Cox Tellers, Miss Gardiner Ms Parker Mr Colless Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Harwin

Noes, 21

Mr Brown Reverend Nile Ms Voltz Mr Catanzariti Mr Obeid Mr West Ms Fazio Mr Robertson Ms Westwood Ms Griffin Ms Robertson Mr Hatzistergos Mr Roozendaal Mr Kelly Ms Sharpe Tellers, Mr Macdonald Mr Smith Mr Donnelly Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Tsang Mr Veitch

Pair

Mr Gallacher Mr Della Bosca

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Motion for adjournment of debate negatived.

Dr JOHN KAYE [4.05 p.m.]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

Question put.

The House divided. 13020 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

Ayes, 19

Mr Ajaka Ms Hale Mrs Pavey Mr Clarke Dr Kaye Mr Pearce Mr Cohen Mr Khan Ms Rhiannon Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Ms Ficarra Mr Mason-Cox Tellers, Miss Gardiner Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Colless Mr Gay Ms Parker Mr Harwin

Noes, 20

Mr Brown Mr Macdonald Mr West Mr Catanzariti Revd Mr Nile Ms Westwood Ms Fazio Mr Robertson Ms Griffin Mr Roozendaal Mr Hatzistergos Ms Sharpe Mr Kelly Mr Smith Tellers Mr Obeid Mr Tsang Mr Donnelly Ms Robertson Ms Voltz Mr Veitch

Pair

Mr Gallacher Mr Della Bosca

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Motion for adjournment of debate negatived.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.10 p.m.], in reply: I was anxious to have this debate adjourned because other matters took considerable time this morning and I did not have the opportunity to read in detail the contributions of members who spoke to this bill. I was anxious to treat their arguments seriously and to respond to them with the respect that they required. Clearly, having to speak unexpectedly sooner than I had anticipated will not do justice to those arguments.

Another concern of mine was my understanding that there is considerable pressure within the Department of Planning to bring down a revised affordable housing State environmental planning policy, which I think could have major implications for affordable housing within this State. I was anxious to see what that policy was and to deal with it in the debate because, after all, environmental planning policies are not subject to any scrutiny by the Parliament and cannot be disallowed. They are a mechanism whereby quite significant alterations to government policy and regulations come about with no opportunity in the House for them to be examined and their implications and repercussions looked at in detail.

In my reply I was anxious to do justice to the speakers on behalf of the Government and the policy changes that may be in the wind from the Department of Planning. Affordable housing levies operate in this country and overseas. They operate in London in the United Kingdom and in many United States jurisdictions. Canadian governments also use affordable housing ordinances in some provinces. So this is not a unique scheme or a terrible move to bring down or shake the very foundations of capitalism; rather it is a scheme that has been tried and tested, and it has proved to have significant beneficial effect overseas. It even operates in New South Wales, as has been pointed out, and about two kilometres from this Chamber in Pyrmont-Ultimo.

The Government speakers who have argued against the bill have said that any mandated affordable housing levy would drive development out of New South Wales or prevent development from going ahead, yet through their own planning instrument—State Environmental Planning Policy 70—they have allowed a compulsory affordable housing levy to be imposed on developers in Pyrmont-Ultimo and in Green Square. The Government, by its own measures, is supportive of the principle that is enshrined in this bill. We are not saying that we have plucked out of the void a totally new principle that is completely foreign to what the Government 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13021

does at the moment. What we are merely saying is that this principle should be employed in other local government areas and that other councils should have the right, as the City of Sydney currently has, to levy for affordable housing.

We know that many councils have asked for this right. For example, the current Minister for Housing, in his capacity as the Labor mayor of Parramatta, urged the Government to allow Parramatta council to levy for affordable housing. It is quite common for councils to want to do this because they see it as a way of ensuring that people will be able to afford to live in their local government areas; that people will be saved from the extraordinary pressures of housing stress that are inflicted upon many people when more than a third of their income goes to paying rent or excessive mortgages. It is something that many people in the broad Labor movement are keen to see implemented and it was a policy that was implemented by a Federal Labor Government as well as a State Labor Government when it came to the redevelopment of Pyrmont-Ultimo.

At the moment the only person who has the ability to extend the operations of State Environmental Planning Policy 70 is the Minister for Planning. It is an enormous power for that Minister to have, and of significance is how reluctant in the past Ministers for planning have been to use that power. What the Greens bill does is extend a general power with the Act so that councils throughout New South Wales can do the same. We have every faith in elected councils using the power sensibly and for the benefit of low to medium income earners in their areas.

A council could choose to use the power in many ways. It could set a precinct levy, such as imposing a 10 per cent levy on the Bondi Junction town centre; it could impose a site-specific levy on a very large residential project, such as the Carlton United Brewery site in Chippendale; or it could impose a small local government area wide levy for a town area, such as the Port Macquarie urban area. Port Macquarie is a rapidly expanding area with many smaller multi-unit projects and a growing affordability problem.

I think the bill provides almost too much flexibility because it would allow a council to impose a levy anywhere from zero per cent to 25 per cent. It is not as though there is any attempt to constrain councils—they have great flexibility—and if councillors were elected saying, "If we come to power, if we have majority in the council, we will impose an affordable housing levy of 5 per cent or 10 per cent on multi-unit developments of more than 10 units", I think that would be an appropriate outcome. It should be possible for local government candidates to say, "We believe affordable housing is such a problem for our residents and is so critical to the wellbeing of our community that we will run on a platform of implementing such a levy." At the moment that option is not open to councils. The only council that has that option is the City of Sydney council.

At present councils do not have the power to make this levy as of right. It is true that some councils can come to a voluntary agreement with a developer to provide some affordable housing, but that agreement may only be reached if there is a trade-off and something that is equally essential to a community is forgone. We do not believe the provision of affordable housing should be on a purely voluntary basis. It should be there because a council, cognisant of the needs of its local government area, says that affordable housing is a critical need in its community and it believes new developments should contribute to the provision of that housing.

We are saying also that the bill will promote social diversity. We face the problem, as many members are only too well aware, that people are being forced out of city centres and away from the coast because they cannot afford the rents or to buy there. This is impacting particularly on people on pensions, people with larger families and those on low to medium incomes. As Dr John Kaye said, as a result of this occurring we are creating ghettoes. The unfortunate thing for the people who are forced to move to the outskirts of the city and live in far-flung suburbs is that they wear the costs. Often they cannot achieve affordable housing in these far-flung areas.

Not only that, they wear the ongoing costs of extraordinarily expensive transport, whether by car or public transport; the time it takes to get from home to work and the stress and impact on their health; and their families bear the cost of being unable to afford to live in areas that provide adequate amenities, such as preschools, schools and appropriate health facilities. The costs that are being transferred to those people who cannot afford to live in the inner city and where their jobs are located are ongoing. They contribute consistently to the greater social divides that are already opening up and separating key elements in our society.

I think this bill is essential because it attempts in a very minor way—it is not remotely revolutionary but has already been tried and tested both here and overseas—to address the problem of housing affordability. In a wider context it is trying to address the great social inequities that have appeared in our society. Twenty years 13022 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

ago you could walk the streets of Sydney and not see homeless people. Now it is impossible to walk outside, even to St James Station or in Martin Place, and not see people who are homeless every night of the year. We have a responsibility because we know that secure housing is fundamental to people's wellbeing and to their being able to access jobs, a stable source of education and health facilities. Yet by not making housing affordable and within the reach of low- to medium-income earners we impact not only on those people themselves and the stresses they have to bear, but also on their children and their children's children.

The Government is introducing a few measures and taking a few steps to improve the conditions of people who are having great difficulty in accessing affordable accommodation. But what is being done is minuscule compared to the extent of the problem. The Greens bill will enable communities to help themselves. It will enable elected councils who represent the people in a local government area to take steps to provide the means whereby affordable accommodation can be built. By voting against this bill the Government is, in effect, turning its back on what I believe are legitimate ways of resolving the problem that have been tried and tested here and overseas. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 4

Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon

Tellers, Ms Hale Dr Kaye

Noes, 25

Mr Ajaka Mr Khan Mr Tsang Mr Brown Mr Lynn Mr Veitch Mr Catanzariti Mr Mason-Cox Ms Voltz Mr Clarke Reverend Dr Moyes Mr West Mr Colless Reverend Nile Ms Westwood Ms Fazio Ms Parker Ms Ficarra Ms Robertson Tellers, Miss Gardiner Ms Sharpe Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin Mr Smith Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Bill not read a second time.

ABORIGINAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [4.33 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(a) commends the New South Wales Labor Government for its innovative practice in Aboriginal education through programs that encourage equal access to life chances for students from indigenous backgrounds;

(b) notes that these education programs increase the advantage for Aboriginal students; and

(c) notes the commitment of the Government to providing Aboriginal education programs through the Aboriginal Education and Training Strategy and many other measures.

Before commencing debate on this motion I mention, in an unorthodox fashion, that an amendment to this motion will be moved as debate continues on this issue. This motion seeks to highlight the work that the New 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13023

South Wales Government has done to improve indigenous education in partnership with Aboriginal and school communities. In debating this motion I emphasise the importance of the word "partnership". For many years, while working with Aboriginal people, we have used words such as "consultation" and other vague words that have resulted in minimal outcomes. To the credit of the New South Wales Department of Education and Training, this program has been about partnership and about ensuring that members of the Aboriginal community have an equal say in relation to this issue.

The results that are just starting to come through show concrete and real changes to the system because of the use of the word "partnership". There is no doubt that indigenous disadvantage in this State remains at an unacceptable and challenging level. This motion does not seek to cover that up; in fact, it serves to emphasise it in order that we might appreciate some of the progress that has been made in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education in the past decade or so. During the 1990s, when I was the secretary of the parents and citizens association of a high school in Tamworth, I recall that no Aboriginal persons attended the meetings of that parents and citizens association.

When a small sector of the parents and citizens association decided to fly the Aboriginal flag at Peel High School—at that time it had the highest number of Aboriginal students of any Tamworth high school, and it still does—there was the most appalling display by many individuals in our community of what cannot be called anything other than pure racism. After working with this project and after being an integral component of it I know that that high school has come forward in leaps and bounds. The Tamworth Aboriginal community now forms an integral part of that high school. I am proud to have been associated with that in some way, even though when I was there it had some bad indicators.

Late last year, when I placed this motion on the Notice Paper, the Coalition was still in government federally. Kevin Rudd is now the Prime Minister and Labor is in government, having strongly committed to making a real impact on changing the situation for our indigenous peoples. As he noted in his apology speech, the first of his speeches in the new Parliament, the Prime Minister said that education was a key factor in improving the lives of indigenous people. I give credit to Her Excellency, Governor Marie Bashir, for the incredible work that she has done in promoting this project over many decades. Further, the Prime Minister committed to halving the widening gap in literacy, numeracy and employment outcomes and opportunities for indigenous children.

While Canberra has made its best intentions clear, it is no time for New South Wales to rest on its laurels. Federal-State cooperation on fighting indigenous disadvantage is essential, but progress must be the goal at every step. Progress may take decades but we have to act now to get it started. The work that is being done now is already positively affecting some communities and young people in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government has been acting on indigenous education and it has implemented a number of excellent programs and policies. After all, a full school education takes a child about 13 years. That is a long time for things to remain unchanged, dysfunctional and loaded with disadvantage.

We want as many indigenous students as possible to be given the chance and the choice to go the distance on their education, and to help pull themselves and their families out of disadvantage by doing so. Encouraging equal access to life chances is just as essential to a student in Vaucluse as it is to a student in Toomelah, where recently I spent a lovely day at the opening of an Aboriginal war memorial. We want our students to become successful adults who can contribute to the community. Of course, an important aspect of this is to take a holistic approach to indigenous education. There is little point in trying to provide excellent education without addressing health problems, housing and community services issues, and employment issues. Programs that are aimed at a section of the community across the board are vital to help with some of the key problems facing Aboriginal people.

It is not just indigenous programs that can lead to progress; the broader measures that are implemented across a community can positively help Aboriginal students and their families. The New South Wales Government has worked hard to develop a long-term strategy for indigenous education that involves working programs with target groups, implementation plans and concrete goals. I want to outline some of the ways in which Aboriginal education programs and relevant social programs have been, and continue to be, improved by the New South Wales Government.

Just under 38,000 indigenous students were enrolled in New South Wales government schools in 2007. The Department of Education and Training has developed and is currently implementing a sustainable and broad-ranging strategy consisting of many initiatives and programs to ensure that Aboriginal student educational 13024 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

outcomes match or better those of all students in New South Wales. I repeat: The strategy is to ensure Aboriginal student educational outcomes match or are better. The commitment is about real equity and not just a statement like, "Let's have the people being able to read and write so they can get a job." The commitment to equity in indigenous education in this State is significant. Despite this, the disadvantage remains.

There are many reasons for the gap between Aboriginal students and non-Aboriginal students. However, it is recognised that this gap and Aboriginal student participation and engagement in schools can be enhanced with access to early learning opportunities and successful transition programs between prior-to-school experiences and school, and from primary through to high school; an education that prioritises and values cultural identity, inclusiveness and relevance; a learning environment that is characterised by cultural respect and understanding of Aboriginal peoples and cultures by educators, the broader school community and policymakers; an education that prioritises and values community partnerships and engagement with the community; and a rigorous and intellectually demanding curriculum that upholds high expectations of all learners.

Targeted programs have been developed in line with priorities identified under the New South Wales Government's Two Ways Together Aboriginal Affairs Plan. Two Ways Together reported on indicators in 2007 incorporating a focus on State Plan priorities. This is an incredibly important issue. Two Ways Together is not some sort of airy-fairy nice thing that people can feel good that they did something about Aboriginal people in this particular decade. Two Ways Together and its work was put together by Aboriginal people with the assistance and support of departmental people across the board to ensure there were some goals with measurable targets—that is, stuff at the end that you have to measure.

Two Ways Together is an overarching plan of which education is a component. The most exciting thing about it is that every year a real report card with performance indicators attached to it is handed to us. This provides an honest look at what we have done to work towards those targets. We even receive an incredibly important document, such as this one, entitled "The Reports on Indicators for 2007". No longer can politicians of any colour or creed stand up in front of people and say, "No, we are doing wonderful things for or with Aboriginal people" because the organisation is measuring whether something was done or whether it was just another nice tick.

Priority F1 in the State Plan is improved health, education and social outcomes for Aboriginal people. This priority recognises the need to have an integrated approach in dealing with issues of indigenous disadvantage. In New South Wales we use the term "Aboriginal people" more commonly than just the word "indigenous". Clearly, Aboriginal health and education are strongly linked and must be addressed together. State Plan target S4 is to close the gap between Aboriginal and all students in primary school numeracy and literacy rates by 2016. That is a pretty tight and hard indicator. If we can do that, then we are doing something very good.

While the department has noted some improvement in standards, many indicators have levelled out and the gap with all students has not changed significantly. However, a number of support mechanisms are in place to provide better development and more targeted Aboriginal education as well as future targets that provide steps towards achieving the goals set out in Aboriginal education strategies. The Two Ways Together report— an excellent document about which I have spoken—details a number of educational outcomes for Aboriginal people. As the report notes, the gap in education outcomes between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people is significant and measurable from preschool to post-secondary education.

The data show that there was no significant improvement in the proportion of Aboriginal students reaching the literacy and numeracy national benchmarks between 2001 and 2005. Further, the report shows that the performance gap between Aboriginal students and all students tends to increase from year 3 to year 7. Preschool education is, of course, important to promoting better learning for any student later in life. Some good news in the report is that preschool enrolment of Aboriginal children increased between 2002 and 2005. However, a number of issues—including lack of availability and transport options to preschools, affordability and cultural issues—are barriers to enrolment of Aboriginal children in preschool. I must say though, between the Commonwealth and State governments and the Aboriginal organisations, and also with an increase in the number of preschools especially across country New South Wales, access to preschool for Aboriginal persons is increasing phenomenally. Much work is being put in to making sure people get access.

School enrolment for Aboriginal students does not indicate a significant problem except after the age of 15 years. That may change with proposed amendments to the school leaving age. However, attendance rates for 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13025

Aboriginal students in both primary and secondary education at around 80 per cent are lower than those for the general student population at just under 90 per cent. These statistics are best taken as a guide and used for identifying trends rather than using precise statistics since they are subject to margins of error relating to a variation in the number of students identified as Aboriginal students, various cultural factors and difficulties with data reporting.

Nevertheless, the important point from Two Ways Together 2007 report on indicators is that in many areas little headway has been made this decade in addressing many areas of indigenous disadvantage in education, but some improvements are identifiable and need to be improved. The process for the review of education was very complex. The report was released in 2004. The Government is committed to improving educational outcomes for indigenous students in New South Wales and has positive goals to achieve them. A major challenge is to ensure education programs are implemented in communities and schools with the view to addressing significant issues with early school disengagement and poor school outcomes for Aboriginal students. The 2004 Report of the Review of Aboriginal Education also confirmed that we need to do better for Aboriginal students in literacy and numeracy results, school retention and completion rates, and reduce the level of absenteeism and higher suspension rates.

This review was the most amazing piece of work. It was commissioned by the then Minister for Education and Training, Mr Andrew Refshauge. The report is called Yanigurra Muya: Ganggurrinyma Yaarri Guurulaw Yirringin.gurray—I do not pretend to be able to pronounce the Aboriginal words correctly. It means Freeing the spirit: Dreaming an Equal Future. With a bit of luck, in 20 years young people going through school will be able to say those words without stumbling as I have because our education sector is increasing the number of language classes; some people actually will have a smattering of Aboriginal language, and that will be a very healthy thing. This particular review was undertaken by the New South Wales Aboriginal Education Consultative Group Incorporated, which is first named on the report cover as part of the process together with the New South Wales Department of Education and Training. This document is a complete example of the word "partnership".

The Hon. Robyn Parker: What year was that?

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: The report was released in 2004. This is a very exciting program. I will not use the word "consultation", but there was a huge amount of yarning with educationalists, Aboriginal persons and different communities so that the focus was not on the power communities that exist in this particular sector. The decision makers actually went around and spoke to all the people. They produced some very concrete recommendations that make a lot of sense for our people. I hope I have sufficient time to refer to them before the time allotted for my speech expires. This review is what the Department of Education and Training, the Government and the Aboriginal communities, who actually own the program, have taken on as a basis for future change for Aboriginal education.

The Aboriginal Education and Training Strategy 2006-08 was developed as a result of that process. This is what ties the Government's response to the challenges facing Aboriginal education. I also mention in passing that there is an Aboriginal consultative group that worked very closely with the Department of Education and Training on development of the strategy. The Department of Education and Training did not simply trot off with this review and say, "Oh, thanks for your present", because a big part of the process was to have Aboriginal persons themselves as an integral part in the design and strategies for the achievement of future goals and implementation of the program. The strategy is the tie between the Government's response to the challenges facing Aboriginal education and all the reviews and indicators.

The strategy applies to schools and TAFEs. Its purpose is to focus its efforts on a cultural shift and build perspectives and activities that are relevant not only to Aboriginal education and training but also to all areas of the system, thereby improving learning outcomes for Aboriginal students and workplace participation for Aboriginal persons. The strategy was designed to focus the work of the Department of Education and Training towards achieving the goal—the goal under which all the strategies are written. By 2012 Aboriginal student outcomes will match or better the outcomes of the broader student population. I do not mind repeating that all of the strategies are formulated under that goal.

One target area of the strategy is the teaching staff, who obviously will need to be enabled to teach Aboriginal students indigenous content in a culturally appropriate way. In this way the strategy describes Aboriginal education and training as everybody's core business. The second key direction outlined in the strategy is Strong Cultures, Stronger Communities, Footprints to the Future, which sets targets relating to 13026 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

promoting Aboriginal cultures and pathways for learning by Aboriginal students. Making a Difference Where It Counts is the third key direction that deals with personalised learning plans for each Aboriginal student, supporting schools and TAFEs in teaching Aboriginal students and developing leadership.

I make the point that this program reaches right across the spectrum of education administered by the Department of Education and Training, so it covers the whole spectrum of education in preschools, primary schools, high schools and TAFE. Quality Teaching Quality Learning is the fourth key direction and confirms the targets to achieve measured improvements for quality learning outcomes at all levels. Partnerships are most important in government involvement in Aboriginal issues, so it is appropriate that key direction five clearly outlines the importance and methods of continued partnership between the department and the various indigenous advisory groups and intergovernmental committees.

I reiterate that point because it is a point worth making properly: the partnership is not just between the department and other agencies of government. The partnership is also about individual school communities, individual TAFEs and individual regional offices. I picked up that point because two years ago the Tamworth plan for education was formulated by the regional office undertaking major consultation with the entire community, and a basis for the Aboriginal component came from that. The Tamworth area's schooling has an Aboriginal component as well, so the strategy does not just belong to "the department" or "the Government"; it belongs to the individual communities that comprise the education sector.

The new Aboriginal Education and Training Strategy 2009-12 will be developed this year in collaboration with key partners including the New South Wales Aboriginal Education Consultation Group Incorporated—and, as I pointed out earlier, its involvement is continued in the new strategy; it is still there, and must stay—and building on the 2006-08 successes. The new strategy will continue to focus on attainment of academic excellence for Aboriginal students and strengthening the engagement of Aboriginal communities through the development and implementation of a range of innovative initiatives and actions.

The New South Wales Aboriginal Education and Training Strategy links directly to the Government's commitment to redress the many social disadvantages experienced by Aboriginal people in New South Wales. Many schools have established local Aboriginal school advisory committees that provide advice and direction for principals and teachers in relation to Aboriginal education programs. This involves and empowers Aboriginal people at a local level and provides a platform for real decision-making processes to create a change for the better. The New South Wales Government has committed $68.5 million for targeted Aboriginal education programs this financial year to support the academic performance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. This includes funding for the continuation of initiatives to improve the educational outcomes of students, such as the Schools in Partnership initiative, the Targeted Aboriginal Students Strategy and the Targeted School initiative.

Ten schools participated in the first phase of the Schools in Partnership initiative in 2006 and a further 20 schools joined the second phase of the initiative in 2007. In 2008, these 30 schools continued to participate in the initiative, which will cease at the end of the 2009 school year. The Targeted Aboriginal Students Strategy was implemented in 2007 in eight schools with significant Aboriginal student enrolments to improve Aboriginal education outcomes, and it continues to be implemented in these schools in 2008. As well, the Targeted School initiative, which was implemented in 2007, provides funding and support for rural central schools and a community college. This initiative continues to be implemented in 2008 in those targeted locations.

In relation to supporting the numeracy needs of Aboriginal students, the Department of Education and Training will be working with teachers and Aboriginal communities to develop and implement a range of projects to improve learning outcomes in classrooms for students. The State Numeracy Plan has been designed to guide the work of New South Wales public schools to achieve further numeracy involvement for all students. In addition, the plan addresses the significant needs of Aboriginal students. That is an indicator of the totality of this process across the entire department. All the stakeholders have given numeracy top priority and have resolved to make sure that Aboriginal students receive either equal numeracy education or better than the standard that currently exists. To achieve that goal, it was recognised that a component focused on numeracy should be included in the program.

Programs such as the indigenous Count Me In Too and Counting On pedagogy are being implemented in schools with encouraging results. The department will continue to offer professional development to teachers to build the capacity of regions to continue to support schools in the effective and ongoing implementation of such programs. The 1996 Aboriginal education policy has been updated in partnership with the New South 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13027

Wales Aboriginal Education Consultative Group Incorporated and several other key stakeholder groups, including the New South Wales Teachers Federation. I do not have the full list of groups that are participating, but it is relevant that the scope of the project is not limited to just a few tame Aboriginal persons that people get on with and a bit of the Department of Education and Training. The entire spectrum of the school community is involved in this process. That is incredibly important. I honestly think that the reason the implementation of the program has met with so much success is that all of the participants in the process have been involved.

The policy review process began in September 2006. The Aboriginal education and training policy 2008 has been developed. It also was the subject of extensive community consultation. Consultation was undertaken with Aboriginal communities, students, parents, teachers, government and non-government agencies, universities and a range of key stakeholders. A key feature of the new policy is that it will now apply to all sectors of the department—schools, TAFE, community education and corporate sectors. In addition, the new Aboriginal education and training policy mandates Aboriginal cultural education for all departmental staff. The New South Wales Government recognises that improving Aboriginal students' outcomes is a whole-of-school responsibility, and that all school staff have a responsibility to develop and implement localised strategies in partnership with the local Aboriginal community. I already have referred to that quite considerably. The policy process is currently at the stage of reflecting and planning the policy before later this year beginning to integrate it into everyday business. It is an excellent policy. This quality reflects the time, effort and careful planning that has been put in by everybody.

This new Aboriginal education and training policy will define the Department of Education and Training's commitments and responsibilities in all areas of public education and training, and provide access to Aboriginal cultural education for all staff and education about Aboriginal Australia for all students. I have talked about the indicators that are showing some improvement. The 2012 targets set for raising the percentage of Aboriginal students achieving levels of proficiency in literacy and numeracy were achieved. This is clear evidence that our new approach is making a real difference. A sound policy approach is essential in ensuring that quality Aboriginal education can be achieved, but it is important that people are considered as a whole. It is not just about the books and pens in classrooms; it is about quality health, social welfare, housing and community services.

At this time I make a plug for programs like Brighter Futures that are making a phenomenal difference to people's opportunities, and young people's opportunities to be angled into wanting to learn. That is incredibly important. We know that not taking a holistic approach to Aboriginal issues is detrimental. When poor social outcomes in a number of areas are multiplied, the disadvantage for Aboriginal people increases exponentially. Primary students, in particular, require support in Aboriginal communities to ensure that health problems such as eye problems, poor nutrition and ear troubles are fixed. I was pleased to hear the recent announcement from Premier Rees about free eye screening for all four-year-olds in New South Wales. The Statewide Eyesight Preschooler Screening Program will offer every four-year-old child in New South Wales free eye screening at their local preschool, daycare centre or child and family health centre.

Programs like these benefit the whole of society but, because of the level of disadvantage in Aboriginal communities, it will also be of particular benefit. Sometimes broad programs offer more help to indigenous people than specific programs, but it is important to recognise that these persons must not be missed out by the broad programs. They must be an integral component. Nutrition is important for any young person growing up and learning. That is why the community breakfast programs that operate in many schools—again, they are not specific to Aboriginal people—are so important to encourage good learning.

One of the most successful granny breakfast programs was set up in Moree. It is very exciting. The grandparents of Moree get together at the community centre every morning on a school day and provide breakfast for the Aboriginal children of that town. That has been incredibly successful. At the same time they can check that the kids have clothes for school and which kids are not turning up, and help to get the young people to school. There is support for the children to go to school. It is a very positive program. I look forward to the continuation of this debate. Many members want to speak and have lots of good information to put on the record. I am just sad that no-one knows about this program. We need to ensure that somehow people find out about it.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.

Item of business set down as an order of the day for a future day. 13028 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 10 March 2009 at 2.30 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.03 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

SRI LANKA AND TAMIL CONFLICT

Mr IAN COHEN [5.03 p.m.]: The almost three decades old conflict between the armed forces of the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE] has reached a phase that has been described as genocide and is catastrophic for the Tamil people in the north and east of the island. In January 2008 the Sri Lankan Government unilaterally withdrew from a ceasefire, choosing a military offensive over political negotiations and forcing the Nordic-led Sri Lankan monitoring mission out of the Vanni region, which is the area controlled by the LTTE. Since then the Government of Sri Lanka has also banned media personnel from visiting LTTE-held areas and the front lines. Those who report the information otherwise obtained or found to be accusative of the Government are deemed to be traitors of the State.

In June 2008 Sri Lanka's defence ministry, on its official website, labelled journalists critical of the Government as "enemies of the state", warning that it would take all necessary measures to stop this journalistic treachery against the country. Over the past few years several journalists have been killed and scores attacked. Media rights groups have blamed the Government. In September 2008 the Government of Sri Lanka ordered all United Nations and international aid agencies to quit LTTE areas, abandoning over 250,000 internally displaced Tamil civilians with no access to food, medicine or aid. Since then the military offensive has escalated, with no international independent witness to comment on the ground realities, and the internally displaced people in the Vanni region are facing a humanitarian crisis.

While the number of Tamil civilians killed varies substantially, the most reliable estimates indicate that more than 2,000 have been killed in the past several weeks alone. An estimated 7,000 are left with life-threatening injuries and the casualty figures can be expected to rise dramatically in the next few weeks due to a lack of medical care. Evidence has emerged of repeated indiscriminate shelling and bombing by the Sri Lankan army and air force targeting hospitals and refugee camps. Furthermore, cluster bombs have been used in these attacks. Indeed, in defending military actions against hospitals, the Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse said:

No hospital should operate outside the Safety Zone … everything beyond the Safety Zone is a legitimate target.

Government health officials and the International Committee of the Red Cross have estimated an average of 40 Tamil civilians are being killed each day both inside and outside the safe zone that the Government unilaterally declared. The injured are being denied medicine and medical attention due to the embargo imposed by the Government. Furthermore, the Ministry of Health recently ordered doctors and other health staff to leave the conflict region immediately. While the local Red Cross is still operating within the conflict area, its presence is threatened by the ongoing conflict. The denial of humanitarian access and humanitarian relief and the targeting of hospitals and refugee camps are violations of international humanitarian law.

There are also accusations that the LTTE is not letting civilians flee the conflict zone. However, the LTTE claim that civilians chose to stay back with them. With no independent witnesses in the conflict area, it is difficult to verify these accusations. Any journalists given access to the refugee camps in Government-held areas are accompanied by military personnel and interviews conducted with civilians who have fled the conflict zone are conducted in the presence of military personnel. The available food and water at refugee camps in the Government-held areas is also grossly inadequate. There is also controversy over the Government's plans for Tamils leaving the Tamil-controlled areas. The Government originally announced that they would be kept in detention camps for three years, but after a rather strong reaction from the international community—especially from United Nations officials and the United Kingdom—the Government is now claiming that Tamil civilians 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13029

would be in camps for a shorter, unspecified period. Tamils were discriminated against in the education system and in the workforce, with the national language being changed to Sinhala. In March 1986 the Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International stated:

Some 6000 Tamils have been killed altogether in the last few years … These events are not accidental [but] a result of a deliberate policy on the part of the Sri Lankan government … Democracy in Sri Lanka does not exist in any real sense."

That confirms the State's involvement in ethnically motivated attacks. As recently as September 2008 the Sri Lankan Army Commander Lieutenant General Sarath Fonseka said in an interview:

I strongly believe that this country belongs to the Sinhalese but there are minority communities … They can live in this country with us but they must not try to, under the pretext of being a minority, demand undue things.

That confirms the Tamils' repeated concerns of discrimination and injustice under Sri Lankan Government rule. As early as 1977 the Tamils voted for autonomy, when the Tamil United Liberation Front, with its platform for a separate state, won all seats in the north and east of Sri Lanka. Effectively, this meant that the Tamils of Sri Lanka had voted for separation. Numerous agreements between the Tamil and Sinhalese leaders have not been honoured by successive Sri Lankan governments due to political pressure from the Sinhalese. It is important that the Government of Australia and the international community pressure the Sri Lankan Government to renounce its military campaign and embark on political negotiations to resolve the conflict. Too many lives have been lost, and each day we keep silent we allow more deaths to occur. It is important that the Government of Australia and the international community recognise that the targeting of a minority has been taking place for decades. What we see taking place today is but a culmination of successive attacks targeting the Tamils. It is important that the Government of Australia and the international community recognise the legitimate grievances of the Tamil people and acknowledge the legitimacy of their struggle for self-determination. [Time expired.]

WOMEN'S ELECTORAL LOBBY

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [5.08 p.m.]: Last year I had the opportunity to attend the launch of a history of the Women's Electoral Lobby [WEL] in Australia, "Making Women Count" by Marian Sawer. At the Jessie Street National Women's Library at Ultimo Community Centre women from three generations of activism gathered to hear from the author and feminists who are part of the history of the Women's Electoral Lobby. WEL's beginnings lie with women's involvement in the new social movements of the 1960s and 1970s—the civil rights, anti-war and student movements. Their involvement in these movements led women to question women's oppression and inequality in the family, home, work and education. It also taught them that political action could bring about social change. It radicalised them: the personal became the political. Across the Western world women mobilised and took political action through women's organisations.

In Australia the Women's Electoral Lobby, established by Beatrice Faust, was inspired by the actions of American and Canadian women's organisations that surveyed political candidates on issues important to women and published the results in glossy magazines read by thousands of women. WEL replicated the action taken by its United States sisters in Ms magazine and surveyed candidates in the 1972 Federal election. It followed up its surveys with interviews of candidates and public meetings where candidates and party leaders were grilled on their attitudes to women's issues. In 1972 WEL put women's issues well and truly on the political agenda, and the political parties had to respond. It is clear that WEL was shaping the political agenda of the time. The newly elected Whitlam Labor Government initiated many reforms aimed at addressing women's inequality in areas that WEL had been lobbying for. There was still a long way to go despite these reforms and WEL continued its political action and lobbying across the Australia political landscape. As the Hon. Carmen Lawrence, who was a founding member of WEL, wrote in her foreword to the book:

The story of WEL deserves to be told. Perhaps the most remarkable characteristic of WEL was the enormous amount of energy people threw into pressing for change. And the seriousness, and the impatience and the intelligence and the affection and the sheer excitement of it all.

A number of long-term WEL members were present at the launch, including Josefa Sobski, Wendy McCarthy, Joan Bielski and Eva Cox. A number of WEL members who are no longer with us were there in spirit, including Edna Ryan, Ann Conlon and Helen Leonard. Next Sunday 8 March is International Women's Day [IWD]. During the next week or so IWD events will be held all around New South Wales. As Marian Sawer has noted in her history of WEL, the character of International Women's Day has changed over time from one of protest and direct action to one of celebration and inclusion. 13030 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

The history of International Women's Day is a history of taking action. The event originated in 1908 when women garment makers in New York demonstrated to demand better working conditions. They worked in appalling conditions, earned half what men earned, died prematurely from poor health and did not have the right to vote. In 1910 an international conference of women resolved that each year a day should be set aside to press for women's demands. Since then International Women's Day has been celebrated around the world each year on 8 March. From its inception, International Women's Day has stood for equality between women and men. At the same time, in England women were meeting and marching to demand the right to vote. The suffragettes adopted the colours of green, white and violet to stand for their slogan "Give Women the Vote". Since then those colours have been used to symbolise the struggle for women to obtain equal rights. In Sydney, IWD was first celebrated in 1928 at a rally that called for equal pay for equal work, an eight-hour day for shop workers, no piecework, a base wage for the unemployed and paid annual holidays. Rallies and marches have been held throughout Australia every year since.

Of course, much has improved since then, but we still have some way to go to achieve equal opportunities for women, not only in Australia but also throughout the world. So IWD is about remembering the battles long fought to build a society that is just and fair to all its members; a society in which diversity, tolerance, safety, social justice and equality between women and men is a given. And it is about celebrating what women have done, are doing and can do. The great improvements in the social and economic circumstances of women's lives that are being celebrated this IWD have their origins in the political action of those feminists who mobilised and organised in the sisterhood of the Women's Liberation Movement and through the actions of the Women's Electoral Lobby and groups like it. Next Sunday I will celebrate with women in Broken Hill. I know many other events will be held throughout the State, including at Bankstown, the Illawarra and in Parliament House, Sydney. This weekend the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras will be held. This year's theme is the United Nations and it will focus on human rights for all gay people.

DEATH OF BOB CROFT

DEATH OF RICHARD MATTHEW LAFFAN

DEATH OF GREG HENRICKS

VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [5.13 p.m.]: I want to acknowledge the contribution of three great Australians who have touched my life personally and the lives of many thousands of others. On a very personal level, Bob Croft of Kyabram in the Goulburn Valley, a school friend of my Dad, died on Sunday. What made Bob so special was that life dealt him a very cruel blow 40 years ago. Bob and his wife, Diane, were waiting at a stop sign when another car ploughed into their vehicle. Bob could see the car coming, protected his pregnant wife and took most of the impact. The injuries sustained resulted in his becoming a quadriplegic. Bob deserves to be mentioned because he continued to live life with humour and passion and was an inspiration to all those who knew him, as he continued to be a first-class husband and father to Trevor and Trudy. He ran a mail order business from his garage, sharpening hairdresser's scissors from across Australia. He drove a car, he nurtured his family and he made everyone laugh. He taught us all what life is about.

I also join people across New South Wales in lauding the life and impact of Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutor, rugby tragic, disability advocate and my own school friend, Matt Laffan. Whilst Matt was one year below me and attended another great high school in Coffs Harbour, our paths crossed regularly at Coffs Harbour's unique community radio station, 2CHY-FM. I supported Matt's tilt for the mayoralty of Sydney and ponder the opportunity missed by the people of Sydney and of New South Wales. Matt was probably the best politician Sydney and New South Wales never had.

Just when I thought the week could not get any worse, I tuned in to Rad Hadley's radio show this morning and heard about the passing of a great Sydney radio journalist, Greg Henricks. Our paths crossed in 1987 when Greg, his wife, Suzie, and son, Blake, put me up in their home whilst I did a week of work experience at 2WS in Sydney from my sister radio station in Coffs Harbour. He was a mate of a mate and offered to put me up and take me with him to and from the station as the radio station I was working at was part of the WESGO group. As an 18-year-old working in a metropolitan newsroom during the week of the October 1987 world stock market crash, no-one could have hoped for a more patient and dedicated mentor. A message on his website written by his wife, Suzie, and son, Blake, states:

Hi all,

It is with great sadness that we let you know that this evening Hendo has gone to the big radio station in the sky. He passed away peacefully with family by his side.

5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13031

We would like to thank every one of you for your wishes, thoughts and support during his illness.

Stay tune for details of a funeral—we all know the dress code—bright polos and Hawaiian shirts!

I point out that Greg had a great impact on the young people he came across and was a great mentor. He covered stories such as the Milperra massacre, the Chamberlain verdict, the Anita Cobby murder and the Fiji military coup. Vale Bob, Matt and Greg. Thank you for the impact you have had on so many people throughout your very special lives.

Fire will forever be a threat to the Australian landscape and we cannot afford to ignore commonsense land management strategies. I refer to the 2003 "Inquiry into the Recent Australian Bushfires" conducted by the House of Representatives select committee following the Canberra-Kosciusko bushfires. It seems that the New South Wales Government, unlike the Labor members on the Federal inquiry, was not prepared to accept that change was needed. As the committee chair, the former member for Eden-Monaro, Gary Nairn, said after the 2003 Canberra bushfires, "There needs to be a change in the culture and practices within many public land managers and firefighting agencies". He wrote in 2003 in the report, "For never can we afford to be a nation charred". Yet we are experiencing what is happening in Victoria.

In the wake of this tragedy in Victoria, it seems more and more that New South Wales has done very little in the way of applying these bushfire management principles and strategies. The Council of Australian Governments report into the 2003 bushfires discusses how major bushfire events follow a cycle of government response to the bushfire event, to accusations and blame, an inquiry, increased funding maybe, initial change and compliance, a coronial inquiry, complacency, and then the next event occurs. This vicious cycle must stop now, and New South Wales must learn the lessons of the past so that we do not experience what Victoria has recently endured. We must take part in the royal commission into the Victorian bushfires, and the recommendations must apply across all of Australia. This is beyond politics. We must come together and get serious about hazard reduction, in particular, otherwise complacency may lead to yet another devastating tragedy. The systemic failure of public policy to manage our Crown lands, national parks, council areas and bushlands has disastrous consequences if the conditions are susceptible to wildfires. Urgent improvement is required and must not be hampered by a lack of political will or bureaucratic delays. [Time expired.]

VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.18 p.m.]: New South Wales must learn the lessons from Victoria's tragic bushfires. We have all been shocked by the unusual and exceptionally high death toll as a result of the horrific Victorian bushfires. The loss of life has reached 210, with about 30 persons still missing. Our prayers and our compassion go to all those families who have lost loved ones in the Victorian bushfires.

The national Day of Mourning was very moving, especially the national service in Melbourne, and will help to encourage all survivors. A royal commission has now been established to investigate the fire, particularly the causes of the high death toll. Factors being canvassed include the policy of "stay and defend your home"—but how do people combat a huge fireball that consumes all in its path? Another factor is the insidious Greens party influence in Victoria in State and local governments, which has restricted the historic regular back-burning that clears the build-up of bushfire fuel.

The Greens are blaming so-called global warming and climate change. Yet they ignore events such as the huge Black Thursday fire on 6 February 1851, when Melbourne's temperature reached 47 degrees Celsius— the same temperature as occurred on Saturday 7 February 2009. In 1851 bushfires destroyed 10 times the area that was destroyed this year, while at the same time London was being covered by some of the heaviest falls of snow ever experienced there. So much for global warming! I commend the strongly worded article by Miranda Devine in the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 February 2009 that Greens' ideas must take the blame for bushfires. She stated that it was not climate change that killed 210 people in Victoria, and continued:

It wasn't arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.

Ms Devine went on to say:

Governments appeasing the green beast have ignored numerous state and federal bushfire inquiries over the past decade, almost all of which have recommended increasing the practice of "prescribed burning". Also known as "hazard reduction", it is a methodical regime of burning off flammable ground cover in cooler months, in a controlled fashion, so it does not fuel the inevitable summer bushfires.

13032 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

There have been a number of inquiries at which experienced people involved in the forest industry have issued warnings. In July 2007 Scott Gentle, the Victorian manager of Timber Communities Australia, who lives in Healesville—one of the towns affected by the recent bushfires—gave testimony, which was almost prophetic, to a Victorian parliamentary bushfire inquiry. He said:

Living in an area like Healesville, whether because of dumb luck or whatever, we have not experienced a fire … since … about 1963. God help us if we ever do, because it will make Ash Wednesday look like a picnic."

As Ms Devine said, "God help him, he was right." He uttered those words two years before the Victorian bushfires we have just witnessed. Mr Gentle "complained of obstruction from Green local government authorities of any type of fire mitigation strategies." He told of Green interference at Kinglake—which was at the epicentre of Saturday's disaster, where more than 150 people died—during a smaller fire in 2007. He said that contractors were working and were stopped by representatives. They were trying to put in containment lines but were not allowed to proceed. He said "locking up forests is just not working". Similar things happened in the Kinglake area, where restrictions were placed on clearing. In some places residents were required to plant native trees around their homes, which aided the destruction of small country towns. We must learn lessons from the Victorian bushfires. [Time expired.]

FARM GATE PRICES

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [5.23 p.m.]: I first raised this issue in my inaugural speech—that is, the value that farmers in this country realise for their effort, or what is commonly termed the "farm gate price". Since I raised this issue in the House there has been no real improvement for farmers. Costs for farmers have skyrocketed, competition from cheap overseas foodstuffs has increased dramatically and, while the price of food in supermarkets has risen significantly, farmers have seen little increase at the farm gate. If these facts are combined with the impacts of the drought, the emerging financial drought as banks cut back their lending across the board, and the declining Australian dollar, which is raising the cost of imported farm machinery, agricultural chemicals and fertilisers, clearly the outlook for farmers is not great. Sadly, these issues heighten rural social problems such as the loss of intergenerational change as young people leave rural areas to take up opportunities in cities, the decay of rural communities and services, and the growth of mental health problems, suicide rates and family breakdown. In my first speech in this place I stated:

Contributing to the great divide in Sydney and the bush is the shameful manipulation of the prices of basic food items. Struggling families in the city must think farmers are among the rich, and price exploitative in the world. In fact, overseas controlled supermarkets and other retail outlets dictate the price paid by the housewife, and not the farmer. It is the farmer and the city housewife who are exploited together.

I then gave an example of farm gate prices for vegetables, such as onions, potatoes and carrots, showing that, at 30¢ to 40¢ per kilo, farmers were achieving about 10 per cent of the final retail price in supermarkets of $3 and $4 a kilo. That represented a massive 1,000 per cent mark-up from the farm gate price. In the five years since my inaugural speech things have got worse. Farmers now achieve on average 5 per cent of the final supermarket value of the foods they produce. Over the four-year period to June 2006, for example, retail food prices rose on average 17.8 per cent while average prices received by farmers rose by just 2.3 per cent. Against inflation, this represents in real terms a loss for farmers of almost 14 per cent. The consumer needs to take this into account against the 12 per cent inflationary increase over the same four-year time frame—an increase they share with farmers—and also to consider that on-farm production costs rose by 16.5 per cent in that time. One can only wonder what these costs are now, given that fertiliser costs have almost doubled in the past year and water, when obtainable, is now more expensive.

Consumers might wonder why I keep talking about them when I raise this issue. I do so because they have the power to rectify the situation. Consumers need to protect their food supply. While I do not say that the quality of Australian produce is suffering here and now, consumers need to be aware that it will in the future. If farmers are forced to compete with inferior products imported from overseas while trying to balance rising production costs, the food that is produced in this nation must decline in quality. I do not say this to disparage our farmers. Sadly, it is an inevitable outcome if consumers want our producers to compete against other nations that do something about food contamination and substitution only when the rising body count among children and pets becomes too great to hide. When shoppers go to the store and see a cheaper product that has been produced overseas or is made from imported ingredients, I urge them to remember that there are very good reasons that product is cheaper. When our farmers are gone because they have had to compete against cheaper, inferior products, the prices will rise but the quality will not. 5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13033

SUTHERLAND SHIRE COMMUNITY MEETING

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [5.28 p.m.]: The State Government recently held a community meeting in the Sutherland shire, which I thought initially could result in some positive outcomes for the community. How disappointed I became over the coming weeks as I saw Premier Nathan Rees and his circus trudge through the shire. Before his first meeting in December 2008 there were advertisements in the newspaper, letters written and flyers distributed—all at taxpayers' expense—encouraging people to attend. Despite encouraging everyone to attend, when a number of my colleagues and I tried to arrange meetings with Cabinet members, we were knocked back.

There was also a stringent registration process so that the Labor Party could determine who could and could not come to its "community" Cabinet process. Residents who wanted to attend not only had to register in advance, but also had to show their driver's licence on the day, undergo a bag search and not display signs or banners. These arrangements were an insult to peace-loving Sutherland shire residents.

I spoke to a few people at that initial meeting and they all commented on the slick production. They said it looked more like a show, with high-tech audio, lighting and visuals and a camera crew following everyone around, not a community meeting. But there was some hope that the Government may have taken away key messages from the community: locals want to see infrastructure plans that are needed to accommodate an extra 10,000 homes in the Sutherland shire over the next 30 years under the metropolitan strategy. Ideas included construction of the F6 and more train services during peak hour.

There was to be a follow-up meeting in February this year where the Premier, Nathan Rees, would report back to the community on what the Government would do to address the community's concerns. More taxpayers' money was spent on mail and a whizzbang production. Despite the slick production the Labor Party put on it quickly became apparent that the community saw through the spin. The St George & Sutherland Shire Leader reported:

Several of those present were disappointed at aspects of the response, including failure to commit to the F6 motorway and the level of funds to provide supported accommodation for people with disabilities.

A few of the residents were also quoted in the article. Sue Long, who is part of the Sutherland Shire Disability Accommodation Action Group said:

They make announcements and so forth, but we don't feel that was anything new tonight.

The article went on:

Menai resident, David Hughes, felt he was fobbed off when he asked Mr Rees if he would seek federal funding for the F6 extension. "He didn't say whether or not the Government was considering it or not," he said. "I think since the land has been reserved since 1951, residents would like some certainty as to whether it will be used for extension of the road, light rail or whatever else they might have in mind."

Despite the clear dissatisfaction amongst the community, the Premier, Nathan Rees, told local residents he had made a "reasonable fist" of the job. The Premier's reasonable fist was a punch in the gut for local residents. Maybe Premier Rees was too busy punching back Cabinet advances from aspiring local Labor members of Parliament, the member for Miranda, Barry Collier, and the member for Heathcote, Paul McLeay, to actually make a reasonable fist of what the community said it wanted—the infrastructure needed to alleviate current traffic congestion and support future population growth.

When the Labor Party did not get the positive media this community Cabinet meeting was designed to generate, it used taxpayers' money to put a full-page advertisement in the St George & Sutherland Shire Leader newspaper yesterday. I have done some calculations on the cost of this taxpayer-funded ad, which was merely a list of re-announcements, and it would have cost taxpayers more than $6,500.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Melinda Pavey will cease interjecting.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Whilst additional infrastructure is always welcome, it is apparent that Premier Nathan Rees' Sutherland shire Cabinet circus had no intention of listening to what the community really wants. Re-announcing the construction of the Heathcote-New Illawarra Road intersection and the on-again, 13034 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 March 2009

off-again and back on again cycleway in a full-page taxpayer-funded newspaper ad is an absolute insult to Sutherland shire residents. If Premier Rees and the local Labor members—the member for Miranda, Barry Collier, the member for Menai, Alison Megarrity, and the member for Heathcote, Paul McLeay—think the announcement of an intersection upgrade and cycleway and providing 10 extra buses will alleviate the traffic gridlock and overcrowded trains that Sutherland shire residents experience every day, it shows just how incompetent and out of touch Labor is.

Community Cabinet meetings should be about really listening to what the community wants and needs, going away to work out plans and then delivering. Unfortunately the incompetent State Labor Government forgot about the listening, developing plans and delivering aspects. Instead Premier Nathan Rees and his spin doctors went into overdrive and simply delivered a full-page taxpayer-funded ad full of re-announcements.

DEATH OF RICHARD MATTHEW LAFFAN

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.33 p.m.]: It is with much sadness that I rise to acknowledge the passing of Richard Matthew Laffan, lawyer, disabilities activist, political candidate and friend to many, and known to all affectionately as Matt. Matt died on Sunday 1 March at the age of 38 after a gruelling eight weeks in the intensive care unit at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Matt was a person who did not shy away from a challenge and these last weeks epitomise his personal strength in the extreme. He died with his parents by his side. He will be sorely missed.

Matt was well known in the legal fraternity and well beyond. He lived with a rare genetic disorder, diastrophic dysplasia, but ironically it was his least remarkable feature, at least according to Matt. He is far better known as the articulate advocate, the passionate rugby fan, the tireless worker and campaigner and the charismatic man about town.

Matt left home at 18 and studied law at the University of Sydney, living in at St John's College. His insatiable appetite for life was accelerated there in the midst of its vibrant social and academic life. He had a stellar academic record at Sydney University, but more importantly he shaped a world for himself that was more focused on others than a lucrative legal career. Shortly after graduating from Sydney University he commenced at the Office of the Director Of Public Prosecutions. He rose from the position of clerk to be a senior member of the team, managing criminal matters in the Local Court, District Court and Supreme Court of New South Wales. As an advocate in the legal system he was highly regarded by the bench and bar, and by defence lawyers and his prosecution colleagues alike. However, his forensics skills extended beyond his work.

He was a member of the rugby union judiciary, a position he had held since 1996; he assisted the graduate law program at the University of Technology since 1998; he was a member of the Disability Council since 2003; a director of ParaQuad since 2003; a board member of Assistance Dogs Australia from 2005-2008; on the Qantas advisory committee for travellers with a disability since 2005; and a councillor on the Law Society of New South Wales from 2006-2008.

As Attorney General I had the pleasure of engaging with Matt in his role as councillor on the Law Society. Matt was a person of great energy and low self-interest, a rare feature in a lawyer! Nicholas Cowdery, Director of the Office of Public Prosecutions, succinctly summed Matt up when he said, "Matt makes it look easy…". He made it easy for the rest of us. Within minutes of talking with Matt his disability was irrelevant, but his purpose, determination and intellect were not. Matt Laffan has shown others what is possible. He has shown us all what commitment and determination can achieve.

Matt was an extremely competent criminal lawyer. He managed multiple complex criminal matters but juggled this while committing himself to his other passions, including rugby and public speaking, and to keeping himself fit and well. Matt had 77 sick days owing. To those who understand what he lived with every day this is a simple but telling measure of his capacity. He made it look easy. I wish to thank Matt for his contribution to the law. I also want to thank him for his commitment to equality and accessibility for people living with disabilities, and thank him for showing all people much is possible. I think this quote from him says it all:

When I was born with a rare genetic disorder I was given time to live: a very short time. They said I would not see out the week. The prognosis was wrong but the sense of urgency that was cast upon me at that crucial stage of my infancy has never left me. I am haunted by the feeling that tomorrow has no guarantees so one better make as much of today to ensure when tomorrow arrives it has something good to follow it. The hours are crowded into moments that sometimes seem too slow, and then too fast.

5 March 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 13035

Our thoughts are with his parents, Dick and Jen. I would also like to place on the record the appreciation of Matt and his family and friends for the care he received at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. I refer in particular to the care, honesty and support given to Matt, Jen and Dick by his long-time friend and doctor, Paul Torzillo. On behalf of the Government I express our sadness for the loss of Matt.

Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.38 p.m. until Tuesday 10 March at 2.30 p.m.